Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted March 9-12 from a sample of 1,520, gave Labor a 55-45 lead, unchanged since last fortnight. Primary votes were 41% Labor (steady), 35% Coalition (steady), 8% Greens (down one), 3% One Nation (steady), 3% Clive Palmer’s UAP (down one) and 10% for all Others (up two).

55% were dissatisfied with Scott Morrison’s performance (steady), and 41% were satisfied (down two), for a net approval of -14, down two points. Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved one point to +2.

The biggest news was the shift on the incumbent-skewed better PM measure, from a 42-40 Morrison lead last fortnight to a 42-42 tie now. This is the first time Morrison has not led as better PM since the 2019-20 summer bushfires. Newspoll figures are from The Poll Bludger.

There is a large difference between the three most recent polls in the vote for all Others. Newspoll has all Others at 10%, but Essential last week gave them only 4%, while Morgan had them at 12.5%.

The recent flood crisis has not damaged the Coalition’s vote in the way the bushfires did, but they were already in a dreadful polling position. If Newspoll is right, the Coalition’s final chance to make up ground before the election campaign for an expected May election will be the March 29 federal budget.

Read more:
Anthony Albanese now level with Scott Morrison as ‘better PM’: Newspoll

Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine invasion has had little impact on Australian polls. The conflict is a long way from Australia, and we can’t do much to affect it. Last week’s Essential poll had a 24-24 tie between the major parties on who voters thought best to handle this conflict.

I wrote about Putin’s invasion twice for The Poll Bludger, on March 3 and last Friday. The earlier article said invading other countries has not been uncommon historically, while the later one said Ukraine could face a terrible fate with massive atrocities if conquered.

The articles also covered polling reaction in the US and France, where there are April elections. In a US poll at the beginning of the invasion, 62% thought Putin would not have invaded had Donald Trump still been president.

Essential: Labor leads by 49-44, but primary vote down

In Essential’s “2PP+” measure, which includes undecided voters, Labor last week led the Coalition by 49-44 (49-45 three weeks ago). Primary votes were 36% Coalition (up one), 35% Labor (down three), 10% Greens (up one), 3% One Nation (down two), 3% UAP (steady), 4% all Others (steady) and 7% undecided (up one).

Labor did better on preference flows than previously. This poll was conducted March 2-6 from a sample of 1,020.

39% gave the federal government a good rating for its response to COVID, and 35% a poor rating (40-34 in early February). After dropping from a 78% good rating in mid-December to 64% in February, WA recovered to a 71% good rating.

32% (down two since November) thought the federal government deserved to be re-elected, while 48% (up three) thought it was time to give someone else a go. The Coalition and Labor were tied at 24% each on preferred party to handle the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

Two Morgan polls both gave Labor a 56.5-43.5 lead

Morgan conducted two polls to ascertain the effect of the Ukraine invasion. The first poll was done before the invasion began, and gave Labor a 56.5-43.5 lead, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition since the early February Morgan poll.

The second poll was conducted February 24 to March 6 from a sample of over 1,900. Labor led by 56.5-43.5, unchanged on the pre-invasion poll. Primary votes were 37.5% Labor (steady), 34% Coalition (up 1.5), 11.5% Greens (down one), 3.5% One Nation (steady), 1% UAP (down 0.5), 9% independents (up 0.5) and 3.5% others (down 0.5).

Queensland federal YouGov poll

Last fortnight, I reported a Queensland state YouGov poll had Labor leading 52-48. In the federal poll, both Morrison and Albanese were at net -6 approval in Queensland. A Morrison Coalition government was thought better for Queensland by 43-39 over an Albanese Labor government.

This poll was conducted February 18-23 from a sample of 1,021 for The Courier Mail. Figures from The Poll Bludger.

Additional questions from last Newspoll, and GDP report

In additional questions from last fortnight’s Newspoll, voters favoured Morrison and the Coalition by 33-26 over Albanese and Labor on handling the threat of China (31-26 in late January). The Coalition was favoured by 30-24 on Russia. By 74-18, voters thought China posed a national security threat, while for Russia it was 64-27. Figures from The Poll Bludger.

The ABS reported on March 2 that Australia’s GDP increased 3.4% in the December quarter, rebounding from a 1.9% contraction in the September quarter that was caused by COVID lockdowns in Sydney and Melbourne. For the full year 2021, GDP increased 4.2%.

SA election on Saturday

The South Australian state election will occur Saturday. I have not seen any statewide polls since last fortnight’s SA state Newspoll that gave Labor a 53-47 lead.

Read more:
Labor maintains big federal Newspoll lead and is likely to win in South Australia

The only additional publicly released polling I am aware of are two small-sample seat polls for the Shoppies union by Labor pollster Utting Research (400 per seat surveyed).

The Poll Bludger reported last Tuesday that one showed Liberal Premier Steven Marshall trailing 51-49 in Dunstan, a swing of 9% to Labor. The other in Colton had the Liberals ahead by 55-45, a swing of 1% to Labor.

Only votes cast on election day can be counted on the night in SA. These votes will likely be a low proportion of the overall turnout. It won’t be possible to call the result on election night unless it is very decisive.

Tasmanian EMRS poll: Liberals slump

A Tasmanian state EMRS poll, conducted February 28 to March 1 from a sample of 1,000, gave the Liberals 41% (down eight since December), Labor 31% (up five), the Greens 12% (down one) and all Others 16% (up four). Liberal incumbent Peter Gutwein led Labor’s Rebecca White as preferred premier by 52-33 (59-28 in December).

Adrian Beaumont 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. Albanese level with Morrison as better PM in Newspoll as Labor maintains big lead – https://theconversation.com/albanese-level-with-morrison-as-better-pm-in-newspoll-as-labor-maintains-big-lead-178997

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Dwyer, Associate Lecturer and PhD Candidate, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

Two weeks into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it has become apparent Russia’s military is experiencing failures – both technical and strategic – that are perhaps unexpected from one of the world’s largest military forces.

There are multiple issues one could look at in relation to Russia’s poor military performance in Ukraine to date, such as being unable to effectively counter Ukrainian drones, or failing to deliver on the kind of cyber warfare expected.

But failings in three specific categories warrant a closer look.

Organisational failures

The first issue that became quickly apparent was the poor performance of Russia’s armed forces. There has been, at times, a complete lack of logistical support for Russia’s forces on the front lines – bogging down the Russian advance and at times completely stalling it.

There have been numerous reports of Russian tanks and armoured personnel carriers running out of fuel, leading Russian soldiers to request, commandeer and steal diesel to continue progress.

Russian soldiers, many of them conscripts, have been forced to forage for food, with reports of soldiers being forced to steal chickens, and special forces soldiers breaking into shops to loot food.

Rations provided to Russia’s troops have reportedly only been sufficient for a few days, and video has emerged claiming some rations seven years out of date.

Russia had a significant amount of time to prepare its invasion and move logistical support into place, with months of open buildup. But scenes of enormous, stalled convoys being unable to progress speak volumes to Russia’s astonishing mismanagement.

This series of logistical failures are as embarrassing for Russia as they are beneficial for Ukraine.

There have also been extraordinary communication failures, both between military units, and to soldiers prior to the conflict. Reports emerged following the initial stages of the invasion, revealing many Russian soldiers were completely unaware they were invading.

Rather, captured Russian soldiers claim they were under the impression it was a military exercise, up until the moment they came under fire from Ukrainian units.

Many Russian communications have also been transmitted over unencrypted mediums. Russian bombers transmitting over open high-frequency radio have had their conversations listened in on by amateur radio enthusiasts.

Even communication between Russian units on the ground are being transmitted in the open, leading to easy interception by Ukraine. Overall, this paints a clear picture of Russian incompetence.

To top it all off, the lack of morale (with many Russian soldiers surrendering or abandoning vehicles and equipment) has only exacerbated the effects of Russia’s poor military performance.

Read more:
Ukraine: the world’s defence giants are quietly making billions from the war

Lack of air superiority

One of Russia’s most significant failures, and potentially the most damaging to its campaign, has been its inability to achieve air superiority.

In military terms, this refers to a state having a sufficient degree of dominance to conduct aerial operations (such as close air support or air strikes) without significant interference from opposing forces and air defence systems.

Before the invasion began, it was widely anticipated Russia would quickly achieve air superiority. This is because on paper Russia’s air force is vastly superior to Ukraine’s.

Prior to the invasion, Ukraine possessed Europe’s seventh-largest air force. While this sounds potent – and in relative terms, it is – it amounts to some 200 aircraft of all types (fighters, close air support, helicopters, transport aircraft and others). In comparison, Russia possesses about 1,500 combat aircraft alone.

The backbone of Ukraine’s air force are older Soviet era fighters, namely 50 MiG-29s and 32 Su-27s. Meanwhile, Russia employs modern versions of Soviet aircraft, such as the Su-30, Su-33 and Su-35 (updated variants of the Su-27 Ukraine operates).

Russia also has modern strike aircraft such as the Su-34 (another update on the Su-27, optimised for strike operations) as well as long-range strategic bombers like the Tu-22, Tu-95 and Tu-160.

However, images have emerged suggesting Russia’s strike aircraft are reliant on generic, consumer-grade GPS units. If this is true, it only reinforces Russia’s lack of capability.

Just prior to the war, US Intelligence anticipated an invasion would commence with a blistering assault by Russia on Ukraine’s air power.

Yet two weeks into the conflict, Ukraine still reportedly possesses the bulk of its air and missile defences. This has raised questions about why Russia did not make full use of its air power. Is it holding back in case the conflict broadens?

Regardless of the reason, Russia’s lack of air superiority early in the conflict may be one of its most significant strategic errors, to the benefit of Ukrainian defenders.

Russian aircraft are struggling to provide the support needed by Russian ground forces, giving Ukrainian forces an opening to counter Russia’s advance.

Weapons performance and failures

Russia’s high-tech offensive capabilities have also demonstrated lacklustre performance.

The initial stages of the invasion included a strategic bombardment of Ukrainian targets using cruise missiles and Iskander short-range ballistic missiles.

Reports indicate that as of March 1, Russia had fired as many as 320 missiles, the majority being Iskander short-range ballistic missiles – making this the largest and most intense short-range ballistic missile bombardment between two states.

The Iskander is estimated to have a range of 500km and an accuracy of 2-5 metres. Prior to the invasion, it was expected to be an effective and devastating weapon system. Intriguingly, its performance has been lacking.

For example, Iskanders were used to attack Ukrainian air bases, to destroy runways and prevent Ukraine’s air force from operating effectively. But as can be seen below, the previously vaunted accuracy of the Iskander appears far less impressive than what was anticipated.

As the conflict has progressed, Russia has made more frequent use of lower-tech weapons systems, such as unguided “dumb” bombs and cluster munitions. This might indicate Russia has either expended its limited number of high-tech weaponry, or is holding back reserves in case the conflict escalates.

The Ukrainian air force remains in the fight, despite all odds. Russia will no doubt learn from its issues and attempt to correct. Unfortunately, it does still have the advantage with numbers, in terms of both troops and equipment.

However, it’s likely the conflict can’t be sustained for long on Russia’s part, particularly with the impact sanctions are having on the Russian economy. For Ukraine, the delays caused by Russia’s errors may well lead to better outcomes.

Read more:
How do anti-tank missiles work – and how helpful might they be for Ukraine’s soldiers?

James Dwyer 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. 3 ways Russia has shown military ‘incompetence’ during its invasion of Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/3-ways-russia-has-shown-military-incompetence-during-its-invasion-of-ukraine-178895

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Gleeson, Associate Professor in Public Health, La Trobe University

It’s now two years since the World Health Organization began calling the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic.

Two years ago, it was unclear whether it would even be possible to develop an effective vaccine or treatment for the novel coronavirus. In the interim, we’ve seen enormous scientific advances made in record time, bringing not one but several vaccines, and a range of treatments, to the market.

But access to vaccines is still extremely uneven across the world. And now similar problems are emerging with inequitable access to COVID-19 treatments.

Meanwhile, negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) for a waiver of intellectual property rights for COVID-19 health products and technologies, underway for almost 18 months, are still in a state of paralysis. And there is a risk that any agreement reached at the WTO might only apply to vaccines, leaving treatments unavailable or unaffordable for around half the global population.

Access to vaccines is still vastly unequal

Almost 11 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered worldwide, but more than a third of the world’s population remains unvaccinated and only 13.7% of people in low-income countries have yet received one or more doses.

By the end of 2021, more boosters had been administered in high-income countries than the total doses given in low-income countries.

While the supply flowing through COVAX has been increasing over the last few months, there is still a long way to go to reach the WHO target to vaccinate 70% of the population of every country by the end of June 2022.

And with effective treatments now entering the market, we are likely to see similar patterns of inequity unless we address the dynamics that prevent equitable access.

Antiviral treatments have become increasingly important

Treatments such as the oral antivirals Paxlovid, made by Pfizer, and Lagevrio, made by Merck Sharpe & Dohme with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, are an increasingly important part of the toolkit for fighting the pandemic.

Pfizer’s Paxlovid is a combination of a new chemical entity called nirmatrelvir, and ritonavir, an older drug used to treat HIV. Paxlovid works by binding to an enzyme that is needed for viral replication. Pfizer reported that clinical trial participants who received the drug within three days of symptom onset had an 89% lower risk of hospital admission or death.

À lire aussi :
Merck v Pfizer: here’s how the two new COVID antiviral drugs work and will be used

Merck’s molnupiravir (brand name Lagevrio) also prevents viral replication, but in this case by incorporating itself into the viral RNA, disabling its ability to reproduce. Molnupiravir reduces the risk of hospitalisation by around 30%.

While both drugs have limitations, they have been shown to reduce the risk of severe illness among adults who are at higher risk, and have the advantage over other types of treatment in that they can be taken at home. This is particularly important for countries without strong health systems, and where vaccination coverage is less than ideal.

Patents on treatments enable high prices and profits

Pfizer has signalled it has filed, or intends to file, patent applications covering Paxlovid in at least 61 countries as well as a number of regional patent offices.

Multiple patent applications have also been filed for molnupiravir in many high income countries and some middle income countries such as India and Brazil.

It may take years for some of these patent applications to be either rejected or granted, but the uncertainty makes it difficult for generic companies to enter the market.

Merck is selling a course of molunpiriavir to high income countries such as the United States for US$712 (A$970), around 40 times the cost of production. Pfizer is charging US$530 ($A722) for a course of Paxlovid.

While both Pfizer and Merck have offered tiered pricing based on a country’s income level, it remains unclear what prices will be set and whether they will be affordable. Tiered pricing has been criticised for failing to lower prices sufficiently for middle-income countries in the past.

Paxlovid is another huge money-spinner for Pfizer, which expects to generate US$22 billion (A$30 billion) in revenue from sales of the drug in 2022. And Merck’s 2022 revenue forecast for Lagevrio is $5-6 billion (A$6-8 billion).

Generic antivirals for low-income countries, but middle-income countries miss out

Both Pfizer and Merck have entered into voluntary licensing agreements with the Medicine Patents Pool which will enable generic companies anywhere in the world to make cheaper copies of the drugs for certain low-income countries.

But these license agreements are tightly restricted. Merk’s agreement with the Medicines Patent Pool permits supply of the generic copies to only 105 countries. Pfizer’s license agreement for Paxlovid restricts its supply even more tightly, to 95 low and middle-income countries covering only 53% of the global population.

These licensing agreements both exclude middle-income countries such as Thailand, China, and Mexico – countries where the prices for the patented products risks putting them out of reach.

High income countries have pre-purchased large quantities

Making the situation even worse, rich countries are buying up the limited supplies of the patented products, as they did for vaccines.

Pfizer expects to manufacture 120 million courses of Paxlovid this year. At least 30 million of the treatment courses have already been pre-purchased by rich countries, including 20 million contracted to the United States. In contrast, Pfizer has promised to provide only 10 million doses for low-income countries, a very inadequate amount in comparison with the burden of disease.

