Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Cinner, Professor & ARC Laureate Fellow, Thriving Oceans Research Hub, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney

Ocean fish populations have fallen dramatically in the past half-century, and climate change is expected to make the problem worse. Governments have designated “marine protected areas”, where where human activity is constrained to protect ocean life. But have these efforts worked?

About 8% of Earth’s oceans are protected, including about 3% where fishing is banned altogether. Our new study of nearly 2,600 tropical coral reefs around the world is the first to examine whether these areas have helped fish populations.

We found about one in ten kilograms of fish on coral reefs is the result of efforts such as marine protected areas and other restrictions on fishing. This is promising news. But our study also reveals great room for improvement.

Getting to grips with marine protection

Maintaining healthy fish populations is important. Many communities depend on fishing for their food and livelihoods. And fish play a vital role in ocean ecosystems.

Marine protected areas are a key policy tool used to increase fish populations. They cover a range of ocean areas including lagoons, coastal waters, deep seabed waters and coral reefs.

The areas go by several names, including marine parks and conservation zones. Some, where fishing is prohibited, are known as no-take zones.

Governments often quote figures on the area of ocean protected when seeking to tout their conservation policies. For example in Australia, we are told the federal, state and territory governments have established marine parks covering 4.3 million square kilometres or 48% of our oceans.

But the extent to which marine protected areas actually conserve marine life varies enormously from place to place. So simply counting up the protected ocean area doesn’t tell you much about what has actually been achieved.

Measuring success

We and our colleagues wanted to assess the extent to which marine protection efforts have increased the amount of fish on coral reefs.

We developed a computer model based on about 2,600 reefs across the global tropics, which includes reefs in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic oceans. From that, we estimated the amount of fish currently on each reef – measured in the kilograms of fish per hectare, or “biomass”.

The estimations were based on information such as:

• environmental conditions such as ocean temperature and the type of habitat where the reef is located

• the intensity of fishing activity, known as “fishing pressure”

• how strong the protection is – for example whether it bans fishing, or just restricts it

• the level of compliance with no-take zones.

We then simulated what would happen if we changed the type of protection strategy in each location while keeping everything else the same.

We ran a few scenarios:

• no coral reef conservation existed anywhere and all reefs could be fished without constraint

• sites currently fished without constraint (which amounted to over half of our sites) had restrictions in place

• fishing was prohibited on 30% of all reefs.

And the results?

We found both marine protected areas and other fishing restrictions account for about 10% of the fish “biomass” on reefs. In other words, about one in ten kilograms of fish on coral reefs is due to protection efforts.

No-take zones punch above their weight. Of the fish biomass attributable to protection efforts, about 20% comes from just 3% of sites in no-take zones. This proportion would be even higher if illegal fishing in no-take zones was stamped out.

But we found any type of fishing restriction was useful. If everywhere currently fished without constraint was subject to some level of protection – such as banning nets or spear guns – the biomass of fish globally would be another 10.5% higher, our study found. This essentially matches all conservation efforts to date.

Our modelling also showed fish on coral reefs could be increased by up to 28% globally if the area of no-take zones rose to 30%.

But these reefs must be chosen strategically. That’s because protection strategies can lead to wildly different results, depending on local conditions. For example, sites with lower fishing pressure in the surrounding seascape got a bigger boost from protection than places surrounded by intensive fishing effort.

This may be because at heavily fished locations, algae often overtakes coral as the dominant feature. Algae is less fish-friendly than coral, so fish populations may not bounce back quickly even when fishing pressure is reduced.

Grounds for optimism

Our study tested the mettle of global coral reef conservation. On one hand, we found conservation efforts have made a contribution to the amount of fish on global coral reefs, which provides grounds for cautious optimism.

But on the other hand, this contribution is quite modest. Our study shows much greater gains could be made not only by expanding protected marine areas, but also by improving compliance in existing ones.

Most nations have signed a global agreement to protect 30% of Earth’s land and waters by 2030. That means the amount of ocean in marine protected areas globally will increase nearly fourfold in just six years.

As governments continue this task, we hope our results help identify ocean sites that will benefit most from protection.

Joshua Cinner receives funding from the Australian Research Council and National Geographic Society. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and the International Coral Reef Society.

Iain R. Caldwell is affiliated with the Wildlife Conservation Society

– ref. Ocean protection accounts for 10% of fish in the world’s coral reefs – but we could save so much more – https://theconversation.com/ocean-protection-accounts-for-10-of-fish-in-the-worlds-coral-reefs-but-we-could-save-so-much-more-239188

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew White, Lecturer and Researcher Australian Catholic University, Australian Catholic University

School tutoring is a huge business. Australian estimates suggest it was worth more than of A$1.5 billion as of 2021.

In Australia, we see frequent media reports of parents using tutors to help their children through school.

How can you tell if tutoring is right for your child?

What is tutoring?

Private tutoring can be take many forms, but involves parents paying for additional lessons outside of schools hours. These are either one-to-one or in small groups.

There are services available for students in primary school through to senior high school.

Some tutoring services target specific skills, such as literacy or numeracy. Others offer support for young people with organisation skills and homework or preparation for certain exams.

Tutoring can go for a short burst over a few weeks to prepare for an exam or it may be regular and ongoing to maintain learning.

Why do people get tutoring?

Families can get tutoring for a student for a wide range of reasons.

A child may be struggling with certain elements of schooling – such as reading, writing, or maths. Tutoring can provide an opportunity to catch-up with tailored support.

Tutoring can also help children prepare for tests and exams, such as NAPLAN or Year 12.

Tutoring is used to prepare students for government selective school programs or private school scholarship exams.

Researchers have highlighted some cultural backgrounds see investing in tutoring as an essential part of educating their children and helping them reach their full potential.

The tutoring debate

Tutoring can be expensive and time consuming for families. Families may pay between $30 and $200 a session, depending on the subject and qualifications of the tutor.

Some argue this gives some children an unfair advantage and students should instead rely on their natural ability.

Despite the criticism, there are benefits to tutoring. This includes giving students extra opportunities to consolidate their knowledge – we know this can help students learn.

It can also help build their confidence if a tutor can step through learning in a less pressured environment. As my research has shown, academic progress relies heavily on a students’ belief in their capacity to succeed.

Does my child need a tutor?

All students can benefit from personalised support and coaching in whatever they wish to peruse. However, all students do not need a tutor. The choice to engage a tutor should be attached to a goal that you and your child agree on.

If the young person does not want to engage in tutoring having a tutor is not going to help. Rather, it is more likely to lead to stress and arguments.

It may help to talk to your child’s teacher and review school reports before starting with a tutor to work out which particular areas need extra attention.

If your shared goal is to catch up or help with certain academic skills, it is important to find a tutor who is experienced and can explain the approach they take and what evidence it is based on.

If the goal is organisation, homework or even just to improve confidence, you could at first try a university student who has past success themselves or with other students. For more specialised goals, seek out tutors who are open about their qualifications, experience and past success.

Child safety should also be a consideration. The Australian Tutoring Association provides practical advice for parents choosing a tutor and a code of conduct for tutors.

There is no requirement for tutors to be a member of the association. So parents should make sure any tutor has a current Working with Children check. You can of course also talk to other parents and teachers for recommendations.

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

– ref. I think my child might need a tutor. What do I need to consider first? – https://theconversation.com/i-think-my-child-might-need-a-tutor-what-do-i-need-to-consider-first-240091

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander H. Beare, Lecturer in Media, University of Adelaide

HBO’s latest crime drama The Penguin came with a flood of memes on TikTok, X and Instagram. They compare actor Colin Farrell’s Oswald Cobblepot to James Gandolfini’s Tony Soprano.

It’s true, there are undeniable similarities between the two portrayals and shows. HBO’s official TikTok account went so far as to upload an edit of The Penguin trailer cut to the rhythm of Alabama 3’s Woke Up This Morning – the title theme for The Sopranos.

Running for six seasons from 1999 to 2007, The Sopranos is enjoying a sustained cultural relevancy in 2024 – something other prestige dramas of the same era such as Six Feet Under and The Shield have not achieved. A new two-part documentary about the making of the The Sopranos just premiered on HBO, 25 years after the show made its debut.

For the last couple of years, fans have been discovering the show and making it their own. But how does it fit the present moment?

The Sopranos as catharsis

My research and upcoming book is based on in-depth interviews with a group of new Sopranos fans all aged between 19–26. In other words, not old enough to have watched the show when it first aired.

During the pandemic, The Sopranos saw a surge in viewership and interest that outstripped its contemporaries like Deadwood.

Superficially, the show is visually comparable to COVID lockdown. Tony and his kids are regularly shown sleeping in, dressed in baggy clothes, and shuffling around the kitchen picking at cold cuts.

For those I spoke with, viewing The Sopranos wasn’t a way to escape from lockdown: it was a way to purge pent-up emotion.

For Darcy, the show became:

Like a cathartic tool, like, I can relate, this is how life feels right now […] A bit of relief, and a sense of relatability, you know? It was always comforting when things are not good.

Tom shared this feeling:

One of the cool things about The Sopranos is that a lot of the stuff is really mundane […] It’s about drudgery more than anything […] That’s what lockdown feels like – and it definitely is what a lot of daily life feels like […] it’s those moments of opening up the fridge and just eating like 20 slices of gabagool because you can’t be fucked making something to eat.

The Sopranos as nostalgia

The Sopranos is a profoundly negative show and yet it was being viewed by the young people I spoke to through quite an optimistic lens.

Alannah said:

It makes me feel nostalgic for a time when things felt a little bit like […] simpler, even though they have complications. It just seemed like a good stage of history to be in.

In a similar vein, Callum positively characterised this feeling as an “added bonus” that “drew him into watching the show”. Selina fondly remembered the fashion and music of the show.

Watching with a new lens

During its original run, The Sopranos was often lauded by scholars for its deconstruction of patriarchal masculinity. This was not so much the case for the people I spoke to.

Alannah worried The Sopranos could easily be placed in the toxic online “manosphere”:

[The Sopranos is] like Fight Club and American Psycho. White dudes will watch it and be like, ‘Yeah, this is fucking sick – that’s me man’. And it’s like, you don’t want to be these people! You have to criticise it yourself because it is not overt in my opinion.

Stuart expressed a similar concern about The Sopranos’ ability to be a dangerous power fantasy.

In his experience with online Sopranos content, he observed:

[There are fans] who see Tony Soprano as the ideal man and don’t notice that the show is supposed to be critiquing his behaviour.

These concerns about “misunderstanding” the show very much reflect current anxieties. The reporting about how the 2019 Joker film might incite violence from white men provides a salient reference point for these worries.

For the new viewers I spoke to, there was a real concern The Sopranos could combine dangerously with today’s toxic misogynistic online content. They were worried Tony Soprano could be interpreted as a celebration of patriarchal masculinity rather than a critique.

Born under a bad sign

In 2024, The Sopranos is still managing to click with new audiences. But these fans interpret the show differently and take new meaning from it. When we look at their responses, we can see how The Sopranos intersects with the attitudes and anxieties of modern audiences.

Next time you see a meme about Tony Soprano, consider what context today’s viewers place him in – and whether an audience from 20 years ago would have done the same. Today, he might be considered even more dangerous.

Alexander H. Beare 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. Still with the Tony Soprano memes? Young audiences are watching the series with fresh eyes – https://theconversation.com/still-with-the-tony-soprano-memes-young-audiences-are-watching-the-series-with-fresh-eyes-237982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Vonasch, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Canterbury

If you’re offered a free cookie, you might say yes. But if you’re paid to eat a free cookie, would your response be the same?

In our new research, twice as many people were willing to eat a cookie when they weren’t offered payment compared with when they were.

From a purely economic perspective, our findings reflect irrational decision making. Objectively, a cookie plus money is better than just a cookie.

But people aren’t purely economic. They’re social animals with a tendency to look for hidden reasons behind other people’s behaviours.

In the case of overly generous deals, people are expecting a “phantom cost” – one hidden in the initial offer. And this expectation influences their decision to accept something or not.

Research participants who were offered a free cookie plus payment thought maybe the cookies were poisoned. Or maybe someone spat on them. Or they expected they would then owe a favour to the person handing out the treats once the cookie was eaten.

Too good to be true

Our cookies study was just one of ten experiments involving 4,205 participants in the United States and Iran.

We tested how phantom costs influenced people’s choices to accept or reject overly generous economic offers.

Each study gave people an offer. They had to decide whether to accept or not, and then explain why.

One study asked participants to imagine they were a truck driver and looking online for a job. All the jobs were described the same way, but we varied the wage. People offered the normal US$15 per hour were perfectly willing to take the job.

Others were offered more than the normal wage. The participants in this group imagined phantom costs. And the higher the wage they were offered, the worse the costs they imagined.

When offered $20 or $25 per hour, participants imagined the role involved more responsibilities or harder work. But they considered this to be worth it. Most people preferred a job that paid a bit more than normal, despite the expectation of phantom costs.

However, when we offered way too much money – more than $900 per hour – most people rejected the job they were willing to do for $15.

Why? They imagined far worse phantom costs: driving for the mob, carrying dangerous radioactive waste or smuggling drugs across the border. A suspiciously high hourly rate or wage can end up putting people off.

Suspicion is global

We repeated this experiment with different jobs, different normal wages, and in different countries.

In both the US and Iran, despite very different types of economy, people showed the same pattern of suspicion and rejected very high wages. The only difference was that in Iran the expected wages were lower, so the wages didn’t have to be high by US standards to become suspicious.

Another experiment tested how phantom costs could affect purchases of plane tickets involving a hypothetical choice between three flights.

