Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Magdalena Plebanski, Professor of Immunology, RMIT University

Influenza, or the flu, is a virus transmitted by respiratory droplets from coughing and sneezing. It can cause the sudden onset of a fever, cough, runny nose, sore throat, headache, muscle and joint pain.

In Australia, the flu is responsible for more than 5,000 hospitalisation and 100 deaths a year. The highest rates are among those over 65, whose immune systems aren’t as effective as they used to be, and children under five, whose immune systems are yet to mature.

To combat the decline in immunity as we age, specific vaccines are available for people aged 65 and over. So how do they work, and why exactly are they needed?

À lire aussi :
Should I get a flu vaccine this year? Here’s what you need to know

Remind me, how does the immune system work?

The immune system uses multiple mechanisms to fight viral infections, which can be divided into two major arms of the immune system, called innate and adaptive immunity.

Innate immunity involves multiple inflammatory cells and chemicals that are triggered immediately, or within hours of encountering an infection. They activate the immune system to clear the infection.

Adaptive immunity takes a little longer (weeks) to work and involves memory T cells and antibody-producing B cells, which can be reactivated when the body encounters a virus or other pathogen.

The combined innate and adaptive immune response determines how well we respond to an invading virus like influenza.

Why are older people more at risk from the flu?

Generally, as we age past 65, the innate cells become less effective at their job of clearing infections. They also start producing more inflammation.

New T and B cell numbers also decrease with increasing age and hence the adaptive immune response is also not as effective as when we are younger. This immune system decline is called immunosenescence, which leads to increased susceptibility, hospitalisation and death from influenza.

Certain medical conditions, such as cancer and heart and lung conditions, increase susceptibility to severe influenza, with older people being more likely to have additional medical conditions than younger people.

What flu vaccines are available?

Annual flu vaccines are recommended to protect against the common circulating strains of influenza, which can differ from year to year.

The standard flu vaccines offered to adults aged under 65 consist of surface proteins of the virus or inactivated (killed) virus from four influenza strains: two A strains (H1N1 and H3N2) and two B strains.

When you’re vaccinated, your immune system makes antibodies from B cells which protect you if you become exposed to these strains of the virus.

However, the standard influenza vaccine is less effective in older people.

Two stronger or augmented vaccines have been made targeting this age group. They contain the same components as the standard vaccine, but one vaccine – called Fluad – uses a strong adjuvant (an agent used to increase the immune response to vaccination) called MF59 to stimulate better immunity.

The other augmented vaccine, called Fluzone, uses a four-fold higher dose of each influenza strain to increase immunity.

À lire aussi :
Why can you still get influenza if you’ve had a flu shot?

How do they compare?

Studies comparing Fluad and Fluzone show both vaccines stimulate stronger immunity against influenza than the standard flu vaccine and are therefore likely to provide better protection.

Studies directly testing for improved clinical outcomes with vaccines for over-65s show a small benefit of receiving either of the vaccines over the standard vaccine, including a modest decrease in lab-confirmed influenza, hospitalisations and emergency department visits compared to the standard influenza vaccine.

They are however yet to show and impact on flu-related deaths.

In the few studies comparing Fluad and Fluzone directly, there is little evidence of a difference between them in reducing influenza and serious flu outcomes. The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation therefore recommends using either Fluad or Fluzone.

While both have been Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approved since 2020, only Fluad is available for free on the National Immunisation Program for people aged 65 and over.

Fluzone is only available with a private prescription if you’re 60 years and over, at a cost of around A$65-70.

If neither augmented vaccine is available, a standard influenza vaccine is also acceptable for older people, since any influenza vaccine is preferable to receiving none.

Flu vaccines can also be given at the same time as COVID vaccines.

How else can we protect against the flu?

While influenza vaccination is the single most effective way of preventing influenza, other measures such as social distancing and wearing a mask or N95 respirator can also provide some community protection.

Wearing a mask or N95 respirator significantly reduces the risk of infecting others when infected.

The evidence for protecting oneself against infection is less conclusive, mainly because it’s linked to early, consistent and, importantly, the correct use of masks.

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

Magdalena Plebanski receives Grant funding from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to conduct fundamental immunology research on Flu and DTP vaccines in older adults. She conducts research on ovarian cancer, including a Phase II human trial part funded by Astrazeneca and ANZGOG (Australia and New Zealand Gynecological and Oncological Group).

Katie Louise Flanagan receives funding from NHMRC, MRFF, BMGF and Clifford Craig Foundation. She was previously on Vaccine Advisory Boards for Seqiris (2016-19) and Sanofi-Pasteur (2016-18). She is President of the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases and a member of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. These are her own personal views.

Jennifer Boer et Kirsty Wilson ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.

– ref. I’m over 65 and worried about the flu. Which vaccine should I have? – https://theconversation.com/im-over-65-and-worried-about-the-flu-which-vaccine-should-i-have-204810

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven J Lade, Resilience researcher at Australian National University, Australian National University

People once believed the planet could always accommodate us. That the resilience of the Earth system meant nature would always provide. But we now know this is not necessarily the case. As big as the world is, our impact is bigger.

In research released today, an international team of scientists from the Earth Commission, of which we were part, identified eight “safe” and “just” boundaries spanning five vital planetary systems: climate change, the biosphere, freshwater, nutrient use in fertilisers and air pollution. This is the first time an assessment of boundaries has quantified the harms to people from changes to the Earth system.

“Safe” means boundaries maintaining stability and resilience of our planetary systems on which we rely. “Just”, in this work, means boundaries which minimise significant harm to people. Together, they’re a health barometer for the planet.

Assessing our planet’s health is a big task. It took the expertise of 51 world-leading researchers from natural and social sciences. Our methods included modelling, literature reviews and expert judgement. We assessed factors such as tipping point risks, declines in Earth system functions, historical variability and effects on people.

Alarmingly, we found humanity has exceeded the safe and just limits for four of five systems. Aerosol pollution is the sole exception. Urgent action, based on the best available science, is now needed.

So, what did we find?

Our work builds on the influential concepts of planetary boundaries by finding ways to quantify what just systems look like alongside safety.

Importantly, the safe and just boundaries are defined at local to global spatial scales appropriate for assessing and managing planetary systems – as small as one square kilometre in the case of biodiversity. This is crucial because many natural functions act at local scales.

Here are the boundaries:

1. Climate boundary – keep warming to 1℃

We know the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5℃ avoids a high risk of triggering dangerous climate tipping points.

But even now, with warming at 1.2℃, many people around the world are being hit hard by climate-linked disasters, such as the recent extreme heat in China, fires in Canada, severe floods in Pakistan and droughts in the United States and the Horn of Africa.

At 1.5℃, hundreds of millions of people could be exposed to average annual temperatures over 29℃, which is outside the human climate niche and can be fatal. That means a just boundary for climate is nearer to 1°C. This makes the need to halt further carbon emissions even more urgent.

2. Biosphere boundaries: Expand intact ecosystems to cover 50-60% of the earth

A healthy biosphere ensures a safe and just planet by storing carbon, maintaining global water cycles and soil quality, protecting pollinators and many other ecosystem services. To safeguard these services, we need 50 to 60% of the world’s land to have largely intact natural ecosystems.

Recent research puts the current figure at between 45% and 50%, which includes vast areas of land with relatively low populations, including parts of Australia and the Amazon rainforest. These areas are already under pressure from climate change and other human activity.

Locally, we need about 20-25% of each square kilometre of farms, towns, cities or other human-dominated landscapes to contain largely intact natural ecosystems. At present, only a third of our human-dominated landscapes meet this threshold.

3. Freshwater boundaries: Keep groundwater levels up and don’t suck rivers dry

Too much freshwater is a problem, as unprecedented floods in Australia and Pakistan show. And too little is also a problem, with unprecedented droughts taking their toll on food production.

To bring fresh water systems back into balance, a rule of thumb is to avoid taking or adding more than 20% of a river or stream’s water in any one month, in the absence of local knowledge of environmental flows.

At present, 66% of the world’s land area meets this boundary, when flows are averaged over the year. But human settlement has a major impact: less than half of the world’s population lives in these areas. Groundwater, too, is overused. At present, almost half the world’s land is subject to groundwater overextraction.

4. Fertiliser and nutrient boundaries: Halve the runoff from fertilisers

When farmers overuse fertilisers on their fields, rain washes nitrogen and phosphorus runoff into rivers and oceans. These nutrients can trigger algal blooms, damage ecosystems and worsen drinking water quality.

Yet many farming regions in poorer countries don’t have enough fertiliser, which is unjust.

Worldwide, our nitrogen and phosphorus use are up to double their safe and just boundaries. While this needs to be reduced in many countries, in other parts of the world fertiliser use can safely increase.

5. Aerosol pollution boundary: Sharply reduce dangerous air pollution and reduce regional differences

New research shows differences in concentration of aerosol pollutants between Northern and Southern hemispheres could disrupt wind patterns and monsoons if pollutant levels keep increasing. That is, air pollution could actually upend weather systems.

At present, aerosol concentrations have not yet reached weather-changing levels. But much of the world is exposed to dangerous levels of fine particle pollution (known as PM 2.5) in the air, causing an estimated 4.2 million deaths a year.

We must significantly reduce these pollutants to safer levels – under 15 micrograms per cubic metre of air.

We must act

We must urgently navigate towards a safe and just future, and strive to return our planetary systems back within safe and just boundaries through just means.

To stop human civilisation from pushing the Earths’s systems out of balance, we will have to tackle the many ways we damage the planet.

To work towards a world compatible with the Earth’s limits means setting and achieving science-based targets. To translate these boundaries to actions will require urgent support from government to create regulatory and incentive-based systems to drive the changes needed.

Setting boundaries and targets is vital. The Paris Agreement galvanised faster action on climate. But we need similar boundaries to ensure the future holds fresh water, clean air, a planet still full of life and a good life for humans.

We would like to acknowledge support from the Earth Commission, which is hosted by Future Earth, and is the science component of the Global Commons Alliance

Steven J Lade receives funding from the Australian Government (Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT200100381) and the Swedish Research Council Formas (Grant 2020-00371). He is affiliated with Future Earth and the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University. This work is part of the Earth Commission, which is hosted by Future
Earth and is the science component of the Global Commons Alliance. The Global Commons Alliance is a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, with support from the Oak Foundation, MAVA, Porticus, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Tiina and Antti Herlin Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Global Environment
Facility. The Earth Commission is also supported by the Global Challenges Foundation and the Frontiers Research Foundation.

Ben Stewart-Koster receives funding from Future Earth for his role in the Earth Commission under the Global Commons Alliance. The Global Commons Alliance is a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, with support from the Oak Foundation, MAVA, Porticus, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Tiina and Antti Herlin Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Global Environment Facility. The Earth Commission is also supported by the Global Challenges Foundation and the Frontiers Research Foundation..

Stuart Bunn receives funding from Future Earth for his role in the Earth Commission under the Global Commons Alliance. This is a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, with support from the Oak Foundation, MAVA, Porticus, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Tiina and Antti Herlin Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Global Environment Facility. The Earth Commission is also supported by the Global Challenges Foundation and the Frontiers Research Foundation.

Syezlin Hasan receives funding from Future Earth for her role in the Earth Commission under the Global Commons Alliance. The Global Commons Alliance is a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, with support from the Oak Foundation, MAVA, Porticus, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Tiina and Antti Herlin Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Global Environment Facility. The Earth Commission is also supported by the Global Challenges Foundation and the Frontiers Research Foundation.

This paper was made possible through the voluntary commitment of
time and research by the Earth Commissioners and the support of the
researchers and secretariat from the Global Challenges Foundation;
the Global Commons Alliance, a sponsored project of Rockefeller
Philanthropy Advisors (with support from Oak Foundation, MAVA,
Porticus, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Herlin Foundation and
the Global Environment Facility).

– ref. It’s not just climate – we’ve already breached most of the Earth’s limits. A safer, fairer future means treading lightly – https://theconversation.com/its-not-just-climate-weve-already-breached-most-of-the-earths-limits-a-safer-fairer-future-means-treading-lightly-206678

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vera Weisbecker, Associate Professor, Flinders University

Australia’s dingo fence is an internationally renowned mega-structure. Stretching more than 5,600 kilometres, it was completed in the 1950s to keep sheep safe from dingoes. But it also inadvertently protects some native species.

This makes the fence an unintentional experiment in the relationship between predators and prey. Our new research examined how the fence affects a favourite prey of the dingo: red kangaroos.

We found young kangaroos on the side exposed to dingoes grew more quickly than their protected counterparts. This has potentially big repercussions for the health of these juveniles.

The merits of the dingo fence are hotly debated, and there have been calls to pull it down or move it. That’s why we must seek a better understanding of how the fence affects the animals that live along it.

‘Stressful’ lives

The dingo fence, formally known as the “wild dog barrier fence”, runs through Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. It protects sheep and cattle to the southeast.

Extensive fencing can fragment habitats and disrupt ecosystems. Maintaining the fence costs about A$10 million per year. For these and other reasons, some have suggested the fence be pulled down.

But how would removing the fence affect kangaroos that have lived without dingoes for up to 70 years? Our research sought to answer this question.

We assessed 166 red kangaroos from two isolated populations on either side of the fence in far northwest NSW. We did this using data collected as part of a licensed shooting program. We compared population size, age structure, sex ratio, growth rate and skull shape.

We expected kangaroos north of the fence – those hunted by dingoes – to differ from their dingo-free cousins to the south. That’s because their lives are more stressful, especially for young kangaroos and females that are killed by dingoes more often than adult males.

À lire aussi :
Killing dingoes is the only way to protect livestock, right? Nope

What we found

As anticipated, we found more young and female kangaroos in the dingo-protected population south of the fence. But the story is more complex than that.

Young kangaroos south of the fence, up to about the age of four years, grew more slowly than those in the north. They were substantially smaller and lighter than their dingo-exposed counterparts.

This raises an exciting possibility: that the growth of kangaroos south of the fence has slowed in the absence of the dingo threat.

But maybe there was just more plant food available in the north, where there are fewer kangaroos compared to the south. Was this the reason the northern kangaroos grew more quickly?

As it turns out, no. We assessed the vegetation on each side of the fence using a decade of satellite measurements. We found there was probably less, not more, food overall for kangaroos in the north compared to the south.

More detailed investigation is needed into whether the types of plants differed on each side of the fence. But our results suggest the different growth rates were driven by predators, not food availability.

À lire aussi :
The dingo fence from space: satellite images show how these top predators alter the desert

This raises important questions

The differences between populations are even more striking considering the dingo fence in the area we studied was in disrepair until 1975. Before then, dingoes and kangaroos probably moved freely. So the changes we observed could have come about in as little as 17 kangaroo generations.

This would be unusually fast for an evolutionary adaptation. Instead, we suspect it’s the result of a more immediate response to the absence of dingoes, such as lower concentrations of stress-related hormones. These affect the health of mammals, and might have affected kangaroo growth rates in this case.

After about the age of four, the protected kangaroos had caught up and were the same size as their unprotected counterparts. But the unprotected kangaroos would have invested a lot more bodily resources into growing so quickly.

This would have left less energy for the animals to develop important functions such as their immune or reproductive systems. Or they might have had less fat reserves.

Conversely, protected kangaroos might have been healthier, or more fertile, because of their slower growth rates.

À lire aussi :
New DNA testing shatters ‘wild dog’ myth: most dingoes are pure

Understanding the mammal response

Our study involved only a single sample at one point in time. But it’s the first to comprehensively assess differences in a dingo prey species on either side of a fence.

Our results provide an insight into how prey populations might fare if the dingo fence is removed. But the implications are potentially even broader.

We must now investigate whether other native mammal species share similar differences across the fence. If so, this could help us predict how animals elsewhere in Australia are coping with rapid environmental change.

Vera Weisbecker receives funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage (CABAH; CE170100015) and Future Fellowship FT180100634. She is a member of the Greens Party.

Corey J. A. Bradshaw receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Frédérik Saltré receives funding from the Australian Research Council

D. Rex Mitchell receives funding from Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage (CABAH).

– ref. ‘An exciting possibility’: scientists discover markedly different kangaroos on either side of Australia’s dingo fence – https://theconversation.com/an-exciting-possibility-scientists-discover-markedly-different-kangaroos-on-either-side-of-australias-dingo-fence-206752

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Reza M. Monem, Professor of Accounting, Griffith University

In 2008 Australia’s federal, state and territory governments set the goal of halving the employment gap between First Nations Australians and others within a decade. That required, by 2018, lifting the employment rate for First Nations Australians from 48% to 60%, with the rate for other Australians being 72%.

So how are things going? Not well.

At the 2021 census the employment rate for First Nations Australians was 51%, while the rate for other Australians was 74%.

Assuming the employment rate for other Australians does not change, the rate of incremental gains in First Nations employment since 2008 suggests that closing the employment gap is going to take 100 years.

We have analysed the employment data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to get a more granular picture of why so little progress has been made.

Our results show the ongoing problems of low educational attainment and lack of employment opportunities in rural and remote areas, where the majority of First Nations Australians live.

What these statistics show

Before we continue, it’s important to note the following statistics use a slightly different way to measure employment (and unemployment) rates than that used in the Australian government’s Closing the Gap reports, referenced above.

The Closing the Gap methodology measures employment as a percentage of all people aged 15 to 64. We’ve adopted the approach used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for its unemployment data. This approach measures the employment rate as the percentage of people employed in the labour force – the labour force being anyone working or registered as looking for work.

The rationale for the Closing the Gap methodology is that the bureau’s measure overstates Indigenous employment, because First Nations Australians have a lower labour-force participation rate. That is, there is a greater proportion of Indigenous Australians that don’t have jobs but are not counted as unemployed because they aren’t registered as unemployed.

There are pros and cons to both approaches. We’re using Australian Bureau of Statistics data, so we’ve stuck with the bureau’s approach. It doesn’t substantially change the results, but it’s important to acknowledge the subtle distinction.

Educational attainment matters

Our first two graphs demonstrate the importance of educational outcomes.

Almost half of the First Nations Australians (49%) do not have a qualification beyond secondary education, compared with 31% of other Australians. About 12% of First Nations Australians attain university qualifications of a bachelor’s degree and above (graduate diploma or postgraduate), compared with about 37% of other Australians.

These differences in educational attainment are reflected in employment outcomes.

For the 6.7% of First Nations Australians who leave school before year 10, the unemployment rate is more than 25%. For those with no qualification beyond year 10 to 12 of secondary school, the rate is 16.7%.

Unemployment rates begin to equalise only with university qualifications.
For every level of educational attainment less than a diploma, First Nations unemployment rate is at least double that of other Australians.

Location counts

There are likely multiple reasons for these stark differences in employment outcomes by education, including discrimination. But one clear factor is geographic location.

First Nations Australians in remote and very remote locations are twice more likely to be unemployed than their peers in major cities (where the unemployment rate is still double that of other Australians). The more remote, the higher the rate of unemployment.

Why do the unemployment rates for other Australians show the opposite trend, with lower rates the more remote? Our best guess is this disparity reflects a combination of the effects of educational attainment, job opportunities available and labour mobility.

Non-Indigenous Australians in remote regions are more likely to have moved to these areas only after securing jobs upon attaining their schooling and qualifications in a big city. Governments often provide incentives for those with the right skills to relocate to these regions.

This disparity presents a stark challenge for employment programs, given almost 60% of First Nations Australians live outside the major cities, compared with only a quarter of other Australians.

