Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Bertram, Visiting Scholar, School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Economists working on macroeconomic policy – things like taxes and spending, interest rates and border controls on flows of trade and money – often refer to a set of key relationships governments can influence. In the textbooks, each of those relationships is drawn as a curve in a graph.

First is the IS (“investment–saving”) curve. This says that if everything else stays the same, the Reserve Bank can increase economic output and employment by lowering the interest rate. Or it can cause a recession by raising the interest rate. (For simplicity’s sake, the curves here are depicted as straight lines.)

Second comes the Phillips Curve, which is usually drawn sloping upwards to suggest that if everything else stays the same, inflation will rise during economic booms and fall in recessions. In other words, the Reserve Bank or the government can apparently bring inflation down by causing a recession.

Third comes the trade balance – the current account of the balance of payments (investment income and traded goods and services between New Zealand and the rest of the world).

If everything else stays the same here, as the exchange rate of the dollar falls, the current account strengthens by moving towards or expanding a surplus. If the exchange rate rises, the current account weakens: exports fall and imports increase.

However, it’s a mistake to suppose each of these relationships will stay where it is while the government and Reserve Bank each tinker with their own policy settings. So, what could go wrong?

The effect of austerity

Start with the IS curve – the way output and employment are affected by interest rates, assuming the government makes no big budgetary changes. But what if the government embarks on an austerity program, slashing its spending and cancelling projects, which shrinks the economy?

At any given interest rate, output and employment will be lower, shifting the whole curve “leftwards” towards lower economic activity (see above).

Even if the Reserve Bank lowers the interest rate, that won’t expand the economy because the government’s fiscal policy is killing off its expansionary effect. The recession created by the austerity program rolls on.

Along the way, it increases costs to government from unemployment, paying other benefits, and lower tax revenue. If the government responds with further austerity, we enter a downward self-reinforcing spiral.

Wages and inflation

Second, take the Phillips Curve and ask what happens if inflation isn’t, in fact, sensitive to how the economy is doing.

In this case, driving the economy into recession has no effect on the inflation rate. When the Reserve Bank changes the interest rate, inflation just stays where it is because the Phillips Curve is flat, not upward-sloping. Reducing inflation requires completely different policy interventions.

Back when the Phillips Curve was invented, it was reasonable to think inflation fell during recessions because workers could get higher wage increases in booms than in slumps.

Bringing on a recession would reduce the bargaining power of workers, result in slower wage growth, and thereby tame inflation (given that wages are an important part of the costs of production).

But workers today have lost the bargaining power they used to have when unions were strong and welfare-state thinking prevailed.

In a paper fellow economist Bill Rosenberg and I published this year, we show the bargaining power of labour was killed off in 1991 by the Employment Contracts Act and has not recovered since. Wages no longer drive inflation in contemporary New Zealand.

Interest rates and inflation

Could the Phillips Curve work because producers of goods and services push up prices and profits faster in booms and cut their margins in recessions?

It’s possible: there’s plenty of evidence of big companies using their market power to price-gouge consumers. But it’s not clear this exercise of market power is greater in booms and lesser in slumps.

In fact, the opposite could be true. Small businesses are most likely to be driven out of the market in recessions, leaving big companies with increased market share and less competitive pressure on their margins.

Forces both locally and in international markets have clearly been pushing the Phillips Curve down, producing lower inflation. Local forces include the current government’s abrupt cancellation of major construction activities, dismissal of public servants, the constant negative messaging on the state of the economy, and rising outward migration as a consequence of all these.

International markets, including falling prices for imports such as oil, have also clearly been pushing the Phillips Curve down. While the Reserve Bank will claim credit, it’s not at all clear the bank’s interest rate policy has made that much difference.

Finally, what about the international balance of payments? One thing the Reserve Bank can do by changing the interest rate is change the exchange rate between the New Zealand dollar and other currencies.

If New Zealand’s interest rates increase relative to elsewhere in the world, short-term money flows in to take advantage of the higher rates. This raises the exchange rate, and in turn weakens the external balance by cutting the return on exports and increasing the volume of cheaper imports.

Producers of goods and services that face international competition are squeezed. Meanwhile, what used to be called the “sheltered” or “non-tradeable” industries – including the big banks, insurance companies, electricity suppliers, supermarkets, consultancies – are unscathed.

Deeper recession

The Reserve Bank may not have much effect on inflation, but it can certainly affect the structure of the economy. Using the interest rate as the weapon against inflation squeezes manufacturers, tourism and farmers, but leaves non-tradables largely untouched.

Right now in New Zealand, the IS curve is remorselessly shifting left as the economy plunges into a deeper recession exacerbated by government austerity – an ideologically driven quest for instant fiscal surpluses, low public debt and a shrinking public sector relative to GDP.

Falling interest rates will struggle to make expansionary headway against that austerity.

