Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Morton, Research Fellow of the RMIT Blockchain Innovation Hub, Lecturer Taxation, RMIT University

So, you’ve bought crypto. You’re not alone. Though the statistics are inexact, some surveys suggest as many as 21% of Australian adults now own crypto assets (and that a further 8% have owned them in the past).

If you managed to make gains in the past year, you may need to pay extra tax. Or you may be able to use losses to offset other gains you have made.

The tricky part is working out those gains or losses. This isn’t based just on when you convert your crypto assets into Australian dollars. Every transaction – or what the tax office calls a “disposal” – triggers a taxable point. So you need to keep track of these.

How the tax office treats crypto assets

The Australian Tax Office treats cryptocurrency holdings like other investment assets, such as company shares or real estate.

In general, if its market value (in Australian dollars) when you dispose of your crypto is greater than when you bought it, you’ve made a capital gain. If it’s lower, you’ve made a loss.

How capital gains are taxed differ for businesses and professional traders. But for individuals – “mum and dad” investors – the key point is that capital gains tax is effectively the same as income tax. A capital gain is added to your assessable income, and therefore to the income tax you owe.

A capital loss can be offset against capital gains but not against other assessable income. If you have no capital gains in a given year, the loss can be carried forward to a future year.

The key issue, then, is how to calculate your net capital gain – by working out the capital gain or loss for each “taxable event”.

Read more:
Almost no one uses Bitcoin as currency, new data proves. It’s actually more like gambling

How do I record my gains (or losses)

Generally, from the tax office’s perspective, a taxable event occurs every time you dispose or transact with crypto – whether that be paying for goods or services, swapping it for another crypto asset, gifting it, or converting it into cash.

The big exception to this is if you use cryptocurrency as actual currency, to buy goods for personal use – such as a meal, concert ticket or white goods for your home. If you use crypto to buy a personal use asset for less than A$10,000, you can usually disregard the capital gain. This is known as the personal use exemption.

However, there are rules around this to prevent gaming the system.

The longer you’ve held crypto, the more likely the tax office is to regard it as an investment, and deny the exemption. It doesn’t provide any specific time frame but the example on its website mentions longer than six months as indicating the crypto is being held an investment.

For everything else, any crypto disposal is a taxable event, even if it doesn’t involve conversion to fiat currency (in our case, Australian dollars).

Calculating the capital gain

Let’s consider a scenario where you decided to swap one crypto asset for another.

Say you bought A$1,000 worth of the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency, Ether, in late 2020 when it was trading at about A$1,000 a unit.

In early 2023, when Ether’s market value hits A$3,000, you decided to swap it all for the world’s largest cryptocurrency, Bitcoin (perhaps because you thought Bitcoin had better long-term prospects).

That transaction wouldn’t have involved Australian dollars – but the tax office still expects you to report the capital gain as if it had.

So what was the capital gain on that hypothetical transaction?

It is the difference between the market value (in Australian dollars) of the Ether when bought (A$1,000) and the market value of the Bitcoin acquired (A$3,000). The capital gain would be A$2,000.

Do I pay tax on all my capital gain?

Actually no, so long as you’ve owned the asset for at least 12 months.

For any asset held longer than 12 months, you only have to pay tax on half the capital gain – what the tax office describes as a 50% discount. (This was a controversial reform introduced by the Howard government in 1999.)

So continuing with the Ether-Bitcoin scenario from above, because you owned the Ether for long enough, that transaction would only add A$1,000 to your assessable income, rather than A$2,000.

You input this information into the tax return by answering key questions set out in Question 18 of the individual tax return.

Can crypto tax software help?

There are online apps that can help do the heavy lifting of calculating your capital gains. They generally charge a fee, often based on the level of activity.

These are particularly useful if you transact often, or have a number of crypto wallets. But you will still need to double-check the results before relying on them to complete your tax return.

The calculators work by importing data from your digital wallet. Then, based on quantity, value, time of transaction and exchange rates, they will calculate your net capital gain for the year.

However, they may not account for things such as non-taxable disposals. You may need to add information manually – and it is your responsibility to ensure you are reporting to the tax office correctly.

Read more:
‘I thought crypto exchanges were safe’: the lesson in FTX’s collapse

What if I don’t declare?

The tax office acknowledges the complex nature of crypto can lead to a genuine lack of awareness about tax obligations, and that crypto’s pseudonymous nature “may make it attractive to those seeking to avoid their taxation obligations”.

But don’t think you can get away with not declaring your gains. The tax office has ways to match data from sources such as digital exchanges to identify possible tax evasion.

In past years, it has warned hundreds of thousands of taxpayers about deficiencies in their lodged returns.

If you are found to have understated your tax liabilities, you will have to pay that debt, as well as interest and penalties.

If you need tax advice, see a registered tax agent.

Disclaimer: The content of this article is for general information only. It is not intended as professional, legal or tax advice, for this you should consult a suitably qualified accountant or other professional. Any reliance you place on the information provided is at your own risk. The tax law and Australian Tax Office position is subject to both prospective and retrospective changes.

Elizabeth Morton receives funding from AFAANZ in relation to research on the crypto economy and tax practitioner competencies. She is also participated in submissions to Government on issues relating to crypto, and is part of the Board of Taxation’s (BoT) working group related to their Review of digital assets and transactions in Australia. As well as membership to a number of professional boadies, Elizabeth is also a member of the Professional Bodies Tax Forum Working Group regarding the BoT review, as well as Blockchain Australia’s tax working group. Elizabeth is also contracted to co-facilitate a short-term training contract for tax and crypto facilitated by UNSW for the ATO. Elizabeth does hold cryptoassets.

– ref. A tax expert’s tips on claiming crypto losses on tax, and how to work out capital gains – https://theconversation.com/a-tax-experts-tips-on-claiming-crypto-losses-on-tax-and-how-to-work-out-capital-gains-206675

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Viney, Researcher, Monash University

There are roughly 22 million jars of Vegemite manufactured in the original Melbourne factory every year. According to the Vegemite website, around 80% of Australian households have a jar in the cupboard.

The cultural status of Vegemite is so enduring that, in 2022, the City of Melbourne Council included the smell of the factory at 1 Vegemite Way, Fishermans Bend, in a statement of heritage significance.

Vegemite first hit Australian supermarket shelves in 1923, but it took a while to find its feet.

Indeed, the now classic spread may have failed into obscurity as “Parwill” if not for a very clever advertising campaign in the second world war.

A product of war

Vegemite has German U-boats to thank for its invention.

When the first world war began in 1914, Australians were big fans of Marmite, the British yeast extract spread.

As the Germans began sinking ships full of British supplies to Australia, Marmite disappeared from the shelves. Due to the conditions of its patent, Marmite could only be manufactured in Britain.

As a result, there was a gap in the market for a yeast spread.

Fred Walker, who produced canned foods, hired food technologist Cyril P. Callister to create a homegrown yeast spread using brewer’s yeast from the Carlton Brewery.

Callister’s experiments produced a thicker, stronger spread than the original Marmite. Callister’s inclusion of vegetable extracts to improve the flavour would give the spread its name, Vegemite, chosen by Walker’s daughter from competition entries.

Australians were wary of Vegemite when it first appeared on grocery shelves, perhaps due to brand loyalty to Marmite.

To try and combat this, Walker renamed Vegemite “Parwill” in 1928 as a play on Marmite: “if Ma might, Pa will”.

This rebrand was short-lived. Australians were not any more interested in Parwill than they were in Vegemite.

Read more:
Pass the Iced VoVos: the resurrection of Australiana

A nutritious food replacement

In the 1930s, Walker hired American advertiser J. Walter Thompson. Thompson began offering free samples of Vegemite with purchases of other Kraft-Walker products, including the popular Kraft cheese.

Kraft-Walker also ran limerick competitions to advertise Vegemite. Entrants would write the final line of a limerick to enter into the draw to win a brand new car.

It would take another world war, however, before Vegemite became part of Australian national identity.

The second world war also disrupted shipping supply routes. With other foodstuffs hard to come by, Vegemite was marketed as a nutritious replacement for many foods. One 1945 advertisement read:

If you are one of those who don’t need Vegemite medicinally, the thousands of invalids and babies are asking you to deny yourself of it for the time being.

With its long shelf life and high levels of B-vitamins, the Department of Supply also saw the advantages of Vegemite. The department began buying Vegemite in bulk and including it in ration kits sent to soldiers on the front lines.

Due to this demand, Kraft-Walker foods rationed the Vegemite available to civilians. Yet the brand increased advertisements. Consumers were told Vegemite was limited because it was in demand for Australian troops due to its incredible health benefits.

One ad told Australians:

In all operational areas where our men and those of our Allies are engaged, and in military hospitals, Vegemite is in great demand, because of its value in fighting Vitamin B deficiency diseases. That’s why the fighting forces have first call on all Vegemite produced. And that is why Vegemite is in short supply for civilian consumption. But it won’t always be that way. When the peace is won and our men come home, ample stocks of this extra tasty yeast extract will be available for everyone.

This clever advertising linked Vegemite with Australian nationalism. Though most could not buy the spread during the rationing years, the idea that Vegemite was vital for the armed forces cemented the idea that Vegemite was fundamentally Australian.

Buying Vegemite was an act of patriotism and a way to support Australian troops overseas.

Happy little Vegemites

In the postwar baby boom, Vegemite advertisements responded to concerns about the nation’s health and the need to rebuild a healthy population.

This emphasis on Vegemite as part of a healthy diet for growing children would remain the key advertising focus of the next 60 years.

The ear-catching jingle was composed in the early 1950s, first for radio and then later used in the 1959 television ad.

The link between Australian identity and Vegemite was popularised internationally by Men At Work’s 1981 song Down Under, with the lyrics “He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich”.

The 1980s also saw the first remake of the 1950s television campaign, re-colourising it for nostalgic young parents who had grown up with the original.

In February 2022, the first international arrivals welcomed back into Australia post-COVID were greeted with a DJ playing Down Under, koala plushies and jars of Vegemite.

On Vegemite’s centenary in 2023, the unassuming spread is now firmly cemented as an Australian cultural icon. Love it or hate it, Vegemite is here to stay.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why do some people find some foods yummy but others find the same foods yucky?

Hannah Viney works for the Old Treasury Building Museum. This research was originally conducted for an upcoming exhibition at the Museum.

– ref. A rose in every cheek: 100 years of Vegemite, the wartime spread that became an Aussie icon – https://theconversation.com/a-rose-in-every-cheek-100-years-of-vegemite-the-wartime-spread-that-became-an-aussie-icon-204917

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

The secrecy surrounding the recommendations for prosecution and other action against those who drove or facilitated the Robodebt scandal threatens to dilute the impact of the strong findings of the royal commission.

Commissioner Catherine Holmes has said the report’s secret chapter “recommends the referral of individuals for civil action or criminal prosecution”. But she said this “sealed” section should not be tabled “so as not to prejudice the conduct of any future civil action or criminal prosecution”.

Holmes has submitted relevant parts of the sealed chapter “to heads of various Commonwealth agencies, the Australian Public Service Commissioner, the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner, the President of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory and the Australian Federal Police”.

So far the government is adhering to Holmes’ position about not releasing names, although the Minister for Government Services Bill Shorten said on Friday he had “conflicting emotions” when he read Holmes’ recommendation on this, and Anthony Albanese said he did, too.

While at first blush Holmes’s argument for suppressing the names sounds fair and the right thing to do, it is in fact flawed.

By not identifying people publicly, this does a disservice at several levels. The case for secrecy can be made, but it is trumped by that for disclosure.

The general public, and especially the victims of Robodebt, deserve to know who has been referred. The scheme did immense damage to a huge number of people. The commission has been scathing about many individuals. There is a strong case for revealing what actions it believes should be taken against which people.

The secrecy is also unfair to some involved in the hearings who have not been referred. People may assume, wrongly, that they have been.

On the other hand, have some individuals not been referred when it might be expected they would have been?

Individuals who have been referred can identify themselves, but it can’t be assumed they will. (A couple of former ministers on Friday were quick to say they had not received referral notifications.)

The situation becomes even more opaque when no number has been given of the referrals.

One would expect a hierarchy among the referrals – being recommended for criminal charges is not the same as being referred for lesser action.

There is little doubt names will leak out over coming days, which is the worst way for them to emerge.

Publication of names would hardly be a new thing. The royal commission into trade unions, set up by the previous government, listed referrals, the grounds for them, and the agencies to which they were sent.

Following Friday’s report, the bureaucracy has started a process for dealing with fallout in its bailiwick. But while there’s been a shake up in the public service and its top personnel under Labor, the public won’t necessarily have confidence the process will ensure action is being robustly pursued.

The Public Service Commission announced that “a centralised inquiry mechanism has been established to inquire into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by [Australian Public Service] employees, former APS employees and Agency Heads arising from the Royal Commission”.

In its statement the Public Service Commission poses the question, “What information will be available about individual referrals and inquiries?” Its answer amounts to saying, damn all.

“The sealed chapter of the report refers to individuals and is subject to a Direction Not to Publish issued by the Royal Commissioner.

“In order to maintain the integrity and procedural fairness of any further inquiries, and consistent with the Direction Not to Publish, information about individual cases will not be released,” the statement says.

As to whether individuals named in the sealed section continue to be employed in the public service, this will be “a matter for their current employer,” who can act “before a formal investigation has started or concluded”.

In deciding this, the statement says, their boss needs to consider the “seriousness of the allegations, as well as the particular circumstances of the individual’s employment including their current roles and responsibilities”.

Just in case anyone has any further questions, the Public Service Commission and individual departments and agencies “will not be commenting on the employment arrangements of individuals because, to do so, may inadvertently disclose content contained in the sealed chapter or risk prejudicing ongoing inquiries”.

This is less than satisfactory. As is a situation where some senior public servants know more than ministers about who has been named.

How can we monitor what happens to which individuals if we don’t know who all those individuals are? How will we know the time frame – when the follow-through is finished? Are we talking about weeks, months?

There are strong grounds for the government to make public the sealed section, in the name of transparency. Not to do so will only bring problems.

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. View from The Hill: The ‘sealed’ chapter of the Robodebt report should be released – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-the-sealed-chapter-of-the-robodebt-report-should-be-released-209377

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darren O’Donovan, Senior Lecturer in Administrative Law, La Trobe University

The long-awaited robodebt royal commission report landed today, making searing adverse findings against both politicians and bureaucrats.

Key individuals are denounced in stark moral terms: for venality, cowardice and callous disregard.

The report contains the statement that “on the evidence before the commission, elements of the tort of misfeasance in public office appear to exist”.

The victims and key advocates who have laboured in obscurity, through days when no listened, can now know they were right all along.

Read more:
Robodebt royal commissioner makes multiple referrals for prosecution, condemning scheme as ‘crude and cruel’

Consequences

The report leaves a core question unanswered: will anyone ever face consequences for what happened? Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes’ decision to keep referrals confidential should be perceived as victim-centred.

A royal commission is the last fail-safe of our democracy, the one way we open doors those in power would prefer to keep shut.

It’s a mechanism that is particularly precious to the marginalised, those failed by the media and party political cycles.

The confidentiality serves to highlight the elemental values that were denied to people during robodebt itself: procedural fairness, ethics and attention to proof.

On compensation for the victims, the report states:

The administration costs of a scheme which addressed all the different ways in which people were harmed by the Scheme and examined their circumstances to establish what compensation was appropriate in each case would be astronomic, given the numbers involved. A better use of the money would be to lift the rate at which social security benefits are paid.

Holmes’ challenge for Australians

The report leans heavily into the importance of pursuing a deeper change in our political life. This reflects the arguments of advocates that even if it had been lawful, robodebt was still a scandal.

The commissioner’s call to consider raising the rate of JobSeeker directs us to the bigger picture. Welfare advocates in this country can now forcefully critique any government program that trades on stigma or vulnerability and ignores real-life suffering.

That will now forever be known as robodebt governance.

As the report reads:

politicians need to lead a change in social attitudes to people receiving welfare payments. The evidence before the commission was that fraud in the welfare system was miniscule, but that is not the impression one would get from what ministers responsible for social security payments have said over the years. Anti-welfare rhetoric is easy populism, useful for campaign purposes.

The report reflects that Australia’s constitution places all its trust on responsible politicians and a vibrant parliamentary culture.

The law does not offer the protections the public often thinks it does, and plays an outsized role in public debate. Across more than 900 pages, the key take away for social security recipients is effectively: find a way to get political power and cultural influence, any way you can.