Commonwealth employment programs for remote regions have a vexed history, with the most recent program, known as the Community Development Program, being cancelled in 2021. The Albanese government announced a replacement remote jobs program in the May federal budget.

Read more:
Albanese government announces $424 million to narrow a gap that is not closing fast enough

Employment by occupation

The unemployment-related factors lead to differences in the occupational profile of First Nations Australians. They are more likely than other Australians to be employed in community and personal services or manual labour, and significantly less likely to be in a professional or managerial role.

Different approaches needed

These statistics show that, with the exception of those achieving postgraduate qualifications, First Nations Australians face multiple disadvantages in employment.

Read more:
Why we aren’t closing the gap: a failure to account for ‘cultural counterfactuals’

The lack of any significant progress in the past 25 years suggests just continuing with the same policies will achieve little.

Something has to change. Listening to those closest to the problem, and giving First Nations Australians a greater say in designing and implementing solutions would be a good start.

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. Closing the First Nations employment gap will take 100 years – https://theconversation.com/closing-the-first-nations-employment-gap-will-take-100-years-205290

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Barrett, Associate Professor in Commercial Law and Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

It’s no secret that Revenue Minister David Parker has long been interested in tax reform in New Zealand. In 2022, he announced plans for legislation requiring future tax policy changes to be measured against a set of tax principles, notably fairness.

The Taxation Principles Reporting Bill, just released for public submissions, is the result of Parker’s ambition. But while it is reasonable to support a tax system that is fairer than the current system, I believe the bill is confusing, unnecessary and pointless.

Unlike the Tax Working Group, which clearly and adequately stated tax principles that most people could understand, the bill introduces highly technical ideas that could exclude ordinary people from the debate.

The bill also attempts to tie the hands of future governments by legislating principles that are not accepted across the political spectrum.

My main concern, then, is that the bill appears to close down democratic debate about taxation by claiming certain viewpoints are universally accepted. Secondly, the tax principles, as they are stated, are vague and poorly explained.

Horizontal equity

The bill introduces the concept of “horizontal equity” and defines this as meaning “people with similar levels of income should pay similar amounts of tax”.

But a more accurate way to explain horizontal equity would be to say “people who are in similar situations should be treated similarly”.

For instance, tax systems often view people with young children as being in a different situation from people with adult or no children. The Working for Families (WFF) programme is an example of such a distinction based on a political value judgment.

À lire aussi :
New Zealand’s tax system is under the spotlight (again). What needs to change to make it fair?

The principle of horizontal equity as outlined in the bill is incompatible with the Income Tax Act because people with similar levels of income won’t pay similar levels of tax due to programmes like WFF.

If the principle of horizontal equity needs to be stated, it should be that “taxpayers in similar circumstances should pay a similar amount of tax”.

Time and money

There is also no concept of income that everyone accepts. A standard tax textbook distinguishes between legal, accounting and economic conceptions of income.

According to the bill, “the time value of money matters when considering horizontal equity”. I presume the authors of the bill mean that some will get a tax benefit by deferring their tax liability when others with a similar income can’t.

But the phrasing in the bill makes it difficult to understand. A set of principles that affect everyone should be understandable by as many people as possible.

À lire aussi :
Why a proposed capital gains tax could mean tax cuts for most New Zealanders

The bill also introduces the phrase “economic income”, but again a clear definition isn’t included.

The bill’s authors then appear to endorse a particular conception of comprehensive income – that is, the increase in economic capacity during the tax assessment period.

Understood broadly, this conception of income not only includes increases in wealth that a taxpayer hasn’t received (unrealised gains), but also capital gains and capital transfers. But New Zealand doesn’t currently tax capital gains or capital transfers.

This means there would be a significant gap between the ideas set down in the principles and how most people think of income.

Vertical equity

The bill also states: “The tax system should be progressive. Tax is progressive if people with higher levels of economic income pay a higher proportion of that income in tax.” This is in line with the principle of “vertical equity”, which requires people in different circumstances to be treated differently.

It is not uncommon for countries to lock in the ability to pay tax, which traditionally includes both horizontal and vertical equity, within their constitutions. But the bill is not a constitutional document and represents the opinion of one government – and perhaps just one minister – at a particular point in time.

À lire aussi :
Forget a capital gains tax – what New Zealand needs is a tax on inherited wealth

Using the word “economic” in the explanation of vertical equity is unnecessary. The OECD defines progression as meaning “an increasing proportion of income must be paid in tax as the income increases”.

The inclusion of “economic” in this context could be seen as an attempt to neutralise debate about a particular theory of income that isn’t universally accepted.

The bill doesn’t solve our tax problems

The bill then states: “A progressive tax system does not mean that every tax should be progressive (e.g. GST is regressive) but the overall system ought to be.”

This is a reasonable and pragmatic approach to including GST in the tax mix. But the following sentence is problematic: “In practice, wealthy people should at the very least pay no lower a rate of tax on their economic income than middle-income New Zealanders already do.”

Why “in practice” and not in principle? The income of so-called “middle-income New Zealanders” is most likely fully taxed under the current provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Certainly, some wealthy people may engage in arrangements to reduce their income tax liabilities. But most don’t pay “enough” tax because successive governments have lacked the courage to tax capital gains, wealth, and gifts and inheritances.

The Tax Principles Reporting Bill does nothing to remedy this.

Jonathan Barrett ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Making NZ’s tax system fairer is a good idea – but this proposed new law isn’t the answer – https://theconversation.com/making-nzs-tax-system-fairer-is-a-good-idea-but-this-proposed-new-law-isnt-the-answer-206745

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lily Moore, PhD Candidate in Classics and Archaeology, The University of Melbourne

The ancient Romans venerated wine.

It was accessible to the masses, a fundamental staple of mainstream life and an indispensable part of the Roman economy and trade. It was utilised in a range of practices: a remedy in medical treatments, a common ingredient in cooking, and customarily used in religious ceremonies as libation to the gods.

Despite its centrality to the everyday life of the Romans, the ancient sources continuously attest it was a problematic drink when consumed by women.

Ancient Rome was a patriarchal society in which women were perceived as the objects of men.

Roman law and tradition sustained an immense fixation with regulating the bodily autonomy of women. Ancient male writers appraised and contextualised the boundaries of feminine morality in direct relation to notions of male auctoritas (social standing and authority) and dignitas (reputation and worth).

One of the ways in which this control over women was codified was through their drinking practices.

À lire aussi :
A newly uncovered ancient Roman winery featured marble tiling, fountains of grape juice and an extreme sense of luxury

Punishment for drinking

In the customary laws of early Rome, the discipline of female sobriety was instilled through punishment.

During the earliest periods of Rome’s history and up until the Middle Republican period, it was a socially sanctioned custom for husbands to punish their wives for drinking. Many Ancient Roman sources speak of female drinking and adultery concurrently.

In 2 BCE, Julia, daughter of Emperor Augustus, was exiled from Rome by her father on the grounds of her adulterous behaviour. One of the noted prohibitions placed by Augustus upon Julia was the denial of wine.

In this act of banning wine in direct response to her adultery, Augustus was underlining an ideological and historical precedent that was fundamentally Roman.

It was a common belief women’s drunken desire led to debauchery. In some cases, to death.

In one of the most well known Roman exemplum, or moral anecdotes, various sources attest Egnatius Mecenius (a contemporary of Romulus) bludgeoned his wife to death for drinking wine.

The list of such stories goes on: a wife starved to death for pilfering the keys to her family’s wine cellar, another fined the amount of her dowry for having been found to have drunk wine in excess.

An enforced sobriety was equated with virtuous feminine propriety.

Some sources maintain it was a common practice for women to be kissed by their male kinsfolk for the purpose of detecting traces of wine upon their breath, a discernible odour validating the subsequent punishment.

À lire aussi :
Ancient Rome didn’t have specific domestic violence legislation – but the laws they had give us a window into a world of abuse

Acceptable drinking

According to some Ancient Roman historians, wine was banned from women altogether. But recent scholarship demonstrates ancient Roman women did in fact consume wine.

Archaeological evidence attests to their drinking practices as far back as the ancient written sources state otherwise.

In recent years, excavations throughout Italy have uncovered numerous female burial sites containing amphorae (jars) of imported wines and drinking paraphernalia, dating back to the Archaic period.

It is now believed women did drink wine, but only specific varietals and alcoholic strengths.

Certain types of wine, such as passum, a type of sweet raisin wine, were perhaps acceptable in the strict confines of gendered drinking parameters.

Women were actively known to drink at the festival of Bona Dea (the “Good Goddess”), a religious female-only cult in which wine was ceremoniously offered to the goddess and consumed by women in this ritual celebration.

Yet even here drinking wine was shrouded in innuendo, invariably described as “milk” and carried in a “honey-pot”.

The titular goddess could not escape the brutal consequences of her own mythologised inebriation: according to the myth, Bona Dea was beaten to death by the god Faunus for her conspicuous consumption of wine.

A socially acceptable drink

Our knowledge about women’s drinking practices during the early periods of Roman history comes from both Greek and Latin sources composed centuries later. The male authors of these texts heavily mythologised the past, often to convey the inferred wickedness of their present day.

In constructing a past practice of female sobriety where drinking resulted in dire consequences, the ancient writers underlined a direct correlation between the act of drinking and the social conduct expected of women.

By the time of the transition from Republic to Empire (around the first century B.C.E), it was customary for women to drink wine. With the popularisation of Roman convivium (a type of banquet or dinner party) and increasing cultural appreciation of viticulture, female participation in these practices signalled a social acceptance of their drinking.

Livia, wife of Emperor Augustus, is said to have credited her longevity to a wine varietal from Istria. For the women of ancient Rome, drinking wine was not something of considered indifference.

Lily Moore ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. A kiss to detect wine on her breath: the violent policing of women drinking in Ancient Rome – https://theconversation.com/a-kiss-to-detect-wine-on-her-breath-the-violent-policing-of-women-drinking-in-ancient-rome-202039

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Drum, Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of Notre Dame Australia

With the withdrawal of his principal challengers and the implicit endorsement from key factions within the Labor party, Roger Cook will become Western Australia’s 31st premier. We can expect final endorsement from the Labor caucus and a formal swearing-in from the WA governor in the coming days.

Cook is the Member for Kwinana, in the southern suburbs of Perth, and was elected to the seat in 2008, defeating a popular local mayor by just 300 votes.

Just ten days later, he was elected deputy leader of the Labor Party, a position he has remained in since. For the entire eight and a half years of opposition he held the portfolio of health, and he was appointed health minister when Labor came to power in 2017.

À lire aussi :
Mark McGowan quits in his own time, after dominating Western Australian politics

It was in this role that he became the second most visible minister in government when the COVID pandemic hit in 2020. From March 2020 until the end of 2021, Cook was often standing next to Premier Mark McGowan when the latter announced crucial decisions that affected every Western Australian.

At the end of 2021, Cook stepped aside as health minister in a cabinet reshuffle. This could be seen as a demotion, but his new portfolio of state development, jobs and tourism still allowed him to maintain a significant role in steering the economic direction of the state.

Twenty-four hours of drama

Monday’s bombshell resignation of Mark McGowan as premier left his cabinet and party colleagues scrambling to determine who should replace him.

Three candidates were initially mentioned: Cook, Rita Saffioti and Amber-Jade Sanderson. As minister for transport and planning, Saffioti was central to all major infrastructure projects since the Labor government’s election in 2017. She was especially known for her role in overseeing the rollout of Metronet, the expansion of the public transport system in Perth, which was the government’s signature project. Not being aligned to a faction, Saffioti did not have a natural support base in caucus, making her pathway to victory more complicated.

Sanderson was a first-term minister who has enjoyed a meteoric rise, starting in the environment portfolio before being catapulted into the hot seat of health. She was a member of the United Workers Union (UWU), the largest left faction.

While Cook was also a member of the UWU, Sanderson enjoyed the support of the union’s secretary and won the majority of UWU caucus members at a vote on Tuesday morning. At that point, Cook’s chances looked dim. But Saffioti agreed to join forces with Cook, while the other left faction, the Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), backed Cook.

Given Cook also appeared to have support among Progressive Labor (also known as the Right faction), Sanderson withdrew by the end of Tuesday, leaving Cook as the only candidate.

What remains to be seen is whether the split among the left factions in the Labor party at such a critical juncture is an enduring one. Cook may need to work to build support and collegiality from Sanderson’s supporters within his own UWU faction. There is also the inevitable question around whether anything was promised to the other factions in return for their support.

À lire aussi :
Word from The Hill: PwC scandal, McGowan quitting politics, PM’s trip to Singapore and high inflation figure

So who is Roger Cook?

Cook had a long initiation in politics, having been engaged in student politics during his time at university in the 1980s, rising to the position of national president for the National Union of Students. He spend time as a political adviser in the offices of well-known Labor figures in WA including Stephen Smith, Chris Evans and Jim McGinty.

Cook is known for his passion and enthusiasm for the causes of Indigenous Australians, and he worked in several advocacy roles in that area. Indigenous people featured prominently in his inaugural speech. He voiced his strong support for his wife who attended a Black Lives Matter protest in June 2020 during a period when the government was discouraging mass gatherings.

The new premier will face a range of challenges when entering the role. Perth is experiencing a housing shortage, which has exacerbated broader rises in the cost of living and contributed to a blowout in the waiting list for public housing. This is coupled with a general skills shortage, especially in the construction industry, which will make resolving the housing crisis more difficult.

There are acute problems in the juvenile justice system and health is a perennial trouble area. Finally, Cook finds himself in a struggle with other premiers (mostly Labor) over the GST allocation. This will ensure that any honeymoon is likely to be short-lived.

Martin Drum was a member of the Ministerial Expert Committee that advised the WA government on electoral reform.

– ref. After 24 hours of drama, Roger Cook becomes the next premier of Western Australia – https://theconversation.com/after-24-hours-of-drama-roger-cook-becomes-the-next-premier-of-western-australia-206754

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

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

In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn discuss the PwC scandal, where the consulting firm broke a confidentiality agreement relating to planned taxation legislation by the Abbott government. They also canvass Mark McGowan’s quitting politics, Anthony Albanese’s trip to address the Shangri-la Dialogue, and the higher-than-expected inflation figure released from the Bureau of Statistics, which comes just before the Reserve Bank’s meeting on interest rates next Tuesday.

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

– ref. Word from The Hill: PwC scandal, McGowan quitting politics, PM’s trip to Singapore and high inflation figure – https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-pwc-scandal-mcgowan-quitting-politics-pms-trip-to-singapore-and-high-inflation-figure-206769

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Breunig, Professor of Economics and Director, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

The Morrison government’s decision to give a special deal to Western Australia for the distribution of the income from the goods and service tax is one of the worst public policy decisions made in Australia in the past two decades.

The departure of the WA premier and treasurer, Mark McGowan, this week gives us an opportunity to fix the mistake.

Under a deal struck by McGowan and then-federal Treasurer Scott Morrison in 2018, WA gets a much greater share of the centrally collected goods and services tax (GST) than it is entitled to under the formula administered by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

At the time, the formula awarded the state only 45% of what it would have gotten if it had received all of the GST collected from its citizens, in recognition of its lesser need for support because of its high iron ore royalties.

Morrison and McGowan’s deal placed a floor on how much of the GST each state could get. This climbed to 70% of what was collected from its citizens in 2022-23, and will climb further to 75% from 2024-25.

The other states that miss out because WA gets more than it should receive a top-up from the Commonwealth government, originally costed at $293 million in 2021-22, but now estimated to be $4.1 billion. But this is not “free”. The extra billions have to be paid for by Australian taxpayers.

Who collects, who spends?

All federal systems have to decide who should collect each tax – the states or the government at the centre.

In Australia, we mostly let the federal government raise taxes, and this has several virtues. One is that it provides consistent rules for all Australians no matter where they live. Another is that it keeps down administrative costs – it gives us one personal income tax system instead of six.

Strong arguments can be made that we should move closer towards such a system, allowing the federal government to collect all of the tax and the states to provide most of the services.

The arrangement generates two problems.

The first is called vertical fiscal imbalance, which is the imbalance between the federal government’s extensive ability to raise revenue and the responsibility of the states to provide services. In Australia, we address it by transferring funds (including all of the GST revenue) from the federal government to the states and territories.

Read more:
Chalmers has a $70 billion a year budget hole: here are 13 ways to fill it

The second is horizontal fiscal imbalance. Different states have different needs and different capacities to meet those needs. NSW has a greater landmass than Victoria, for example, and requires more roads per resident.

In Australia, we deal with both of these problems through the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which distributes the money from the federal government to the states through a formula that determines what’s “fair”.

Here’s how it works. If one state is poorer and has less ability to raise revenue, it receives more money. If another state is richer and needs less, it gets less.

The commission also looks at how expensive it is to deliver services to its population. Health, education and infrastructure are much easier and cheaper to deliver in densely populated areas and temperate climates.

Australia has long been a shining example to the rest of the world in how to make this work. The grants commission is seen as an efficient organisation not subject to political influence. As a result, Australians have good access to opportunities and services irrespective of where they live.

Morrison’s decision, backed by the then Labor opposition, ruined this and injected politics into what had been a world-leading system for making federal revenue distributions fair and efficient.

Sharing Western Australia’s wealth

Western Australia got rich during the mining boom. The grants commission process implicitly takes the extra income it gets from mining royalties and shares it with the others.

The state hasn’t liked it. It felt it was sacrificing more than its “fair share”. What is particularly funny is that throughout most of its history, WA received more from the rest of Australia than the rest of Australia has received from it.

Western Australia received special grants from the Commonwealth continuously from 1933 through 1968, and from 1981 to 2000. Victoria and NSW never got more than their citizens put in.

Read more:
What Australia’s new gas tax will mean for new projects, the economy and the climate

The 2000s mining boom changed that. Suddenly WA was paying money to the other states rather than getting it from them. And it wanted none of it.

It developed the mentality of a job seeker who was happy to get benefits when times were tough and expected them in retirement, but didn’t want to pay income tax while working. It was as ridiculous as that.

In defence of WA, it must be acknowledged the state takes the view that its mineral resources belong to it and not to other Australians, so at least it is consistent.

Sharing Australia’s mineral wealth

But in my view, this isn’t defensible. Why have a horizontal equalisation scheme if what each state has belongs only to it? Our system has always, at least implicitly, treated Australian resources as belonging to the entire country.

This is as true of the wealth generated through human capital in the form of education as it is for resources.

If we don’t want this to be the case, we should move to a system where each state raises as little or as much as it wants and spends it and no more, regardless of need. It would give the grants commission less to do.

And it would be a bad idea. It would be better to seize the moment created by McGowan’s departure and undo a bad decision that never seemed to be about anything other than politics.

And even on that level, it didn’t work. The Coalition won just five of the 15 federal seats in WA in the last election – a record low.

Last year, Morrison described his arrangement with McGowan as a “forever deal”. It should not last as long as that.

Robert Breunig is on the board of the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia.

– ref. It’s time to end Western Australia’s $4 billion-per-year GST bonus – https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-end-western-australias-4-billion-per-year-gst-bonus-206663

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Freestone, Professor of Planning, School of Built Environment, UNSW Sydney

Australia has not had a national urban policy since the Rudd government. A troika of Liberal PMs followed. Tony Abbott wasn’t interested. Malcolm Turnbull didn’t quite live up to the hype but delivered cross-governmental City Deals and the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program. Scott Morrison at best presided over a business-as-usual approach lacking any resolve, urgency or innovation.