Merck plans to make 20 million courses of Lagevrio in 2022, 3.1 million of which have been promised to the US government, and Merck has also entered into deals with “over 30 markets globally including Canada, Korea, Australia, Japan, Thailand and Ukraine”.

Australia’s Health Minister announced advance purchase agreements for 500,00 doses of Paxlovid and 300,000 courses of molnupiravir in October 2021.

Stalemate at the WTO

Unfortunately, the effort invested in creating new products has not been matched by efforts to share them equitably.

A proposal to waive WTO rules that require countries to provide patents and other intellectual property rights for COVID-19 health products and technologies, first made by India and South Africa in October 2020, is now co-sponsored by 63 of the WTO’s 164 countries and supported by more than 100.

Adoption of this proposal, known as the TRIPS waiver, would enable manufacturers to enter the market without fear of litigation over infringing intellectual property rights. It would clear the way for far more widespread production of COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, diagnostic tests and other technologies to fight the pandemic.

But the TRIPS waiver proposal is still languishing due to opposition by the EU, UK and Switzerland – headquarters to powerful pharmaceutical corporations – and the pharmaceutical industry has been lobbying against it.

The EU is pushing a separate proposal, which relies on existing WTO rules that allow for compulsory licensing. However, this is an onerous and protracted process that is unworkable for providing speedy access on a global scale.

And the US is only supporting a waiver for vaccines. This is a limited approach that would leave many middle-income countries unable to either afford patented drugs or to buy the generic versions.

Two years into the pandemic, it’s well past time for a global solution that provides access to all the products and technologies the world needs to manage COVID-19.

À lire aussi :
How the intellectual property monopoly has impeded an effective response to Covid-19

Deborah Gleeson has received funding in the past from the Australian Research Council. She has received funding from various national and international non-government organisations to attend speaking engagements related to trade agreements and health. She has represented the Public Health Association of Australia on matters related to trade agreements and public health

Brigitte Tenni receives PhD scholarship funded by the Australian government. She is affiliated with the People’s Health Movement and the Public Health Association of Australia.

– ref. Two years into the pandemic, unequal access to COVID-19 treatments threatens the global recovery – https://theconversation.com/two-years-into-the-pandemic-unequal-access-to-covid-19-treatments-threatens-the-global-recovery-178990

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Melville-Rea, Research Fellow, Environmental Arts & Humanities, New York University

Within two months, Australians will vote in a federal election. It comes after a political term marked by major societal challenges, including catastrophic drought, bushfires and floods.

Such natural hazards are expected to become worse under climate change. So how does a person’s experience of disasters affect the way they vote?

This is the question I set out to answer in my new research into the last federal election. I found when people experienced drought, they tended to place more importance on economic security, not environmental policies, in deciding how to vote.

Crucially, on election day this translated to more votes for micro-parties and fewer votes for the incumbent Coalition. The findings may provide insight into how the current floods in southeastern Australia will influence the next election.

Cast your mind back

Heading into the May 2019 election, much of Australia was gripped by heatwaves and drought.

The four months to April had been the hottest period on record.
Dams were low and farmers were barely getting by.

The parched Murray–Darling Basin had experienced mass fish kills and nationally, rainfall in Australia that year would be 40% below average, the lowest on record.

In light of these conditions, political parties and candidates took drastically different drought strategies to the election.

Labor and the Greens promised significant cuts to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, to varying degrees. Labor also pledged to promote renewable energy and offered farmers climate adaption programs, and the Greens promised to help farmers implement sustainable agricultural systems.

In contrast, the Liberal-National government largely offered economic relief for rural communities, rather than pledging to mitigate climate change and future drought.

Read more:
Just because both sides support drought relief, doesn’t mean it’s right

Various micro-parties largely favoured the Coalition’s compensation approach. But importantly, they also tended to advocate strongly for local measures.

For example, Katter’s Australian Party agitated for more money to local councils. One Nation said Australia should withdraw from international climate agreements and advocated for greater local ownership of water resources.

Research shows a local experience of abnormal weather tends to increase public belief in climate change, as does low rainfall.

In some cases, extreme weather events lead to support for “green” policies and politicians. And incumbent governments that fail to prepare for or remedy harm from disasters can do worse in elections.

But belief in climate change does not always translate into political support for climate action. For example, previous research has shown how after a natural disaster, voters in the United States favour politicians who offer disaster relief spending over those who invest in disaster preparedness.

I wanted to discover whether the same dynamic played out in Australia. Specifically, how did voters affected by drought in 2019 change their voting patterns compared with the drought-free 2016 election?

What I found

My research drew on the Australian Election Study’s first ever panel survey of Australian voters. The study surveyed the same 968 participants after both the 2016 and 2019 elections.

By matching the participants’ postcodes with rainfall maps from the Bureau of Meteorology, I separated voters into those who were impacted by drought in 2019, and those who were not.

I found that if voters experienced drought, they placed more importance on the management of the economy and government debt when deciding how to vote. In addition, counter to my expectations, they placed less importance on the environment.

Read more:
Scott Morrison’s tone-deaf leadership is the last thing traumatised flood victims need. Here are two ways he can do better

The Coalition is traditionally seen as better at economic management than other parties. And as the incumbents, the Coalition could credibly promise drought compensation and relief to Australians.

But this apparent advantage did not translate into voting patterns in 2019.

Compared with the 2016 election, the Coalition lost votes in drought-affected areas. I calculated that drought decreased first-preference vote share by 3% in the House of Representatives and 1.6% in the Senate, across 7,443 national polling places.

Support for local micro-parties in drought-exposed areas increased by almost 5%. Drought did not significantly impact the vote share of Labor or the Greens.

I looked for reasons, other than the drought, which might explain the trend.
These included a region’s employment profile and population density, climate scepticism, and rates of political disaffection such as the number of blank ballots cast.

But the voting patterns remained consistent across these variables.

Balancing short and long horizons

So while drought-hit voters at the 2019 election were worried about economic security, they did not reward the Coalition for its promises of economic relief. Instead, they favoured smaller parties that emphasised both economic security and strong local leadership.

Minor party support may indeed bring local economic benefits. For example, analysis has found since 2013, electorates represented by independents or minor parties received the most per-capita funding from national grant programs with ministerial discretion.

My research suggests in the aftermath of a natural disaster, voters place higher importance on economic security than climate solutions.

Yet, prioritising relief and recovery, without disaster prevention and preparation, is highly detrimental in the long run.

Climate change threatens to supercharge both droughts and heavy rain which leads to floods. And as the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows, Australia is on the frontline of these worsening disasters.

So what does all this mean for politicians and parties wanting to tackle climate change?

My research suggests they should pursue policies that not only reduce emissions and protect Australians from the effects of an unstable climate, but bring immediate and tangible economic benefits.

Read more:
Weather forecasts won’t save us – we must pre-empt monster floods years before they hit

Hannah Melville-Rea is affiliated with independent think tank the Australia Institute.

– ref. Research shows voters favour financial relief after disasters, but we need climate action too – https://theconversation.com/research-shows-voters-favour-financial-relief-after-disasters-but-we-need-climate-action-too-179028

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ren Perkins, PhD Candidate, School of Education, The University of Queensland

A major federal government review into how we train our teachers has just been released.

This is part of the government’s push to improve Australia’s standing in the international education rankings.

The first two recommendations focus on the important role of Indigenous teachers. Namely, specifically targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in a national recruitment campaign.

The government has a history of trying to increase the numbers of Indigenous teachers. We must build on these earlier attempts and centre the voices of Indigenous peoples in implementing programs to support these recommendations if these are to lead to successful outcomes.

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

The role of Indigenous teachers

There is no shortage of media coverage about Closing the Gap in education. Yet we hear little about the role Indigenous teachers have been playing in Indigenous education over decades.

Australia’s professional standards for teachers highlight the importance of having a teacher workforce capable of teaching Indigenous students, and teaching about Australia’s full histories and the importance of reconciliation.

Research also shows Indigenous teachers and support workers in schools bring a wealth of additional knowledges and skills to Australian schools. These knowledges can include local knowledge of Country, kinship groups, Indigenous languages, community dynamics and politics and embodied knowledges acquired through lived experiences of being an Indigenous person.

Indigenous students and indeed all Australian students benefit from seeing strong Indigenous role models in schools.

However, we also know some Indigenous teachers are encountering racism, have all Indigenous-related issues diverted to them and feel isolated.

What are the ‘gaps’?

In the last Australian Census in 2016, Indigenous students accounted for 6.2% of all students.
At the same time, 2% of Australian teachers identified as Indigenous. The data clearly show there is a gap in equality between Indigenous student numbers and Indigenous teacher numbers.

Currently, there is no national database on teacher retention. The recent Australian Teacher Workforce Data report provides an insight into the difference in retention rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous teachers. Indigenous teachers were considerably more likely to intend to leave the profession before they retired (36%), in comparison to the overall teacher workforce (25%).

These are gaps we should be focusing on in Indigenous education policy.

Past programs

The severe shortage of Indigenous teachers has been on government radars for some time. In 2011-2015 the federal government spent A$7.5 million to increase Indigenous teachers in Australian schools.

This was a large investment and the only program of its kind. It was led by three of Australia’s leading Indigenous education scholars. The number of Indigenous teachers increased by 16.5% during this initiative. This improvement demonstrates what can be achieved under Indigenous leadership.

An evaluation of the funding later found we need program reform and more policy on how to increase and retain Indigenous teachers. This includes a focus on improving graduation rates and leadership and workplace opportunities for current Indigenous teachers.

It also needs to include Indigenous teachers’ voices in understanding how to increase and retain Indigenous teachers.

But there has been limited action since this program ended in 2016 until now.

Read more:
For the first time, Closing the Gap has a higher education target – here’s how to achieve it

Indigenous-led research

Much of the existing research has been on Indigenous teachers leaving the profession. But a critical resource is those who have remained despite the challenges. Ren Perkins’ PhD research is looking at this group and what we can learn from them.

Through listening to Indigenous teachers, this research explores why this cohort is staying in the profession beyond the average of six years.

While the study is not yet complete, one of the key themes emerging from this research has been the strength of identity and culture.

Read more:
Preschool benefits Indigenous children more than other types of early care

Jemimah* shared her perspective on how identity is connected to her role as a teacher:

I think it’s important for me to enter the field of education, to become part of the community that is Indigenous educators, in the hopes that one day, too, I can help a student find their own place in the schooling system […]

Another Indigenous teacher, Sarah, shared how her identity informs how she teaches the curriculum, enriching learning experiences for all students:

Quality teachers should know who all of your students are, but, in particular, why this subject is so important is because of where we are, whose land we’re on and what Country we’re teaching on. It’s a really important part of knowing our history and why we’ve come to this position.

What next?

The recommendations from this latest report are timely. However, more support through specific programs and funding is needed to transform these recommendations into action.

There is expertise among Indigenous peoples about how to grow the Indigenous teacher workforce – we need to listen and use it.

*Names have been changed

Marnee Shay receives funding from the Australian Government and Edmund Rice Education Australia. She is a member of QATSIETAC Department of Education Queensland and a board member of the Xavier Flexi School Network.

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

– ref. How can Australia support more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers? – https://theconversation.com/how-can-australia-support-more-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-teachers-178522

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Antonia Settle, Academic (McKenzie Postdoctoral Research Fellow), The University of Melbourne

From Brisbane to Sydney, many thousands of Australians have been reliving a devastating experience they hoped – in 2021, 2020, 2017, 2015, 2013, 2012 or 2010/11 – would never happen to them again.

For some suburbs built on the flood plains of the Nepean River in western Sydney, for example, these floods are their third in two years.

Flooding is a part of life in parts of Australia. But as climate change intensifies the frequency and severity of floods, fires and other disasters, and recovery costs soar, two big questions arise.

As a society, should we be setting up individuals and families for ruin by allowing them to build back in areas where they can’t afford insurance? And is it fair for taxpayers to carry the huge burden of paying for future rescue and relief costs?

À lire aussi :
After the floods comes underinsurance: we need a better plan

Considering ‘managed retreat’

Doing something about escalating disaster risks require multiple responses. One is making insurance as cheap as possible. Another is investing in mitigation infrastructure, such as flood levees. Yet another is about making buildings more disaster-resistant.

The most controversial response is the policy of “managed retreat” – abandoning buildings in high-risk areas.

In Australia this policy has been mostly discussed as something to consider some time in the future, and mostly for coastal communities, for homes that can’t be saved from rising sea levels and storm surges.

It’s a sensitive subject because it uproots families, potentially hollows outs communities and also affects house prices – an unsettling prospect when economic security is tied to home ownership.

But managed retreat may also be better than the chaotic consequences of letting the market alone try to work out the risks to individuals and communities.

Grand Forks: a case study

The strategy is already being implemented in parts of western Europe and North America. An example from Canada is the town of Grand Forks, a community of about 4,000 people 300 kilometres east of Vancouver.

The town is located where two rivers meet. In May 2018 it experienced its worst flooding in seven decades, after days of extreme rain attributed to higher than normal winter snowfall melting quickly in hotter spring temperatures. Deforestation has been blamed for exacerbating the flood.

The flood damaged about 500 buildings in Grand Forks, with lowest-income neighbourhoods in low-lying areas the worst-affected.

In the aftermath the local council received C$53 million from the federal and provincial governments for flood mitigation. This included work to reinforce river banks and build dikes. About a quarter of the money was allocated to acquire about 80 homes in the most flood-prone areas.

The decision to demolish these homes – about 5% of the town’s housing – and return the area to flood plain has been contentious.

Some residents simply didn’t want to sell. Adding to the pain was owners being paid the post-flood market value of their homes (saving the council about C$6 million). There were also long delays, with residents stuck in limbo for more than year while authorities finalised transactions.

A sensitive subject

Grand Forks shares similarities to Lismore, the epicentre of the disaster affecting northern NSW and southern Queensland.

Lismore is also built on a flood plain where two rivers meet. Floods are a regular occurrence, with the last major disaster being in 2017. Insuring properties in town’s most flood-prone areas was already unaffordable for some. In the future it may be impossible.

Last week NSW premier Dominic Perrottet said about 2,000 of the town’s 19,000 homes would need to be demolished and rebuilt, a statement the local council general manager downplayed, saying in the majority of cases “people will not have to worry”.

For a community traumatised by loss, overwhelmed by the recovery effort and angry at the perceived tardiness of government relief efforts, discussing any form of managed retreat is naturally emotionally charged.

But there’s never an ideal time to talk about bulldozing homes and relocating households.

Uprooting communities

Managed retreat has far-reaching financial ramifications. As in Grand Forks, the first questions are what homes are targeted, who pays, and how much.

Some residents may be grateful to sell up and move to safe ground. Others may not, disputing the valuation offered or being reluctant to leave at any price.

Managed retreat policies also affect many more than just those whose homes are being acquired. Demolishing a block or suburb can push down values in neighbouring areas, due to fears these homes may be next. Those households are also customers for local businesses. Their loss can potentially send a town economy into decline.

No wonder many people want no mention of managed retreat in their communities.

Pricing in climate change

Markets, however, are already starting to “price in” rising climate risks.

Insurance premiums are going up. The value of homes in high-risk areas will drop as buyers look elsewhere, particularly in the wake of increasingly frequent disasters.

The economic fallout, both for individual households and local communities, could be disastrous.

The Reserve Bank of Australia warned in September 2021 that climate-related disasters could rapidly drive house prices down, particularly in areas that have previously experienced rapid house price growth.

These disasters are also amplifying inequality, with poorer households more likely to live in high-risk locations and also to be uninsured.

In Lismore, for example, more than 80% of households flooded in 2017 were in the lowest 20% of incomes. These trends will intensify as growing climate risks translate into higher insurance premiums and lower house prices.

À lire aussi :
You can’t talk about disaster risk reduction without talking about inequality

A deliberate strategy of managed retreat, though distressing and difficult, can help to minimise the upheaval in housing markets as climate risks become increasingly apparent.

We can do better than leaving the most socially and economically vulnerable households to live in high-risk areas, while those with enough money can move away to better, safer futures. Managed retreat can play a key role.