One cost $235, another $275. When the third option was $205, most people chose that. However, if the third option was $15, hardly anyone chose the cheapest flight. They rejected it because they imagined horrible phantom costs such as terrorists and plane crashes.

However, when we provided a reason for the low price – very uncomfortable seats – most people preferred the $15 flight. Uncomfortable seats are not usually a selling point. But they explained the cheap price, so people didn’t search for other, dangerous explanations.

Sufficient explanations for something being a great deal remove people’s tendency to imagine phantom costs.

A good offer, not a suspicious one

Businesses face a balancing act when it comes to offering customers a good deal.

On the one hand, the expectation of phantom costs decreases interest in the offer. On the other hand, price-sensitive consumers are often looking for ways to get the best deal.

To avoid the pitfalls of phantom costs, businesses need to communicate their reasons for offering a particularly good deal. A “holiday sale” or “end-of-season sale”, for example, may explain why items are discounted.

In the job market, identifying “good performance” as a reason for an employee’s pay raise can sidestep the expectation of hidden downsides – such as an increased workload.

It’s clear people are not merely self-interested economic beings. We’re savvy, psychological beings capable of reading into the motivations of others to protect ourselves from offers that seem too good to be true.

Andrew Vonasch 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. Too good to be true? New study shows people reject freebies and cheap deals for fear of hidden costs – https://theconversation.com/too-good-to-be-true-new-study-shows-people-reject-freebies-and-cheap-deals-for-fear-of-hidden-costs-238869

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sukhmani Khorana, Associate Professor, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, UNSW Sydney

SBS’s new romantic drama Four Years Later comes in the middle of an eventful week for cultural diversity in the Australian media.

On one hand, there was a scathing review that revealed systemic racism across the ABC. On the other, there was the release of Media Diversity Australia’s Race Reporting Toolkit, intended to give journalists tools to report without resorting to racial stereotyping.

Four Years Later, an eight-part series commissioned by Screen Australia and SBS, epitomises the tension of making and watching racialised media in the current climate. The series follows an Indian couple, Sri (Shahana Goswami) and Yash (Akshay Ajit Singh), as they reunite in Australia after being forced to spend four years apart so Yash can complete his medical traineeship.

The series comes 14 years after writer and producer Mithila Gupta first introduced an Indian family to the long-running soap Neighbours. But is an Australian audience ready for content that doesn’t translate the non-white parts for a white audience?

This question may be redundant because the Australian audience itself is changing.

The changing face of Australian content

My and my colleagues’ interviews with intergenerational migrant audiences have revealed it’s largely the children of migrants who wish for more onscreen diversity to reflect their own lives. We also found young people of colour were turning away from Australian broadcasters to find said diversity on streaming platforms.

Four Years Later comes at a time when South Asian-Australian stories are finally creating ripples in Australia’s art sector, led in no small part by the success of the epic 2019 play Counting and Cracking.

Following the success of Netflix’s diverse Heartbreak High reboot, it’s heartening to see a public broadcaster take the “risk” of producing a series led by two Indian-Australian characters.

As a scholar of migrants’ screen media, and someone who has been part of the Indian-Australian community for more than two decades, I’ve been party to countless conversations about how to authentically tell stories of Indian diaspora onscreen. This felt even more pressing in an Australian context as South Asian creatives in the United States and United Kingdom began gaining recognition for their outputs.

Having said that, it would be remiss to describe Four Years Later as just an Indian-Australian love story. Although it’s about migrants experiencing great precariousness while establishing themselves in Australia (and while still facing pressures from back home), the series has many universal elements.

It would appeal to most millennials trying to find themselves amid global crises and ticking clocks.

Countering stereotypes

While watching the show, I found the scenes set in India especially refreshing. The father’s typical patriarchal attitudes notwithstanding, the young characters display a kind of nuance that helps to counter common stereotypes about Indian people and culture.

For instance, Sri uses dating apps and attends meetings unchaperoned. And while she and Yash meet through a matchmaker arranged by their parents, their romance blossoms despite their families – not because of them. Also, despite being a stoic and dutiful son, Yash chooses Sri against his father’s wishes.

Both characters make mistakes and evolve during the four years between their wedding in India and reconvening in Sydney. However, Sri’s character stands out as being particularly flawed, making it an authentic and groundbreaking representation of a woman of colour onscreen.

The freedom Sri always craved – but only begins to inhabit in beach-side Australian settings in her late 30s – isn’t what you would expect from a kurta-clad Indian woman who has just arrived in a new country. You’re more likely to encounter images of such women behind a stove or a pram, rather than having a dip in the ocean.

Four Years Later is perhaps better described as a closeted feminist coming-of-age tale, rather than an immigrant love story. While there’s no dearth of feisty female leads in English-language literature coming out of India, seeing this narrative on Australian screens will be incredibly legitimising for local diaspora.

The series also signals how personal agency can and does exist within “collectivist cultures” that are viewed as highly patriarchal and hierarchical.

Opportunities for change

Four Years Later features a range of diverse peripheral characters. These include the second-generation brown anaesthetist who supervises Yash, a Syrian woman who works as a cleaner in the hospital (and doubles as Yash’s friend and love interest), and Sri’s white Australian friend who runs a café.

A second season could explore these relationships and story arcs in more depth. It could, for instance, investigate how many migrants of colour are vested in gaining social capital in new environments – and aren’t just chasing economic aspirations. It could also explore migrant stigmas around mental health, which are alluded to in Yash’s panic attacks.

Such shows have an opportunity to present nuanced narratives that both challenge and enrich viewers’ perspectives. They can also strike a balance between community-specific issues and universal themes in a way that Australia’s news media – grappling as it is with racism and bias – could learn from.

Four Years Later is available on SBS On Demand.

Sukhmani Khorana receives funding from the Australia Research Council, and has previously received funding from Diversity Arts Australia.

– ref. SBS’s Four Years Later is an immigrant love story that pushes the boundaries of onscreen representation – https://theconversation.com/sbss-four-years-later-is-an-immigrant-love-story-that-pushes-the-boundaries-of-onscreen-representation-240219

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Middlewick, Nurse, Lecturer & Director of Post-graduate Studies in the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University

Menopause is having a bit of a moment, with less stigma and more awareness about the changes it can bring.

A recent senate inquiry recommended public education about perimenopause and menopause, more affordable treatments and flexible work arrangements.

But like many things in life the experiences of menopause are on a continuum. While some women find it challenging and require support, others experience some physical and emotional benefits. These are rarely reported – but we can learn from the research available and, importantly, from people’s lived experiences.

Here are four changes to look forward to once you reach menopause.

1. No more periods or related issues

Menopause is considered “complete” 12 months after the final period of a woman (or person assigned female at birth) who previously menstruated.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the benefit at the top of the list is no more periods (unless you are taking hormone therapy and still have your womb). This can be particularly beneficial for women who have had to manage erratic, unpredictable and heavy bleeding.

At last, you don’t need to keep sanitary protection in every bag “just in case”. No more planning where the bathroom is or having to take extra clothes. And you’ll save money by not purchasing sanitary products.

There is also good news for women who have had heavy bleeding due to uterine fibroids – common benign gynaecological tumours that affect up to 80% of women. The evidence suggests hormonal changes (for women not taking hormone therapy) can lead to a reduction in the size of fibroids and relieve symptoms.

Women who suffer from menstrual migraine may experience an improvement in migraines post-menopause as their hormonal fluctuations begin to settle – but the timeframe for this remains unclear.

For some women, no more periods also means more participation in social activities from which they may have been excluded due to periods. For example, religious activities or food preparation in some cultures.

2. Getting your body and your groove back

Throughout their reproductive lives, women in heterosexual relationships are usually the ones expected to be proactive about preventing pregnancy.

Some post-menopausal women describe a re-emergence of their sexuality and a sense of sexual freedom that they had not previously experienced (despite contraceptive availability) as there is no longer a risk of pregnancy.

A participant in my research into women’s experiences of menopause described the joy of no longer being child-bearing age:

I’ve got a body back for me, you know, coz I can’t get pregnant, not that I haven’t enjoyed having [children] and things like that and it was a decision to get pregnant but I feel like, ooh my body isn’t for anybody now but me, people, you know?

For women who have chosen to be child-free there may also be a sense of freedom from social expectations. People will likely stop asking them when they are planning to have children.

3. A new chapter and a time to focus on yourself

Another participant described menopause as an unexpected “acceleration point” for change.

Women told us they were more accepting of themselves and their needs rather than being focused on the needs of other people. Researchers have previously tracked this shift from “living for others” to “a life of one’s own”.

Some women find the strength of emotions at this time a challenge, whereas others find their potency can facilitate liberation – enabling them to speak their minds or be more assertive than at any other time in their lives.

4. Increased self-confidence

A new sense of liberation can fuel increased self-confidence at menopause. This has been reported in studies based on in-depth interviews with women.

Confidence boosts can coincide with changes in career and sometimes in relationships as priorities and self-advocacy transform.

Life on the other side

It can be hard to think about what is good about menopause, particularly if you are having challenges during perimenopause – but these can get better with time.

In cultures where women are valued as they become older, women describe themselves as positively contributing to the community. They find they gain power and respect as they age.

We need to work towards more positive societal attitudes on this front. Our bodies change across the lifespan and are remarkable at every stage, including menopause.

Yvonne’s research was a completed as a PhD student at the University of Southampton.

– ref. Is there anything good about menopause? Yep, here are 4 things to look forward to – https://theconversation.com/is-there-anything-good-about-menopause-yep-here-are-4-things-to-look-forward-to-239725

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hoffmann, Professor of Economics, Tasmanian Behavioural Lab, University of Tasmania

Efforts to redress global inequality are facing an unexpected adversary: the white saviour. It’s the idea that people of colour, whether in the Global South or North, need “saving” by a white Western person or aid worker.

An eclectic mix of white activists have been publicly accused of being white saviours for trying to help different causes in the Global South. They include celebrities who adopted orphaned children, organised benefit concerts such as Live Aid, or called out rights abuses.

Others include professional and volunteer charity workers and journalists reporting on poverty in Africa. Even activism at home can earn the white saviour label, like efforts to refine the proposal for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament in Australia.

We conducted a series of studies with 1,991 representative Australians to find out what people thought made a white saviour, how charity appeal photographs create this impression, and how it affected donations.

White saviourism and charities

The concern is that white people’s overseas charity, even when well-meaning, can inadvertently hurt rather than help the cause. It could perpetuate harmful stereotypes of white superiority, disempower local people, or misdirect resources to make helpers feel good rather than alleviating genuine need.

The fear of being labelled a white saviour could make people think twice about giving time or money to worthy causes. It might stop aid organisations using proven appeals to raise donations they need.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), for instance, released a video apologising for using photos depicting white people in aid settings and which aren’t representative of the majority local staff they employ.

Therein lies the dilemma: white donors can relate to photos of white helpers, but this is easily interpreted as white savourism.

What makes someone a white saviour?

Very little research exists into exactly what white saviourism means. Broadly, it seems to describe people in the Global North who support international causes for selfish reasons, to satisfy their own sentimentality and need for a positive image. We wanted to go deeper.

In the first of our studies, we showed our participants 26 photographs depicting different Global South aid settings with a white helper.

The helpers that participants thought of as highly “white saviour” typically had these characteristics:

• they appeared to be privileged and superior

• they gave help sentimentally and tokenistically

• they conformed to the colonial stereotype of the helpless local and powerful foreigner.

Further analysis showed these characteristics boil down to two essential features: ineffectiveness of the help and entitlement of the helpers.

These two perceptions of the white saviour explain the problem for charity. Behavioural economics research has identified two main reasons for donating, and these perceptions undermine both.

Why do people donate at all?

So to see how much white saviourism affects charities, we need to know why people donate in the first place.

One reason for giving is pure altruism, the desire to help others with no direct benefit to oneself. The effective altruism movement encourages people to make every donated dollar count – getting the maximum bang for the buck in terms of measurable outcomes for those in need.

The difficulty for effective altruists is in assessing the impact of different charities vying for their donations. There are now websites that list charities by lives saved per dollar donated.

Read more:
How white saviourism harms international development

Alternatively, donors might look at a charity’s appeal images for clues of how effectively it will use their dollars.

Depicting white people as saviours can create the impression of tokenistic aid that only serves the helper’s sentimental needs. Evidence shows people resent impure motives in others (including organisations) and might try to penalise them.

Behavioural economics research also shows, as you might expect, that some people are more concerned about themselves than others when giving. This is known as “warm glow” giving.

Warm glow givers have several self-serving motivations. They include giving to gain self-respect or social status.

People also have a desire to meet their social obligations. For richer folks this could include charitable giving. And giving can reduce guilt they might feel about their privilege.

Just like the effective altruist, the warm glow giver could be put off by any sign of white saviourism. They don’t want to be seen to be endorsing it.

Do people still donate?

All this suggests that seeing a white saviour depiction in a charitable appeal will make people donate less.

We examined this in another study, in which participants were shown each of the previous photos. This time they were asked, for every photo, if they were willing to donate to a charity that uses it.

And as we thought, the photos previously rated as high in white saviourism had low intentions to donate.

But intentions do not always equal actions, as psychologist have demonstrated for many years.

To overcome this, we measured real donations in another study. Again participants saw the same photos, but this time they had the chance to donate part of their participation fee to a real charity when seeing them.

What we found surprised us: the white saviour effect disappeared. How high a photo was on the white saviour scale had no impact on how much participants donated when seeing it.

Does the end justify the motivation?

Our results summarise the dilemma. Donors might object to white saviourism by charities, but in the end feel that it’s the help that counts, not the motivation behind it.

We found some evidence for this when we asked participants about their general views of white saviourism.

Almost 70% agreed that white saviour motives are common in Western help and that this was problematic for recipients. But interestingly, only 42% thought helpers with these motives deserved criticism.