Will this Labor government do any better? Australian cities and regions were not front and centre in the 2022 federal election campaign. But there were signs a Labor government would reinstate a concern for urban policy issues.

The federal budget confirmed the government’s focus on urban policy. It set aside funding for a “national approach for sustainable urban development” and a “cities program”. Last week the government appointed the expert members of the Urban Policy Forum announced in the budget.

These are vehicles for delivering a promised National Urban Policy. The government says this policy “will bring together a vision for sustainable growth in our cities”.

Read more:
Hopes of a new urban age survive minister’s fall

Why focus on cities?

Two in three Australians live in a capital city. Our 21 largest cities are home to 80% of the population.

Cities account for 80% of economic activity in Australia. As globally connected hubs, they are crucial sites for community, commerce, infrastructure, biodiversity, governance and democratic processes. Our cities are central to meeting the challenges of a changing climate.

Read more:
Urban planning is now on the front line of the climate crisis. This is what it means for our cities and towns

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has skin in the game. He was the minister for infrastructure and transport in the Gillard government. He oversaw the first truly national urban policy, Our Cities, Our Future, in 2011.

In 2021, Albanese declared that “cities policy has been one of the abiding passions of my time in public life”. He foreshadowed a new national policy framework.

The budget papers specifically refer to the National Cabinet agreement on April 28 on national priorities. Among these is “Better Planning for Stronger Growth reforms to support a national approach to the growth of cities, towns, and suburbs”.

The budget commits nearly A$400 million over four years in new grants and investments in “Thriving Suburbs” and “Urban Precincts and Partnerships”. Some $11 million goes to a Cities and Suburbs Unit to deliver a National Urban Policy. The policy is required to:

address urgent challenges facing our major cities – from equitable access to jobs, homes and services, to climate impacts and decarbonisation.

Read more:
State of the Environment report shows our growing cities are under pressure – but we’re seeing positive signs too

An overdue development

Urban development has been “undervalued in national discussion” globally, not only in Australia. But in recent years various bodies, inquiries and forums have pushed for a new-look national urban policy.

The Planning Institute of Australia has long called for a coherent governance framework for spatial plans, infrastructure, growth management and urban renewal. Without a national cities plan, a 2018 report by the institute said, “all jurisdictions will be disadvantaged when making resource allocation decisions and planning for basic enabling infrastructure”.

In the same year, a federal parliamentary inquiry into the Australian government’s role in city development called for “a national plan of settlement, providing a national vision for our cities and regions across the next 50 years”.

In 2019, Future Earth Australia, based at the Australian Academy of Sciences, advanced a ten-year national strategy for sustainable cities and regions. This strategy is aligned with the Australian achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

New ideas for Australian cities and regions

We must take seriously the economic, social and environmental impacts of long-term population growth and development. To become a more equitable and sustainable country, action on the uneven experiences of Australian cities and regions must be a government priority.

In 2021, an Australian Academy of Social Sciences workshop on Australian Urban Policy: Achievements, Failures, Challenges was undertaken jointly at the City Futures Research Centre, UNSW, and Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University. More than 50 researchers and practitioners explored the many issues competing for urban policy attention at the national level.

Key areas included water, climate change, Indigeneity, transport, migration, population settlement and new cities. Urban green space, biodiversity, digital technologies, economic productivity, social inclusion and affordable housing supply were also identified as issues that cut across national policy agendas.

Read more:
If we want liveable cities in 2060 we’ll have to work together to transform urban systems

Constitutional constraints mean states must play a leading role in national urban policy. Fortunately, these constraints don’t rule out inter-governmental partnerships. There are many, often poorly integrated policies, programs and initiatives across all levels of government.

There was consensus at the workshop on the need to transcend the political ideology and expediency that have led to fragmented urban policies. A different kind of national politics focused on sustainability, resilience and regeneration is required.

The “secret” to sustainability lies in an integrated national framework of policies and strategies for city-regions. All three tiers of government need to buy into it.

National urban policy redux

There is a “back to the future” quality in some of the Albanese moves. They re-invent Rudd-Gillard initiatives, and Turnbull’s City Deals remain. Action on affordable housing supply and urban inequalities has been less forceful to date.

Sitting alongside what seem like far-reaching environmental actions, including a new Net Zero Authority, the revival of urban policy at the national level is welcome. So too would be the discussion, consultation and research required to secure a resilient and sustainable future.

A national urban policy offers opportunities for cities, towns and regions.
It’s also essential if Australia is to meet its national and international obligations, notably the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Australian Urban Policy: Prospects and Pathways is a report on the UNSW-RMIT workshop edited by the authors and with over 30 contributors. It will be published by ANU Press in late 2023.

Robert Freestone receives funding from The Australian Research Council. He is affiliated to the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, the Australian Academy of Humanities, and the Planning Institute of Australia.

Bill Randolph receives funding from The Australian Research Council. He is affiliated to The Academy of the Social Sciences Australia, the Planning Institute of Australia, and the Australasian Housing Institute.

Wendy Steele receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Australian Academy of Social Sciences. She is affiliated with the Australasian Cities Research Network (ACRN), Planning Institute of Australia and Future Earth Australia.

– ref. A sustainable Australia depends on what happens in our cities – that’s why we need a national urban policy – https://theconversation.com/a-sustainable-australia-depends-on-what-happens-in-our-cities-thats-why-we-need-a-national-urban-policy-204685

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

After a marathon debate, the House of Representatives on Wednesday morning passed the bill for the referendum for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament to be inserted into the Constitution.

The bill now goes to the Senate where it is assured of passage in June.

The final vote was 121 in favour and 25 against.

Most of the Liberals voted for the bill. The Liberals had indicated that although they oppose the Voice, they would not impede the people having a vote on the issue.

The Nationals were solidly against. Ten Liberals were authorised to vote against the bill, so they could participate in preparing the no case which will go into the yes/no pamphlet to be sent to all voters. The crossbencher all voted for the bill except Bob Katter, who did not vote.

Over several days some 118 MPs spoke on the bill in the house.

The government has not yet announced a date for the referendum, which will be held in the last quarter of the year.

Liberal MP Julian Leeser, who quit as spokesman for Indigenous Australians in order to to support the yes case, unsuccessfully proposed amendments to remove the power of the Voice to advise executive government.

Leeser said his amendments were “about securing the support of the Australian people” for the referendum.

“Winning a referendum is hard, and I want the Voice to win – the alternative is too dreadful to contemplate,” Leeser said.

Summing up the debate on Tuesday night, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said: “Australians can have confidence in this constitutional amendment – and confidence that constitutional recognition through a Voice will work.

“The Voice as proposed in this bill would amplify the voices of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

Dreyfus said after a successful referendum a public consultation process would be undertaken to settle the Voice’s design, “including how it will connect with communities and work alongside existing organisations.

“The Voice will represent the diversity of views and needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to the national parliament and government.”

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. House of Representatives passes Voice referendum legislation, which is assured of Senate passage – https://theconversation.com/house-of-representatives-passes-voice-referendum-legislation-which-is-assured-of-senate-passage-206751

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Hull, Professor and Endometriosis Group Leader, The Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide

Human reproduction is completely dependent on the healthy function of an underestimated but vital organ: the endometrium. This is the spongy tissue that lines the inner surface of the womb.

In the first half of the menstrual cycle, a healthy endometrium expands in response to the estrogen produced by a growing egg. The endometrium is then shed each month during menstruation.

Or, in the case of pregnancy, the endometrium accepts and nurtures the embryo.

So you’re trying to get pregnant. What happens?

When ovulation is triggered, the ovary starts to produce the hormones estrogen and progesterone. Progesterone causes the endometrial cells to prepare to accept an embryo, in a unique transition called “decidualisation”.

During decidualisation, endometrial cells display proteins that indicate it’s receptive for embryo attachment. After attachment, the junctions between endometrial cells loosen so an embryo can move beneath the endometrial surface.

Endometrial cells secrete substances that nurture the embryo, while immune cells protect the embryo and the endometrium while they move together and the placenta develops.

Read more:
Health Check: how to get pregnant

The surface of the endometrium is covered by a shield of glycoproteins (proteins attached to sugars) which protects it from bacteria and viruses. This shield can also prevent an embryo from attaching to the lining.

Progesterone helps to remove this glycoprotein shield about five days after ovulation. This is carefully timed so a fertilised egg will have developed into a blastocyst-stage embryo and be starting to hatch from its shell ready to interact with the exposed endometrial cells.

It prevents the body rejecting the father’s sperm

The endometrium must also retrain its immune cells to accept an embryo that contains the father’s foreign biological material, or “antigens”.

Tissues bearing these foreign antigens would usually provoke an immune rejection response, but the endometrium has adapted its immune response so an embryo can be accepted, and implant and grow, without rejection.

Although not essential for pregnancy, prior contact with the father’s semen primes the mother’s immune response and promotes acceptance of an embryo. Sexual activity enables paternal antigens, which are present in the fluid around sperm, to interact with the mother’s immune cells in the cervix and endometrium.

Read more:
What’s the point of sex? It’s communication at a biological level

Paternal antigens are taken to lymph glands in the pelvic cavity where they are processed in a way that encourages the mother’s immune response to tolerate – not reject – these paternal antigens.

When paternal antigens on the embryo are next seen by the mother’s endometrial immune cells, they accept the embryo and nurture it. Implantation and placental development can then occur, maximising the chance of progression to a healthy pregnancy.

Then what happens?

For an embryo to grow beyond being a blastocyst, it must secure access to a robust blood supply. Oxygen and nutrients are sourced from the mother’s endometrium (called decidua in early pregnancy) during implantation via the placenta which is formed from outer cells of the embryo.

The process of implantation involves a complex sequence of cellular steps that must progress correctly for pregnancy to occur.

The endometrial tissues have to be reorganised so the blood vessels grow towards the embryo. These vessels then open up to allow blood to flow into blood-filled spaces (called lacunae) that bathe the surface of the placenta. This allows oxygen and nutrients to move from the mother’s to the fetus’s blood supply.
As these connections form, there can be minor bleeding a few days before a menstrual period is due. This is called “implantation bleeding”.

If any of these steps go awry, the embryo may fail to implant, there may be a brief interaction between the embryo and the endometrium that becomes disrupted (a “biochemical pregnancy” or very early miscarriage), or there may be implantation faults that cause a miscarriage some weeks later.

What can go wrong?

The events at implantation have consequences for the rest of the pregnancy.

Even minor defects in the embryo or endometrial interaction at implantation can increase the risk of common pregnancy conditions such as:

• preterm labour
• high blood pressure (preeclampsia)
• sub-optimal fetal growth
• premature delivery
• pregnancy loss.

What conditions affect the endometrium?

Inflammation is the hallmark of an unhealthy endometrium and contributes significantly to implantation disorders and miscarriage.

Endometritis (infection of the endometrium) and inflammatory fluid from blocked fallopian tubes (hydrosalpinx) can damage endometrial cells.

Dying and damaged cells attract immune cells that attack and engulf them. When damaged or dying cells are in the endometrium (decidua), the placenta doesn’t grow well and the pregnancy can be affected.

Endometriosis (endometrial tissue outside the uterus) and adenomyosis (endometrial tissue in the muscle of the uterus) also increase inflammation. In these conditions, endometrial cells in the wrong location grow and then die in response to cyclic menstrual cycle hormones. The immune system then has to be activated to clear the dead cells, creating an inflammatory environment.

Autoimmune conditions and metabolic disorders such as diabetes and insulin resistance also activate the immune system and create an inflammatory endometrial environment. These conditions have been linked to recurrent miscarriage.

How can you improve your endometrial health?

There are several things you can do to support a healthy endometrium.

First, manage the lifestyle factors that increase stress on cells and promote inflammation. This will decrease the chances of implantation problems and miscarriage.

Cutting down on smoking, marijuana, too much coffee or alcohol, and avoiding sugary and processed foods will make it easier for the endometrium to stay healthy.

For some women, the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions that cause inflammation, such as diabetes and autoimmune problems, ensures treatments can start. Treating these conditions can reduce the risk of miscarriage and pregnancy complications.

Read more:
Considering using IVF to have a baby? Here’s what you need to know

Louise Hull is Professor and leader of the endometriosis and endometrium group at and at the Robinson Research Institute at the University of Adelaide.
She works as a Fertility Specialist (FRANZCOG, CREI) and is also the Medical Director / Owner of Embrace Fertility, Adelaide.
Louise has previously received funding from the Federal Government Grant for the EndoZone project and MRFF Funding for Imagendo.
Louise Hull also works as a Staff Specialist Consultant at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital Adelaide

Sarah Robertson receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Trying for a baby? What you need to know about a vital part of your womb (and how to look after it) – https://theconversation.com/trying-for-a-baby-what-you-need-to-know-about-a-vital-part-of-your-womb-and-how-to-look-after-it-202854

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kyla Raby, PhD candidate researching the role of consumers in eradicating modern slavery in supply chains, University of South Australia

A highly anticipated independent review of Australia’s Modern Slavery Act has found it has not brought “meaningful change” to the lives of people living in conditions of modern slavery since its passage more than four years ago.

The final report makes 30 recommendations which, if implemented, would mean thousands more businesses need to take stronger action to prevent the goods and services they sell being made with slavery.

These findings come at a time when new global research on the prevalence of modern slavery reflects the rapidly growing nature of the issue. It is estimated that, on any given day in 2021, almost 50 million people worldwide were victims of modern slavery. This is an increase of 10 million people from research conducted in 2016.

Despite its name, Australia’s Modern Slavery Act doesn’t address the diverse forms of exploitation that can constitute modern slavery. Instead, it aims to combat labour exploitation in the private economy.

It does so by requiring companies and other entities with annual revenues greater than A$100 million to identify how slave labour may be present in their global operations and supply chains. Companies are also required to report on actions taken to ensure they are slavery-free.

According to current government advice, modern slavery is now so prevalent, there is a “high risk” it may be present in these companies’ operations and supply chains.

However, of the more than 3,000 companies required to report, the review found only a handful have identified incidents of modern slavery. None of these were in Australia. And very few companies have taken steps to remedy the harm caused by slavery when it has occurred or given workers specific protections.

These findings are no surprise to those who have been following the implementation of the Modern Slavery Act, which came into force in January 2019.

Several evaluations of corporate reporting since then have all reached similar conclusions about the weakness of the law.

Just last month, a coalition of human rights organisations and academics published research on the impact of the act involving nearly 90 business groups. It found that, in the best case, it “is generating widespread awareness, but in the worst case, it provides a shiny veneer for a business model that contributes to modern slavery”.

Stronger penalties and greater oversight

The review tabled in parliament last week attempts to remedy the act’s shortcomings. It recommends requiring companies to implement a due diligence system to address the modern slavery risk in their direct operations and supply chains.

This would make it unacceptable for businesses to simply say they are doing something. Instead they would be required to “walk the talk”.

Since its inception, the act has been criticised for not including penalties for companies that fail to comply, as well as any mechanism for independent oversight. This has left consumers and investors with the responsibility of holding companies to account.

Read more:
Australia’s world-first repository of ‘modern slavery statements’ a step in the right direction

The review found it is time for these oversights to be addressed. It recommends introducing offences for companies that either fail to report or report false information, as well as an offence for not having an appropriate due diligence system in place.

It also makes several recommendations as to what role a future Commonwealth anti-slavery commissioner could play in overseeing and enforcing compliance with the act. Such a position was introduced last year in New South Wales through a state-based Modern Slavery Act.

The view of the Albanese government on such changes is already known. Labor went into last year’s federal election with a promise to amend the Modern Slavery Act to impose penalties for non-compliance and to appoint an independent anti-slavery commissioner. In this month’s budget, the government allocated A$8 million to establish a commissioner.

The review also suggests enabling the Australian public and civil society to play a greater oversight role by establishing procedures for people to submit complaints about the reporting done by companies under the Modern Slavery Act.

Given complaints from NGOs have been filed against companies like Ikea and Amazon under similar laws in Germany, such a change may be an important step towards real corporate accountability.

Addressing the drivers of modern slavery

Although the government’s response to the review won’t be known for some time, it’s clear change is coming.

Our country is at a pivotal point in how we address the sourcing, producing and consuming of goods and services made with exploited labour. To have a chance of reversing, or even just slowing, the proliferation of modern slavery, actions that go well beyond the review’s recommendations are needed.

The review acknowledges that even a stronger, more effective, corporate reporting mechanism alone cannot effectively tackle an issue as complex as modern slavery. And it reiterates the widely held view that the Modern Slavery Act has not addressed any of the drivers of modern slavery such as “poverty, gender inequality, exploitative business practices, weak governance and regulatory inadequacy”.

Truly combating modern slavery will require a courageous government response that addresses these things head-on.

Read more:
Canada’s Modern Slavery Act is the start — not the end — of efforts to address the issue in supply chains

Kyla Raby receives funding from the Australian Government for her doctoral research on the Modern Slavery Act. She works with the Australian Red Cross, who are a Modern Slavery Act reporting entity and support survivors of modern slavery.

Katherine Christ has previously received funding from CPA Australia and AFAANZ. She is affiliated with the South Australian Modern Slavery Network.

– ref. Australia’s modern slavery law is woefully inadequate – this is how we can hold companies accountable – https://theconversation.com/australias-modern-slavery-law-is-woefully-inadequate-this-is-how-we-can-hold-companies-accountable-206605

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacob van Zoelen, PhD Candidate, Flinders University

Today, 80% of Australia is arid, but it was not always that way. In the early Pliocene, 5.4 to 3.6 million years ago, Australia had a greenhouse climate, widespread forests and diverse marsupial animals.

As the climate dried out in the late Pliocene, open woodland, grassland and shrubland spread across Australia. How did large marsupials cope with these changes?

In 2017, Flinders University researchers uncovered a skeleton eroding from a cliff face on the Warburton River, at the Australian Wildlife Conservancy’s Kalamurina Station in northern South Australia. The skeleton belongs to a species in the family Diprotodontidae – a group of four-legged herbivores that were the largest marsupials to ever exist.

In a new study published in Royal Society Open Science today, we describe this fossil finding in detail, providing new insights into how the animal lived and moved.

Exceptional preservation

Wombats are the closest living relatives of diprotodontids, but the two are as distantly related as kangaroos are to possums. As a result, palaeontologists have had a hard time reconstructing these large, long-gone animals, especially since most diprotodontid species have been described mainly from jaws and teeth.

But the common, widespread nature of diprotodontid remains indicates they were an integral part of Australian ecosystems until the last species, including the rhino-sized Diprotodon optatum, became extinct about 40,000 years ago.

It is rare to find multiple bones belonging to a single skeleton in the fossil record. Only a handful of studies have described parts of the limbs of a post-Miocene diprotodontid. As such, the newly described skeleton is of great importance and is even more special, as it is the first to be found with associated soft tissue structures.

We also compared the specimen to more than 2,000 diprotodontid elements from museums across the globe, making this the most comprehensive appraisal of a diprotodontid skeleton to date.

Our comparisons revealed the skeleton belongs to a new genus we named Ambulator, meaning walker or wanderer. We chose this name because the locomotory adaptations of the legs and feet of this quarter-tonne animal would have made it well suited to roaming long distances in search of food and water, especially when compared to earlier relatives.

We 3D-scanned the specimen, and the files are freely available for anyone to download and look at online.