Antonia Settle 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. After the floods, the distressing but necessary case for managed retreat – https://theconversation.com/after-the-floods-the-distressing-but-necessary-case-for-managed-retreat-178641

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naja Later, Academic Tutor in Media and Communications, Swinburne University of Technology

Any horror scholar will tell you: the movies that scare us most are the ones that speak to our real anxieties. These anxieties find their way into horror movies, expressed through sub-genres like vampires, slasher flicks and body horror. Others concerns, like the War on Terror (explored in Hostel, 2005) and the AIDS crisis (as manifested in The Thing, 1982), are associated with a particular cultural moment.

These days, it’s hard to tell a story about a rapidly-spreading pandemic without acknowledging the one we’re living in. It’s hard to tell a zombie story with any kind of novelty, but Netflix’s new Korean series All Of Us Are Dead makes an ambitious attempt.

Horror subgenres rise and fall in cycles that align with these fears: the guise of fiction allows them to make certain ideas explicit that we might only have felt beneath the surface.

The zombie is the little black dress of social allegories in horror.

Zombies can stand in for the amassed proletariat, trapped in exhausted cycles of poverty. They can represent the mindless bourgeoisie, endlessly greedy as they stumble through cities without a care in the world. They can be embodied by performers of any age or race, and their typical lack of speech allows an audience to project any metaphor into the blank space of their brains.

They have been analysed as terrorists (28 Days Later, 2002) and communists (Day of the Dead, 1985), as marginalised races (Land of the Dead, 2005) and voracious colonisers (Cargo, 2017).

The most popular horror stories are malleable: they invite the audience to conjure whatever frightens them onto the monsters, exaggerating, affirming and sometimes challenging their real-world anxieties.

Specific zombie anxieties

The zombie genre was first codified by George A. Romero with Night of the Living Dead in 1968. Most zombie movies predating Romero drew from Haitian folklore origins, speaking to very specific anxieties around Black mysticism and enslaved bodies. Romero reimagined zombies as a latent contagion of shambling masses.

His films still engaged thoughtfully with issues of racism: the Black hero in Night of the Living Dead survives the zombie hordes only to be shot dead by white vigilantes. This codified another important theme in zombie stories: the living are just as dangerous as the dead.

On a grander scale, apocalypse narratives represent a dissolution of the social order. Some stories blame this on a lack of hard authority: wishy-washy leadership collapses, and only the strongest survive. The Walking Dead banked on this for a decade: the gun-slinging sheriff was exaggerated into a fascist fantasy, where the weak fell in line behind the strong.

Anti-authoritarianism

All Of Us Are Dead leans toward the anti-authoritarian: malice and pride keep the police and military from intervening when a zombie outbreak strikes a small-town school. Still, there’s one good cop, one good teacher, and one good firefighter – though not all of them make it out unscathed.

The school administration are the first villains: a biology teacher’s son is mercilessly bullied, and is almost killed when the principal refuses to interfere. To empower his son, the teacher develops a virus that amplifies testosterone – a bizarre choice of pseudoscience – to turn fear into super-strength. This clearly codifies zombies as the rising masses failed by authority. If you’ll forgive the pun, nobody can control their faculties.

The problem is that the shambling pace and vacant minds of zombies make them inevitable, but often boring: the relentless monotony makes it difficult to sustain tension across 12 hour-long episodes. Like many 21st-century zombie stories, All Of Us Are Dead literally ups the pace by having sprinting zombies.

A new twist is introduced halfway through: some characters who get bitten can still speak and feel, gaining super-strength and heightened senses. They make a complex metaphor for asymptomatic carriers.

A zombie catalyst

The deepest conflict in All Of Us Are Dead is between students and authorities. Before the outbreak, the show frankly depicts of bullying, sexual assault, suicide and teen pregnancy.

The school system is already broken: zombies are just a catalyst for this to turn into conflict. Choi Nam-Ra, one of the students, muses:

In some countries, they are sadder when adults die than when children die. And in others, they are sadder when children die. Which do you think ours is?

In a later episode, Choi Nam-Ra and her friends are fired upon by the military when a rescue mission is suddenly aborted by command.

Critics and fans have identified the overt parallels between the show and the 2014 Sewol Ferry tragedy, where the crew abandoned the capsizing ship and left the passengers, mostly high school students, to drown.

While horror uses colourful allegories to entertain, it can speak truthfully to our emotions. All Of Us Are Dead follows a formulaic zombie plot, but this allows the show to challenge us with complex emotional struggles.

As we know from the real pandemic, a crisis doesn’t happen when an idyllic world is shattered by a few bad actors: it happens when the collective pressure of ignored pain and complacency is pushed to breaking point. Like all good zombie stories, All Of Us Are Dead was never about the zombies.

Read more:
Parasite’s win is the perfect excuse to get stuck into genre-bending and exciting Korean cinema

Naja Later 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. Zombies continue to be the ‘little black dress’ of social allegory in Netflix’s All Of Us Are Dead – https://theconversation.com/zombies-continue-to-be-the-little-black-dress-of-social-allegory-in-netflixs-all-of-us-are-dead-177625

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

Anthony Albanese is now level with Scott Morrison as “better prime minister” for the first time in more than two years in Newspoll, as Labor retains its 55-45% two-party lead.

The poll, published in The Australian, comes as Morrison has struggled to ward off criticism over the federal government’s response to the devastating floods in parts of NSW and Queensland.

Asked on Sunday whether he’d been too slow to act on the floods, Morrison told Nine, “We moved as quickly as the Defence Forces and the agencies can”.

Neither side’s primary vote changed in the past fortnight – the government remains on 35% and Labor on 41%. The Greens have lost a point, and are now 8%.

In their satisfaction ratings, Morrison trails Albanese by 16 points in net terms.

Morrison’s satisfaction rating is down 2 points to 41%; dissatisfaction with him remains on 55%. He has a net satisfaction rating of minus 14. Albanese’s satisfaction rating is still 44%; dissatisfaction with him is down a point to 42%. His net satisfaction is plus 2.

A fortnight ago, Morrison led Albanese 42-40 as better prime minister. A 2 point improvement for Albanese sees them now level.

The poll of 1520 was done between Wednesday and Saturday. During the week both leaders gave major economic and national security speeches, and Morrison made two major defence announcements.

On Nine’s Sixty Minutes on Sunday, Albanese said: “I’m hungry to win. […] I won’t leave anything on the field.”

As the government fails to close the polling gap, it is under increasing pressure over the cost of living, which is shaping up as a major issue for the May election.

With the escalation of petrol prices, Morrison on Sunday was quizzed on whether the budget might see a cut in fuel excise, which is 44 cents on every litre.

He said on Nine that any change in excise would not change price fluctuations, which were driven by “things well beyond the shores of Australia”.

Asked whether Labor was urging a cut in fuel excise to ease cost of living pressures, shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers said: “The conflict in Ukraine will have an economic impact, but it’s dishonest of Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg to pretend the costs of essentials like petrol weren’t already skyrocketing.

“The Morrison Government shouldn’t be using Ukraine as an excuse for prices which were already rising and real wages which were already falling well before the war.

“We’ll continue to work constructively with the government and crossbench on practical and responsible ways to reduce the costs of living pressures working families face.”

Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar told Sky “the cost of living is a significant issue”.

Sukkar said the budget would “take into account the fact that households are feeling the pressures of cost of living” – that would be “certainly a focus of the budget.”

He also said there was a consensus in the market there would be an interest rate rise in the second half of the year.

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. Anthony Albanese now level with Scott Morrison as ‘better PM’: Newspoll – https://theconversation.com/anthony-albanese-now-level-with-scott-morrison-as-better-pm-newspoll-179180

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeline Sprajcer, Lecturer in Psychology, CQUniversity Australia

This weekend, you might hit “place order” for a meal delivery. Or jump in a ride share to meet friends. In both cases, you’ll be engaging a gig worker.

“Gig worker” is a term that generally refers to people who get work through smartphone apps – think Uber, Ola, AirTasker, Snappr, and others.

Approximately 250,000 Australians are part of the gig economy – including many who consider it a “side hustle” on top of a regular job.

While gig work might be a good way to make some extra cash, our new research based on a survey of Australian gig workers, found they tend to be more stressed than other types of workers.

We also looked at coping strategies to try and find out how these workers could look after themselves better.

Read more:
Thinking of joining a multi-level marketing scheme or MLM as your side hustle? Read this first

Gig work is uncertain work

There are some key things that define gig work and can make it more stressful.

Gig work is generally unpredictable – you usually don’t know when the next gig is going to come. That means you’ll likely experience uncertainty – both around your time and your money – which can cause stress.

Our online survey of 49 gig workers found they reported higher levels of stress than the general population – regardless of the number of platforms or employers they worked for.

Participants were also more likely to be stressed if they worked fewer hours each week or earned under $20,000 each year. A recent Canadian study also found gig workers felt powerless and that financial strain contributed to increased stress.

We found having a higher level of education (such a university degree or postgraduate qualification) was associated with increased stress in gig workers. This might be the case for people doing gig work to pay the bills while searching for a job in their chosen field, such as university students or people who’ve come to live in Australia from overseas.

Making things better

We looked at how gig workers might better manage stress and what coping strategies might be the most helpful.

The most effective methods were emotional support (from family, friends, or other gig workers), planning, and active coping strategies that consider challenges then draw on available resources to seek help and find solutions to overcome them.

Avoidant strategies (disengagement, denial, venting) increased stress for the people in our study. These findings echo those reported by people who have highly stressful jobs, including intensive care nurses and student teachers.

Interestingly, some coping strategies that seem to be helpful for other groups of people aren’t as helpful for gig workers. For example, trying to understand a stressful situation better, positive reframing, and acceptance are effective for police officers, but don’t have the same benefits for gig workers.

This might be because the stressors faced by gig workers are intrinsic to their work characteristics (uncertainty, low incomes, unpredictable work hours) rather than the content of the work they need to do during a shift.

Read more:
A new deal for Uber drivers in UK, but Australia’s ‘gig workers’ must wait

So, what does this mean for Australian gig workers?

While we might not be able to change the nature of these working arrangements (yet), we can recommend certain strategies to help manage stress.

Getting support from family and friends is likely to be helpful, as is making a plan for finances and work time as much as possible. For some people, this might be deciding in advance when to “log on” and make themselves available for gigs, while also marking out some dedicated time off each week.

On the other hand, gig workers should try not to use avoidant strategies, such as trying to ignore the stressful issue, withdrawing from social activities, or seeking distracting risk-taking behaviours. Rather, they should try to take an active role in managing problems as they come up.

Despite the increase in Australians doing various kinds of gig work, there is still a lot we don’t know. This is a new area of research and data is difficult to collect with such a wide range of people involved who don’t congregate in any one workplace.

Despite the challenges, it is critical policies (as well as psychological support services) consider the potential impact of precarious, unstable working arrangements on the stress and mental well-being of workers.

Read more:
How to stop workers being exploited in the gig economy

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. Uncertainty, money worries and stress – gig workers need support and effective ways to cope – https://theconversation.com/uncertainty-money-worries-and-stress-gig-workers-need-support-and-effective-ways-to-cope-177910

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

University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Professor Paddy Nixon talk about this week in politics.

They canvass the flood disaster that has gripped parts of eastern Australia and Scott Morrison’s visit to affected areas. In Lismore an over-cautious PM, with memories of bad footage from the bushfires, avoided too much media exposure (apart from a news conference), and got some blowback for that.

They also discuss the role defence and national security are playing as the parties ramp up their campaigning efforts, and Anthony Albanese works to avoid the “wedge”.

Finally, they remember Kimberley Kitching, the Labor senator who died suddenly this week, aged 52.

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

– ref. VIDEO: Floods bring Morrison more trouble; Labor’s Kimberley Kitching remembered – https://theconversation.com/video-floods-bring-morrison-more-trouble-labors-kimberley-kitching-remembered-179083

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hanne E.F. Nielsen, Lecturer, University of Tasmania

Superbly clear images of the shipwreck Endurance, 3,000 metres below the ocean’s surface in Antarctica’s Weddell Sea, were this week broadcast around the world. Found by the Endurance 22 Expedition using a state-of-the-art autonomous underwater vehicle, we now have images almost as iconic as those taken of the stricken ship by Australian photographer and expedition member Frank Hurley in 1915.

Endurance was the ship of the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. Led by British-Irish explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton, the expedition aimed to cross Antarctica on foot for the first time, from the Weddell Sea (south of the Atlantic Ocean) to the Ross Sea (south of New Zealand), via the South Pole.

Endurance departed England in August 1914, just as the first world war was breaking out. The ship entered Antarctica’s pack ice in December 1914 and by February 1915 was firmly ice-bound in the Weddell Sea. By October, the shifting pack ice began to crush the ship, which sank the following month.

Hurley famously dived into the flooded interior of the sinking Endurance to retrieve about 120 photographic plates, leaving some 400 behind. The crew then trekked to the edge of the sea ice, and got to Elephant Island in April 1916. From there, Shackleton led a smaller team, using the lifeboat James Caird to cross the stormy Southern Ocean and reach the island of South Georgia to raise the alarm.

The expedition crew – and Hurley’s plates – were finally rescued in August 1916. His evocative images of the sinking ship helped the expedition gain widespread attention and cemented Endurance’s place in Antarctic history. But what became of the sunken ship?

The search for Endurance

The last known coordinates of the vessel were recorded by skipper Frank Worsley as 68°39’30 “S, 52°26’30 “W, but this was not verified until this week. The successful discovery came during the second major attempt in recent years to find the wreck.

Read more:
Endurance captain Frank Worsley, Shackleton’s gifted navigator, knew how to stay the course

In early 2019, the Weddell Sea Expedition, also privately financed and conducting a broader, multidisciplinary scientific survey of the area, was unsuccessful, having lost its autonomous submarine.

The current Endurance 22 Expedition has been similarly multidisciplinary, and benefited from an anonymous US$10 million private donation. This private sponsorship echoes Shackleton’s situation; his expeditions were funded through donations of both cash and supplies (which later appeared in advertisements).

Endurance is now an international heritage site

Even before its rediscovery, Endurance was a protected heritage site. In 2019, countries within the Antarctic Treaty System designated the unknown site of the wreck a “Historic Site and Monument”.

Other uncertain sites have also been preemptively recognised in this way, such as the tent left behind by Norwegian pioneer Roald Amundsen at the South Pole in 1911, now buried under snow, and the wreck of the San Telmo, a Spanish warship that sank south of Cape Horn in 1819.

These designations point to the importance of imagination whenever we deal with the very far south. Most people will never visit Antarctica, but the stories we carry with us about the place have broad cultural circulation.

The “historic site” designation protects “all artefacts contained within or formerly contained within the ship, which may be lying on the seabed in or near the wreck within a 150-metre radius”.

Accordingly, the Endurance 22 Expedition did not take anything physical from the wreck. But the new photographs of the ship’s final resting place tell a powerful story.

Changing views on Antarctica

The photographs not only bring Endurance vividly back to life; they invite new ways of picturing Antarctica in general. Deep sea fauna, including sea anemones, sea squirts and even a crab, crawl over the wreck, showing the vitality of the Antarctic seafloor and providing a window into an underwater world about which little is known. In much the same way, the recent remarkable discovery of 60 million ice fish nests in the Weddell Sea also demonstrates this vitality.

The images also raise questions about why we look to Antarctica, and what we see when we do. Is it a place for daring travellers to test their mettle – the view that prevailed during the “heroic age” of Antarctic exploration that ended with Shackleton’s voyage? Or is it a place for collaboration and collective endeavour between nations, as typified by the Antarctic Treaty and the continent’s latter-day status as primarily a place for scientific research?

These days, Antarctica is viewed through an environmental lens; rather than a place for humans to conquer, it is closely linked in the cultural imagination to climate change and images of melting ice. That makes the discovery of the ship even more interesting, given the recent discovery of the wreck benefited from a record low sea ice extent this summer.

Technology such as satellites and autonomous underwater vehicles mean Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are more surveilled than ever before. Yet much remains unknown about the frozen continent, and particularly about the deep seas that encircle it.