Together, this might suggest that people feel white saviour help is better than no help. There are voices in the charity community who echo this sentiment: imposing conditions on charitable giving will serve to reduce it.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Elise Westhoff, president of the Philanthropy Roundtable in the United States, said “by imposing those ‘musts’ and ‘shoulds’, you really limit human generosity”.

But this doesn’t mean there are no legitimate concerns. There are, but it’s not hard for charities to address them.

Our results show that white saviour perceptions do not affect actual donations, so read another way, suggests charities can safely replace highly white saviour images without losing donations for their causes.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. People don’t like a ‘white saviour’, but does it affect how they donate to charity? – https://theconversation.com/people-dont-like-a-white-saviour-but-does-it-affect-how-they-donate-to-charity-239307

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

The United States presidential election will be held on November 5. In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls, Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump by 49.3–46.2, a slight gain for Trump since last Monday, when Harris led Trump by 49.3–46.0.

Joe Biden’s final position before his withdrawal as Democratic candidate on July 21 was a national poll deficit against Trump of 45.2–41.2.

In economic data, the US added 254,000 jobs in September and the unemployment rate slid 0.1% to 4.1%. The unemployment rate had peaked at 4.3% in July.

The US president isn’t elected by the national popular vote, but by the Electoral College, in which each state receives electoral votes equal to its federal House seats (population based) and senators (always two). Almost all states award their electoral votes as winner-takes-all, and it takes 270 electoral votes to win (out of 538 total).

Relative to the national popular vote, the Electoral College is biased to Trump, with Harris needing at least a two-point popular vote win to be the Electoral College favourite in Silver’s model.

In the key states, Harris remains ahead in Silver’s poll aggregates by one to two points in Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (ten) and Nevada (six). If Harris wins these four states, she probably wins the Electoral College by at least 276–262. Trump leads by 0.5 points in North Carolina (16 electoral votes), one point in Georgia (16) and 1.2 points in Arizona (11).

Read more:
Kamala Harris the slight favourite to win US election as she narrowly leads in key states

In Silver’s model, Harris has a 56% chance to win the Electoral College, unchanged since last Monday’s article. The FiveThirtyEight model was more favourable to Harris in September, but now gives her a 55% chance to win. It’s close to a 50–50 probability for either candidate, but Harris remains a slight favourite.

There are still more than four weeks to go until the election, so there’s time for the polls to change and for one candidate to have a decisive Electoral College advantage on election day. Or the polls could be understating either Harris or Trump, in which case the candidate that benefits from the poll error could have a decisive win.

Thumping lead for LNP in Queensland

The Queensland state election is on October 26. A Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted September 26–29 from a sample of 1,067, gave the Liberal National Party (LNP) a 56–44 lead, a five-point gain for the LNP since the previous Freshwater poll in July 2023.

Primary votes were 43% LNP (up three), 30% Labor (down four), 12% Greens (up one), 8% One Nation (up one) and 7% for all Others (down one).

Labor Premier Steven Miles had a net approval of -5, while LNP leader David Crisafulli had a +15 net approval. Crisafulli led Miles by 46–38 as preferred premier.

The poll asked about the federal leaders’ Queensland ratings, with Anthony Albanese at net -17, while Peter Dutton was at net zero. Queensland is a Coalition-friendly state at federal elections relative to the national results.

Federal Newspoll quarterly data

On September 30, The Australian released aggregate data for the four Newspolls taken from July to September, which had a combined sample size of 5,035. The Poll Bludger said the Coalition led in New South Wales by 51–49, unchanged on the June quarter.

In Victoria, Labor led by 52–48, a two-point gain for the Coalition. In Queensland, the Coalition led by an unchanged 54–46. In Western Australia, Labor led by an unchanged 52–48. In South Australia, Labor led by 54–46, a one-point gain for Labor.

The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack data shows the results by educational attainment. In the September quarter, Labor led by 53–47 among university-educated people, a one-point gain for Labor. With TAFE-educated people, there was a 50–50 tie, a one-point gain for the Coalition. Those with no tertiary education favoured the Coalition by 51–49, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

Coalition gains lead in Morgan poll

A national Morgan poll, conducted September 23–29 from a sample of 1,668, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the September 16–22 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up 0.5), 30% Labor (down two), 13.5% Greens (up one), 4.5% One Nation (down 0.5), 9.5% independents (steady) and 4.5% others (up one).

The headline figure uses respondent preferences. But if preferences were assigned using the 2022 election flows, Labor led by 51.5–48.5, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition. There was an unusually large gap last week between the two measures.

Resolve poll on Middle East conflict

Voting intentions have not yet been released from a national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers that was conducted October 1–5 from a sample of 1,606. Regarding the political response in Australia to the Middle East conflict, 22% thought Dutton and the Liberals had responded best, 18% Albanese and Labor and 6% Adam Bandt and the Greens, while 55% said none had responded best or were unsure.

On Australia’s actions, 23% thought we should voice in-principle support for Israel, 12% Gaza and 65% both or none. On accepting refugees, 52% don’t want any refugees accepted, 24% would accept refugees from either Israel or Gaza, 13% Gaza only and 11% Israel only.

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

– ref. Kamala Harris maintains narrow lead in key states in US presidential race – https://theconversation.com/kamala-harris-maintains-narrow-lead-in-key-states-in-us-presidential-race-240117

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Townsend, Research Fellow, UQ School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland

A new portrait of NRL legend Wally Lewis conveys a striking message about the consequences of brain trauma in sport.

The portrait, created by visual artist Jamie van Leeuwen in cooperation with Lewis, is currently entered in the 2024 Brisbane Portrait Prize.

It uses artificial intelligence (AI) and traditional photography to depict Lewis contemplating his own brain, prompting viewers to consider the consequences of athletes subjecting their bodies (and brains) to a lifetime of physical trauma in contact sports.

It further suggests that art has an important role to play in science communication.

Heavy lies the crown

Lewis is one of Queensland’s most beloved figures and one of Australia’s greatest rugby league players.

His intelligence was matched by a rugged playing style. He thrilled crowds by appearing to relish hard tackles and seeking confrontation.

Lewis’ State of Origin performances for Queensland, the Australian representative team, and multiple clubs earned him the nickname “The King” and the “Emperor of Lang Park,” where he is celebrated with a life-size statue.

In short, it is difficult to overstate the affection many Queenslanders have for Lewis and the magnitude of his reputation in the Australian rugby league community.

The King speaks

Although rugby league gave a lot to Lewis, it also took a heavy toll.

After retiring he moved into broadcasting, becoming the long-term sports anchor for Channel Nine in Queensland.

In late 2006, he had two successive epileptic episodes on live television.

Following the second episode, Lewis announced publicly that he had been diagnosed with epilepsy during his playing career but hid the condition for decades. He further revealed his epilepsy was caused by repeated concussions.

More recently, Lewis has become one of the most prominent figures in the broader conversation around brain trauma in sport, particularly following his 2023 diagnosis of traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES), the symptomatic precursor of the brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

This diagnosis is likely linked to his lifetime accumulation of brain trauma in rugby league.

Who is listening?

Many Australian sports and athletes are being impacted by concussion, with a cacophony of experts and advocates attempting to make themselves heard.

Scientists, researchers, doctors, athletes, parents, families, and politicians are all straining to communicate the potentially serious consequences of brain trauma to the sporting public.

This portrait of Lewis cuts through the noise and conveys a complex and sometimes controversial narrative: the neurological consequences of contact sport can outweigh its benefits.

This is a particularly fraught conversation in light of a recent study that argued the opposite.

The King’s Battle

The portrait conveys the duality of contact sport in an instant.

As the artist states, the meaning of the piece is “about legacy […] both sides of legacy.”

Lewis’ successes are evidenced by the 1987 Maroons jersey he wears and the crown atop his head.

The costs are equally visible.

His wearied expression, the blood and grime on his collar and the disembodied brain resting in his palms prompt the viewer to imagine Lewis’s thoughts.

Is he re-imagining past victories? Planning an uncertain future? Harbouring fears for his fellow athletes?

After viewing the image for the first time, Lewis said:

It pretty much tells the story straight away […] there is great hope in the future that I’m going to be able to deal with some of the difficulties.

The image is emotionally freighted in a way that researchers and medical practitioners usually try to avoid, particularly in discussions about sports concussion where advocates for player safety have been accused of being overly emotional or scare-mongering.

The King’s Battle reminds us brain trauma is an emotional issue as much as a scientific one.

As ANU science media researcher Matt Ventresca says, some of the most effective advocates for player welfare are former and current athletes who “in the absence of scientific certainty, express fear about the health of their brains.”

Art and the future of science

Arts and science are often viewed as contradictory, but creative expressions like The King’s Battle should play a role in science communication.

Think Susan Sontag’s brilliant essay Illness as Metaphor or the haunting lyrical description of cancer in Blood by Australian band The Middle East.

The concussion crisis is a potent space for artistic representation – the 2015 film Concussion starring Will Smith is a landmark in public perceptions of brain trauma in sport.

The upcoming ABC television program Plum also tells the story of a brain damaged former sports star.

A 2024 portrait of former Australian NFL player Colin Scotts shows the consequences of a life in contact sport.

Artistic representations such as The King’s Battle are important because they bring home the consequences of brain trauma in ways that traditional science communication struggles to achieve.

It reminds us that understanding the emotion of health is just as important as understanding its scientific and medical aspects.

For CTE researchers, van Leeuwen’s portrait also carries abstract echoes of another hope for the future.

His use of AI technology to disembody Lewis’ brain in the artwork is reminiscent of current methods of CTE diagnosis: post-mortem removal and dissection of the brain.

The difference in The King’s Battle is that Lewis can look on the damage done to his brain while still very much alive.

In much the same way, we hope in the near future that technological advances will allow us to see CTE in the brains of living athletes and help them to live better lives with the disease.

Alan Pearce is currently unfunded. Alan is a non-executive director for the Concussion Legacy Foundation (unpaid position) and Adjunct research manager for the Australian Sports Brain Bank (unpaid position). He has previously received funding from Erasmus+ strategic partnerships program (2019-1-IE01-KA202-051555), Sports Health Check Charity (Australia), Australian Football League, Impact Technologies Inc., and Samsung Corporation, and is remunerated for expert advice to medico-legal practices.

Stephen Townsend 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 a portrait of a former NRL great could spark greater concussion awareness in Australia – https://theconversation.com/why-a-portrait-of-a-former-nrl-great-could-spark-greater-concussion-awareness-in-australia-238882

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago

One of the political ironies of the race for the White House is that the foreign policy interests of New Zealand’s centre-right government are probably best served by Democratic candidate Kamala Harris winning.

Since the end of World War II, all New Zealand governments have supported multilateralism and an international rules-based order enshrined in the institutions of the United Nations.

The relationship with the United States has reflected that, and tends to outlast the periodic fluctuations associated with changes in government and policy in Wellington or Washington.

New Zealand’s current National-led coalition inherited close relations with the US, too. American visitor numbers were second only to Australians last year. The US is our third largest export market. And the two countries remain strategically linked within the Five Eyes intelligence sharing arrangement.

Nevertheless, one of the key foreign policy goals of the coalition is to strengthen alignment with traditional allies such as the US. Given the very different worldviews of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, the November 5 election will have a large bearing on how successful any push for closer relations with the US can be.

Closer relations in the balance

On the one hand, Republican candidate Trump is opposed to multilateral institutions, unless they explicitly serve US national interests. And he wants to reverse the impact of globalisation by constraining immigration, free trade and global governance.

Nationalist slogans like “America First” promise a return to a so-called golden era of patriotism and sovereignty: a top-down world where the greatest power of all is unencumbered and free to assert its dominance.

On the other hand, Harris would seem to support a more traditional US foreign policy agenda. This recognises the importance of international institutions and alliances in a world where “isolation is not insulation”.

Whoever occupies the White House next, then, is likely to have a significant impact on New Zealand foreign policy.

Power plays and the Pacific

First, Trump’s belief in an international system run by great powers would seem to be a recipe for depriving smaller states like New Zealand of a voice on international issues that affect them.

Second, New Zealand’s regional focus on ties with Pacific Island nations – underpinned by close people-to-people links and a significant proportion of the country’s overseas development aid programme – is more likely to be complemented by a Harris foreign policy.

Outgoing president Joe Biden reversed decades of US neglect of much of the Pacific, which had played to the advantage of other external powers – notably China.

The Biden team launched the annual US-Pacific Islands Summit in 2022. And Kamala Harris played an active role in delivering US$800 million in development and climate assistance to Pacific Island nations in 2022-23.

Whether Trump will maintain this enhanced diplomatic and economic engagement in the Pacific (and elsewhere) is questionable. Similarly, after Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord, Trump will probably quit it for a second time.

AUKUS and Ukraine

Third, the New Zealand government faces the delicate task of navigating relations with an increasingly assertive China – the country’s biggest trade partner – while pursuing its goal of moving closer to the US.

Since March 2023, successive New Zealand governments have been considering joining an arrangement to share advanced defence technologies under pillar two of the AUKUS security partnership that aims to deter a rising China in the Indo-Pacific region.

It remains to be seen how China would react if New Zealand did join. But Trump’s insistence on US primacy in any multilateral agreement could make it more difficult for the government to win domestic support for pillar two membership.

Even outside the AUKUS debate, Trump is more likely to insist allies spend more on defence than they did traditionally.

Fourth, New Zealand has a big stake in the failure of Russia’s attempted annexation of Ukraine. Wellington’s interests are clearly more in line with Harris’ pledge to maintain support for Ukraine to restore its territorial integrity.

