Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Boivin, Professor, Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology

It’s frightening to imagine where the world would be right now without mRNA vaccines. The COVID-busting technology revolutionised vaccine development at an internationally critical moment – with massive implications for people’s health, wellbeing and the global economy.

Yet imagine we must – because some of the research most crucial to the development of mRNA vaccines almost didn’t happen.

Biochemist Katalin Karikó’s fascination with the therapeutic potential of mRNA began in the early 1990s, but she received little encouragement. She was undervalued and underfunded throughout her university career and eventually left academia.

When she went on to jointly win the Nobel Prize for Medicine for her pioneering role in developing the mRNA technology that allowed the world to take on COVID, Karikó’s former employer, the University of Pennsylvania, tried to take credit.

Yet during her time there, the university sidelined and demoted Karikó, eventually pushing her out altogether. While it would be nice to think of Karikó’s experience as an aberration, her experience – as we highlight in our new paper – is all too common for women in academia.

Barriers to women’s success

Academia is widely viewed as a meritocracy, a bastion of liberalism, and a place where people go to pursue a higher calling. The data, however, point to a dark side to the ivory tower.

For instance, a major report published in 2019 by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine showed rates of sexual harassment in academia are second only to those in the military.

More common than overtly sexualised harassment, however, is gender bias. Studies reveal women’s research receives tougher assessment, less funding, fewer prizes, and less citation than men’s. Women professors receive lower evaluations and more criticism from students – both male and female – and face higher expectations as mentors.

Women often face chilly academic climates, isolation, job insecurity, stalled promotions and unequal or limited access to resources. These tendencies can easily verge on incivility, ostracism, online abuse, academic sabotage and malicious allegations. And these problems are worse for women of colour, and those who belong to sexual and gender minority groups.

Read more:
‘Death by a thousand cuts’: women of colour in science face a subtly hostile work environment

When women are brave enough to speak out, it usually backfires. At best, they may face minimisation or silencing. More damaging is retaliation, including from institutions themselves. Women can find themselves placed on probation, under investigation, targeted for character assassination, facing retaliatory accusations, demoted or even fired.

Bad for science and a waste of funding

A massive study of almost a quarter of a million US academics showed women are leaving academia at significantly higher rates than men.

They are also leaving for different reasons. While men are more likely to leave because they have been attracted by better opportunities, the number-one reason women cite for leaving is toxic workplaces.

The outcome of this gradual attrition is that women continue to be vastly underrepresented in senior academic positions: as full professors, research directors, and heads of research institutions and universities.

The loss of so many women from research and higher education isn’t just a social or ethical issue. It’s also an economic one. Women in academia reflect investment. Their many years of post-secondary education, their training, their research – it all costs money. This money is wasted when they are pushed out of academia.

The worst bias and explicit harassment often comes as women achieve greater success. Rates of departure between men and women really start to widen about 15 years after academics finish their PhDs.

This means higher education and research are often losing women with the most experience and promise, and in whom the greatest funding investments have been made.

Follow the money

As current and former institutional heads and research leaders, we suggest it’s time to follow the money. Where does all this wasted money come from?

You, the taxpayer.

Higher education, research and science all are, in many parts of the world, funded mostly through public sources. This means when higher education and research organisations fail to tackle the persistent sexism, discrimination and harassment that’s driving women out, they are throwing your money out the window.

Or you can think of it another way: your taxes are subsidising sexism.

Read more:
We studied 309,544 patent applications – and found inventing is still a man’s world

The buck stops here

The fact that tax money supports higher education and research also presents an opportunity: taxpayers can demand change in how their taxes are used.

They can demand efficiency in public funding – efficiency that will lead to less sexism in the institutions educating our children, and to more of the science we desperately need to address the collective challenges we face.

We call on governments to address sexism in higher education and research as a matter of urgency, such as by:

1. acknowledging that self-regulation isn’t working.

   Universities and research institutions have implemented gender equity initiatives and policies for decades. Yet gender biases remain entrenched.

2. developing effective and transparent systems for measuring gender equity, and applying them to all publicly funded higher education and research institutions.

   This means collecting and publishing data on recruitment, appointment, salaries, workload allocation, promotions, discrimination, harassment, misconduct, demotion, dismissal and departure.

3. making funding in higher education and research dependent on the achievement of gender equity targets.

   Institutions currently receive public funding regardless of whether they uphold a fair academic culture that provides equal opportunity for men and woman.

   Disregard for rules, procedures and laws designed to achieve gender equity does not hold institutions back from receiving continued public funding. This lack of accountability helps perpetuate gender bias. It needs to change.

You can join us in pressing for these changes by contacting your local representative, organising and submitting petitions, or reporting concerns to organisations designed to investigate possible abuses of public funding (such as federal auditing offices).

The story of Karikó and the transformative research that almost never was should be the wake-up call we need to demand better.

Read more:
In 5 years, this Australian astrophysics lab reached 50% women. Here’s how they did it

Susanne Täuber is affiliated with the Academic Parity Movement and the Network Against Power Abuse in Science. Both are non-profit organizations fighting harassment and power abuse in academia.

Janet G. Hering, Nicole Boivin, and Ursula Keller 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. How your money is helping subsidise sexism in academia – and what you can do about it – https://theconversation.com/how-your-money-is-helping-subsidise-sexism-in-academia-and-what-you-can-do-about-it-218347

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Casey Michelle Haining, Research Fellow, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology

From today, eligible people in New South Wales can ask for voluntary assisted dying.

NSW is the last Australian state to have its voluntary assisted dying laws begin. These laws come into effect following an 18-month implementation period.

Here is who’s eligible to request voluntary assisted dying in NSW and how its laws compare with those in other Australian jurisdictions.

Read more:
Voluntary assisted dying will be available to more Australians this year. Here’s what to expect in 2023

Who’s eligible in NSW?

To be eligible for voluntary assisted dying in NSW, a person must:

• be an adult with decision-making capacity

• be an Australian citizen, permanent resident or a resident of Australia for at least three continuous years

• have lived in NSW for at least 12 months (unless granted an exemption)

• be experiencing suffering that cannot be relieved in a way the person considers tolerable

• have a condition that is advanced, progressive and will cause death within six months (or 12 months for neurodegenerative diseases)

• be acting voluntarily without pressure or duress.

Read more:
Voluntary assisted dying will soon be legal in all states. Here’s what’s just happened in NSW and what it means for you

How do these new laws differ from other states?

Australian voluntary assisted dying laws are lengthy and tightly regulate the request and assessment process.

A person must make at least three separate requests for voluntary assisted dying, and their eligibility must be assessed by at least two specially trained doctors. The process is overseen by a voluntary assisted dying board (or commission).

The new laws largely follow the Australian model of voluntary assisted dying, but key differences exist. In NSW:

• people can choose between taking the medication themselves or having the medication administered by a qualified health professional. In other states, administration by health professionals is more limited

• all health-care workers (not just for example, doctors and/or nurse practitioners depending on the state) can raise the option of voluntary assisted dying with the person, provided they also inform the person about palliative care and other treatment options

• nurse practitioners can administer the medication (they cannot in Victoria and South Australia). However, nurses cannot administer it (they can in Tasmania and Queensland)

• non-participating facilities have obligations to facilitate access, including allowing health professionals to enter the facility to provide information. Residential facilities must also allow health professionals to attend to assess for eligibility or administer the medication. In other cases, facilities may be required to transfer the person elsewhere for this to occur. (These obligations do not exist in Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia)

• the usual waiting period between first and final requests for voluntary assisted dying is five days (compared with seven days in Tasmania and nine days in other states).

Read more:
What happens if you want access to voluntary assisted dying but your nursing home won’t let you?

What’s happening elsewhere?

Since 2019, all Australian states have progressively introduced voluntary assisted dying. Each state must review their laws after a fixed period, and some states have already started doing so.

Victoria and Western Australia

Victoria was the first state to introduce voluntary assisted dying laws, which became operational in June 2019. In the first four years, 912 people died through voluntary assisted dying.

Western Australian laws have been in effect since July 2021. In its first two years of operation, 446 people died through voluntary assisted dying.

Both states have started to review their laws.

Read more:
Voluntary assisted dying will begin in WA this week. But one Commonwealth law could get in the way

Tasmania, Queensland and South Australia

Tasmanian laws have been operational since October 2022, with 16 people dying through voluntary assisted dying in the first six months. These laws are scheduled to be reviewed after October 2025.

Queensland and South Australian laws commenced in January 2023. In Queensland, 245 people died in the first six months through voluntary assisted dying. In South Australia, 70 people died in the first eight months.

Queensland laws will be reviewed in 2026 and South Australia’s will be reviewed in 2027.

Read more:
Voluntary assisted dying could soon be legal in Queensland. Here’s how its bill differs from other states

Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory

The territories were previously prevented from passing voluntary assisted dying laws by a federal law, which has now been repealed.

In 2023, the Australian Capital Territory introduced a voluntary assisted dying bill into parliament. The Northern Territory has established a panel to make recommendations, and community consultation has begun.

Read more:
Territories free to make their own voluntary assisted dying laws, in landmark decision. Here’s what happens next

Passing laws does not guarantee access

Early research and reports from oversight bodies suggest voluntary assisted dying laws are safe, but have reported a range of barriers to access.

Some of the barriers are specific to a specific state’s law. Other barriers have been reported across states. Barriers include:

• Commonwealth restrictions on discussing voluntary assisted dying via telehealth and email

• a lack of doctors willing to provide voluntary assisted dying

• inadequate remuneration for doctors

• a lengthy and complicated administrative process.

While some barriers may be addressed at the state level, others will require reform at the federal level (for example, telehealth restrictions and inadequate remuneration).

Casey is a research fellow at the Australian Centre for Health Law Research. She has been employed on multiple projects as a research fellow, including the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT190100410: Enhancing End-of-Life Decision-Making: Optimal Regulation of Voluntary Assisted Dying) funded by the Australian Government and the Western Australian Government’s Review of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2019. She was also previously engaged as a legal writer for the Voluntary Assisted Dying Training in Queensland.

Ben White receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and state governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, he (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland governments to design and provide the legislatively mandated training for health practitioners involved in voluntary assisted dying in those states. He (with Lindy Willmott) has also developed a model bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. He is a sessional member of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which has jurisdiction for some aspects of this state’s voluntary assisted dying legislation. Ben is a recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT190100410: Enhancing End-of-Life Decision-Making: Optimal Regulation of Voluntary Assisted Dying) funded by the Australian government.

Katrine was a member of the QUT team which delivered the mandatory training for health professionals participating in voluntary assisted dying in Western Australia and Queensland.

Lindy Willmott receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and state governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, she (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland governments to design and provide the legislatively mandated training for health practitioners involved in voluntary assisted dying in those states. She (with Ben White) has also developed a model bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Lindy Willmott is also a member of the Queensland Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board, but writes this piece in her capacity as an academic researcher. She is a former board member of Palliative Care Australia.

– ref. Voluntary assisted dying is now available in all Australian states. How do the NSW laws compare? – https://theconversation.com/voluntary-assisted-dying-is-now-available-in-all-australian-states-how-do-the-nsw-laws-compare-217261

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Speldewinde, Lecturer, The University of Melbourne

In Australia we have a long history of taking children outdoors to learn about the natural environment. But thanks to computer games, tablets and busy lifestyles, children aren’t getting as much exposure to nature as they used to.

“Bush kinders” are one way to counter this. In a bush kinder, children in preschool years are regularly taken into the natural environment by their daycare centre or kinder/preschool. There are also standalone nature playgroup programs offered by organisations like the YMCA.

What are bush kinders?

Australia’s Early Years Learning Framework (which supports learning for children under five) talks about the importance of the natural world, noting educators should:

encourage children to develop appreciation of the natural world, understand our impact on the natural world, and the interdependence between people, animals, plants, lands and waters.

Bush kinders deliberately and regularly take children into the natural world so they can experience this firsthand.

There is no national figure for bush kinders in Australia. But there are currently more than 200 bush kinder programs in Victoria alone (these are otherwise regular services that offer bush kinder sessions as part of their overall program). These numbers will grow rapidly thanks to the recent bush kinder funding in the 2023 Victorian budget. We should expect another 600 bush kinder programs in the state by 2027.

Read more:
The Productivity Commission wants all Australian kids to have access to 3 days of early learning and care a week

What can they teach children?

Research shows bush kinders can happen in almost any outdoor place. It could be a forest, beach, rural area, garden or a park.

Bush kinders work best without playground equipment, toys, balls or other items. This is so children are challenged to play with only what nature provides. They can climb, dig, balance, explore or hide.

While playing, children can build STEM skills. Our research showed children’s maths skills can benefit from bush kinder time – as they count and sort sticks, rocks, leaves and gumnuts into piles.

Educators have also told us bush kinders can help children’s social and emotional learning. In the natural world, they can take risks for example, exploring a new area and develop their resilience.

Bush kinders are supposed to be fun, discovery-filled places to learn about nature. It is only a child’s imagination that limits their play.

Read more:
Real dirt, no fake grass and low traffic – what to look for when choosing a childcare centre

What makes a good bush kinder?

Parents can find bush kinders by looking at kindergarten or early learning centre websites. Many centres actively promote their bush kinder programs.

Good bush kinders will be in spaces that are natural and have different aspects for children to explore.

But many different places and environments can work. It can have tall trees that are great for climbing or birds to nest. There can be soft earth or sand for digging. There may be ant trails to watch, fallen leaves to count or sticks to collect and make a pattern with.

In recent research, we watched children at a park learn about weather and space by lying back, listening to the wind and watching the clouds.

Read more:
Stand back and avoid saying ‘be careful!’: how to help your child take risks at the park

What role do educators have?

While bush kinder experiences should be led by children’s curiosity, they also need to be supported by their educator to take appropriate risks and build their resilience. For example, educators can actively encourage children to climb trees as long as they feel safe.

Our recently published research examined bush kinder educators teaching children about sustainability and the natural world. They do not need specific extra training for this on top of their existing expertise in early education and play-based learning).

For example, at a beach kinder, if the tide is low, rock pools will exposed, children can explore under the water, get their feet wet and measure how deep the water is. The next week, the tide might be high. So children dig, play with shells, roll about and write their name in the sand.

Read more:
How to get the most out of sand play: 4 tips from a sculptor

Enthusiasm for the natural world

Bush kinder must be more than taking children to a park occasionally for a walk.

It needs to be a regular part of a daycare or kinder/preschool’s program. The lessons also need to be applied back in the classroom or service. For example, educators can take learning about the weather and create a weather chart.

Teachers of course also need enthusiasm for the natural world. Imagine my excitement during a recent research trip when a seal glided past at a beach kinder and the children and educators screamed excitedly. Children can see the joy that we as adults experience when nature surprises us.

Chris Speldewinde 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. What are bush kinders? And what makes a good one? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-bush-kinders-and-what-makes-a-good-one-217919

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

An Australian National University survey has reinforced the view the October referendum might have passed if it had been confined to constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians.