Read more:
We can all learn from Antarctica (when not stuck in the ice)

The discovery of Endurance shows how modern technology can help us find past artefacts and also look to the future. The ship provides a conceptual bridge between Antarctica’s history as a frontier of exploration, to our modern ideas of heritage preservation, international cooperation, scientific research and climate action.

Put more simply, finding the wreck of the Endurance presents us with a key moment to think about Antarctica’s storied past and its uncertain future.

Hanne E.F. Nielsen receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Alessandro Antonello receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The wreck of Endurance is a bridge to a bygone age, and a reminder of Antarctica’s uncertain future – https://theconversation.com/the-wreck-of-endurance-is-a-bridge-to-a-bygone-age-and-a-reminder-of-antarcticas-uncertain-future-179021

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sasha Grishin, Adjunct Professor of Art History, Australian National University

Review: Queer, National Gallery of Victoria

Many exhibitions claim to be a landmark show, but few live up to the hype. This one exceeds the hype.

Queer is a beautiful, strange, hard-hitting and challenging exhibition where the central concept is like liquid mercury that, on hitting a hard surface, instantly scatters into innumerable droplets – each perfect in itself.

It is a show about art made by people who consider themselves as queer. In some cases, it is an exploration of gender and sexuality. In others, it is a journey into a sensibility or an interpretation of existing art made by non-queer artists that can be interpreted through a queer perspective.

More specifically, it is an examination of art history through a “queer lens”, art that spans millennia and that is drawn from the fabulously rich collections of the National Gallery of Victoria. The exhibition is not anchored in any specific medium but ranges over many art forms through more than 400 artworks occupying five gallery spaces.

Queerness across millenia

This broad-brush approach to the concept of “queer” has meant that it is possible to include a Greek Chalkidian black-figure vase, 540 BCE, depicting Achilles, the Greek hero of the Trojan War, who, according to some readings of Aeschylus and Plato, took his warrior friend Patroclus as his lover.

In the context of this exhibition, it is an illustration of homosexual love in the ancient world.

Some 2,500 years later, in a remarkable photograph by Ponch Hawkes, two women embrace in a public display of their affection as part of the 1970s Gay Liberation Movement in Melbourne. Again it is an expression of a gay relationship celebrated through art.

In Christian iconography, some characters, including the youthful King David who as a shepherd and harpist slew the giant Goliath, were imbued by some artists with homoerotic qualities, such as in the wondrous painting by Johan Zoffany of 1756.

The making of a queer icon

Another example was Saint Sebastian, who was martyred by the Roman emperor Diocletian for his Christian faith and who was frequently shown as a beautiful almost naked youth tied to a tree or pillar and pierced with numerous arrows. Such depictions opened a path to erotic and phallic readings of the imagery.

Contrary to popular belief, Sebastian survived his experiences as a pincushion and was ultimately clubbed to death after he confronted the emperor over his evil ways. However, it was the saint transfixed by arrows that became his most enduring image and the excuse for artists to explore the beauty of the male nude.

Albrecht Dürer’s magnificent engraving of St Sebastian of 1501 may not have had a queer interpretation at the time of its creation, but by the 19th century, Sebastian had morphed into a gay icon. Oscar Wilde in his French exile took the alias Sebastian Melmoth.

Once the saintly image was freed of its canonical content, Sebastian marched through time attracting rich traditions of interpretation.

The fabulous Louise Bourgeois in her bold and monumental Ste Sébastienne, 1992, recreated the saint as a headless mutilated female who is surrounded by arrows that become a pointed reference to the contemporary persecution of women and a parallel to the historic persecution of Christianity by pagan rulers.

A new reading

One of the highlights of the exhibition is the fabulous costume designs by Leigh Bowery, the Melbourne-born artist, designer and performer, who revolutionised the English art scene in the 1980s making a great impact on Lucian Freud and Boy George.

Costumes including The Metropolitan (c. 1988) and Pregnant tutu head (1992) scandalised in a subversive manner the conventions of dress and performance art at the time.

Although many of the exhibits document the centuries of struggle for the recognition of queer rights, a queer identity or simply the right to exist as a queer person, the overwhelming prevailing theme of the exhibition is the celebration of love between two people of the same gender.

Quite a number of the assembled artworks are familiar to us, including Ethel Walker’s Lilith (c. 1920s) – the image of the first wife of the first man Adam but also possessing the properties of a primordial she-demon.

Also Glyn Philpot’s symbolic images, Agnes Goodsir’s celebration of her love for her beloved Cherry, the sensuous images of Janet Cumbrae Stewart and the homoerotic works of David Hockney, James Gleeson and Gilbert & George.

By assembling, for the first time, such a huge cross-section of art with its phenomenal cultural diversity, richness of imagery and exceptional artistic calibre, this exhibition suggests an alternative and viable reading for art history through a queer lens.

The curatorial team responsible for this extravagant exhibition – include the NGV curators Dr Ted Gott, Dr Angela Hesson, Myles Russell-Cook, Meg Slater, and Pip Wallis – all identify with the LGBTQ+ community and present an insider’s view of queer art.

It could be argued that the 20th century was the age of writing women back into a history of art. The opening decades of the 21st century represent an age when the “queer gaze” is presenting a new and alternative reading for art of the past and of the present.

Queer is at NGV International until August 21.

Sasha Grishin 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. ‘This show exceeds the hype’: NGV’s Queer advances a beautiful and challenging reading of the queer gaze in art – https://theconversation.com/this-show-exceeds-the-hype-ngvs-queer-advances-a-beautiful-and-challenging-reading-of-the-queer-gaze-in-art-176005

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Barry Gallagher, Associate Researcher, University of Tasmania

Over the last few years, there’s been a lot of hope placed in seaweed as a way to tackle climate change.

The excitement stemmed from studies suggesting seaweed could be scaled up to capture and store huge quantities of carbon dioxide, taking advantage of rapid growth rates, large areas, and long-term storage in the deep ocean.

At present it’s thought seaweed stores around 175 million tonnes annually of carbon, or 10% of the emissions from all the cars in the world. To many scientists, this suggested the possibility seaweed could join other blue carbon storage in mangroves and wetlands as a vital tool in the fight to stop climate change.

While we’re all ready for some good news on climate, there is nearly always a “but” in science. Our new research has identified a major overlooked issue. Is it significant? Unfortunately, yes. When we accounted for this, our calculations suggest on average seaweed ecosystems may not be a carbon sink after all, but a natural source of carbon.

How can this be?

There were good reasons to look to coastal seaweed as an important global carbon sink. Some species can grow as much as 60 centimetres per day. Seaweed covers around 3.4 million square kilometres of our oceans. And when wind and waves break off fronds and pieces of seaweed, some will escape being eaten and instead be whisked out to the deep ocean and deposited.

Read more:
How farming giant seaweed can feed fish and fix the climate

Once the seaweed is in deep waters or buried in sediments, the carbon it contains is safely locked away for several hundred years. That is to say, the time it takes ocean circulation to drive bottom waters towards the surface.

So what’s the issue?

As the surrounding coastal waters wash through the seaweed canopy, they bring in vast quantities of plankton and other organic material from further out at sea. This provides extra food for filter feeders like sea squirts, shellfish living amongst seaweed, and the bryozoan animals which end up coating many seaweed fronds.

As these creatures consume this extra food supply, they breathe out carbon dioxide additional to that produced by eating seaweed. Individually, the amount is tiny. But on an ecosystem scale, their numbers and ability to filter large amounts of water are enough to skew what researchers call the net ecosystem production – the balance between carbon dioxide inflows and outflows. And not just by a little, but potentially by a lot.

How did we figure this out? We collated global studies which directly measured or reported the key parts of net ecosystem production, ranging from polar regions to tropical.

Seaweed ecosystems, we found, were natural carbon sources, releasing on average around 20 tonnes per square kilometre every year.

But it could be much higher still. When we included estimates of how much carbon returned to the atmosphere from seaweed washed out towards the deep sea only to decompose or be eaten first, we found seaweed could be a much larger natural source.

We estimate it could be potentially as high as 150 tonnes emitted to the atmosphere per km² every year, in contrast to previous estimates that seaweed absorbs 50 tonnes per km². We must stress this figure has some uncertainty around it, given the difficulty of estimating the quantities involved.

Do we give up on seaweed carbon storage?

In short, no. If we lose seaweed, what would replace it? It could be urchin barrens – large rocky outcrops dominated by sea urchins – or smaller seaweed species, or mussel beds. Climate change is already showing us in some places, with giant kelp dying en masse due to marine heatwaves and background warming in Tasmania and being replaced by urchin barrens.

Read more:
Move over, corn and soybeans: The next biofuel source could be giant sea kelp

To make a true accounting of what seaweed offers in carbon storage, we need to factor in what any replacement ecosystem would offer.

If a replacement ecosystem is an even greater carbon source or smaller carbon sink than the original seaweed ecosystem, it follows we should maintain or restore existing seaweed ecosystems to reduce further greenhouse gas emissions. However, to date, we have not found sufficient data to test whether all replacement ecosystems are in fact greater or lesser carbon sources.

What does this mean for efforts to tackle climate change? It means we should not look to seaweed as a silver bullet.

Any efforts to quantify seaweed carbon storage and mitigation for the protection, restoration or farming of seaweed must make a full accounting of carbon inputs and output to ensure we are not unwittingly making the problem worse rather than better.

As some carbon trading schemes look to include seaweed, we must not overestimate how good seaweed is at storing carbon.

If we get this wrong, we could see perverse outcomes where industries offset their emissions by funding the preservation or restoration of seaweeds – but in doing so, actually increase their emissions rather than zero them out.

John Barry Gallagher 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. Kelp won’t help: why seaweed may not be a silver bullet for carbon storage after all – https://theconversation.com/kelp-wont-help-why-seaweed-may-not-be-a-silver-bullet-for-carbon-storage-after-all-178018

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lara Herrero, Research Leader in Virology and Infectious Disease, Griffith University

This week we heard two Australians have died from the mosquito-borne Japanese encephalitis virus. The virus has now been detected in four states.

Authorities are concerned we’ll see more cases around the country and have earmarked extra funding to roll out vaccines to those at risk.

Who is recommended to have the vaccine depends on factors including their age, occupation and location. Here’s what you need to know about accessing the vaccine in Australia, ahead of further announcements expected in coming days.

Read more:
Japanese encephalitis virus has been detected in Australian pigs. Can mozzies now spread it to humans?

What is Japanese encephalitis?

Japanese encephalitis is caused by the Japanese encephalitis virus. It spreads through mosquito bites. It cannot be transmitted from human to human.

Most people will show no symptoms. However, 1% will develop swelling of the brain (encephalitis). Of those who have symptoms, up to 30% will die and a further 50% will have life-long neurological disability. The infection is particularly severe in the elderly or the young.

The virus had previously been found in Southeast Asia, Western Pacific regions, and in the Torres Strait.

However, because of its spread into new regions further south, last week Japanese encephalitis was designated a communicable disease of national significance.

Tell me more about the vaccines

Currently, seven Japanese encephalitis virus vaccines are licensed for use in humans globally. Two of these – Imojev and JEspect – are approved for use in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

Imojev is approved for those from nine months of age and is given as a single dose. JEspect is approved for use from two months of age and is given as two doses, 28 days apart. JEspect can be given to pregnant women, if necessary.

The level of immunity from these vaccines varies. A single dose of Imojev can provide immunity for up to five years. Whereas JEspect requires two doses to provide immunity for two years, with some studies suggesting a third booster after 12 months provides longer protection.

Read more:
Zika, dengue, yellow fever: what are flaviviruses?

These vaccinations come with some side effects. These include redness, pain and mild swelling at the vaccination site. Other side effects include headache, fatigue and muscle pains.

These vaccines vary in the way they are prepared. Also, different strains of the virus are used to make the different vaccines. This can ultimately affect how well they work to prevent disease if there is a change in the current circulating virus strain.

Who can get the vaccine?

Vaccination is currently recommended for high-risk groups, which currently includes:

• laboratory workers who work with the virus

• travellers who will spend one month or more in an endemic region

• people living or working in the outer islands of the Torres Strait.

Before the current spread of Japanese encephalitis you could get the vaccine at GP clinics specialising in travel medicine. It costs A$300-350, which includes a GP visit and the vaccine itself.

But with the spread of the virus in mainland Australia, the definition of high risk will likely change and the vaccine may be available to those high-risk groups via their GP or at work. At this stage we don’t know if the vaccines would be free, but that will be confirmed in coming days.

For instance, piggery workers are among workers expected to be considered high risk and be offered the vaccine.

That’s because Japanese encephalitis virus infects pigs (it has been detected in piggeries in NSW, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia). The virus then enters the mosquito population when they bite pigs, which then later bite humans and spread it to us.

A national group of communicable disease, vaccine and virus experts is considering whether a wide vaccine rollout is needed and if so, how this might work.

National cabinet is also expected to discuss the issue and make further announcements shortly.

How can I protect myself, even without the vaccine?

There are currently no specific treatments for people with Japanese encephalitis. Symptoms are managed with supportive care, including fluids and pain relief.

Vaccination is one form of protection. However, the most useful protection comes from not being bitten by a mosquito in the first place.

Read more:
How to mozzie-proof your property after a flood and cut your risk of mosquito-borne disease

Lara Herrero receives funding from NHMRC for mosquito-transmitted viruses.

Penny Rudd has received funding from the Qld government to repurpose drugs for mosquito borne viruses and currently receives funding from NHMRC for vaccine development towards viral diseases.

– ref. Do I or my child need a Japanese encephalitis vaccine? – https://theconversation.com/do-i-or-my-child-need-a-japanese-encephalitis-vaccine-178888

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Talis Putnins, Professor of Finance, University of Technology Sydney

The decision by the Australian National University (ANU) and other universities in Australia and overseas to suspend all ties and activities with Russian research institutions, while significant in its moral stance, could have unintended consequences.

We need to be careful we are not shutting off networks and ceasing dialogue with Russians, as this is counterproductive and empowers Russia’s propaganda machine.

Keeping open the lines of academic communication, among other channels, is necessary to support the groundswell of opposition within Russia to the war in Ukraine. Informal networks can bypass Russian government censorship and are doing so.

Read more:
Is Russia really about to cut itself off from the internet? And what can we expect if it does?

In an open letter ANU academics recently wrote:

“[T]his policy primarily affects the research and educational institutions in Russia, and ultimately Russian scholars who may be the last remaining voice of reason in the country.

”[…] The policy of alienating Russian researchers at large will only help the Russian state’s propaganda of aggression and isolation. This policy will likely be interpreted as yet another case of western russophobia.“

The choice confronting ordinary Russians

There is a dissonance confronting the Russian people right now. While local TV is running stories about Russia “liberating” Ukraine via a “special military action”, the messaging does not match the reality on the streets.

Shelves in Russia are becoming empty. Prices are spiking. Credit cards, Apple Pay and Google Pay no longer work for Russians. The dollar value of their savings has been cut in half, and there are long queues for ATMs.

These impacts will only increase in coming weeks with the flow-on effects of recent Western corporate and government actions.

Critically, there are two ways that Russian people could respond to this dissonance.

One is to recognise these impacts are a direct consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and turn on their government in a civil uprising that topples the Putin regime, or at a minimum weakens his ability to sustain the invasion.

Another is to turn against the West, as the perceived “enemy” attacking Russia.

Therein lies the challenge.

Read more:
Ukraine: what anti-war protesters in Russia risk by speaking out

What can we do?

The first step is to recognise that ordinary Russian people are victims in this war as well. They, for the large part, had no say in the invasion of Ukraine, yet are paying a substantial price for it.

In the US, a congressman proposed “kicking every Russian student out of the United States”. That conflates the Russian people with the Russian government, but does nothing to undermine Vladimir Putin or support Ukraine.

Does this mean we should ease up on the sanctions? No. Despite the collateral damage they impose, sanctions are a critical weapon that the West can use to undermine Putin’s military aggression, given the reluctance to go into combat.