Trump’s promise to end the war within 24 hours, on the other hand, could probably only be achieved by giving Vladimir Putin what he wants.

The Middle East and the UN

Finally, there do not seem to be substantive policy differences between Trump and Harris on the catastrophic situation in Gaza, and increasingly Lebanon.

There remains a slim possibility a Harris administration might recognise unconditional support for the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu is not sustainable for a superpower whose foreign policy is supposed to be driven by universal values and respect for international law.

But this would be near impossible for Trump. Indeed, he would probably provide Netanyahu with even greater support.

Overall, the foreign policy interests of the National-led coalition seem to align more with a Harris presidency than one led by Trump.

But even if Harris wins, the alignment of interests will not be perfect. US exceptionalism – an informal ideology that claims the nation is a political exemplar for the rest of the world – and Washington’s veto power in the UN security Council are likely to remain constraining factors on the New Zealand-US relationship.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Could NZ foreign policy be Trumped? Why the government will be hoping Kamala Harris wins the US election – https://theconversation.com/could-nz-foreign-policy-be-trumped-why-the-government-will-be-hoping-kamala-harris-wins-the-us-election-240538

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

Medical experts recommend antivirals for people aged 70 and older who get COVID, and for other groups at risk of severe illness and hospitalisation from COVID.

But many older Australians have missed out on antivirals after getting sick with COVID. It is yet another way the health system is failing the most vulnerable.

Who missed out?

We analysed COVID antiviral uptake between March 2022 and September 2023. We found some groups were more likely to miss out on antivirals including Indigenous people, people from disadvantaged areas, and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Some of the differences will be due to different rates of infection. But across this 18-month period, many older Australians were infected at least once, and rates of infection were higher in some disadvantaged communities.

How stark are the differences?

Compared to the national average, Indigenous Australians were nearly 25% less likely to get antivirals, older people living in disadvantaged areas were 20% less likely to get them, and people with a culturally or linguistically diverse background were 13% less likely to get a script.

People in remote areas were 37% less likely to get antivirals than people living in major cities. People in outer regional areas were 25% less likely.

Even within the same city, the differences are stark. In Sydney, people older than 70 in the affluent eastern suburbs (including Vaucluse, Point Piper and Bondi) were nearly twice as likely to have had an antiviral as those in Fairfield, in Sydney’s south-west.

Older people in leafy inner-eastern Melbourne (including Canterbury, Hawthorn and Kew) were 1.8 times more likely to have had an antiviral as those in Brimbank (which includes Sunshine) in the city’s west.

Why are people missing out?

COVID antivirals should be taken when symptoms first appear. While awareness of COVID antivirals is generally strong, people often don’t realise they would benefit from the medication. They wait until symptoms get worse and it is too late.

Frequent GP visits make a big difference. Our analysis found people 70 and older who see a GP more frequently were much more likely to be dispensed a COVID antiviral.

Regular visits give an opportunity for preventive care and patient education. For example, GPs can provide high-risk patients with “COVID treatment plans” as a reminder to get tested and seek treatment as soon as they are unwell.

Difficulty seeing a GP could help explain low antiviral use in rural areas. Compared to people in major cities, people in small rural towns have about 35% fewer GPs, see their GP about half as often, and are 30% more likely to report waiting too long for an appointment.

Just like for vaccination, a GP’s focus on antivirals probably matters, as does providing care that is accessible to people from different cultural backgrounds.

Care should go those who need it

Since the period we looked at, evidence has emerged that raises doubts about how effective antivirals are, particularly for people at lower risk of severe illness. That means getting vaccinated is more important than getting antivirals.

But all Australians who are eligible for antivirals should have the same chance of getting them.

These drugs have cost more than A$1.7 billion, with the vast majority of that money coming from the federal government. While dispensing rates have fallen, more than 30,000 packs of COVID antivirals were dispensed in August, costing about $35 million.

Such a huge investment shouldn’t be leaving so many people behind. Getting treatment shouldn’t depend on your income, cultural background or where you live. Instead, care should go to those who need it the most.

People born overseas have been 40% more likely to die from COVID than those born here. Indigenous Australians have been 60% more likely to die from COVID than non-Indigenous people. And the most disadvantaged people have been 2.8 times more likely to die from COVID than those in the wealthiest areas.

All those at-risk groups have been more likely to miss out on antivirals.

It’s not just a problem with antivirals. The same groups are also disproportionately missing out on COVID vaccination, compounding their risk of severe illness. The pattern is repeated for other important preventive health care, such as cancer screening.

A 3-step plan to meet patients’ needs

The federal government should do three things to close these gaps in preventive care.

First, the government should make Primary Health Networks (PHNs) responsible for reducing them. PHNs, the regional bodies responsible for improving primary care, should share data with GPs and step in to boost uptake in communities that are missing out.

Second, the government should extend its MyMedicare reforms. MyMedicare gives general practices flexible funding to care for patients who live in residential aged care or who visit hospital frequently. That approach should be expanded to all patients, with more funding for poorer and sicker patients. That will give GP clinics time to advise patients about preventive health, including COVID vaccines and antivirals, before they get sick.

Third, team-based pharmacist prescribing should be introduced. Then pharmacists could quickly dispense antivirals for patients if they have a prior agreement with the patient’s GP. It’s an approach that would also work for medications for chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease.

COVID antivirals, unlike vaccines, have been keeping up with new variants without the need for updates. If a new and more harmful variant emerges, or when a new pandemic hits, governments should have these systems in place to make sure everyone who needs treatment can get it fast.

In the meantime, fairer access to care will help close the big and persistent gaps in health between different groups of Australians.

Grattan Institute has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts.

A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

– ref. Getting antivirals for COVID too often depends on where you live and how wealthy you are – https://theconversation.com/getting-antivirals-for-covid-too-often-depends-on-where-you-live-and-how-wealthy-you-are-239497

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Lowe, Director, Environment Institute, University of Adelaide

This week, Australia hosts the inaugural Global Nature Positive Summit in Sydney. It comes at a crucial time: biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is one of the biggest risks the world faces in the next decade.

The event, which begins tomorrow, brings together leaders from government, business, academia, environment groups and Indigenous Peoples. Together, they will seek ways to drive investment in nature and improve its protection and repair.

More than half the world’s economy directly depends on nature. Biodiversity loss threatens global financial stability, putting at least US$44 trillion (A$64 trillion) of economic value at risk.

Industries such as agriculture, fishing, forestry, tourism, water and resources rely heavily on nature. But ultimately, all of humanity depends on the natural world – for clean air, water, food, and a liveable climate.

In Australia significant investment is needed to reverse the decline in our natural environment. It will require action from governments, landholders and the private sector.

That’s why this week’s summit is so important. Nature conservation and restoration is expensive and often difficult. The task is beyond the capacity of governments alone.

What’s going on at the summit?

According to the World Economic Forum, “nature positive” is an economic worldview that goes beyond limiting environmental damage and aims to actually improve ecosystems.

Under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, to which almost 200 countries have signed up, at least 30% of land and waters must be protected or restored by 2030. The summit is exploring ways to realise this global commitment, which is also known as the 30×30 target.

The federal and New South Wales governments are co-hosting the event.

Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek will address the summit on day one, outlining her government’s Nature Positive Plan. It commits to the 30×30 target as well as “zero new extinctions”. Achieving these commitments involves environmental law reform, setting up a Nature Repair Market and establishing a national Environment Protection Agency.

Delegates are expected to demonstrate their commitment and progress towards the 30×30 goal. They will then turn to the main point of the summit: building consensus on the economic settings needed to increase private investment in nature.

Finance models and corporate partnerships are on the agenda, along with how to make this work, including how to measure, monitor and report on progress and manage risk.

Sessions will focus on specific sectors of the environment such as agriculture and farming, cities, oceans and forests. On Thursday, delegates will visit nature sites around Sydney.

Investing in a market for nature repair

Substantial co-investment from the private sector, including landholders, will be required to repair and protect nature at the scale required.

Market-based approaches can drive private investment in natural resources. But most existing environmental markets focus on water and carbon. A more holistic approach, including nature repair, is needed.

Australia’s Nature Positive Plan includes building a nature repair market. This world-first measure is a legislated, national, voluntary biodiversity market in which individuals and organisations undertake nature repair projects to generate a tradeable certificate. The certificate can be sold to generate income. Demand for certificates is expected to grow over time.

But the role the government will take remains unclear. For example, will the government both regulate market prices and decide what, in a scientific sense, amounts to repairing nature?

On day two, the summit explores how nature markets can unlock new sources of finance. We can expect this discussion to include ways carbon and biodiversity markets can work together: so-called “carbon-plus” outcomes.

For example, when landholders conserve vegetation, the plants can both draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and provide habitat for animals, preventing biodiversity loss. Markets could be designed so landholders are rewarded for achieving these dual results.

Significant economic returns

Under optimistic estimates, the global nature-positive transition will unlock business opportunities worth an estimated US$10 trillion (almost A$15 trillion) a year and create 395 million jobs by 2030.

The potential benefits for Australia are also substantial. They include benefits to nature such as restoring habitat for wildlife, while storing carbon. It can also provide returns for agriculture, by improving land value, yield and quality.

A strong nature-positive stance from Australia will also help safeguard our access to global markets. For example, the European Union has already established trade barriers to imports that damage forests. This could have serious consequences for the Australian beef industry.

So the potential benefits have to be weighed against the risks of not doing anything. The summit is a chance to get a wide range of people on board, working towards a shared vision of a more positive future.

It’s time for a nature-positive mindset

The Albanese Labor government came to power promising to overhaul Australia’s national environment laws, following a scathing independent review.

When the summit was conceived, the government may have envisaged having cause for celebration by now. But some proposed reforms stalled in the Senate.

Nonetheless, the Nature Repair Market, a significant government win, is taking shape.

This week’s summit offers Australia an opportunity to show the world we have embraced the nature-positive mindset. There really is no time to waste.

Australia, the sixth most biodiverse country in the world, has listed 2,224 species and ecological communities as threatened with extinction. These losses are predicted to escalate if we continue business as usual and allow continued decline of ecosystems.

Despite having pledged to end deforestation by 2030, Australia is the only deforestation hotspot among developed nations. Land clearing continues apace in northern Australia, often without being assessed under national environmental laws.

We desperately need to reverse the decline in nature, once and for all.

Andrew Lowe receives funding from a range of national and international funding sources including the Australian Research Council, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, The International Tropical Timber Organization.

This article was crafted following conversations with the Advisory Committee of the Nature Positive Economy CRC bid, including Daisy Mallett – Lawyer / International Abitrator; Ian Overton – Principal, Natural Economy Consulting; Professor Hugh Possingham – University of Queensland; Nicki Hutley – Climate Council; Cheryl Hayman – Beston Global Food Company; Robert Waterworth – FLINTPro; Kate Andrews – NRM Regions Australia; Tim King – Melior Investment Management; Peter Boyd – Rozetta Institute; David Shelmerdine – ClimateWorks; Wendy Mackay – Pollination Group; Tim Jarvis – Fauna & Flora International; Jody Gunn – Australian Land Conservation Alliance; Joshua Bishop – University of Sydney; Phil Duncan – University of Canberra; Dr Paul Dalby – Rozetta Project Director.

– ref. Australia is hosting the world’s first ‘nature positive’ summit. What is it, and why does it matter? – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-hosting-the-worlds-first-nature-positive-summit-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter-236236

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lyndall Bryant, Lecturer in Property Economics, Queensland University of Technology

While there’s little relief in sight for Australia’s housing crisis, with new projects years away from completion, there appear to be as many as 13 million unused spare bedrooms across the country.

In a new briefing paper for the QUT Centre for Justice I suggest that, at least in the interim, these spare rooms ought to be part of the solution.

Here’s where you find them. The census says about 3.2 million Australian homes have one spare bedroom, another 3 million have two spare rooms and 1.2 million have three spare bedrooms or more.

They are more common in the homes of older than younger Australians.

A survey by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute found that more than three-quarters of homeowners aged 74 and older had spare rooms compared to less than two-thirds of homeowners aged 55 and younger.

These older owners are often “asset rich and income poor”. Most rely at least in part on the age pension and could do with the income that would come from renting out a room, so long as it didn’t cut into their pension or present them with a capital gains tax bill when their home is eventually sold.

My work suggests these fears are largely unfounded, even though it’s hard to convince many older Australians of that.

Rent needn’t mean income tax

The Tax Office has long provided for “domestic arrangements” and other arrangements where board and lodging provided at non-commercial rates is not considered assessable income for taxation purposes.

The downside is that expenses are not tax deductible.

These arrangements are said to occur when all residents including the owner bear an appropriate proportion of the costs actually incurred on food, electricity, heating and other costs of running the home.

“Homestay” for international students is an example. Homestay hosts can receive about $350 per week for providing a fully furnished room, main meals and utilities in an arrangement the Tax Office has ruled need not be taxable.

Rent needn’t cut off the pension

All pensioners are currently eligible for the work bonus scheme that allows additional earnings of up to $504 a fortnight for singles and $660 per fortnight for couples without loss of any pension.

It ought to be easy enough to apply the scheme to rent as well as income from work, as it arguably already does given that renting out spare bedrooms is a form of self-employment and hence “work”.

As important would be making pensioners aware of any changes or clarifications to the rules in a way that normalised “taking in boarders”.

Rent needn’t mean capital gains tax

Anecdotal evidence suggests homeowners fear that renting out a spare bedroom will make their home liable for the capital gains tax that applies to rented properties when they are eventually sold.

While this may be true in some situations, it is somewhat of an urban myth, and the amounts of tax involved can be small.