More than six in ten people (61.7%) said they would definitely or probably have voted for a referendum on recognition.

In the Voice referendum more than six in ten people voted no.

Despite the resounding defeat of the referendum, the survey found strong support (87%) for Indigenous people having a say over matters affecting them.

The survey, a partnrship between the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods and the School of Politics and International Relations, tracked more than 4200 voters from January on the Voice. The post-referendum round of data was collected October 17-29.

The full results of the research, titled Explaining voting in the 2023 Australian referendum, will be released on Tuesday.

Co-author of the study, Nicholas Biddle, said: “Our findings show that there is widespread support for a broad definition of constitutional recognition”. He said the results suggested it was not so much the premise of recognition but the model put to voters, among other factors, that was the problem.

The report says: “Not surprisingly, there was a strong correlation between someone’s actual vote in the referendum and how they say they would have voted if it was on recognition only.

“Using a very conservative measure of support (that is, treating all those who were undecided as no voters) among those that voted yes in the Voice referendum, 86% said that they would have voted yes if the question was on constitutional recognition only.

“Of those yes voters that didn’t say yes on constitutional recognition, the vast majority (12.8%) were undecided.

“Even among no voters, however, there was quite substantial levels of support for constitutional recognition with 40.8% saying they probably or definitely would vote yes. Many no voters
were undecided about constitutional recognition (35.8%), but there was also a sizable minority (23.4%) that said they would vote no.”

The ANU findings come as the government has yet to put together a policy on Indigenous consultation in the wake of the referendum’s loss. This is not expected to come until early next year, with the government wanting its current attention concentrated on cost-of-living issues.

Last week the Joint Council of Closing the Gap, comprising federal, state and territory governments and the Indigenous Coalition of Peaks, met, noting progress on closing the gap “remains slow”.

Nearly eight in ten people (79.1%) in the survey said they felt proud of First Nations cultures, while 79.4% think the federal government should help improve reconciliation.

Some 80.5% believe Australia should “undertake formal truth-telling processes to acknowledge the shared reality of Australia’s shared history”.

But people were split when asked, “If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders people tried harder, they could be just as well off as non-Indigenous Australians.” In response, 51.3% agreed.

At the same time, more than 68% agreed many Indigenous people are disadvantaged today because of past race-based policies.

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. ANU research suggests referendum confined to Indigenous recognition might have passed – https://theconversation.com/anu-research-suggests-referendum-confined-to-indigenous-recognition-might-have-passed-218601

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

The government is considering whether voters in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory should be given extra senators.

The influential Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in its final report tabled on Monday, has recommended the number of senators from each territory be doubled to four.

Special Minister of State Don Farrell is already pursuing recommendations from the committee’s interim report for caps on electoral spending and donations. He plans legislation next year.

While the government may be sympathetic in principle to the territories having extra senators, its response is likely to depend on its calculations of the probable effect on the political composition of future Senates. The proportional representation voting system for the Senate usually leaves crossbenchers with the balance of power there.

If the territories each had four senators facing the people at each election, this would reduce the quota for election and boost the chances of more crossbenchers being elected.

One option with minimal political fallout would be to have the territory senators, who at present go out at each election, switch to six-year terms, the same as senators from the states. This would mean two in each territory would face the voters at each election.

Under the Constitution, the states have equal representation, regardless of size. The committee’s majority report said the territories’ representation should be considered on a similar basis to the representation of the smaller states.

“The Federal Parliament’s ability to over-rule territory legislation further highlights the need for the two territories to be appropriately represented in the Parliament,” the report said.

In a dissenting report, the Coalition said if the recommendation was adopted a senator from NSW would need 25 times more votes than a senator from the NT to be elected.

“The Coalition members of the committee oppose increasing the number of Territory Senators on the grounds that it would be the greatest level of malapportionment since Federation.”

ACT independent senator David Pocock, who defeated a Liberal at the last election, said: “This is a huge step forward when it comes to ensuring the people of the ACT and NT have their voices heard and their interest better considered when legislation is being passed”.

Pocock advocates the government legislating to link territory representation to that of the states, which would mean an automatic increase if the number of state senators rose.

“But I warmly welcome the recommendation for an increase to four senators and encourage the government to commit to implementing this ahead of the next election,” Pocock said,

The committee in its report raises the controversial question of an increase in the size of the parliament. It says the government should consider asking it to inquire into an increase in the House of Representatives “to reduce malapportionment and improve the ratio of electors to MPs”.

A bigger lower house would mean the Senate would have to be increased to keep the nexus between the houses required by the Constitution.

The Coalition said it had concerns about increasing the size of the parliament “in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis”.

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. Parliamentary inquiry recommends more senators for the ACT and Northern Territory – https://theconversation.com/parliamentary-inquiry-recommends-more-senators-for-the-act-and-northern-territory-218605

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

Reports of a surge in pneumonia-like illness primarily affecting children in northern China have captured our attention. The last time we heard about a mysterious respiratory outbreak leading to overcrowding in hospitals was the beginning of the COVID pandemic, so it’s not entirely surprising this has caused some alarm.

On November 22 the World Health Organization requested information from China about this surge. Chinese health authorities have since said the outbreak is due to a number of respiratory pathogens.

So what are the pathogens possibly causing this uptick in respiratory illness? And do we need to be concerned that any have pandemic potential? Let’s take a look.

Mycoplasma

One is a bacteria, Mycoplasma, which has been causing outbreaks of respiratory illness in China since June this year.

Mycoplasma is usually treated in the community with antibiotics and hospitalisation is not common. It can lead to a phenomenon called “walking pneumonia”, which is when the chest x-ray looks much worse than the patient appears.

In Taiwan, however, reports have suggested there’s a high level of antibiotic resistance to Mycoplasma, which may explain why it’s causing more hospital admissions.

Read more:
How do bacteria actually become resistant to antibiotics?

Influenza

Influenza fell to very low levels during the first two years of the COVID pandemic due to masks, physical distancing and other measures. But once things began to return to “normal”, flu infections have tended to bounce back.

Influenza is most severe in children under age five and the elderly, so may be contributing to hospitalisations among children.

RSV and adenovirus

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can also be severe in children, and like influenza, all but disappeared during the first two years of the pandemic. But it’s now circulating widely.

Adenovirus, which can cause a range of syndromes including gastroenteritis and a flu-like illness, has also been reported as contributing to the current outbreak in China. There are reports of children vomiting and pictures of children receiving IV fluids, presumably for dehydration as a result of gastroenteritis.

The role of COVID

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, can also cause pneumonia, but less so in children. Early in the pandemic, we knew SARS-CoV-2 could show pneumonia on a chest scan in asymptomatic children, so COVID too can cause “walking pneumonia” in kids.

SARS-CoV-2 causes more deaths in children than influenza, so likely is contributing to the overcrowding seen in hospitals.

Some research suggests SARS-CoV-2 may also result in immune dysfunction after the infection, which may explain the unexpected rise of other infections, including streptococcal infections and Mycoplasma, since the pandemic.

Co-infections

People can become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and other bacteria or viruses at the same time, which may also explain the severity of the current epidemic. One study showed co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and Mycoplasma is very common and results in more serious complications.

Read more:
RSV is a common winter illness in children. Why did it see a summer surge in Australia this year?

Could it be a new pandemic?

The below figure shows reports of outbreaks of unspecified influenza-like illness and pneumonia, together with known causes influenza A and B, SARS-CoV-2, RSV, pertussis (whooping cough), adenovirus and Mycoplasma. It confirms an increase in respiratory illnesses this year in China compared to the same time last year.

In contrast, the same comparison for the world shows a decrease this year compared to last year, which tells us China is indeed experiencing more respiratory illness than expected.

If no known cause for this surge had been identified, that would give us greater cause for concern. But several have been identified, which gives us confidence we are not dealing with a novel virus.

The virus we are most worried about with pandemic potential is avian influenza, which may mutate to become easily transmissible in humans. China has been an epicentre of avian flu in the past, but the spread of H5N1 has shifted to the Americas, Europe and Africa.

Still, this year, China has reported multiple human cases of various avian flu strains, including H3N8, H5N1, H5N6 and H9N2. With large and continual outbreaks in birds and mammals, there is a greater likelihood of mutations and mixing of bird and human influenza genetic material, which could lead to a new pandemic influenza virus.

Read more:
Alert but not alarmed: what to make of new H1N1 swine flu with ‘pandemic potential’ found in China

The threat of new viruses is increasing, and pandemic potential is greatest for viruses spread by the respiratory route and which are severe enough to cause pneumonia. There is no indication that the current situation in China is a new pandemic, but we should always identify and pay attention to undiagnosed pneumonia clusters. Early warning systems give us the best chance of preventing the next pandemic.

C Raina MacIntyre receives funding from NHMRC and MRFF. She is currently receiving funding from Sanofi for research on influenza and pertussis. She is on the WHO COVID-19 Vaccine Composition Technical Advisory Group and the WHO SAGE Monkeypox and Smallpox ad hoc working group. She leads EPIWATCH early warning system.

Ashley Quigley works as the Epidemiological Team Lead on EPIWATCH® at The Kirby Institute, UNSW.

Haley Stone works as a Research Officer on EPIWATCH® at The Kirby Institute, UNSW.

Rebecca Dawson is a Research Associate with EPIWATCH® at the Kirby Institute, UNSW.

– ref. How worried should we be about the pneumonia outbreak in China? – https://theconversation.com/how-worried-should-we-be-about-the-pneumonia-outbreak-in-china-218514

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Burch, Dietitian & Academic, Southern Cross University

A rise in the cost of living has led many households to look for ways to save money.

New research suggests maintaining a healthy diet, in line with the Australian Dietary Guidelines, is cheaper than an unhealthy diet and could save A$160 off a family of four’s fortnightly shopping bill.

Poor diet is the most common preventable risk factor contributing to chronic disease in Australia. So improving your diet can also be an important way to reduce the chance of developing chronic disease.

Read more:
Yes, $5 for lettuce is too much. Government should act to stem the rising cost of healthy eating

First, what are the dietary guidelines?

The guidelines provide information on the quantity and types of foods most Australians should consume to promote overall health and wellbeing.

Recommendations include eating a wide variety of nutritious foods from the main five food groups:

• vegetables and legumes
• fruit
• grains
• lean meats and meat alternatives such as tofu, nuts and legumes
• dairy products.

The guidelines recommend limiting our intake of foods high in saturated fat, added salt, added sugars and alcohol.

What are Australians eating?

Fewer than 7% of Australians eat sufficient vegetables, in line with the Australian Dietary Guidelines. In fact, Australians have an average healthy diet score of 55 out of 100 – barely passing.

Foods that aren’t part of a food group are known as “discretionary” items, which includes alcohol, cakes, biscuits, chocolate and confectionery and most takeaway foods. Because they’re typically high in kilojoules, saturated fat, sodium and added sugars, the Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend they only be eaten occasionally and in small amounts (ideally zero serves).

For many households, discretionary items make up a big portion of their grocery shop. Australians consume an average of 28 serves of discretionary choices per week (equal to 28 doughnuts, 28 slices of cake, or 28 cans of soft drink or beer). This is an increase of ten serves since 2015.

One recent study estimated 55% of Australians’ total energy intake was from discretionary items.

What did the researchers find?

Researchers from the Health Promotion Team at South West Healthcare recently visited four local supermarkets and takeaway stores in Warrnambool, Victoria, and purchased two baskets of groceries.

One basket met the Australian Dietary Guidelines (basket one), the other aligned with the typical dietary intake of Australians (basket two).

They compared prices between the two and found basket one would cost approximately $167 less per fortnight for a family of four at the most affordable supermarket. That’s equal to $4,342 a year.

Basket one was sufficient to supply a family of four for a fortnight, and aligned with the Australian Dietary Guidelines. It cost $724 and included:

1. fruit and vegetables (made up 31% of the fortnightly shop)
2. grains and cereals (oats, cornflakes, bread, rice, pasta, Weet-bix)
3. lean meats and alternatives (mince, steak, chicken, tuna, eggs, nuts)
4. milk, yoghurt and cheese
5. oils and spreads (olive oil).

Basket two reflected the current average Australian fortnightly shop for a family of four.

In the project, the team spent over half of the fortnightly shop on processed and packaged foods, of which 21% was spent on take-away. This is based on actual dietary intake of the general population reported in the 2011-2012 Australian Health Survey.

Basket two cost $891 and included:

1. fruit and vegetables (made up 13% of the fortnightly shop)
2. grains and cereals (oats, cornflakes, bread, rice, pasta, Weet-bix)
3. lean meats and alternatives (mince, steak, chicken, tuna, eggs, nuts)
4. milk, yogurt and cheese
5. oils and spreads (olive oil, butter)
6. drinks (soft drink, fruit juice)
7. desserts and snacks (muffins, sweet biscuits, chocolate, ice cream, potato chips, muesli bars)
8. processed meats (sausages, ham)
9. convenience meals
10. fast food (pizza, meat pie, hamburger, fish and chips)
11. alcohol (beer, wine).

Read more:
Are home-brand foods healthy? If you read the label, you may be pleasantly surprised

But a healthy basket is still unaffordable for many

While this piece of work, and other research, suggests a healthy diet is less expensive than an unhealthy diet, affordability is still a challenge for many families.

The Warrnambool research found basket one (which aligned with guidelines) was still costly, requiring approximately 25% of a median household income.

This is unaffordable for many. For a household reliant on welfare, basket one would require allocating 26%-38% of their income. This highlights how the rising cost of living crisis is affecting those already facing financial difficulties.

Around 3.7 million Australian households did not have access to enough food to meet their basic needs at some point in the last 12 months.

Policy action is needed from the Australian government to make recommended diets more affordable for low socioeconomic groups. This means lowering the costs of healthy foods and ensuring household incomes are sufficient.

What else can you do to cut your spending?

To help reduce food costs and support your health, reducing discretionary foods could be a good idea.

Other ways to reduce your grocery bill and keep your food healthy and fresh include:

• planning for some meatless meals each week. Pulses (beans, lentils and legumes) are nutritious and cheap (a can is less than $1.50. Here are some great pulse recipes to try

• checking the specials and buy in bulk (to store or freeze) when items are cheaper

• making big batches of meals and freezing them. Single-serve portions can help save time for lunches at work, saving on takeaway

• Australian supermarkets are almost never the cheapest place for fresh produce, so shop around for farmers markets or smaller local grocery shops

• buying generic brands when possible, as they are notably cheaper. Supermarkets usually promote the items they want you to buy at eye-level, so check the shelves above and below for cheaper alternatives.

Read more:
Bring a plate! What to take to Christmas lunch that looks impressive (but won’t break the bank)

Emily Burch works for Southern Cross University.

Lauren Ball works for The University of Queensland and receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health, Mater Misericordia and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

– ref. Trying to spend less on food? Following the dietary guidelines might save you $160 a fortnight – https://theconversation.com/trying-to-spend-less-on-food-following-the-dietary-guidelines-might-save-you-160-a-fortnight-216749

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Celine Steinfeld, Director, Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists & Adjunct Lecturer, UNSW Sydney

This week, the Senate is debating changes to Australia’s most important water laws. These changes seek to rescue the ailing A$13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan to improve the health of our nation’s largest river system.