Meanwhile, corporate profiteering and rising government charges continue to put upward pressure on the Phillips Curve, and the balance of payments is weakening. This means the country as a whole is piling up increasing debts to the rest of the world (largely through the Australian-owned banks).

The question is, does the current government understand where its policies are taking us?

Geoff Bertram 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. Austerity and recession: 3 simple graphs that explain New Zealand’s economic crisis – https://theconversation.com/austerity-and-recession-3-simple-graphs-that-explain-new-zealands-economic-crisis-241259

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

Hard on the heels of pledging a crackdown on excessive surcharges, the Albanese government has promised legislation to ban unfair trading practices.

The government said this would include specific prohibitions on various “dodgy” practices.

“From concert tickets to hotel rooms to gym memberships, Australians are fed up with businesses using tricky tactics that make it difficult to end subscriptions or add hidden fees to purchases,” the prime minister, treasurer and assistant treasurer said in a statement.

“These practices can distort purchasing decisions, or result in additional costs, putting more pressure on the cost of living.”

They said the government would deal with

• “subscription traps” that make it difficult to cancel a subscription

• “drip pricing” characterised by hidden fees or fees added during the purchase

• deceptive and manipulative online practices. These aim to confuse consumers, such as for example by creating a false sense of urgency, warning there is only a limited time to purchase

• dynamic pricing, where a price changes during the transaction

• requiring a consumer to set up an account and provide unnecessary information for an online purchase

• a business making it difficult for a consumer to contact it when they have a problem with the product.

Earlier this week Arts Minister Tony Burke said on the ABC the government was not looking at “dynamic pricing” in the music industry.

Asked on Four Corners whether dynamic pricing should be allowed in Australia, Burke said: “Surge pricing is something that, as consumers, people have always dealt with.

“I don’t love it, but I think we have to be realistic, it’s always been there. It’s not something we’re looking at, at the moment.”

Asked about the discrepancy, a government spokesperson said the Four Corners interview “was recorded a month ago, before this policy existed”.

Treasury will consult on the design of the planned changes. The government on Wednesday will put out a consultation paper on reforms for greater protections for consumers and small businesses under the consumer guarantees and supplier indemnification in the Australian Consumer Law.

The government says it will work with the states to have a final reform proposal in the first half of next year.

There will be penalties for suppliers that refuse to give consumers a remedy such as a replacement product or a refund when legally required.

“Currently, it can be difficult for consumers to obtain a remedy, especially when engaging in the digital economy,” the government statement said.

The reforms would empower the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and state and territory agencies to pursue breaches of consumer guarantees and supplier indemnification provisions.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said “hidden fees and traps are putting even more pressure on the cost of living and it needs to stop”.

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. Albanese government promises to ban ‘dodgy’ trading practices – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-promises-to-ban-dodgy-trading-practices-234142

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

George Negus, who has died at the age of 82, belonged to the nomenclatura of Australian television current affairs journalism.

He first came to prominence as a member of the team that produced the groundbreaking nightly ABC TV current affairs program, This Day Tonight. That team was made up of others who were also to become household names: presenter Bill Peach and reporters Peter Luck, Gerald Stone and Mike Willesee.

The program became a burr under the saddle of senior ABC management. On its second day it broke the story that the then chair of the ABC, James Darling, was not to be given a third term. The story incurred the chairman’s displeasure. The fallout went on interminably, a rehearsal for many tumults that were to follow throughout TDT’s 11-year existence.

This kind of fearless, sometimes irreverent, public-interest journalism was meat and drink to Negus. He practised it from both sides of the chasm that traditionally separates journalists from political staffers.

During the term of the Whitlam government, he became press secretary to the attorney-general, Lionel Murphy. He leaked to the media Murphy’s plan to raid the headquarters of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in 1973 because Murphy believed the agency was withholding from him information about domestic terrorism.

However, it was as a television journalist that Negus made his name. In 1979 he joined the founding team of the Nine Network’s 60 Minutes program, alongside Ray Martin, Ian Leslie and, later, Jana Wendt.

In 1992 he became the founding host of ABC TV’s Foreign Correspondent program and worked there until 1999. He developed a reputation as a well-informed and courageous reporter specialising in the Middle East. In 2004, he published a bestselling book, The World from Islam: A Journey of Discovery through the Muslim Heartland, in which he defended Islam against the stereotype that it was inherently violent.

In 2005 he became host of the SBS program Dateline, which also had a foreign affairs focus, and in 2011 began hosting 6.30 with George Negus on the Ten network.

In 2012, Negus and a fellow panellist on the Ten network show The Circle, Yumi Stynes, became embroiled in a controversy concerning remarks they made about Ben Roberts-Smith, many years before he was found by a federal court judge to have committed war crimes, a finding that is now on appeal.