According to the Tax Office

• capital gains tax only applies to properties bought after September 20 1985

• any gain is taxed only at the marginal rate in the year the property is sold

• only half of each gain is taxed

• gains can be offset against capital losses

• only the net gain is taxed after costs.

And capital gains tax only applies for the portion of the home that is rented out, and for the portion of time it is rented out.

In my paper I explain how an apparent capital gain of $100,000 is taxed less where a room is only let for one year in five and is one of three bedrooms in the home, cutting the taxable capital gain to just $3,333.

If the very concept of the calculation remains a barrier, it might be possible to offer homeowners who let out rooms a short-term “capital gains tax holiday” for the next three to five years while new housing stock is being built.

Rules for safety and boarder matching essential

Another barrier is concern about safety, both personal and financial for older homeowners. Surprisingly, there are few rules governing boarding, with tenancy legislation saying little, forcing homeowners and tenants to rely on common law.

Australians letting out rooms need legislated protections from elder abuse and spurious claims of cohabitation and other rights.

Tenant matching and management systems could make the process simpler.

Imagine being able to walk into your local real estate agency and list your spare room to rent. If the agency offered boarder management services you could outline your preferences and ask it to put forward a list of candidates to interview.

Good matches would provide benefits for both older Australians and younger companions. Boarder management could become a new business model for real estate agents as well as non-profits.

Please note: This article does not provide tax or financial advice. It is general in nature and should not be relied on for taxation or financial purposes.

Lyndall Bryant 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. Australia has an extraordinary 13 million spare bedrooms. Here’s how to use at least some of them to ease the housing crisis – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-an-extraordinary-13-million-spare-bedrooms-heres-how-to-use-at-least-some-of-them-to-ease-the-housing-crisis-239490

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerry Brown, Professor of Employment and Industry, School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

Should young people be paid less than their older counterparts, even if they’re working the same job? Whether you think it’s fair or not, it’s been standard practice in many industries for a long time.

The argument is that young people are not fully “work-ready” and require more intensive employer support to develop the right skills for their job.

But change could be on the horizon. Major unions and some politicians are pushing for reform – arguing “youth wages” should be scrapped entirely for adults.

Why? They say the need to be fairly paid for equal work effort, as well as economic considerations such as the high cost of living and ongoing housing crisis, mean paying young adults less based on their age is out of step with modern Australia.

So is there a problem with our current system, and if so, how might we go about fixing it?

What are youth wages?

In Australia, a youth wage or junior pay rate is paid as an increasing percentage of an award’s corresponding full adult wage until an employee reaches the age of 21.

This isn’t the case in every industry – some awards require all adults to be paid the same minimum rates.

But for those not covered by a specific award, as well as those working in industries including those covered by the General Retail Industry Award, Fast Food Industry Award and Pharmacy Industry Award, employees younger than 21 are not paid the full rate.

Why pay less?

Conventionally, junior rates have been thought of as a “training wage”. Younger people are typically less experienced, so as they gain more skills on the job over time, they are paid a higher hourly rate.

But there are a few key problems with this approach, which may not be relevant given many employers’ expectations for their workers to start “job-ready” and a lack of consistency in the training they provide.

Training up and developing skills is an important part of building any career. But it isn’t always provided by their employers.

Many young workers train themselves in job-related technical education and short courses, often at their own expense and prior to starting work.

Employers reap the benefit of this pre-employment training and so a “wage discount” for younger workers may be irrelevant in this instance.

None of this is to say employers aren’t offering something important when they take on young employees.

Younger workers coming into employment relatively early have access to more than just a paid job, but also become part of a team, with responsibilities and job requirements that support “bigger-picture” life skills.

Those who employ them may be contributing to their broader social and cultural engagement, something that could be considered part of a more inclusive training package. Whether that justifies a significant wage discount is less clear.

Read more:
Why real wages in Australia have fallen while they’ve risen in most other OECD countries

Calls for a rethink

There are growing calls for a rethink on the way we compensate young people for their efforts.

An application by the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association – the union for retail, fast food and warehousing workers – seeks to remove junior rates for adult employees on three key awards. This action will be heard by the Fair Work Commission next year.

Sally McManus, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said the peak union body will lobby the government to legislate such changes if this application fails. The Greens have added their support.

That doesn’t have to mean abolishing youth wages altogether. But 21 years of age is a high threshold, especially given we get the right to major adult responsibilities such as voting and driving by 18.

A transition strategy could consider gradually lowering this threshold, or increasing the wage percentages over time.

Lessons from New Zealand

We wouldn’t be the first to make such a bold change if we did.

Our geographically and culturally close neighbour, New Zealand, has already removed the “youth wage” – replacing it with a “first job” rate and a training wage set at 80% of the full award rate in 2008.

A common argument against abolishing youth wages – and increasing the minimum wage in general – is that it will stop businesses hiring young people and thus increase unemployment.

But a 2021 study that examined the effects of New Zealand’s experience with increasing minimum wages – including this change – found little discernible difference in employment outcomes for young workers.

The authors did note, however, that New Zealand’s economic downturn post-2008 had a marked effect on the employment of young workers more generally.

What’s fair?

It’s easy to see how we arrived at the case for paying younger adults less. But younger workers should not bear the burden of intergenerational inequity by “losing out” on wages in the early part of their working life.

The debate we see now echoes the discussions about equal pay for equal work value run in the 1960s and ‘70s in relation to women’s unequal pay.

We were warned that paying women the same as men would cause huge economic dislocation. Such a catastrophe simply did not come to pass.

Kerry Brown is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union.

– ref. There’s a renewed push to scrap junior rates of pay for young adults. Do we need to rethink what’s fair? – https://theconversation.com/theres-a-renewed-push-to-scrap-junior-rates-of-pay-for-young-adults-do-we-need-to-rethink-whats-fair-240548

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeremy Day, PhD researcher, University of Newcastle

Long-spined sea urchins have emerged as an environmental issue off Australia’s far south coast. Native to temperate waters around New South Wales, the urchins have expanded their range south as oceans warm. There, they devour kelp and invertebrates, leaving barren habitats in their wake.

Lobsters are widely accepted as sea urchins’ key predator. In efforts to control urchin numbers, scientists have been researching this predator-prey relationship. And the latest research by my colleagues and I, released today, delivered an unexpected result.

We set up several cameras outside a lobster den and placed sea urchins in it. We filmed at night for almost a month. When we checked the footage, most sea urchins had been eaten – not by lobsters, but by sharks.

This suggests sharks have been overlooked as predators of sea urchins in NSW. Importantly, sharks seem to very easily consume these large, spiky creatures – sometimes in just a few gulps! Our findings suggest the diversity of predators eating large sea urchins is broader than we thought – and that could prove to be good news for protecting our kelp forests.

A puzzling picture

The waters off Australia’s south-east are warming at almost four times the global average. This has allowed long-spined sea urchins (Centrostephanus rodgersii) to extend their range from NSW into waters off Victoria and Tasmania.

Sea urchins feed on kelp and in their march south, have reduced kelp cover. This has added to pressure on kelp forests, which face many threats.

Scientists have been looking for ways to combat the spread of sea urchins. Ensuring healthy populations of predators is one suggested solution.

Overseas research on different urchin species has focused on predators such as lobsters and large fish. It found kelp cover can be improved by protecting or reinstating these predators.

In NSW, eastern rock lobsters are thought to be important urchin predators. The species has been over-fished in the past but stocks have significantly bounced back in recent years.

But despite this, no meaningful reduction in urchin populations, or increase in kelp growth, has been observed in NSW.

Why not? Could it be that lobsters are not eating urchins in great numbers after all? Certainly, there is little empirical evidence on how often predators eat urchins in the wild.

What’s more, recent research in NSW suggested the influence of lobsters on urchin populations was low, while fish could be more important.

Our project aimed to investigate the situation further.

What we did

We tied 100 urchins to blocks outside a lobster den off in Wollongong for 25 nights. This tethering meant the urchins were easily available to predators and stayed within view of our cameras.

Then we set multiple cameras to remotely turn on at sunset and turn after sunrise each day, to capture nocturnal feeding. We used a red-filtered light to film the experiments because invertebrates don’t like the white light spectrum.

We expected our cameras would capture lobsters eating the urchins. But in fact, the lobsters showed little interest in the urchins and ate just 4% of them. They were often filmed walking straight past urchins in search of other food.

Sharks, however, were very interested in the urchins. Both crested horn sharks (Heterodontus galeatus) and Port Jackson sharks (H. portusjacksonii) entered the den and ate 45% of the urchins.

As the footage below shows, sharks readily handled very large urchins (wider then 12 centimetres) with no hesitation.

Until now, it was thought few or no predators could handle urchins of this size. Larger urchins have longer spines, thicker shells and attach more strongly to the seafloor, making them harder to eat.

But the sharks attacked urchins from their spiny side, showing little regard for their sharp defences. This approach differs from other predators, such as lobsters and wrasses, which often turn urchins over and attack them methodically from their more vulnerable underside.

In fact, some sharks were so eager to eat urchins, they started feeding before the cameras turned on at sunset. This meant we had to film by hand.

A complex food web

Our experiment showed the effect of lobsters on urchins in the wild is less than previously thought.
This may explain why efforts to encourage lobster numbers have not helped control urchin numbers.

We also revealed a little-considered urchin predator: sharks.

Lobsters are capable but hesitant predators, whereas sharks seem eager to eat urchins. And crested horn sharks are an abundant, hardy species that is not actively fished.

When interpreting these findings, however, a few caveats must be noted.

First, sharks (and lobsters) are not the only animals to prey on urchins. Other predators include bony fishes, and more are likely to be identified in future.

Second, other factors can control urchin numbers, such as storm damage and the influx of fresh water.

And finally, it is unsurprising that we found a key predator when we intentionally searched for it by laying out food. Tethering urchins creates an artificial environment. We don’t know if the results would be replicated in the wild.

And even though we now know some shark species eat sea urchins, we don’t yet know if they can control urchins numbers.

But our research does confirm predators capable of handling large urchins may be more widespread than previously thought.

Jeremy Day received funding from University of Newcastle, Ecological Society of Australia, Royal Zoological Soceity of New South Wales and Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.

– ref. New video shows sharks making an easy meal of spiky sea urchins, shedding light on an undersea mystery – https://theconversation.com/new-video-shows-sharks-making-an-easy-meal-of-spiky-sea-urchins-shedding-light-on-an-undersea-mystery-240205

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Prosser, Professor of Public Policy and Leadership, UNSW Sydney

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most diagnosed childhood neurological disorder in Australia.

Over the years, it has been the subject of controversy about potential misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. There has also been variation in levels of diagnosis and drug prescription, depending on where you live and your socioeconomic status.

To address these concerns and improve consistency in ADHD diagnosis and prescribing, the Australasian ADHD Professionals Association has released a new prescribing guide. This will help the health-care workforce to consistently get the right treatment to the right people, with the right mix of medical and non-medical supports.

Here’s how ADHD prescribing has changed over time and what the new guidelines mean.

What is ADHD and how is it treated?

Up to one in ten young Australians experience ADHD. It is diagnosed due to inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity that has negative effects at home, school or work.

Psychostimulant medication is a central pillar of ADHD treatment.

However, the internationally recognised approach is to combine medicines with non-medical interventions in a multimodal approach. These non-medical interventions include cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), occupational therapy, educational strategies and other supports.

Medication use has changed over time

In Australia, Ritalin (methylphenidate) was originally the most prescribed ADHD medication. This changed in the 1990s after the introduction of dexamphetamine, along with the subsequent availability of Vyvance (lisdexamfetamine).

Perhaps the most significant change has come with “slow release” versions of the above medications that can last more than eight hours (longer than a school day).

When following clinical guidelines, prescribing medication for ADHD is safe practice. Yet the use of amphetamines to treat young people with ADHD has caused public concern. This highlights the importance of consistent guidelines for prescribing professionals.

Growth in diagnosis and prescribing

Starting from low levels, there was a dramatic rise in diagnosis and drug treatment in the 1990s. Much of this was overseen by a small number of psychiatrists and paediatricians in each state or territory. While this promised the potential of consistency in the early days, it also raised concerns about best practice.

This led to the development of the first ADHD clinical guidelines by the National Medical Health and Research Council in 1997.

It was followed by several refinements as prescription expanded due to changing diagnostic criteria (expanding to include a dual diagnosis with autism) and the need for best practice with the growing prescription by GPs. These guidelines enhanced the consistency of approaches nationally and reduced the likelihood of misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis.

However, a recent Senate inquiry found diagnosis and drug treatment continued to grow substantially in the five years to 2022. It emphasised the need for a more consistent approach to diagnosis and prescribing.

First the ingredients, then the recipe

The most recent clinical guidelines, released by the Australasian ADHD Professionals Association in 2022, outlined a roadmap for ADHD clinical practice, research and policy. They did so by drawing on the lived experience of those with ADHD. They also emphasised broader health questions, such as how to respond to ADHD as a holistic condition.

It remains difficult to predict individual responses to different medication. So the new prescribing guide offers practical advice about safe and responsible prescribing. This aims to reduce the potential for incorrect prescribing, dosing and adjusting of ADHD medication, across different age groups, settings and individuals.

To put this visually, the clinical guidelines describe what the ingredients of the cake should be, while the prescribing guidelines provide step-by-step recipes.

So what do they recommend?

An important principle in both these documents is that medication should not be the first and only treatment. Not every drug works the same way for every child. In some cases they do not work at all.

The possible side effects of medication vary and include poor appetite, sleep problems, headaches, stomach aches, moodiness and irritability. These guidelines assist in adapting medication to reduce these side effects.

Medication provides an important window of opportunity for many young people to gain maximum value from psychosocial and psychoeducational supports. These supports can, among others, include:

• cognitive training
• CBT
• neurofeedback
• occupational therapy
• educational strategies
• ADHD coaching.