Read more:
Giant marsupials once migrated across an Australian Ice Age landscape

Walking marsupials

We don’t often think of walking as a special skill – but when you’re big, any movement can be energetically costly, so efficiency is key.

Most large herbivores today, such as elephants and rhinoceroses, are unguligrade, meaning they walk on the tips of their toes, with their wrists or ankles not touching the ground.

Diprotodontids are what we call plantigrade, meaning their heel-bone contacts the ground when they walk – similar to human feet. This stance helps distribute weight and reduces energy loss when walking, but uses more energy for other activities such as running.

Many diprotodontids also have so-called extreme plantigrady in their hands – a wrist bone modified into a secondary heel. This “heeled hand” made early reconstructions of these animals look bizarre and awkward.

Development of the wrist and ankle for weight-bearing meant the digits became essentially functionless and likely did not make contact with the ground while walking. This may be why no finger or toe impressions are observed in the trackways of diprotodontids.

Climbers, walkers and grabbers

Diprotodontids have limb-bone shapes that can be grouped into three main types. There are those adapted to tree climbing, such as Nimbadon lavarackorum and Ngapakaldia tedfordi; and those adapted to more efficient locomotion and travelling great distances, such as Diprotodon optatum and Ambulator keanei (we call these “walkers”).

There are also diprotodontids that were terrestrial and probably could not climb. However, unlike the walkers, their forelimbs were not as specialised for walking and were able to perform a range of functions. These were “grabbers” such as Neohelos stirtoni, and likely Kolopsis torus and Plaisiodon centralis.

Walkers do not show up in the fossil record until we get to the Pliocene (3.5 million years ago). In fact, A. keanei is the earliest diprotodontid we know of that had these specialised walking adaptations.

During the Pliocene, when A. keanei was around, there was an increase in grasslands and open habitat as Australia became drier. Diprotodontids likely had to travel much greater distances to obtain enough water and their preferred food, which was the soft leaves of shrubs and trees, not grass.

Animals such as Ambulator may have evolved to traverse great distances more efficiently. This may also have allowed diprotodontids to get bigger and support more weight. This would eventually lead to the evolution of the giant and relatively well-known 2.7 tonne Diprotodon.

Unfortunately, we will never get to see great migrating mobs of diprotodontids. But it’s amazing to know such a thing may have once been commonplace across the continent.

Jacob van Zoelen received funding from by the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship (Excellence). Travel to collections was partially funded by the Royal Society of South Australia small grant scheme 2018, the University of California Museum of Paleontology Doris O. and Samuel P. Welles Fund 2019, Flinders University Higher Degree Research International Conference Travel Grant 2019 and the North American Paleontology Conference Student Travel Grant.

Gavin Prideaux receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australia Pacific Science Foundation, Hermon Slade Foundation, Australian Geographic and National Geographic.

Aaron Camens 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. Newly described enormous marsupial wandered great distances across Australia 3.5 million years ago – https://theconversation.com/newly-described-enormous-marsupial-wandered-great-distances-across-australia-3-5-million-years-ago-206492

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeremy Wyatt, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Waikato

When Academy Awards boss Bill Kramer recently applauded comedian Chris Rock for speaking “his truth” about being slapped by Will Smith at the 2022 Oscars ceremony, he used a turn of phrase that is fast becoming a part of everyday speech around the world.

Take Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle, for example. Oprah asked, “How do you feel about the palace hearing you speak your truth today?”

Or consider Samantha Imrie, a juror in the civil lawsuit over Gwyneth Paltrow’s role in a 2016 ski accident with Terry Sanderson. Asked about Sanderson’s testimony, Imrie replied, “He was telling his truth […] I do think he did not intend to tell a truth that wasn’t his truth.”

But what does it mean for someone to speak “their truth”? Perhaps it’s time to reconsider how we use this expression, given it can be easily misinterpreted as endorsing a problematic view of what it takes for a claim to be true.

Truth relativism

On its face, speaking about “my truth” or “your truth” suggests that truth is relative to an individual. Philosophers call this view “truth relativism”. It says that when someone makes a claim, that claim is made true or false by what they believe or how they feel, rather than by the way the world actually is.

A problem with relativism is that it seems to leave reasoned debate without any clear goal. Suppose, for example, we are discussing whether the New Zealand government’s Three Waters Reform Programme will “maintain and improve the water service infrastructure”.

Read more:
Why can’t Americans agree on, well, nearly anything? Philosophy has some answers

Presumably our goal is to determine whether it’s true that the reform will maintain and improve the water service infrastructure. However, if there is no truth to identify here – only “your truth” and “my truth” – then it isn’t clear why we should have this discussion at all.

What’s the alternative to truth relativism, then? To reject relativism is to grant that at least some of our claims are true or false because the world – which exists independently of our minds, languages and cultures – is a particular way.

For instance, because lemons are more acidic than milk chocolate, the claim that lemons are more acidic than milk chocolate is true, and the claim that milk chocolate is more acidic than lemons is false. Likewise, since vaccines don’t cause autism, the claim that vaccines cause autism is false, and the claim they don’t cause autism is true.

Truth and respect

You can stick with this straightforward view about truth and still recognise that everyone deserves to be heard and respected. As John Stuart Mill pointed out in his book On Liberty (1859), if we fail to consider a wide range of perspectives, even those views that may ultimately turn out to be false, it is more likely we will be unable to discover important truths about the world.

This means that valuing truth should actually encourage you to engage with points of view that differ from yours.

It’s also worth noting that, in some cases, people who claim to speak “their truth” may not actually be endorsing relativism. This might be said of the announcement by Meka Whaitiri that she intended to join Te Pāti Māori.

Read more:
‘Always sticking to your convictions’ sounds like a good thing – but it isn’t

Offering a heartfelt explanation of her reasons for the decision, she concluded by directly addressing her Ikaroa-Rāwhiti constituents: “I have spoken my truth.” But she also explained:

The point here, whanau, is Māori political activism. It’s part of being Māori. It comes from our whakapapa. And we as Māori have a responsibility to it. Not others — we. Today, I’m acknowledging that whakapapa. I’m acknowledging my responsibility to it, and it’s calling me home.

This suggests that in speaking “her truth”, Whaitiri was in fact outlining her reasons for joining Te Pāti Māori. Her main objective was to underscore the significance of whakapapa, rather than to defend truth relativism.

Read more:
‘Alternative facts’: A psychiatrist’s guide to twisted relationships to truth

Whaitiri’s reasons are certainly strong ones, though framing them in terms of “my truth” could lead others to misinterpret them. Moreover, if Pākehā responded to Whaitiri by saying “this is her truth, not our truth”, then we would be back again with the problem of relativism.

We need to value people’s unique identities, experiences and reasons for doing things, and we also need to value truth. Truth is a central goal of reasoned debate, and that’s something we will certainly need when addressing the many pressing issues currently facing Aotearoa New Zealand and the world.

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. With so many people speaking ‘their truth’, how do we know what the truth really is? – https://theconversation.com/with-so-many-people-speaking-their-truth-how-do-we-know-what-the-truth-really-is-205388

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kyllie Cripps, Professor, Director Monash Indigenous Studies Centre, School of Philosophical, Historical & International Studies (SOPHIS), School of Social Sciences (SOSS), Faculty of Arts, Monash University

Readers please be advised this article mentions acts of intimate partner violence against First Nations people.

Indigenous women are eight times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be murdered, according to national statistics. Figures compiled by the Australian Institute of Criminology show a significant proportion of these are attributable to intimate partner violence.

I conducted a study, published this week, that examined the deaths of 151 Indigenous women and girls from across Australia over a 20-year period beginning in 2000. Almost all of these women and girls were subjected to intimate partner violence, whether at the hands of their husband or de facto spouse (72.2%), boyfriend (15.9%) or ex-partner (5.9%). The offenders were both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

While these statistics paint a grim picture, they provide little insight into the full extent of the violence experienced, and its impact on women, children and families. Their stories, unfortunately, become muted in the numbers.

My research also revealed that in almost all of these instances, Indigenous women experiencing intimate partner violence had engaged with police to help them in their situations. However, a lot of women did not receive the support that potentially could have saved their lives.

The women being lost behind the numbers

The people subjected to violence in the cases we investigated had died, so we relied heavily on coronial records. These records provided insight into their experiences of violence in the period leading up to and including their deaths.

We found the average age of Indigenous women who died from intimate partner violence was 35. The youngest was in her teens and the oldest was in her 60s.

These records also provide graphic details of the nature of these deaths, leaving little doubt as to the suffering the women endured.

Of those women whose stories we studied, 61.6% died from blunt force trauma assaults that went on for hours. The offenders used not only their bodies to inflict injury, but also whatever was at their disposal, such as rocks, pieces of concrete, fence palings and pieces of furniture.

The significance of this finding is that it speaks to the possibility of witnesses (other household members, neighbours, passersby) having the opportunity to intervene by calling 000 on behalf of the victim. Certainly there was evidence of this in the cases we examined.

At the time of writing, 106 offenders among the 151 cases have been held accountable through the justice system for the deaths of these women. However, it should be noted not all were convicted of murder or manslaughter.

We know from the case files that 41.7% of the cases we investigated are mothers. Seven of the women were also pregnant at the time of their deaths.

The records also show 25% of these women’s children witnessed violence in the home, potentially including the murder itself. This finding is important, as it reinforces the need for trauma-informed care for children in these situations.

Police involvement – or lack thereof

It takes immense courage for our women to reach out for support, with many having to weigh up the risks and benefits of reporting the violence to police.

For example, a domestic violence report to police now means mandatory reporting to child protection services for those who have children. This fear is due to First Nations people being disproportionately affected by child protection services, with 42.2% of children in out-of-home care being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

Indigenous women have also been arrested when they have called for help, either through being misidentified as the perpetrator, or due to other matters such as overdue fines.

In one instance, Yamatji woman Tamika Mullally was beaten almost to death by her partner, but police arrested her and her father, who had come to help her. Her baby Charlie was later killed by her partner while she and her father were in police custody.

Many will remember the case of Roberta, featured in the ABC 4 Corners program How Many More? in 2022. This showed video footage of police not taking Roberta’s injuries seriously, and also telling her in no uncertain terms not to call again.

Our study found there was a consistent practice of non-compliance with police general orders relating to domestic violence. For example, officers were not doing background checks on whether restraining orders were in place to determine the level of risk a victim may be in.

We also found police often did not follow through on victims’ requests for domestic violence orders to protect them. Some officers asked the victim whether they really wanted their partner to go to court, forcing victims to second-guess their own decisions about their safety.

A similar reluctance by police to act on breaches of domestic violence orders was also found in the case files. This pattern of actions and inaction means crucial opportunities to prevent tragic outcomes can be lost.

A coroner (name witheld) who conducted 17.9% of the inquests and investigations into the cases in this study reported that in his experience if it was not institutional racism that was confounding the actions of police, “it was lazy policing”.

Just trying to find the easiest way to wind up an investigation. Or perhaps, it is cultural ignorance.

This is significant in light of recent statements by the Victorian police commissioner to the Yoorrook Justice Commission. The commissioner admitted “our policing of Aboriginal persons is influenced by systemic or structural racism”, which has “gone undetected, unchecked, unpunished or without appropriate sanctions” and “caused significant harm across generations of Aboriginal families”.

Other police jurisdictions have stated they “don’t believe that we have systemic racism” but equally recognised that members of their force were “exchanging racist and sexist, misogynist views”.

The inquiry into the Queensland Police Service’s responses to domestic and family violence found there is a lack of understanding of the dynamics of, and power imbalances within, domestic violence relationships.

The report stated there is a significant under-resourcing in this area, which leads to reactive and sometimes short-lived reform. And on the frontline, it can lead to confusion as to expectations in police practice.

Read more:
Four Corners’ ‘How many more?’ reveals the nation’s crisis of Indigenous women missing and murdered

Police need to do better

Coroners will continue to investigate and report on our women’s deaths. So, too, will domestic and family violence death reviews that are now being instituted in most jurisdictions across the country.

Indigenous experts need to be included in the teams reviewing this data to further investigate the racism, sexism and misogyny our women experience.

Police need to build in more effective accountability processes and measures so there is an appreciation that their actions and inaction impact lives. Indigenous women and girls who have experienced violence deserve to be treated with humility, respect and dignity. Working with and for them to achieve safety must always be at the centre of the work we do. This article and research reminds us we can and must do better.

These women’s lives mattered. They were loved and valued by our families and communities. We need to honour them by ensuring future victim-survivors are not let down as they were.

Kyllie Cripps receives funding from the Australian Research Council for projects unrelated to this specific project.

The author thanks UNSW Faculty of Law and Justice and the UNSW Scientia program for their support to complete this study.

– ref. New research reveals harrowing stories of murdered Indigenous women and the failure of police to act – https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-harrowing-stories-of-murdered-indigenous-women-and-the-failure-of-police-to-act-205655

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Mazza, Director, SPHERE NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health in Primary Care and Professor and Head of the Department of General Practice, Monash University

When the American legal precedent protecting women’s right to an abortion in the United States, Roe versus Wade, was overturned last year, women around the world felt anxious.

In Australia, despite abortion being legal, there was increasing concern about women’s ability to access abortion. This led to a Senate inquiry into universal access to reproductive health care.

This inquiry has now concluded. A key recommendation is that:

all public hospitals within Australia […] provide surgical pregnancy terminations, or timely and affordable pathways to other local providers.

This recommendation has been welcomed by abortion advocates around the country. But why is a recommendation like this necessary? Why don’t hospitals already provide abortions?

A safe, common procedure

Abortion is a safe, routine procedure that nearly one in five Australian women who have ever been pregnant will undergo by the age of 45.

Abortions can be provided either medically or surgically. A medical abortion is a medically induced miscarriage. In Australia, the medication needed to have an abortion is registered for use until a woman is nine weeks’ pregnant.

Many women prefer a medical abortion as the medication can be taken and the abortion occurs in the woman’s own home.

But a medical abortion is not for everyone. Some women may not be able to manage it at home, don’t have a safe and private space, or have health issues that preclude a medical abortion.

Some women miss the nine-week cut-off for a medical abortion because they don’t realise they are pregnant, or they make the decision to abort after nine weeks (this sometimes happens because of a relationship breakdown when the woman finds out she is pregnant), or because of other issues such as domestic violence, rape, drug use or mental health issues.

Surgical abortions usually involve a woman having a suction curette to remove pregnancy related tissue from the uterus under sedation in a hospital or day surgery centre.

Some women prefer this approach as it’s quicker. A surgical abortion also gives women the opportunity to have an intrauterine device (IUD) inserted for future contraception.

Read more:
Here’s why there should be no gestational limits for abortion

It’s important for women to have a choice about the type of abortion they have and for surgical abortion to be also be available for women who find out later in the pregnancy there is a serious problem with the fetus.

So why is access so patchy?

Many hospitals, particularly those outside major metropolitan areas, don’t currently provide any abortions, let alone surgical ones.

Our research has found many hospitals discourage referrals from general practitioners.

There have also been reports of hospitals turning away women who need care in the uncommon event of complications following a medical abortion.

The reasons for this are complex. Abortion remains very stigmatised in our community. Few gynaecologists want to perform the procedure.

Training on how to provide abortion has not been a routine part of gynaecology or GP training and there is a shortage of trained providers, particularly for complex cases.

Hospitals haven’t felt obligated to provide abortions. To date, no-one has held them accountable for providing this essential service. There has also not been any regional-level planning to ensure services are locally available.

Some health professionals are also conscientious objectors who believe they should not be forced to provide abortions.

What does it mean for women needing an abortion?

As the Senate inquiry report states, it’s a postcode lottery. Many women don’t know how to get an abortion, what’s available or where to go. Some will look online or go to their GP.

Read more:
Abortion is no longer a crime in Australia. So why is it still so hard to access?

If they decide on a surgical abortion, their local public hospital may not offer this and so their only option is a private clinic. Many of these clinics have closed in recent years and more are open very limited hours or staffed by fly-in-fly-out teams, which means they can be very difficult to access.

Women may need to travel long distances to get a surgical abortion. This means taking time off work, organising childcare (as many women who have an abortion already have children and arranging accommodation. This all comes with significant out-of-pocket costs.

How can we fix the system?

The Senate inquiry recognises many public hospitals, particularly women’s hospitals, that receive public funding are faith-based and will not allow abortions to be delivered at their premises, even if the doctors and nurses want to offer them.

The inquiry’s key recommendation seeks to ensure all public hospitals provide surgical abortions – and if not, at least ensure women in their catchment can access timely and affordable care via other local providers.

The inquiry also recommends that contraception and abortion access (particularly for rural and regional women) is made available via publicly funded community and hospital-based services, with regional-level planning, training and accountability.

To make this a reality, there has to be consequences if it doesn’t happen. Funding should be tied to provision. For full transparency, hospitals should also be made to issue public reports that spell out how many and what type of abortions they provide each year.

Read more:
One in six Australian women in their 30s have had an abortion – and we’re starting to understand why

Funding also needs to be offered to train health professionals to deliver the services to ensure that now and into the future, we have a health workforce capable of delivering the services needed.

GPs need to know that if they provide a medical abortion, their local public hospital will provide support and see patients if and when needed.

GPs also need to have clear referral pathways so women can get into surgical abortion services in a streamlined and timely way.

Finally, women need assistance to navigate to abortion services when they need to. The inquiry recommends governments develop coordinated campaigns and education materials to improve women’s knowledge of their rights and options for accessing effective contraception and abortion care. It also recommends establishing a national information services like the Victorian 1800myoptions hotline.

While the recommendations are a step in the right direction, action is needed to translate these recommendations into actual services on the ground. The government’s response is eagerly awaited.

Danielle Mazza receives funding from the NHRMC and the MRFF and non government organisations such as the RACGP and RANZCOG. She has previously received research funding from Bayer and Organon. Professor Mazza is the Chair of the SPHERE Coalition which consists of key stakeholders, health professionals and consumers who together are advocating for improved women’s sexual and reproductive health care quality and access.

– ref. Australian women’s access to abortion is a postcode lottery. Here’s what needs to change – https://theconversation.com/australian-womens-access-to-abortion-is-a-postcode-lottery-heres-what-needs-to-change-206504

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Young, Professor, The University of Melbourne

A free trade agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom begins on Wednesday. When it was announced in 2021, then-prime ministers Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison cheerily exchanged packets of chocolate biscuits. Meanwhile, one British newspaper celebrated the prospect of cheaper steaks.

The agreement eliminates tariffs on a range of Australian exports, including beef and lamb, and makes it easier for Australians to work in the UK. British exporters of cars, whisky and confectionery will also benefit. But the deal is notable for another reason.

As our research has found, it does relatively little to tackle climate change. In the context of growing damage from climate change – internationally, in Australia and in the UK – this is a missed opportunity.

The Albanese government inherited this free trade agreement, and describes it as “gold standard”. It is not, however, gold standard on climate action. Both the Australian and UK governments must now ensure the deal does not damage efforts to keep global warming at safe limits.

Hopes were high

Trade is vital to the global economy. It is also inextricably linked to climate change.

Trade increases greenhouse gas emissions. And climate change can damage trade when severe weather disrupts supply and distribution networks.

Free trade agreements can be used to tackle climate change. For example, they can lower the cost of goods needed in the low-carbon transition, such as solar panels and bicycle parts. And trade partners can provide leadership on emissions reduction.