The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 is a crucial step forward. It proposes to lift the Coalition-era cap on water buybacks, allowing the federal government to recover more water for the environment through the voluntary purchase of water entitlements from irrigators.

It also proposes to extend the deadlines for the many beleaguered water-offsetting projects put forward by state governments.

Through the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists – an independent group working to secure the long-term health of Australia’s land, water and biodiversity – we strive to restore river health for the basin’s communities, industries and ecosystems. Here we ask whether the bill can fulfil the Albanese government’s 2022 election promise to deliver the plan.

Securing support of the Greens and crossbenchers

The bill is central to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s five-point election promise to deliver the plan, and Federal Water Minister Tanya Plibersek’s subsequent commitment to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full.

With the Coalition voting against the bill in the lower house, the federal government secured the support of the Greens with measures that considerably strengthen the bill.

It is now up to key crossbench Senators to secure passage through parliament. But they have said the bill doesn’t go far enough, citing serious concerns it excludes First Nations water rights and interests and ignores climate change.

The federal government must pass the bill in the next two sitting weeks to avoid triggering a statutory deadline, after which unfinished water offset projects would be cancelled and water recovery would be required instead.

Read more:
Labor’s new Murray-Darling Basin Plan deal entrenches water injustice for First Nations

Water Act and Basin Plan: where are we at?

Born of the crisis of the Millennium drought, the Water Act 2007 was announced by the Howard government to “once and for all” address over-allocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Five years later, the Basin Plan 2012 was established to recover 3,200 billion litres of water for the environment from other uses, or to implement projects that deliver “equivalent” outcomes. That includes securing 450 billion litres for the health of the River Murray, Coorong and Lower Lakes.

But this volume of water fell substantially short of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s best estimate of what was needed to “ensure the return to environmentally sustainable levels of extraction”, and did not take climate change into account.

All water recovery targets were expected to be met by June 2024. But while some progress has been made, water recovery has almost stalled in the past decade.

Only 26 billion litres have been recovered of the crucial 450 billion litres.

Of the 36 water offset projects meant to be operational by 2024, 16 are not likely to be complete, contributing to a likely shortfall of between 190 billion and 315 billion litres.

No onground work has commenced to alleviate flow “constraints”, leaving thousands of hectares of floodplain forests in the River Murray disconnected from their channels and at risk of drying out and dying.

The Water Act and the plan do not provide for First Nations people’s water rights and interests. And they fail to deal with climate change.

Reforms to both the legislation and the plan are desperately needed to address these major shortcomings.

Read more:
Murray-Darling Basin Plan to be extended under a new agreement, without Victoria – but an uphill battle lies ahead

Voluntary buybacks are necessary

The new bill represents a clear step towards the first of the Albanese government’s five-point promises to “deliver on water commitments” by removing the cap on buybacks.

Without buybacks, it is unlikely the federal government will be able to deliver the 3,200 billion-litre plan in full.

While the Senate Committee acknowledged the impacts of buybacks on communities, the committee found some concerns were “overinflated and not supported by the high-quality evidence base”, referring to a literature review.

The Wentworth Group has long argued for funding to establish a regional transition fund to support impacted communities through these reforms. As part of these reforms, “significant transitional assistance” was announced by Plibersek.

Read more:
Water buybacks are back on the table in the Murray-Darling Basin. Here’s a refresher on how they work

Statutory guarantees are needed

The bill requires additional measures to guarantee the unfinished business to which parliament agreed more than a decade ago:

1. a legally binding 450 billion litre water recovery target. The public needs a legal recourse if governments fail to deliver the full volume. We understand the intent of today’s announcement is to make the target a statutory requirement, in line with other water recovery targets under the plan.

2. improved integrity of the water offset method and withdrawal of unviable water offset projects The agreement reached today allows the Commonwealth to remove non-viable projects. Significant flaws in the method used to calculate water offsets still need to be addressed.

3. milestones in the bill’s proposed “constraints roadmap” which specify targets linked to incentive payments.

4. transparency and accountability measures to restore public confidence in water reform, such as whole-of-basin hydrological modelling, water accounting and auditing, and validation of annual permitted take models.

Several of these measures were announced today. We’re yet to see details but the high-level agreement is encouraging.

Urgent reforms can’t wait to 2027

Australia’s water laws have failed to address the rights and interests of Indigenous people. Indigenous peoples own a mere 0.2% of surface water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin.

In 2022, the Albanese government committed to “increasing First Nations ownership of water entitlements and participation in decision making”.

The Senate Committee found “overwhelming support […] that significantly more needs to be done to incorporate the values and interests of First Nations people in Basin Plan management”.

Many solutions can be readily incorporated into the bill. It should be amended so the legislation is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and recommendations of Indigenous organisations, such as the Murray-Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations.

The $100 million announced today for the Aboriginal Water Entitlement Program is welcome, although much was already committed and the remainder won’t make up for the lost value given entitlement prices, according to analysis commissioned by the Murray-Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations.

The bill also needs to provide greater clarity for basin communities on how climate change will be incorporated into the Basin Plan review, and strategies for adapting to climate change. This cannot wait until 2027 – communities need to prepare now for their future.

Read more:
Victoria’s plans for engineered wetlands on the Murray are environmentally dubious. Here’s a better option

Celine Steinfeld is Director of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

Michael Vanderzee is a Water Policy Analyst with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. He is a former water policy adviser to the Victorian goverment with more than 12 years experience in national and Murray-Darling Basin water reform.

– ref. The government’s Murray-Darling bill is a step forward, but still not enough – https://theconversation.com/the-governments-murray-darling-bill-is-a-step-forward-but-still-not-enough-217002

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Fitzsimons, Adjunct Professor in Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

In the mid 1990s, only 7% of Australia’s land was protected for conservation. Now, it’s more than tripled to 22%.

But to reach our ambitious goal of boosting protection to 30% by 2030, we’ll have to sharpen our focus and boost funding.

In December last year, Australia joined 195 other nations in signing on to the Global Biodiversity Framework to tackle the world’s worsening biodiversity crisis. Each nation agreed, in brief, to set a goal of “30×30” – protecting at least 30% of land, freshwater and ocean ecosystems by 2030.

Our territorial waters already have 45% under varying forms of protection. But land can be harder. The question now is – how do we get to 30%, which includes land and freshwater ecosystems? In a new report, we show how we can do it.

Read more:
Protecting 30% of Australia’s land and sea by 2030 sounds great – but it’s not what it seems

Four steps to 30%

1. Establish a new dedicated land fund

Buying land to protect it works, and works well. Between 1996 and 2013, the government’s National Reserve System Program channelled funds to state governments and land trusts to buy tracts of land to protect some of our most endangered and least protected ecosystems, such as native grasslands and wetlands.

Under fund-matching provisions, the program led to new state government and philanthropic money invested in conservation. If we fund a new A$5 billion program, we can begin making conservation gains again.

2. Support creation of new Indigenous Protected Areas

Since the 1990s, two-thirds of the growth in Australia’s protected lands has come from expansion of Indigenous Protected Areas. Combined, these 84 areas now cover over 87 million hectares and account for fully half of all of our conservation estate on land across iconic places such as the Kimberley, Arnhem Land, Cape York and the vast deserts of central Australia.

Traditional Owners are managing species such as bilbies, rock-wallabies and Gouldian finches to protect biodiversity. We will need more of these areas to hit our goal. One problem is funding has been largely short-term and insecure – we’ll need long-term funding for existing areas as well as new ones.

3. More conservation on private land

For decades, environmentally focused private landholders have placed conservation covenants over their land. When the land is sold, the covenant goes with it, obliging the new owner to keep conserving nature.

To get to 30% protection, we will have to encourage more permanent covenants. That’s because many of our under-protected bioregions and ecosystems overlap with where we live – think coastal scrub or native grassland.

To galvanise this sector, we’ll need direct federal support for conservation covenant programs run by the states and territories.

4. Scour public land for opportunities

In the 1990s and 2000s, Australia’s Regional Forest Agreements were dogged by controversy. But in retrospect, these logging-conservation deals led to significant gains in converting public forests into national parks.

As Victoria and Western Australia announce an end to native forest logging, we should explore the areas previously set aside for logging with an eye to protection based on ecosystem, carbon and water values. First Nations communities have rightly asked to be involved in what happens next.

Conservation isn’t just about hitting a target

Why do we need all four methods? To avoid temptation. When we set targets such as “30% of land”, it can be easy to look for the easy route. In Australia’s case, that might be by mainly conserving large new tracts of desert – many of which are already well represented in our protected estate.

Instead, we should look at what the 30% goal is for – to stave off the extinction crisis and stop the biodiversity freefall. To do that means protecting adequate samples of all of Australia’s unique species and ecosystems.

Australia is already internationally seen as an example of how to expand a nation’s protected areas. For the past 30 years, the expansion of the estate has largely been done well, increasingly focused on comprehensive, adequate and representative protection. New protected areas tend to cover landscapes and ecosystems with little or no protection.

While our national parks are known and valued by most Australians, agreements with Indigenous and private landholders are less known but increasingly vital.

Australia’s network of privately protected areas is already one of the largest in the world. Our network includes conservation covenants held by individual landholders, as well as land owned by conservation land trusts. These matter a great deal, because many threatened ecosystems and habitat for threatened species occur largely on private land. Protecting private land will have an increasingly important role.

Read more:
National parks are not enough – we need landholders to protect threatened species on their property

Progress is welcome, but there’s more to do

Despite these successes, the growth of Australia’s conservation estate has slowed since federal funding for land purchases ended in 2013. Science tells us we urgently need more safe spaces for nature to protect wildlife, people and the planet.

Importantly, new protected areas have to come with funds for management. Drawing a line on a map isn’t job done. Our ecosystems are under great pressure from climate change, feral species and human use. If we don’t fund ongoing management, hard won gains for threatened species can quickly be lost.

The government’s proposed Nature Repair Market might help, but secure ongoing government funding will still be critical.

Australia has the toolkit to get to 30×30. Now we need substantial investment and interest to sharpen our tools.

Read more:
The new major players in conservation? NGOs thrive while national parks struggle

James Fitzsimons is Senior Advisor, Global Protection Strategies with The Nature Conservancy, is a Councillor of the Biodiversity Council and a member of the Australian Land Conservation Alliance’s policy and government relations committee. The Nature Conservancy is a global conservation organisation dedicated to conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends. The Nature Conservancy partners with governments, NGOs and Indigenous communities on protected area outcomes to advance Australia’s 30×30 commitments.

– ref. We’ve committed to protect 30% of Australia’s land by 2030. Here’s how we could actually do it – https://theconversation.com/weve-committed-to-protect-30-of-australias-land-by-2030-heres-how-we-could-actually-do-it-217795

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron Nicholas, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Deakin University

Have you ever encountered a subpar hotel breakfast while on holiday? You don’t really like the food choices on offer, but since you already paid for the meal as part of your booking, you force yourself to eat something anyway rather than go down the road to a cafe.

Economists and social scientists argue that such behaviour can happen due to the “sunk cost fallacy” – an inability to ignore costs that have already been spent and can’t be recovered. In the hotel breakfast example, the sunk cost is the price you paid for the hotel package: at the time of deciding where to eat breakfast, such costs are unrecoverable and should therefore be ignored.

Similar examples range from justifying finishing a banal, half-read book (or half-watched TV series) based on prior time already “invested” in the activity, to being less likely to quit exclusive groups such as sororities and sporting clubs the more effort it took to complete the initiation ritual.

While these behaviours are not rational, they’re all too common, so it helps to be aware of this tendency. In some circumstances, you might even use it for your benefit.

Sunk costs can affect high-stakes decisions

While the examples above may seem relatively trivial, they show how common the sunk cost fallacy is. And it can affect decisions with much higher stakes in our lives.

Imagine that Bob previously bought a house for $1 million. Subsequently, there’s a nationwide housing market crash. All houses are now cheaper by 20% and Bob can only sell his house for $800,000. Bob’s been thinking of upgrading to a bigger house (and they are now cheaper!), but will need to sell his existing house to have funds for a downpayment.

However, he refuses to upgrade because he perceives a loss of $200,000 relative to the original price he paid of $1 million. Bob is committing the sunk cost fallacy by letting the original price influence his decision making – only the house’s current and projected price should matter.

Bob might be acting irrationally, but he’s only human. Part of the reason we may find it difficult to ignore such losses is because losses are psychologically more salient relative to gains – this is known as loss aversion.

While most of the evidence for the sunk cost fallacy comes from individual decisions, it may also influence the decisions of groups. In fact, it is sometimes referred to as the Concord fallacy, because the French and British governments continued funding the doomed supersonic airliner long after it was likely it would not be commercially viable.

Another example is drawn-out armed conflict that involves a large loss of lives for the losing side. Some may think it impossible to capitulate because the casualties will have “died in vain”.

À lire aussi :
Supersonic flights are set to return – here’s how they can succeed where Concorde failed

Knowing about sunk costs can help you

If you find yourself justifying behaviour due to costs you’ve paid in the past rather than circumstances of the present, or predictions of the future, it’s worth checking yourself.

Identifying sunk costs allows you to cut your losses early and move on, rather than perpetuating larger losses. This is apparent in the housing example: the larger the crash, the cheaper the bigger house; and yet the larger the crash, the greater the perceived loss from selling the existing house. Hence, the greater the loss in opportunity inflicted by the sunk cost fallacy.

If you find it difficult to overcome the sunk cost fallacy, it may help to delegate such decisions to others. This may include the decision of whether to go to a buffet or subscribe to Netflix, with the latter potentially being a double whammy: one may feel compelled to binge-watch due to the flat fee structure and, as mentioned earlier, to finish mediocre series once halfway through.

Use sunk costs to your advantage

A second, less obvious benefit is actively using the fallacy to your advantage. For example, many gym memberships require upfront payments regardless of how much you use the facilities. If you find it hard to ignore sunk costs, choosing gym memberships that have large upfront fees and minimal pay-per-usage fees may be a way to commit yourself to a regular gym habit.

This can also apply to other activities that involve short-term pain for long-term gain – for example, paying for an online course will make you more likely to stick with it than if you found a free course.

But be warned, this doesn’t work for everything: it seems that spending wildly on a wedding ceremony or engagement ring doesn’t have a “sunk cost” effect – it fails to increase the likelihood of staying married.

À lire aussi :
Gym membership: how to get the most out of it, according to a sports scientist

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

– ref. What is the ‘sunk cost fallacy’? Is it ever a good thing? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-sunk-cost-fallacy-is-it-ever-a-good-thing-217798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic O’Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University

All three parties in New Zealand’s new coalition government went into the election promising to diminish various Māori-based policies or programs. But it was the ACT Party that went furthest, calling for a referendum to redefine the “principles” of te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi.