Support for ADHD can also include parent training. This is not to suggest parents cause ADHD. Rather, they can support more effective treatment, especially since the rigours of ADHD can be a challenge to even the “perfect” parent.

Getting the right diagnosis

There have been reports of people seeking to use TikTok to self-diagnose, as well as a rise in people using ADHD stimulants without a prescription.

However, the message from these new guidelines is that ADHD diagnosis is a complex process that takes a specialist at least three hours. Online sources might be useful to prompt people to seek help, but diagnosis should come from a qualified health-care professional.

Finally, while we have moved beyond unhelpful past debate about whether ADHD is real to consolidate best diagnostic and prescribing practice, there is some way to go in reducing stigma and changing negative community attitudes to ADHD.

Hopefully in future we’ll be better able to cherish diversity and difference, and not just see it as a deficit.

Brenton Prosser is a Board Member of the Council of Academic Public Health Institutions Australasia and affiliated with the School of Population Health at UNSW.

– ref. ADHD prescribing has changed over the years – a new guide aims to bring doctors up to speed – https://theconversation.com/adhd-prescribing-has-changed-over-the-years-a-new-guide-aims-to-bring-doctors-up-to-speed-240313

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Westaway, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Archaeology, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland

The NSW Education Standards Authority has announced that teaching of the Aboriginal past prior to European arrival will be excluded from the Year 7–10 syllabus as of 2027.

Since 2012, the topic “Ancient Australia” has been taught nationally in Year 7 as part of the Australian Curriculum. In 2022, a new topic called the “deep time history of Australia” was introduced to provide a more detailed study of 65,000 years of First Nations’ occupation of the continent.

However, New South Wales has surprisingly dropped this topic from its new syllabus, which will be rolled out in 2027. Instead, students will only learn First Nations’ history following European colonisation in 1788.

This directly undermines the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration of 2020. This is a national agreement, signed by education ministers from all jurisdictions, which states:

We recognise the more than 60,000 years [sic] of continual connection by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a key part of the nation’s history, present and future.

If the planned change to the syllabus goes through, the only Aboriginal history taught to NSW students would be that which reflects the destruction of traditional Aboriginal society. It also means Aboriginal students in NSW will be denied a chance to learn about their deep ancestral past.

The significance of Australia’s deep time past

Bruce Pascoe’s groundbreaking 2014 book Dark Emu (which sold more than 500,000 copies), and the associated documentary, have highlighted an enormous appetite for learning about Australia’s deep time past.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians engaged with Dark Emu. As anthropologist Paul Memmott notes, the book prompted a debate that encouraged a better understanding of Aboriginal society and its complexity.

It also generated research that investigated whether terms such as “hunter-gatherers” are appropriate for defining past Aboriginal society and economic systems.

Read more:
Farmers or foragers? Pre-colonial Aboriginal food production was hardly that simple

In schools, teachers have used Pascoe’s book Young Dark Emu to introduce students to sophisticated land and aquaculture systems used by First Peoples prior to colonisation.

The book raises an important question. If you lived in a country that invented bread and the edge-ground axe – a culture that independently developed early trade and social living – and did all of this without resorting to land war – wouldn’t you want your children to know about it?

For many students, the history they learn at school is knowledge they carry into their adult lives – and knowledge is the strongest antidote to ignorance. Rather than abandoning the Aboriginal deep time story, schools should be encouraging students to engage with it.

Learning on Country

One of the strengths of the current NSW history syllabus is the requirement for students to undertake a “site study” in Years 8 and 9. Currently, NSW is the only jurisdiction that has made this mandatory.

Site studies are an excellent opportunity for students to learn on Country. Many teachers organise excursions to Aboriginal cultural sites where students can directly engage with local Traditional Owners and Elders.

New South Wales is brimming with sites of cultural significance to Aboriginal people. The map below highlightssome of these, ranging from megafauna sites, to extensive fish traps, to the enigmatic rock art galleries and ceremonial engravings (petroglyphs).

How students will miss out

The Ngambaa people and archaeologists from the University of Queensland are currently investigating one of the largest midden complexes in Australia. This complex, located at Clybucca and Stuart’s Point on the north coast, spans some 14 kilometres and dates back to around 9,000 years ago.

Middens, or “living sites”, are accumulations of shell that were built over time through thousands of discarded seafood meals. Since the shells help reduce the acidic chemistry of the soil, animal bones and plant remains are more likely to be preserved in middens.

For instance, the Clybucca-Stuarts Point midden complex contains remains from seals and dugongs. Both of these animals were once part of the local ecosystem, but no longer are.

The middens also extend back to before the arrival of dingoes, so studying them could help us understand how biodiversity changed once dingoes replaced thylacines and Tasmanian devils on the mainland.

Local school students, especially Aboriginal students, will be actively participating in this cutting-edge research alongside the Ngambaa people, archaeologists and teachers. Among other things, the students will learn how the Ngambaa people sustainably managed land and sea Country over thousand of years during periods of dramatic environmental change.

But innovative programs like this will no longer be as relevant if Australia’s deep time history is removed from the NSW syllabus.

An opportunity for leadership

The study of First Nations archaeological sites, history and cultures tells us a broader human story of continuity and adaptability over deep time. Indigenising the curriculum – wherein Aboriginal knowledge is braided with historical and archaeological inquiry – is a powerful way to reconcile different approaches to understanding the past.

The NSW Education Standards Authority’s proposed changes risk sending young people the message that Australia’s “history” before colonisation is not an important part of the country’s historic narrative.

But there is still time to show leadership – by reversing the decisions and by connecting teachers and students to powerful stories from Australia’s deep time past.

Michael Westaway receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Humanities and Social Science at the University of Queensland .

Bruce Pascoe is the author of the texts mentioned in this article, Dark Emu and Young Dark Emu: A Truer History. He also has positions on the boards of Black Duck Foods, the Twofold Aboriginal Corporation and First Languages Australia.

Louise Zarmati receives research funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence of Australian Biodiversity and Heritage.

– ref. NSW will remove 65,000 years of Aboriginal history from its syllabus. It’s a step backwards for education – https://theconversation.com/nsw-will-remove-65-000-years-of-aboriginal-history-from-its-syllabus-its-a-step-backwards-for-education-240111

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Park Thaichon, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Southern Queensland

Building a home can come with hidden costs. Unfortunately, many people don’t think about these costs until it’s too late.

Some buyers succumb to the tricks marketers use to attract them, with upgrades and add-ons blowing out the cost.

Other costs relate to risks of delay, changes in borrowing conditions, unexpected taxes and fees, insurance, compliance with local development standards and even exit fees in some cases.

So let’s explore the sales tactics buyers need to beware of, as well as the five hidden costs of building new homes.

How marketers persuade us to build a home

Marketers of home-building packages use various strategies to attract buyers.

Attractive pricing and promotions

Marketers often attract first-time home buyers and young families by advertising low prices and showing off modern designs.

They will then offer an upgrade or value package. The most common examples we see are deals with, for example, a $30,000 credit on upgrading, $45,000 cashback, or an amazingly cheap house and land package.

Our research found consumers are likely to feel more surprised by higher levels of discounts in the case of high-involvement products such as a buying a house.

The marketers make it seem like you’re getting a great deal, with options to customise the house just the way you like. What they don’t always tell you is the advertised prices usually apply to the most basic version of the home.

Any upgrades, such as granite countertops or hardwood floors, cost more. Often, the base price does not include essential features such as curtains, ceiling fans or air conditioning.

These upgrades quickly add up to more than that $30,000 credit for upgrading or that $45,000 cashback offer. Buyers can end up paying much more than they planned.

Keep in mind most home-building companies act as middlemen who buy and outsource products. They are likely to add charges for most upgrades or fixtures you order through them.

A $200 price tag for a kitchen light bought directly from a retailer such as Beacon Lighting can cost you $300 from the builder. Costs like this add up for a whole house.

What can you do? Note down the code or name of the item and buy it directly. See if the builders can install fittings for a lower cost if you supply them.

Social media and influencers

Influencers can make the process look easy and fun. Our research on influencer marketing and human influencers and virtual influencers shows trusting followers are more likely to follow influencers’ suggestions.

An influencer might, for example, share a video of their “perfect day” in their new home, focusing on the perks without mentioning the hidden costs.

Special deals and time-limited offers like cashbacks are used to make buyers feel they have to act fast, without taking the time to think about the financial commitment. This strategy exploits the fear of missing out, or FOMO.

The goal is to get customers to quickly sign up with a $1,000–$5,000 deposit. That increases customer commitment and stops them backing out.

Carefully check the conditions of the deposit, as you can most likely back out with a full refund if you are not happy with the final price before the final contract is signed, or during a cooling-off period after signing.

What are the 5 hidden costs?

1. Changing interest rates over 30 years

Many home buyers think about interest rates when they get a mortgage, but they often do not consider how rates can change over the years. Even a small increase can mean paying thousands more over the life of the loan.

When buying a home, people hope for lower interest rates, though they cannot predict future economic conditions. The theory of optimism bias could explain why many of us have expectations about a future that’s more favourable to us.

What should temper this optimism is the fact that even seemingly small interest rate changes make a big difference over time. For example, a $700,000 loan over 30 years at 3.5% interest has a monthly repayment of $3,143.31. At 4.5% interest, the repayment becomes $3,546.80. That’s an extra $4,841.88 a year.

Understanding this can help families budget for possible changes and avoid financial stress later on.

2. Delay costs

Delays can happen due to weather, problems getting materials, or other unexpected issues. Timber shortages have affected home building since 2020.

The costs of delay can include having to rent a place to live while waiting for the home to be finished. Renting for three months, for instance, at the national average of $600 a week will cost more than $7,000.

3. Unexpected costs

Apart from predictable costs, such as the down payment and tax or transfer (stamp) duty, other smaller, unexpected costs can add up.

These include bank fees, solicitor fees, building and pest inspections, moving costs, utility connections and home and contents insurance.

These are all essential to ensure the home is safe and secure. But the cost can easily top $5,000.

4. Standardised costs

Many new housing developments have rules about what owners can and cannot do with their property.

These rules might specify paint colours, fence types or landscaping choices, such as planting a set number of large trees.

A development might require home owners to use certain types of trees or materials for driveways, costing an extra $2,000.

More often than not, the land developer will require a refundable deposit of about $1,000–$5,000 when you buy the land for your home. It’s only refunded once the developer has confirmed you have met all the conditions. If you don’t, you won’t get your money back.

Before buying an apartment, first find out how much you have to pay in strata fees and other fixed or ongoing costs.

5. Exit costs

In rare cases, selling the property might attract exit fees. For example, if an owner sells their house within five years, they might face a $5,000 penalty fee for selling early.

This can be an unpleasant surprise and cause problems for families who need to move quickly due to a job change or other life events.

Make sure you read all the conditions of sale before signing.

A market in need of greater transparency

Knowing about these hidden costs of building a home helps avoid unexpected expenses and makes the process less stressful.

For policymakers and advocates, these costs highlight the need for fair marketing practices and rules that protect buyers from financial surprises.

Ensuring more transparency in this market can help make home ownership more affordable and accessible for everyone.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The hidden costs of building a home: what every family should know – https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-costs-of-building-a-home-what-every-family-should-know-237870

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Nicole Driessen, Postdoctoral researcher in radio astronomy, University of Sydney

The days are getting longer and in Australia, the switch to daylight saving time is almost upon us (for about 70% of the population, anyway).

But why do we have longer days in summer and shorter days in winter?

It’s all about the tilt

Earth goes around the Sun in an almost circular orbit. But not everything is lined up perfectly. Earth’s axis is tilted by 23.44 degrees relative to its orbit around the Sun.

Imagine Earth’s orbit as a flat frisbee with the Sun in the middle and Earth as a ball on a stick going around the edge.

If Earth’s axis wasn’t tilted (if its tilt was zero degrees) the stick would be exactly perpendicular to the frisbee. If you grab that perpendicular stick and tip it 23.44 degrees sideways, that’s what Earth’s tilt looks like now.

As Earth orbits the Sun, the tilt of the stick does not rotate relative to the Sun. If you were in outer space looking at the Sun and you watched from the exact same position for a whole year, you would see Earth go around the Sun while the stick stayed tilted the same direction.

In other words, if the top of the stick was pointing to the right when you started watching Earth go around the Sun, it would stay pointing to the right the whole way around.

This tilt gives us longer days in summer and shorter days in winter. Let’s set up the scenario so the Northern Hemisphere is the top of the planet and the Southern Hemisphere is the bottom of the planet.

When Earth is on one side of the Sun, the top of the stick is pointed towards the Sun. This is summer in the Northern Hemisphere and winter in the Southern Hemisphere. Six months later, when Earth is on the other side of the Sun, the bottom of the stick is pointed towards the Sun – and the seasons are reversed.

Solstices and equinoxes

Those two points, when the top of the stick is pointing directly towards the Sun or directly away from the Sun, are the solstices. They are the longest and shortest days of the year, depending on your hemisphere.

The shortest day of 2024 in Australia was June 21. Looking forward to sunnier times, the longest day of the year in 2024 will be December 21.

In between the summer and winter solstice, we have the equinoxes – when days and nights are almost exactly the same length. Those are the days when the stick through Earth is “side-on” to the Sun. The equinox is also the day when the Sun passes directly over Earth’s equator. In 2024 this happened on March 20 at 2:06pm AEDT and September 22 at 10:43pm AEST.

That means that since September 22, days have been getting longer than nights in the Southern Hemisphere.

What does daylight saving do?