What we also need to do, though, is fight the information barriers being put up by the Russian government. We can help Russians see what the rest of the world sees.

That includes the horrors and suffering Ukrainians are going through, the mounting casualties on both sides including civilians, the lack of any reasonable justification for the invasion, and the misinformation being spread by the Russian government.

It is virtually impossible to censor all external communications, email, online platforms and internet-based information services. There are ways to get through to Russian citizens. As the list of censored or blocked sites changes, so too must the channels we use.

We may need to move between platforms or use creative ways to connect. For example, the use of virtual private networks (VPN) from Russia to bypass internet censorship spiked 633% in the past week.

Rather than buckling to Putin’s efforts to suppress them, social media networks can consider creative ways to allow Russians to continue accessing their services.

For example, Twitter recently launched a privacy-protected site on the dark web to bypass Russia’s blocking of its service. Other platforms and media services should consider similar actions to maintain the flow of information to the Russian people.

Read more:
Economic sanctions may deal fatal blow to Russia’s already-weak domestic opposition

Individuals can take it upon themselves to speak directly with Russian citizens. For example, my colleague, Marta Khomyn, has made such an offer.

We can also draw on our networks. For example, Russian academics living abroad have used their university networks to connect with academics in Russia. Others can use business networks or social networks.

This is a war about Russia’s future too

We should ensure the attitude we display towards ordinary Russians is not one of resentment but rather one of willingness to work together to bring an end to the war. Russians are also suffering, so there is a natural alignment of incentives to end the war – an alignment that gives us common ground and a reason to work together.

What’s more, this is a war about Russia’s future as well as Ukraine’s. There arguably has never been a better time for the Russian people to break free of the oppressive regime and choose a liberal and democratic future.

We can recognise and applaud the brave Russians, including many academics and students, who are actively speaking out against the war, and work with the Russian people rather than against them.

Talis Putnins receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

– ref. Why universities need to open the lines of communication with Russians, not close them – https://theconversation.com/why-universities-need-to-open-the-lines-of-communication-with-russians-not-close-them-179080

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabrielle Appleby, Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW Sydney

The Senate’s education and employment legislation committee is discussing a Greens bill designed to shore up the independence of the Australian Research Council (ARC).

The inquiry has revealed important questions about research independence, ministerial responsibility for grant programs, and the failures of parliamentary oversight of the spending of public money.

A stoush has emerged over apparently competing principles on the role of ministerial involvement – but there is a better way to do this.

Read more:
‘Disappointment and disbelief’ after Morrison government vetoes research into student climate activism’

Ministers have vetoed ARC grants before

It was revealed on Christmas Eve 2021 the acting education minister, Stuart Robert, had vetoed six ARC discovery grants.

The ARC’s rigorous peer-review selection process had recommended each grant against established criteria.

The minister vetoed the grants on the basis they “did not demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money nor contribute to the national interest”.

All six were in the humanities, and included grants relating to literary studies, China and climate action.

These vetos were not the first: in 2018 11 grants worth A$4.2 million were vetoed by the minister, with a total of 32 vetoed since 2005.

Ministerial veto power over projects recommended through the ARC process has attracted wide condemnation as the politicisation of academic research in the country.

Academics, writers and public intellectuals have called for the federal government to change the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to remove the minister’s discretionary veto powers and shore up the ARC’s independence.

The bill now before the Senate committee, first introduced in 2018, aims to achieve this.

What does the law currently say?

The Australian Research Council Act 2001 states the minister is responsible for approving research grants. In deciding which proposals to approve

the minister may (but is not required to) rely solely on recommendations made by the CEO [of the ARC].

The minister cannot direct the CEO to recommend particular proposals should be funded, but does retain the power to refuse to fund a recommended proposal.

What about the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)? Grants from its Medical Research Endowment Account are provided “in such cases and subject to such conditions as the minister, acting on the advice of the CEO, determines”.

The NHMRC says this means the minister retains the ability to “approve some or all or none of the grants recommended by the CEO”. But the wording of the act seems less than clear on this issue.

In any event, there is no record of a minister acting against the advice of the CEO of the NCMRC.

Research independence, accountability and ministerial involvement

Before the Senate committee, competing views have been expressed about ministerial involvement.

On the one hand, Universities Australia and the Group of Eight Universities are arguing the legislation should enshrine the UK’s Haldane Principle of Research Independence.

This requires that decisions about how governments allocate research funding should be determined by researchers, not politicians.

Parliaments and ministers can retain oversight of the process by setting the selection process and criteria, appointing officers to the ARC and reviewing the final reports.

On the other hand, the Department of Education, Skills and Employment and the Australian Research Council argue the ARC’s decisions are appropriately subject to final approval (or veto) by the minister.

This, they argue, is on the basis it would be improper to bind a minister to exercise a decision-making power in accordance with the views or recommendations of a third party (the ARC).

Such provisions are supposed to ensure there is a direct line of accountability between parliament and the expenditure of public funds. The minister supposedly provides that line of accountability, as the person who sits in parliament and must answer to it.

Read more:
The High Court school chaplains case and what it means for Commonwealth funding

But we know, of course, that ministerial involvement in decisions about public money is often where a failure of accountability occurs.

The Australian National Audit Office has repeatedly found systemic problems with the way ministerial funding discretion is exercised (including in relation to high-profile scandals around car park grants and sporting grants).

The Audit Office has found ministers are making decisions not necessarily informed by expert opinion, and the reasons for decisions are not recorded and unclear to the parliament.

This could be said to be the case in relation to the recent research funding decisions; the minister’s statement simply repeated the criteria of value for money and contribution to the national interest. It provided no transparency for the reasons behind the decisions.

These recent experiences seriously undermine the claim that retaining a ministerial discretion is the best or only way to achieve “responsibility” for these decisions.

What could an independent and accountable research grant scheme look like?

Unfortunately, the current framework for research funding under the ARC Act (and the NHMRC Act for that matter), guarantees neither research independence nor accountability for public money.

But these principles are not in irreconcilable tension. A balance between independence and accountability is possible.

Parliament and ministers could be involved in setting the criteria and process against which funding is assessed and allocated by the ARC. The act already provides for this.

This should be supplemented by statutory reporting requirements to the minister and parliament. The minister should then allocate funding in accordance with the recommendations of the ARC, following a process and criteria over which he or she – and the parliament – has exercised oversight.

But what role, if any, might exist for a ministerial veto or “backstop”? There is certainly no accountability imperative for it.

Indeed, in its current opaque form it risks adding less accountability, not more.

Read more:
Why we resigned from the ARC College of Experts after minister vetoed research grants

Gabrielle Appleby is the Director of the Centre for Public Integrity. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. As the Senate discusses research and ministerial vetoes, here’s one idea for an independent, accountable grant scheme – https://theconversation.com/as-the-senate-discusses-research-and-ministerial-vetoes-heres-one-idea-for-an-independent-accountable-grant-scheme-179078

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Thompson, Associate Professor of Media Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The announcement of the government’s decision to merge RNZ and TVNZ into a non-profit “public media entity” was long anticipated but, coming in the second year of Labour’s second term, underwhelming in its lack of detail.

Cabinet had discussed the proposal back in 2019, and yesterday’s announcement was expected to be the culmination of extensive planning, consulting, expert committees and corporate accounting reports.

The protracted process was intended to give shape to the broadcasting minister’s vision of a multi-platform public service provider capable of fulfilling its cultural and civil remit into the 21st century.

And while it’s significant that the government recognises the importance of strong public media across all platforms in New Zealand, and is committed to its strategic vision, in many respects the announcement raises more questions than it answers.

Commercial tension

Firstly, how will the organisational and governance structures across radio, television and online services function? Minister Kris Faafoi has indicated that these details will now be delegated to a new “establishment committee”, although the Strong Public Media governance group had delivered a business case to cabinet last year.

Complications arise because TVNZ is a commercial entity, which competes directly with other commercial media for (slowly declining) audiences and advertising revenues, while RNZ is a fully funded public service provider with a charter.

Read more:
BBC funding: licence fee debate risks overlooking value of UK’s public broadcasters

The minister has affirmed that the current non-commercial radio services will be retained. But aligning the commercial television arm and future online services – for example, the integration of the RNZ and TVNZ news operations – entails potentially contradictory priorities, even under the broad directives of a public charter.

Secondly, what funding arrangements will support the new public media entity? The ratio of public to commercial revenues and the mechanisms for ensuring its adequacy across future changes of government are critical, but have not been specified – although some redacted figures in related cabinet papers suggest these have been estimated.

The minister suggests these will be determined through forthcoming budget deliberations. If this implies that the level of funding depends on annual budget wrangling with other cabinet portfolios, then there is little hope of gaining substantial and sustainable commitment over the demands of health, education, housing and other policy priorities.

Budget uncertainty

Faafoi’s predecessor, Clare Curran, ran into this problem in 2018. Having announced an anticipated investment of NZ$38 million to develop RNZ’s services, the budget delivered only $15 million.

Prior to that, Labour’s attempt to restructure TVNZ with a dual-remit charter was compromised by cabinet disagreements. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage allocated $95 million of public funding only for Treasury to extract $142 million in dividends.

Read more:
Closures, cuts, revival and rebirth: how COVID-19 reshaped the NZ media landscape in 2020

Crucially, balancing public service and commercial expectations requires the organisational structure and funding arrangements to be in sync. But this is unlikely to happen if one is determined by a committee and the other is left to the uncertainties of the budget.

There are successful public service operators, such as RTE in Ireland or CBC in Canada, which have mixed commercial and public funding. In both cases, though, the public ratio is over 50%. It would be wishful thinking to suppose cabinet would provide 50% public funding to align TVNZ’s services with a public charter remit.

That would cost at least $150 million per year – triple the current allocation to RNZ and TVNZ. When reliance on commercial revenue predominates, commissioning and scheduling decisions inevitably reflect the imperative to optimise eyeballs and advertising dollars.

Read more:
Crisis, disintegration and hope: only urgent intervention can save New Zealand’s media

Time is tight

Even with base-line funding assured for the non-commercial RNZ services, without any mechanism to ensure adequate ratios are maintained, there is a risk that future revenue increases will come to depend increasingly on developing commercial spin-offs online.

This would inevitably affect the new entity’s capacity to use the expansion of its online services to deliver more diverse content to a full range of audiences.

The minister has suggested the new entity will be established by 2023. Given the legislation has yet to be drafted, that time-line is already tight. Any further delays or announcements of bold intentions without concrete substance will risk pushing Labour’s public media plans further toward the 2023 election.

If the new entity has not been established before then, and with Labour slipping in the polls, all bets on the future of public media in Aotearoa New Zealand are off.

Peter Thompson is a board member of the Better Public Media Trust.

– ref. Merging commercial TVNZ and non-commercial RNZ won’t be easy – and time is running out – https://theconversation.com/merging-commercial-tvnz-and-non-commercial-rnz-wont-be-easy-and-time-is-running-out-179077

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Woodcock, Associate Professor of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney

Throughout the 2021 National Rugby League (NRL) season, commentators bemoaned the number of “blowout” results with a wide margin of victory between the sides.

The average margin of victory during the season was 17.89 points, higher than for any season during the preceding decade.

Many critics, including NRL legend Johnathan Thurston, blamed recent rule changes, which aimed to speed up the game and reduce defending teams’ ability to regroup and catch a breather by giving away a penalty. The new rule, they argued, allows stronger teams to drive weaker opposition to exhaustion more easily.

But as every amateur statistician on Reddit can tell you, correlation does not imply causation. And if we take a closer look at the data, it seems the NRL isn’t quite as dull and predictable as feared.

No blowouts in Blighty

The rule change was also adopted by the world’s only other top-level rugby league competition, the English-based Super League. And, in contrast to the NRL, it didn’t see an uptick in one-sided games.

In fact, games in the 2021 Super League were closer overall (a 16.26-point average winning margin) than the year before (17.65). These figures are both lower than the 2021 NRL average, despite the widespread acceptance there is a bigger financial disparity between strong and weak teams in the Super League than there is in Australia.

For comparison, since the first Super League grand final in 1998, just four teams have won the competition and a further five have been defeated in the grand final. Over the same period, every NRL team (except the Gold Coast Titans, which only joined in 2007) has reached a grand final, and 12 clubs have been premiers.

Read more:
The NRL’s unrivalled equality means back-to-back premierships are very rare

Similarly, looking at the two main state competitions in Australia, neither the Queensland Cup nor the New South Wales Cup saw such margins of victory occurring as in the NRL. So this suggests the rule changes alone are not to blame.

How do other sports stack up?

It’s not easy to compare winning margins across sports, because of the many different scoring systems. However, we can look at other measures of predictability.

One method is to compare the score margins for the two halves of the game. A correlation of 1 between these would mean the team leading at half-time will definitely replicate this performance in the second half, thus showing the game is highly predictable. Conversely, a correlation of 0 would mean we can’t predict anything about the second half based solely on the score at half-time, suggesting the final result is excitingly difficult to call.

Based on this reasoning, how did the 2021 NRL season stack up? Well, although it was the most predictable in a decade (with a correlation of 0.303), this figure is far from remarkable when compared with other sporting codes.

In fact, it is almost identical to the ten-year (2012-21) average in the Australian Football League (AFL), and far below the high correlations seen in the mens’ AFL seasons of 2012 (0.478) and 2016 (0.457). It’s also well below that seen in Super Netball in both 2017 and 2018.

Interestingly, all the major Australian leagues are much more predictable than their North American counterparts. Looking at comparable data from the National Football League (NFL) and National Basketball Association (NBA), we routinely see correlations between the two halves’ margins much closer to 0, or even in negative territory, which means the team trailing at half-time is more likely to stage a comeback than slip further behind. The NBA, for example, typically sees correlations around -0.1.

Punting predictability

Across all sports, few factors predict outcomes as accurately as the pregame bookmakers’ odds. For each game the bookies issue a percentage probability of each team winning; obviously the “bookies’ favourite” team in each game has a higher percentage, depending on how close the game is predicted to be.

We can therefore measure the predictability of a league season by taking the average of the percentages assigned to every favourite team in every game.

In the NRL, this figure was 72% in 2020 and 76% in 2021 – the first time in more than a decade it has climbed above 70%. While this drop in competitiveness looks concerning, it should be viewed in the context of recent history. By comparison, the COVID-disrupted 2020 season was the only AFL season in that period not to average above 70%.

While there are periodic rumblings about AFL blowouts, it is generally seen as an open and entertaining competition each year.

All to play for in 2022

Although 2021 NRL scorelines were slightly more lopsided than during the previous decade, there is no real evidence to suggest recent rule tweaks were primarily to blame.

What’s more, looking across various measures of predictability, last year’s results were far from anomalous or concerning.

Read more:
AFL and NRL grand final TV ratings show codes still rely on their traditional heartlands

In any sporting league, tactics are inherently cyclical. Innovative coaches find ways to gain an edge, perhaps by exploiting a rule change, before others find ways to counter this innovation.

Indeed, the intensively analysed rule changes of the past couple of years have been slightly tweaked yet again for the 2022 season, to discourage cynical infringements that were seen to benefit the offending team.

So there’s every reason to expect the 2022 NRL season, which kicked off with reigning champions Penrith thrashing Manly 28-6, will be as unpredictable and competitive as any major competition in the Australian sporting landscape.

Stephen Woodcock 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. Have the NRL’s rule changes made boring blowouts the norm? The stats say no – https://theconversation.com/have-the-nrls-rule-changes-made-boring-blowouts-the-norm-the-stats-say-no-178992

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin O’Brien, Associate Professor, Centre for Justice, Queensland University of Technology

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has drawn swift condemnation from the United Nations, world leaders and protesters.

But the outrage doesn’t stop there. McDonald’s has just temporarily closed 850 restaurants across Russia, while Starbucks says its 100 outlets will also shut.

This follows boycotts of Russian vodka in Australia, Europe and North America, with patrons shunning Russian brands of vodka, bartenders pouring it down the sink and major outlets like Dan Murphy’s removing the spirit from their shelves.

As researchers of political activism and participation, we are interested in how individuals use their consumer and investor power to respond to Russia’s actions.