When the UK hosted the COP26 climate conference in 2021, it sought to establish a reputation as a global leader on climate action. The nation seemed well-placed to ensure emissions reduction was on the agenda when it negotiated a post-Brexit trade deal with Australia.

But the free trade agreement with Australia failed to put climate change at the forefront.

Read more:
Global warming to bring record hot year by 2028 – probably our first above 1.5°C limit

‘Regrettable’: the deal lacks climate ambition

The final text of the deal acknowledges each nations’ commitment to addressing climate change and notes “the role of global trade and investment in these efforts”. It also recognises the Paris Agreement.

However, a report last year by a British parliamentary committee noted the agreement’s lack of climate ambition, saying:

Given the UK’s generous tariff offer, it could have pressed [Australia] for more ambitious commitments on climate change, stronger enforcement provisions, and for an explicit reference to the Paris temperature goals.

The report also noted:

it is regrettable that the agreement did not include any references to reducing or reviewing Australia’s reliance on coal.

There was speculation that the UK government prioritised securing the agreement over holding Australia to account on climate action.

In Australia, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade analysed the impact of the free trade agreement with the United Kingdom and did not raise concerns over its climate ambition.

What the deal should have done

So how might the trade pact have properly addressed climate change? There are many options.

A UK-New Zealand trade deal, for example, signals that in some circumstances, it may be justifiable for climate action to affect trade. The European Union has proposed such action, in its plan to impose reporting – and potentially, a financial charge – on emissions-intensive imports.

The UK-NZ agreement also takes steps to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, in recognition that government support for the coal, oil and gas industries distorts prices and discourages climate action.

And the pact between the European Union and Canada requires the development of climate-friendly labelling and certification standards on products.

The Australia-UK deal seeks to ensure that each nation encourages high levels of environmental protection. These provisions could be strengthened with respect to climate change – for example, by tying them to each party’s emissions-reduction commitment under the Paris Agreement.

The agreement requires Australia and the UK to promote trade and investment in environmental goods and services, such as low-emissions technologies and renewable energy infrastructure. Yet the UK-NZ deal goes further. It eliminates customs duties on listed environmental goods, such as bicycle parts and plants.

Read more:
To reach net zero, we must decarbonise shipping. But two big problems are getting in the way

The Australia-UK deal might have had stronger climate provisions if it incorporated a wider range of public views.

Public participation is key to good environmental decision-making. But the Australia-UK trade deal has been criticised by non-government organisations for its lack of public input.

In Australia, a parliamentary committee last year examined the deal. It said while peak business groups were often satisfied with the level of consultation on free trade agreements, others – including civil society groups and unions – were frequently not.

Looking ahead

The Albanese government was elected on a platform of enhanced climate action and has since entrenched temperature targets in national legislation. While the Australia-UK trade deal was finalised when it took office, opportunities exist to strengthen its climate ambition.

The agreement establishes a working group to review and monitor environmental provisions relating to matters such as marine pollution from ships, ozone-depleting substances, illegal logging and the wildlife trade. This group could also work to better integrate the climate and trade goals of both nations.

This might involve monitoring land-use change caused by agricultural trade between the countries and exploring prospects for sustainable food systems. It could mean removing customs duties for low-emissions goods and discussing ways to constrain subsidies on fossil fuels.

Doing so would help ensure this agreement, and others to come, meet the urgent need to avert dangerous global warming.

Read more:
Listen to The Conversation’s climate podcast Fear and Wonder

Margaret Young receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Georgina Clough 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. A new trade deal delivers cheaper Australian beef and British sweets – but does little to avert dangerous global warming – https://theconversation.com/a-new-trade-deal-delivers-cheaper-australian-beef-and-british-sweets-but-does-little-to-avert-dangerous-global-warming-206394

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Johan Barthélemy, Developer Relations Manager, NVIDIA and Honorary Senior Research Fellow, University of Wollongong, University of Wollongong

The Antarctic continent conjures visions of white ice and blue sky. But not far from Australia’s Casey Station, 3,880km due south of Perth, moss beds emerge verdant and green.

Sadly, the health of these moss beds is declining due to changing climate conditions, ozone depletion and heatwaves. Yet our understanding of the problem is limited. Conducting research in Antarctica is difficult. Periods of data collection are short, and there can be years between each research opportunity. Fortunately, new technology offers solutions.

In December 2022, we travelled to Casey Station. We spent two months in the field – combining our skills in biology, flying drones, programming and artificial intelligence – to learn more about the moss and find better ways to remotely monitor biological changes.

We mapped large moss beds and trialled a new sensor system that can deliver continuous, year-round moss data. While this research is ongoing, we’re thrilled to share the early results with you here.

Read more:
An epic global study of moss reveals it is far more vital to Earth’s ecosystems than we knew

Miniature forests, bustling with life

Plants need sunlight, warmth and liquid water. Antarctic plants face months of darkness, freezing temperatures and drought from frozen water – but moss has adapted to this hostile environment.

Moss is the dominant plant life in Antarctica. It provides habitat for invertebrates, microbes and fungi, which make up more than 99% of Antarctica’s land biodiversity. The moss beds resemble miniature forests, bustling with life.

Antarctic moss creates its own warm microclimate, using pigments to absorb sunlight. This warmth aids photosynthesis and helps the mosses to melt snow to obtain liquid water. The tiny hills and valleys across moss beds determine the amount of light mosses receive and creates differences in their microclimates and health.

Once we reached the moss, we’d carefully balance on rocks to take samples and place data loggers. These consisted of four sensors that measured canopy temperatures at different positions in the moss bed. We also measured photosynthesis and collected moss samples for pigment analysis, which indicates health and stress levels.

The below photo depicts a moss bed with our equipment attached. You can see the complex micro-topography and a mosaic of healthy and stressed mosses. Healthy moss is green and velvety. Stressed mosses are red and eventually turn grey.

Mosses growing just centimetres apart can experience vastly different microclimates. In the photo below, some mosses had warmed up to 19℃ (next to the red marker), while only about 30cm away the moss was at 0.6℃ (next to the white marker).

Collecting this data enables us to explore connections between the physical structure of the moss beds, microclimates and indicators of moss health.

Read more:
Antarctica’s ‘moss forests’ are drying and dying

Smart sensors, cameras and transmitters

While in Antarctica, we also tested the first prototype of an intelligent, autonomous and long-term sensing platform. It offers scientists more information than previous data-collection devices as it can collect and transmit data over an extended period outside regular summer field campaigns, including winter time.

The prototype monitored the moss bed near Casey Station for a month and a half. Its sensors captured light intensity, ambient air temperature and humidity, moss canopy temperature and, finally, energy exchanged between soil and air. A webcam, affectionately nicknamed MossCam, captured regular images of the moss bed.

We also installed the first antenna in Antarctica for the LoRaWAN wireless network. This network is low power, long range and free to use. This allowed us to send data back to Australia in near real-time and display it on a website dashboard that is visible to Australians only.

After some early bug fixes, the platform performed better than expected. We brought it home at the end of the season for further refinement and deployment next season.

Drones and hyperspectral imaging

We sent drones on 25 flights, collecting data from two Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs 135 and 136).

Operating drones in the Antarctic presents significant challenges. The proximity to the magnetic pole disturbs the GPS navigation, and strong winds make it difficult to fly. Severe cold reduces battery life – and it’s also tough on the operator’s fingers. We customised drones with RTK (real-time kinematics, a technique to eliminate position errors) GPS, multiple redundancies and battery warmers to increase their resilience to harsh conditions.

Our drones could capture 5,000-10,000 images on each flight. They were also equipped with high-tech sensors. These sensors are programmed to record “spectral signatures”, which is a term we use to describe a kind of optical identity or visual “DNA” that differentiates landscape features like moss, rock and snow within the image.

These images will be stitched together and mapped to their ground coordinates. Using machine learning, we will train a model to identify vegetation, including moss, lichen and cyanobacteria. We will also develop vegetation and hydrology maps, 3D fly-throughs and virtual reality experiences to support decision-making around conservation and management.

Read more:
Drones help scientists check the health of Antarctic mosses, revealing climate change clues

One journey ends, while another is just beginning

Often while we were working, curious penguins wandered over to see what we were doing. Making friends with these locals was always the highlight of the day.

But after a couple of fantastic months in the field, it was time to pack up and head home. On the 60km journey inland to Wilkins Aerodrome we ventured into the Antarctic Circle. We waited in -20℃ to watch our plane land on the blue ice runway before boarding and flying back to Tasmania. There, it felt like we’d just woken up from a dream.

Our Antarctic adventure was over, but we all felt so grateful for the experience.

Now we’re exploring the data, to see what stories it can tell, while further developing our moss sensing platform. We hope to return to Antarctica to deploy it at the end of the year.

The authors travelled to Casey Station as part of the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future (SAEF).

Read more:
Toughness has limits: over 1,100 species live in Antarctica – but they’re at risk from human activity

Dr Johan Barthélemy received funding from Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future (SAEF), an Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative. He currently works at NVIDIA.

Barbara Bollard receives funding from Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future (SAEF), an Australian Research Council (ARC) Special Research Initiative (SRI).

Juan Sandino is affiliated with the QUT Centre for Robotics (QCR), Australia, and receives funding from Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future (SAEF), an Australian Research Council (ARC) Special Research Initiative (SRI).

Dr Krystal Randall is affiliated with the Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions (CSES) in the School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences at the University of Wollongong (UOW). Krystal has previously received funding from the Antarctic Science Foundation, and currently receives funding from Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future (SAEF), an Australian Research Council (ARC) Special Research Initiative (SRI).

– ref. Photos from the field: spying on Antarctic moss using drones, MossCam, smart sensors and AI – https://theconversation.com/photos-from-the-field-spying-on-antarctic-moss-using-drones-mosscam-smart-sensors-and-ai-204114

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tracey Muir, Professor in Education (STEM), Australian Catholic University

Australian students’ performance and engagement in mathematics is an ongoing issue.

International studies show Australian students’ mean performance in maths has steadily declined since 2003. The latest Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2018 showed only 10% of Australian teenagers scored in the top two levels, compared to 44% in China and 37% in Singapore.

Despite attempts to reform how we teach maths, it is unlikely students’ performance will improve if they are not engaging with their lessons.

What teachers, parents, and policymakers may not be aware of is research shows students are using “non-thinking behaviours” to avoid engaging with maths.

That is, when your child says they didn’t do anything in maths today, our research shows they’re probably right.

What are non-thinking behaviours?

There are four main non-thinking behaviours. These are:

• slacking: where there is no attempt at a task. The student may talk or do nothing

• stalling: where there is no real attempt at a task. This may involve legitimate off-task behaviours, such as sharpening a pencil

• faking: where a student pretends to do a task, but achieves nothing. This may involve legitimate on-task behaviours such as drawing pictures or writing numbers

• mimicking: this includes attempts to complete a task and can often involve completing it. It involves referring to others or previous examples.

Peter Liljedahl studied Canadian maths lessons in all years of school, over 15 years. This research found up to 80% of students exhibit non-thinking behaviours for 100% of the time in a typical hour-long lesson.

The most common behaviour was mimicking (53%), reflecting a trend of the teacher doing all the thinking, rather than the students.

It also found when students were given “now you try one” tasks (a teacher demonstrates something, then asks students to try it), the majority of students engaged in non-thinking behaviours.

Australian students are ‘non-thinking’ too

Tracey Muir conducted a smaller-scale study in 2021 with a Year ¾ class.

Some 63% of students were observed engaged in non-thinking behaviours, with slacking and stalling (54%) being the most common. These behaviours included rubbing out, sharpening pencils, and playing with counters, and were especially prevalent in unsupervised small groups.

One explanation for students slacking and stalling is teachers are doing most of the talking and directing, and not providing enough opportunities for students to think.

How can we build “thinking” maths classrooms and reduce the prevalence of non-thinking behaviours?

Here are two research-based ideas.

Form random groups

Often students are placed in groups to work through new skills or lessons. Sometimes these are arranged by the teacher or by the students themselves.

Students know why they have been placed in groups with certain individuals (even if this is not explicitly stated). Here they tend to “live down” to expectations.
If they are with their friends they also tend to distract each other.

Our studies found random groupings improved students’ willingness to collaborate, reduced social stress often caused by self-selecting groups, and increased enthusiasm for mathematics learning.

As one student told us:

I’m starting to like maths now, and working with random people is better for me so I don’t get off track.

Read more:
Curious Kids: how was maths discovered? Who made up the numbers and rules?

Get kids to stand up

Classroom learning is often done at desks or sitting on the floor. This encourages passive behaviour and we know from physiology that standing is better than sitting

But we found groups of about three students standing together and working on a whiteboard can promote thinking behaviours. Just the physical act of standing can eliminate slacking, stalling, and faking behaviours. As one student said:

standing helps me concentrate more because if I’m sitting down I’m just fiddling with stuff, but if I’m standing up, the only thing you can do is write and do maths.

The additional strategy of only allowing the student with the pen to record others’ thinking and not their own, has shown to be especially beneficial. As one teacher told us:

the people that don’t have the pen have to do the thinking […] so it’s a real group effort and they don’t have the ability to slack off as much.

Simple changes can work

While our studies were conducted in maths classrooms, our strategies would be transferable to other discipline areas.

So, while parents and educators may feel concerned about Australia’s declining maths results, by introducing simple changes to the classroom, we can ensure students are not only learning and thinking deeply about mathematics, but hopefully, enjoying it, too.

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. From whiteboard work to random groups, these simple fixes could get students thinking more in maths lessons – https://theconversation.com/from-whiteboard-work-to-random-groups-these-simple-fixes-could-get-students-thinking-more-in-maths-lessons-203059

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy McKenry, Professor of Music, Australian Catholic University

The excitement generated by the 2023 Eurovision contest was palpable. Members of my family, like thousands of Australians, were awake at 5am on a Sunday to cheer on Australia’s Eurovision contenders, Perth band Voyager. Their song Promise was the eighth Australian entry since we first competed in 2015. Seven of these entries have made the finals.

The media coverage and public engagement with Eurovision demonstrates how intensely interested we are in the international success of our musicians.

However, recent comments made by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) CEO, Annabelle Herd, reveal a jarring discrepancy between our support for Australian musicians at Eurovision and our actual listening and spending habits.

Even though we spent $609.6 million on recorded music in 2022 through direct sales and streaming, a 16-year high and more than $40 million higher than 2021, we tend to neglect the music of Australians in favour of overseas artists.

Herd stated:

the lack of a single Australian album in the ARIA Albums Chart last week alone proves the need to develop an urgent strategy […] to ensure that the growing number of Australian music lovers can connect with Australian artists.

Though Kate Ceberano’s My Life is a Symphony has just this week entered the chart at number six, ARIA’s top 50 album chart demonstrates our preoccupation with the likes of huge non-Australian artists such as Taylor Swift, Post Malone, Harry Styles and others.

Cultural cringe

Non-Indigenous Australians have a history of importing or “transplanting” their musical culture.

From Italian opera in the 1890s to the Beatles in the 1960s to Taylor Swift in the 2020s (who currently has eight albums in our top 50), our predilection for imported music is inarguable.

While there’s nothing wrong with cosmopolitan taste, and we should note ARIA does track the sales of Australian artists through dedicated charts, we must interrogate the patterns of music consumption that reveal a tendency to neglect our homegrown musicians.

The term “cultural cringe”, coined by AA Philips in his seminal Meanjin article of 1950, describes a “disease of the Australian mind” that assumes “domestic cultural product will be worse than the imported article”.

For much of the 20th century, overseas training or overseas acclaim was a pre-requisite for domestic acceptance of Australian artists, musicians and writers.

Pianist Percy Grainger, considered an archetypal Australian musician, lived and worked in America for much of his life and is often remembered as an American composer. The experience of creatives like Germaine Greer, Malcolm Williamson and Clive James needing to leave our shores to pursue a career in the arts is echoed in the story of a millennial singer like Vassy.

In a 2022 interview, Vassy describes the frustrations that led her to leave Australia to pursue opportunities in America. She describes her then-record label as not being committed to Australian performers unless they evoked a specific type of “Australiana”.

“So it was either you look that part and you be that Australian thing that they want or they just push American acts, like, A-list acts.”

Is it possible that our love of Eurovision, and our collective desire for the international acclaim that would accompany a win, has its roots in the cultural cringe? That we’d cheer our musicians overseas, but inadequately support them at home, generates a vicious cycle that prevents Australian music thriving as it should.

Pirates and streaming

There may be other reasons apart from our awkward cultural history that account for the underrepresentation of Australian music on the ARIA charts.

Two decades ago, digital disruption in the form of filesharing sites like Napster broke the business model of the recording industry. While streaming subscriptions and the resurgence of vinyl now underpin sales of recorded music, the effects of disruption continue to be felt.

ARIA, for example, only began to include streaming in its charts from 2014, with current arrangements updated as recently as March 2022 to include official content streams by logged-in YouTube users in the charts.

While the ARIA charts tell us a great deal about music consumption in Australia, they, like any survey, are not perfect. Musicians who independently release their music and monetise their work in non-traditional ways, such as via a following on social media, direct support through a platform like Patreon or through merchandise sales, are less likely to have their output recognised in the ARIA charts.

Likewise, a consumer’s use of a VPN to access music via a streaming service in an international jurisdiction may render the economic activity that results impossible to track.

Read more:
Neil Young’s ultimatum to Spotify shows streaming platforms are now a battleground where artists can leverage power

Quotas and solutions

The other significant impact of the changing digital landscape is the blunting of long-standing policies designed to support Australian music making.

For example, the CBAA Code of Practice requires most community radio stations to broadcast at least 25% Australian content. This requirement has over many decades fuelled a need for Australian music. Streaming services have no equivalent requirement and, as audiences increasingly migrate to these new platforms, this imperative for new Australian music wanes.

The federal government has sought to address some of these challenges via its National Cultural Policy, titled Revive. It plans to introduce legislation later this year. Australia’s music industry will likely welcome this intervention, particularly if it builds capacity and creates opportunities for Australian musicians to thrive in Australia.

Such policy interventions are not without hazard: my research reveals that when government uses cultural policy as a political tool it distorts and ultimately stifles creative practice. Listening to musicians, addressing their needs (such as navigating the eligibility requirements for inclusion in the ARIA charts) and helping connect them to Australian audiences are key.

In the meantime, we should all listen to some new Australian music. Let’s make our Kate and the MSO number one!

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

– ref. Why isn’t Australian music charting on the ARIA charts? – https://theconversation.com/why-isnt-australian-music-charting-on-the-aria-charts-206088

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adele Pentland, PhD candidate, Curtin University

New research on old bones has shed light on pterosaur fossils from the early Cretaceous period of Australia, which took place roughly 107 million years ago.

The bones were discovered in Victoria in the late 1980s at a fossil site called Dinosaur Cove, a few hours’ drive west of Melbourne.

Our paper describing the bones is published today in Historical Biology.

The oldest pterosaur bones we have

The Dinosaur Cove fossils are the geologically oldest pterosaur remains we have from the Lower Cretaceous of Australia.

These bones belonged to two separate individuals, because there’s a relative size difference between the two.

One specimen is a partial sacrum (the fused vertebrae from between the pelvic bones), a relative rarity in the pterosaur fossil record. The other is a comparatively small fourth metacarpal (part of the wing finger) – it is the first evidence of a juvenile pterosaur found in Australia.

Although we couldn’t pinpoint exactly which species in the pterosaur family these bones came from, the partial sacrum belonged to an individual with a wingspan estimated to exceed two metres. By contrast, the juvenile pterosaur had a wingspan just over one metre.