‘Robodebt’: the power of a word

It was confronting to watch today as politicians and media picked over the findings of the report, when it took so long to have the wrongs of robodebt noticed by anyone.

The report detailed:

The beginning of 2017 was the point at which Robodebt’s unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent. It should then have been abandoned or revised drastically, and an enormous amount of hardship and misery (as well as the expense the government was so anxious to minimise) would have been averted.

Instead the path taken was to double down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that in fact the system had not changed at all. The government was, the DHS and DSS ministers maintained, acting righteously to recoup taxpayers’ money from the undeserving.

My thoughts were with the #notmydebt volunteers. With transparency advocate Justin Warren who spent years seeking the very documents that could have stopped this long ago.

To Asher Wolf, Lyndsey Jackson, Amy Patterson and the forever anonymous volunteers who built the very word on everyone’s lips. The people who were told it was disrespectful and wrong to even use the word “robodebt”.

Change comes from the outside

Australians carry as many ideas about their government as the politicians who run it. Robodebt stands as a warning against rose-tinted visions of the rule of law, or any idea our institutions are inherently self-correcting.

The politicians have taken this report into their world. We must always remember the spaces it actually comes from. How social security recipients found the power to make this all happen. Commissioner Holmes has named that as the path to real change.

Read more:
Why robodebt’s use of ‘income averaging’ lacked basic common sense

Darren O’Donovan 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. Victims now know they were right about robodebt all along. Let the royal commission change the way we talk about welfare – https://theconversation.com/victims-now-know-they-were-right-about-robodebt-all-along-let-the-royal-commission-change-the-way-we-talk-about-welfare-209216

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

Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes has referred multiple individuals involved with the illegal scheme for civil and criminal prosecutions and other actions.

But the names remain secret. They are contained in a sealed section of Holmes’ report, released Friday, with referrals variously being made to the Public Service Commission, the new National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Australian Federal Police, and professional bodies.

In a swingeing indictment of the scheme, the commission says: “Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms.”

The commissioner has not made public the names of those in the secret section so as not to prejudice future actions.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told a news conference he did not have the sealed section, but the head of his department, Glyn Davis, did.

Robodebt, designed to raise maximum revenue, used income averaging to strike debts to recover money from welfare payments. It unlawfully raised $1.76 billion from hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients, but many of the calculated debts were wrong, and after the illegality of the scheme was exposed the former government had to announce it would repay the money.

Former Liberal ministers come in for trenchant criticism.

Scott Morrison, who as social services minister was an initiator of the scheme, “allowed Cabinet to be misled,” the report says.

“He took the proposal to cabinet without necessary information as to what it actually entailed and without the caveat that it required legislative and policy change,” it says.

“He failed to meet his ministerial responsibility to ensure that Cabinet was properly informed about what the proposal actually entailed and to ensure that it was lawful.”

Morrison said in a statement later: “I reject completely each of the findings which are critical of my involvement in authorising the scheme and are adverse to me. They are wrong, unsubstantiated and contradicted by clear documentary evidence presented to the Commission.”

In a news conference after the report’s release, Albanese said Morrison’s defence of the scheme was, in the wording of the report, based on a “falsehood”.

The report says of the former minister for government services, Stuart Robert, who argued he was obliged to defend the scheme despite his doubts about it: “It can be accepted that the principles of Cabinet solidarity required Mr Robert to publicly support Cabinet decisions, whether he agreed with them or not”.

“But Mr Robert was not expounding any legal position, and he was going well beyond supporting government policy. He was making statements of fact as to the accuracy of debts, citing statistics which he knew could not be right.

“Nothing compels ministers to knowingly make false statements, or statements which they have good reason to suspect are untrue, in the course of publicly supporting any decision or program,” the report says.

The Guardian has reported Robert saying: “I have NOT received a notice of inclusion in the ‘sealed section’ and I understand they have all gone out”.

The commissioner says of former human services minister Alan Tudge that his “use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the scheme’s problems represented an abuse of that power.

“It was all the more reprehensible in view of the power imbalance between the minister and the cohort of people upon whom it would reasonably be expected to have the most impact, many of whom were vulnerable and dependent on the department, and its minister, for their livelihood.”

In a Friday statement Tudge said: “I strongly reject the Commission’s comments of the way I used the media and that I had abused my power in doing so. At no stage did I seek to engage in a media strategy that would discourage legitimate criticism of the Scheme.” He said he had not received notification that he was one of those referred in the sealed section of the report.

The report is highly critical of the then-head of the human services department, Kathryn Campbell, finding she stayed silent about the misleading effect of the income averaging proposal, and the advice it needed legislative change, “knowing that [social services minister] Mr Morrison wanted to pursue the proposal and that the government could not achieve the savings which the [scheme] promised without income averaging”.

In her preface to the report, the commissioner says: “It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme’s legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings.

“Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the Scheme’s lack of legal foundation coming to light.

“Equally disheartening was the ineffectiveness of what one might consider institutional checks and balances – the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, the Office of Legal Services Coordination, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – in presenting any hindrance to the Scheme’s continuance.”

She says the sealed section “in part is intended as a means of holding individuals to account, in order to reinforce the importance of public service officers acting with integrity.

“But as to how effective any recommended change can be, I want to make two points.

“First, whether a public service can be developed with sufficient robustness to ensure that something of the like of the Robodebt scheme could not occur again will depend on the will of the government of the day, because culture is set from the top down.

“Second, politicians need to lead a change in social attitudes to people receiving welfare payments.

“The evidence before the Commission was that fraud in the welfare system was miniscule, but that is not the impression one would get from what ministers responsible for social security payments have said over the years.

“Anti-welfare rhetoric is easy populism, useful for campaign purposes. It is not recent, nor is it confined to one side of politics.”

“Largely, those attitudes are set by politicians, who need to abandon for good (in every sense) the narrative of taxpayer versus welfare recipient.”

The Minister for Government Services, Bill Shorten, who pursued the Robodebt issue in opposition, said the report showed “the previous government and senior public servants gaslighted the nation and its citizens for four and a half years. They betrayed the trust of the nation and its citizens for four and a half years with an unlawful scheme which the Federal Court has called the worst chapter of public administration.”

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. Robodebt royal commissioner makes multiple referrals for prosecution, condemning scheme as ‘crude and cruel’ – https://theconversation.com/robodebt-royal-commissioner-makes-multiple-referrals-for-prosecution-condemning-scheme-as-crude-and-cruel-209318

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Dehghan, Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology

The royal commission into the unlawful robodebt scheme has delivered its findings.

On the final day of public hearings, Commissioner Catherine Holmes highlighted the crucial role of citizen journalists and activists on Twitter. She described the mainstream media reporting as “patchy”, and noted the “remarkably useful and important public service” provided by tweeters covering the scandal from its emergence to the royal commission’s final hearings.

We have been monitoring this Twitter activity closely since 2016. While the nation digests the commissioner’s findings, it’s worth reviewing how a small but committed group of Twitter users tracked the faulty robodebt scheme and helped generate the pressure for a royal commission.

As Twitter declines under Elon Musk’s ownership, the #Robodebt saga is a useful reminder of the platform’s potential for social good.

The beginnings

Around July 2016, after a small pilot program, Centrelink deployed a data-matching algorithm to compare its own datasets against the data held by the Australian Tax Office, to find over-payments to welfare recipients. The algorithm was faulty and unlawful, resulting in the automatic issuing of thousands of incorrect debt letters, some demanding four- and five-figure sums of money.

Vulnerable people reported stories of mental and financial hardship, of long Centrelink call centre queues, and of deep confusion about these debt notices. The Department of Human Services released private information about the few who dared to speak publicly.

Read more:
‘Amateurish, rushed and disastrous’: royal commission exposes robodebt as ethically indefensible policy targeting vulnerable people

But there was no framework for collating the accounts of robodebt victims. The very term “robodebt” hadn’t yet been coined.

The task of documenting the flaws, failures and fatal consequences largely fell to activists who initiated a Twitter campaign under the #NotMyDebt hashtag. In late 2016, they also introduced the “robodebt” moniker, which eventually became the official title of the royal commission.

Almost seven years later, we can document the role of activists like Asher Wolf and their Twitter network in highlighting robodebt’s faults.

The evolution

The robodebt campaign began on Boxing Day 2016, as the first debt notices came to light and #NotMyDebt first trended on Twitter. Over the months to May 2017, a small group of digital activists dedicated their time to tweeting about the issue, setting up the Not My Debt website, and curating stories, evidence and information.

About 100 Twitter accounts initially produced around 50% of the posts, garnering engagement from some 10,000 others. Much of this early activity was dominated by the #NotMyDebt hashtag, but in 2017 #Robodebt gradually took over.

By late 2018, #Robodebt was well established – and overlapped considerably with Australia’s perennial hashtag for political discussion, #auspol. Some prominent Labor politicians (Bill Shorten, Anthony Albanese, Mark Dreyfus) also became active during this early timeframe.

This shows how robodebt gradually became a major political – rather than merely administrative – issue, and was increasingly linked with the Liberal/National Coalition government. The first calls for a royal commission to investigate the scheme also appeared during this time.

These early activists were central to the early campaign, but also assumed a critical role again as the royal commission commenced in August 2022. Since then, central members of this group – and other core participants who emerged subsequently – have initiated some 40% of all robodebt-related tweets.

From early 2019, particularly after Labor’s loss in the May 2019 election, the composition of the community discussing robodebt changed notably. A second wave of accounts with a strongly pro-Labor stance, including prominent Labor politicians, joined the online campaign.

Highlighting robodebt as a failure of the Coalition government, they mobilised their Twitter networks and became increasingly active before the 2022 election. This advocacy continued through to the establishment of the royal commission.

A third group of “new” activists became more active in the final years of the Morrison government. They argued robodebt indicated not only a failure of Centrelink, but of the previous government’s policies. This reflected an overall hardening of anti-Coalition sentiment.

The future

The robodebt scheme was illegal, and its continuation despite legal advice was a scandal. Its detrimental impact on thousands of lives has been documented by the royal commission’s hearings.

But much of what we now know about the scheme is thanks to pressure substantially maintained by the initially small number of activists who curated information about the scheme, and popularised the name by which it is now known. As Commissioner Holmes has acknowledged, Australians have benefited from the unpaid public service of these activists.

But what about the next such scandal? Under Musk’s chaotic leadership, Twitter is losing its authentic user base, being overrun by trolls and fake accounts, blocking and shadow-banning critical activists, dropping its moderation teams, and facing technological decay.

Where else will such activism go? None of the other major social media platforms provide the same opportunities for highly public engagement. Few bring together activists, experts, journalists and politicians in the same open space.

If mainstream media coverage is “patchy” and unreliable, if social media communities are under threat from platform owners and unchecked hordes of trolls, where will activists go now to speak truth to power?

Axel Bruns receives funding from the Australian Research Council as an Australian Laureate Fellow and a Chief Investigator in the Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society,

Ehsan Dehghan 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 rise of #Robodebt: how Twitter activists pushed a government scandal from hashtags to a royal commission – https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-robodebt-how-twitter-activists-pushed-a-government-scandal-from-hashtags-to-a-royal-commission-209131

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

Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes has recommended the referral of multiple individuals involved with the illegal scheme for civil and criminal prosecutions.

But the names remain secret. They are contained in a sealed section of Holmes’ report, released Friday, with referrals variously to be made to the Public Service Commission, the new National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Australian Federal Police, and professional bodies.

In a swingeing indictment of the scheme, the commission says: “Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms.”

The commissioner has not made public the names of those in the secret section, so as not to prejudice the referrals. Sources said about 20 people were involved, including former ministers and public servants.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told a news conference he did not have the sealed section, but the head of his department, Glyn Davis, did.

Robodebt, designed to raise maximum revenue, used income averaging to strike debts to recover money from welfare payments. It unlawfully raised $1.76 billion from hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients, but many of the calculated debts were wrong, and after the illegality of the scheme was exposed the former government had to announce it would repay the money.

Former Liberal ministers come in for trenchant criticism.

Scott Morrison, who as social services minister was an initiator of the scheme, “allowed Cabinet to be misled,” the report says.

“He took the proposal to cabinet without necessary information as to what it actually entailed and without the caveat that it required legislative and policy change,” it says.

“He failed to meet his ministerial responsibility to ensure that Cabinet was properly informed about what the proposal actually entailed and to ensure that it was lawful.”

In a news conference after the report’s release, Albanese said Morrison’s defence of the scheme was, in the wording of the report, based on a “falsehood”.

The report says of the former minister for government services, Stuart Robert, who argued he was obliged to defend the scheme despite his doubts about it: “It can be accepted that the principles of Cabinet solidarity required Mr Robert to publicly support Cabinet decisions, whether he agreed with them or not”.

“But Mr Robert was not expounding any legal position, and he was going well beyond supporting government policy. He was making statements of fact as to the accuracy of debts, citing statistics which he knew could not be right.

“Nothing compels ministers to knowingly make false statements, or statements which they have good reason to suspect are untrue, in the course of publicly supporting any decision or program,” the report says.

The commissioner says of former human services minister Alan Tudge that his “use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the scheme’s problems represented an abuse of that power.

“It was all the more reprehensible in view of the power imbalance between the minister and the cohort of people upon whom it would reasonably be expected to have the most impact, many of whom were vulnerable and dependent on the department, and its minister, for their livelihood.”

The report is highly critical of the then-head of the human services department, Kathryn Campbell, finding she stayed silent about the misleading effect of the income averaging proposal, and the advice it needed legislative change, “knowing that [social services minister] Mr Morrison wanted to pursue the proposal and that the government could not achieve the savings which the NPP promised without income averaging”.

In her preface to the report, the commissioner says: “It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme’s legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings.

“Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the Scheme’s lack of legal foundation coming to light.

“Equally disheartening was the ineffectiveness of what one might consider institutional checks and balances – the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, the Office of Legal Services Coordination, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – in presenting any hindrance to the Scheme’s continuance.”

She says the sealed section “in part is intended as a means of holding individuals to account, in order to reinforce the importance of public service officers’ acting with integrity.

“But as to how effective any recommended change can be, I want to make two points.

“First, whether a public service can be developed with sufficient robustness to ensure that something of the like of the Robodebt scheme could not occur again will depend on the will of the government of the day, because culture is set from the top down.

“Second, politicians need to lead a change in social attitudes to people receiving welfare payments.

“The evidence before the Commission was that fraud in the welfare system was miniscule, but that is not the impression one would get from what ministers responsible for social security payments have said over the years.

“Anti-welfare rhetoric is easy populism, useful for campaign purposes. It is not recent, nor is it confined to one side of politics.”

“Largely, those attitudes are set by politicians, who need to abandon for good (in every sense) the narrative of taxpayer versus welfare recipient.”

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. Robodebt royal commission recommends multiple referrals for prosecution, condemning scheme as ‘crude and cruel’ – https://theconversation.com/robodebt-royal-commission-recommends-multiple-referrals-for-prosecution-condemning-scheme-as-crude-and-cruel-209318

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

Frida Kahlo devotees, this is your show. There are her paintings aplenty, photographs of her by Imogen Cunningham through to Edward Weston, and film imagery of Kahlo and Rivera as the happy couple.

But there’s much more to this exhibition at the Art Gallery of South Australia than a Frida Kahlo love-in.

The context for the exhibition, aptly titled Frida & Diego: Love & Revolution, is set in its first gallery.

There, decked out in the colours of the Mexican flag, snippets of historic film footage are on view. They set the scene for Mexico rooted in its colonial Spanish-European past, its 1910 revolution and transition to a democracy.

The newly formed Republic of Mexico ushered in a raft of reforms in the 1920s conducive to cultural growth and valuing its indigenous cultures.

This is the backdrop to a high point in Mexican avant-garde art by Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo and a host of other modern artists in this exhibition.

‘Mexicanidad’

Each gallery is a dramatic set for paintings, photographs, murals and moving images.

Architects Grieve Gillett have employed wall colour and shape to craft viewing spaces that induce a dramatic engagement with the paintings, such as Rivera’s hyper-real anthropomorphic Landscape with cacti (1931).

His paintings compete favourably with Kahlo’s. His scenes of the everyday include Calla Lily vendor (1943), showing two traditionally dressed young girls nursing their gigantic basket of lilies.

It is emblematic of the shift away from academic subject matter to traditional Mexican art and folk culture which creates a new sense of national identity and pride – known as “Mexicanidad”.

The cultural vibrancy of post-revolution Mexico fostered the production of modern art by artists including Guatemalan/Mexican Carlos Merida.