Applying economic pressure on foreign regimes is typically the domain of governments through sanctions. But what researchers call “political consumerism” offers individuals a chance to join the protest by applying their own personal sanctions.

How is this working against Russia?

What is political consumerism?

Whether we do it for political or ethical reasons, deciding what we buy (or don’t buy) is one of the most common forms of political participation in western liberal democracies.

Consumers can join boycotts to punish a company, or “buycotts” to reward them.

Consumers can make lifestyle commitments like veganism to align with their stance on animal rights or the environment. Individuals can also engage in “political investorism”, as our soon to be published research shows, by selecting ethical portfolios for superannuation or pension funds, supporting shareholder resolutions, or advocating for divestment.

While political consumerism is often directed at corporations, it can also be directed against countries. We may not be able to directly lobby a foreign government or vote out their president. But we can send a clear message through a “surrogate boycott” by targeting the brands, products and companies from that country.

Surrogate boycotts

Surrogate boycotts are not new. In 1995 consumers boycotted French wine and cheese to protest France’s nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Israel has since been the target of a longstanding boycott, divest and sanction campaign over Palestine.

Read more:
Ukraine: the UN’s ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine is a hollow promise for civilians under fire

Yet the rapid and extensive boycott against Russia ranging from caviar and white fish to films and sports teams suggests a growing normalisation of boycotts and political consumerism as a response to government actions.

Russian companies, sportspeople and even opera singers are now the proxy target for the Russian government, facing surrogate boycotts in addition to economic sanctions.

The surrogate boycott of Russia is not limited to Russian-owned companies or Russian-made products like vodka.

Activist groups also called for boycotts on companies that were slow to halt their own operations in Russia, including Coca Cola, Hyundai, Starbucks and McDonald’s. Two weeks after the invasion, these companies have now bowed to pressure and suspended certain operations.

Not just symbolism

Refusing to buy a Big Mac, or opting for a French-made Grey Goose vodka martini is not going to turn the tanks around. But these DIY sanctions serve an important symbolic function by condemning a country’s damaging actions and catalysing companies to join the protest.

Beyond symbolism, protesting Russia’s actions through political consumerism may have real impacts.

While governments can impose sanctions and import bans, consumers and investors can expand the scope of economic pressure. The threat of consumer and investor pressure may have contributed to the decision by major multinational companies like Apple, Visa, Mastercard and others to quickly cease operations in Russia.

What about the oil?

That pressure is now building around Russia’s oil and gas production. More than 600 civil society organisations from 57 countries have asked governments to end all trade and investment in Russian fossil fuels.

Before world leaders began to impose bans on Russian oil imports and investments, several major companies including BP and Norwegian energy company Equinor had already divested. Superannuation and pension funds were being pressured to do the same.

Australian non-government organisation Market Forces has criticised five Australian superannuation funds for their investments in Russian fossil fuels and encouraged individuals to lobby their own super funds to divest.

Meanwhile, the board of directors of Russia’s second largest oil company, Lukoil, has called for a quick end to the conflict in Ukraine. This follows a dramatic fall in its share price and threatened boycotts of Lukoil gas stations in the United States.

Ultimately, we all need to consider how we spend our money and what economic connections we may have with an aggressive regime.

Erin O’Brien receives funding from the Australian Research Council through a DECRA Fellowship to study ethical consumerism.

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

– ref. Can a martini stop Putin? How consumers and investors are imposing DIY sanctions on Russia – https://theconversation.com/can-a-martini-stop-putin-how-consumers-and-investors-are-imposing-diy-sanctions-on-russia-178643

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

Exactly two years ago, on March 11 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.

This was two months after there were reports of a mystery virus infecting people in Wuhan, the most populous city in central China. Early reports said the virus didn’t appear to be readily spread by humans.

Well, the SARS-CoV-2 virus could indeed be spread by humans. It quickly travelled around the world, and has so far infected more than 450 million people.

COVID-19, the disease it causes, has to date caused more than six million deaths, making it one of the most deadly pandemics in history.

In those early days we knew very little about the virus and COVID.

Here are three things we realised were wrong as the pandemic wore on, and three things we need to keep a close eye on as we approach the endemic phase, where the virus continues to circulate in the population at relatively stable levels.

1. Many were worried we wouldn’t get a vaccine

In early 2020 we didn’t know whether a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was possible.

There had been previous attempts to develop vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), two similar coronaviruses that also caused outbreaks this century. A few of these vaccines entered clinical trials, but none were approved.

Before COVID, the fastest developed vaccine was for mumps which took four years.

But in under 12 months, Pfizer/BioNTech developed a successful vaccine. Now we have 12 vaccines approved for full use in different parts of the world, 19 for emergency use, and more than 100 still in the clinical trial stages.

Both Pfizer and Moderna have also commenced clinical trials of an Omicron-specific vaccine.

There are also several research groups around the world developing vaccines aiming to work against all SARS-CoV-2 variants.

2. Some thought we didn’t need face masks

In the early days, without a vaccine, to reduce transmission we had to rely on individual preventative measures such as hand hygiene, social distancing and face masks.

Although there was widespread acceptance hand washing and social distancing protected against infection, face masks were much more controversial.

Before April 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advised against the wearing of face masks by the public. There were apparently two reasons for this.

First, the CDC was afraid there wasn’t a sufficient supply of surgical and N95 masks, which were essential in high-risk settings.

Second, it was thought at the time asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people could not transmit the virus (we now know they can).

However, on April 3 2020, the CDC changed its advice and recommended the general public wear multi-layered cloth face masks.

This has now been updated to wearing a well-fitting mask that is consistently worn.

With the advent of Omicron, some experts say cloth face masks aren’t up to the task and people should at least wear surgical masks, or even better respirator masks like a P2, KN95 or N95.

Read more:
COVID mask mandates might be largely gone but here are 5 reasons to keep wearing yours

3. We worried a lot about surface transmission

In the early days of the pandemic, it was thought contaminated surfaces were a major means of COVID transmission.

People wore gloves when going to the supermarket (some still do), and washed food packages once they got home.

However, we now know the virus is spread primarily through aerosol and droplet transmission.

When a person coughs or sneezes, droplets containing mucous, saliva, water and virus particles can land on other people or drop onto surfaces.

Larger droplets tend not to travel very far and fall quickly.

Smaller droplets called aerosols, can stay airborne for an extended period of time before settling.

Scientists now believe transmission through touching contaminated surfaces is quite rare.

3 things to watch out for

There are three key issues we need to be aware of as COVID slowly becomes endemic.

1. New variants

There’s still the potential for new and more severe variants to hit us. One of the main reasons for this is the low rates of vaccination in many developing countries. The more the virus replicates in unvaccinated populations, the greater the chance of mutations and variants.

Vaccine manufacturers Pfizer and Moderna either manufacture the vaccine in their own facilities, or licence the right to produce the vaccine in other countries.

This puts it out of reach financially for most developing countries, who then have to rely on the COVAX initiative for supplies. COVAX is a worldwide facility funded by developed countries and donor organisations to purchase vaccines to be distributed to developing countries.

Researchers at the Texas Children’s Hospital’s Center for Vaccine Development have unveiled a protein-based vaccine called Corbevax. It uses established and easy-to-manufacture technology, and is being provided patent-free to developing countries. It has now received emergency use authorisation in India.

It has over 80% efficacy against symptomatic disease, though this is against the no-longer dominant Delta variant. Trials are currently under way to determine its efficacy against Omicron.

If approved, this should greatly help lift vaccination rates in many developing countries.

Read more:
CORBEVAX, a new patent-free COVID-19 vaccine, could be a pandemic game changer globally

2. Waning immunity

Many older and vulnerable people had their third dose in November or December last year, with their immunity now waning fast.

We need to provide a fourth vaccine dose as soon as possible to the elderly and vulnerable.

3. Long COVID

Politicians are ignoring long COVID.

With thousands of cases a day in Australia, over the next year we will be getting a tsunami of people suffering from long-term health problems.

So, we simply cannot ignore high case numbers and would be wise to retain at least some public health measures (for example, face mask mandates) in order to bring case numbers down.

Some good news is that Australia’s Medical Research Future Fund will be funding research into long COVID this year.

Read more:
Long COVID: For the 1 in 10 patients who become long-haulers, COVID-19 has lasting effects

The beginning of the end

State and territory governments are now dismantling public health measures such as the use of QR codes, social distancing measures and face mask mandates.

Their thinking is that although case numbers are still quite high, hospitalisations are going down – and of course, elections are in sight. Chief public health officers, who used to give daily briefings, are now rarely seen.

“Give us our freedom back” is now a commonly heard cry, even if the inevitable consequence means this is at the expense of elderly and vulnerable people.

In a nutshell, many believe we have moved already from epidemic to endemic status.

As much as we all wish for this to be over and life to get back to normal, we aren’t quite there yet.

But I think with better vaccines and improved treatments on the way, it’s at least the beginning of the end.

Adrian Esterman 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. COVID pandemic 2nd anniversary: 3 things we got wrong, and 3 things to watch out for – https://theconversation.com/covid-pandemic-2nd-anniversary-3-things-we-got-wrong-and-3-things-to-watch-out-for-177618

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Haslam, Professor of Psychology and ARC Laureate Fellow, The University of Queensland

As French statesman Charles de Gaulle once said, faced with crisis a man of character “falls back on himself. He imposes his own stamp of action, takes responsibility for it, makes it his own”.

So how, then, might we judge Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s character amid the flood catastrophe facing parts of Queensland and New South Wales?

Morrison has faced heavy criticism for his sluggish response. When touring flood-ravaged Lismore in NSW this week, he avoided locals who wanted to meet him. And his declaration of a national emergency came many days too late, well after the floodwaters peaked.

For the last two decades, I’ve worked with colleagues around the world to study the psychological resilience of communities in a crisis, and the importance of leadership in dealing with trauma. We offer lessons that might help Scott Morrison and other leaders better serve disaster-stricken people next time.

Give us hope

Only three months in, 2022 has already provided a glut of crises around the world requiring strong leadership. Along with the horrendous flooding along Australia’s east coast, we have a new wave of a deadly virus and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatening to start a world war.

For Australian leaders, COVID has been one long lesson in crisis management. What’s more, it came on the heels of devastating bushfires in the summer of 2019-20 and floods in early 2021.

But Morrison has struggled with this crash course in leadership. When criticised about the speed of his flood response, the PM focused almost entirely on limits to material resources, saying:

I don’t think in situations like this there can ever be enough support […] I mean, no amount of support is going to measure up to what people need in a desperate situation like this.

At a material level, this is entirely true. Indeed, given the utterly desperate situation in which Ukrainians find themselves, President Volodymyr Zelentskyy might well have made the same point to his people even more convincingly.

He didn’t, though. The core task for a leader in a crisis is not to explain why we are going to fail. People need hope that, together, we can prevail – and that costs nothing.

So how might Morrison have done better?

My colleagues and I recently released a book examining the dynamics of effective leadership across contemporary society. We have also published research on leadership during recent crises, notably COVID-19 and the Black Summer bushfires.

Our work points to several lessons for leaders looking to rally the groups they lead. Below, I focus on the two most important.

Being one of us

Whatever group they belong to, people are generally most influenced by those who seem to represent that group – whether it’s our team, our party or our country.

The more a leader is seen to represent us, the more we’re inclined to trust and follow them.

This is particularly important in a crisis. After the Christchurch massacre, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern went to great lengths to engage with the Muslim community, and dressed in ways that spoke to a sense of shared grief and shared identity.

Likewise, in Kyiv, Volodymyr Zelenskyy reassured Ukrainians by posting videos of himself in battle fatigues on the ground, mingling with his followers. “We are all here,” he proclaimed. “Our soldiers are here. The citizens are here. And we are here”.

Yet for many Australians, a defining feature of Morrison’s crisis leadership is that he is never here. And when he is, he seems not to be here for us.

Probably the most enduring image of Morrison’s handling of a disaster is of his holiday in Hawaii as bushfires raged in the summer of 2019-2020.

Unfortunate timing perhaps, but it was compounded by his seeming reluctance to return to Australia, together with his excuses for not doing so.

“I don’t hold a hose,” Morrison famously said in his defence.

As a statement of fact this is correct – just as Ardern didn’t hold a stretcher in Christchurch and Zelenskyy didn’t hold a rocket launcher in Kyiv. Psychologically though, they did. And it was this that motivated others to put their shoulders to the collective wheel.

Read more:
Whether people prepare for natural disasters depends on how the message is sent

Doing it for us

A key reason leaders need to represent shared identity in a crisis is to allow communities to draw from a sense of solidarity and provide a platform for social support.

Finding common ground with a stranger allows us empathise with their plight. It motivates us to offer a hand to help others, and in turn motivates them to accept it. Without this – as we saw when a volunteer firefighter withdrew his hand from Morrison during the 2019-2020 bushfires – aid is ineffective and unwelcome.

Shared identity also fuels resilience – helping people cope with ongoing stress and overcome trauma.

The power of shared identity came to the fore as the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, when “mutual aid” groups sprang up around the world. These groups involved people helping their neighbours, such as by collecting groceries, walking pets or giving moral support.

This cooperation involved people from all walks of life, creating a life-saving sense of meaningful community at a deeply challenging time.

Read more:
The community-led movement creating hope in the time of coronavirus

Holding the hose

Social identity is the most important resource leaders need to build and draw upon in a crisis.

It doesn’t necessarily require money, though this can help. It isn’t created by meaningless photo opportunities. It comes from a genuine identification with the people you represent and from a desire to work together to “make us better”.

One senses this point would not be lost on Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But after more than three years as leader, Scott Morrison still appears to be struggling with the idea of being there as one of us, for all of us.

Read more:
Why good leaders need to hold the hose: how history might read Morrison’s coronavirus leadership

Alex Haslam has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council for work examining the contribution of social identity processes to leadership and mental health

– ref. Scott Morrison’s tone-deaf leadership is the last thing traumatised flood victims need. Here are two ways he can do better – https://theconversation.com/scott-morrisons-tone-deaf-leadership-is-the-last-thing-traumatised-flood-victims-need-here-are-two-ways-he-can-do-better-178984

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Llewelyn Hughes, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Offshore wind is playing an important role in Europe’s shift to renewables.

Australia’s excellent offshore resources now look like they are going to contribute to our own energy transition. Last week, the Victorian government announced ambitious targets for offshore wind capacity of 2 gigawatts (GW) by 2032, 4GW by 2035, and 9GW by 2040.

If this is all built, it will produce somewhere in the region of 40 terawatt hours (TWh) of power, close to all electricity used via the NEM in Australia’s second most populous state.

Offshore wind offers another excellent renewable option as we decarbonise electricity. But more needs to be done to turn these plans into enormous turbines off our coast. We need to streamline regulations, introduce more targets, fund research and begin building a supply chain.

Policy targets are key

Victoria’s groundbreaking announcement comes after federal government support for Australia’s energy transition through the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021. It provides a broad framework to enable offshore renewable energy developments in Australia, and gives greater certainty to offshore wind backers.

Where should offshore wind be built? Key locations are off the Gippsland coast, as well as the coasts of the Hunter and Illawarra regions and off Tasmania’s north-west, according to the draft 2022 Integrated System Plan issued by Australia’s energy market operator. At least 12 projects are in the early stages of development.

Read more:
Wind turbines off the coast could help Australia become an energy superpower, research finds

So what do we need to make this a reality? In our recent working paper, we asked experts from industry, government and the research community which policies they believe are needed to get offshore wind up and running. We surveyed experts across the region, from Northeast Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia, as well as Australia.

We found the experts shared strong support for the use of policy targets. Why? Because policy targets help provide the certainty of an ongoing pipeline for windfarm developers. Other state governments could follow Victoria and use targets to kickstart the offshore wind industry.

Targets alone will not be enough. Our experts singled out streamlined regulation as important. Some European nations have moved to coordinate offshore wind siting, consultation, and project development processes. Japan is now looking to adopt this approach.