In the early Cretaceous, approximately 110–107 million years ago, Victoria was virtually unrecognisable. The Bass Strait was a narrow valley occupied by fast-flowing rivers. Conifers and ginkgoes grew here instead of eucalypts and grasses, and dinosaurs reigned.

On the ground, the dominant herbivore animals were small-bodied, beaked ornithopods, perpetually wary of the rapacious megaraptoran theropods.

For more than 30 years, it has been clear to scientists that flying reptiles called pterosaurs soared through the Victorian Cretaceous skies, above the heads of the dinosaurs. Until recently, however, they have remained a mystery.

Treasure at Dinosaur Cove

Large-scale excavations at Dinosaur Cove began in 1984, and for more than 40 years, a team of volunteers called Dinosaur Dreaming have excavated fossil sites along several other sites scattered across the Victorian coast.

Tom Rich and Pat Vickers-Rich, co-authors of our newly published paper, led the excavations that yielded not just the newly described pterosaurs, but myriad other discoveries as well.

The work at this rich fossil site has resulted in thousands of dinosaur bones and other fossils. These include fossil fish (bony fish and lungfish), skeletal remains from ornithopods, megaraptoran theropods, aquatic plesiosaurs and prehistoric mammals. There was also Australia’s only elaphrosaurine theropod: a lightly-built dinosaur with a small head, long neck, relatively short front limbs, long hind limbs and a long tail.

But among the rarest vertebrate fossils from Dinosaur Cove are those from pterosaurs.

Read more:
Meet the diverse group of plant-eating dinosaurs that roamed Victoria 110 million years ago

Australia’s pterosaur record

The majority of Australia’s pterosaur fossils have been found in central-western Queensland. Indeed, the first pterosaurs reported from the continent were isolated remains from the Eromanga Basin, described in 1980.

Since then, more pterosaur material has come to light, with four Australian pterosaur species currently recognised: Mythunga camara, Aussiedraco molnari, Ferrodraco lentoni and Thapunngaka shawi.

Ferrodraco is the most complete Australian pterosaur to date, and is represented by an adult individual with a wingspan of approximately four metres, which we named as a new species in 2019.

Read more:
4-metre flying reptile unearthed in Queensland is our best pterosaur fossil yet

Other pterosaur fossils from Australia include isolated remains from the Cretaceous of Western Australia, and opalised pterosaur teeth from the mid-Cretaceous of Lightning Ridge in New South Wales.

We don’t know which species the Victorian pterosaurs belong to. However, the comparatively small fourth metacarpal – a bone from the wing – is the first unequivocal evidence of a juvenile pterosaur from Australia.

Pterosaurs at high latitudes

Few pterosaur remains have been reported from fossil sites that were at high latitudes during the Age of Reptiles – the Mesozoic Era.

Antarctica, which was at high latitudes throughout, has produced three pterosaur fossils. One of these awaits formal description, and another was recovered from the charred remains of the National Museum of Brazil.

The only reports of high-latitude pterosaurs in the northern hemisphere are of isolated footprints.

During the Cretaceous, Australia was farther south than it is today. In fact, Victoria was within the polar circle during much of the Cretaceous. Southeast Australia was not frozen over at this time, but there were weeks or months of continuous darkness during the winter. Despite these harsh polar conditions, life found a way to survive and thrive.

This prompts a few questions: were pterosaurs permanent residents in southeast Australia? Or did they migrate south during summer and head north for the winter?

From a young age, pterosaurs were adept fliers, their bones already able to withstand the stresses of both launch and flight. However, subtle variations in the shape of the bones imply that hatchlings differed from their adult counterparts in terms of speed and manoeuvrability.

Until we discover pterosaur eggs or embryonic individuals at sites that were at high latitudes at the time, we won’t be able to confirm if pterosaurs were year-round residents or migratory.

Despite the rarity of pterosaurs in the fossil record, it is only a matter of time before we find more complete pterosaur material from Dinosaur Cove and other Cretaceous sites from coastal Victoria. Then, we can finally uncover the identity of these ancient, enigmatic winged reptiles.

Adele Pentland receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program Stipend.

Stephen Poropat 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. These magnificent 107-million-year-old pterosaur bones are the oldest ever found in Australia – https://theconversation.com/these-magnificent-107-million-year-old-pterosaur-bones-are-the-oldest-ever-found-in-australia-206501

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

Like Kevin Rudd before him, Anthony Albanese is taking an odd approach to evidence.

Before becoming prime minister in 2007, Rudd promised to deliver “good evidence-based policy in terms of producing the best outcomes”.

Yet while in office, Rudd made several of his most important and far-reaching decisions without bothering to compare outcomes to cost – that is to say, without a formal cost-benefit analysis. Those decisions included lifting compulsory super contributions and his preferred model of the national broadband network.

In the case of the national broadband network, Rudd explicitly rejected pleas for a cost-benefit analysis, a stance his finance minister justified by saying

we just formed the view that in effect we had to make the clear decision that said this is the outcome we are going to achieve, come hell or high water, because it is of fundamental importance to the future of the Australian economy.

In opposition, Albanese led the way in pushing for evidence-based policy. So far, his government is reverting to type – even shutting down a move to improve accountability on big projects last week. But there is also one small sign of progress, thanks to a new institution you probably haven’t heard about yet.

Albanese just blocked what he once championed

Back when he was Rudd’s infrastructure minister, Albanese set up Infrastructure Australia, a statutory authority.

At the time, Albanese declared: “This government is determined to bring a fresh approach to developing and modernising the nation’s physical infrastructure — replacing neglect, buck-passing and pork-barrelling with long-term planning”.

Returning to opposition as Labor’s infrastructure spokesman in 2014, Albanese tried to strengthen Infrastructure Australia’s independence.

He moved in parliament to require the authority to perform a cost-benefit analysis of all proposed projects costing $100 million or more, “regardless of what the political views are around a particular project”.

The government blocked the motion. There the idea languished – until last week.

Read more:
Budget restraint? When it comes to transport projects, it’s hard to find

Last Wednesday, independent MP Allegra Spender moved almost exactly the same motion – in almost exactly the same words – requiring Infrastructure Australia to perform a cost-benefit analysis of all proposed projects costing $100 million.

Labor and the Coalition combined to vote the motion down.

There’s something about the idea of making decisions that don’t make financial sense that becomes irresistible to politicians once they are actually in office.

Already this year, Albanese has pledged $240 million to Tasmania for a stadium and $2.2 billion to Victoria for the suburban rail loop.

Spender also unsuccessfully tried to require Infrastructure Australia to publish its infrastructure audits and collate data on costs after projects were completed.

It “astonished” her there was no established mechanism by which governments could learn from what had happened with past projects.

A (small) win for evidence

Yet amid the dismay, there’s a sliver of hope. In the same week the government voted down attempts to give Infrastructure Australia more teeth, it formally unveiled its new Australian Centre for Evaluation.

The pet project of Labor’s assistant minister for treasury, former economics professor Andrew Leigh, it will be tasked with examining whether government programs work, and doing it before they are rolled out.

The method will be randomised trials, something Leigh knows a lot about having written a book about them while in opposition, called Randomistas.

Read more:
Labor’s evaluation unit could dramatically cut wasteful spending

Leigh says what he is proposing isn’t an audit; that happens after the event. And it isn’t a cost-benefit study; that’s done before the event, but on a spreadsheet without real-world knowledge of what will happen.

It will mean implementing programs or pilots in ways that let the government compare the results with what would have happened without them.

Too many programs are rolled out everywhere, all at once, without an opportunity to find out what would have happened if the program wasn’t there.

Inspiration from Mexico

Leigh’s favourite example comes from Mexico. In 1997, the government there was considering changing the way it delivered food and energy subsidies to poor households. It wanted to try handing out cash instead, but on the proviso that children of the families receiving it attended school and health clinics.

Rather than changing the system for all 500 villages at once, it changed it for half in May 1998 and the other half in December 1999. The 18-month window where one half did one thing, and the other half did the other, let it see which half prospered the most.

It was the half that switched to conditional cash handouts – but Mexico wouldn’t have been sure without that trial.

$2 million per year for control groups

Leigh wants to build in that sort of randomisation here. “You might already have a program which is going to be rolled out over the course of two years,” he says. “Why not randomise the way in which you roll it out, so year two is the control group for year one?”

The treasury has been given an extra $2 million per year to get the centre started. Leigh says it will hire about a dozen people and act as a consultant to other departments that are planning programs.

It’s a small start, and at this stage a small exception to what seems to be the prevailing view among governments that they already know what’s best.

Just imagine how much good the new centre could do if it’s allowed to – including, to quote Albanese, finally replacing “neglect, buck-passing and pork-barrelling with long-term planning”.

Peter Martin 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. Will Albanese live up to his own promises to end pork-barrelling? There is a sliver of hope – https://theconversation.com/will-albanese-live-up-to-his-own-promises-to-end-pork-barrelling-there-is-a-sliver-of-hope-206615

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Xanthe Mallett, Forensic Criminologist, University of Newcastle

The huge blaze that struck Randle Street in central Sydney last week is now the subject of an arson investigation, authorities have confirmed.

Many details remain unclear, including the safety and whereabouts of some of the people who were reportedly sleeping rough in the building, as well as the nature of any criminal charges that may arise.

Right now there’s also a fire burning on a southern Great Barrier Reef island, threatening a sensitive marine site, which local rangers are treating as suspicious.

While arson is yet to be confirmed in either of these specific cases, it’s timely to look at the issue of arson more generally.

Aside from the personal and environmental implications, the financial burden of arson is huge. Recent data are difficult to obtain, although it was estimated that the total cost of arson in Australia was A$2.3 billion in 2011, and the annual figure is likely to have increased since then.

There’s a lack of scientific research attempting to understand the arsonist, perhaps because the “typical arsonist” doesn’t exist. Or maybe it’s because so few arsons are solved, and the rate of successful convictions remains low.

However, the research that has been done suggests there are six main types of arsonist.

6 types of arsonist

Arson, as defined by the Australian Institute of Criminology, is the act of “intentionally and maliciously destroying or damaging property through the use of fire”.

For a fire to be classified as arson there must be intent – the intention to cause harm or damage.

Arson can also be the primary or secondary motive – is setting the fire the main purpose, or is the fire being used to disguise another activity?

Here are the main six underlying reasons why someone might commit arson:

1. The ‘for profit’ arsonist

There are many ways someone can profit from arson. This includes extortion, or destroying a property to clear a piece of land. But most commonly these crimes are attempts at insurance fraud.

There are different types of property insurance fraud, including residential, commercial and vehicular. Residential fraud is committed by the homeowner or tenant; commercial fraud is committed by an owner to destroy company statements or claim on insurance; and vehicular fraud may occur when someone can’t afford their repayments.

These are largely one-off crimes and are very focused, and the offender is easier to catch than with other types of arson because they have a direct link with the damaged property or its owner.

2. Pyromaniacs

These perpetrators light fires for thrills and attention. Their fires range from bins to occupied buildings, and the size and risk associated with the fires may increase over time as the arsonist needs more excitement with each event.

This type of offender is often voyeuristic, and may wait for emergency services to attend, sometimes even calling them themselves, as they want to be present at the scene. They may video or photograph the fire and the first responders.

As a result, for investigators it’s important to capture images of the crowd to see who was watching.

This category includes first responders who set fires in order to be a “hero” in attendance, seeking praise and recognition for their bravery.

For example, a New South Wales volunteer firefighter was charged in January 2021 for allegedly starting more than 30 fires during that summer.

3. Crime concealment

For these offenders, the arson is secondary to the concealment of another serious crime, such as murder or theft.

Fire is a very successful means of destroying many forms of evidence, such as fingerprints that may have been left at a scene or clothing worn during the crime.

4. The revenge arsonist

These offenders are emotionally driven, and set fires out of anger or hatred, or for revenge for a real or perceived wrong. The need for retaliation could be based in a personal slight – such as an affair, or having been dismissed from a job.

Targets vary from individuals to institutions. And because of the emotional state of the offender, these crimes are usually disorganised and use unsophisticated methods of starting the fire, meaning they leave more evidence behind than some other types.

5. Extremist motivations

Extremist arsonists are driven by religious, political or social agendas.

There are two types of extremist arsonist, the first being those reacting to a civil disturbance, such as the death of a person in custody. Activities may include vandalism and looting, and the purpose may be to draw attention to a perceived injustice.

For example, 36-year-old Jose A. Felan Jr was sentenced to 6.5 years in prison in the United States after he set fires at a school and two shops, during the riots that followed the police killing of George Floyd during an arrest in May 2020.

The second type are terrorist arsonists, known as pyro-terrorism, which is defined as “the use of incendiary attacks to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population”. These offenders may use arson as one of a range of measures, and work alone or in cells.

Because their crimes are premeditated with targets selected carefully to have the most social, economic or political impact, these offenders are often highly organised, and may use advanced incendiary devices. The purpose is to cause mass fear, beyond the actual target itself.

6. Vandalism

Vandal arsonists are typically juveniles, who set fire to bins, abandoned vehicles or empty buildings, and may do so to cover up other crimes such as theft. Often an additional factor in the starting of the fire is peer pressure or gang initiation, as these arsonists often act in groups.

For these offenders, arson can be what criminologists call a “gateway crime” – a crime that may lead to more severe criminal activity.

But if such offenders are given suitable support, rehabilitation can be highly successful to prevent them becoming serious, repeat offenders.

Read more:
Why rehabilitation – not harsher prison sentences – makes economic sense

Although these are the main motives for arson, each does not act in a vacuum, and more than one may jointly contribute to the arsonist’s motivations. For example, someone may be murdered out of revenge, and then the offender sets a fire to conceal that crime or destroy evidence.

Arson is highly complex crime, with a wide range of social, psychological and environmental influences. More work needs to be done to understand the arsonist and their motivations, and how they can be identified, caught, convicted and hopefully rehabilitated.

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. Revenge, excitement, or profit: why do people commit arson? – https://theconversation.com/revenge-excitement-or-profit-why-do-people-commit-arson-206502

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Pascoe, Research fellow, The University of Melbourne

The end of native forest logging in Victoria announced last week was met with joy from conservationists and shock from timber industry workers.

To date, this has been how the story has been told: a win for the environment, a loss for jobs in the industry.

But there is an aspect of the story which hasn’t been told. The end of native timber harvesting is an opportunity for Victoria’s First Peoples to tend these forests again. Our voices have not been heard in this debate, but we have much to do on Forest Country.

You might think an end to logging, naturally means a return to wilderness. But wilderness as an ideal is a concept which has undermined the rights of indigenous people. For tens of thousands of years, we worked with Forest Country to ensure its health. When colonists first arrived the land was often described as resembling parklands. Colonisation took that away. In some places this change allowed wilderness to set in and some to became more fire prone.

The end of native timber harvesting gives us an opportunity to rethink what Forest Country looks like. It doesn’t have to be dense forests everywhere. We could bring back areas of open Country and reintroduce practices such as cultural burning. We urge decision-makers and the public to keep their minds open – and listen to First Peoples voices.

First Nations voices must be heard

The Victorian government’s promise to end native forest logging also included retraining and redundancy packages for workers. The government also announced an advisory panel would be formed to recommend areas for future protected areas – and for Traditional Owner management.

Conservationists are celebrating a win sought for decades. The damage done by logging on biodiversity has been significant, with once common species now endangered and mature forests now fragmented and dotted with young fire-prone regrowth.

It’s understandable this news has been framed around what it means for conservationists, nature and timber workers. As three Aboriginal Victorians, we acknowledge the important role for each of these groups in current and future forest management. But so far, the commentary has largely failed to include the voices of First Peoples in asserting their rights and obligations as they relate to Forest Country.

What form should these forests take?

When colonisers first came to the forests of Gippsland, their observations were of open forests with few but large trees. These forest systems were cared for in a way which favoured a grassy understorey and a fine-scale mosaic landscape shaped by fire used at different times. This system produced abundant resources for the land’s Traditional Custodians, while supporting abundant and diverse native wildlife.

To maintain Country in this way took regular applications of low-intensity fire. The knowledge of how to manage Country in this way was lore. Over generations, our ancestors created and maintained productive landscapes designed for comfortable and safe human habitation. Foremost in the minds of our old people was nurturing Country, passing on cultural knowledge and keeping alive the tangible and intangible cultural values of their ancestors.

With the removal of the custodians from Country, the landscape thickened. Abundant saplings quickly replaced these open forests with impassable scrub. In many places, the landscape has become more prone to wildfire.

Plantations cemented this thickening further, by favouring high density forests of straight trees of the same age and usually the same species.

Colonisation affected Country differently across Australia. But many effects are similar across the continent. European-style land management coincides with species extinctions across the continent.

The destruction of cultural landscapes has been a major contributor to the loss of biodiversity and increase in catastrophic bushfires. It’s the reason for the poor health of Country.

What would real First Nations involvement look like?

To begin the process of repair, Victoria’s First Peoples have partnered with the state government to create strategies which speak to healing Country, bringing back cultural landscapes and cultural burning.

At present, Traditional Owner groups across the state are working towards developing their own strategies to manage their Country. This is producing detailed planning and productive on-ground work. We invite the state to invest in our work planning and caring for Country.

Like the government, we agree that the end to logging doesn’t mean walking away from forest management.

Read more:
How 1970s conservation laws turned this ‘paradise on Earth’ into a tinderbox

Leaving our forests to themselves is not caring for Country. If we did that, it would entrench the persistent wilderness myth that all forests look after themselves. It would also be an avoidance of our responsibility to care for this land. We cannot and should not be shut out from these forests.

To return Forest Country to health doesn’t mean leaving it alone. In some cases, we may need to thin trees or use cool burns to bring back open Country. This will take careful planning and hard work. It will take people working on Country, informed by Country.

The shift will also create economic opportunities for First Peoples in taking on custodianship of these landscapes. The end to state sponsored logging is an excellent opportunity for the government to meet its commitment to self-determination of First Peoples.

When the government creates its panel of advisors on what to do with state forests post-logging, it must ensure First Peoples voices are strongly represented – and that the panel advises on tenure and ownership of the land and the future shape of these forests. We would be dismayed if these voices were not heard until after significant decisions such as new national parks had been made.

What might Victorian forests of the future look like? There’s no simple answer, because Forest Country is as diverse as the cultures of the Traditional Custodians who care for it.

But we can say that they should be shaped by the thoughtful stewardship of Victorians, with First Peoples cultural knowledge and practice at the fore. At the heart of this stewardship must be the love of Country – and care for community.

Read more:
After the chainsaws, the quiet: Victoria’s rapid exit from native forest logging is welcome – and long overdue

Jack Pascoe is affiliated with the Biodiversity Council, Back to Country and the Conservation Ecology Centre.

Matthew Shanks works for Taungurung Land and Waters Council and receives funding from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. He is affiliated with the Biodiversity Council and Back to Country.

Michael-Shawn Fletcher receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is also an independent Scientific Advisor for VicForests.

– ref. What should happen to native forests when logging ends? Ask Victoria’s First Peoples – https://theconversation.com/what-should-happen-to-native-forests-when-logging-ends-ask-victorias-first-peoples-206412

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Fenton, Lecturer in Bioethics, University of Otago

Ethicists argue that healthcare is special. Unlike other consumer goods, its availability and accessibility should be based on need rather than ability to pay.