Merida’s vibrant black and bronze abstract shapes dance across the canvas in Variation on an old theme (1960).

Another is Rufino Tamayo, whose inversion of volume and playful approach to representing depth frame his oversized subject in The Diner (1938).

These are just two of a host of fabulous modern artists on view whose work is not sufficiently known outside Mexico: a reminder of how Anglo-American our conception of modern art is.

Enigmatic self-portraits

Kahlo was an extraordinary woman. Her enigmatic self-portraits such as Self-portrait with monkeys (1943) have an undeniable ability to draw in the viewer, her introspection transferring itself to her audience.

Read more:
Here’s looking at Frida Kahlo’s Self-portrait with monkeys

She suffered polio as a child. She then had her sights set on a career in medicine when it was thwarted by a shocking bus accident, followed by long periods of rehabilitation.

As a consequence, she took to art.

This well-known story tends to frame her as an artist, and may well explain why her stunning self-portraits – always of her upper torso – convey a singular strength and determination as in Self-portrait with red and gold dress (1941).

She presents herself as exotic, wearing the indigenous Tehuana dress of her ancestors as both a personal and political statement, while the long skirts disguise her misshapen polio-affected legs.

Her paintings transcend her disability, so while the re-creation of her four-poster bed and bedroom within the exhibition is a homage to her determination, it is unnecessary.

The point about her disability could have been made more gently by the photographs in the space.

Artistic vision

The exhibition is testament to the vision of two emigres, Jacques Gelman and Natasha Zahalka who settled in Mexico City.

Gelman came from Russia via Germany and France; Zahalka from Czechoslovakia via Singapore. They met and married, and from the 1940s began collecting and commissioning work from this exciting period in Mexican art.

It is their collection on view, supplanted by some photographic loan work.

The Gelmans come to life in the exhibition: both Kahlo and Rivera completed portraits of Natasha.

But more interesting is Gunther Gerzso’s Portrait of Jacques Gelman (1957).

This shows a diminutive patron embedded in an abstract field of shape and colour, testament to his love of the avant-garde.

An insightful exhibition

Between 1923 and 1939, the Mexican government employed artists to paint murals to foster a sense of national identity.

Two of Rivera’s murals valorising the working class are photographically reproduced across large wall spans to convey the intensity and power of his imagery.

There is a delightfully intriguing side to this exhibition in Japanese artist Yasumasa Morimura’s video Dialogue with myself (2001).

He is well known for appropriating the persona of key artists from art history such as Van Gogh, Vermeer and Manet or their signature artworks.

Here, he performs as Kahlo, dressed in her distinctive clothing, while playing the piano and conversing with her.

Perhaps, in these conversations, he is drawing out the inner self Kahlo so perfectly controls in her portraits.

This is an insightful exhibition, beautifully curated by Tansy Curtin who weaves around the drawcards Kahlo and Rivera to present the breadth of modern Mexican art, situating it in its political and cultural context.

The exhibition catalogue with its fold-out Rivera mural is an indispensable aid. But it is the inspired architectural design complimented by wall-sized imagery of the murals and the artists’ studio and courtyard that lifts the images in the exhibition to another level to make it a wholly immersive viewing experience.

Frida & Diego: Love & Revolution is at the Art Gallery of South Australia until September 17.

Read more:
How Frida Kahlo became a trinket for a Conservative leader

Catherine Speck has received funding from the ARC to research exhibitions.

– ref. Frida & Diego: Love & Revolution is insightful and beautiful; a reminder of how Anglo-American our conception of modern art is – https://theconversation.com/frida-and-diego-love-and-revolution-is-insightful-and-beautiful-a-reminder-of-how-anglo-american-our-conception-of-modern-art-is-208022

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Tolbert, Associate Professor of Science and Environmental Education, University of Canterbury

Long-standing debates about the purpose and focus of a school science curriculum have resurfaced this week as New Zealand is refreshing its approach to science education.

Some responses to an early draft of a proposed science curriculum warned it would “minimalise science”. But an updated curriculum for today’s world presents an opportunity to engage all students in science through contexts that matter.

As we witness record-breaking temperatures on land and in the ocean, “forever chemicals” contaminating drinking water in the US, and food and energy systems under strain globally, it is clear science literacy is not just about “learning the basics”.

Teaching science should instead be about developing systems thinking and agency, or “the ability to recognise and take action within complex systems”. A meaningful and robust science education is increasingly important for all students, not just those who want to become scientists.

Students must learn to critically evaluate and apply science knowledge, alongside other forms of knowledge, to make informed decisions and act on issues that matter.

Curriculum change is necessary

Decades of research have shown that school science that focuses predominantly on decontextualised scientific facts and theories has not supported student learning. This approach has ill prepared students to engage competently or critically with science, and has failed to expand participation in science careers or degree programmes.

Enrolments in traditional science programmes at New Zealand universities are declining. Fewer 15-year-old New Zealanders see the value of science compared to international peers.

Read more:
STEM learning should engage students’ minds, hands and hearts

As former chief science advisor Sir Peter Gluckman pointed out in 2011, New Zealand needs radical changes to the science curriculum to better prepare students for the complex issues of our time.

A 2022 background report to the New Zealand curriculum refresh reinforced this perspective. It highlighted how science education needs to prepare students for a world characterised by increasing misinformation campaigns, and growing environmental and other science-related social concerns.

What needs to change

The current New Zealand curriculum states the purpose of science education is to ensure students “can participate as critical, informed, and responsible citizens in a society in which science plays a significant role”.

But as a recent report issued by the Education Review Office revealed, New Zealand is far from achieving this goal. Students’ awareness of environmental problems has declined since 2006. A recent poll showed New Zealanders don’t understand how to act on climate change.

Faced with interrelated changes in the environment, science itself is changing. It is becoming more interdisciplinary. We see new fields emerging at the intersection of physics, chemistry and biology.

Scientists are increasingly working alongside Māori and other Indigenous leaders, drawing from multiple knowledge systems to collaborate on complex science-related problems. A science curriculum for today’s world must be interdisciplinary and reflect these changes.
Students need to be able to see connections between traditional disciplines.

Teaching science in context

Research shows that students learn fundamental science concepts better when they are contextualised within real-world problems and issues. A contextualised curriculum also creates space for other valid knowledge systems such as mātauranga Māori and Indigenous knowledge.

Such an approach supports learning in multilingual science classrooms, which is particularly important given the growing diversity in New Zealand schools.

A science curriculum focused on contemporary issues will not only help prepare all students to engage more competently with science, it can also inspire more students to consider science-related career paths they might not have otherwise.

Curriculum wars in science are not new. Debates over the goals and content of a science curriculum are not uncommon, and meaningful curriculum change that disrupts the status quo is difficult.

It requires a bold vision but must also be buttressed by extensive support for teachers. Some non-Māori science teachers are keen to make the change but have expressed concerns about lacking skills; for example, how to teach mātauranga Māori.

Read more:
Future teachers often think memorization is the best way to teach math and science – until they learn a different way

Teachers are currently not well prepared to teach science in the context of the critical issues of our time, such as climate change. Teacher education and professional development will need to be “turbo-charged” with robust and sustained investments.

However, the goal of curriculum reform is to lay out a bold vision for education, which then drives and catalyses the required resourcing.

Fortunately, there are schools and kura in New Zealand currently leading the way. We can look to them to see what is possible and be inspired by all that science education can be.

Sara Tolbert receives funding from the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI). She also consults for the New Zealand Ministry of Education and is a co-writer to the New Zealand Curriculum Refresh for the science learning area.

– ref. NZ curriculum refresh: the world faces complex challenges and science education must reflect that – https://theconversation.com/nz-curriculum-refresh-the-world-faces-complex-challenges-and-science-education-must-reflect-that-209232

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

The launch of social media app Threads as a competitor to Twitter is a game-changer.

Meta, which also owns Facebook and Instagram, launched the new platform yesterday, ahead of schedule. Threads was welcomed almost immediately – especially by hordes of Twitter users that have watched in dismay as their beloved platform crumbles in the hands of Elon Musk.

In less than 24 hours, Threads attracted some 30 million users. And with Meta already having more than two billion Instagram users who can directly link their accounts to it, Threads’ user base will grow fast.

With its simple black and white feed, and features that let you reply, love, quote and comment on other people’s “threads”, the similarities between Threads and Twitter are obvious.

The question now is: will Threads be the one that finally unseats Twitter?

We’ve been here before

In October of last year, Twitter users looked on helplessly as Elon Musk became CEO. Mastodon was the first “escape plan”. But many found its decentralised servers difficult and confusing to use, with each one having very different content rules and communities.

Many Twitter fans created “back up” Mastodon accounts in case Twitter crashed, and waited to see what Musk would do next. The wait wasn’t long. Platform instability and outages became common as Musk started laying off Twitter staff (he has now fired about 80% of Twitter’s original workforce).

Shortly after, Musk horrified users and made headlines by upending Twitter’s verification system and forcing “blue tick” holders to pay for the privilege of authentication. This opened the door for account impersonations and the sharing of misinformation at scale. Some large corporate brands left the platform, taking their advertising dollars with them.

Musk also labelled trusted news organisations such as the BBC as “state-owned” media, until public backlash forced him to retreat. More recently, he started limiting how many tweets users can view and announced that TweetDeck (a management tool for scheduling tweets) would be limited to paid accounts.

Twitter users have tried several alternatives, including Spoutible and Post. Bluesky, which came from Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, is gaining ground – but its growth has been limited due to its invitation-only registration process.

Nothing had quite captured the imagination of Twitter followers … until now.

Community is the key to success

Before Musk’s reign, Twitter enjoyed many years of success. It had long been a home for journalists, governments, academics and the public to share information on the key issues of the day. In emergencies, Twitter offered real-time support. During some of the worst disasters, users have shared information and made life-saving decisions.

While not without flaws – such as trolls, bots and online abuse – Twitter’s verification process and the ability to block and report inappropriate content was central to its success in building a thriving community.

This is also what sets Threads apart from competitors. By linking Threads to Instagram, Meta has given itself a significant head-start towards reaching the critical mass of users needed to establish itself as a leading platform (a privilege Mastodon didn’t enjoy).

Not only can Threads users retain their usernames, they can also bring their Instagram followers with them. The ability to retain community in an app that provides a similar experience to Twitter is what makes Threads the biggest threat yet.

My research shows that people crave authority, authenticity and community the most when they engage with online information. In our new book, my co-authors Donald O. Case, Rebekah Willson and I explain how users search for information from sources they know and trust.

Twitter fans want an alternative platform with similar functionality, but most importantly they want to quickly find “their people”. They don’t want to have to rebuild their communities. This is likely why so many have stayed on Twitter, even as Musk has done so well to run it into the ground.

Challenges ahead

Of course, Twitter users may also be concerned about jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Signing up to yet another Meta app comes with its own concerns.

New Threads users who read the fine print will note that their information will be used to “personalize ads and other experiences” across both platforms. And users have pointed out you can only delete your Threads account if you delete your Instagram account.

This kind of entrenchment could be off-putting for some.

Moreover, Meta decided to not launch Threads anywhere in the European Union yesterday due to regulatory concerns. The EU’s new Digital Markets Act could raise challenges for Threads.

For example, the act sets out businesses can’t “track end users outside of [their] core platform service for the purpose of targeted advertising, without effective consent having been granted”. This may be in conflict with Threads’ privacy policy.

Meta has also announced plans to eventually move Threads towards a decentralised infrastructure. In the app’s “How Threads Works” details, it says “future versions of Threads will work with the fediverse”, enabling “people to follow and interact with each other on different platforms, including Mastodon”.

This means people will be able to view and interact with Threads content from non-Meta accounts, without needing to sign up to Threads. Using the ActivityPub standard (which enables decentralised interoperability between platforms), Threads could then function the same way as WordPress, Mastodon and email servers – wherein users of one server can interact with others.

When and how Threads achieves this plan for decentralised engagement – and how this might impact users’ experience – is unclear.

Did Meta steal ‘trade secrets’?

As for Musk, he’s not going down without a fight. Just hours after Threads’ release, Twitter’s lawyer Alex Spiro released a letter accusing Meta of “systematic” and “unlawful misappropriation” of trade secrets.

The letter alleges former Twitter employees hired by Meta were “deliberately assigned” to “develop, in a matter of months, Meta’s copycat ‘Threads’ app”. Meta has disputed these claims, according to reports, but the rivalry between the two companies seems far from over.

Read more:
Thinking of breaking up with Twitter? Here’s the right way to do it

Lisa M. Given is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Why Meta’s Threads app is the biggest threat to Twitter yet – https://theconversation.com/why-metas-threads-app-is-the-biggest-threat-to-twitter-yet-209220

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Gore, Laureate Professor of Education, Director Teachers and Teaching Research Centre, University of Newcastle

Last August, the federal government set up an expert panel to look at teacher education in Australia.

In part, this was born out of education ministers’ concerns about the shortage of teachers around Australia and the need to “ensure graduating teachers are better prepared for the classroom”.

The panel, led by Sydney University vice-chancellor Mark Scott (who also chairs The Conversation’s board), released a discussion paper in March. The final report was released on Thursday night.

Education Minister Jason Clare supports teachers but says they need to be “better prepared” before they enter a classroom.

Teaching is a tough and complex job and this is all about making sure they are better prepared from day one.

Teachers certainly need more support to do their jobs. But this report recommends more oversight and regulation, which will not help the profession.

Read more:
A new review into how teachers are educated should acknowledge they learn throughout their careers (not just at the start)

What’s in the report?

The Strong Beginnings report makes 14 recommendations. These include establishing “core content” for teaching degrees, or “what every teacher should know”. Universities will have to include this content in their programs if they are to retain their accreditation.

It recommends a new “quality assurance board” to oversee the changes, and public reporting on who universities accept into their teaching programs, whether those students stick to their studies and whether they get a job afterwards.

The panel also proposes “modest financial incentives” to encourage universities to make “genuine and successful efforts” to improve their teacher education programs.

And it recommends more structure around practical experience, mentoring and support for those who decide to decide to swap careers to teaching.

We do need improvements

The panel and I agree on one thing: improvements across the education sector are needed if we are to meet the goals of the 2019 Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration. Here, all Australian education ministers agreed on a vision “for a world class education system that encourages and supports every student to be the very best they can be”.

But this report falls short. It continues a decades-long focus on external regulation and mandated content, while disregarding the expertise of teacher educators. It also fails to address the structural and systemic issues – such as inequitable resourcing of schools, excessive administrative burden on teachers, and devaluing of the profession – which have led to teacher shortages and falling standards.

Some recommendations have merit

Some recommendations have merit: boosting practical experience through system-wide placement agreements, increasing investment in practical experience, and giving professional recognition to teachers supervising education students. These proposals acknowledge graduates are shaped by the whole education system, not just content absorbed while studying.

Some recommendations are benign: improved mid-career pathways and flexible learning for post-graduate students from other fields makes sense, particularly given dire teacher shortages that are worsening attrition, not only among beginning teachers.

But the panel adopts the now all-too-familiar approach of increasing layers of regulation and telling teacher educators how to do their jobs.

Mandated core content

The first two recommendations mandate four areas of core content for universities to “add to” their initial teacher education programs:

1. the brain and learning, or content that provides teachers with an understanding of why specific practices work

2. effective pedagogical (or teaching) practices

3. classroom management, or how to foster positive learning environments

4. responsive teaching, to ensure teachers teach in ways that are culturally and contextually appropriate.

But this is a double up. This content is already required by the existing accreditation process. It’s also already examined by universities including through teaching performance assessments required of final year students. This was an outcome of a review of initial teacher education in 2014.

How students learn, effective pedagogy, classroom management, and culturally and contextually responsive teaching are central to all teacher education programs in Australia.

A surprising level of detail

What is most astonishing about the proposed core content is the level of detail provided by the panel, outlining what must be included in initial teacher education programs to meet new performance standards from the accreditation body, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.

Here we see a level of government input into teaching degrees which would never be tolerated for medical, nursing, law or engineering programs. The content proposed is not widely agreed in the sector, either. The emphasis on “brain science” assumes a straightforward link between laboratory-based scientific evidence and its practical application in the classroom.

The 115 submissions to the panel’s discussion paper have been made public for the first time on Friday morning. This has left little time to check the panel’s claim that “stakeholders broadly supported both the core content and formalising it [via accreditation]”.

However, the University of Sydney School of Education and Social Work submission queries the reliability and trustworthiness of the evidence underpinning the proposed core content, expressing concern about “the way the evidence base itself was constructed”.