The referendum didn’t make it into the coalition agreement, but National and New Zealand First
have agreed to a Treaty Principles Bill going to a select committee for further consideration.

Meanwhile, NZ First negotiated a review of all legislation referring to the Treaty principles and to “replace all such references with specific words relating to the relevance and application of the Treaty, or repeal the references”.

These proposals are significant because they would reverse a decades-long bipartisan trend towards increasing the Treaty/te Tiriti’s influence in public life.

The Treaty and its principles

Over the past 50 years, the treaty/tiriti principles have been developed by parliament, the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. The principles include partnership, reciprocity, mutual benefit, active protection of Māori interests, and redress for past wrongs.

ACT argues that these principles give people “different political rights based on birth”, meaning Māori have a bigger say in political decisions, and that this affronts political equality.

Others have argued the principles overshadow the substance of te Tiriti, meaning Māori have less say, and that this is actually where inequality lies. This in turn explains why, for example, Māori die an average six to seven years younger than other people.

Read more:
Three parties, two deals, one government: the stress points within New Zealand’s ‘coalition of many colours’

When te Tiriti was presented to Māori chiefs (rangatira) in 1840 by the Anglican missionary Henry Williams, he stressed the protection of Maori authority over their own affairs was a serious and unbreakable promise.

Most importantly for the current debate, people were given reasons to believe the government would not interfere with a Māori right to be Māori.

Specifically, the British Crown would establish a government (Article 1 of te Tiriti). Māori would enjoy tino rangatiratanga over their own affairs (Article 2) – the inherent authority to make decisions, not the government’s gift to take away as it pleased.

Māori would also enjoy the rights and privileges of British subjects (Article 3), and there would be “equality of tikanga” (cultural equality). By now, “subjecthood” has come to mean New Zealand citizenship, and the concept continues to evolve.

Political equality requires cultural equality

ACT’s alternative principles do not use the language developed to deal with te Tiriti’s/the Treaty’s meaning over the past 50 years. They state:

1. All citizens of New Zealand have the same political rights and duties.

2. All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot.

3. New Zealand is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy where discrimination based on ethnicity is illegal.

These could be interpreted to support the idea that cultural equality means Māori people are allowed to be Maori when they participate in public life. But ACT’s election campaign rhetoric, and the coalition government agreements, suggest the opposite intent.

The plan to abolish the Māori Health Authority is an example. It was established in 2022 to ensure Māori experts could make decisions about funding and providing Māori primary health services.

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

This was based on findings by both Waitangi Tribunal and parliamentary select committee inquiries that health policies were failing Māori – partly because there was no sufficient mechanism for Māori to systematically contribute to decisions about services and delivery.

Health services will remain universally available. But it’s not clear they are intended to work equally well for everybody, given the government has provided no alternative to address the policy void the Māori Health Authority was intended to fill.

In other words, there’s no space for specific Māori leadership in making decisions about what works and why, and what should be funded as Māori primary health services. Māori culture won’t count in decision making.

Diminishing that cultural perspective means democratic equality is, in effect, conditional on not bringing a Māori perspective to public life.

Policy that works equally well for Maori

Equality means every citizen should expect a policy to work for them as well is it works for anybody else. Te Tiriti may help achieve that. But without it, there may be a gap between the language of equality and the policy intent.

For example, the government plans to repeal the Treaty section of the law governing Oranga Tamariki, the state’s child care and protection agency. This section says te Tiriti requires Oranga Tamariki to recognise the cultural backgrounds of Māori children in its care.

Oranga Tamariki must also recognise it’s also the job of Māori famililies, iwi, hapu and other agencies to support Maori children who need care and protection.

Read more:
Who are the ‘kōhanga reo generation’ and how could they change Māori and mainstream politics?

There’s nothing in this section to support ACT’s election campaign statement that the previous government’s Treaty policies contributed to an “unequal society [where] there are two types of New Zealanders. Tangata Whenua, who are here by right, and Tangata Tiriti who are lucky to be here”.

This section says no more than that Māori people should expect state care and protection policies to work for them. Yet it is the only section of any legislation the government is explicitly committed to repealing.

To avoid doubt, and affirm the substantive equality of all people, the government could simply replace references to the Treaty with the words: “This Act will be applied to work equally well for Māori as for all other citizens.” After all, if this is not the intent of any law, then equality per se is not its intent either.

Political authority and people

ACT’s second proposed principle states that “all political authority comes from the people”. But as I argue in my recent book Sharing the Sovereign, that means all people must be able to express that authority in ways that are personally meaningful.

People’s actual experience of the democratic system must give them reasons to believe it works as well for them as for anyone else. Those reasons cannot arise –for anyone – in a cultural void.

We all think and reason about what governments should do, and what they should leave for others, through a cultural lens. If some people may only participate in public life through a cultural lens someone else has imposed, then they are not among the people from whom “all political authority comes”.

Dominic O’Sullivan 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. Why redefining the Treaty principles would undermine real political equality in NZ – https://theconversation.com/why-redefining-the-treaty-principles-would-undermine-real-political-equality-in-nz-218511

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

The government has sacked the secretary of the Home Affairs department, Mike Pezzullo, after an inquiry found he had breached the Public Service Code of Conduct.

The inquiry found he used his position for personal advantage, gossiped disrespectfully about ministers, broke confidentiality, failed to act apolitically, and didn’t disclose a conflict of interest.

In September, Nine Entertainment revealed a trove of texts Pezzullo sent to a Liberal insider, Scott Briggs, who was close to prime ministers Scott Morrison and Malcolm Turnbull. In the texts Pezzullo inserted himself into the political process, lobbying for his bureaucratic interests and his views.

A long-time public servant who served both sides of politics, Pezzullo also worked in the office of Kim Beazley when he was opposition leader.

A hawk on China policy and hard-line on national security issues, especially border protection, Pezzullo was a divisive figure in the bureaucracy.

While he was known for always being willing to express his views forthrightly, current and former senior colleagues were amazed at the overreach his texts represented, including his criticism of a then minister, Marise Payne, and of Julie Bishop when she put up her hand for leadership in 2018.

As soon as the texts were revealed, it was generally recognised in government and public service circles that Pezzullo would not survive.

The government stood him aside, on full salary, while the inquiry was done by Lynelle Briggs, a former public service commissioner.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday said Pezzullo’s termination had been recommended by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Glyn Davis, and the Public Service Commissioner, Gordon de Brouwer. This followed a recommendation from Briggs that he be sacked.

Pezzullo had fully co-operated with the Briggs’ inquiry, Albanese said. He said the present acting head of Home Affairs, Stephanie Foster, would continue to act in the position until a permament appointment was made.

In a statement the Public Service Commission said
Briggs found Pezzullo breached the public service code least 14 times in relation to five overarching allegations. Pezzullo

• used his duty, power, status or authority to seek to gain a benefit or advantage for himself

• engaged in gossip and disrespectful critique of ministers and public servants

• failed to maintain confidentiality of sensitive government information

• failed to act apolitically in his employment

• failed to disclose a conflict of interest.

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. Mike Pezzullo sacked after scathing findings accusing him of misusing his position – https://theconversation.com/mike-pezzullo-sacked-after-scathing-findings-accusing-him-of-misusing-his-position-218592

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

A federal Newspoll, conducted November 20–24 from a sample of 1,216, had Labor and the Coalition tied at 50–50 after preferences, a two-point gain for the Coalition since the previous Newspoll three weeks ago. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up one), 31% Labor (down four), 13% Greens (up one), 6% One Nation (steady) and 12% for all Others (up two).

In the final Newspoll taken before the October 14 Voice referendum, Labor led by 54–46. Three weeks ago, Labor’s lead had dropped to 52–48 and now it’s tied. This is the first time Labor has not led in Newspoll since June 2021.

Movements on leaders’ ratings were relatively modest, with Anthony Albanese’s satisfied rating down two to 40% and his dissatisfied rating up one to 53%, for a net approval of -13, down three points. Here is a graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll this term.

Peter Dutton’s net approval was steady at -13, so Albanese and Dutton are now tied on net approval. Albanese slightly extended his better PM lead to 46–35 from 46–36 three weeks ago.

I wrote on November 19 that three polls on average had Labor just ahead, with the Reserve Bank’s decision to raise interest rates at its early November meeting probably causing Labor’s drop. This Newspoll is a continuation of that trend to the Coalition.

Albanese’s net approval has now been in the negative double digits for two Newspolls in a row. The net approval of the PM has been correlated with voting intentions in the past, so Albanese appears to be dragging down Labor’s vote.

Morgan poll has Coalition ahead

Last week’s federal Morgan poll, conducted November 13–19 from a sample of 1,401, gave the Coalition a 50.5–49.5 lead, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition since the previous week. Primary votes were 37.5% Coalition (up one), 29.5% Labor (down 0.5), 13.5% Greens (up 0.5), 6.5% One Nation (up 0.5), 7% independents (down one) and 6% others (down 0.5).

This is the second Morgan poll that has had the Coalition ahead, after one conducted in the week after the Voice referendum. However, in that earlier poll, 2022 election preference flows would have given Labor above a 53–47 lead, while applying 2022 preference flows to this poll gives Labor just a 50.5–49.5 lead.

Morgan and Essential federal polls, which both use respondent preferences, have generally shown weaker results for Labor in the last few months than if they used 2022 election flows. It’s plausible that One Nation and others’ preferences have become better for the Coalition since the last election.

The July Fadden federal byelection gives some evidence for an improvement for the Coalition on preference flows from One Nation voters.

Wage rises are good economic data for Labor

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported on November 15 that wages increased 1.3% in the September quarter for an annual growth of 4.0%. This annual growth is the highest since 2009, and has surged from a low of 1.3% in 2020 owing to the COVID lockdowns.

Before COVID, wages had been growing at about 2% annually since 2014. For the September quarter, the wage increase beat inflation by 0.1%, although it’s 1.4% behind inflation for the 12 months to September.

If wage increases at the current levels are sustained, Labor should benefit at the next election. But inflation and interest rates may need to drop before people start feeling more optimistic about the economy.

Far-right Javier Milei wins Argentine presidency

I covered the November 19 Argentine presidential runoff election for The Poll Bludger. The far-right Javier Milei defeated the centre-left Sergio Massa by a 55.7–44.3 margin. But the left still controls the Argentine Senate, though the combined right has a majority in the lower house.

Joe Biden turned 81 on November 20, and I believe US Democrats should consider replacing him as their presidential nominee owing to his age and unpopularity. The Spanish Socialists formed a government four months after the Spanish election.

A new government was formed in New Zealand on Friday after National, ACT and NZ First reached an agreement. I covered a NZ byelection for The Poll Bludger on Saturday that National won easily. In last Wednesday’s Dutch election, the far-right Party of Freedom won the most seats but is well short of a majority.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Labor loses four points in two Newspolls to slump to a 50–50 tie – https://theconversation.com/labor-loses-four-points-in-two-newspolls-to-slump-to-a-50-50-tie-218248

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By T.J. Thomson, Senior Lecturer in Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT University

Smartphones are a staple of modern life and are changing how we see the world and show it to others. Almost 90% of Aussies own one, and we spend an average of 5.6 hours using them each day. Smartphones are also responsible for more than 90% of all the photographs made this year.

But compare the camera roll of a 60-year-old with that of a 13-year-old, as we recently did, and you’ll find some surprising differences. In research published in the Journal of Visual Literacy, we looked at how different generations use smartphones for photography as well as broader trends that reveal how these devices change the way we see the world.

Here are five patterns we observed.

1. We make images more casually and with a wider subject matter

Before the first smartphone camera was released in 2007, cameras were used more selectively and for a narrower range of purposes. You might only see them at events like weddings and graduations, or at tourist hotspots on holidays.

Now, they’re ubiquitous in everyday life. We use smartphones to document our meals, our daily gym progress, and our classwork as well as the more “special” moments in our lives.

Many middle-aged people use smartphones most for work-related purposes. One of our participants put it this way:

I often take photos of info I want to save, or of clients’ work when I want to then email it to myself to put on the computer. I feel like I’ve gotten a little slack on socially taking photos of friends … but in the day-to-day, I feel like I use it very practically now for basically work, grabbing a photo to upload it online somewhere.

2. We aren’t as selfie-obsessed as some would think

Our participants only used their phone’s front “selfie” camera 14% of the time. They acknowledged the stigma around selfies and didn’t want to be perceived as narcissistic.

3. We’re seeing more vertical compositions

In years past, whether you had a bulky DSLR camera or a lightweight disposable, the “default” grip was to hold it with two hands in a horizontal way. This leads to photos in landscape orientation.

But the vertical design of smartphones and accompanying apps, such as Instagram and Snapchat, are resulting in more photos in portrait orientation. Participants said holding their smartphone cameras this way was more convenient and faster.

4. We like to keep our distance

Participants made more images of people from farther away compared to getting close. Intimate “head and face” framing was only present in fewer than 10% of the images.

In one participant’s words:

I feel like my friends and I get frustrated with parents, when they’re zooming in a photo or they walk in really close. My mom would always get one like right in my face, like this is too close! I don’t want to see this. The zoom in, oh, it’s frustrating!

5. We get inspired by what we see online

Teenagers in particular mentioned social media, especially Instagram, as influencing their visual sensibilities. Older adults were more likely to attribute their sense of aesthetics to physical media, such as photography books, magazines and posters.

This aesthetic inspiration impacts what we take photos of, and also how we do it. For example, young people mentioned a centred compositional approach most often. In contrast, older generations invoked the “rule of thirds” approach more often.

One participant contrasted generational differences like this:

There seems to be a real lack of interest [by younger people] in say, composition, or the use of light or that sort of aesthetic side of getting an image. When my partner and I were kids […] our access to different aesthetics and images was actually very limited. You had the four channels on TV, you had magazines, you had the occasional film, you had record covers, and that was it, you know. Whereas, kids these days, they’re saturated with images but the aesthetic aspect doesn’t seem to be that important to them.

Why the way we make images matters

While technology is changing the way people see the world and make photographs, it’s important to reflect on why we do what we do, and with what effects.

For example, the camera angle we use might either give or take away symbolic power from the subject. Photographing an athlete or politician from below makes them look more strong and heroic, while photographing a refugee from above can make them look less powerful.

Sometimes the camera angles we use are harmless or driven by practicality – think photographing a receipt to get reimbursed later – but other times, the angles we use matter and can reinforce existing inequalities.

As the number of images made each year increases and new ways to make images emerge, being thoughtful about how we use our cameras or other image-making technology becomes more important.

The research underpinning this article was supported by a research grant from the International Visual Literacy Association. T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

The research underpinning this article was supported by a research grant from the International Visual Literacy Association. Shehab Uddin is affiliated with Pathshala South Asian Media Institute.
.

– ref. Casual, distant, aesthetically limited: 5 ways smartphone photography is changing how we see the world – https://theconversation.com/casual-distant-aesthetically-limited-5-ways-smartphone-photography-is-changing-how-we-see-the-world-217926

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

Each year, vaccines prevent thousands of deaths and hospitalisations in Australia.