In New Zealand, however, our tolerance of a two-tier health system – in which some services are only available for a price – suggests a degree of moral ambivalence.

Take, for instance, the recent Health and Disability Commissioner report detailing inadequacies in cancer treatment and management in southern parts of New Zealand. Alongside cases of patients seeking urgent cancer treatment in the private sector, it raises questions of justice about our two-tier health system.

Many seem to accept the argument that a two-tier public-private health system is not morally problematic, given most essential health services remain free to all. Some might go further and argue justice demands a two-tier system because health is only one public good the state is obliged to provide. Limiting non-essential health care services ensures it can meet those obligations.

The second private tier protects the liberty of those who want and can afford to purchase those services, while the first public tier focuses on meeting everyone’s needs to a sufficient level.

But the justice argument supports this conclusion only if the services and benefits provided in the first tier meet that threshold of sufficiency. Where exactly this threshold lies has been the subject of perennial debate.

Eroding the public system

We might start with the idea that a sufficient level of healthcare includes “vital goods and services essential to human flourishing”.

While this excludes some services (high-cost treatments with uncertain benefits), it demands more than what the public sector is currently providing to New Zealanders. It should include (at least) more comprehensive and universal access to primary and oral healthcare and timely access to cancer treatment.

Read more:
High cost means more than half of NZ’s young adults don’t access dental care

Our willingness to accept a second tier of healthcare accessible only to those who can pay depends on the sufficiency of the first tier. The worse the services in the first tier, the weaker the justification for the second tier.

Many also seem to accept the argument that the private sector plays an important, possibly even altruistic, role in supporting the public sector. A provider at a new private clinic in Dunedin recently stated:

We’re proud to back up the public health system by providing an alternative service that will take some of the pressure off the public system.

Patients are susceptible to the idea that by paying for private treatment they are “freeing up a bed” for someone in the public sector.

This argument is misleading at best. When the public system isn’t adequately resourced to meet the need, patients who receive their care privately do not have a bed or a spot to give up. The lack of a spot is often what drives them to the private system in the first place.

On the contrary, the proliferation of private-sector facilities and policies that favour this proliferation may either implicitly or explicitly aim to deplete the public sector.

Following the principle that every private bed is one the state does not need to provide, private beds don’t free up public beds, they replace them.

We should not be under any illusion that private insurance and private health care is altruistic in relieving pressure on the public system. It profits from failures of the public system to meet current needs and patients’ desperation to receive timely treatment.

Eroding solidarity

The Health and Disability Commissioner’s report on cancer treatment in the southern region highlights demonstrable harms for patients who did not receive timely treatment in the public system. In a particularly stark recent case, brothers who received cancer treatment in the public and private system respectively experienced tragically different outcomes.

Examples like this show a growing gap between the services available in the private and public tiers of our health system. This gap threatens social cohesion and solidarity.

When the worse-off are required to accept services below reasonable expectations of routine care (and the demonstrable harms that result), individuals are no longer in the same boat. The better-off live in a world of social goods and privileges inaccessible to the worse-off.

Why we accept this in health and not other sectors is an important question. It is hard to imagine school teachers only taking bookings months out to see parents seeking help for their troubled children, or denying entry to public schools due to limited capacity.

It is also doubtful we would accept teachers setting up private classes and consultation times to provide a timely service to those who can pay.

Entrenched inequities

The commodification of healthcare was built into the New Zealand system from the outset, with medical professionals demanding the freedom to charge fees for their services. The results are evident in many of our health statistics that reflect entrenched health inequities, particularly between Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders.

While we are likely stuck with a two-tier system for the foreseeable future, it can and should be made more just by ensuring all “vital goods and services” are securely provided in the public sector.

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

Health is special. It preserves a range of opportunities people need to live flourishing lives. We should demand a health system that is committed to preserving those opportunities for everyone.

We need our political leaders to tell us whether they stand with us in support of this goal and indicate their commitment to universal healthcare. If so, we need them to acknowledge this can only be achieved with some fundamental shifts in how we think about the public-private divide.

Robin Gauld has received funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. He serves on the Board of Directors of Business South.

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

– ref. The real cost of New Zealand’s two-tier health system: why going private doesn’t relieve pressure on public hospitals – https://theconversation.com/the-real-cost-of-new-zealands-two-tier-health-system-why-going-private-doesnt-relieve-pressure-on-public-hospitals-206491

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith University

Since its founding in 2016, Elon Musk’s neurotechnology company Neuralink has had the ambitious mission to build a next-generation brain implant with at least 100 times more brain connections than devices currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The company has now reached a significant milestone, having received FDA approval to begin human trials. So what were the issues keeping the technology in the pre-clinical trial phase for as long as it was? And have these concerns been addressed?

What is Neuralink?

Neuralink is making a Class III medical device known as a brain-computer interface (BCI). The device connects the brain to an external computer via a Bluetooth signal, enabling continuous communication back and forth.

The device itself is a coin-sized unit called a Link. It’s implanted within a small disk-shaped cutout in the skull using a precision surgical robot. The robot splices a thousand tiny threads from the Link to certain neurons in the brain. Each thread is about a quarter the diameter of a human hair.

Potential benefits

If Neuralink’s BCI can be made to work safely on humans, I believe the potential benefits would make the effort worthwhile.

The company says the device could enable precise control of prosthetic limbs, giving amputees natural motor skills. It could revolutionise treatment for conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy and spinal cord injuries. It also shows some promise for potential treatment of obesity, autism, depression, schizophrenia and tinnitus.

Several other neurotechnology companies and researchers have already developed BCI technologies that have helped people with limited mobility regain movement and complete daily tasks.

BCIs have also been used to help older people train their motor and cognitive abilities to moderate the worst effects of ageing.

Read more:
We’ve been connecting brains to computers longer than you’d expect. These 3 companies are leading the way

The long road to FDA approval for human trials

In February 2021, Musk said Neuralink was working with the FDA to secure permission to start initial human trials later that year. But human trials didn’t commence in 2021.

Then, in March 2022, Neuralink made a further application to the FDA to establish its readiness to begin humans trials.

One year and three months later, on May 25 2023, Neuralink finally received FDA approval for its first human clinical trial. Given how hard Neuralink has pushed for permission to begin, we can assume it will begin very soon.

The approval has come less than six months after the US Office of the Inspector General launched an investigation into Neuralink over potential animal welfare violations.

What were the FDA’s concerns?

The FDA had quite a list of issues that needed to be resolved before human trials could commence, as was reported in a Reuters investigation, which claimed to have spoken to several Neuralink sources.

Most of these concerns called for Neuralink to perform thorough and repeated testing and data collection over an extended period. This was likely a deciding factor in why the approval process to begin human testing took as long as it did.

It can’t be said with certainty that all of the issues have been fully resolved. But considering the rigour of the FDA’s approval process, we might conclude they have at least been resolved to a point of satisfaction for the FDA.

Safe surgery

A precision robot known as Implant/r1 performs the surgical procedure to implant the Neuralink BCI. This robot surgeon had to be put through its paces to gather evidence that it could reliably and safely implant and remove the Neuralink BCI without damaging surrounding brain tissue, or creating the risk of infection, bleeding, inflammation or scarring.

Harmful side effects

Once implanted, the Neuralink BCI must function as intended. It must not unintentionally influence other brain functions, or cause any unwanted side effects such as seizures, headaches, mood changes, or cognitive impairment.

Safe power supply

In particular, overheating lithium-ion batteries can pose great risk to BCI users. When defective, such batteries have historically been known to overheat. They can even explode if the insulation between the cathode and anode (the metal electrode components) breaks down, resulting in a short circuit.

The longevity of the battery was also taken into account, as well as how easy it would be to safely replace from its position under the skin behind the ear. Since the FDA’s previous rejection, extensive tests have been conducted on the specially designed Neuralink battery to evaluate its performance, durability and bio-compatibility.

Wire migration

Then there is the risk of wire migration. The Link consists of a disk-shaped chip with very thin wire electrodes that connect to neurons in the brain.

Connecting these wires by means of a surgical robot is a major challenge in itself. But there is also the possibility the electrodes could move elsewhere in the brain over time due to natural movement, inflammation, or scar tissue formation. This would likely affect the proper functioning of the device, and could cause infection or damage to the brain tissue.

Neuralink had to conduct extensive animal studies and provide evidence its wires did not migrate significantly over time, or cause any adverse effects on the brain. The company also had to show it had a method for tracking and adjusting the position of the wires if this became necessary.

Implant removal

Another challenge Neuralink faced was that of safe implant removal. The FDA wanted to know how easy or difficult it would be to remove the device from the brain if this became necessary.

Data privacy and security

Strong safeguards are required to prevent data collected by the Link from being hacked, manipulated or otherwise misused. Neuralink would have had to assure the FDA it could avoid nightmare scenarios of hackers rendering its Link users vulnerable to interference, as well as guaranteeing the privacy of brain-wave data generated by the device.

Read more:
Our neurodata can reveal our most private selves. As brain implants become common, how will it be protected?

The way ahead

Critics acknowledge the potential benefits of Neuralink, but caution the company to hasten slowly. Adequately addressing these issues will take time – and corners must not be cut when arriving at a solution.

Beyond the Link’s potential medical uses, Musk has made many radical claims regarding his future vision for the technology. He has claimed Neuralink could augment human intelligence by creating an on-demand connection with artificial intelligence systems – allowing, for example, improved cognition through enhanced memory, and improved learning and problem-solving skills.

He has even gone as far as to say the Link could allow high-bandwidth telepathic communication between two or more people connected via a mediating computer. Common sense would suggest these claims be put in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” category.

The situation with Neuralink has clear parallels with current advancements in AI (and the growing need to regulate it). As exciting as these technologies are, they must not be released to the public until proven to be safe. This can only be achieved by exhaustive testing.

Read more:
Futurists predict a point where humans and machines become one. But will we see it coming?

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

– ref. The FDA finally approved Elon Musk’s Neuralink chip for human trials. Have all the concerns been addressed? – https://theconversation.com/the-fda-finally-approved-elon-musks-neuralink-chip-for-human-trials-have-all-the-concerns-been-addressed-206610

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fleur Sharafizad, Lecturer in Management, Edith Cowan University

An informal personal carer is someone who looks after a family member, neighbour or friend in need of care due to disability, illness or age.

In Australia, there are approximately 2.8 million informal personal carers, including 906,000 who are primary carers. Projections suggest the national demand for carers will rise 23% by 2030.

Around one in ten Australians are informal carers: most of these unpaid.
This group of people support one of society’s most foundational needs and our economy would struggle without them.

Yet, little is understood about their experiences. Our recent research reveals how this group of carers lack necessary support for their own wellbeing.

Our research

We interviewed 36 informal personal primary carers living across Western Australia and Queensland. Respondents were aged between 34 and 69 years, and had all been the primary carer for a child, parent, partner, or in-law, for between two and 21 years. Data was collected in two waves: one in 2020 and the other in 2021. Respondents were recruited with the help of an Australian carers’ organisation.

‘I’d rather it be someone else’s problem’

Many of the carers we spoke to said they were not caring by choice, but by necessity. They said they feel both unseen and undervalued. A husband who had been caring for his wife who suffers from Alzheimer’s said:

I would rather work. I really don’t like being a carer. I’d rather it be someone else’s problem. Being a carer, you just get forgotten.

Carers generally provide care around-the-clock, yet their compensations (such as carer payments) are far from equivalent to full-time pay. The carer payment, for example, equates to only 28% of weekly ordinary time earnings in Australia, and carers can expect to lose approximately $17,700 in superannuation every year they provide care.

Few of Carers Australia’s pre-budget submission items to benefit carers were adopted in the most recent federal budget. Instead, the budget contained items which may indirectly benefit carers through increased support for the cared-for. But these measures do not explicitly recognise and support carers’ wellbeing.

Similarly, the recent draft of the National Strategy for the Care and Support Economy recognises the contribution informal carers make to Australia’s economy but focuses on paid care and support.

Our interviewees spoke about the personal costs of their work, and the stress and loneliness they experience. They shared feelings of being taken for granted as if their role was not work, let alone difficult work. One mum caring for her disabled son shared:

I just want people to see that, [a] carer doesn’t have any leave, paid leave, or recognition. People just think that’s your loved one, that’s your job. But I do want people to understand that I did not choose to be a carer as my career, but I will do it because it is important.

This played into a feeling of people losing their sense of self, because caring work was so demanding and time consuming. A mother who had been caring for her daughter for 17 years after she had been involved in an accident said:

People don’t realise how much we put our life on hold to support the people that need that emotional and mental and physical and spiritual support. We put ourselves in the back shed while we’re supporting them, so we lose ourselves.

Read more:
‘Respite care’ can give carers a much-needed break, but many find accessing it difficult

A mental toll

Many spoke of how they once had individual goals and ambitions, which they now considered unachievable. All of our interviewees had quit jobs and halted careers to take on personal care full-time. One mother caring for her ill child said:

I think if I had a crystal ball, I don’t know that I would perhaps have become a parent, I think I would have just stuck to my corporate life and had a cat and be done with it.

The mental health toll experienced by carers in our study was clear throughout all interviews. A mother looking after her child with mental health challenges expressed:

Every carer has mental health impacts from being a carer. They won’t say it’s depression or anxiety, but it’s mental health because when the hierarchy of needs is not being met for you, you can’t provide them for somebody else.

As one interviewee explained, the demanding nature of the work had left them exhausted and as though they “can’t do it”. Our interviewees spoke of “falling apart” under the strain of constantly caring for high-needs people in their households. One mother who cared for her children who were both on the autism spectrum recalled:

How many times, if I don’t go to the bathroom and have a shower to cool down myself, I could kill the kids and myself easily. That’s how bad. We are not ever in the category to get help.

Read more:
One in 10 Aussie kids care for someone with a disability or drug dependence – they need help at school

Feeling abandoned

Because so much of their work happens in pre-existing relationships and behind closed doors, carers talked about not just feeling unseen but abandoned. A common theme across all interviews was how carers felt abandoned by institutions, health professionals and, in many cases, friends and family members. One husband who had cared for his wife for close to 20 years said:

The government doesn’t even care about the carers […] we’re not really getting anything and then they’re trying to take the crumbs off us.

Carers do not have psychological, institutional or social support for themselves as individuals, separate from their role. But these support pillars are necessary so the entire responsibility of care does not fall solely on informal carers.

Carer-inclusive activities could be a good start. But policy should also be responsive to the unique and unmet needs of carers. These relate to the lack of personal and professional development, feelings of abandonment and social isolation.

With an ageing population, a pandemic, and an emerging crisis over the quality of care for older Australians and people with disabilities, the role of informal carers has become increasingly important.

The truth is that most of us will likely, at some point, undertake care work or be the person being cared for. Better formalised support for carers will ultimately improve the care for the most vulnerable among us and society as a whole.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. Carers Australia also offers advice and support.

Read more:
‘They treat you like a person, they ask you what you want’: what NDIS participants value in support workers

Fleur Sharafizad receives funding from the Tasmanian Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management and Ambulance Tasmania.

Esme Franken receives funding from the Centre for Workplace Health and Safety, Federation Internationale de Football Association, and Healthy Mind Menu. In relation to this article, she has received funding from the Australian Medical Association. In the past she has received funding from BHP Billiton, and the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation.

Uma Jogulu receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies, Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation. In relation to this article, Uma has received funding from the Australian Medical Association.

– ref. ‘We lose ourselves’: carers talk about the lonely, stressful work of looking after loved ones – https://theconversation.com/we-lose-ourselves-carers-talk-about-the-lonely-stressful-work-of-looking-after-loved-ones-206409

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Carrotte, PhD Candidate, The University of Melbourne

Millions of people listen to podcasts each year. Podcast content is diverse, with popular genres including true crime, comedy, and society and culture.

In our research, we’re specifically interested in podcasts that talk about mental health.

People listen to mental health-themed podcasts for many reasons: to understand mental health issues better, to learn self-help strategies to support their mental health, and for inspiration or motivation.

Podcasts can also bring attention to issues faced by marginalised communities.

People living with mental health issues regularly face stigma and discrimination, such as being unfairly treated in workplaces and healthcare settings.

Podcasts have the potential to raise awareness about unfair treatment and challenge myths. There are certain features of podcasts which can potentially impact listeners’ knowledge and attitudes around mental health.

In our newly published research, we have explored how podcasts about mental health can be designed in a way that reduces stigma and discrimination in the community.

Read more:
Depression too often gets deemed ‘hard to treat’ when medication falls short

Powerful storytelling

Podcasts can be “edutainment”: a great way to draw listeners’ attention to important topics and explore complex issues.

Conversational language, expert interviews, compellingly crafted stories and clever use of sound and music can help make these topics dynamic and interesting.

Podcast listening is intimate. People often listen to podcasts alone via headphones, making the experience immersive. Many podcast listeners feel very connected to podcast hosts and guests. They also connect with other listeners through online communities.

Podcasters can use these features to connect with listeners around complex topics like mental health. As a result, listeners may absorb and trust messages received through the podcast.

Researchers argue engaging with personal stories can help people experience empathy – like they are stepping into the shoes of someone else. They can be taken on an emotional journey, which can help them see things differently.

TV host and media personality Osher Günsberg speaks candidly with Todd Sampson about mental illness on Günsberg’s podcast Better Than Yesterday. Across a two-part episode Günsberg dives into his experiences with alcohol use, intense anxiety, psychosis and post-traumatic stress.

The episodes challenge listeners’ perceptions about what it means to be unwell, demonstrating how a person can seem to be thriving on the outside, while struggling on the inside. Günsberg also talks openly about how stigma prevented him from accessing therapy and medication when he first needed it.

It’s an emotional episode. Both Günsberg and Sampson shed tears by the end – and some listeners probably did, too.

Voices that matter

Contact with people living with mental health issues is an effective way to reduce stigma. This contact does not have to be face-to-face to be effective.

Many popular podcasts centre around hearing directly from people with lived experience. In the podcast Mental Illness Happy Hour, host Paul Gilmartin explores mental illness, trauma, and addiction through real stories – both his own, and his guests’ experiences.

Some podcasters also share lived experience on podcasts which are not specific to mental health.

Author and activist Aubrey Gordon regularly speaks about her experience with eating disorders while co-hosting the podcast Maintenance Phase, which debunks health fads and wellness scams. Her personal disclosures make the episodes even more engaging, and illustrate the real-life impact of these fads and scams.

Read more:
The power and the pitfalls of personal storytelling – the best podcasts of 2022

Personal stories

As part of our research, we have been talking with people who have lived experience of complex mental health issues, media professionals, healthcare professionals and workplace mental health champions.

We looked at the features of podcasts they felt could effectively combat stigma.

Our participants felt real stories from people with lived experience, shared via podcast episodes, are impactful:

This is mental health, and it’s stigma, but at the root of it, it’s stories, it’s personal stories. It’s lived experience and that’s what people are resonating with. And that’s what connects [with listeners]. And it’s kind of from that, the behaviours, the awareness, the behaviour change kind of gets a jumping off.

Our participants also told us they appreciated episodes that explicitly talked about stigma and discrimination, rather than just talking about lived experience generally.

It would be nice to have a podcast that is actually going to deep dive into some of the real issues […] and why people struggle.

Though stories can be powerful on their own, participants also felt podcasts could also highlight the very real impacts of marginalisation and inform listeners how they can make positive change. As one participant told us:

[With] real stories, they can relate to it more, to the human face to it […] it’s not just an abstract thing that they see like a statistic or TV or like, things that they cannot really see […] it’s actually a human person, undergoing real emotions.