This specification of core content comes from the Australian Education Research Organisation (a government created, independent education evidence body). It has no particular expertise in research on teacher education. The approach taken is narrow and overlooks swathes of high quality research, as detailed in the University of Sydney submission.

What’s missed in education debates – which invariably pitch teaching practices against each other – is that what matters most is the underlying quality of the teaching. The report assumes new graduate teachers deliver poor teaching and their university education is to blame. This premise has been challenged by recent studies, which show new teachers teach just as well as those with years of experience.

Read more:
Our study found new teachers perform just as well in the classroom as their more experienced colleagues

We will need proper evaluation

The new regulations recommended by the panel treat teacher educators as if they aren’t already motivated to improve the student experience and outcomes, understand and incorporate the latest educational research, or engage in good practice. The assumption seems to be that providers will not “improve” unless incentivised financially by the panel’s recommended “transition” and “excellence” funds.

This is nonsense. Current systems of regulation and accountability mean providers are constantly required to demonstrate improvement. Teacher educators could in fact do more to refine their programs if not hamstrung by so much administration.

To be clear, I’m all for reform, having dedicated my academic career to improvements for teachers and students. But in the same way teachers need to be able to focus on teaching and learning (not paperwork), teacher educators need the time and space to do their jobs. And not be hampered by endless reviews and misguided regulation.

At a meeting on Thursday, state, territory and federal education ministers agreed in principle to all the report’s recommendations.

If this is the chosen path to improvement, then proper evaluation of these latest reform efforts is crucial. We can’t afford to arrive a few years down the track without being able to point to what did or didn’t work and why. Producing robust evidence on the impact of these reforms is essential in maintaining a focus on what really matters – better support for teachers and positive outcomes for all Australian students.

Jenny Gore receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Paul Ramsay Foundation and Australian Government Department of Education.

– ref. Teaching degrees are set for a major overhaul, but this is not what the profession needs – https://theconversation.com/teaching-degrees-are-set-for-a-major-overhaul-but-this-is-not-what-the-profession-needs-209223

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Johnson, Professor of Wildlife Conservation, University of Tasmania

Guardian dogs do a great job of protecting Australian livestock from predators.

In a new survey of Australian farmers, we have found that with correct management, these dogs can be very effective in the long term, and at a lower cost than alternative methods. These findings should inform policy on livestock management.

An ancient practice

The use of guardian dogs for livestock protection has a long history – farmers have been using dogs to protect their livestock from predators for thousands of years.

The earliest evidence of this dates to 9,000 years ago in southern Greece. Books on agriculture written 2,000 years ago in ancient Rome made it clear that livestock guardian dogs were essential for successful farming and gave detailed instructions on their selection and management.

Guardian dogs remained important throughout Europe and Asia until the twentieth century. Then, their use declined because of widespread extermination of predators and they were almost forgotten.

Now, livestock guardian dogs are making a comeback. They allow farming to coexist with wild predators, improving both biodiversity conservation and profitability of farming.

Read more:
A strong-eyed style: what makes Australian muster dogs unique

Members of the flock

In Australia, dingoes and foxes are major threats to livestock. Farmers usually respond to this threat by killing predators or fencing them out, but these methods are costly and don’t always work.

Instead, some farmers have turned to guardian dogs for help.

Traditionally, guardian dogs worked with shepherds; in modern farming they usually work independently. Pups are raised in close contact with livestock and bond with them. As adults they essentially become members of the flock or herd, giving it continuous protection and (in some respects) leadership.

This way of protecting livestock is still rare in Australia. Ten years ago we assessed its effectiveness by surveying 150 farmers who were using livestock guardian dogs. We found the dogs were very successful. Farmers reported that when they introduced guardian dogs to their farms, livestock losses dropped from previously high levels, often to zero.

Success was as high on very large properties with many animals to protect as it was on small farms.

Good for the long haul

But we had a lingering worry. What if it is just too hard to keep this system working in the long term? Maybe predators initially avoid farms protected by guardian dogs but eventually learn to outsmart or intimidate them and go back to killing livestock; or perhaps farmers find guardian dogs too difficult to manage in the long term and give up on them.

For our new research, we re-surveyed the same farmers to ask how they fared over the intervening decade. Were they still using guardian dogs? If so, were the dogs still working well, and if not why had the farmer stopped using them? Either way, we wanted to know what problems they had faced.

Half the farmers in our original sample no longer used guardian dogs, but this was mostly because they had retired or otherwise changed their business such that the dogs were not needed, not because they had failed.

Some farmers gave up on guardian dogs because of two kinds of problems: 24% had trouble with dog misbehaviour, and 19% had trouble with neighbours who objected to the presence of these dogs close to their own farms.

Almost all farmers (96%) still using guardian dogs said they protected livestock as well as they had done ten years earlier. The two exceptions were cases where livestock numbers had increased without a matching increase in the number of dogs.

All farmers who still used guardian dogs said they would recommend them to other farmers. That was also true of almost all farmers (98%) who had stopped using guardian dogs. That is, even those who had trouble with their dogs still saw their potential value.

Because of these good reviews, use of guardian dogs is evidently rising. We asked our participants how many other farmers had started using guardian dogs as a result of personal contact with them. From the answers, we estimate that farmer-to-farmer contact is increasing the total number of Australian farms with guardian dogs by 5% per year.

Read more:
Watching over livestock: our guardian animals

A policy for the future

There is a message here for government policy. The evidence from our own and other research is that livestock guardian dogs protect livestock more successfully and at a lower cost than alternative methods.

We now know that once established on a farm, guardian dogs can continue to work well for the long term. The problems our farmers encountered could largely be resolved by expert help in managing dog behaviour and provision of better information to the general farming community.

Government agencies that met these needs could reduce the failure rate of guardian dogs and increase uptake beyond the currently modest rate driven by word of mouth.

However, no Australian government currently provides any support or encouragement for farmers to use guardian dogs. The lack of government interest in this proven method of livestock protection is in stark contrast to the official support provided for fencing and killing predators.

We believe that relevant government agencies should develop programs to support and promote wider use of livestock guardian dogs in Australian farming.

This would not only help farm businesses but also bring environmental benefits. In particular, guardian dogs could help solve the vexing problem of management of dingoes.

Dingoes are good for ecosystems, and they help landholders by controlling populations of species like kangaroos and feral goats that can overgraze habitat and compete with livestock. But dingoes can be devastating predators of some livestock, especially sheep.

Livestock guardian dogs offer a way to cut through this dilemma, retaining dingoes while keeping livestock safe.

Read more:
Dingoes do bark: why most dingo facts you think you know are wrong

Christopher Johnson has received funding from the Australian Research Council for research on guardian dogs.

Linda van Bommel has received funding from the Australian Research Council for research on guardian dogs. Linda van Bommel is associated with both the University of Tasmania and the Australian National University.

– ref. The ancient practice of livestock guardian dogs is highly successful on Australian farms today – https://theconversation.com/the-ancient-practice-of-livestock-guardian-dogs-is-highly-successful-on-australian-farms-today-202153

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Macfarlane, Head of Clinical Services, Dementia Support Australia, & Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University

The term “sundowning” is sometimes used to describe a tendency for people living with dementia to become more confused in the late afternoon and into the night.

At the outset, I should emphasise the term “sundowning” is overly simplistic, as it’s a shorthand term that can encompass a vast number of behaviours in many different contexts. When assessing changed behaviours in dementia, it’s always better to hear a full and accurate description of what the person is actually doing at these times, rather than to just accept that “they’re sundowning.”

This set of behaviours commonly described as “sundowning” often includes (but is not limited to) confusion, anxiety, agitation, pacing and “shadowing” others. It may look different depending on the stage of dementia, the person’s personality and past behaviour patterns, and the presence of specific triggers.

Why then, do such altered behaviours tend to happen at specific times of the day? And what should you do when it happens to your loved one?

Read more:
When someone living with dementia is distressed or violent, ‘de-escalation’ is vital

Fading light

We all interpret the world via the information that enters our brains through our five senses. Chief among these are sight and sound.

Imagine the difficulty you’d have if asked to perform a complex task while in a darkened room.

People living with dementia are just as dependent on sensory input to make sense of and correctly interpret their environment.

As light fades towards the end of the day, so too does the amount of sensory input available to help a dementia patient interpret the world.

The impact of this on a brain struggling to integrate sensory information at the best of times can be significant, resulting in increased confusion and unexpected behaviours.

Read more:
Serving up choice and dignity in aged care – how meals are enjoyed is about more than what’s on the plate

Cognitive exhaustion

We have all heard it said that we only use a fraction our brain power, and it is true we all have far more brain power than we typically require for most of the day’s mundane tasks.

This “cognitive reserve” can be brought to bear when we are faced with complex or stressful tasks that require more mental effort. But what if you just don’t have much cognitive reserve?

The changes that ultimately lead to symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease can begin to develop for as many as 30 years before the onset of symptoms.

During that time, in simple terms, the condition eats away at our cognitive reserve.

It is only when the damage done is so significant our brains can no longer compensate for it that we develop the first symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.

So by the time someone first presents with very early dementia symptoms, a lot of damage has already been done. Cognitive reserve has been lost, and the symptoms of memory loss finally become apparent.

As a result, people living with dementia are required to exert far more mental effort during the course of a routine day than most of us.

We have all felt cognitively exhausted, run down and perhaps somewhat irritable after a long day doing a difficult task that has consumed an extreme amount of mental effort and concentration.

Those living with dementia are required to exert similar amounts of mental effort just to get through their daytime routine.

So is it any surprise that after several hours of concerted mental effort just to get by (often in an unfamiliar place), people tend to get cognitively exhausted?

What should I do if it happens to my loved one?

The homes of people living with dementia should be well-lit in the late afternoons and evenings when the sun is going down to help the person with dementia integrate and interpret sensory input.

A short nap after lunch may help alleviate cognitive fatigue towards the end of the day. It gives the brain, and along with it a person’s resilience, an opportunity to “recharge”.

However, there is no substitute for a fuller assessment of the other causes that might contribute to altered behaviour.

Unmet needs such as hunger or thirst, the presence of pain, depression, boredom or loneliness can all contribute, as can stimulants such as caffeine or sugar being given too late in the day.

The behaviours too often described by the overly simplistic term “sundowning” are complex and their causes are often highly individual and interrelated. As is often the case in medicine, a particular set of symptoms is often best managed by better understanding the root causes.

Read more:
These 12 things can reduce your dementia risk – but many Australians don’t know them all

Steve Macfarlane is affiliated with HammondCare and the RANZCP.

– ref. What is ‘sundowning’ and why does it happen to many people with dementia? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-sundowning-and-why-does-it-happen-to-many-people-with-dementia-208005

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Skeels, Postdoctoral Researcher, Macroevolution and Macroecology Group, Australian National University

The animals in Australia are super-different to those in Asia. This goes without saying; we know Australia is full of weird and wonderful creatures found nowhere else on Earth, such as the platypus and the koala.

But it may surprise you to know that many of our most iconic critters came from Asia and arrived only recently (in geological terms, at least).

These most recent members of Australia’s characteristic fauna include many lizards, such as goannas and thorny devils, and other animals including hopping mice, flying foxes and the kookaburra. Yet the traffic was largely one way – there are far fewer representatives of Australian fauna in Asia than there are Asian fauna in Australia.

Why is the situation so asymmetrical? In a study published today in the journal Science, my colleagues and I analysed information about the distribution and habitat of 20,433 species of land-dwelling vertebrates – as well as climate and plate tectonics over the past 30 million years – to find out.

Drifting continents on a cooling planet

The story begins more than 200 million years ago.

Dinosaurs were still a fairly new group walking the Earth, and Australia was part of a supercontinent called Gondwana. This giant landmass included modern Antarctica, South America, Africa, Australia and India.

Gondwana had just broken off from another supercontinent, called Laurasia, which was smooshed together from modern North America, Europe and Asia. The separation of Gondwana and Laurasia removed the last land connection between Australia and Asia.

Now, Gondwana itself began to fall part pretty shortly after separating from Laurasia. Each piece of Gondwana gradually became isolated and began its own independent journey. Many of these journeys led them back to Laurasia.

Read more:
Breaking new ground – the rise of plate tectonics

India collided with Eurasia and formed the mighty Himalaya; South America crashed into North America, forming the snaking land bridge of Panama; Africa bumped into Eurasia, forming the Mediterranean Sea; and Australia began on a collision course with Asia.

Australia untethered its final Gondwanan connections between 45 and 35 million years ago, when it broke off from Antarctica.

At that time, Australia was much further south than it is today. As it drifted northwards, the increasing space between Australia and Antarctica kick-started the Antarctic circumpolar current, which cooled the planet dramatically.

Read more:
Explainer: how the Antarctic Circumpolar Current helps keep Antarctica frozen

Australia was isolated, cooling down and drying out. A unique set of animals and plants began to evolve.

Intercontinental stepping stones

Meanwhile, the Australian and Eurasian tectonic plates began to collide, forming thousands of islands in the Indonesian archipelago, including today’s Lombok, Sulawesi, Timor, and Lesser Sunda Isles.

These islands don’t belong to either the Australian continental shelf (also known as Sahul), which includes Australia and New Guinea, or to the Asian continental shelf (known as Sunda), which includes Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Bali.

This in-between zone is known as Wallacea, after the 19th century British naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace. He first observed a difference in the types of animals found on either side of what is now called Wallace’s line.

The islands became stepping stones between two continents whose groups of species hadn’t seen each other in a very, very long time. But, as our new research shows, only particular kinds of animals were able to make the crossing and establish themselves on the other side.

Wet and dry

The first factor determining which animals spread between continents was their ability to cross the ocean.

Of all the groups of animals that moved between Asia and Australia, we found the staggering majority were birds.

But this wasn’t the only key to success.

Animals also needed to be able to thrive in their new location, where the environment may have been quite different. We found animals that could tolerate a broad range of wetter and drier environments were more likely to make the move successfully.

This makes sense. Sunda is wet and Sahul is dry, and if you can tolerate more of that wet–dry spectrum, you are better equipped to move between these regions.

But we still have a big question. Why did more animals move from Sunda to Sahul than in the other direction?

A lot can change in 30 million years

The final piece of the puzzle is considering how these crucial factors – the ability for species to disperse and establish themselves in new environments – have changed over time.

We know Sunda has been dominated by lush tropical rainforest since before Australia broke away from Antarctica. Later, when the stepping-stone islands began to pop up, they also had the kind of humid equatorial climate favoured by the rainforest vegetation, and later animals, from Sunda.

In Australia, however, similar rainforests were shrinking and being replaced by grasslands and woodlands in most areas.

What this means is that as animals move from Sunda, through the stepping-stone islands, to New Guinea and the northern tips of Australia in Sahul, they experience a band of similar humid tropical climate.

However, most animals in Sahul evolved on the Australian mainland, most of which was much drier. So moving from mainland Australia, through New Guinea and the stepping stones, to Sunda, requires adaptations to a very different environment.

And Australian animals that did manage to make their way onto the stepping-stone islands would have likely met competition from Sunda groups already happily existing in their preferred tropical climate.

Answers are a long time in the making

Climate and geography are some of the most important things that shape evolution and the distributions of different species. Taking the long view, deep into the past, helps us understand the world around us.

Simple questions – like “why are there no kangaroos in Asia but hopping mice in Australia?” – have answers that are hundreds of millions of years in the making.

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

– ref. Why are there hopping mice in Australia but no kangaroos in Asia? It’s a long story – https://theconversation.com/why-are-there-hopping-mice-in-australia-but-no-kangaroos-in-asia-its-a-long-story-209067

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Rich, Senior lecturer in History and International Relations, Curtin University

As Saudi Arabia continues to open up internationally, it is yet again in hot water over its human rights record. The current controversy revolves around the kingdom’s increasing presence in the sporting world and accusations of “sportswashing”.

In recent years, the Saudis have thrown the heavy weight of their Public Investment Fund into partnerships with Western institutions like the PGA, Formula One racing and World Wrestling Entertainment.

Riyadh is also luring top soccer players like Cristiano Ronaldo to its national league and using Lionel Messi as an influencer to promote the kingdom.

Recently, Saudi Arabia has signalled its interest in holding women’s tennis tournaments and even potentially hosting the 2030 FIFA World Cup, as well.

While the precise dollar figure of all of these efforts is difficult to determine, it has easily reached into the billions.

‘Sportswashing’ atrocities?

But the Saudi sport blitz has been received with less enthusiasm by many outside onlookers.