Earth’s tilt means the Sun both rises earlier and sets later as we head towards summer. When the clocks (in some states) switch to daylight saving time, people in these states all get one hour less of sleep. However, the total length of the day doesn’t change just because we changed our clocks.

For me, daylight saving means I need an extra cup of coffee in the morning for about a week before I adjust to the daylight saving-lag (like jet lag, but without the fun of travel).

What it really gives us is more daylight in the evening, instead of more daylight in the morning. If you’re already a morning person, this isn’t the way to go. But if you prefer to have a long dinner in the summer sun it’s ideal.

Has it always been this way?

Earth’s axis hasn’t always been tilted at 23.44 degrees. It cycles from a minimum 22.1 degree tilt to a maximum 24.5 degree tilt and back again once every approximately 41,000 years.

Earth’s axis also “precesses”, where the stick through it draws a circle once every approximately 26,000 years. You can see this in the animation below.

The length of a day on Earth hasn’t always been the same, either.

At the moment, the length of a day is nearly exactly 24 hours. But it’s shifting all the time by tiny amounts. This is tracked very closely by a system of telescopes and satellites. These systems measure “Earth orientation parameters” that describe Earth’s exact orientation compared to the position of stars in the sky.

These are important to astronomers because the exact location of our telescopes is important for creating accurate maps of the sky. On top of all of this, the gravitational drag from the Moon causes days to become longer by around 2.3 milliseconds every 100 years. A few billion years ago, Earth’s day was a lot shorter – only 19 hours long.

Even though some of us are losing an hour of sleep this weekend, at least we get to enjoy 2.3 milliseconds longer every day than our great – and great-great – grandparents did.

Laura Nicole Driessen is a brand ambassador for the Rise & Shine Education Orbit Centre of Imagination.

– ref. Daylight saving is about to start. But why do the days get longer? – https://theconversation.com/daylight-saving-is-about-to-start-but-why-do-the-days-get-longer-240221

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Nicole Driessen, Postdoctoral researcher in radio astronomy, University of Sydney

The days are getting longer and in Australia, the switch to daylight saving time is almost upon us (for about 70% of the population, anyway).

But why do we have longer days in summer and shorter days in winter?

It’s all about the tilt

Earth goes around the Sun in an almost circular orbit. But not everything is lined up perfectly. Earth’s axis is tilted by 23.44 degrees relative to its orbit around the Sun.

Imagine Earth’s orbit as a flat frisbee with the Sun in the middle and Earth as a ball on a stick going around the edge.

If Earth’s axis wasn’t tilted (if its tilt was zero degrees) the stick would be exactly perpendicular to the frisbee. If you grab that perpendicular stick and tip it 23.44 degrees sideways, that’s what Earth’s tilt looks like now.

As Earth orbits the Sun, the tilt of the stick does not rotate relative to the Sun. If you were in outer space looking at the Sun and you watched from the exact same position for a whole year, you would see Earth go around the Sun while the stick stayed tilted the same direction.

In other words, if the top of the stick was pointing to the right when you started watching Earth go around the Sun, it would stay pointing to the right the whole way around.

This tilt gives us longer days in summer and shorter days in winter. Let’s set up the scenario so the Northern Hemisphere is the top of the planet and the Southern Hemisphere is the bottom of the planet.

When Earth is on one side of the Sun, the top of the stick is pointed towards the Sun. This is summer in the Northern Hemisphere and winter in the Southern Hemisphere. Six months later, when Earth is on the other side of the Sun, the bottom of the stick is pointed towards the Sun – and the seasons are reversed.

Solstices and equinoxes

Those two points, when the top of the stick is pointing directly towards the Sun or directly away from the Sun, are the solstices. They are the longest and shortest days of the year, depending on your hemisphere.

The shortest day of 2024 in Australia was June 21. Looking forward to sunnier times, the longest day of the year in 2024 will be December 21.

In between the summer and winter solstice, we have the equinoxes – when days and nights are almost exactly the same length. Those are the days when the stick through Earth is “side-on” to the Sun. The equinox is also the day when the Sun passes directly over Earth’s equator. In 2024 this happened on March 20 at 2:06pm AEDT and September 22 at 10:43pm AEST.

That means that since September 22, days have been getting longer than nights in the Southern Hemisphere.

What does daylight savings do?

Earth’s tilt means the Sun both rises earlier and sets later as we head towards summer. When the clocks (in some states) switch to daylight saving time, people in these states all get one hour less of sleep. However, the total length of the day doesn’t change just because we changed our clocks.

For me, daylight savings means I need an extra cup of coffee in the morning for about a week before I adjust to the daylight savings-lag (like jet lag, but without the fun of travel).

What it really gives us is more daylight in the evening, instead of more daylight in the morning. If you’re already a morning person, this isn’t the way to go. But if you prefer to have a long dinner in the summer sun it’s ideal.

Has it always been this way?

Earth’s axis hasn’t always been tilted at 23.44 degrees. It cycles from a minimum 22.1 degree tilt to a maximum 24.5 degree tilt and back again once every approximately 41,000 years.

Earth’s axis also “precesses”, where the stick through it draws a circle once every approximately 26,000 years. You can see this in the animation below.

The length of a day on Earth hasn’t always been the same, either.

At the moment, the length of a day is nearly exactly 24 hours. But it’s shifting all the time by tiny amounts. This is tracked very closely by a system of telescopes and satellites. These systems measure “Earth orientation parameters” that describe Earth’s exact orientation compared to the position of stars in the sky.

These are important to astronomers because the exact location of our telescopes is important for creating accurate maps of the sky. On top of all of this, the gravitational drag from the Moon causes days to become longer by around 2.3 milliseconds every 100 years. A few billion years ago, Earth’s day was a lot shorter – only 19 hours long.

Even though some of us are losing an hour of sleep this weekend, at least we get to enjoy 2.3 milliseconds longer every day than our great – and great-great – grandparents did.

Laura Nicole Driessen is a brand ambassador for the Rise & Shine Education Orbit Centre of Imagination.

– ref. Daylight savings is about to start. But why do the days get longer? – https://theconversation.com/daylight-savings-is-about-to-start-but-why-do-the-days-get-longer-240221

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Harris, Professor of Corporate Law, University of Sydney

Capitalism without insolvency is like Christianity without Hell.

Those were the words of former Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman, speaking as chairman of Eastern Airlines in the United States in the early 1980s.

That company later entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy itself, in an attempt to deal with a staggering amount of debt.

We all know what it means to run out of money, but what exactly is bankruptcy? It’s certainly been in the news a lot.

Tupperware filed for it last month. Two Australian airlines have become insolvent this year, and other Australian businesses have been going under at record rates.

So how do companies go bankrupt – and what is bankruptcy protection under the law? What’s the famous Chapter 11? And is bankruptcy the end of the road?

What exactly is bankruptcy?

Sometimes, a person or company can’t pay all of their debts as they arise. In legal terms, we call this being “insolvent”.

Receiving a large bill (such as a large tax bill) that you can’t pay on the day doesn’t necessarily make you insolvent. The law allows for a reasonable time to pay bills after receiving an invoice.

But if large numbers of bills remain unpaid weeks or months after their due dates, it begins to suggest a person or business isn’t paying them because they actually can’t.

Being unable to pay all of your debts makes you an insolvent debtor. Bankruptcy is the legal process that allows insolvent debtors to fairly resolve these debts.

In Australia, insolvent individuals can file a bankruptcy petition with the Official Receiver in bankruptcy, a statutory office that is part of the Australian Financial Security Authority.

A creditor who is owed at least $10,000 can also force another person into bankruptcy, by suing them in court and obtaining an order to make them bankrupt.

For companies that can’t pay their debts, there are several options, including liquidation, voluntary administration and restructuring. More on these later.

We let an expert take control

When a person or company goes bankrupt, an independent external expert (or team of experts) is appointed to manage their assets and debt.

For individuals, we call this person a registered bankruptcy trustee. In the case of corporate bankruptcies, we call them a registered liquidator.

In both cases, the expert will take control of the debtor’s assets and affairs. They’ll be looking closely at why the debtor needed to declare bankruptcy in the first place, and whether anything can be sold to generate cash so at least some of the debt can be repaid.

When a person goes bankrupt, not everything is up for grabs. The law allows them to retain some basic essentials, such as clothes, furniture, tools of their trade, and a car valued at less than $9,400.

Some categories of assets can also be exempt, such as superannuation and compensation for personal injuries.

There are no similar extensions for corporate insolvency. All of a company’s assets are on the table.

However, both types of debtor typically enter bankruptcy with few or no assets. In more than 80% of individual and corporate bankruptcy cases, there are no payments to the creditors they owe.

Why seek bankruptcy protection?

One key feature of formally filing for bankruptcy is that it imposes a “stay” on enforcement action against the debtor. This is a court order that gives the party owing money time to organise its affairs in an orderly way – such as by selling assets to raise cash.

In corporate insolvency, there are formal procedures under Australia’s Corporations Act that aim to give a company the opportunity to negotiate a deal with its creditors.

That might include formulating a plan to restructure, allowing it to exit insolvency and keep trading. But it could also include selling the business to a new owner so it can continue.

Some large Australian companies, including Virgin Australia and Channel Ten, have previously used “voluntary administration” to save their businesses.

Voluntary administration can give a company a chance to reduce its debts through a statutory compromise with creditors called a “deed of company arrangement”.

This involves the majority of a company’s creditors approving a deal – usually, to compromise on some of their debt in exchange for a promise of future payments.

The funds to make these payments might come from selling assets, or be a percentage of promised future profits.

If successful, this can allow a company to keep operating and minimise job losses that would otherwise occur if it were simply shut down and its assets sold off – known as being “liquidated”.

Once liquidated, a company will be deregistered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission – that is, it will cease to exist as a separate company.

What is Chapter 11 bankruptcy?

You’ll often hear or read about companies filing for “Chapter 11” bankruptcy. This is because in the US, there is one law – the Bankruptcy Code 1978 – that covers both individuals and companies.

Just like we’ve discussed in the Australian context, Chapter 11 of that law is specifically aimed at giving debtor companies a chance to enter into a deal with their creditors – to reduce their debts, sell some or all of the assets and hopefully allow at least part of the business to continue operating.

This is what Tupperware did last month, following years of financial pressure.

Where the law differs between Australia and the US is in the fact that Chapter 11 allows the debtor company’s management to remain in charge of the bankruptcy process. We call this “debtor-in-possession”.

In Australia, in contrast, the liquidator – which acts as the administrator in a voluntary administration – remains in control of the company.

Filing for bankruptcy can signal the end of a company’s operations, but not always. It may be possible for an external administrator to try to save the business or sell some or all of it to a new owner, paying down debt and preserving jobs.

This article is part of The Conversation’s “Business Basics” series where we ask experts to discuss key concepts in business, economics and finance.

Jason Harris is an academic member of the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association.

– ref. What is bankruptcy? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-bankruptcy-239393

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

This time a year ago, we were on the cusp of the October 14 Voice referendum. Most players were already aware it was doomed. Less understood was just how far-reaching would be the impact of what, in retrospect, was a massive miscalculation by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

In his maiden speech in 1996, Albanese declared multiculturalism and reconciliation with Indigenous Australians would be “one of my primary concerns”, but he was not publicly prominent on Aboriginal issues after that, as he rose through Labor’s ranks.

So it came as surprise to some that he invested so much political capital in pledging, especially on election night in 2022, to deliver the Uluru Statement from the Heart “in full”, with the constitutional Voice the first and most significant step.

By mid-2023, the battle for the Voice was absorbing an enormous amount of the government’s attention and distracting it from the cost-of-living issue. For many ordinary voters, increasingly preoccupied with their mortgages and other bills, this was baffling as well as frustrating.

When the overwhelming loss came – six in ten people voted no – it was as if the government’s balloon had popped. What had all this effort been for? Not just nothing, but worse than nothing. The referendum gamble had knocked the stuffing out of both the government and the quest for reconciliation.

Albanese was left depleted. The government had wasted time (never mind the money) that could have been devoted to other things, including working up other policies for Aboriginal people. The defeat was followed by a federal retreat on Indigenous affairs.

Indigenous leaders were shattered, and local communities shocked and disillusioned.
A year on, and blame continues to be thrown about, and shifted. Megan Davis, one of the drafters of the Uluru statement, told the Weekend Australian, “We were sidelined […] The Uluru statement was issued to the Australian people. It was an appeal to them. That got lost in the bread and butter adversarial tussle.”

Davis and other Indigenous leaders were certainly not “sidelined”. The Albanese government elevated what they said over pragmatic considerations. For instance, when Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus wanted to tinker with some detail of the referendum wording, that was effectively vetoed by the Indigenous advisers.

Moreover, while it’s true “adversarial politics” helped stymie the referendum – though that was not the only reason for its defeat – leading Indigenous figures were on both sides of those adversarial politics. Peter Dutton’s opposition dealt the Voice a major blow, but it was Indigenous senator Jacinta Price who was the standout “no” advocate in the campaign.

Indigenous leaders blame the opposition, scare campaigns, disinformation and an ineffective effort from the government. All were factors in the loss. But the “yes” side had money, high profile non-Indigenous activists, and much big business support.

Fundamentally, the story of the Voice is a tale of overreach. Overreach by Albanese. Overreach by Indigenous leaders.

Albanese deluded himself that people would vote for something that wasn’t properly defined, that he could sell it as much on emotion as on practicalities. He underestimated the potency of the argument that no group should be given a special position (which is different from special recognition) in the constitution. He did not take on board that, in the minds of many voters, the “fair go” coin would have two sides.

The Indigenous leaders promoting the Uluru statement were committed to having both recognition and the Voice put into the constitution. They refused to accept that in politics, second best can sometimes be first best – or the only best you can get.