At present, developers looking to build offshore wind in Australia will need to navigate different agencies due to separate state and federal responsibilities. Coordination will help provide greater regulatory certainty, combined with careful consultation with local communities.

Floating turbine tech has to develop further

Most of the world’s offshore turbines sit on fixed foundations in waters less than 60 metres deep.

Some of Australia’s best offshore wind resources are located in deeper water. That means we’ll need to use floating turbines, which sit on surface platforms tethered by cable to the seafloor.

This technology isn’t as developed as fixed foundation turbines. As this technology matures and becomes cheaper, it will open up more areas.

How can we speed this up? According to the experts we surveyed, we can make costs fall faster through government-backed research and development, as well as supporting commercialisation of newer technologies and processes.

The Victorian government expects local supply chains for this offshore wind rollout will emerge and become a boon to the economy. But why keep this to ourselves? An effective local supply chain would be well placed for the wider Asia Pacific offshore wind market, forecast to grow very strongly this decade.

We are only at the beginning of offshore wind

Last year’s federal legislation saw Australia join nations in our region including Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea and China in establishing policy frameworks to support offshore wind power deployment.

It’s unusual to see federal and state governments seeing eye to eye on renewables.
But that’s what we’re starting to see with offshore wind. Last year’s federal legislation has had positive spin-off effects clearly seen in Victoria’s new vision for the sector.

Victoria’s government believes its mooted offshore wind pipeline will be a major source of new jobs, throughout the project development, construction, and operations phases.

Some of these jobs will be in coal regions such as in the Latrobe Valley, which are beginning to transition away from coal mines and coal power stations.

As you might expect, planning, building and running offshore wind farms is complex, requiring coordinating with other users of ocean resources, measuring wind resources, assessing the potential environmental impact, developing necessary port infrastructure, and securing a connection to the electricity grid.

This means that while federal legislation and state government announcements are vital first steps, they are just the beginning of building the policy framework and supply chains to support a substantial offshore wind industry in Australia.

Is it worth it? Absolutely. Europe’s thriving offshore wind market shows us this electricity source is more than capable of competing against other electricity generation sources without subsidies. Offshore wind could also provide renewable electricity to produce hydrogen.

What are the next steps?

Australia has offshore wind projects already in early development, with the Star of the South off Gippsland the most advanced. If this goes ahead, this 2.2GW project could supply up to 20% of Victoria’s electricity needs.

Read more:
Wind turbines can breathe new life into our warming seas

In Western Australia, a 3GW offshore wind farm has just been proposed. The project’s backers suggest this would be enough to enough to generate up to 11 TWh of power annually, offsetting around six million tonnes of CO2 emissions each year.

Costs are expected to fall and keep falling, if global deployment of offshore wind increases in line with net zero emissions targets, according to CSIRO projections.

It is excellent news that offshore wind has begun to gather real momentum. Now is the time to consider measures such as regulatory streamlining, more policy targets to de-risk investments, and investments in research and development.

If we get these in place, offshore wind could become an important part of the energy transition in Australia – and help Australian companies compete internationally for a share of this ballooning new market.

The financial support of the European Union’s Partnership Instrument is acknowledged for its support for this research. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the Australian National University and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union. Llewelyn Hughes provides advice to a number of companies operating in the renewable energy sector in Japan, including in offshore wind.

Thomas Longden is a Fellow working on the ANU Energy Change Institute’s Grand Challenge – Zero-Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific. He receives funding from the US Embassy (Canberra) and the Australian Department of Defence. He is a member of the ACT Climate Change Council.

– ref. Offshore wind will come to Australian waters – as long as we pave the way for this new industry – https://theconversation.com/offshore-wind-will-come-to-australian-waters-as-long-as-we-pave-the-way-for-this-new-industry-178629

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sergio E. Morales, Associate Professor of Microbial Ecology, University of Otago

Antarctica represents one of the last frontiers for discoveries on Earth. Our focus is on what lies beneath the Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica’s massive wedge of floating ice that shelters the southern-most extension of the Southern Ocean.

This ice-covered cavity contains an ocean nearly equal in volume to the North Sea. But here, ice forms a permanent, impenetrable canopy over a completely dark and cold (around -1.9℃) environment.

As part of a multi-disciplinary research project to explore this under-ice world, we discovered a thriving microbial community, distinct and well adapted to survival without light and without the organic material that rains down in the open ocean.

Instead, this food web is built on inorganic nitrogen and sulfur compounds as sources of chemical energy. Microbes use these alternative energy sources to fix dissolved carbon dioxide into complex organic molecules and biomass which in turn fuel this underwater world.

Our discovery echoes back to the earliest hints of microscopic life under the ice, first recognised during the 19th-century voyages of James Clark Ross, after whom both this southern-most ocean and the ice shelf are named.

During the summers between 1840 and 1842, crews aboard the HMS Erebus and HMS Terror dodged icebergs, managed fickle winds and chipped frozen sea spray from their rigging and decks as they pushed southward through the Ross Sea. Their aim was as straightforward as that of Polynesian voyagers who preceded them centuries earlier: discovery.

Captain Ross’s voyage of discovery and research intended to find and explore the southern-most limit of the ocean. Everywhere – from icebergs, mud from the seabed and even the guts of larger organisms – they found evidence of microbial life.

The remains of microscopic animalculae […] countless myriads of an entirely new and minute form of organic life.

For Captain Ross, the vast floating extension of the continental ice sheet, now called the Ross Ice Shelf, was a barrier his ships could not overcome. Today, we can pursue the ocean farther south, traversing the ice surface in tracked vehicles and using purpose-built drilling systems to pierce the icy lid on a largely unexplored ocean.

Read more:
Climate scientists explore hidden ocean beneath Antarctica’s largest ice shelf

Mystery of life under the ice

Elsewhere, marine ecosystems are fueled primarily by photosynthetic organisms that use sunlight to turn nutrients in the water into biomass. At depths where sunlight does not reach, sinking organic particles transfer carbon and energy in a process known as the biological carbon pump.

But under the cover of the ice shelf, there is no rain of organic particles from above. And once water flows into the sub-ice ocean cavity, it can take up to five years for it to see sunlight again. Yet, when scientists first observed this environment in 1977, they found microbes, amphipods and fish.

The analytical methods of the day were limited, leaving the question of whether what they had found constituted a functioning food web unresolved. Our team’s recent expedition cracked the mystery wide open.

In December 2017, as part of a large interdisciplinary project, drillers from Victoria University of Wellington Te Herenga Waka used a hot-water drill to melt a 30cm-wide borehole through the 360m-thick central region of the Ross Ice Shelf (at about 80.7S, 174.5W), some 300km from the open ocean. We used this unique point of access to sample microbial life in the ocean cavity.

Revealing what is hidden

We didn’t know how abundant the microbial community would be, but expected ocean conditions at different depths to be important. To ensure we collected enough biomass, we lowered a battery-powered filtration pump through the borehole into the frigid environment below.

Sample collection was a waiting game. We worked through the night to slowly pump hundreds of litres of water though a filter paper at the centre of the pump. Each filtration was repeated three times, at depths of 30m, 180m and 330m from the base of the floating ice, spanning the whole water column between the ice shelf and the ocean floor.

The chamber holding the filter paper had to be carefully prized open every time, as a thin film of water froze when the pump hit cold air. Residual liquid water was siphoned from the pump as a “fresh” water sample.

While the filter paper samples could be frozen, the liquid water had to be flown as quickly as possible to the closest lab, 400km away at Scott Base. Poor visibility meant no flights for nearly three weeks, and eventually, we decided to drive — in a marathon 24-hour, 20km/hour crawl across the ice shelf in a Hägglund tracked vehicle.

Once safely back in our labs, we shared samples with colleagues in Austria, New Zealand, Spain, Australia and the US. They used an array of cutting-edge genomic techniques and biogeochemical measurements to identify what microscopic organisms live in the ocean cavity, where their energy is coming from and what they do with it.

Our efforts shed light on microbes with great metabolic flexibility that allows them to scavenge energy from multiple sources, and in doing so sustain a complex food web living in total darkness.

Read more:
What an ocean hidden under Antarctic ice reveals about our planet’s future climate

Antarctica is surrounded by 1.6 million square kilometres of ice shelves, each with its own microbial community. Together they represent a significant source of unaccounted energy and carbon.

Everywhere we look, we find microbial communities making use of whatever energy source is available, creating the foundation for all of Earth’s ecosystems. Just as Captain Ross anticipated 180 years ago, understanding life in this remote system helps us make sense of life everywhere else on Earth.

Christina Hulbe receives funding from New Zealand’s Antarctic Science Platform and from the Marsden Fund. The fieldwork work was funded by the New Zealand Antarctic Research Institute. Logistics were provided by Antarctica New Zealand.

Clara Martínez-Pérez receives funding from an MSCA Individual Fellowship (European Union)

Federico Baltar received funding from the Rutherford Discovery Fellowship (Royal Society NZ)

Sergio E. Morales 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. In the dark, freezing ocean under Antarctica’s largest ice shelf, we discovered a thriving microbial jungle – https://theconversation.com/in-the-dark-freezing-ocean-under-antarcticas-largest-ice-shelf-we-discovered-a-thriving-microbial-jungle-175735

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Peetz, Professor Emeritus, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

If one possibly positive thing came out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was the impetus it gave to letting people work from home.

Many see working from home as benefiting women workers. The logic is they can combine a career with the responsibilities of looking after children. But not enough thought has been given to how this could make things worse, not better, for many women.

We wanted to know how working from home during the pandemic affected men and women, including their productivity at work. We surveyed 11,288 people working in 14 universities across Canada and Australia, including 3,480 academics.

Our interest was sparked by an early observation by an editor of a British scholarly journal that journal submissions by women academics had fallen significantly.

Read more:
How COVID is widening the academic gender divide

This observation has been confirmed by several systematic studies that show declines in research outputs by women academics.

What did the study find?

Our own study of academic staff in the survey showed the same thing. Indeed, this difference in opportunities to submit research for publication was the biggest difference between the experiences of men and women during pandemic-induced lockdowns.

Women ended up facing increased teaching loads and doing more administration work more often than men. Women were also more likely than men to spend less time on research.

But the gender differences for these tasks were not as large as those in applying for research funding or submitting articles to peer-reviewed journals. These are the measures by which academic careers stand or fall these days.

What seems to be happening is that both men and women were forced to do more of their research at home. The difference was that women had less chance than men to put in the sustained time to produce good, publishable research. In our study, especially when children were around, women had more difficulty finding the vital “thinking time” needed for good research.

Ideally, men would assume an equal share of domestic responsibilities when working from home. But that hasn’t happened.

Read more:
Planning, stress and worry put the mental load on mothers – will 2022 be the year they share the burden?

The future looks worse

Without confronting the problem head-on, universities are likely to make the problem worse.

We found most university staff want to work from home more than they were allowed before the pandemic.

Women tended to want more of this than men. That would, however, make them less visible in the physical office. And that, in turn, could reduce their perceived productivity.

Many universities can see the work-from-home trend as providing opportunities to save money. They can do this by getting rid of private offices and shifting academics into shared spaces. It’s a trend that started before the pandemic.

But when academics are on campus, a private office, not a shared space, is needed to do online teaching or research that requires thinking time.

Moreover, universities are increasingly tempted to reduce academics’ access to sabbaticals. Historically, these periods of study leave have been the best chance to find the thinking time to do good research. Now, though, it’s becoming less of an “entitlement” and more of a “privilege”, available to fewer researchers each year.

As sabbaticals become less available, women will find it much harder than men to make up for the lack of sustained thinking time. Their real productivity would be lower than men’s.

Read more:
Women’s academic careers are in a ‘holding pattern’ while men enjoy a ‘tailwind’

It’s the same for many white-collar workers as well

What we’ve described isn’t just a problem for academics. It’s a problem in any white-collar occupation in which “knowledge work” is performed.

In many jobs sustained knowledge work — that is, work involving long periods of concentration, and hence a good amount of thinking time — is needed to develop the best ideas. Most managerial jobs, and many professional and administrative jobs, involve and require some periods of sustained knowledge work.

But especially since the pandemic, both in the public and private sector, most staff want to be able to work from home some of the time. This is not just a pandemic phenomenon. Workers genuinely like not having to spend hours commuting every day.

Employers, too, now figure employees can be just as, if not more, productive at home. Employers are already taking advantage of “hybrid working”. They are putting more people into “hot desks” or other co-working spaces to reduce physical office costs.

That might sound fine, until you realise that the opportunities for, and the outcomes of, sustained knowledge work — the stuff that will get you recognised and promoted — will be gendered. It will be harder for women than men to schedule in the necessary thinking time, especially at home.

Where to from here?

Many of the slow advances women have made in some knowledge work occupations in recent times may be lost if they have less opportunity to get the sustained thinking time that translates into performance.

If women are to have a fair go in white-collar jobs in the future, then employers will need to rethink their post-pandemic strategies for saving money. Shared spaces may be good for the accommodation budget, but they’re not so good for the individuals concerned or for their contribution to organisational productivity.

Where unions represent those workers, they need to resist the closure of office facilities that can be critical for sustained knowledge work.

Governments need to be more active in supporting widespread, affordable, accessible, quality childcare.

Much has been written about how the economic response during the pandemic disadvantaged women. But worse may follow. We need to design to offset, not to compound, the problems that could come from more working from home.

David Peetz receives funding from the Australian Research Council and, as a university employee, has undertaken research over many years with occasional financial support from governments in Australia and overseas from both sides of politics, employers and unions. This project was financially supported by a number of the universities whose staff were surveyed, and involved all the researchers shown in the publication to which this article links. Results for participating universities were provided to them but the anonymity of respondents, and of the funding universities, has been maintained. Funding universities had no influence over the final version of the paper or any draft.

Kim Southey received funding from the University of Southern Queensland.

Marian Baird receives funding from the ARC. She is affiliated with the Women and Work Research Group at the University of Sydney and the Work and Family Policy Roundtable.

Mojan Naisani Samani receives funding from the Ontario Government.

Rae Cooper receives funding from the ARC. She is affiliated with the Gender Equality in Working Life Research Initiative, the Women and Work Research Group and the Work + Family Policy Roundtable.

Sara Charlesworth receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is co-convenor of the Australian Work+Family Policy Roundtable.

Shelagh Campbell receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Susan Ressia 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. Many of us welcome working from home, but universities show its dangers for women’s careers – https://theconversation.com/many-of-us-welcome-working-from-home-but-universities-show-its-dangers-for-womens-careers-178142

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW Sydney

It is fashionable these days to dunk on markets. Show me something bad in the world and I’ll show you someone blaming it on “neoliberalism”.

Our collective failure to tackle climate change – that’s the fault of “neoliberalism”. Poverty, low wages, income inequality, housing affordability, imperfect health care and education systems – the culprit is “neoliberalism”.

Not so long ago – in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, the eras of Hawke and Keating in Australia, Clinton in the US and Blair in Britain – markets were seen by those on the centre-left as the best way to create broad prosperity and what is sometimes called “inclusive growth”.

Then a funny thing happened on the way to the 2010s.

A semi-apocalyptic global financial crisis in 2008 turned “market” into a dirty word. A bunch of greedy but clever Wall Street types transformed mortgage-backed securities – a way to bundle up mortgages into bonds leading to lower borrowing costs and greater home ownership – into what famous investor Warren Buffett once called “weapons of financial mass destruction”.

In the wash-up of the financial crisis the good and bad aspects of markets were fused into one derogatory word: neoliberalism.

Belief in the power of markets to lift people out of poverty, empower households, and provide the resources to create a meaningful social safety net has become conflated with the free-market fanaticism associated with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

This is a big mistake. Those on the left of politics should embrace markets. Not the fanatical laissez-faire views that oppose government and market regulation. But a view of liberalism – in the classical sense, emphasising individual liberty – that harnesses the power of markets for social and economic good.

Towards democratic liberalism

Two of my former colleagues at the University of Chicago, Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales, capture a version of this in their brilliant 2003 book Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists. So too does Joe Stiglitz with his vision of “progressive capitalism”.