Human Rights Watch and many Western commentators describe it as simple “sportswashing” – an effort to distract the world’s attention from its continual disregard for international human rights.

For instance, the kingdom has racked up a well-documented record of human rights violations during its eight-year proxy war in Yemen.

Despite Riyadh’s murky peace deal with the Houthi fighters in Yemen in April, the war will remain a stain on its humanitarian record for the foreseeable future.

The lack of any meaningful reparations following the peace deal also raises the question whether the deal was simply a way for the Saudis to disengage from the war at a time when a serious rebranding campaign was needed.

Read more:
Peace may finally be returning to Yemen, but can a fractured nation be put back together?

At home, political freedoms and rights remain tightly constrained by the regime. Despite moves to relax some restrictions on women and religious minorities, these reforms have paradoxically come with increasingly harsh measures towards peaceful dissidents.

Only last year, female activists Salma al-Shehab and Nourah bint Saeed al-Qahtani received prison terms of 34 years and 45 years, respectively, for their engagement with social media posts criticising the regime.

More recently, several Howeitat tribesmen were sentenced to death on terrorism charges for peacefully protesting a megacity project that threatened their ancestral village.

Building a new Saudi brand

But while obfuscating human rights issues is certainly part of the equation when it comes to the kingdom’s sports mania, its motivations are far more strategic than simple bait-and-switch tactics.

At their core, these actions fit within a broader effort outlined in the Saudi Vision 2030 campaign to rebrand the country and normalise it within the wider liberal international order.

For many outside observers, the kingdom has long been an outlier on the international stage. It’s been characterised as a primitive backwater cut off from the outside world and ruled over by a despotic monarchy that has relied on a combination of oil wealth and Islamic extremism to maintain its hold on power.

Such reductive depictions ignored a far more complex, rich and colourful history. However, few in the West were keen to explore this more nuanced viewpoint (at least if my book sales are anything to go by).

Saudi royals have historically been content with such stereotypes, too, provided they maintained their sovereignty and security at home. The kingdom made little effort with soft power initiatives outside the Islamic world.

The international art, culture and sporting worlds were seen as being in stark contrast to the psychological and cultural norms of the Wahhabi orthodoxy that has long governed Saudi public life.

This all changed in 2015, however, with the ascension of King Salman and his chosen heir, Prince Mohammad bin Salman. The younger bin Salman quickly assumed de facto control over many of the country’s key portfolios.

In contrast to his conservative predecessors, the prince was seen as a “disruptor” with little regard for tradition. Like with many of the Silicon Valley tech-bros he emulates, bin Salman likes to move fast and break things. This includes everything from traditional religious institutions to architectural rules.

Bin Salman’s vision is to remake the Saudi brand as a modern authoritarian technocracy in the mould of the United Arab Emirates or Qatar. He wants to emulate these successful case studies through economic reform, military modernisation, technological innovation, cultural modernisation and the opening of the kingdom to cosmopolitan cultural engagement and exchanges.

A new platform to engage with the world

These efforts took a hit, however, after the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Bin Salman denied being personally involved in the murder, counter to what US intelligence reports concluded. But some believed the global anger of Khashoggi’s killing could have
damaged the prince’s reputation badly enough to hamper his future as a statesman.

Memories can be remarkably short-lived, though. And five years on from the killing, bin Salman’s rebranding agenda is charging ahead with increased urgency. This is where the Saudi sporting onslaught comes in, and why it needs to be understood.

Control and influence over these sports provide the kingdom with enormous cachet. Saudi Arabia can use this new stature to engage in cultural outreach with the world, influence global opinion and portray itself as modern and dynamic.

To characterise all of this as mere sportswashing may be catchy, but reduces a much broader and strategic effort.

Indeed, implicit in the notion of sportswashing is that the Saudis are suddenly concerned about the country’s association with human rights violations.

But looking at the examples of Qatar and the UAE, authoritarian regimes are able to flout international norms and laws on human rights and still fit quite comfortably within the wider liberal international order. The reason: the countries serve a valuable function in sustaining that same system.

While human rights abuses will undoubtedly continue to plague the Saudis’ efforts, bin Salman is betting big they won’t stand in the way of other states and companies engaging with an increasingly open and cosmopolitan kingdom. If history is anything to go by, he may just be right.

Read more:
Big money bought the PGA Tour, but can it make golf a popular sport in Saudi Arabia?

Ben Rich receives funding from The US State Department.

Leena Adel 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. Is Saudi Arabia using ‘sportswashing’ to simply hide its human rights abuses – or is there a bigger strategy at play? – https://theconversation.com/is-saudi-arabia-using-sportswashing-to-simply-hide-its-human-rights-abuses-or-is-there-a-bigger-strategy-at-play-208468

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

The price of eggs is rising. So many of us may be looking for cheaper alternatives.

First, the bad news. Nothing can replace a boiled, poached or fried egg.

Now, the good news. Lots of other ingredients can make foods puff and rise, give your meal a rich taste, or hold together ingredients.

So try using some of these egg substitutes and save the real eggs for your breakfast.

Read more:
How to save $50 off your food bill and still eat tasty, nutritious meals

Why are eggs so popular?

Eggs are incredibly nutritious. They’re a rich source of protein, vitamins A and D, pigments called carotenoids, and minerals.

Eggs are also versatile. We use them to make a range of savoury and sweet foods, sauces and drinks, not to mention breakfast.

Their popularity and versatility lies in the unique characteristics of the two main parts of the egg – the white and yolk. Each contribute different properties in cooking.

Egg yolk is about 55% water, 27% fats, 16% protein (with small amounts of carbohydrate). Egg white is about 10% protein and 90% water, with only traces of fat and carbohydrates. Different types of protein in egg white contribute to them foaming when whisked.

Read more:
Five foods that used to be bad for you … but now aren’t

Eggs are versatile

Eggs have a different role in different types of cooking.

1. Eggs are a raising agent

Beaten or whisked eggs act as a raising agent by creating pockets of air in foods, which expand with cooking, making the foods puff and rise. This gives baked products like cakes, biscuits and muffins volume and an airy feel.

Using just the egg white leads to a remarkably light and delicate foam, as we see in meringues. In mousse and souffles the whites and the yolk are beaten separately, then mixed together. This leads to a light, airy and smooth texture.

2. Eggs hold together other ingredients

Eggs combine ingredients and hold them together during cooking. This gives foods – such as vegetable or meat patties – their structure.

3. Eggs bind other liquids

The liquid from eggs binds other liquids from other ingredients in the recipe into a soft, moist and tender mass. We see this in scrambled eggs, omelettes and egg custard.

4. Eggs act as emulsifiers

The egg yolk contains different proteins (livetin, phosvitin) and lipoproteins (lecithin). These act as emulsifiers, allowing fat and water to mix together in foods such as mayonnaise and hollandaise sauce.

5. Eggs boost flavour

The fat in egg yolks helps carry and release the flavour of some fat-soluble components of food. These foods may taste differently without the eggs. Eggs also contribute to foods feeling soft in the mouth.

As eggs have different roles in cooking, you may need different egg substitutes depending on the outcome you want. Here are some cheaper (and vegan) options.

Read more:
Eight cracking facts about eggs

Aquafaba

Aquafaba is the liquid drained from cans of bean – typically from chickpeas as it has the most neutral flavour. This is the all-round winner, especially as most of us probably throw it away without realising what a gem it is.

Aquafaba is versatile. You can whip it up like egg whites to form a foam that can be used to make meringue (even pavlova), gelato, in baked goods, and for binding ingredients in patties. It also contains emulsifiers and can be used to make mayonnaise.

You’ll need different quantities of aquafaba depending on the recipe. Generally, though, you use about two to three tablespoons of aquafaba to replace the volume of fluid from an egg.

On the downside, aquafaba can taste a bit beany. So it is best to use it with stronger flavours to overcome this.

Nutritionally, aquafaba has small amounts of carbohydrate (about 2.6g/100 millilitre), and negligible levels of protein (about 1.3g/100 millilitre).

You can also freeze aquafaba.

Vinegar and baking soda

Mixing a teaspoon of baking soda with a tablespoon of vinegar can replace an egg in most baked goods. This produces carbon dioxide, which is trapped into air pockets, and makes foods rise.

This is a very cheap option, however its success may be limited by how heavy the rest of the ingredients are. This combination also has very little nutritional value.

Read more:
Is apple cider vinegar really a wonder food?

Commercial egg replacements

These are available at most supermarkets, are very cheap compared with eggs, have a long shelf life, and are easy to use, with instructions on the packaging.

Typically, they contain different starches from potato, tapioca and pea protein (which act as leavening agents and form foams), along with raising agents. They are recommended for use in baked goods. However they have very little nutritional value compared to an egg.

Flaxseed meal and chia seeds

Use either a tablespoon of flaxseed meal, or chia seeds, added to about three tablespoons of water. Allow the mixture to sit for a few minutes to form a gel.

The gels can be used in baked goods, however this option isn’t as cheap as the others, and has a slight nutty taste.

Both these seeds provide nutritional value. They are both rich in the plant-based omega-3 fatty acid called alpha-linolenic acid. We can convert this fatty acid into healthy omega-3 fatty acids, but at a slow rate. These seeds also provide fibre, polyphenols and antioxidants.

Read more:
Does TikTok’s chia-lemon ‘internal shower’ really beat constipation? Here’s what science says

Tofu

Tofu, which is made from soybeans, is widely available and fairly cheap. It has the most “eggy” appearance and so makes it ideal as a substitute for scrambled eggs and in quiche. However, you will need to use silken tofu and puree it.

Tofu is highly nutritious and provides protein, fat, calcium, polyphenols and anti-oxidants.

You could also use soy flour. Add one tablespoon to three tablespoons of water, then use immediately in baking and for binding ingredients together. However, soy flour does not contain calcium, which tofu does.

Read more:
Is fake meat healthy? And what’s actually in it?

Mashed fruit

Mashed bananas or applesauce are also used as egg substitutes. These mainly act to bind and hold moisture in the food and help carry the flavours.

You also get the nutritional value of the fruit. Due to the natural sugar that in fruit, this will sweeten your baked goods so you will need to drop the sugar by about a tablespoon (or more) for each piece of fruit you add.

Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.

– ref. Eggs are so expensive right now. What else can I use? – https://theconversation.com/eggs-are-so-expensive-right-now-what-else-can-i-use-207837

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

Today will be a moment of truth for hundreds of thousands of Australians and for what the federal court has condemned as a
“shameful chapter” in Australian public administration.

This morning, the Governor-General will be presented with the final report of the royal commission into the automated debt-recovery system known as Robodebt.

Announced in the lead-up to the 2016 federal election by the then treasurer, Scott Morrison, and then social security minister Christian Porter, the scheme promised to save the budget $2 billion with smarter use of technology to “better manage our social welfare system and ensure that every dollar goes to those who need it most”.

Instead, the court found the Commonwealth simply asserted that some 433,000 Australian benefit recipients owed it back money – calculations it later admitted “did not have a proper legal basis”.

Unlawful, yet it happened

What Robodebt did was assume that people receiving benefits while earning income received stable income over a whole year, allowing it to average an entire year’s income to estimate how much they earned per fortnight.

A report I prepared for the royal commission, using data provided by the department of social services, found that in reality very few benefit recipients who received income did so at a steady rate.

More than 93% of those with earnings while on youth payments did so unevenly, as did 95% of those receiving income while on Newstart or Austudy, and 90% of those receiving income while getting parenting payments.

Robodebt was unlawful both because the Social Security Act requires payments to be calculated on the basis of the income received in the fortnight for which the payment was made, and because it reversed the onus of proof, effectively requiring people to prove they didn’t owe what it said they owed.

Looking beyond who’s to blame

Today’s report will rightly prompt lots of discussion about who was to blame, as well as the impact of the scheme on people made to repay money they did not owe and those who administered it.

But we must also look at how we repair the systems that allowed it to happen.

I have argued elsewhere that while the decisions leading to Robodebt were made by individuals, they were also made within a layered context of precedents, established processes, and social, economic, and political environments.

The most important aspects of this deeper political environment included

• the strong commitment of political parties to reduce budget deficits

• the formal and informal budgetary rules about spending and savings

• the size of social security and welfare (around 35% of Commonwealth spending)

• the highly targeted nature of the social security system

• and political and popular judgements about social security recipients and their “deservingness”.

This encouraged the government to present a scheme intended to cut the budget deficit as one that would ensure integrity in the social security system, using – as it turned out – very imperfect methods of matching data.

Read more:
Why robodebt’s use of ‘income averaging’ lacked basic common sense

What was pushed aside was that the Social Security Act is intended to be beneficial legislation. It’s supposed to ensure support is provided to people during periods of reduced income due to job loss, family breakdown, illness or disability, or when caring for others or retired from work or when studying.

Providing that support when needed made it a powerful instrument for stabilising the economy and society and reducing inequality.

Robodebt undermined trust in that system. It will need to be rebuilt.

Identifying the reforms to public administration and political practice that are needed will be the most important things to look for in the report.

We have to make sure Robodebt can’t happen again.

Read more:
‘The culmination of years of suffering’: what can we expect from the robodebt royal commission’s final report?

Peter Whiteford receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. He prepared a report for the Royal Commission into Robodebt on the policy and research issues raised by the program. This report was prepared without charge.

– ref. The Robodebt royal commission will tell us who’s to blame, but that’s just the start – https://theconversation.com/the-robodebt-royal-commission-will-tell-us-whos-to-blame-but-thats-just-the-start-208916

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Nguyen, Lecturer in Fine Arts, Monash University

Hụi is a constant but often hidden feature of life for many Vietnamese-Australians.

This clandestine loan-savings scheme was a way for low-income Vietnamese refugees to buy their first family car, start a small business or make a home deposit. In Vietnam, Hụi is also called Họ, Phường or Biêu.

These activities had existed for centuries before being recorded in 19th-century colonial texts. They survive today in rural areas and overseas diaspora communities who have struggled to secure bank loans and legal credit.

It is interesting that multiple cultures across the Moana-Pacific use the term “Hui” to describe a collective gathering or negotiation.

The Chinese character 會 (Huì) denotes a longhouse where meetings and secret societies take place. In Hawaiian, Hui stands for a club, community partnership or extended family. Similarly for Māori, Hui represents a meeting, congregation or conference.

With rising cost of living and housing unaffordability, it feels particularly relevant to understand how so many Vietnamese refugees, arriving with almost nothing, managed to join the property market during the historically high interest rates and property booms of the 1980s and 2000s.

Vietnamese diaspora

The Fall of Saigon in 1975 coincided with the lifting of the White Australia Policy and a Fraser government that accepted over 70,000 South-East Asian refugees.

With this mass intake, fragmented resettlement programs and unreliable social and legal services compounded the realities of post-traumatic stress and poverty. The outer suburbs where our families could afford to live – Cabramatta, Footscray, Richmond, and Inala – quickly gained a reputation for gang violence, becoming infamous as the drug-riddled Vietnamese ghettos of the eastern seaboard.

Despite these obstacles, our families managed to secure new wealth by playing Hụi.

Read more:
War’s physical toll can last for generations, as it has for the children of the Vietnam War

Collective sharing

This narrative is not some miraculous journey of refugee achievement. Instead, it involves the under-acknowledged privileges of class within the diaspora.

A portion of Vietnamese refugees who had the resources to escape war were from the highly educated professional middle class or the entrepreneurial merchant class.

Class affiliations meant people could reconnect through well-established social networks to form tightly regulated Hụi clubs wherever we resettled.

These small groups of between 20 to 40 members would individually scrape together a monthly payment, often around $500, to hand over to a Chủ Hụi: the Hụi Boss in charge of collecting and managing the operation.

Monthly payments could range anywhere between $200 and $5,000, depending on the risk tolerance and income bracket of each club.

If a Hụi member urgently needed cash for a family emergency, or to quickly secure a house deposit, they would competitively bid for the cash pool. The higher their bid, the less they would take home. The winner was the person with the highest bid.

For example, if your bid of $65 wins at a $500 per month club, then every other member in the club will only pay you $500 less $65. In this case, it would be $435 per member for your month.

In a club of 30 members, your winning $65 bid grants you a one-time take-home amount of $13,050 from a possible $15,000.

Members can only ever “win” once per cycle. Eventually, over a cycle of 30 months – one month per member – everyone has a turn at taking home the cash pool.

These collective savings schemes were risky, with no legal recourse if members decided to Dựt Hụi, or “do a runner”.

To discourage breaking Hụi, clubs regularly administered retaliatory punishment through organised crime and gang violence.