There was severe public blowback on Negus and Stynes, who then apologised to Roberts-Smith. They in turn received apologies from Australia’s major newspapers for misconstruing the original remarks.

In 2015 he was made a Member of the Order of Australia for services to media and environmental conservation.

Although he acquired a knockabout image, he was described by two women who worked with him as disarmingly approachable.

Nehida Barakat was the senior producer for the ABC’s 7.30 program in about 2000 when Negus stood in as the summer presenter. She was apprehensive when he rang to discuss an intro she had written. “This gentlemanly voice asked: ‘Would you mind if I changed just a couple of words?’”

Nicole Chvastek, who worked with him at Nine, said he was a big star who generated an air of excitement, a mixture of the intelligent, well-travelled journalist and “a sort of approachable larrikin everyman”.

It was his down-to-earth approach to storytelling that viewers related to so readily. This, coupled with unshakeable fairmindedness on the issues he reported on, marked him out as an unusually gifted journalist.

He is survived by his partner, Kirsty, and two sons, Ned and Serge. The family released a statement saying he had “passed away peacefully surrounded by loved ones after a gracious decline from Alzheimer’s disease, all the while with his trademark smile”.

Denis Muller 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. Fair-minded, down to earth and unusually gifted: George Negus dies at 82 – https://theconversation.com/fair-minded-down-to-earth-and-unusually-gifted-george-negus-dies-at-82-241367

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angel Zhong, Associate Professor of Finance, RMIT University

In a move that could reshape how Australians pay for everyday purchases, the federal government is preparing to ban businesses from slapping surcharges on debit card transactions.

This plan, pending a review by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), promises to put money back into consumers’ pockets.

The RBA, which is accepting submissions until December, released its first consultation paper on Tuesday to coincide with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ joint announcement.

But as with any significant policy shift, it’s worth taking a closer look to see what it really means for all of us.

How much are we really saving?

Based on RBA data, the potential savings are huge – up to $500 million a year if surcharges on debit cards are banned.

And if the government goes one step further and includes credit card transaction fees in the ban, those savings could hit a massive $1 billion annually.

While these figures sound impressive, when you break it down, the savings per cardholder would amount to around $140 annually.

It’s not a life-changing amount, but for frequent shoppers or anyone making larger purchases, it could add up.

Of course, not everyone will benefit equally. Those who shop less might not notice the difference.

How does Australia stack up globally?

RBA data shows Australians are paying more in merchant service fees than people in Europe, but less than consumers in the United States.

These fees are what businesses pay to accept card payments, and they get passed on to us in the form of surcharges.

The proposed ban on debit card surcharges occupies a middle ground in the global regulatory landscape. The European Union, United Kingdom and Malaysia have implemented comprehensive bans on surcharges for most debit and credit card transactions.

But in the US and Canada, businesses can still charge you for using a credit card, though debit card surcharges aren’t allowed.

The merchant’s perspective

While the surcharge ban seems like a clear win for consumers, it’s essential to consider the impact on merchants, especially small businesses. The reality is not all merchants are created equal when it comes to card payment fees.

In Australia, there’s a significant disparity between the fees paid by large and small merchants. In fact, RBA data shows small businesses pay fees about three times higher than what larger businesses pay.

It all comes down to bargaining power. Bigger businesses can negotiate better deals on fees. This difference is primarily driven by the ability of larger merchants to thrash out favourable wholesale fees for processing card transactions.

For small businesses, the cost of accepting cards can range from under 1% to more than 2% of the transaction value, which can eat into profits, especially for those working with tight margins.

While the ban may sound like good news for consumers, there’s still a need to fix the bigger issues in the payment system. Innovations like “least-cost routing”, which allows businesses to process transactions at the lowest possible cost, could potentially help level the playing field.

How businesses might exploit the loopholes?

If payment costs are entirely passed on to merchants, they might find ways to recover those expenses through other means. We’ve seen this happen in other countries that abolished surcharges. Some potential strategies include

• slightly raising overall prices to cover lost surcharge revenue
• implementing or increasing minimum purchase requirements for card payments
• introducing new “service” or “convenience” fees for all transactions, or increasing weekend and holiday surcharges.

Most of these tactics have been around for a while. The challenge for regulators will be to monitor and address any new practices that emerge in response to the new rules.

Credit cards: the elephant in the room

While the ban on debit card surcharges is a step in the right direction, it raises an obvious question: why not extend it to credit cards?

The option to ban credit card surcharges along with debit cards is proposed in the RBA’s review consultation paper. The answer lies in the complex web of interchange fees and merchant costs associated with credit card transactions.

Credit card transactions cost merchants more to process because of additional services and rewards programs offered by credit card issuers.

Banning surcharges on these could potentially lead to merchants increasing their base prices to cover these costs. This could effectively result in users of lower-cost payment methods subsidising those opting for premium cards.