It makes sense many mental health organisations and advocacy groups are releasing podcasts – they are popular, accessible, engaging, and a novel way to share real stories. We suspect podcasts will continue to be used in the fight against stigma and discrimination.

Our next steps are to release our own mental health podcast which we hope will impact listeners’ attitudes in a positive way. We have taken on the advice from those we interviewed, and we are currently exploring the impact of listening to this podcast on listeners’ attitudes and behaviours towards complex mental health issues. We plan to release it to the public later in 2023.

Read more:
Should you tell your boss about your mental illness? Here’s what to weigh up

Elise Carrotte works for SANE. She currently hosts a podcast unrelated to this body of work. This study was funded by the National Stigma Report Card project, which is led by SANE in partnership with the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences with the support of the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

Lisa Phillips 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. ‘It’s actually a human person, undergoing real emotions’: how podcasts can impact attitudes around mental health – https://theconversation.com/its-actually-a-human-person-undergoing-real-emotions-how-podcasts-can-impact-attitudes-around-mental-health-203241

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin McEwan, PhD candidate in Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury

New Zealand’s 2016 Kaikōura earthquake stopped the Waiau Toa – also known as the Clarence River – in its course. Within hours, the river flooded outside its channel and changed course. In the seven years since the magnitude 7.8 earthquake, the river has completely abandoned the path it used to take.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.

Flooding and earthquakes are some of the most frequent natural disasters globally. A great deal of work has been done to understand their risk – but relatively little to determine how they can occur at the same time.

This is a problem. Tens of thousands of active faults run under river channels around the world and in New Zealand. In places where faults and rivers intersect, earthquake and river flood hazards are also intertwined.

Our new research shows that when a fault deforms the earth’s surface, it can cause an overlying river to suddenly flood outside its established channel. This can put unsuspecting communities at risk.

In some cases, the sudden river shifts – also known as avulsion – may even cause the river to establish a new channel within the landscape.

There are many examples of this phenomenon throughout history, including the 1812 Reelfoot fault rupture, which dammed the mighty Mississippi river for several hours. The same earthquake also permanently dammed the Reelfoot river, creating Reelfoot Lake.

À lire aussi :
Nobody can predict earthquakes, but we can forecast them. Here’s how

Earthquakes occur due to sudden movement on faults. When a fault ruptures to the surface, it can shift one side of the fault vertically past the other. This can cause a large block of land to be permanently uplifted or depressed.

Where faults run under rivers, this vertical movement can produce a fault scarp – a wall of rock and/or soil – that obstructs the river’s ability to continue flowing in its usual channel.

This is what happened in Kaikōura in 2016. The Papatea Fault ruptured and created a 6.5 meter high barrier within the channel of the Waiau Toa, stopping the river in its course and rapidly and permanently altering the path it takes.

But can we predict this sort of thing before it happens?

Forecasting shifts

Data from the Kaikōura earthquake offered an opportunity to test whether these sorts of shifts in river flows, and potential flooding, can be “forecast” in advance. Turns out, it might be possible.

We constructed two flood models that aimed to reproduce the Waiau Toa river shift. The first model used topographic data obtained following the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake, containing the real Papatea fault scarp. The second model simulated the avulsion using pre-earthquake topography, modified with an artificial Papatea fault scarp.

Both models performed well, and accurately reproduced patterns of flooding that took place in 2016. This indicates that changes in river flood patterns following surface rupturing earthquakes can be predicted ahead of time.

À lire aussi :
Seismologists can’t predict an impending earthquake, but longer term forecasts and brief warnings after one starts are possible

That said, it is impossible to predict the exact amount of surface displacement a fault may produce when it ruptures, or the exact river flow conditions when it does. Instead, flood modelling can be used to explore scenarios ahead of time using historical flow information and historic fault data.

Applying this to the Papatea fault rupture, we found that sudden shifts in the flow of the river may not immediately happen if the river is low.

Better planning

This is important, as it suggests that flooding could be delayed following a surface rupturing earthquake if the affected river is running low. Yet a river may still change course later, as the flow rate increases.

Creating flood models ahead of time may allow planners to identify key zones along the river that are exposed to this hazard. They can then put in measures that will reduce the impact of the flooding, such as levees.

À lire aussi :
NZ’s next large Alpine Fault quake is likely coming sooner than we thought, study shows

New Zealand’s position atop a plate boundary means earthquakes are a common natural hazard. Flood hazards are also increasing in frequency and severity .

Kaikōura is not the only community that could be affected by the combination of earthquakes and flooding.

Many of New Zealand’s active faults underlie rivers located near populated areas, or critical infrastructure. Examples include the Wellington fault, which underlies the Hutt River, and the Titri fault and Taieri river intersection which borders Dunedin airport and several towns.

Yet we typically do not consider how these rivers may change following a surface rupturing earthquake, meaning nearby populations and infrastructure remain exposed and unprepared. The unique combination of earthquake and flooding is rarely considered in existing flood management strategies or earthquake response plans.

It is imperative that existing earthquake response plans consider the influence of active faults that underpin river systems. Current flood models that neglect their presence may underestimate the extent, longevity and patterns of flooding following earthquakes.

Our modelling provides a path forward. With some knowledge of fault location and rupture style, the interactions between surface rupturing earthquakes and river flood hazards can be explored ahead of time.

Funding for this work is provided by the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment Endeavour Fund and GNS Science.

– ref. Earthquakes can change the course of rivers – with devastating results. We may now be able to predict these threats – https://theconversation.com/earthquakes-can-change-the-course-of-rivers-with-devastating-results-we-may-now-be-able-to-predict-these-threats-206172

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Malouff, Associate Professor, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England

Being on social media has become synonymous with living in the 21st century. Year after year, we see new platforms and smarter algorithms roping us into highly addictive online worlds.

Now, a growing number of people have noticed this trend and are actively making an effort to resist it.

Anecdotally, a case can be made for quitting social media, and there are myriad reasons why someone might want to. But is there evidence that doing so is good for you in the long term?

Drivers for quitting

Although there are too many social media platforms to name, most people tend to think of the “big five”: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

Research has found people have various reasons for quitting one or more of these apps. Many quit over concerns about negative impacts on their mental and physical health. For example, studies have shown adolescent girls in particular can experience negative body image as a result of viewing manipulated selfies on Instagram.

People also choose to quit due to disliking ads, feeling like they’re wasting time, or if they’re worried about their privacy. The question then is: does quitting social media resolve these concerns?

À lire aussi :
New evidence shows half of Australians have ditched social media at some point, but millennials lag behind

Mixed research outcomes

It’s difficult to determine whether there are clear and lasting benefits to quitting social media – and a look at the research explains why.

One 2020 study found people who had quit social media saw improvements in their close relationships, and were pleased to be free of comparison with others. But some also said they missed the informational and entertainment aspects of it.

In a 2018 study, researchers assessed the psychological state of 143 American undergraduates before randomly assigning one group a daily ten-minute limit for Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, per platform. Three weeks later, those who limited their social media use showed significantly lower levels of loneliness and depression. However, there was no significant effect on anxiety, self-esteem or wellbeing.

And in one 2019 study with 78 participants, half were asked to take a one-week break from Facebook and Instagram. To the researchers’ surprise, the users in this group who were generally active on social media experienced less positive psychological effects than those in the control group.

With research findings painting several different pictures, it’s safe to say our relationship with social media – and how it affects us – is very complex.

Research constraints

There appear to be no published studies that have assessed the long-term impacts of permanently quitting social media. This is probably because it’s difficult to find participants who will agree to be randomly assigned the task of dropping social media forever.

One important consideration is that a percentage of individuals who quit social media will eventually go back. Reasons for returning include feeling left out, fearing loss of connections, wanting to regain access to interesting or useful information, feeling social pressure to rejoin, or simply feeling that quitting wasn’t the right choice.

Even if researchers do find a large enough group of people willing to quit social media for good, conducting long-term follow-ups would be highly resource-intensive. Beyond that, it would be difficult to figure out how much of a participant’s increase (or decrease) in life satisfaction is due to quitting social media, and not other factors.

As such, there’s currently no evidence that quitting social media comes with concrete long-term benefits. And in the short term, results are mixed.

To quit, or not to quit?

However, that doesn’t mean quitting (for a short or long period) wouldn’t be beneficial for some people. It’s likely that any potential benefits will depend on the individual doing the quitting, and why they’re doing it.

For instance, consensus that does emerge from the research is that the way you use social media plays a significant role in how negative or positive your experience is. By using social media mindfully, users can minimise potential harms while retaining the benefits.

For some, it may only be one platform causing unease. If you strongly dislike Instagram’s tendency to be hyper-focused on people’s private lives, then you could simply stop using Instagram.

Another technique is to curate your social media feeds by engaging only with content you find useful and positive. For instance, many young women take steps to avoid seeing perfect bodies all day on their social media.

If you’re still wondering whether quitting might be good for you, the simplest way to find out is to experiment and do it.

Take a break from one or more types of social media. After some time ask yourself whether the benefits seem worth it to you. If the answer is “yes”, make the break permanent.

À lire aussi :
Want to delete your social media, but can’t bring yourself to do it? Here are some ways to take that step

The Conversation is commissioning articles by academics across the world who are researching how society is being shaped by our digital interactions with each other. Read more here

John Malouff ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. What are the long-term effects of quitting social media? Almost nobody can log off long enough to find out – https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-long-term-effects-of-quitting-social-media-almost-nobody-can-log-off-long-enough-to-find-out-205478

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danelle Kenny, PhD student, The University of Queensland

So you’ve been approved for a home care package. Congratulations! This government-funded program can provide you with much-needed assistance to stay independent and live safely in your own home.

However, the process of getting started can be confusing and overwhelming. Which provider should you choose, how do you get the most out of your package, and what if you change your mind later?

Here’s what you need to know.

À lire aussi :
Explainer: what is a home care package and who is eligible?

What does a provider do?

A provider delivers aged care services subsidised by the Australian government – such as nursing care, personal grooming, home maintenance, meal preparation and transport – under a home care package.

Your provider can help with decision-making, managing your package funding, and handling any fees or charges you may have to pay.

Your choice of provider will be limited to those that service your area, their staffing levels, and possible waiting lists for different service types. My Aged Care’s Find a Provider can provide more information about providers near you.

Are there waiting periods?

Potentially.

There may be a delay between receiving your approval for a home-care package and when one becomes available. This will be the same regardless of your choice of service provider.

Occasionally, the service provider will be at capacity and not able to start the services you want as soon as your package starts.

The only way to know is to ask the service provider directly.

How does the provider work?

Providers all work differently.

Some use case managers and assign staff members to you to provide consistency and familiarity. Others may be organised centrally and different workers might attend each time you need that service.

Some may come the same time each week, or day. Others may come on different days each week.

Think through what’s important to you and what your expectations are before you discuss your care with a service provider.

What fees does the provider charge?

Provider fees are highly variable. Fee schedules are published on the My Aged Care website or can be requested from the service provider, but it is still sometimes quite hard to compare.

If you can, try to compare:

• administration fees
• care management fees
• service delivery fees (for example, do they charge per hour or per 15 minute block?)
• travel costs (for example, do they charge per kilometre travelled or a flat rate?)
• internal or third-party services (for example, do they use their own nurses or outsource it to another company that provides this care?)

Writing these down or creating a spreadsheet can help with comparisons.

What services do I get?

You get to choose how the funds in your home care package are spent, as long as they are broadly for health care.

This choice can be daunting, but try to think through what services best meet your care goals. Consider which services will best meet the long-term goal of staying healthy at home. The assessment completed prior to your approval is a good starting point for identifying gaps in your care.

Ask yourself: “What will help me stay living at home longer?”

Can I organise services outside of what the provider supplies?

Yes. However, they may not be covered through your home care package.

Say you already have a trusted clinician and would like to continue to receive their care. You can discuss brokering through your service provider.

If you have used up the funds in your home care package, you always have the option to pay privately. This won’t affect your home care package.

Likewise, you are still eligible to receive Medicare rebates, chronic disease management plans, and government-subsidised prescriptions while you’re on a home care package.

Can I review my package as time goes on?

Yes. You should review your package regularly to make sure it still meets your needs.

You might need to change the mix of services, or you might realise you need more funding. If you have a case manager assigned to you, they can help you find the best options.

Think about services you may be able to access outside of your package and what informal care might be available. This can take pressure off your package.

If your care needs are still not being met, you may be eligible to apply for a higher level package, which you can discuss with your provider at any time.

What if I want to change providers?

First, think about what issue you have with the current provider, whether you feel comfortable discussing your concerns with them, and whether switching will resolve the issue.

If you decide to switch, it won’t cost anything. You need to provide between two and four weeks notice for your package to transfer and you will generally need to contact My Aged Care to reactivate your code for the new provider yourself.

Remember there may be waiting periods with the new provider and their fee structure may be different. Be sure to check the details of the new provider carefully to make sure they can support you to stay healthy at home.

À lire aussi :
Yes, older Australians need more home-care funding. But these dribs and drabs only make a dent in the waiting list

Danelle Kenny is affiliated with the University of Queensland Centre for Health Services Research and involved with their consultation work with the Department of Health and Ageing.

Tracy Comans receives funding from the NHMRC and MRFF and holds consultancies with the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care

– ref. I’ve been approved for a home care package but how do I choose a provider – and what if I want to switch? – https://theconversation.com/ive-been-approved-for-a-home-care-package-but-how-do-i-choose-a-provider-and-what-if-i-want-to-switch-205386

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie M Cairns, Research fellow, UNSW Sydney

For decades, crossbreeding between dingoes and dogs has been considered the greatest threat to dingo conservation. Previous DNA studies suggested pure dingoes were virtually extinct in Victoria and New South Wales.

Reinforcing this belief, the term “wild dog” has replaced the word dingo in most legislation and policy across Australia. “Wild dog” is a coverall term defined as “any dog living in the wild, including feral dogs, dingoes and their hybrids”. It’s the term used on signs in National Parks and other lands advertising the target and presence of meat baits impregnated with the poison 1080. These baits are laid to reduce the risk of wild dogs preying on livestock.

Our new research used the latest genetic testing methods to establish the ancestry of wild dogs across Australia. Most of the 307 wild animals we tested were pure dingoes. Only a small proportion of wild dingoes had dog ancestry, probably from a great- or great-great-grandparent. There were no “first-cross” (50/50) hybrids or feral dogs in our wild-caught sample.

Essentially, all the “wild dogs” were dingoes. The results challenge public perceptions and call into question well established management practices. We argue the term “wild dog” should be removed from public language and legislation. Dingo and feral dog should be used instead. And the role of the dingo as Australia’s apex predator should be restored, for we are the greatest threat to their existence.

À lire aussi :
Why dingoes should be considered native to mainland Australia – even though humans introduced them

Better results from better tests

The dingo (Canis dingo) has been in Australia for 5,000 to 11,000 years. But while dingoes are genetically distinct from domestic dogs, they can breed with them.

Scientific support for the idea that few pure dingoes remain in eastern Australia came from skull measurement tests developed in the 1980s and a DNA test developed in the 1990s.

Applying these approaches, Victoria listed dingoes as a threatened species after finding just 1% of animals killed in pest control programs were pure dingoes. Similarly in NSW “predation and hybridisation by feral dogs (Canis familiaris)” was listed as a key threatening process in 2009.

But DNA testing methods have improved since then. When we compared old and new DNA testing methods in our study, we found the original method frequently misidentified pure dingoes as hybrids. This is because the technique used a relatively small number of DNA markers, only 23. We used 195,000 DNA markers.

A DNA marker is a genetic change that can be used to study differences between species, populations or individuals. This is the same sort of technology used for human ancestry or family tree testing. In general, more DNA markers means more information about an individual and more accurate DNA test results.

The older method was also unable to account for geographic variation in dingoes. We found evidence of at least four populations or varieties of dingo in Australia, which we call: West, East, South and Big Desert.

So when we looked at Victorian dingoes, nearly 90% of the animals we tested were pure dingoes. In NSW, over 60% of the animals we tested were pure dingoes and only two animals had less than 70% dingo DNA.

Dog ancestry was more common in NSW and Queensland dingo populations where there were intensive lethal control programs, such as aerial 1080 poison baiting, along with higher numbers of pet domestic dogs. One explanation is that lethal control programs carried out during the dingo breeding season may increase the risk of dingo-dog hybrids, as it does for wolves and coyotes in North America. Australian aerial baiting programs can kill up to 90% of the dingoes in an area, reducing the availability of mates for any remaining dingoes.

These findings have important implications for our knowledge of dingoes and how they are managed. We need to ensure public policy is built on robust, up-to-date knowledge of dingo identity and ancestry.

Wildlife managers and scientists should ensure that the DNA testing methods they use are accurate and fit for purpose. It is crucial that updated genetic surveys be carried out on dingoes, using the latest DNA methods to inform local dingo management plans.

Dingo conservation plans should consider the presence of geographic variation and the differing threats the four dingo populations may be facing.

Currently, dingoes fall into a grey area: because they are both a native animal and agricultural pest; and because their identity has become ambiguous due to the widespread adoption of the term wild dog.

Lethal control programs have been extended into conservation areas, including national parks, with the primary purpose of minimising livestock losses on neighbouring lands.

During 2020-2021, NSW dropped more than 200,000 1080 poisoned meat-baits from planes and helicopters to suppress “wild dogs”.

This year Victoria renewed its “wild dog bounty” program. It pays landholders A$120 per wild dog body part. Under the scheme, about 4,600 “wild dog” body parts have reportedly been redeemed since 2011.

À lire aussi :
Killing dingoes is the only way to protect livestock, right? Nope

Restoring an apex predator

Our study shows the term “wild dog” is a misnomer. The animals being targeted for eradication as an “invasive” pest are native dingoes.

The threat of dingo-dog hybrids has also been exaggerated. While dingoes can pose a threat to some livestock, as apex predators they play an essential role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. The dingo keeps natural systems in balance by preying on large herbivores and excluding invasive predators such as feral cats and foxes. This in turn benefits small marsupials, birds and reptiles. We need to balance managing dingo impacts on agriculture against ensuring they can perform their vital environmental functions.

The term “wild dog” should be removed from public language and legislation. Dingo and feral dog should be used instead. This change in terminology would accurately reflect the fact that a vast majority of the wild canines in Australia are pure dingoes – and the hybrids are predominantly dingo in their genetic make-up.

A name change would also align with calls from Australia’s First Nations people to respect and acknowledge the dingo as a native and culturally significant species.

À lire aussi :
From the dingo to the Tasmanian devil – why we should be rewilding carnivores

Kylie M Cairns receives funding from the Australian Dingo Foundation, New Guinea Singing Dog Conservation Society, NSW Koala Strategy and Australia and Pacific Science Foundation. She is a scientific advisor to The Australian Dingo Foundation, New Guinea Singing Dog Conservation Society, the New Guinea Highland Wild Dog Foundation and is co-chair of the IUCN Canid Specialist Dingo Working Group.

Mathew Crowther receives funding from Australian Research Council, Australia and Pacific Science Foundation and the NSW Koala Strategy

Mike Letnic receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australia and Asia Pacific Science Foundation

– ref. New DNA testing shatters ‘wild dog’ myth: most dingoes are pure – https://theconversation.com/new-dna-testing-shatters-wild-dog-myth-most-dingoes-are-pure-206397