Today, our aunties still play Hụi. Maintaining their social, class and wealth networks, they now fund regular plastic surgeries, overseas holidays and home renovations. Within a few short decades, our Hụi families have re-entered the middle class.

But, as artists, we believe Hụi is more than the property market.

Intrinsically collective and self-determined, Hụi encourages unexpected forms of cultural agency and mobilisation beyond institutional permission or containment.

Playing the Đông Sơn Drum

Learning from ongoing strategies and calls for the repatriation and reclamation of ceremonial objects by First Nations leaders, our art project RE:SOUNDING aims to access cultural instruments and reintroduce their sounds and musical traditions to the broader Vietnamese community.

The Đông Sơn Drum is an ancient ceremonial instrument woven into the mythology and identity of Vietnamese people. These drums are held in colonial museums and ethnographic collections the world over. Those remaining in Vietnam are similarly preserved in institutional silence.

Over the past six years, we have been seeking permission from multiple museums to record sounds from these drums. However, it was only when various family members drew from their Hụi takings that we were finally afforded access. We had the quick cash to purchase a Đông Sơn drum when it came up at a local estate auction.

The reluctance of museums to let us even touch our ceremonial instruments meant our only option was to draw from Hụi to buy back this cultural asset.

RE:SOUNDING has since played and made accessible the Đông Sơn Drum to audiences at Footscray Community Arts Centre, the Australian War Memorial, the Sydney Opera House and currently MÌNH at the Fairfield City Museum and Art Gallery.

The capacity to reclaim culture through social forms of rematriation, beyond institutional forms of repatriation, demonstrates how Hụi facilitates both economic and cultural participation.

Having helped many Vietnamese refugees to enter the property market, Hụi now offers us a way to reclaim our cultural inheritance without seeking permission and approval from museums that had stolen these objects in the first place.

Read more:
What an exhibition by artists of the Vietnamese diaspora says about home and belonging

James Nguyen receives funding from The Australian Council for the Arts, Copyright Agency + ACCA commission, ARROW Collective, and Arts NSW.

Victoria Pham currently receives funding from the Cambridge Trust as a holder of ‘Cambridge Trust International Scholarship’. In that past she has received funding from The Australian Council for the Arts, Create NSW, ARROW Collective and the Arts Council of England.

– ref. How we’re using the Vietnamese ethnic savings scheme ‘Hụi’ to buy back our cultural heritage – https://theconversation.com/how-were-using-the-vietnamese-ethnic-savings-scheme-h-i-to-buy-back-our-cultural-heritage-204802

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Thorpe, Professor in Sociology of Sport and Gender, University of Waikato

The ten-year coaching ban handed down this week by Athletics New Zealand to national pole vault coach Jeremy McColl is merely the latest in a long line of investigations to reveal the failure of sports organisations to protect sportswomen.

The independent investigation into McColl found “serious misconduct” over a “number of years” with women athletes under his supervision. This included harassment, “inappropriate sexual references” (including through social media and texting) and poor response to injuries.

The case is both unique and sadly familiar. At least 12 New Zealand sports bodies have come under scrutiny in recent times for cultures where sportswomen experienced abuse. These include Cycling New Zealand, Rugby New Zealand, Gymnastics New Zealand, Canoe Racing New Zealand, NZ Football and Hockey New Zealand.

This surely suggests there has been – and likely still is – systemic gendered abuse across New Zealand’s sport system. Urgent action is clearly needed.

High rates of abuse

Maltreatment and interpersonal violence – including neglect and physical, psychological and sexual violence – are common at all levels of sport for women, men and children.

One study of 1,665 elite athletes in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium found extremely high rates of reported physical violence (25%), sexual violence (31%) and psychological or emotional violence (72%).

Sportswomen were found to experience abuse more than men, particularly sexual violence. An Australian study found 82% of 886 people surveyed had experienced some form of interpersonal violence in sport as a child. Rates were higher among girls and gender-diverse individuals.

Read more:
The price of gold — what high-performance sport in NZ must learn from the Olivia Podmore tragedy

Over the past three decades, researchers have examined various forms of gender-based and sexual violence in sport, usually perpetrated by male coaches, but also by others in the wider “support” teams.

The coach-athlete relationship inevitably involves an uneven balance of power. Abuse of that imbalance leads to significant harm and negative health impacts, with women athletes often reluctant to report the abuse. Some simply withdraw from sport altogether.

A global problem

These abusive relationships tend to exist within hierarchical, patriarchal and “win at all costs” sporting cultures. Organisational structures and systems often work to enable harmful practices.

But research shows gender-based violence is also increasingly happening online. And it is not only women athletes who experience it, but also women in other roles, such as officials, administrators and volunteers.

Read more:
Toxic sport cultures are damaging female athletes’ health, but we can do better

None of this is specific to New Zealand. Investigations have revealed gender-based violence across a range of sports internationally, where systems consistently fail to protect and support women.

Furthermore, it remains a significant blind spot for many sports organisations and professionals. Legal liability and protecting the sport rather than the athlete become priorities. Change can be sluggish, often lacking transparency and accountability.

Slow progress

The better news is that some governments and international sports organisations are developing safeguarding policies, procedures and toolkits.

An EU-led initiative has produced a good practice guide for sports bodies wanting to support athletes affected by sexual violence. And earlier this week, UNESCO published a handbook offering practical ways to address violence against women and girls in sport.

Read more:
Abuse in Canadian sports highlights gender and racial inequities

The International Olympic Committee also offers a “toolkit” to help national Olympic committees and international sports federations develop better policies and procedures. Various other organisations are working towards the same goals.

Despite such initiatives, many sports organisations still struggle to respond appropriately. In particular, it is vital that athletes themselves are involved in developing safeguarding policies.

Researchers and health professionals are increasingly calling for initiatives that centre the athlete and integrate holistic knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures and practices. We also cannot ignore the ways race, ethnicity, disability, gender identities and sexuality may amplify the risks and harms of abuse in sport.

Read more:
The Black Ferns review shows – again – why real change in women’s high performance sport is urgently overdue

Change has to be urgent

Meaningful change will require education for all those working in sport, athlete-centred policy and practice, and safe reporting pathways. Redress has to prioritise the needs of the abused.

Because women can be so reluctant to report abuse in the first place, it has been suggested a “carrot not stick” approach might work best. Teams and organisations that can show evidence of a positive, safe and healthy culture might be rewarded in future funding cycles, for example.

To that end, High Performance Sport New Zealand has launched a NZ$273 million strategy that includes prioritising athlete wellbeing. Yet it still doesn’t address the gender dynamics at play here.

Read more:
Long-range goals: can the FIFA World Cup help level the playing field for all women footballers?

Education programmes aimed at coaches and support staff working with women should be mandatory. Sportswomen must be able to report any concerns without fear for their careers or wellbeing. And anyone who observes questionable behaviour must have appropriate channels to report their concerns.

Minister of Sport Grant Robertson announced an independent Sport Integrity Working Group last year. So far, though, we’ve seen no actions or stated commitment to safeguarding women.

Everyone deserves access to a safe sporting environment, and safeguarding women in sport is an urgent issue. We can’t sit back and wait for the next headline about another national sports organisation or another male coach under investigation. The time for change is now.

Kirsty Forsdike receives funding from the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions of the State Government of Victoria.

Holly Thorpe 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. With another case of abuse in elite sport, why are we still waiting to protect NZ’s sportswomen from harm? – https://theconversation.com/with-another-case-of-abuse-in-elite-sport-why-are-we-still-waiting-to-protect-nzs-sportswomen-from-harm-209128

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

In a change of government tactics, Linda Burney this week deployed a sheet anchor to tie the Voice to practical outcomes. At the same time, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is weaponising the cost of living to flail it.

Their prime targets are “soft” voters – including those who are undecided, uncertain, sceptical, just tuning in.

Earlier, the government was putting much faith in “the vibe” to carry the Voice – a general appeal to righting the wrongs of the past and giving Indigenous people the opportunity to be heard. “Closing the gap” was part of the pitch but it was cast in general terms.

Now, with polling showing support for the Voice slipping, the government is desperate to arrest the slide. Probably its best chance of doing so is if it can convince people the Voice will bring tangible improvements on the ground for Indigenous people.

With this in mind Burney, the minister for Indigenous Australians, on Wednesday gave the proposed Voice a work program.

“From day one, the Voice will have a full in-tray,” she told the National Press Club. “I will ask the Voice to consider four main priority areas: health, education, jobs and housing.”

This was a new slant on how the Voice will operate. Previously, the emphasis has been on it taking the initiative. Now Burney is dealing herself actively into its work. “Bringing the priorities of local communities to Canberra will be incredibly important,” she said, “so will be the requests government makes of the Voice.”

The new emphasis is also designed to reinforce the message the Voice would concentrate on core issues – it would not be running out of control or distracted.

The issues in the areas Burney nominated are massive. If the Voice were to live up to the government’s hype about helping to close the gap, it would have to give well-based advice on broad policies as well as feedback from local communities. It would require sufficient resources to provide the former, while how well it did the latter would depend on the calibre of its individual members, whose precise methods of selection are yet to be determined.

In her just-released Australian Quarterly essay, Voice of Reason, Megan Davis, co-chair of the Uluru Dialogue, writes: “The quality of representatives, whether elected or selected by community, is essential to its success. At the end of the day, the success of the Voice will rise and fall on the men and women who represent the voices of the community.”

Davis also warns the Voice must be “sharply focused and driven by community interests”, and not spread itself too thin.

The government is wise to recalibrate its messaging, but it does risk adding to the confusion and widening the scope for more questions about the Voice’s operations.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Linda Burney says the Voice won’t be able to advise on Australia Day – but how could that be?

In the contest over the Voice, the government is relying on having time for the “yes” campaign to ramp up. But arguably, the long timeline may be working against the government and for the opposition leader. The government’s honeymoon is over, and the pressures many voters are under are worsening.

On Wednesday Dutton declared that, in the last year, “the prime minister’s obsession with the Voice means that he’s taken his eye off the ball when it comes to economic policy – and that’s why you’re paying more for your mortgage, it’s why you’re paying more for every element in your family and small business budget”.

Factually, this link is nonsense. But it may hit a few exposed nerves among voters.

Kos Samaras, from RedBridge consultancy group, says, on the basis of extensive focus-group research: “There’s growing resentment in some parts of Australia that this Voice issue seems to be on the minds of politicians in Canberra while these voters want action on their existential problems at a personal level – interest rates, rising rents, cost of living.”

Samaras (who formerly worked for the Labor Party) believes the cost-of-living crisis is a “punch in the guts” for the “yes” campaign.

Bearing in mind the referendum must win four states as well as a national majority, Samaras also warns that Western Australians are “starting to develop a view this is an east coast thing”.

A survey in June by the ACM newspaper group of more than 10,000 (self-selecting) readers found only 38% support for the Voice, and 55% opposition (7% undecided). More than seven in ten people felt the government hadn’t done enough to explain the voice to the community. The survey does not have the statistical rigour of a poll, but its base of 14 daily newspapers taps into major regional centres in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania (including Canberra, which is more progressive than elsewhere). So its finding is concerning for the “yes” case.

The Voice has backing from an impressive range of sporting, faith and community organisations, and strong support in the business sector, including from mining companies. Initially, this seemed a significant plus. But now there are doubts, with some fears ordinary people might react to what they see as “elites” telling them what to do.

Dutton has doubled down on his attacks on businesses that have endorsed and in some cases donated to the “yes” campaign. Homing in on Wesfarmers’ donation, he said: “I think the $2 million would be better off reducing prices in their supermarkets or reducing prices at Bunnings. When I go to Bunnings, I want to pay less for my goods, not more. […] Every time I hand over my credit card or cash at Bunnings, or at Coles, I don’t want part of that money going to an activist CEO.”

Whether Wesfarmers or similar firms donate to the Voice campaign is not going to make any difference to their prices. But that doesn’t mean the line won’t resonate with some voters.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to announce the date for the referendum vote, continuing to repeat that it will be in the last quarter of the year. It’s a moot point whether the intensifying campaign will be to the advantage of the “yes” vote. Will the “soft voters” become increasingly irritated by anything that doesn’t relate to cost-of-living issues?

In retrospect, the referendum vote ideally should have been held earlier, even if the government had to face accusations of rushing it. Prospectively, the race is still there to be won by the “yes” case, but the government would also be wise to have a plan for handling the serious consequences of a loss.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Linda Burney fills the Voice’s in-tray, as the government battles to stop slide in yes vote – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-linda-burney-fills-the-voices-in-tray-as-the-government-battles-to-stop-slide-in-yes-vote-209228

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glen Thomas, Senior Lecturer in Professional Communication, Queensland University of Technology

Anyone with even the most casual interest in cricket will by now be well-versed in the debate over the “spirit of the game”. Alex Carey’s stumping of Johnny Bairstow on the final day of the second Ashes test sparked outrage, condemnation and ugly scenes in the Long Room at Lord’s Cricket Ground.

Plenty of commentators, former players and even prime ministers have had their say on whether Carey’s actions, while certainly within the laws of the game, were in accord with the more nebulous “spirit of cricket”. Precedents have been cited, some going as far back as WG Grace in 1882, who effected a similar dismissal in the very game that gave The Ashes their name.

English supporters have claimed Carey’s actions, while legal, went against the spirit of cricket because Bairstow thought the ball was dead and no longer in play.

Australian supporters counter by pointing out that Bairstow himself has dismissed people in the same way, so what’s the problem?

Cricket is unique in that it has laws that set out the rules of the game, but above this floats the spirit, to which aggrieved players and teams appeal when they feel hard done by.

No one, though, seems to have thought to ask for the thoughts of Australia’s favourite dad, Bandit Heeler. Bandit defines the spirit of cricket as playing hard, not complaining, and encouraging others to love the game.

Cricket lessons from Bluey

The program Bluey presents an iconic suburban Australia that shows children learning about life through games and play.

Season three features an episode called Cricket, in which Bandit explains to his daughter, Bluey, why cricket is much more than just hitting a ball around the grass.

The star of this episode is not Bluey, though. This time, Bluey’s school friend Rusty is the central character (dedicated Bluey viewers will know that Rusty’s dad serves in the Australian army and is often posted overseas on deployment).

In this episode, when it’s Rusty’s turn to bat, Bluey tells her dad they will never get Rusty out. Rusty loves cricket: Bluey creator Joe Brumm has said that Rusty is based on Steve Smith, former Australian captain. Smith has had his own problems with the laws of cricket, such as the “Sandpapergate” incident, in which Smith admitted to a ball-tampering plan and was suspended from the game for a year.

Rusty plays all the time, and when he isn’t playing, he’s practising or even sleeping with his bat next to him.

Read more:
Beyond Bluey: why adults love re-watching Australian kids’ TV from their childhoods

Bandit explains through flashbacks how Rusty learned to place his cut shot to avoid breaking a window, or how to deal with bad wickets that favour the bowler, or how to handle Tiny, a bigger kid who bowls at express pace.

The scenes with Tiny are the most telling ones. Rusty’s brother tells him that no one is going to go easy on him because he’s younger and smaller than the other kids. Rusty duly gets hit hard, and in the next scene can’t walk properly.

Advice on how to deal with Tiny comes from Rusty’s absent dad, who says Rusty will face harder things than a cricket ball as he grows up. The choices are that Rusty can back away and get out, or step up to the challenge. All he needs to do is keep his eye on the ball and look after his little sister.

That last element is the key to the episode. Rusty is initially shown as refusing to hit a catch to his little sister, but at the end of the episode is caught out by doing just that, even though Bandit tells us Rusty could have hit the ball into the middle of next week if he’d wanted to.

But when Rusty hits the catch, Bandit tells Bluey, “that’s what cricket’s about, kid”.

Rusty did not go easy on his sister earlier, but was generous when his job was done and the game was over. Hitting her a catch also helped inspire a love of the game in her and pride in her performance.

Read more:
Bluey was edited for American viewers – but global audiences deserve to see all of us

The spirit of the game

Bandit’s statement here is in some ways as nebulous as the back-and-forth arguments about the spirit of the game have been recently.

Australians have maintained that anything within the laws is fair game. English supporters were incensed because Bairstow was oblivious to what was happening and did not seek any advantage from his stroll down the wicket.

Bandit’s story gives us some clues and examples of what the spirit of cricket might mean. Rusty faces a bigger and scarier opponent and learns not to back away or expect special treatment. When the wicket is uneven or difficult, he learns to adapt to the conditions. Obsessive practice means his mother is not chasing after him with a slipper in hand to dole out a hiding. From this, Rusty learns the game, like life, is tough and played hard.