The absence of surcharges could also reduce the competitive pressure on card networks to keep their fees in check, potentially leading to higher costs in the long run.

Some countries have managed to ban surcharges on credit cards, but they usually have stricter regulations around interchange fees than we do in Australia.

As policymakers grapple with this complex issue, they must weigh the benefits of consumer simplicity against the risk of distorting market signals and potentially increasing costs for both merchants and consumers alike.

Angel Zhong 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. Banning debit card surcharges could save $500 million a year – if traders don’t claw back the money in other ways – https://theconversation.com/banning-debit-card-surcharges-could-save-500-million-a-year-if-traders-dont-claw-back-the-money-in-other-ways-241354

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abu Barkat ullah, Associate Professor of Cyber Security, University of Canberra

The Australian government has introduced its first-ever standalone cyber security act. Along with two other cyber security bills, it’s currently being reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

Among the act’s many provisions are mandatory “minimum cyber security standards for smart devices”.

This marks a crucial step in defending the digital lives of Australians. So what devices would it apply to? And what can you do right now to protect your smart devices from cyber criminals?

Smart devices are everywhere

The new legislation aims to cover a wide range of smart devices – products that can connect to the internet in some way.

This includes “internet-connectable” products – think smartphones, laptops, tablets, smart TVs and gaming consoles. It also includes indirect “network-connectable” products, which can send and receive data. This means things like smart home devices and appliances, wearables (smart watches, fitness trackers), smart vacuums and many more.

Simple electronic devices that don’t connect to the internet or can’t store or process sensitive data are not included.

According to one study, 7.6 million Australian households – more than 70% – had at least one smart home device by the end of 2023, and 3 million of those households had more than five.

To work as well as they do, smart devices typically collect, store and share data. This can include sensitive personal information, health data and geo-location data, making them attractive targets for cyber criminals.

A notorious example is the Mirai botnet in 2016, when cyber criminals infected more than 600,000 devices such as cameras, home routers, and video players globally to use them in massively disruptive network attacks, known as a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS).

Even implantable medical devices, such as pacemakers and insulin pumps, can have security flaws that could be exploited.

Just last week, the ABC reported that one of the world’s largest home robotics companies has failed to address security issues in its robot vacuums despite warnings from the previous year.

The consequences of such vulnerabilities can be even more dangerous when smart devices are part of critical infrastructure. As these devices become more interconnected, a breach in one can compromise entire networks, amplifying the security risks.

What will be the ‘minimum’ security standards?

The new cyber security act provides for “mandatory security standards” for smart devices. It establishes the legal framework for enforcing these standards, but doesn’t explicitly outline the technical details smart devices must meet. In the past the Department of Home Affairs has suggested that Australia consider adopting an international security standard, such as ETSI EN 303 645.

The bill’s focus is on securing connected devices to protect users from internet-based threats, vulnerabilities and risks.

In practice, this means manufacturers will have to ensure their products meet these minimum security standards and provide a statement of compliance. And suppliers will have to include statements of compliance with the product, and will be forbidden from selling non-compliant products.

All this will be enforced through the Secretary of Home Affairs, who can issue compliance, stop, or recall notices for violations of these rules.

You can do your bit to stay safe

The proposed cyber security act is a significant step forward in protecting Australians from the growing threat of cyber attacks on smart devices.

But this may only apply to new devices or ones still receiving updates from manufacturers. Exact details on how the legislation will apply to existing devices will be determined by the government agency responsible for its implementation.

“Legacy” devices with outdated software – older products that are no longer supported and don’t receive the latest security patches – are particularly vulnerable to cyber attacks.

While the government works on introducing the new cyber security laws, there are several things you can do to protect your smart devices:

• set up a strong wifi password to prevent unauthorised access to your home network
• create a dedicated, more secure wifi network for smart home devices
• always install security patches and updates promptly
• create unique and complex passwords for each account
• where possible, use two-factor authentication to add an extra layer of security
• disable unnecessary features or permissions, and be mindful of the information you share with apps and devices
• make sure you understand how your data is collected and used by apps and devices.

By mandating minimum cyber security standards and providing for effective enforcement mechanisms, Australia’s new cyber security act will help keep consumer devices safer.

However, it’s important to note that as technology continues to evolve rapidly, the cyber crime ecosystem is also expanding. The global cost of cyber crime is projected to reach US$9.5 trillion in 2024.

Given the dynamic nature of cyber threats, relying solely on standards may not be sufficient to address all potential risks. New vulnerabilities are discovered regularly, and it’s essential for every one of us to remain vigilant and practice good cyber hygiene by following the tips above.