But millions of high-risk older Australians aren’t getting recommended vaccinations against COVID, the flu, pneumococcal disease and shingles.

Some people are more likely to miss out, such as migrant communities and those in rural areas and poorer suburbs.

As our new Grattan report shows, a policy reset to encourage more Australians to get vaccinated could save lives and help ease the pressure on our struggling hospitals.

Read more:
Millions of Australian adults are unvaccinated and it’s increasing disease risk for all of us

Adult vaccines reduce the risk of serious illness

Vaccines slash the risk of hospitalisation and serious illness, often by more than half.

COVID has already caused more than 3,000 deaths in Australia this year. On average, the flu kills about 600 people a year, although a bad flu season, like 2017, can mean several thousand deaths. And pneumococcal disease may also kill hundreds of people a year. Shingles is rarely fatal, but can be extremely painful and cause long-term nerve damage.

Even before COVID, vaccine-preventable diseases caused tens of thousands of potentially preventable hospitalisations each year – more than 80,000 in 2018.

Vaccines offered in Australia have been tested for safety and efficacy and have been found to be very safe for people who are recommended to get them.

Too many high-risk people are missing out

Our report shows that before winter this year, only 60% of high-risk Australians were vaccinated against the flu.

Only 38% had a COVID vaccination in the last six months. Compared to a year earlier, two million more high-risk people went into winter without a recent COVID vaccination.

Vaccination rates have fallen further since. Just over one-quarter (27%) of people over 75 have been vaccinated in the last six months. That leaves more than 1.3 million without a recent COVID vaccination.

Uptake is also low for other vaccines. Among Australians in their 70s, less than half are vaccinated against shingles and only one in five are vaccinated against pneumococcal disease.

Read more:
Explainer: how do you get shingles and who should be vaccinated against it?

These vaccination rates aren’t just low – they’re also unfair. The likelihood that someone is vaccinated changes depending on where they live, where they were born, what language they speak at home, and how much they earn.

For example, at the start of winter this year, the COVID vaccination rate for high-risk Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults was only 25%. This makes them about one-third less likely to have been vaccinated against COVID in the previous six months, compared to the average high-risk Australian.

For more than 750,000 high-risk adults who do not speak English at home, the COVID vaccination rate is below 20% – about half the level of the average high-risk adult.

Within this group, 250,000 adults aren’t proficient in English. They were 58% less likely to be vaccinated for COVID in the previous six months, compared to the average high-risk person.

High-risk adults who speak English at home have a flu vaccination rate of 62%. But for people from 29 other language groups, who aren’t proficient in English, the rate is less than 31%. These 39,000 people have half the vaccination rate of people who speak English at home.

These vaccination gaps contribute to the differences in people’s health. Australians born overseas don’t just have much lower rates of COVID vaccination, they also have much higher rates of death from COVID.

Where people live also affects vaccination rates. High-risk people living in remote and very remote areas are less likely to be vaccinated, and even within capital cities there are big differences between different areas.

We need to set ambitious targets

Australia needs a vaccination reset. A new National Vaccination Agreement between the federal and state governments should include ambitious but achievable targets for adult vaccines.

This can build on the success of targets for childhood and adolescent vaccination, setting targets for overall uptake and for communities that are falling behind.

The federal government should ask the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) to advise on vaccination targets for COVID, flu, pneumococcal and shingles for all high-risk older adults.

Different solutions for different barriers

Barriers to vaccination range from the trivial to the profound. A new national vaccination strategy needs to dismantle high and low barriers alike.

First, to increase overall uptake, vaccination should be easier, and easier to understand.

The federal government should introduce vaccination “surges”, especially in the lead-up to winter, as countries in Europe do.

During surges, high-risk people should be able to get vaccinated even if they have had a recent infection or injection. This will make the rules simpler and make vaccination in aged care easier.

Surges should be reinforced with advertising explaining who should get vaccinated and why. High-risk people should get SMS reminders.

Read more:
Health Check: when do adults need to be immunised?

Second, targeted policies are needed for the many people who are happy to use mainstream primary care services, but who don’t get vaccinated – for example, due to language barriers, or living in aged care.

Primary Health Networks should get funding to coordinate initiatives such as vaccination events in aged care and disability care homes, workforce training to support culturally appropriate care, and provision of interpreters.

Third, tailored programs are needed to reach people who are not comfortable or able to access mainstream health care, who have the most complex barriers to vaccination – for example, distrust of the health system or poverty.

These communities are all very different, so one-size-fits-all programs don’t work. The pandemic showed that vaccination programs can succeed when they are designed and delivered with the communities they are trying to reach. Examples are “community champions” who challenge misinformation, or health services organising vaccination events where communities work, gather or worship.

These programs should get ongoing funding, but also be accountable for achieving results.

Adult vaccines are the missing piece in Australia’s whole-of-life vaccination strategy. For the health and safety of the most vulnerable members of our community, we need to close the vaccination gap.

Read more:
What are the new COVID booster vaccines? Can I get one? Do they work? Are they safe?

Peter Breadon’s employer, Grattan Institute, has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

Ingrid Burfurd’s employer, Grattan Institute, has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

– ref. Millions of high-risk Australians aren’t getting vaccinated. A policy reset could save lives – https://theconversation.com/millions-of-high-risk-australians-arent-getting-vaccinated-a-policy-reset-could-save-lives-217915

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Fabian, Assistant professor of public policy, University of Warwick

Nearly all the world’s governments and vast numbers of its people are convinced that addressing human-induced climate change is essential if healthy societies are to survive. The two solutions most often proposed go by various names but are widely known as “green growth” and “degrowth”. Can these ideas be reconciled? What do both have to say about the climate challenge?

The crude version of green growth – the solution that dominates the discourse of developed countries – is essentially that technology will save us if we get the incentives right. We can stick with the idea that economic growth is the central determinant of human flourishing, we just need technological fixes for unsustainable industrial practices. These will emerge if we get prices pointing in a green direction, which is first and foremost about carbon taxes.

Yet this sort of thinking still seems head-in-the-sand. Yes, the emissions intensity of per-capita GDP growth is generally falling, in part because added economic value increasingly comes from ideas not widgets.

Sweden, for example, has increased its GDP by 76% but its domestic energy use by only 2.5% since 1995. But we are still missing carbon reduction deadlines by wide margins and struggling to enact meaningful carbon pricing.

Eco-socialism and political suicide: the caricature of degrowth

The crude version of degrowth is that to ensure sustainability, GDP must contract. Endless growth got us to where we are, and endless growth will kill us. We need to throw out the status quo and make our revolutionary way to eco-socialism. Rich countries need to stop where they are and transfer wealth to poor countries so we can equitably share what we have.

This sort of thinking is easily caricatured as political suicide and more likely to undermine enthusiasm for sustainability than achieve it.

Read more:
Is nuclear the answer to Australia’s climate crisis?

Yet these caricatures can be easily dismissed. While it’s hard to pin down exactly what each camp stands for, since they represent amorphous agglomerations of ideas in a fast-moving discourse, it’s clear many advocates of both green growth and degrowth are sophisticated in their views and share many points of agreement.

Where green growth and degrowth agree

The first is that contemporary industry is too environmentally intensive – it crosses multiple planetary boundaries in its carbon emissions, ocean acidification, nitrogen, phosphorus loading and so on.

Second, to avoid ecological collapse, sectors such as fossil fuels, fast fashion, industrial meat farming, air travel, plastics and many more need to draw down their economic activity.

Meanwhile, other sectors need to grow. These include clean energy, obviously, but also biodegradable materials, green steel and pesticide-free agriculture, on and on. Effecting this structural transition will require both carbon taxes and more muscular industrial policy of the Green New Deal sort.

Read more:
Too hard basket: why climate change is defeating our political system

Third, environmental damage is both licensed and exacerbated by a narrow policy focus on gross domestic product (GDP). We need to shift priorities away from GDP and towards frameworks and budgets – such as those used in New Zealand, the Australian Capital Territory and other places – that do a far better job than GDP does of measuring whether we are using our resources effectively to advance human wellbeing.

And many of these wellbeing goals can be achieved using a fraction of the wealth of advanced nations. For example, Cuba, with about an eighth of the GDP per capita, has similar life expectancy and literacy rates to the United States.

New ways to measure and increase human wellbeing

A complementary approach is to measure comprehensive wealth – financial, natural, human, and social – rather than income. If economic activity substitutes a relatively small amount of financial capital concentrated in few hands for a huge amount of natural capital, then it isn’t sustainable nor does it increase total wealth.

Finally, we need to measure productivity – the extent to which we can do more with less. Economic growth models stress that only long-run improvements in productivity lead to sustained increases in wealth. Simply increasing investment, of the kind associated with extractive industries, provides only a transitory boost.

Read more:
How to beat ‘rollout rage’: the environment-versus-climate battle dividing regional Australia

Another virtue of productivity growth is creative destruction: when innovation clears out outmoded industries, ideas, and ways of working. Today creative destruction is held back by the power of vested interests, notably in fossil fuels, to lobby governments to slow the industrial transition required to address climate change.

Quality of life frameworks, wealth accounts, and productivity growth all have problems and present measurement difficulties, but they point us in the right direction. They help us to understand GDP as a means, not an end. Twentieth century statistics cannot measure 21st century progress.

Read more:
Australia’s new dawn: becoming a green superpower with a big role in cutting global emissions

Green growth and degrowth advocates also agree that getting people to practise less carbon intensive lifestyles, especially in rich countries, is politically and culturally difficult. Witness the recent outcry in Spain when the government legislated that public and commercial buildings could not be cooled below 27 or heated above 19 degrees respectively.

That’s why sweeteners are fundamental to the political logic of Green New Deals: for example, the proceeds of carbon taxes can be returned to households as compensation.

Where green growth and degrowth disagree

What green growth and degrowth advocates disagree most about is how deeply we need to alter our political economy to survive climate change.

Green growth is broadly optimistic about the capacity of liberal democracy’s incremental style to get the green transition done in time. It has faith in markets, and even as it recognises the need for green industrial policy it is cautious about government’s ability to micromanage it.

Degrowth believes something more radical is in order, with equality at its core. We need to understand what is “sufficient” for people to live good lives, and then redistribute from people who have far more than they need to people who have much less.

Read more:
Why Australia urgently needs a climate plan and a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee to implement it

This approach would include the provision of energy-efficient social housing, and international aid for green development. Government must adopt the climate transition as its mission in the manner of winning a total war. It must get involved in the economy and society in a big way, including by regulating things like private jets and low emission traffic zones.

The problem for degrowthers is that getting such a radical agenda off the ground requires first and foremost a change in public values. But the movement’s focus on international political economy – its tendency to target its efforts at bureaucrats and quasi-governmental agencies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – undermines cultural change by feeding populist narratives about technocratic overreach.

Spain’s experience illustrates that citizens haven’t internalised the sorts of lifestyle changes degrowth believes are required. Politically hopeless slogans like “degrowth” that don’t even capture the essence of the movement need to be tossed out, and much more attention needs to be given to marketing the experience of living green in sustainable societies.

Mark Fabian 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. Green growth or degrowth: what is the right way to tackle climate change? – https://theconversation.com/green-growth-or-degrowth-what-is-the-right-way-to-tackle-climate-change-218239

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marg Rogers, Senior Lecturer, Early Childhood Education; Post Doctoral Fellow, Manna Institute, University of New England

The Productivity Commission has just released a major report as part of its inquiry into early childhood education and care.

The draft recommendation that all children under five should have access to three days a week of “high quality” early education is grabbing headlines.

But if this is going to happen, we need a workforce to provide it. And in its report, the commission glossed over educator burnout and their working conditions. This is what makes it so difficult to retain staff.

Our research shows why this needs to change.

What does the Productivity Commission say?

The interim report (the final report is due in June 2024) repeatedly noted how early childhood education and care is important to children and families’ wellbeing. If families cannot access high-quality services, parents cannot work and children do not get the education and development opportunities they need to thrive.

The report does note “workforce challenges” and issues with pay and conditions – noting some staff were leaving for “lower stress” jobs. It also noted these this has been a “major concern” for the sector for “many years”.

But it does not specifically address educators’ wellbeing.

Vacancies at ‘record highs’

Early childhood educators are passionate about their jobs and well trained, but they are leaving the sector in droves.

The commission’s report notes vacancies for early childhood education and care positions are at “record highs and vacancy rates are above those of the wider workforce”. It suggests the sector has more than 5,000 vacancies Australia wide.

This figure does not consider the early learning services that have closed, reduced their capacity or simply stopped advertising because of low staff.

Our research

Our previous research showed educators around the world (including Australia) are at risk of burning out. This is due to inadequate support from their workplaces, a focus on collecting administrative data over interacting with children, low pay and low status.

Our new study looked at the experiences of Australian educators at the height of COVID lockdowns, to understand the new pressures on the workforce and the ways they adapted. This involved online interviews with six educational leaders from different service types in regional and rural NSW.

During COVID early childhood educators kept working but were not prioritised for vaccinations, despite constant contact with parents in high-risk jobs. New requirements from health authorities were constant and services often had to work out-of-hours to implement them at little notice.

As one interviewee told us:

No wonder we are burnt out when even our weekends and annual leave are interrupted.

Extra duties included deep cleaning, further administrative reporting, extra communication with parents and constant adjustment to staffing. But there was no extra funding to go with this work. As one interviewee told us:

We had this good group of casuals […] They didn’t have work, so there were […] some emotional times with staff […] because we couldn’t employ them.

At the same time, childrens’ and families’ needs increased, with the stress of the pandemic and waves of lockdowns. Another interviewee spoke of the emotional demands they faced:

[staff] were stressed – they were concerned about themselves, [and] their family. I had older staff, […] Indigenous staff [and was] trying to support […] and care for them.

Read more:
Early educators around the world feel burnt out and devalued. Here’s how we can help

Things have not necessarily improved

The pandemic has thankfully eased, but despite being essential workers, educators do not have the recognition and support they deserve. Their work continues to demand a lot for low status and little pay.

For example, the median wages of qualified teachers who work in the early learning system are about 20% lower than those of primary school teachers.

They continue to work in highly regulated systems, with burdensome administrative processes for quality assurance. This work includes assessment, rating, quality assurance plans, programming and safety documentation.

This can necessitate unpaid hours. And the emphasis on documentation and data collection reduces educators’ time with children and job satisfaction.

Other stressors have also replaced COVID requirements. This includes the impact of climate change (which also means keeping children safe and healthy in very hot, smoky or rainy weather), cost-of-living pressures and a housing crisis. These issues affect educators and the families and children they support.

We need to do 4 things

The Productivity Commission has a huge job to do in examining early education and care. But it has not yet adequately grappled with the causes of educator burnout and attrition.

To attract and retain the workforce required for the sector, we need to do four things:

1. fund wellbeing programs, including, peer support, mentoring programs, coaching and counselling for early childhood educators

2. provide incentives for educators to work in “childcare deserts”, where services are scarce (this includes regional, rural and remote areas and poorer metropolitan suburbs)

3. overhaul administrative burdens

4. make early learning part of the education system to improve educators’ pay, status and conditions.