But there are moments to be generous when the game is not in the balance and there are times to show mercy to smaller or weaker opposition, such as Rusty’s sister.

Above all, cricket is about adapting, not backing away and being prepared to learn. But the real heart of the game is not in the player’s ability, but in their will – to be inclusive, encourage other players to love the game, and give someone else a turn when the job is done.

That might be the lesson for Bairstow. Yes, getting out in what a former England captain called a “dozy” way is not great. (As someone who was dismissed in the Under 14s’ in the same way 30 years ago, the memory still smarts.)

But as Bandit says, “that’s cricket”. When the job is done and you have nothing left to prove, then sure, hit a catch to your little sister.

Until then, though, keep your eye on the ball, mate.

Glen Thomas 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. ‘That’s cricket, kid’: what Bluey can teach us about the spirit of the game – https://theconversation.com/thats-cricket-kid-what-bluey-can-teach-us-about-the-spirit-of-the-game-209136

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vitomir Kovanovic, Senior Lecturer in Learning Analytics, University of South Australia

The South Australian government has announced a trial of AI technologies in eight public high schools.

This is the first trial of its kind in Australia.

“Edchat”, an AI chatbot similar to ChatGPT but designed for educational use, has been developed by the state’s education department and Microsoft.

The eight-week trial will explore the use of AI to support student learning and understand the benefits and risks of these new technologies. After this, the government will decide whether to adopt the tool for other schools.

How have Australian schools responded so far to AI?

ChatGPT can be used by those 13 and over with parents’ consent.

But after ChatGPT arrived at the end of 2022, South Australia has been the only Australian state that has not banned generative AI tools in public schools.

In May, the Western Australia government lifted the AI ban for teachers in public schools.

But in private schools, the use of AI has been more widespread, raising the fear of the digital divide between public and private schools.

Attempts to limit or ban the use of AI technologies are also inherently problematic. A June 2023 survey by YouthInsight showed 70% of 14–17-year-old Australians have used ChatGPT – 59% used it for schoolwork or study, and 42% for completing school assignments.

Trying to restrict use translates to students using this in more informal and unsupervised spaces. A ban means students do not receive supervised support to learn how to best use these technologies for their education and future work lives.

What is the SA trial looking at?

The SA school trial will examine the benefits and challenges of using AI tools to support student learning.

Edchat is specifically designed for educational use, meaning its responses will take students’ learning in mind. While ChatGPT or Google Bard would simply answer a student’s question, Edchat does not necessarily respond in this way. Instead, it provides an appropriate hint or suggestion or will ask the student a counter question, in the same way a good tutor would support their students.

EdChat will available to students 24/7, providing them support both inside and outside classrooms.

Because Edchat is provided by the government, its usage data will be available for further examination. So it will be possible to understand how students interact with AI tools, what questions they ask, where and when they use the system, and so on. Much of the current AI discussion is based on speculation, but this trial will provide the first real world data to answer these questions.

This trial will attract much attention and will be closely monitored by other governments who are also grappling with similar questions around the use of AI in schools.

What questions do we have?

The key question at the moment is whether AI has net positive or negative effects on student learning.

There are highly opposing views on the use of AI in education. Some experts argue it will reduce students’ ability to write and think critically. Others see it as a valuable tool for improving student motivation and engagement, boosting their confidence, and unleashing their creative potential. The SA trial will start to provide concrete evidence of AI’s impact on student learning.

But to be really useful, the trial should also provide evidence of effective teaching practices using AI. Anecdotally, we are hearing teachers have had positive experiences with AI technologies, such as generating examples tailored to students interests, feedback on student’s writing, and supporting the development of critical thinking and idea generation. The SA trial can start to provide much stronger evidence of what is effective AI classroom practice.

Finally, the trial should provide evidence of constructive AI-enabled assessment. Current assessment practices focus on evaluating or measuring learning products (such as essays) rather than assessing the processes of learning (how and what students learn). It is important to address concerns the use AI tools can undermine assessment if students rely on automated assistance from tools such as ChatGPT to write their essay for them.

In this context, the trial should showcase a reimagined approach to current assessment practices. One that embraces the use of AI while ensuring the rigour of evidence that can be used to demonstrate student learning outcomes.

Read more:
The rise of ChatGPT shows why we need a clearer approach to technology in schools

Shane Dawson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Vitomir Kovanovic 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. High school students are using a ChatGPT-style app in an Australia-first trial – https://theconversation.com/high-school-students-are-using-a-chatgpt-style-app-in-an-australia-first-trial-209215

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kimberley Reid, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Atmospheric Sciences, Monash University

In the past few weeks, climate records have shattered across the globe. July 4 was the hottest global average day on record, breaking the new record set the previous day. Average sea surface temperatures have been the highest ever recorded and Antarctic sea ice extent the lowest on record.

Also on July 4, the World Meteorological Organization declared El Niño had begun, “setting the stage for a likely surge in global temperatures and disruptive weather and climate patterns”.

So what’s going on with the climate, and why are we seeing all these records tumbling at once?

Against the backdrop of global warming, El Niño conditions have an additive effect, pushing temperatures to record highs. This has combined with a reduction in aerosols, which are small particles that can deflect incoming solar radiation. So these two factors are most likely to blame for the record-breaking heat, in the atmosphere and in the oceans.

Read more:
Ocean heat is off the charts – here’s what that means for humans and ecosystems around the world

It’s not just climate change

The extreme warming we are witnessing is in large part due to the El Niño now occurring, which comes on top of the warming trend caused by humans emitting greenhouse gases.

El Niño is declared when the sea surface temperature in large parts of the tropical Pacific Ocean warms significantly. These warmer-than-average temperatures at the surface of the ocean contribute to above-average temperatures over land.

The last strong El Niño was in 2016, but we have released 240 billion tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere since then.

El Niño doesn’t create extra heat but redistributes the existing heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.

The ocean is massive. Water covers 70% of the planet and is able to store vast amounts of heat due to its high specific heat capacity. This is why your hot water bottle stays warm longer than your wheat pack. And, why 90% of the excess heat from global warming has been absorbed by the ocean.

Ocean currents circulate heat between the Earth’s surface, where we live, and the deep ocean. During an El Niño, the trade winds over the Pacific Ocean weaken, and the upwelling of cold water along the Pacific coast of South America is reduced. This leads to warming of the upper layers of the ocean.

Higher than usual ocean temperatures along the equator were recorded in the first 400m of the Pacific Ocean throughout June 2023. Since cold water is more dense than warm water, this layer of warm water prevents colder ocean waters from penetrating to the surface. Warm ocean waters over the Pacific also lead to increased thunderstorms, which further release more heat into the atmosphere via a process called latent heating.

This means that the build up of heat from global warming that had been hiding in the ocean during the past La Niña years is now rising to the surface and demolishing records in its wake.

An absence of aerosols across the Atlantic

Another factor likely contributing to the unusual warmth is a reduction in aerosols.

Aerosols are small particles that can deflect incoming solar radiation. Pumping aerosols into the stratosphere is one of the potential geoengineering methods that humanity could invoke to lessen the impacts of global warming. Although stopping greenhouse gas emissions would be much better.

Read more:
Solar geoengineering might work, but local temperatures could keep rising for years

But the absence of aerosols can also increase temperatures. A 2008 study concluded that 35% of year-to-year sea surface temperature changes over the Atlantic Ocean in Northern Hemisphere summer could be explained by changes in Saharan dust.

Saharan dust levels over the Atlantic Ocean have been unusually low lately.

On a similar note, new international regulations of sulphur particles in shipping fuels were introduced in 2020, leading to a global reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions (and aerosols) over the ocean. But the long-term benefits of reducing shipping emissions far outweighs the relatively small warming effect.

This combination of factors is why global average surface temperature records are tumbling.

Are we at the point of no return?

In May this year, the World Meteorological Organization declared a 66% chance of global average temperatures temporarily exceeding 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels within the next five years.

This prediction reflected the developing El Niño. That probability is likely higher now, since El Niño has developed.

It is worth noting that temporarily exceeding 1.5℃ does not mean we have reached 1.5℃ by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change standards. The latter describes a sustained average global temperature anomaly of 1.5℃, rather than a single year, and is likely to occur in the 2030s.

This temporary exceedance of 1.5℃ will give us an unfortunate preview of what our planet will be like in the coming decades. Although, younger generations may find themselves dreaming of a balmy 1.5℃ given current greenhouse emissions policies put us on track for 2.7℃ warming by the end of the century.

So we are not at the point of no return. But the window of time to avert dangerous climate change is rapidly shrinking, and the only way to avert it is by severing our reliance on fossil fuels.

Read more:
Like rivers in the sky: the weather system bringing floods to Queensland will become more likely under climate change

Kimberley Reid receives funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes.

– ref. Why are so many climate records breaking all at once? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-climate-records-breaking-all-at-once-209214

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Youth Researcher, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University

Attempts to lower the voting age in Australia to 16 have been historically unsuccessful. More recently, the Make It 16 campaign has been advocating for the enfranchisement of 16 and 17-year-olds, but with no fines for under 18s who fail to cast their ballots.

Voluntary or not, lowering the voting age will have consequences for how political behaviour shapes political outcomes, especially for issues that particularly interest the young, such as climate change, cost of living, mental health and wellbeing.

Younger people tend to be more progressive in their views. This in turn would alter the make-up of the Australian electorate at each election or referendum. The addition of socially progressive voters might well be decisive on a highly contentious and divisive issue such as the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

Who should have the right to vote?

In 1973, following mass youth casualties in the Vietnam War, Australia’s voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. The reasoning behind this centred on equity: if 18-year-olds were old enough to fight and die, they should be old enough to vote.

Today’s equity arguments centre on taxation: many 16 and 17-year-olds pay tax and therefore should have equal rights to representation. However, this representation logic is not unique to 16 and 17-year-olds. It applies equally well to those under 16, as well as to tourists and temporary residents, who pay tax but do not have the right to vote.

Beyond the taxation argument, the franchise has been aligned with other adult responsibilities such as driving a car and consenting to sex. An important point of distinction, though, is the motivation: do they actually want to vote?

Although enthusiastic young leaders are driving campaigns such as Make It 16, we cannot be confident that a subset of politically engaged young people is representative of the Australian youth. There is no question about the cognitive abilities of 16 to 17-year-olds to engage with the electoral process. But there is little longitudinal data to firmly establish that younger people are enthused about voting.

That is not to say young people are not interested in politics. Evidence from Australia and elsewhere shows young people engage differently: their engagement with politics is based more on issues than party loyalties.

Being able to vote would mean younger people feel less excluded and alienated from politics. However, critics worry voluntary voting for 16 to 17-year-olds would weaken compulsory voting.

Australia’s compulsory voting means it has resisted youth electoral disengagement at the polls, which has markedly happened in other non-compulsory voting democracies. Given the highly transitory life stage they are in, young people are more likely to abstain if voting is voluntary. This would also run the risk of imprinting the habit of abstention.

What does the evidence suggest?

Data from the Australian Election Study suggest lowering the voting age would not invigorate electoral participation. It is likely early enfranchisement alone will not be a panacea for youth engagement. Rather, there are concerns that voluntary voting might further exacerbate the problem of lower youth enrolment.

My comparative study of youth electoral disengagement in advanced democracies studied a suite of institutional factors, including:

• electoral system (majoritarian versus proportional)
• type of executive (parliamentary/presidential)
• type of system (federal/unitary)
• party system (two/multi)
• voting age (16-21).

I found that, even when controlling for compulsory voting, it is the registration system that significantly influences generational engagement at the polls.

Transition to adulthood is characterised by increasing mobility in every aspect of life. On top of this, registration rules make it difficult for young people without a permanent, long-term residence to register to vote.

Within the voluntary registration system, young people are especially disadvantaged since new eligible voters are often unfamiliar with the registration system, including how and where to register to vote. Consequently, many confused, eligible voters inadvertently miss voter registration deadlines. Current evidence shows voter enrolment is lowest among those aged 18-24, at 89.5%, compared to a national figure of 97.2%.

However, what has been largely missing in the voting age debate is that lowering it to 16 may be a way to redress this enrolment discrepancy. It may be an institutional design feature that could cater to youth transition: 16-17-year-olds are more likely to be in parental homes when they enrol and then finally vote. This may help attract and keep them as active voters as they gain independence.

What does this mean for (major) parties?

The Coalition’s historic low support among young voters in the 2022 federal election may be a symptom of a long-lasting generational shift in the electorate. In the past two elections, only 26% of Gen Z voters, born after 1996, reported voting for the Coalition, while 67% of them voted either for the Greens or Labor. Although historically young people have tended to become more conservative as they age, recent evidence suggests voters born after 1980 are not doing that.

Extrapolating this trajectory of voting preferences, the addition of more socially progressive, issue-based younger voters will potentially benefit the left-of-centre parties, particularly the Greens. One political reason for Labor’s reluctance to lower the voting age seems to be the stark popularity of the Greens among Gen Z voters, which would increase the Greens threat to the incumbent.

Over the years, both major parties have been losing their (youth) votes to the Greens. Lowering the voting age may well pronounce this.

What would it mean for young voters?

Given the context of compulsory voting, Australia is best placed to implement the lowering of voting age to reap the benefits of engaging younger voters to the electorate. Much has been said about how this would improve youth representation, efficacy and outcomes.

However, lowering the voting age might not address the problem of youth distrust of politicians and the widening gap between younger generations and political parties. This would require a sincere effort to understand what causes the drift, before enfranchising younger voters and loosely tying them to a voluntary voting system. In fact, there is a real risk that voluntary voting might encourage the type of abstention driven by a strong dislike for politicians.

Enfranchising hundreds and thousands of additional voters would also inevitably raise the issues of ensuring proper enrolment and that young voters are well informed to vote. It would need to be accompanied by a major boost to civics education in Australian secondary schools.

All in all, while compulsory voting is the best system for lowering the voting age, we’d have to be careful not to undermine the system as it stands. Instead, it is important to tie it to efforts to inform younger voters and reduce the age-related barriers in a (compulsory) electoral process.

Intifar Chowdhury 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. Should the voting age in Australia be lowered to 16? – https://theconversation.com/should-the-voting-age-in-australia-be-lowered-to-16-208095

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

Next year’s American presidential election is shaping up to be extraordinary. Donald Trump is favoured to be the Republican candidate, despite facing multiple charges over removing classified documents. President Joe Biden has indicated he intends to run again, despite the fact he’ll be 82 at the time of the poll and 86 if he completed another four-year term.

In this podcast, author Bruce Wolpe – a senior fellow at the United States Centre at the University of Sydney, who previously worked with the Democratic Party in Congress, discusses his new book “Trump’s Australia”. Wolpe argues a second Trump term would have shocking consequences for Australia.

Wolpe says “as of now”, Biden is certain to run again. “The only thing that would upset that would be if there was a severe health issue that would prevent him from acting as president […] As far as Donald Trump is concerned, I see his chances of being the [Republican] nominee as over 50%. His chances of prevailing in the election is slightly under 50%.”

Wolpe paints a bleak outlook if Trump were to win a second term: “It would look like the first term, but only worse.”

“I talked to senior foreign policy officials, Americans and Australians, Liberal and Labor, Democrat and Republican, serving Republican and Democratic presidents and prime ministers from both parties. I asked them, what do you expect of Trump in a second term? And they said, he will never change.

“He is erratic, unhinged. He governs in chaos and that will continue, he is arrogant […] He is completely transactional. In other words, he’s not motivated by any moral considerations or ideological considerations.”

Wolpe believes that Australia is a “big echo chamber of US news”: “You get up early in the morning, turn on the news, and given the news cycle, what you hear on most days is from the United States, and that became really apparent with Trump […] There are some elements of the Australian political culture that really absorb it and really like it, and they’re animated about it.

“We have Trump attacking the media and saying fake news. And just guess what? Australian politicians, when they don’t want to answer a question, they say, Oh, that’s fake news. So these things leach into Australian society, the Australian dialogue.

“But then the question is, does Australia adopt Trump policies?

“We did not have stuff against transgender people, those candidates failed. We don’t have controls on books in libraries or attempts to do it, or teaching Indigenous history. Those culture war buttons that Trump and other Republicans push, they don’t have much prominence here, and that’s a really good thing.

“I think Australian democracy is extremely strong. Australia will continue to be an echo chamber, but I’m hopeful about how Australia can manage the incoming from the United States.”