Abu Barkat ullah 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. Speakers, vacuums, doorbells and fridges – the government plans to make your ‘smart things’ more secure – https://theconversation.com/speakers-vacuums-doorbells-and-fridges-the-government-plans-to-make-your-smart-things-more-secure-241057

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Green, Research Fellow, Centre for Social and Cultural Research, Griffith University

Multinational concert promoter Live Nation Entertainment has come under fire, with an ABC Four Corners investigation saying its unprecedented market power is open to abuse.

The report follows concerns about the introduction of dynamic pricing – where ticket prices change according to demand – to the Australian concert market. A parliamentary inquiry into the live music sector is also underway.

Industry luminaries such as Peter Garrett and Michael Chugg told the ABC that Australia’s music scene is under threat, echoing the concerns of frustrated bands and fans. Live Nation issued a statement ahead of the program, calling it inaccurate and unbalanced.

So what is Live Nation and how is market concentration affecting our music scene?

The business

Live music is one of our most popular forms of cultural participation, engaging almost half of Australians over 15. In the decade before COVID, ticket buying and revenue for contemporary music doubled.

Ticket revenue doubled again in the year 2022–23 to well above pre-pandemic levels. How can such growth be squared against widespread talk of a sector in crisis, with venues closing and festivals cancelled?

This is because the growth is top-heavy. Overall figures have been boosted by an influx of stadium concerts by international superstars such as Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran. Rising revenue outpaced attendance growth by almost three to one, with average ticket prices rising 47.4% to A$128.21. Market power is increasingly concentrated in a few corporate hands, notably Live Nation Entertainment.

What is Live Nation?

Live Nation began in the United States as a concert promoter. Traditionally, a promoter funds and arranges live events, negotiating with artists, their agents, venues and ticketing services. But Live Nation has integrated many such components into its operations. Now, everything from artist management to venues and merchandise can be done in-house.

In 2010, the US Department of Justice allowed the merger of Live Nation with major ticketing company Ticketmaster. The resulting entity, Live Nation Entertainment, has since acquired a growing set of interests internationally.

Live Nation’s acquisitions over the past decade in Australia include:

• Michael Coppel Presents

• Secret Sounds Group, which promotes Splendour in the Grass and Falls Festival in addition to touring, sponsorship, PR and artist management businesses (the acquisition excluded Secret Sounds record labels and venues)

• Moshtix, billed as Australia’s leading provider of general admission tickets for unreserved or standing-room events

• Mellen Events, a leading Western Australian concert promoter

• Kicks Entertainment, which operates Spilt Milk festival

• Face to Face Touring, a regional promoter with events including Red Hot Summer, SummerSalt and By the C.

Live Nation Entertainment also acquired venues, leasing Melbourne’s Palais Theatre for 30 years from 2017 and Festival Hall. The group purchased Anita’s Theatre in Thirroul in 2022 and opened Brisbane’s Fortitude Music Hall (2020) and Adelaide’s Hindley Street Music Hall (2022) in partnership with local entities.

Ticketmaster is the authorised ticketing agency for Melbourne’s Marvel Stadium and for Australian tours promoted by Live Nation. These include concerts by Oasis, Green Day, P!nk and Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Live Nation has also acquired several Australian booking agencies, including Village Sounds, which represents Bernard Fanning, Courtney Barnett and Vance Joy.

The only competitors are TEG (which owns Ticketek) and AEG-Frontier. Music industry stakeholders are concerned about the oversized influence of these three “corporate giants”.

Keeping the shareholders happy

For consumers, a lack of competition can mean higher prices. Dynamic pricing made headlines, but Four Corners also alleged there were a range of “hidden fees” in the price of tickets ordinarily sold by Ticketmaster and Ticketek.

Artists are at a disadvantage when negotiating with a mass of connected businesses that are often owned by one entity and which sometimes includes their own agent.

South Australian rock band Bad//Dreems told the ABC they were left with just $9,000 from a tour that grossed $100,000.

Veteran promoter Michael Chugg complained major artists were being overpaid, skewing the sector to the detriment of local musicians. While Australian promoters, including Chugg and the late Michael Gudinski, have a history of consolidating interests and crowding out competition, they also had skin in the Australian music game. Live Nation is a publicly listed company with duties to its shareholders, including US hedge funds and Saudi royalty.

Midnight Oil singer and former politician Peter Garrett said this meant there was “no loyalty” to Australian artists. A multinational promoter with a shareholder-driven approach might be more likely to cancel a festival after weak opening sales, instead of weathering short-term losses to preserve the brand and relationships.

That cancellation might even consolidate demand for the company’s upcoming headline tours. But opportunities are lost for Australian artists, businesses and culture.

What can be done?

Federal Arts Minister Tony Burke told Four Corners he has put Live Nation on notice and warned the company not to use its power in an anti-competitive way. But he did not commit to legislative change.

In the United States, the Department of Justice and dozens of states have sued Live Nation for antitrust, seeking “to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly and restore competition for the benefit of fans and artists”.