Until system-wide issues are addressed and governments prioritise educator wellbeing, we are not going to get the workforce we need to educate and care for young children in Australia.

Professor Margaret Sims (Macquarie University) and Associate Professor Wendy Boyd (Southern Cross University) were co-researchers in this study.

Marg Rogers receives funding from the Commonwealth-funded Manna Institute, which is building place-based mental health research capacity in regional, rural, and remote Australia.

– ref. A major new childcare report glosses over the issues educators face at work and why they leave – https://theconversation.com/a-major-new-childcare-report-glosses-over-the-issues-educators-face-at-work-and-why-they-leave-218515

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marion Terrill, Transport and Cities Program Director, Grattan Institute

If you’re a driver, particularly in the country, you could be forgiven for thinking potholes have become a design feature of Australia’s local roads.

You would certainly know they are in a state of disrepair. And you have every reason to be fed up, because bad roads are dangerous, they increase your travel time, and they force you to spend more on fuel and on car maintenance.

They are getting worse because we’re not spending enough to maintain them.

Three-quarters of our roads are managed by local councils.

Every year, those councils spend A$1 billion less on maintenance than is needed to keep those roads in their current condition – let alone improve them.

The underspend is largest in regional and remote areas.

New Grattan Institute research finds the typical regional area has a funding shortfall of more 40%. In remote areas, it’s more than 75%.

Federal funding is falling behind

One reason for this underspend is that untied federal government grants to local councils haven’t kept pace with soaring costs.

Councils raise most of their own revenue – 80% on average. But in large parts of the country, there are a lot of roads and not enough ratepayers to pay for them.

Rural and remote councils have limited ability to raise more revenue from ratepayers. Their ratepayers already pay higher rates than those in cities, despite having lower average incomes.

Rate caps in place in New South Wales and Victoria also make it difficult for councils to raise more revenue.

Councils receive top-up grants from the federal and state governments. The primary grants from the federal government, available for councils to spend as they see fit – including on roads – are called Financial Assistance Grants.

These are worth about $3 billion a year.

But their value has not kept pace with rising costs. If they had kept pace, on our estimates they would be 20% higher, at $3.6 billion per year.

Road use is growing, but maintenance isn’t

Another reason for the underspend is that even as funding dries up, we’re using roads more.

A growing population means both more cars on our roads and more trucks needed to keep our shelves stocked.

But despite the extra damage to our roads, spending on maintenance has stalled.

Councils are spending more on other things

Another reason roads are underfunded is that councils are coming under increasing pressure to fund other services.

The legislation governing councils doesn’t clearly define what councils are responsible for, and there is no shortage of services communities want.

Spending on transport has fallen from almost half of local government spending in the 1960s to 21% today.

Environmental protection was only identified as its own area of spending for councils in 2018, but it now makes up 15% of all council spending.

Delaying will cost us more

If we don’t act now and start spending more to fix our roads, the pothole plague is going to spread. Australia is getting hotter, with more rain and floods.

The Local Government Association expects the cost of repairing flood and rain-damaged roads in the eastern states and South Australia to top $3.8 billion.

Tight budgets make it tempting to delay maintenance.

But delaying will only end up costing more in the long run, leaving taxpayers paying more to fix more badly damaged roads.

Read more:
The government just killed 50 infrastructure projects – what matters is whether it will fund them on merit from now on

Finally, a circuit-breaker

Some might argue that now is not the time for more spending on roads, given pressures on the budget. But plenty is being spent on big roads and new roads.

Infrastructure Minister Catherine King’s recent announcement of a funding boost of for local roads is a very welcome circuit-breaker.

She announced the Roads to Recovery program will increase gradually from $500 million to $1 billion per year, the Black Spot program from $110 million to $150 million per year, and funding for an amalgamated Bridges Renewal and Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity program will climb form $150 million to $200 per year.

This decision is important. Not only will councils receive more funding for maintenance, but it will be predictable funding, enabling better stewardship of long-lived assets. The money can’t start flowing soon enough.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and Grattan uses the income to pursue its activities. Marion Terrill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any other company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Natasha Bradshaw 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. Think potholes on our roads are getting worse? You’re right – and here’s why – https://theconversation.com/think-potholes-on-our-roads-are-getting-worse-youre-right-and-heres-why-217784

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

The Albanese government, still struggling with the fallout from the High Court decision forcing the release of immigration detainees, is allocating $255 million to beef up resources to keep tabs on them.

The funding will enable agencies to “ensure individuals are abiding by visa condition,” and to prosecute them if they do not, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil, and Immigration Minister Andrew Giles said in a statement.

The conditions include curfews and ankle monitors.

So far, 141 people have been released. The government has not said how many are wearing monitoring devices. It is not clear whether more people will be released and if so, how many. A total number of 340 has been referred to as being those potentially eligible for release.

There will be $150 million for the Home Affairs Department and Australian Border Force to add to the number of staff pursuing compliance, investigations, removal and surveillance duties. The extra capacity will increase the ability gain intelligence about high-risk people.

Another $88 million will go to the Australian Federal Police for establishing regional response teams and investigating visa breaches that constitute a criminal offence.

Expanded funding of $17 million for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions will give more capacity to prosecute those who breach visa conditions.

O’Neil said the government’s only priority was “protecting the safety of the community within the limits of the law”.

Giles said the expanded funding contrasted with cuts made in the Liberals’ time.

The government rushed through legislation for the monitoring, and is examining the possibility for further legislation enabling preventative detention of people who had committed the most serious crimes includihg murder and rape. But this is likely to have to wait for the High Court to issue its reasons for the decision.

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. Government provides $255 million to boost resources to monitor released immigration detainees – https://theconversation.com/government-provides-255-million-to-boost-resources-to-monitor-released-immigration-detainees-218586

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

The former member for Wentworth, Dave Sharma, has won the Liberal Senate spot left by the retirement of the former Foreign Minister Maris Payne.

He beat former NSW minister Andrew Constance 251 to 206 in the final ballot on Sunday. His selection was a surprise, with Constance earlier tipped the likely winner. Both Sharma and Constance are moderates, as was Payne.

Sharma (who is not Jewish) is a one-time Australian ambassador to Israel, and his selection will be particularly welcomed by many in the Jewish community. He has been strongly supportive of Israel in his many media appearances since the October 7 Hamas attack.

Liberal MP Julian Leeser, who is Jewish, said: “Dave Sharma has a strong understanding of the need for Australia to stand with like-minded liberal democracies around the world.

“He has been a strong voice against antisemitism and I believe he will be extremely effective is exposing the extremist-Greens and the antisemitism they are feeding across Australia. He will be a welcome addition to Peter Dutton’s team.”

Opposition leader Dutton said: “His diplomatic and foreign policy expertise and experience will lend considerable weight and wisdom to the public policy debate given the precarious circumstances in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific.

“Dave will speak with moral courage and provide moral clarity as we grapple with unprecedented levels of antisemitism on our own shores.”

Sharma held the seat of Wentworth from 2019 to 2022, when he was defeated by teal independent Allegra Spender.

Sunday’s field included former ACT senator Zed Seselja, a hard-line conservative, who was defeated by independent David Pocock at the last election.

Liberal deputy leader Sussan Ley said Sharma’s “keen foreign policy intellect will be particularly welcome given we are in the most dangerous set of geopolitical circumstances since the second world war.

“Over the past 20 years, Dave has sat in the Oval Office with American presidents, helped to broker international peace agreements and has first-hand experience on-the-ground in Israel as a former ambassador – all vital experiences which put him in good stead to make a lofty contribution as a senator for New South Wales.”

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. Former Wentworth MP Dave Sharma pulls off surprise victory for Liberal Senate vacancy – https://theconversation.com/former-wentworth-mp-dave-sharma-pulls-off-surprise-victory-for-liberal-senate-vacancy-218587

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leah Mercer, Associate Professor of Theatre Arts, Curtin University

Theatre is littered with sister double acts: Antigone and Ismene, Kate and Bianca, Blanche and Stella, Fleabag and Claire. The shared history of sisters delivers inbuilt emotional stakes and lots of baggage. The doubling of experience brings both love and rivalry, the joys of being known and the horrors of being trapped by the reflection of the other. Looking like not-quite twins, real-life sisters Hayley and Mandy McElhinney are the dirty birds of the title, in the world premiere of a co-written work in which they play reclusive sisters.

With a broad resume of work on stage and screen, Dirty Birds is their debut play and the first time the McElhinney sisters have shared the stage. It wasn’t until COVID shut us all down that they found the time and space (on Zoom) to collaborate on the script, later developed with director Kate Champion.

Dirty Birds is indebted to Theatre of the Absurd. Writing in the 1960s, Martin Esslin brought an otherwise disconnected group of playwrights like Beckett, Adamov, Ionesco and Genet together under the umbrella term “Absurd”, coined via Albert Camus’ 1942 essay The Myth of Sisyphus.

For Esslin, such theatre “strives to express its sense of the senselessness of the human condition and the inadequacy of the rational approach”. Emerging as it did after the horrors of the second world war, absurdism makes sense in a post-COVID work such as Dirty Birds.

Read more:
Tragedy is dead in Australia, long live laughter and weather reports

Are we inside or outside?

At first the set (designed by Bruce McKinven) seems to be a single, nondescript brown house interior. But over the course of the play, with the addition of Paul Jackson’s lighting, a multitude of locational possibilities appear: an abandoned house; a submerged shipwreck; a cubby house; a cathedral; a doll house; a paper house; a box.

Matching the experience of the sisters, the longer the audience spends in the space, what seemed like the inside becomes the outside, until they are interchangeable. The interplay of McKinven and Jackson’s images do a lot of the narrative heavy lifting in terms of the structure, build and cumulative emphasis of the performance.

There is a sculptural quality to Champion’s use of static imagery in recurring sequences of one sister waiting for the other. Flickering through images like a life-sized flipbook, the sisters are in a constant state of waiting – perhaps the most well-known absurdist trope.

The sense of time passing could be minutes, years or forever. And yet, despite this stasis, as layers of costume are shed, there is a build from winter to spring, from dormant to active, until the expanse of time becomes today.

You could be anyone else

We are introduced to the sisters via their multiple alter egos as they pretend to be anyone other than themselves in a series of games and rituals that keep them separated from the outside world and embedded in their shared, internal world: both an escape and a trap.

In what could be a continuation of childhood games, the sisters play with tropes of Irish storytelling (tied to the McElhinneys’ own Irish heritage), 1950s American sitcoms and moments of camp horror.

There’s a tonal touch of the psychological rivalry of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? – another story of sisters – of one sister being held captive by the other.

Having cobbled together their own personal mythology of stories, the sisters are pulled between the games and the outside world, where everything’s big except the conversations (which are small). There are glimpses of it via trips to the box (aka the letterbox) and the mounting foreclosure notices that culminate in a stunning visual cavalcade as the outside world awakens.

Unlike Beckett or Ionesco (the most famous of Esslin’s absurdists) Dirty Birds often breaks the conceit when one of the sisters (usually Hayley) brings them crashing into their present by referring to their predicament. The rules are also broken non-verbally when the other sister breaks the confinement of the house to appear at the edges.

Read more:
Guide to the Classics: Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, a tragicomedy for our times

Well-worn relationships

The McElhinneys have written themselves a spectacular showcase. The meta-quality of them as real sisters is unavoidable, and their compelling biological chemistry is on full display. Women’s bodies are central in this contemporary rendering of the Absurd. The stink of embodiment is tangible, comforting and symptomatic; it speaks to the joyous freedom as well as the suffocating snare of secretive, sisterly intimacy.

There are also moments of exquisite physical comedy emerging from the timing and repetition of a well-worn relationship.

Esslin refuted the common misconception that Theatre of the Absurd should necessarily be despair-filled and meaningless. Rather, he saw these plays as an “endeavour to come to terms with the world”, to “face up to the human condition as it really is” and free us “from illusions that are bound to cause constant maladjustment and disappointment”.

Or, as theatre critic Michael Y. Bennett argues, absurdist plays are “ethical parables that force the audience to make life meaningful”.

As the sisters grapple with themselves and each other, between taking personal responsibility or being overwhelmed by despair, what perseveres is the poignancy of their connection and in the play’s final moments the endurance of hope.

Dirty Birds, from Black Swan State Theatre Company, is at the Heath Ledger Theatre, Perth, until December 10.

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

– ref. The exquisite physical comedy of Dirty Birds: a new Aussie post-COVID Theatre of the Absurd – https://theconversation.com/the-exquisite-physical-comedy-of-dirty-birds-a-new-aussie-post-covid-theatre-of-the-absurd-217274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Speck, Emerita Professor, Art History and Curatorship, University of Adelaide

Vincent Namatjira, a Western Arrernte artist, is Albert Namatjira’s great-grandson. His genre is portraiture, but with a twist: loaded with satire and post-colonial politics.

He was the first Aboriginal artist to win the Archibald prize in 2020 with a portrait of fellow Indigenous man, footballer Adam Goodes.

His double-sided portrait on plywood, Close contact, won the Ramsay Prize in 2019. In this freestanding portrait Namatjira employs his strategy of inverting history: the artist commands the viewpoint, facing outward; Captain Cook on the rear side trails behind. Close Contact is the entry portrait for this fabulous survey exhibition, Vincent Namatjira: Australia in Colour on show at the Art Gallery of South Australia.

The paintings on display echo Namatjira’s mantra that his paintbrush is his weapon and that art has the power to change the world.

His multi-panel set of portraits, Australia in Colour, showing a mix of the rich and powerful such as Gina (Rinehart) and Scomo side-by-side with local heroes such as musician Angus (Young) and Ned Kelly along with Aboriginal heroes, Cathy (Freeman) and Vincent (Lingiari) sets the tone for the exhibition.

Nothing is off limits.

Read more:
Terra nullius interruptus: Captain James Cook and absent presence in First Nations art

Artistic lineage

Vincent Namatjira is very conscious of his lineage, and his role via portraiture in continuing what Albert Namatjira started in landscape in portraying Country.

This is underscored in his twin portrait, Albert and Vincent (2014), showing himself in the same pose William Dargie employed in his Archibald prize-winning portrait of his great-grandfather in 1956.

But for Vincent Namatjira, there is a timely assertiveness in addressing wrongful behaviour as in his telling portrait of Adam Goodes.

Read more:
At last, the arts Revolution — Archibald winners flag the end of white male dominance

That assertiveness extends to correcting the historical record in his series of Unknown soldiers (2020) which portrays First Nations men who served in the first world war. Many chose not to declare their Aboriginal heritage so they could enlist. The paintings completed on army surplus camouflage fabric reinforce that their stories are still hidden, waiting to be woven into an inclusive national history.

Namatjira included himself in this series because he was trying

to understand the mindset of Indigenous men who volunteered for WW1 but were neglected and mistreated in their own country.