My take is articulated in my new book with Rosalind Dixon, From Free to Fair Markets: Liberalism after COVID-19, to be published by Oxford University Press next month, where we argue for “democratic liberalism”.

For us, democratic liberalism takes more seriously commitments to individual dignity and equality, as well as freedom, within the liberal tradition; placing the democratic citizen at the centre of a liberal approach.

Read more:
Vital Signs: the ‘marketplace for ideas’ can fail

It draws heavily on the “capabilities approach” to human welfare of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, which acknowledges it’s not enough just to have a “level playing field”. It insists on universal access to dignity, a “generous social minimum” for all. And it insists unregulated markets do not serve those ends.

‘Capitalism is irredeemable’

In particular, so-called “neoclassical” economists have long maintained that monopoly power (in business or politics) and externalities, such as carbon pollution, distort and damage markets.

We need to do more to make markets work better – not abandon markets altogether.

As Buffett said:

We ought to do better by the people that get left behind by our capitalist system. I don’t think we should kill the capitalist system in the process.

Contrast this with the US left’s icon du jour, New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who in 2019 said capitalism was irredeemable.

Asked what she meant by this last month, she described capitalism as:

the ability for a very small group of actual capitalists – and that is people who have so much money that their money makes money and they don’t have to work – to control industry. They can control our energy sources. They can control our labour. They can control massive markets that they dictate and can capture governments. And they can essentially have power over the many.

To be fair, that doesn’t sound so great to me either.

And I get that Ocasio-Cortez is not a fusty scholar but a (very successful) politician and activist. Nuance doesn’t play well in those worlds. But nuance is required when thinking about how society should be arranged.

We’ve been here before

This isn’t society’s first rodeo on these matters.

One of the more consequential debates about liberalism versus socialism – which became known as the socialist calculation debate – began in the 1920s between neoclassical economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and socialist economists Fred Taylor, Oskar Lange and Abraham “Abba” Lerner.

At issue was whether Soviet-style socialism and its central planning could replicate the virtues of free markets without the downsides of inequality.

The clinching argument in this debate came from Hayek, who pointed out the market’s price mechanism is invaluable for aggregating and communicating information.

No central planner can ever replicate the price mechanism’s ability to give producers and consumers information they need to make the best decisions.

Lower prices, higher incomes

The character Toby Ziegler in The West Wing succinctly expressed the virtues of free trade and free markets more generally when he said (courtesy of Aaron Sorkin and his fellow writers) “it lowers prices, it raises incomes”.

In 1990 more than a third of the world’s 5.3 billion people lived in abject poverty, on less than US$1.90 a day.

Now about 9% of the globe’s 7.9 billion people live in such poverty. That’s about 1.2 billion fewer people, an extraordinary testament to the power of markets.

Since 2008 – and during the coronavirus pandemic – the limitations of free markets have come into sharp relief. More – much more – needs to be done to make markets fairer. That means a commitment to the dignity and freedom of all.

But it also means a commitment to the hard work of building a more prosperous society, not just shrieking from the sidelines, complaining about the things that are wrong, and misidentifying the solution.

Section editor’s note: I am sad to report that after six years and hundreds of contributions, this is Richard Holden’s final column for The Conversation. He is leaving us to write weekly and exclusively for The Australian Financial Review. We are extraordinary grateful for all he has done. We will miss him. And we will keep reading him. – Peter Martin

Richard Holden is President of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.

– ref. Vital Signs: what the neoliberalism-hating left should love about markets – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-what-the-neoliberalism-hating-left-should-love-about-markets-178777

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

Empty supermarket shelves still shock Australians, who have become accustomed to being able to buy the food they want. But we can expect to see more empty shelves, more often, in coming decades.

Climate change means extreme events such as floods, bushfires and droughts will become more frequent and severe. Those events will disrupt food supply chains, as people along Australia’s sodden east coast have seen again in recent weeks.

Australia certainly isn’t at risk of running out of food. It produces far more food than it consumes, with around 70% of farm production exported.

What is at risk is Australia’s ability to distribute it.

I was commissioned to prepare a new report on the impact of climate change on food supply, for for Farmers for Climate Action a constituent body of the National Farmers Federation with about 7,000 members.

Farmers for Climate Action is not otherwise politically aligned.

My methodology included a review of research in this area, interviews with more than a dozen farmers, farmer representative bodies, and other participants in the food supply chain, and a survey of media reporting of recent instances of food shortages.

Among the issues identified were the impact of drought, diseases and stress on livestock, the loss of food due to hotter weather, and shorter shelf lives.

An unexpected finding was the degree to which everyone involved in the supply chain is affected by uncertainty caused by climate change. It is making future weather highly unpredictable, making planning harder for both farms and in transport networks.

Unpredictability makes ensuring supplies hard

A further impact is on lending and insurance, where unpredictability means higher costs for financial products – if they can be obtained at all. Some farmers reported that they were unable to insure due to climate risks. All these costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher food prices.

There are also opportunities.

Supply chains might become shorter to strengthen resilience and deliver fresher produce to consumers. Farm businesses and food processors are already moving to electrification to manage the risks of relying on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, saving money in the process.

Read more:
Relax, Australia does not have (and isn’t likely to have) a food shortage

For businesses supplying food to export markets, a low-carbon supply chain will be a competitive advantage. In some cases, carbon-friendly production and transport will be a price of entry, without which markets won’t be available at all.

The report identifies four responses to climate change: risk management, resilience, adaptation, and mitigation (reducing the impact of climate change). All are needed. Even if Australia meets its Paris targets for climate change, there will be impacts to which the food supply chain will need to adapt.

Even good risk management might not be enough

Most farmers and businesses in the supply chain are good risk managers. But extreme weather events are increasing the base level of risk they have to deal with. The greater the risk, the more likely it is that risk management plans will be overwhelmed. If climate change continues unabated, this will become a certainty.

Governments have a role in strengthening or building alternatives to key supply lines and helping fill gaps in the market where private investment is insufficient due to uncertainty.

Governments also have an important risk management role in helping address gaps in data and information on climate impacts, to allow businesses to plan more effectively. Many industry bodies consulted were keen to see more research on the impacts of different projected levels of warming.

What farmers want is information and leadership

But the bottom line is that if climate change continues, adaptation will not be enough, a point clearly made by the three vice chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when launching its latest report. The window for taking effective action on climate change is rapidly narrowing.

Farmers and processors are taking positive steps for themselves. For example, the Australian red meat industry has a target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030, well ahead of the government’s target of 2050.

Read more:
Mid-COVID, we find few vulnerabilities in Australia’s supply chains

Overwhelmingly, the farmers and farmer bodies consulted for the report wanted the Australian government to take the lead, providing clear guidance and direction on urgent climate action.

Farmers for Climate Action has responded by calling for deep emissions cuts this decade, to help avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Stephen Bartos was paid to produce the report Fork in the Road for Farmers for Climate Action, a body affiliated with the National Farmers Federation.

– ref. From field to store to plate, our farmers are increasingly worried about climate change – https://theconversation.com/from-field-to-store-to-plate-our-farmers-are-increasingly-worried-about-climate-change-178885

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

Years ago, Kevin Rudd sold himself as a version of Howard-lite, as he sought to reassure voters he wouldn’t be scary. This week, Anthony Albanese invoked a Labor icon to soothe fears of change.

The opposition leader said he’d govern like Bob Hawke if he became PM. He would bring Australians together, seek consensus, work with business.

It wasn’t a bad pitch, as pitches go. Among many people, Hawke’s name remains prime ministerial gold.

Albanese needs to address voter hesitancy about change and about himself. By linking back to Hawke, he is drawing on what many would regard not just as modern Labor’s best days but as a good era for Australia (although it did end in a recession).

But the opposition leader’s claim he’d govern like Hawke has its limits. Hawke’s strengths as leader came in part from his charisma, and his forging (well before he was PM) of a strong link with the Australian people.

Albanese as PM might have a more unifying style than Scott Morrison but he would arrive in the job with considerably less political capital than Hawke brought by virtue of his sheer force of personality and connection with the electorate.

In terms of substance Hawke, in partnership with Paul Keating, led a reform government that transformed Australia. In economic terms, they executed a revolution.

Albanese this week, in a speech to the Australian Financial Review business summit, laid out his economic goals: lifting productivity, re-igniting economic and jobs growth, transforming the economy using renewable energy. But he stressed, “I’m not proposing revolution”.

When he was elected, Hawke wasn’t proposing a revolution either. His theme for the 1983 election was reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction, but the detail of his platform was very different from the significant things his government actually did over the following years.

Events – the international pressure to open Australia’s economy – shaped the trajectory of Hawke’s prime ministership.

However carefully opposition leaders seek to define themselves, it’s nearly impossible to be sure how they will handle the circumstances of power.

We put much emphasis on politicians keeping promises. But it can also be important that, on occasion, they are willing to abandon or breach earlier commitments.

Hawke was willing to do this when circumstances demanded – Gough Whitlam was not.

The government likes to claim Albanese would be the most left wing prime minister since Whitlam. The problem about Whitlam as PM was not that he was leftwing (a misnomer anyway) – it was that he was inflexible. He was unwilling to break promises and cut back his extensive reform “program” when international circumstances altered dramatically, with the oil shock shaking the Australian economy.

It would be interesting to hear Albanese’s view on when it’s okay to break promises. Understandably, it’s not something he’d want to dwell on, given he’s trying to convince people that what he says is what they’ll get.

An important quality of a good prime minister is the ability to react effectively to the unexpected. Labor’s wartime PM John Curtin – also referenced by Albanese this week – had that ability.

We can’t be sure until they are tested whether a leader will do well or badly in a crisis. Nevertheless, such assessments are important when we consider how circumstances can quickly and dramatically transform.

Who would have thought the Rudd government would face a global financial crisis? Who would have expected the Coalition government, which signed a free trade agreement with China, would be subjected a few years later to trade retaliation by that country?

And that’s not to mention the pandemic.

Read more:
Elect me and I’ll govern like Bob Hawke: Albanese

As Albanese seeks to define himself reassuringly, Morrison and his ministers work overtime to paint him in a dark image, opaque, a risk.

They’re slapdash with the brush. For example, they emphasise he has never held an economic or national security portfolio. This is a specious argument.

Albanese had major responsibilities (infrastructure, transport), and served in cabinet during all of the 2007-13 government, including briefly as deputy PM. And as Labor likes to point out, although he’d held senior portfolios, Tony Abbott hadn’t had a central economic or a national security ministry when he became PM.

Prime ministerial aspirants can prepare themselves on these issues and competent leaders will learn on the job.

As they ramp up national security for the election, Morrison and Defence Minister Peter Dutton are like a couple of tradesmen with chisels, desperately trying to chip away at Albanese’s declarations of bipartisanship.

Albanese told the Lowy Institute on Thursday: “For Labor, national security is above politics”. What he’s really saying is that Labor needs it to be.

For its part the government sees national security is a potential lifeline in its bid to hold onto office. But mobilising it as an electoral tool is not proving as easy as it might have hoped.

The attempt in the recent parliamentary week to portray Labor as soft on China policy didn’t come off.

The government harks back to the Labor government’s low spending on defence. The opposition half-heartedly argues the toss on the figures but says Labor agrees with the present spend of about 2.1% of GDP and suggests (in anticipation of the budget) that it might need to be higher.

Labor is sticking close to the government on broad strategic questions while criticising the multiple fumbles and stumbles in procurement.

The government is rolling out the big defence announcements as it drapes the election set in khaki. It hopes Labor will be wedged on something, somewhere.

This week Morrison announced a proposed submarine base on the east coast, as well as plans for a big expansion of the defence workforce by 2040. Labor derided the timing of the announcements as election-driven.

Notably, in view of his mini-me tactic, Albanese has left some difference on the submarine base. Labor has not endorsed the government’s approach, which is for a decision to be made from three possible sites – Port Kembla, Newcastle and Brisbane – that have been shortlisted by Defence.

Instead, an Albanese government would undertake a review of Australia’s defence force posture, which would provide advice on where the subs base should be.

Predicting how Albanese would shape up on the international stage is another crystal ball exercise. No one would have anticipated, when he came to power, the extent of Scott Morrison’s international activism.

Beyond climate policy, we are presently hearing more about how Labor would not differ from the government on international issues than getting a steer on the positive path Albanese would try to carve out. That’s the nature of this election.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: We can’t know what sort of PM Albanese would be – but not for the reasons the government says – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-we-cant-know-what-sort-of-pm-albanese-would-be-but-not-for-the-reasons-the-government-says-179006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

The Reserve Bank of Australia was roiled today by the resignation of its Deputy Governor Guy Debelle, who is leaving with only six days’ notice.

Dr Debelle said that he was resigning to become chief financial officer of Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue Future Industries, a company investing in zero-emission technologies such as green hydrogen.

The move came as a surprise given that, as deputy, Guy Debelle was long seen as the heir apparent to Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe, whose term expires in September next year.

Dr Debelle was re-appointed deputy only last year.

Debelle was one of the brightest sparks, if not the brightest spark at the bank.

He managed the day to day response to the global financial crisis when he ran the bank’s financial markets group and the economic response to the COVID crisis as deputy governor.

He is recognised around the globe, from the halls of Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he has been a visiting professor, to the world of central banking, where he chaired several international committees.

What made Guy go?

Why then did Debelle jump ship? As deputy governor he has shown a keen interest in the transition to a net-zero economy, giving several speeches on how the move will affect Australia’s economy and its financial system.

But as recently as last month it seemed that he was still hoping to be given the keys to the Reserve Bank vault in Sydney’s Martin Place, testifying to parliament that he didn’t own any financial assets in order to minimise perceived conflicts of interest.

However, notwithstanding his interest in the zero-emission transition, it seems that his decision to leave was in part because his status as governor-in-waiting was no longer a sure bet.

A drama named Succession

The Reserve Bank has faced criticism for missing its inflation target five years in a row and for “group-think” – an unwillingness to pay attention to outside ideas.

Regardless of who wins the next federal election, both sides of politics have promised an inquiry into the bank to investigate why it made such an apparent error and what needs to change to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Given its apparent failure, it is possible that the Treasury and its political masters felt that another internal appointment would be inappropriate and that the next governor should be appointed from outside to shake things up.

Read more:
RBA governor Philip Lowe’s dangerous game on interest rates

Guy Debelle might also have seen writing on the wall about gender diversity.

The bank has not had a female governor in the 100 or more years since it printed its first banknote.

In contrast, the High Court of Australia appointed its first female justice in 1987, South Australia appointed the first female state governor in 1991 and Victoria the first female police commissioner in 2001.

While the RBA has made a concerted effort in recent years to encourage greater diversity within its workforce, compared to the rest of Australia it remains male, pale and stale – particularly at the higher levels.

Female share of workforce

In this respect the Reserve Bank is behind the times. Appointing Guy Debelle governor would have kept it there for perhaps another decade.

Who will inherit the throne?

All eyes will now turn to who will be appointed deputy governor in Debelle’s place – and potentially next governor of the Reserve Bank.

If Treasurer Josh Frydenberg wants to keep a degree of continuity, he might well choose one of the assistant governors. The two most likely are Dr Luci Ellis and Dr Chris Kent, who together oversee the bank’s monthly policy process as the heads of the economic and financial markets groups respectively.

Alternatively, Frydenberg may choose to inject some new blood ahead of the post-election review.

Formidable economists such as Dr David Gruen, the current head of the Bureau of Statistics, and Jenny Wilkinson, current head of the Treasury’s fiscal group, would be able to hit the ground running.

Each has worked at the Reserve Bank and each has an outsider’s perspective.

One thing that’s clear is that an orderly coronation has been thrown in the bin.

With a review looming on the horizon and a change in government likely, the deputy governorship may well be a poisoned chalice – an impossible task with little time to learn on the job.

The only certainty at the bank is turbulent times ahead.

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

– ref. Game of Loans: the Reserve Bank loses its heir apparent to Fortescue’s green fund – https://theconversation.com/game-of-loans-the-reserve-bank-loses-its-heir-apparent-to-fortescues-green-fund-178994