Wolpe says if Trump were to win a second term, Australian democracy would survive, but questions whether the alliance between the two countries would. “America and Australia aligned because of the values they share. That means fidelity to democracy, human rights, rule of law. And if those things don’t exist in the United States, what are we to be aligned with?”

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Author Bruce Wolpe on the “shocking” consequences for Australia of a Trump 24 win – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-author-bruce-wolpe-on-the-shocking-consequences-for-australia-of-a-trump-24-win-209138

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Wood, Chief executive officer, Grattan Institute

The Australian consumer watchdog is halfway through an inquiry into childcare prices.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s interim report was released on Wednesday. It comes just days after the federal government’s increased childcare subsidies kicked in on July 1.

This is one of two major inquiries the federal government has commissioned on childcare. The Productivity Commission is also looking at how early education is set up in Australia.

After six months on the job, the ACCC report is full of facts and figures but short on conclusions.

However, reading between the lines of the 146 pages, the implication is competition alone is probably not enough to deliver high-quality and affordable childcare for Australian families.

Childcare markets are highly localised

The first reason for this is choice is much more limited than it may appear. Childcare markets are highly localised. Centres only really compete within a 2-3km radius, because most parents are not willing to travel more than 15 minutes for care.

The ACCC’s survey of parents suggests location and availability are the two most important factors in informing where parents chose where to send their child. That’s understandable – if you can’t find a convenient place on the days you need, most other considerations are moot. But that dynamic softens the degree of competition between centres.

The ACCC finds that affordability of care – the out-of-pocket costs parents face – is most important for determining how much care parents use. But crucially, once the decision has been made to use a certain amount of care, price appears less important than other factors. Indeed, price is only fifth on the list of the things parents consider when choosing between centres.

The implication here is price competition is weak. Indeed, fees are actually higher in local markets with more childcare services. This is likely due to a larger number of services in wealthier areas where parents can afford to pay more.

Read more:
Better, cheaper childcare is on the horizon in Australia, but 4 key challenges remain

Switching is costly

The second factor that softens competition is parents rarely switch providers.

The ACCC found 65% of parents they surveyed had not switched provider since 2020. One in five of this group said the reason they did not switch was that they didn’t want to disrupt their children. Moving into a new environment and building new relationships with educators is a barrier to moving to a better-quality or lower-priced centre.

Quality is hard to judge

The third reason is it is hard for parents to judge the “quality” of childcare services.

Of course parents want to put their children in high-quality care, but they find it difficult to measure key dimensions of quality, such as the standard of the educators.

The government has tried to fill some of the information gaps by introducing National Quality Standards, but the ACCC found parents do not place emphasis on these – probably because many are unaware of them.

Read more:
More than 1 million Australians have no access to childcare in their area

Fees have risen

One trigger for this ACCC inquiry was the increases in childcare centres’ fees – something that has been costly not only for parents and but also governments (who pick up an average of 60% of the fee for centre-based care via the childcare subsidy).

The ACCC shows between 2018 and 2022 childcare fees – the total amount charged – increased across childcare service types by between 20% and 32%. Government subsidises have reduced the impact of these rises on parents, with out-of-pocket expenses for childcare growing at a slower rate.

It is not surprising childcare costs tend to grow faster than inflation. That’s because childcare is highly labour intensive with limited scope for productivity gains. But the ACCC’s analysis show fees have also grown faster than wages over the past five years.

These high fees hurt everyone, but particularly low-income households. The ACCC’s analysis shows out-of-pocket expenses as a share of disposable income were higher on average for households in the bottom 10% of income earners, despite the higher subsidy for this group.

Follow the money

The interim report flags the most important part of the ACCC’s work is yet to come – understanding where the money is going.

The childcare market is highly diverse, with different models of care, and centres run by government, for-profit and not-for-profit providers. Many people struggle to understand how childcare can simultaneously cost so much for governments and parents, while its workers are paid so little.

Some in the industry are making good money. As articles in the financial media regularly remind us, it is a market where private equity and commercial property investors see attractive returns relative to the risks.

In the next phase of its inquiry, the ACCC will examine costs, profits, and quality across the sector. If there are excess profits being made, I’m confident the ACCC will find them.

This next stage of the inquiry will also inform whether the ACCC recommends stronger price regulation for the sector. This interim report is treading softly, but it looks like this is where the ACCC is heading.

The final report is due by December 31.

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

– ref. As fees keep climbing, this is why competition isn’t enough to deliver cheaper childcare – https://theconversation.com/as-fees-keep-climbing-this-is-why-competition-isnt-enough-to-deliver-cheaper-childcare-209209

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

Since Saturday, Australians have been required to wait until the age of 67 until they can get the age pension.

The original so-called “retirement age” of 65 for men dated back to 1909.

Women had their pension age lifted from 60 to 65 between 1995 and 2013. And all Australians have had it lifted in stages from July 2017, in a process that ended on July 1 2023.

It has happened with little protest – a stark contrast to the demonstrations and riots that rocked France earlier this year, when President Macron proposed and passed laws to lift the French pension age from 62 to 64.

What’s so special about French pensions?

French strikes and demonstrations over the retirement age aren’t new.

There were nationwide protests when France increased its retirement age from 60 to 62 in 2010, before that in 2003, and in 1995, when France tried to increase the pension age for public sector workers.

Just about anything you could want to know about public pension schemes in high-income countries can be found in the OECD report Pensions at a Glance, published every two years, most recently in 2021.

Public pension spending in France is 13.6% of GDP, compared to 4% in Australia.

In part, this is because France has an older population than Australia, but it is also because French pension payments are more generous than both Australia’s age pension and superannuation supports taken together.

The OECD finding that Australia provides a replacement rate of about 40% and France of about 74% is “forward looking”, in that it is based on what a worker on average earnings is estimated to be entitled to under the system applying in 2020, if she or he works from age 22 until that country’s normal retirement age.

For low-paid workers, Australia’s means-tested age pension makes the payments about as generous as those in France.

A separate 2018 OECD calculation showed that the average after-tax income of a French household headed by someone 65 years or older was 99.8% of the average income of all French households.

In contrast, the average after-tax income of an Australian household headed by someone of that age was 75% of that of all households.

Given that French households receive about the same disposable income while retired as working, it is easy to see why they are keen to retire.

And the heavy tax contributions required to fund their retirement incomes give them little opportunity to save privately while working.

The level of median private wealth in Australia (converted at prevailing exchange rates) is nearly twice that in France.

Read more:
Pension reform in France: Macron and demonstrators resume epic tussle begun over 30 years ago

Yet French public pension wealth is substantial. Calculating the value of the future pension income streams using life expectancies, the net pension wealth of French retirees amounts to 14 years of average earnings, compared to just over seven in Australia.

Because the value of these income streams is strongly influenced by how long the pensions are received, raising the French pension age by two years would cut the value of French pension wealth by around 8%.

Why was postponing pensions easier in Australia?

The phase-in of the Australian change after 2017 meant it didn’t affect the retirement incomes of Australian workers until many years after the change was first announced, and didn’t affect the incomes of those already retired at all.

And the Australian change legislated in 2009 was part of a broader program of reforms that included the biggest single increase in age and disability pensions and carer payments in Australian history.

Yet it will have losers. Those losing the most will be those with the shortest life expectancies. Indigenous men have life expectancies nearly nine years lower than non-Indigenous men and Indigenous women nearly eight years lower.

Which Australians will pay the highest price?

And the change has pushed a substantial number of Australians aged 65 and over who would have once received the pension on to the much-lower Jobseeker unemployment payment.

The number of people aged 65 years and over receiving JobSeeker climbed from zero in 2017 to 40,300 by May this year – and will climb further because of this month’s change.

These people are severely disadvantaged by this change, as the level of payment for an older unemployed person is more than $300 a fortnight less than the age pension, a gap that will only be slightly reduced by the increases announced in the most recent Commonwealth budget.

Relatively little attention has been paid to these people, who because of the low level of payment are among the poorest in the Australian population – with very limited prospects of being able to improve their circumstances.

In contrast, the idea of boosting tax on the earnings of superannuation balances over A$3 million attracted widespread criticism.

The very different institutional environments of Australia and France have created different lobby groups, with different interests to protect.

Peter Whiteford receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee.

– ref. Australia’s ‘retirement age’ just became 67. So why are the French so upset about working until 64? – https://theconversation.com/australias-retirement-age-just-became-67-so-why-are-the-french-so-upset-about-working-until-64-208648

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alix Woolard, Senior Researcher, Telethon Kids Institute

You have probably heard of “fight or flight” responses to distressing situations. You may also be familiar with the tendency to “freeze”. But there is another defence or survival strategy a person can have: “fawn”.

When our brain perceives a threat in our environment, our sympathetic nervous system takes over and a person can experience any one or combination of the four F responses.

What are the four Fs?

The fawn response usually occurs when a person is being attacked in some way, and they try to appease or placate their attacker to protect themselves.

A fight response is when someone reacts to a threat with aggression.

Flight is when a person responds by fleeing – either literally by leaving the situation, or symbolically, by distracting or avoiding a distressing situation.

A freeze response occurs when a person realises (consciously or not) that they cannot resist the threat, and they detach themselves or become immobile. They may “space out” and not pay attention, feel disconnected to their body, or have difficulty speaking after they feel threatened.

Read more:
More than half of Australians will experience trauma, most before they turn 17. We need to talk about it

What does fawning look like?

Previously known as appeasement or “people pleasing”, the term “fawning” was coined by psychotherapist Pete Walker in his 2013 book Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving.

A fawn response can look like:

• people-pleasing (doing things for others to gain their approval or to make others like you)
• being overly reliant on others (difficulty making decisions without other people’s input)
• prioritising the needs of others and ignoring your own
• being overly agreeable
• having trouble saying no
• in more severe cases, dissociating (disconnecting from your mind and/or body).

While there isn’t yet much research on this response, the fawn response is seen more in people who have experienced complex trauma in their childhood, including among children who grew up with emotionally or physically abusive caregivers.

Fawning is also observed in people who are in situations of interpersonal violence (such as domestic violence, assault or kidnappings), when the person needs to appease or calm a perpetrator to survive.

Fawning is also different to the other F responses, in that it seems to be a uniquely human response.

Read more:
Emotional abuse is a pattern of hurtful messages – building parenting skills could help prevent it

Why do people fawn?

Research suggests people fawn for two reasons:

1. to protect themselves or others from physical or emotional harm (such as childhood trauma)
2. to create or improve the emotional connection to the perpetrator of harm (for example, a caregiver).

This type of response is adaptive at the time of the traumatic event(s): by appeasing an attacker or perpetrator, it helps the person avoid harm.

However, if a person continues to use this type of response in the long term, as an automatic response to everyday stressors (such difficult interactions with your boss or neighbour), it can have negative consequences.

If a person is continually trying to appease others, they may experience issues with boundaries, forming a cohesive identity, and may not feel safe in relationships with others.

Read more:
Trauma is trending – but we need to look beyond buzzwords and face its ugly side

What can I do if I ‘fawn’?

Because fawning is typically a response to interpersonal or complex trauma, using it in response to everyday stressors may indicate a need for healing.

If this is you, and you have a history of complex trauma, seek psychological support from a professional who is trained in trauma-informed practice. Trauma-informed means the psychological care is holistic, empowering, strengths-focused, collaborative and reflective.

Evidence-based therapies that are helpful following trauma include:

• eye movement desensitisation therapy, which focuses on processing traumatic memories

• exposure therapy to help expose people to things they fear and avoid

• trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy that aims to alleviate trauma symptoms by overcoming unhelpful thoughts and behaviours.

Depending on where you live, free counselling services may be available for people who have experienced childhood abuse.

Setting healthy boundaries is also a common focus when working with the fawn response, which you can do by yourself or alongside a therapist.

If this article has raised issues for you or you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Read more:
What is EMDR therapy, and how does it help people who have experienced trauma?

Alix Woolard receives funding from Embrace at Telethon Kids Institute.

– ref. What is ‘fawning’? How is it related to trauma and the ‘fight or flight’ response? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-fawning-how-is-it-related-to-trauma-and-the-fight-or-flight-response-205024

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arianto Patunru, Fellow, The Arndt-Corden Department of Economics, Australian National University

Australia and Indonesia are forging closer economic ties built on what each country can offer the other in the transition to clean energy. Indonesia is emerging as a maker of electric vehicles and the batteries that power them. Australia has the lithium reserves Indonesia needs to do this.

Visiting Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have committed to working more closely together on the energy transition.

The leaders’ joint communique on Tuesday specifically noted Indonesia’s efforts to develop its electric vehicle production. Widodo is seeking to enlist Australia’s help to achieve Indonesia’s goal of becoming a global electric vehicle and battery manufacturing hub.

À lire aussi :
We could need 6 times more of the minerals used for renewables and batteries. How can we avoid a huge increase in mining impacts?

What are Indonesia’s goals?

In line with its commitment to the Paris Agreement, Indonesia has set an ambitious target for its vehicle industry. By 2025 it wants at least 20% of the cars it produces to be electric vehicles. That equates to about 400,000 cars.

Indonesian government programs such as the Low-Cost Green Car incentives and Low-Carbon-Emission Vehicle regulations are driving this transition.

Most vehicles made in Indonesia involve joint ventures with foreign manufacturers. To produce electric vehicles, Indonesia established joint ventures with Korea’s Hyundai and China’s SGMW.

The government’s goal is for the Indonesia Battery Corporation (IBC) to become a hub of electric vehicle battery manufacturing. This would take advantage of Indonesia’s rich nickel deposits. However, the country lacks other ingredients to make these batteries, most notably lithium.

À lire aussi :
Here’s how Indonesia could get to zero emission in its energy sector by 2050

Why does Indonesia want Australian lithium?

Indonesia aims to be in the world’s top five electric vehicle battery producers by 2040. To achieve this, it needs to secure access to other minerals, including lithium. Australian mines supply around half of the world’s lithium.

Other important suppliers include Chile (24%) and China (16%). But being close to Indonesia makes Australia the most attractive supplier.

So far most of Australia’s lithium exports have gone to China. Given changing geopolitics (for example, Chile plans to nationalise its lithium industry) and global supply-chain disruptions (the Russia-Ukraine war, the China-US tension), Australia would benefit from exporting lithium to Indonesia as well.

À lire aussi :
Batteries are the environmental Achilles heel of electric vehicles – unless we repair, reuse and recycle them

Australia lacks capacity to refine all its lithium

Australia is the world’s largest producer of spodumene. This mineral is rich in lithium.

However, Australia has limited capacity to refine all that spodumene into the lithium hydroxide used to make lithium-based batteries. It makes sense, then, to exploit this resource as part of the global supply chain, by linking with battery and car industries in Indonesia and other countries.

Australia is a small player in global manufacturing trade. However, its share of the global production network has been increasing.

Australia has a distinct competitive edge in specialised components. These include parts for aircraft and associated equipment, vehicles, earth-moving and mineral-processing machines, and finished products such as medical and surgical equipment.

However, Australia’s geographical location puts it at a disadvantage as an exporter. It costs more to export to distant major markets.

Specialising in high value-to-weight components helps to overcome this “tyranny of distance”. Exporting raw materials (including lithium) and importing the derivatives back to produce high-value goods is better for Australia.

À lire aussi :
Australia has rich deposits of critical minerals for green technology. But we are not making the most of them … yet

What would an agreement on lithium achieve?

In February 2023 the Western Australian government and Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KADIN) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to explore partnership opportunities. The focus is on supplying critical minerals for the battery industry. Widodo and WA Premier Roger Cook signed a follow-up plan of action this week.

Australia and Indonesia are expected to sign an MOU that will accelerate co-operation on the global battery and electric vehicle sector. Tuesday’s joint communique included a commitment to pursue this goal.

As both countries begin to decarbonise, they should exploit the complementary aspects of their economies. Both are embarking on the journey of energy transition to deal with the challenges of climate change.

It is important, however, not to limit this to a two-country endeavour. For a start, an EV battery needs much more than just nickel and lithium. Many of its components need to be sourced from other countries. And an EV battery industry should be integrated with an automotive industry supplying global markets.

The joint ventures may also extend to mineral processing. In Indonesia, electricity from coal powers most smelters. Collaboration on the energy transition should include a shift to clean wind, hydro and solar power.

Arianto Patunru is affiliated with ANU Indonesia Project and Center for Indonesian Policy Studies.

– ref. Why Indonesia wants Australia’s help to supply the world with electric vehicles and batteries – https://theconversation.com/why-indonesia-wants-australias-help-to-supply-the-world-with-electric-vehicles-and-batteries-209125