Visiting the royals

Wry humour and astute reversals of identity go a long way towards rewriting history and the effects of colonialism.

British royalty feature in numerous paintings, often with Namatjira inserting himself into the composition. He is having afternoon tea in the Royal Tour (Charles, Vincent and Elizabeth) (2020); and standing atop the royal carriage in The Royal Tour (Vincent and Elizabeth on Country) (2022).

The simple gesture of placing an uncomfortable Queen in someone else’s Country with Namatjira towering over her from the rooftop of the royal carriage says it all.

In another, Namatjira shows a dark-skinned and somewhat uncertain Charles on Country (2022), dressed in royal regalia and framed by an Albert Namatjira vista of the West Macdonnell ranges. The curatorial cues provided for viewers to read the imagery are in the artist’s own words. On royalty he says:

I’ve made a lot of paintings of the British royal family – that mob were born into wealth, power and privilege, so I feel it’s fair enough to make fun of their stuffy uniforms, and their outdated traditions … even their teeth.

Captain Cook too is a target – as a symbol of colonisation and empire, as he explains:

Over there is James Cook, his ship has washed up in the desert. He’s sunburnt, lost. British royals are out of place, wandering in the sandy creeks, among ghost gums.

Re-recording history

An especially powerful set of portraits, Seven Leaders (2016), are of senior Aboriginal men from the Aṉangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands. They include Alec Baker, Kunmanara (Mumu Mike) Williams and Witjiti George.

Their white and greying hair and beards set against their dark skin, and their eyes full of experience and conviction, present an alternative set of powerful figures. Here, as in other paintings in this rich exhibition, the tables are turned – viewers come away questioning who has the power and why.

Sitting within the exhibition, Vincent Namatjira engages with the historical account of Rex Batterbee “teaching” Albert Namatjira the art of watercolour.

Vincent Namatjira’s rendition of this event, in which the transaction is one of cultural exchange, is a painting of equals.

That engagement with art history extends to constructions of national art. In place of bucolic pastoral scenes of settled land – minus its Indigenous inhabitants – by artists such as Arthur Streeton are new national pictures such as Albert Namatjira, Slim Dusty and Archie Roach on Country (2022).

Collaborative pop-up books made with Tony Albert and irreverent portraits painted jointly with Ben Quilty, along with moving image work featuring Vincent Namatjira weaving through Country in Albert Namatjira’s trademark green truck, populate this lively, cheeky exhibition.

Its energy is infectious, its imagination extending to how things could be otherwise. Vincent Namatjira deserves the last word:

For me, the canvas is a setting where I can combine the past, present and possible futures, and I can put myself – as a proud Aboriginal man – at the front and centre of a situation where we would usually be out of sight.

Vincent Namatjira: Australia in Colour is on show at the Art Gallery of South Australia until January 21.

Catherine Speck has received from the ARC to research Australian art exhibitions.

– ref. Vincent Namatjira’s paintbrush is his weapon. With an infectious energy and wry humour, nothing is off limits – https://theconversation.com/vincent-namatjiras-paintbrush-is-his-weapon-with-an-infectious-energy-and-wry-humour-nothing-is-off-limits-217361

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Archer, Research Scientist, Sensory, Flavour and Consumer Sciences, CSIRO

You’re out for dinner with a bunch of friends, one of whom orders pizza with anchovies and olives to share, but you hate olives and anchovies! Do you pipe up with your preferred choice – Hawaiian – or stay quiet?

This scene plays out every day around the world. Some people ferociously defend their personal tastes. But many would rather expand their palate, and not have to rock the boat the next time someone in their friend group orders pizza.

Is it possible to train your tastebuds to enjoy foods you previously didn’t, like training a muscle at the gym?

What determines ‘taste’?

Taste is a complex system we evolved to help us navigate the environment. It helps us select foods with nutritional value and reject anything potentially harmful.

Foods are made up of different compounds, including nutrients (such as proteins, sugars and fats) and aromas that are detected by sensors in the mouth and nose. These sensors create the flavour of food. While taste is what the tastebuds on your tongue pick up, flavour is the combination of how something smells and tastes. Together with texture, appearance and sound, these senses collectively influence your food preferences.

Many factors influence food preferences, including age, genetics and environment. We each live in our own sensory world and no two people will have the same experience while eating.

Food preferences also change with age. Research has found young children have a natural preference for sweet and salty tastes and a dislike of bitter tastes. As they grow older their ability to like bitter foods grows.

Emerging evidence shows bacteria in saliva can also produce enzymes that influence the taste of foods. For instance, saliva has been shown to cause the release of sulphur aromas in cauliflower. The more sulphur that is produced, the less likely a kid is to enjoy the taste of cauliflower.

Read more:
Blame it on mum and dad: how genes influence what we eat

Nature versus nurture

Both genetics and the environment play a crucial role in determining food preferences. Twin studies estimate genetics have a moderate influence on food preferences (between 32% and 54%, depending on the food type) in children, adolescents and adults.

However, since our cultural environment and the foods we’re exposed to also shape our preferences, these preferences are learned to a large degree.

A lot of this learning takes place during childhood, at home and other places we eat. This isn’t textbook learning. It’s learning by experiencing (eating), which typically leads to increased liking of the food – or by watching what others do (modelling), which can lead to both positive or negative associations.

Research has shown how environmental influences on food preferences change between childhood and adulthood. For children, the main factor is the home environment, which makes sense as kids are more likely to be influenced by foods prepared and eaten at home. Environmental factors influencing adults and adolescents are more varied.

The process of ‘acquiring’ taste

Coffee and beer are good examples of bitter foods people “acquire” a taste for as they grow up. The ability to overcome the dislike of these is largely due to:

• the social context in which they’re consumed. For example, in many countries they may be associated with passage into adulthood.

• the physiological effects of the compounds they contain – caffeine in coffee and alcohol in beer. Many people find these effects desirable.

But what about acquiring a taste for foods that don’t provide such desirable feelings, but which are good for you, such as kale or fatty fish? Is it possible to gain an acceptance for these?

Here are some strategies that can help you learn to enjoy foods you currently don’t:

1. eat, and keep eating. Only a small portion is needed to build a liking for a specific taste over time. It may take 10–15 attempts or more before you can say you “like” the food.

2. mask bitterness by eating it with other foods or ingredients that contain salt or sugar. For instance, you can pair bitter rocket with a sweet salad dressing.

3. eat it repeatedly in a positive context. That could mean eating it after playing your favourite sport or with people you like. Alternatively, you could eat it with foods you already enjoy; if it’s a specific vegetable, try pairing it with your favourite protein.

4. eat it when you’re hungry. In a hungry state you’ll be more willing to accept a taste you might not appreciate on a full stomach.

5. remind yourself why you want to enjoy this food. You may be changing your diet for health reasons, or because you’ve moved countries and are struggling with the local cuisine. Your reason will help motivate you.

6. start young (if possible). It’s easier for children to learn to like new foods as their tastes are less established.

7. remember: the more foods you like, the easier it’ll become to learn to like others.

A balanced and varied diet is essential for good health. Picky eating can become a problem if it leads to vitamin and mineral deficiencies – especially if you’re avoiding entire food groups, such as vegetables. At the same time, eating too many tasty but energy-dense foods can increase your risk of chronic disease, including obesity.

Understanding how your food preferences have formed, and how they can evolve, is a first step to getting on the path of healthier eating.

Read more:
9 tips to give yourself the best shot at sticking to new year’s resolutions

Astrid Poelman has worked on research funded by a variety of industry bodies, Australian government agencies and private companies.

Nicholas Archer 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. Taste depends on nature and nurture. Here are 7 ways you can learn to enjoy foods you don’t like – https://theconversation.com/taste-depends-on-nature-and-nurture-here-are-7-ways-you-can-learn-to-enjoy-foods-you-dont-like-215999

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Higgins, Professor & Director, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University

With so much data released about family, domestic and sexual violence, it can be difficult to see how it all fits together.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) has attempted to do this with a new website that tells the story of violence using numbers, looking at how often it happens, to whom and when.

Here are seven charts that show the prevalence of various forms of interpersonal violence, across life.

1. Sexual violence risk varies (in ways you might not expect)

One in five women and one in 16 men have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15.

The likelihood of experiencing sexual violence differs by age as well as gender.

This chart uses data about recorded crimes. Of course, we know many sexual crimes in childhood and adulthood are never discovered or reported. For each age group, and for both females and males, the recorded crime rate for sexual victimisation has steadily risen from 2010 to 2022. But the rate for girls and boys is substantially higher than for women and men.

2. What kinds of harm come to the attention of child protection services?

In cases reported to a statutory child protection service, a “substantiation” is the conclusion, following an investigation, that there was reasonable cause to believe that a child had been, was being, or was likely to be, abused, neglected or otherwise harmed. For both boys and girls, more than half of these cases are about harm from emotional abuse. This refers to parental behaviour, repeated over time, that conveys to a child that they are worthless, unloved or unwanted.

Witnessing family and domestic violence is not monitored separately as a type of harm in any state or territory child protection statistics. Therefore it is not one of the primary harm types recorded in the data shown in this graph. Yet in our study, my colleagues and I found it was the most frequently experienced form of maltreatment in childhood – 39.6% of adults were exposed to domestic violence as children.

3. Lifetime exposure to violence

One in three men experienced violence from a stranger, but for women, they were much more likely to experience violence from those they knew.

One in six women (and one in 13 men) have experienced domestic violence in the form of economic abuse by a current or previous cohabiting partner since the age of 15.

4. Time is of the essence

Not only does the risk of experiencing violence change across life, but temporal factors also play a role. Towards the end of the year, when there are festivities and more opportunities for alcohol misuse, the risks are greater.

5. Men’s (and boys’) violence towards women and girls

Perpetrators of violence are more likely to be known to the victim than be a stranger. Some forms of violence, particularly sexual violence, are more likely to be experienced by girls and women. Boys and men are more likely to use violence, again particularly for sexual violence.

One in six women (and one in 18 men) have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or previous cohabiting partner since the age of 15.

One of the types of violence is also emotional. One in four women (and one in seven men) have experienced emotional abuse by a current or previous cohabiting partner since the age of 15.

6. Sexual harassment: who does it and who is subjected to it?

Women are much more likely to be subjected to sexualised behaviours – by men – that are unwanted or make them feel uncomfortable. Overall, rates appear to have declined since 2005, when almost one in five women experienced harassment.

7. Sexual victimisation rates have changed over time

Crime data on sexual victimisation (sexual assaults recorded by police) from 2010 to 2022 suggests things have not been improving. Although there is variability between states, the biggest difference can be seen between women and men (women are at substantially higher risk of sexual victimisation).

What’s missing?

Often, people are exposed to multiple kinds of violence. In our study, we found almost 40% of the population had experienced more than one type of child abuse or neglect – including exposure to family or domestic violence as a child.

We also found this “multi-type maltreatment” was one of the strongest predictors of experiencing mental illness and engaging in behaviours that put health at risk, like cannabis dependence in adulthood.

Read more:
Major study reveals two-thirds of people who suffer childhood maltreatment suffer more than one kind

However, many of the sources of data the AIHW uses only look at one form of violence. So it is much harder to tell the story of how it relates to the impacts that might be observed.

We also can’t see data on children’s exposure to physical punishment in the home, despite Australia’s failure to meet its responsibility under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to protect them from this form of violence.

The data curated on this new website can be used to identify where more services might be required to address the needs of victims of different kinds of violence, at different stages across life. It can also help drive a genuine strategy for prevention. The strategy should look at the risk factors for each type of interpersonal violence, and those that are common across different types of violence. Such risks include parental mental illness, substance misuse, poverty and divorce.

And then we must invest in evidence-based strategies to alleviate the risk of growing up with, and being exposed in adulthood to family, domestic, and sexual violence.

Daryl Higgins receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and a range of government departments and non-government child/family welfare agencies.

– ref. 7 charts on family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia – https://theconversation.com/7-charts-on-family-domestic-and-sexual-violence-in-australia-218355

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chantel Foord, Research Associate, Marine Mammal Foundation, PhD researcher, RMIT University

As predators at the top of the food chain, dolphins tend to accumulate and magnify high levels of toxins and other chemicals in their bodies. So health problems in dolphins can be a warning that all is not well in the system as a whole.

One group of persistent pollutants has been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they almost never break down in the environment. Commonly known by the acronym PFAS, these per- and polyfluorinated substances are globally recognised as an environmental hazard and a potential human health issue.

In our new research, we found dolphins with the highest concentration of PFAS in the world live in Australian waters. One young Burrunan dolphin had liver concentrations almost 30% higher than any other dolphin ever reported.

This is a critically endangered species endemic to southeast Australia. While the consequences for dolphin health and the implications for humans remain unknown, the record-breaking concentrations are cause for alarm.

Read more:
Controversial ‘forever chemicals’ could be phased out in Australia under new restrictions. Here’s what you need to know

The case of the Burrunan dolphin

The Burrunan dolphin was recognised as a separate species in 2011. Fewer than 200 individuals remain. Two small, isolated and genetically distinct populations reside in coastal Victoria, Australia.

In our research, we took liver samples from Burrunan dolphins and three other dolphin species found dead and washed up on beaches.

We found the critically endangered Burrunan dolphin had 50–100 times more PFAS than other dolphins in the same region. Their PFAS concentrations were the highest reported globally.

In 90% of these dolphins, the liver concentrations of these chemicals (1,020–19,500 nanograms per gram) were above those thought to cause liver toxicity and altered immune responses.

These record-breaking and potentially health-compromising PFAS concentrations are a major concern for the survival of the species.

Results from Australia and around the world

By far the highest PFAS concentrations in the dolphins we studied were of a particular compound called PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate). PFOS is one of the most studied PFAS compounds. It is listed on the Stockholm Convention, a global treaty on environmental pollutants, with international restrictions on use.

While Australia does not manufacture PFOS, heavy use of PFOS-containing firefighting foams occurred until the early 2000s. The Australian government still allows PFOS import for permitted purposes, such as mist suppressants in manufacturing and metal plating.

In recent years, public concern has prompted ongoing investigations into areas of high firefighting foam use, such as Royal Australian Airforce training facilities and airports.

While firefighting foam is a probable source of PFAS in waterways, there are others. Recent research in Florida in the United States found leaking septic and wastewater systems in urban areas were sources of PFAS runoff into the aquatic environment.

Read more:
PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ are getting into ocean ecosystems, where dolphins, fish and manatees dine – we traced their origins

The Burrunan dolphins are not alone. In 2017, the South Australian Environment Protection Authority investigated PFOS concentrations in dolphins from Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales. Dolphins in the Swan-Canning River Estuary in Perth, and in Port River or Barker Inlet, SA, had high PFOS levels (2,800–14,000ng per gram and 510–5,000ng per gram, respectively). These PFOS levels are similar to those in the Burrunan dolphin (between 494ng and 18,700ng per gram).

The globally significant PFAS and PFOS concentrations in multiple Australian dolphin populations demonstrates potential widespread contamination. This highlights our limited understanding of the short- and long-term consequences in our oceans and estuaries.