Australian courts currently have no power to break up monopolies without new legislation. However, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can investigate and prosecute misuse of market power, as alleged by some in this case.

Fair trading authorities in the United Kingdom and Europe are examining Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing in the wake of the Oasis ticket-pricing controversy. However, Burke said surge pricing is something consumers have always dealt with, and “not something we’re looking at, at the moment”.

Governments could also regulate more transparency in ticket fees, as well as the rights of artists, who sit uncomfortably between employees and small businesses. Their union, MEAA’s Musicians Australia, is currently advocating about these matters.

Those passionate about Australia’s live music scene fear that if the sector isn’t better regulated, it’ll soon be too late to save it.

Ben Green receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australasian Performing Right Association.

Sam Whiting receives funding from RMIT University and the Winston Churchill Trust.

– ref. Are market giants endangering Australia’s live music scene? Industry veterans and local artists are worried – https://theconversation.com/are-market-giants-endangering-australias-live-music-scene-industry-veterans-and-local-artists-are-worried-241244

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

New Zealand’s infrastructure woes are a constant political pain point. From ageing water systems to congested roads and assets increasingly threatened by climate change, the country faces mammoth upgrading and future-proofing challenges.

Enter Winston Peters and NZ First with a surprise proposal for a NZ$100 billion “Future Fund” dedicated to infrastructure investment. Sounds promising – but the proposal’s success will hinge on getting the details right and, more importantly, getting the politics out of infrastructure planning.

Unveiled at NZ First’s annual convention last weekend, the idea bears striking similarities to challenges previously highlighted by urban planning and infrastructure experts.

The country currently has an estimated infrastructure deficit of over $100 billion, which aligns eerily with the scale of Peters’ proposed fund.

The Future Fund proposal sounds impressive on paper. Ring-fenced from political meddling and focused on national interests, it’s billed as a silver bullet for infrastructure funding problems.

Peters claims he’s taken a page from the Singapore and Ireland playbooks – potentially breaking New Zealand’s habit of treating big infrastructure projects like they’re part of a three-year plan.

Long-term savings

As always, the devil is in the details – and the Future Fund is light on them. How exactly would this fund be financed? How would projects be selected and prioritised? And, crucially, how would it be insulated from the political interference it claims to avoid?

The potential benefits are significant. Research suggests that a stable, long-term approach to infrastructure investment and better utilisation of existing assets could unlock substantial savings – potentially up to 40% of total project costs.

A well-managed $100 billion fund could provide the certainty and consistency needed to achieve these efficiencies.

The scale of the fund also aligns with the urgent need for a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul. From modernising water systems to expanding road and rail networks, and ensuring resilience against climate change, the required investment is indeed massive.

Politics is the problem

Yet the proposal faces significant hurdles, not the least of which is from NZ First’s own coalition partners.

The National Party’s previous commitments to curb borrowing seem at odds with a fund of this magnitude. Peters argues that debt for wealth creation and infrastructure differs from debt for consumption.

That’s a valid point, but one that may struggle to gain traction in a political environment focused on reducing overall government debt.

The proposal also raises questions about how it would interact with existing initiatives, such as the National Investment Agency set up by Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop. It’s unclear whether these entities would complement each other or create redundancies and inefficiencies.

Perhaps the most critical question is whether this fund, despite its claimed independence, can rise above the political cycle. We have a long and exhausting history of proposing infrastructure for political gain, where one government’s “vital infrastructure” becomes the next’s “wasteful spending”.

Time for a 30-year plan

While the Future Fund could be a big move in the right direction, we must also rethink how we plan (and pay) for infrastructure completely.

A good start would be a 30-year plan that all political parties can get behind, like the United Kingdom’s National Infrastructure Assessment. This would give us a real long-term vision rather than promises that change with each election cycle.

We should also look at more innovative ways to fund projects. Value capture, which leverages rising property values near new infrastructure to help finance its development, helped build London’s Crossrail. And Australia is “asset recycling” from old infrastructure into new projects.

These aren’t just theoretical ideas. They could change how we build what New Zealand needs without the risks of entirely relying on taxpayers.

Ending the boom-bust cycle

Efficiency must also be a priority. Time-of-use charges for roads, already implemented in cities such as Stockholm and Singapore and proposed for Auckland, could reduce congestion and wasteful spending on unnecessary road expansions.

Volumetric charging for water, as seen in the Kāpiti Coast, can significantly reduce water waste without massive new investments.

New Zealand could also break free from its boom-bust infrastructure cycle by establishing an agency outside the political realm to manage the cash Winston Peters is proposing.

A truly independent infrastructure body, similar to Infrastructure Australia, could provide the continuity and expertise needed to see projects through political cycles.