Just think where we might be if they – Albanese, the Voice leaders – had taken another tack. If Albanese had said to those leaders, “Constitutional change is extraordinarily hard – it’s likely beyond my political sway to deliver you all you want.” And if the leaders had said, “We’ll settle for a legislated Voice in this term, and a referendum confined to recognition.”

We would by now have had the Voice operating, giving advice and feedback on policy and programs. Yes, it would have been subject to the risk of abolition by a later government, but that would not have been inevitable.

A referendum just for constitutional recognition would have had a reasonable prospect of passing. Even if it didn’t pass, the Voice would be there.

In the past year, Albanese has shrugged off his preoccupation with Indigenous Affairs as quickly as he seemed to embrace the issue so fervently. The truth-telling Makarrata Commission, despite having budget funding, has been redefined as a process, not the tangible entity it was to be.

More funding for Indigenous housing, education and some other areas has been announced. Albanese is promoting economic empowerment for communities, which is desirable, but we won’t know for some time how this goes. More generally, as Davis says, there has been a distinct shift of Indigenous policy back towards the states, which is problematic at best.

The pro-Voice Indigenous leaders, who included the well-respected Noel Pearson, dropped their bundle after the defeat. It is unclear how the next generation of leaders will fare in promoting the interests of First Australians, particularly in seeking solutions to the so-far intractable problems in remote communities.

Michael Dillon, a former federal public servant and former staffer to Labor Indigenous affairs ministers Clyde Holding, Gerry Hand and Jenny Macklin, says: “In retrospect, the Voice will be seen as the transition point between the old [Indigenous] leadership and the new. The leaders coming through are yet to find their voice and their stride. And this is creating an unfortunate vacuum for Aboriginal aspirations.”

There are other concerns that have emerged in the wake of the overreach that crashed.

We are seeing a backlash against some of the Indigenous recognition that grew in recent years. “Welcome to country” ceremonies at football matches and elsewhere are being questioned. A small thing in itself perhaps, but a symptom.

It remains to be seen if this backlash turns into a wider questioning. It may, at least if the Coalition has its way.

Critics look at failures in Indigenous self-determination as a policy, bringing pressures for a more assimilationist approach. This is the stance of Price, who is shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, though she rejects the depiction.

The brutal truth is that Australia’s Indigenous people find themselves in a worse position than if Albanese had not made that election promise he could not deliver. Hubris, even if linked to good intentions, can cause a lot of hurt.

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: As the anniversary of the Voice vote nears, the high costs of Albanese’s misjudgement are clear – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-as-the-anniversary-of-the-voice-vote-nears-the-high-costs-of-albaneses-misjudgement-are-clear-240347

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Arrow, Professor of History, Macquarie University

Women have long turned to the past to understand their place in the present. Many “great women” of history have served as role models and sources of inspiration –though the specific women celebrated have changed over time.

In the past, historians immortalised “women worthies” such as queens and saints. Today, the roster is broader and more diverse, though the purpose is the same: to elevate and educate.

Belvoir St Theatre’s Well-Behaved Women promises a show of uplifting entertainment, in which a series of songs “celebrate the ways in which their bad-ass behaviour helped them make history”. The show, directed by Blazey Best, involves a series of performances on an uncluttered stage accompanied by three musicians.

Although it is described as a musical, the show feels closer to a cabaret. Four excellent performers (Zahra Newman, Stefanie Caccamo, Elenoa Rokobaro and Ursula Yovich) play 16 women in total, from Eve, to Cleopatra, to Malala Yousafzai and Cathy Freeman.

Spotlight on strong women

It gestures to traditions of feminist theatre which mined history for stories of women’s oppression and resistance, such as the 1972 Australian feminist performance Betty Can Jump.

It also sits within a contemporary wave of plays that dramatise the lives of famous women, such as Suzie Miller’s RBG: Of Many, One and Joanna Murray-Smith’s Julia. These “you go girl” shows share a few hallmarks: they celebrate singular women rather than the movements that enabled them, and they don’t dig too deeply into their flaws.

Well-Behaved Women provides a twist on this formula by telling a series of stories entirely through song (together with judicious use of onstage screens). The songs tend to either tell a story from the woman’s life, or convey an emotional state that helps understand her life.

The women, depicted through broad female archetypes, are either victims of the patriarchy or defiant in the face of it.

Musically striking, but lyrically a letdown

The variety of musical genres drawn from adds a further layer of interpretation: Ursula Yovich’s warrior Boudicca conjures Tina Turner in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, while Stefanie Caccamo’s number about Shakespeare’s imagined sister, with its refrain of “poor Judith”, resembles a folk ballad.

Composer and lyricist Carmel Dean is an Australian who has worked in the United States for many years, so the first version of this show (performed in New York) included songs about Eleanor Roosevelt and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The Australian version has replaced these with tributes to Australian women including Grace Tame, Julia Gillard and swimmers Fanny Durack and Mina Wylie.

One song, Fruit Bowl, pokes fun at the media’s obsession with Gillard’s empty fruit bowl captured in an at-home photoshoot. This song got the biggest applause of the night.

The four performers filled the Belvoir space with their powerful voices. Their performances were moving and, at times, very funny.

Musically, the show has diversity and range. Lyrically, however, the limitations of its omnibus structure became clear. Many of the songs were direct, even didactic –which is perhaps to be expected in such a production.

But in a show about women’s experiences, in all their complexity and variety, perhaps greater subtlety in the lyrics was in order. The lack of a strong narrative structure also left some of the songs adrift: I felt Billie Jean King’s number, for example, might have been better replaced by one about another Australian woman.

History, polished and packaged

As an historian, I was left wondering: what kind of history does this tell? We’re presented with 16 different stories of well-known women from the past, but to what end? If you ask the audience – who responded with enthusiastic applause and a standing ovation – they would probably tell you it was a highly entertaining and inspiring night out.

Well-Behaved Women is certainly a showcase for its talented performers, who demonstrate range and virtuosity. But it reminded me of those feminist children’s books that have become popular over the last few years.

These books have responded to a growing desire for feminist role models for children – but they also represent a tendency to smooth off feminism’s jagged edges for broader consumption.

This show performs a similar feat. There’s no reason women’s history can’t be entertaining, but we would do well to ponder what we might lose alongside the nuance.

Michelle Arrow receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Well-Behaved Women: this cabaret-esque celebration of women icons is musically delightful – but historically lacking – https://theconversation.com/well-behaved-women-this-cabaret-esque-celebration-of-women-icons-is-musically-delightful-but-historically-lacking-238572

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

The International Monetary Fund has endorsed the Reserve Bank’s tough monetary policy – while warning rates might need to rise again if the fight against inflation stalls.

A report after IMF staff visited Australia, issued on Thursday, says the economy is resilient but faces challenges, including significant risks from abroad.

“Growth has slowed; while inflation is retreating from its peak, it remains elevated as demand-supply imbalances persist particularly in sectors like rents, new dwellings and insurance,” the report says.

A “modest” recovery is predicted for next year, taking growth from 1.2% in 2024 to 2.1% for 2025, marked by improvement in real incomes and resilient labour markets. But growth “will remain below its potential rate until 2026, when it is forecast to converge to 2.3%”.

“Near-term policies should continue to focus on reducing inflation while nurturing economic growth, ” the IMF says.

The Reserve Bank’s “continued restrictive monetary policy stance aimed at combating persistent inflation is appropriate”.

Underlying inflation is expected to sustainably return to the RBA’s target range of 2-3% at the end of next year, “with underlying price pressures easing only slowly”.

“Should disinflation stall, policies may need to be further tightened while preserving targeted support to vulnerable households amid rising living costs,” the report says.

It notes “underlying price pressures remain elevated”, pointing to rents, new dwellings, and insurance”.

“While acute demand and supply imbalances in the housing market have begun to ease, national house prices have surpassed pandemic-era peaks and the momentum persists, with rents also rising significantly.”

“Addressing the housing affordability challenges requires a holistic approach to tackle the continued supply shortfall.”

The IMF stresses the need for improving productivity, with enhanced competition and innovation. AI technology should be leveraged “responsibly” and the climate transition navigated strategically.

“Efforts to rejuvenate Australia’s productivity growth, including through competition policy, should be prioritised, focusing on reforms across capital and labor markets.”

The IMF welcomes the second consecutive surplus, for 2023-24, announced this week.

It also backs the proposed new Monetary Policy Board for the Reserve Bank, which is so far blocked because of a lack of parliamentary support. The IMF says the policy is in line with international best practices. It would “bolster central bank operational autonomy and enhance monetary-fiscal policy synergies”.

The IMF advocates tax reforms to promote efficiency and fairness. They should reduce “reliance on direct taxes and high capital costs that hinder growth.

“Tax breaks, including from capital gains tax discount and superannuation concessions, could be phased out to generate a more equitable and efficient tax system.”

The IMF says coming environmental and demographic changes “will put structural upwards pressures on government spending.

“Expenditure reforms should therefore aim to enhance spending efficiency and sustainability,” the IMF says.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the IMF had endorsed the government’s economic management.

“The government’s primary focus is to get on top of our inflation challenge without ignoring the risks to growth and the IMF has backed this strategy.”

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. IMF endorses RBA high interest rates and warns a further hike might be needed if the inflation fight stalls – https://theconversation.com/imf-endorses-rba-high-interest-rates-and-warns-a-further-hike-might-be-needed-if-the-inflation-fight-stalls-240443

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Clifton, Associate Professor of Practice, School of Health Sciences and the Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney

It’s about time city councils did more to make our cities accessible. I recently tried to buy tickets to two Sydney Fringe Festival events, only to be told by the box office that the venues were not wheelchair-accessible.

Sydney remains a place where people with disability feel like they don’t belong. The same is true of other Australian cities. But local councils don’t bear all the blame.

Event organisers are responsible for selecting venues. In the case of the Fringe Festival, they chose locations inaccessible to wheelchair users and others with mobility challenges. It’s a bitter irony that a fringe festival, which ostensibly empowers artists and creatives on the margins, would exclude people with disability.

If event organisers (and every one of us) decided never to hire inaccessible venues, then the market might solve the issue. But those of us with disability are realistic enough to know most people don’t care – or don’t give us a thought. The market hasn’t solved the problem, so it’s up to governments.

The problems go beyond arts venues

Inaccessible venues are only the tip of the iceberg. Countless restaurants, shops and offices are inaccessible, with steps on entry, inaccessible bathrooms and narrow and cluttered aisles.

“Spend the day in my wheelchair” programs are sometimes criticised for trivialising the challenge of disability. However, they do unmask how frustrating and alienating our cities and towns can be.

Google Maps now indicates whether premises are accessible. Those that are bear the universal symbol of disability access – the stylised blue wheelchair. Even then, a person with a disability is just as likely as not to turn up and discover a lift has broken down, a doorway has been blocked off, a bathroom has been used for storage, or a venue is only partially accessible (it’s always the cool spaces that are out of reach).

The Commonwealth and states brought in disability discrimination laws in the 1990s. These have made some difference, but their many exemptions let businesses off the hook. (See the Disability Royal Commission’s recommendations to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.)

More than 30 years down the track, our cities and towns remain bastions of exclusion.

Read more:
What does a building need to call itself ‘accessible’ – and is that enough?

Better access benefits everyone

Landowners and businesses typically complain providing access for the few affected people is too costly. In reality, making our public spaces accessible often requires little more than determined creative design. The costs are a mere fraction of what we spend on other things we judge as more important.

We also underestimate the value added by accessible design.

The Kerb-Cut Effect, for example, describes how designing for people with disability often benefits everyone. The term refers to the impact of activist action in California in the 1970s. Disability advocates in the city of Berkeley poured concrete onto road kerbs to create ramps giving wheelchair users access to footpaths.

These ramps also proved valuable to parents pushing children in strollers, older people and cyclists. Refined into kerb cuts, they spread rapidly around the world.

There are many other examples. Television captioning, developed for people who are deaf and hard of hearing, is now widely used by non-disabled people. Audiobooks, developed for people who are blind, are now a common way that many other people enjoy books.

Accessible venues will not just benefit wheelchair users. Older people, those with impaired mobility and people who push prams and tow suitcases all benefit. Indeed, if we make venues accessible to those on the margins, no one is excluded.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities highlights the importance of universal design. The convention insists on

the design of products, environments, programs and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design.

Why use steps that exclude some people when everyone can use a ramp or a lift?

Why councils must lead the way

Accessibility in cities is about more than just wheelchairs; it requires a comprehensive approach to urban planning to meet the varied needs of all citizens. This includes providing sensory aids like audio signals, braille signage and visual measures for people who are blind, deaf or hard of hearing. It’s also crucial that information on public services and events is easily available to everyone in formats they can access and understand.

My focus has been on access to public spaces, but we also need to turn our attention to private homes. Wheelchair users and people with other mobility impairments can’t access most private houses in Australia. There is a drastic lack of accessible housing for people with disability and the cost of retrofitting access is exorbitant.

New South Wales is yet to follow the lead of other states and territories by signing up to the Silver Liveable Housing Design Standards. These standards are part of the revised National Construction Code. They require new housing developments to offer basic accessibility for all people.

We can and must do better. Every level of government can contribute to change.

However, new builds and renovations are often decided upon at the regional level. This means local councils should bear much of the responsibility.

A determined effort by our mayors and councillors to insist premises are accessible will be better for everyone. From a selfish perspective, it might mean I could go out to dinner or a festival without worrying if I can get in the door.

Shane Clifton is affiliated with the Centre for Disability Research and Policy at the University of Sydney.

– ref. When even fringe festival venues exclude people with disability, cities need to act on access – https://theconversation.com/when-even-fringe-festival-venues-exclude-people-with-disability-cities-need-to-act-on-access-239937