It is crucial we understand where different PFAS compounds are coming from, particularly PFOS, and whether the contamination is from a time when we didn’t know better (known as legacy sources) or if we are still releasing them.

Isn’t PFOS getting banned anyway?

The Australian government has expressed an intention to further regulate PFOS and two other PFAS. This marks a significant step forward. However, the problem with forever chemicals is they will be around for a really long time.

Typically, these chemicals are substituted with alternatives believed to be less detrimental, but unfortunately that is not always the reality. For example, early replacements for PFOS were initially thought to be less readily absorbed by body tissues and pose lower health concerns. But studies have shown their high biomagnification potential (with levels increasing higher up the food chain) and accompanying health risks.

While PFOS levels were highest in the Burrunan dolphins we studied, emerging contaminants such as PFMPA, PFECHS, and 6:2 Cl-PFESA were also detected. The presence of these emerging and replacement compounds in dolphins shows they are accumulating within our waterways and suggests it is more than our historic usage that might be a problem.

It’s not too late

Dolphins are the “canary in the coal mine” for coastal ecosystems. They live their lives in these inshore waterways and they consume tonnes of fish within their lifetimes. Finding these alarming contaminant concentrations is an important first step to highlighting the problem.

So now we know there’s a problem, we need to ask why. Then we need to determine what can be done about it.

The next step is mapping sources of PFAS so we can more effectively manage this threat to our wildlife and ecosystems.

Read more:
We found long-banned pollutants in the very deepest part of the ocean

Chantel Foord receives funding from a Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment Grant. She is affiliated with the Marine Mammal Foundation.

– ref. Australian dolphins have the world’s highest concentrations of ‘forever chemicals’ – https://theconversation.com/australian-dolphins-have-the-worlds-highest-concentrations-of-forever-chemicals-218253

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Sanders, Senior Research Fellow on Law and the Future of War, The University of Queensland

Australia’s defence export program has recently come under scrutiny for its lack of transparency – particularly in relation to whether approved export permits are providing material support to Israel’s war against Hamas.

The UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories has criticised the government’s lack of transparency, as have academics and politicians.

They contend the government should be publicly divulging the details of the military export permits it approves. Currently, this is not done.

To compel the government to release information about recent exports, a group of human rights organisations recently filed an application in the Federal Court. The aim: to gain access to permits exporting defence equipment to Israel since its military operation began in early October.

What is known about Australia’s defence exports?

Only limited details about the Department of Defence’s approved exports are routinely published.

Specific details about which manufacturers receive the permits and the nature of the exported goods, however, are not provided publicly, even when they are requested through the Freedom of Information Act. The government often cites confidentiality or the protection of business information as reasons for rejecting the requests.

Reporting provided to international bodies is also limited. For instance, Australia typically only provides the general class of equipment being exported by country for publication on the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. This information only relates to broad types of conventional weapons or components for weapons of mass destruction.

Some information does get released during Senate Estimates hearings. A hearing in October, for instance, revealed the government had approved 350 defence export permits to Israel in the last five years, including 50 this year. However, it did not detail what those exports were.

What are Australia’s international obligations?

Australia is obliged to prevent the export of goods that can be used either for unlawful conduct during armed conflicts or human rights violations.

Some of these obligations come from specific treaties, such as the Arms Trade Treaty, which set out the exact requirements for exporting some types of defence items. Others come from Australia’s responsibility as a sovereign state not to contribute to another country breaching international law.

These obligations cover various things, including:

• what specific items Australia can export, and

• to whom it can sell military goods or “dual-use” items (meaning they have a civilian function but could also be used in military operations).

For instance, there are laws that limit exports to entities that are the subject of international sanctions, or if an entity has committed (or is suspected of committing) human rights abuses or war crimes when using the exported items.

In addition, there are separate lists of prohibited items (such as those that could be used in weapons of mass destruction), and particular types of weapons (such as chemical or biological) which are banned under other treaties.

À lire aussi :
Australia is building a billion-dollar arms export industry. This is how weapons can fall in the wrong hands

Australia also has obligations to ensure it respects the laws of armed conflict by not actively contributing to another country breaching the laws of war under the Geneva Conventions and its protocols.

This means if another country is involved in a conflict and is observed to be systematically breaching the laws of war, Australia cannot lawfully provide material support to them.

How does the government decide what to export?

Australia has a specific list of items called the Defence Strategic Goods List. Permits are required to allow for the export, import and distribution of goods on this list. There are also controls over the specific skills and knowledge related to making and using such items.

The list is broad – it includes everything from conventional weapons and components (like tanks or weapon sights) to dual-use objects (such as certain types of lasers or chemicals that could be weaponised).

To export an item on the list, approval is required by the minister of defence, or their delegate. Among the things they have to consider are whether the goods would risk being used against Australia’s international legal obligations or to “commit or facilitate serious abuses of human rights”.

The law does not outline how much weight is put on each criteria or what kind of information is necessary to support this decision-making process.

As it stands, the main method to test this process is through Freedom of Information Act requests, which have been shown to have limited success, or through parliamentary processes, such as Senate Estimates.

The other option is to discover the information through a court case, as the application filed this month is attempting to do.

How do other countries do it?

In Europe, arms controls are generally subject to greater public scrutiny.

The United States also publishes more information about its exports. Canada has recently implemented a process of publicly reporting the reasons that export permits are declined.

In the United Kingdom, a group filed a similar court case to the Australian one, seeking information on weapons exports to Saudi Arabia. This case ultimately failed in June. However, it compelled the UK government to clarify its decision-making criteria regarding alleged human rights abuses and to publish more information about its weapons export decisions.

What could change in Australia?

The legislation that controls the permit system is currently undergoing a required five-year review. However, the government has yet to implement the recommendations it agreed to following the 2018 review.

There has also been little public information about the progress of the updates agreed to from the last review, or what has changed so far.

Another bill was recently introduced to make some changes to these laws. However, this focused on tightening existing controls and easing restrictions with two key allies – the US and UK – to facilitate the AUKUS agreement. The lack of public transparency about export controls remains.

In light of the current geopolitical situation, Australia could demonstrate its commitment to its international legal obligations by making some additional adjustments. For example, it could allow outside parties to make submissions on weapons export permits or routinely publish more details of its approved permits.

Transparency in export controls is considered best practice by many other countries, and Australia can easily do more to align itself to this.

Lauren Sanders works as a legal consultant with IWR Pty Ltd, advising companies in the defence industry on international humanitarian law and weapons law issues. This consultancy does not include advice on export control laws. Any comments made here are in her personal capacity and do not represent the views of the Australian government or the Australian Defence Force. The views expressed reflect publicly available information unless otherwise stated.

– ref. With war raging in Gaza, how much do we know about Australia’s weapons exports? The answer: very little – https://theconversation.com/with-war-raging-in-gaza-how-much-do-we-know-about-australias-weapons-exports-the-answer-very-little-217376

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Senior Lecturer of Public Safety, Disaster Resilience & Urban Mobility, UNSW Sydney

Electrifying music concerts and other mass events are increasingly under threat from severe weather events, such as extreme heat.

The tragic incident at a Taylor Swift concert in Brazil recently, which resulted in the death of one fan, is a stark reminder of what can happen.

The concert took place in a stadium during a heatwave. Fans lined up for hours outside the Rio de Janeiro venue, with temperatures reportedly over 40°C. With the high humidity, this would have felt like almost 60°C, according to a measure known as the “heat index”.

As well as the fatality, fans reported burns after touching hot metal floors and railings.

Read more:
Extreme weather is landing more Australians in hospital – and heat is the biggest culprit

There have been other similar events

What happened at the Swift concert is the consequence of insufficient preparation for extreme weather conditions during a large-scale event. However, this is not an isolated case. There is a long list of mass gatherings and events affected by extreme weather in 2023.

In August, a Beyoncé concert in a Washington DC stadium took place during severe weather conditions. This time it was heavy rain and lightning. Attendees were ordered to shelter in place.

Lightning posed a direct threat to their safety. Those inside the stadium were directed to shelter under covered areas and ramps. Afterwards, several fans were reportedly treated for heat exhaustion.

The directive to shelter in place could have led to overcrowding in covered areas, potentially increasing the risk of incidents, such as a crowd crush.

Another US example was Ed Sheeran’s concert at a Pittsburgh stadium during a July heatwave.

Some 17 people were hospitalised. Health emergencies included heat exhaustion and two cardiac arrests (when the heart stops beating).

We must prepare

Climate change makes extreme weather events more frequent and intense. So risk assessments should include detailed weather monitoring and structural assessments for outdoor set-ups to ensure shade structures, for instance, can cope with crowds.

Contingency plans for a rapid response are also needed. These need to include plans to supply water or protective equipment (such as plastic ponchos) and timely safety directions and information.

Such planning should encompass not just the likelihood of extreme weather but also its potential impact on infrastructure, crowd control and emergency medical responses.

Read more:
From Burning Man to Woodstock to Fyre Festival: what turns a festival into a disaster?

Artists play a role too

While the primary onus of safety lies with event organisers and venues, artists can also play a significant role in public safety during extreme weather. So we need to keep them informed about identified potential risks and planned countermeasures.

For instance, artists can influence crowd behaviour positively and prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as a crowd crush. They can appeal for calm or can announce any planned evacuation procedures.

In the most recent incident, Swift paused her show to ask crew members to distribute water to fans.

Be safety aware

People who attend mass events also need to be aware of the safety issues related to extreme weather and be prepared.

Public education campaigns can help, as can effectively disseminating safety information to empower attendees to make informed decisions.

For instance, an event organiser can send a text message to all attendees to warn of upcoming weather conditions and a reminder to bring water or wear sunscreen.

Read more:
Astroworld tragedy: here’s how concert organisers can prevent big crowds turning deadly

We can expect more of these events

The tragic incident at the Swift concert and similar examples are not isolated but indicate a broader trend. With climate change, extreme weather events will pose a more common risk at such mass gatherings.

So we need to recognise and integrate this into how we plan for, and assess the risk associated with, future events. This is vital to ensure these gatherings remain celebratory landmarks rather than avoidable disasters.

Milad Haghani receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Grant No. DE210100440).

– ref. Taylor Swift’s Brazil concert was hammered by extreme heat. How to protect crowds at the next sweltering gig – https://theconversation.com/taylor-swifts-brazil-concert-was-hammered-by-extreme-heat-how-to-protect-crowds-at-the-next-sweltering-gig-218341

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Loc Do, Professor of Dental Public Health, The University of Queensland

Health-care professionals have recently called on the Queensland government to mandate fluoride in drinking water across the state, where water fluoridation coverage lags behind other Australian states and territories.

But what are the benefits of adding fluoride to our drinking water supplies? And why do more than one-quarter of Queenslanders not have access to a fluoridated drinking water supply, while most other Australians do?

First, what is water fluoridation?

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral best known for its role in strengthening our teeth. When our teeth come into regular contact with fluoride, this makes them more resistant to dental caries, or decay.

Water fluoridation is a public health program which works to reduce dental decay at the population level. It involves adding a very small amount of fluoride to public water systems which supply tap water. In Australia, the recommended levels of fluoride in public water supplies range from 0.6 to 1.1 mg per litre.

The idea of water fluoridation was pioneered in the United States. In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first city in the world to fluoridate its water supply. Water fluoridation was cited by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.

Fluoride has been added to water supplies in Australia for seven decades, starting in Beaconsfield, Tasmania, in 1953. Today, over 90% of Australians have access to fluoridated water.

The majority of Australian states and territories have laws requiring the fluoridation of public water supplies, with the exception of Queensland, which has left the decision up to individual local governments.

Read more:
Four myths about water fluoridation and why they’re wrong

The evidence

The scientific consensus is that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve oral health. The Australian Dental Association, the World Health Organization and the International Association for Dental Research are among the bodies which endorse water fluoridation as a public health measure.

To support and maintain a program like water fluoridation on such a large scale, we need to routinely collect evidence it works.

The National Child Oral Health Study 2012-14, which I was involved in, gathered data on more than 24,000 children across Australia. The evidence demonstrated water fluoridation was effective in preventing dental caries. Another analysis I worked on of more than 5,000 children in Queensland, published in 2015, showed water fluoridation reduced dental decay by 40%.

Studies reviewed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in 2017 showed water fluoridation can reduce the incidence of dental caries by 26% to 44% in children and adolescents, and by 27% in adults. Earlier evidence has similarly shown fluoridation is associated with fewer caries in adults.

Water fluoridation has also been found to be highly cost-effective – investment in these programs can result in significant savings through improved population oral health.

Can fluoridation reduce inequalities in oral health?

Social factors such as background and income are associated with oral health. For example, people who are poorer, from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, or from First Nations communities will often have poorer oral health compared with the overall population.

My research shows exposure to fluoridated water is associated with reduced inequality in child oral health related to household income and Indigenous status. We would expect to see this because of the passive mechanism of fluoride delivery. That is, people can benefit just by drinking fluoridated tap water, regardless of their socioeconomic circumstances.

Potential side effects

Dental fluorosis (changes in the colour of tooth enamel) is a known side effect of water fluoridation. But dental fluorosis can also result from intake of fluoride from other sources, such as fluoridated toothpaste and fluoride applications during procedures at the dentist when children are young. Dental fluorosis in Australia is mostly very mild to mild and not associated with long-term oral health consequences.

The NHMRC’s 2017 review concluded water fluoridation poses no other risks which should be cause for concern.

However, fluoridation has historically been somewhat controversial. One of the reasons so many local councils in Queensland have opted out is vocal opposition from small groups.

An argument recently raised against fluoridation suggests early life intake of fluoride is associated with childhood development, particularly lower IQ scores in children. Much of evidence for these arguments has come from poorly designed research or from areas with very high levels of natural fluoride and other heavy metals.

But child development is an important issue, so it’s understandable this has caused concern.

Several large reviews have recently investigated this potential link. The reviews published in 2020, 2021 and 2023 all concluded fluoride exposure in the context of water fluoridation is not associated with lower cognitive abilities in children.

My colleagues and I also ran an Australian study to investigate this issue. We collected data from a nation-wide sample of more 2,600 children. We found exposure to fluoridated water in early childhood was not associated with any impact on child development.

This again shows us water fluoridation as practised in Australia and internationally is safe for children.

Read more:
Collaborating with communities delivers better oral health for Indigenous kids in rural Australia

Where to from here?

While the most significant gaps in Australia are in Queensland, some other parts of the country are missing out on fluoridated water too, including many rural towns in Victoria.

Water fluoridation has been a cornerstone of population prevention of dental decay, which can lead to other oral and general health issues.

It’s important water fluoridation programs are supported, maintained and expanded where possible by all levels of government and health organisations.

Loc Do receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

– ref. Less than 75% of Queenslanders have access to fluoridated water – and it’s putting oral health at risk – https://theconversation.com/less-than-75-of-queenslanders-have-access-to-fluoridated-water-and-its-putting-oral-health-at-risk-218122