Money isn’t the only issue here. Politics is the real roadblock. Right now, every election cycle, priorities change, projects fly out the window, and the bill for desperately needed infrastructure only gets bigger.

The Future Fund seems like a step in the right direction. But without also overhauling how we make decisions about infrastructure, it could end up being just another political football.

Timothy Welch 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. Winston Peters’ $100 billion infrastructure fund is the right idea. Politics-as-usual is the problem – https://theconversation.com/winston-peters-100-billion-infrastructure-fund-is-the-right-idea-politics-as-usual-is-the-problem-241346

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Jean Monnet Chair of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

Finally, Australia’s rock lobster industry will be able to export to China again, following a deal struck on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Laos last week.

It will take some weeks to finalise the paperwork, but Chinese diners can expect to eat our high-quality crustaceans as we devour our Christmas roast turkeys.

The breakthrough brings a particularly nasty chapter in Australia-China trade relations to a close. Tariffs on rock lobsters were the only remaining major restriction of a raft of trade barriers imposed by China in 2020.

It might be tempting to celebrate, but we should tread carefully. Our situation remains hostage to Beijing’s relationship with Washington. Whether Australia’s trade woes with China are actually over may ultimately be out of our hands.

Read more:
China removes block on Australian lobster, in last big bilateral trade breakthrough

Australia’s reversal of fortunes

The past couple of years have been a whirlwind.

The Albanese government has seen China systematically undo the export restrictions it had imposed on Australia in 2020 – including on barley, wine, beef, and now lobster – without giving away much of substance in return.

Yes, Australia suspended two cases it had brought against China at the World Trade Organization, concerning barley and wine duties China had imposed. But those cases can be resumed if the Chinese government backslides.

And true, the Albanese government did not oppose China’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership – an important regional free trade agreement of which Australia is a founding member. But neither did it endorse China’s bid.

It seems we’ve come a long way since 2020, when China tabled its infamous “14 grievances” against Australia. This deliberately leaked document publicly criticised Australia on a whole range of fronts, including foreign investment decisions, alleged interference in China’s affairs, research funding and media coverage.

A more sobering picture elsewhere

This reopening of trade might make it seem like things are looking up for Australia. In some cases, our business community has bounced back with gusto, notably wine exports to China.

Zooming out, however, paints a more sobering picture of global trade relations. In the near term, the decisions of our key allies – namely the United States – may come to matter more than our own.

The Biden administration has long hoped to place a “floor” under America’s geopolitical competition with China. Neither side wants things to get ugly.

But in Washington, strong bipartisan consensus remains that China must be confronted. The US has continued to take coercive actions against Chinese exports and investment.

For example, the US recently imposed a 100% import duty on electric vehicles produced by Chinese-owned companies. Similarly, it imposed a 25% import duty on imports of Chinese container cranes. Strategic distrust will escalate no matter who wins the White House on November 5.

This animosity is mirrored in Beijing. China’s security state is expanding ever more into business, while its private sector retreats. China’s own coercive activities are also escalating in regional disputes over the South and East China seas, as well as in its trade retaliations against Western markets.

Widening tensions

These tensions are also playing out in Europe and the Middle East. International relations scholars worry that the West must now confront an authoritarian axis comprising Russia, Iran, North Korea and China.

China’s “no limits” partnership with Russia has spooked most European elites. Western sanctions on Russia, meant to erode the Kremlin’s war machine, are likely being circumvented by China’s unmatched industrial capacities.

Iran’s military support for Russia supplements the Kremlin’s war-fighting capacities at Ukraine’s expense.

Unsurprisingly, economic security concerns are rapidly eclipsing free trade considerations for the US.

When US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan introduced the 2022 National Security Strategy, he adopted a selectively restrictive approach he called “small yard, high fence”.

He was talking about export controls and inward restrictions on investment, applied to high-technology products.

Since then, the “yard” has grown wider, and the “fence” has expanded. More sectors and products are being thrown into the mix, from energy security, through critical minerals, to food production.

The challenge with digital technologies, able to be used for both military and civilian purposes, is that the yard can be very large indeed.

Middle power problems

The US has the economic and military weight to confront China. As the European Union is learning, having the economic weight is necessary. But being politically united is essential, and they remain far from that.

Australia is a middle power, without the necessary economic weight or military heft to confront China. That means we must support the rules-based multilateral trading system – preserving the authority of institutions like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – to constrain the actions of the great powers and preserve as much of our open trade posture as possible.

Washington, however, increasingly expects its allies to fall into line. How else can one explain Canada’s decision to follow the US and impose 100% import duties on electric vehicles produced by Chinese owned companies?

Like Australia, Canada is also a middle power. It is also a strong supporter of the rules-based multilateral trading system. But Canada’s action violates WTO rules.

The fact that Washington’s actions also violate these rules is taken for granted these days.

Australia must pay attention

Global trade cooperation is deteriorating, and the world is fracturing into two “values-based” trading blocs. While there could be positive upswings in our bilateral trade relations with China, the medium term trend is down.

As Napoleon Bonaparte is reputed to have said:

China is a sleeping giant; let him sleep, for if he wakes he will shake the world.

China has changed, and the world with it.

Australian business needs to pay attention. Our East Asian partners, notably Japan and South Korea, have long spoken of the need for a “China plus one” (or more) business strategy – making sure trade and investment is diversified into other countries, as well.

Such diversification will be increasingly important in the years to come.

Peter Draper 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. Is Australia’s trade war with China now over? The answer might be out of our hands – https://theconversation.com/is-australias-trade-war-with-china-now-over-the-answer-might-be-out-of-our-hands-241117

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gertjan Verdickt, Lecturer, Business School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

When it comes to investing and planning your financial future, are you more willing to trust a person or a computer?

This isn’t a hypothetical question any more.

Big banks and investment firms are using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make financial predictions and give advice to clients.

Morgan Stanley uses AI to mitigate the potential biases of its financial analysts when it comes to stock market predictions. And one of the world’s biggest investment banks, Goldman Sachs, recently announced it was trialling the use of AI to help write computer code, though the bank declined to say which division it was being used in. Other companies are using AI to predict which stocks might go up or down.

But do people actually trust these AI advisers with their money?

Our new research examines this question. We found it really depends on who you are and your prior knowledge of AI and how it works.

Trust differences

To examine the question of trust when it comes to using AI for investment, we asked 3,600 people in the United States to imagine they were getting advice about the stock market.

In these imagined scenarios, some people got advice from human experts. Others got advice from AI. And some got advice from humans working together with AI.

In general, people were less likely to follow advice if they knew AI was involved in making it. They seemed to trust the human experts more.

But the distrust of AI wasn’t universal. Some groups of people were more open to AI advice than others.

For example, women were more likely to trust AI advice than men (by 7.5%). People who knew more about AI were more willing to listen to the advice it provided (by 10.1%). And politics mattered – people who supported the Democratic Party were more open to AI advice than others (by 7.3%).

We also found people were more likely to trust simpler AI methods.

When we told our research participants the AI was using something called “ordinary least squares” (a basic mathematics technique in which a straight line is used to estimate the relationship between two variables), they were more likely to trust it than when we said it was using “deep learning” (a more complex AI method).

This might be because people tend to trust things they understand. Much like how a person might trust a simple calculator more than a complex scientific instrument they have never seen before.

Trust in the future of finance

As AI becomes more common in the financial world, companies will need to find ways to improve levels of trust.

This might involve teaching people more about how the AI systems work, being clear about when and how AI is being used, and finding the right balance between human experts and AI.

Furthermore, we need to tailor how AI advice is presented to different groups of people and show how well AI performs over time compared to human experts.

The future of finance might involve a lot more AI, but only if people learn to trust it. It’s a bit like learning to trust self-driving cars. The technology might be great, but if people don’t feel comfortable using it, it won’t catch on.

Our research shows that building this trust isn’t just about making better AI. It’s about understanding how people think and feel about AI. It’s about bridging the gap between what AI can do and what people believe it can do.

As we move forward, we’ll need to keep studying how people react to AI in finance. We’ll need to find ways to make AI not just a powerful tool, but a trusted advisor that people feel comfortable relying on for important financial decisions.

The world of finance is changing fast, and AI is a big part of that change. But in the end, it’s still people who decide where to put their money. Understanding how to build trust between humans and AI will be key to shaping the future of finance.

Gertjan Verdickt 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. Do people trust AI on financial decisions? We found it really depends on who they are – https://theconversation.com/do-people-trust-ai-on-financial-decisions-we-found-it-really-depends-on-who-they-are-240900

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

The Albanese government has announced a first step in what it says is a crackdown on excessive card surcharges and threatened a ban on surcharges for debit cards from early 2026.

In the latest of its cost-of-living measures, the government will provide $2.1 million for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission “to tackle excessive surcharges”.

The government also says it is prepared to ban debit card surcharges from January 1 2026, subject to further work by the Reserve Bank and “safeguards to ensure both small businesses and consumers can benefit from lower costs”.

The government is not considering a ban on credit card surcharges, although the ACCC scrutiny will cover both debit and credit cards.

The bank is reviewing merchant card payment costs and surcharging. Its first consultation paper will be released on Tuesday.

The government said in a statement: “the declining use of cash and the rise of electronic payments means that more Australians are getting slugged by surcharges, even when they use their own money”.

“The RBA’s review is an important step to reduce the costs small businesses face when processing payments. We want to ease costs for consumers without added costs for small businesses, or unintended consequences for the broader economy,” the statement from the prime minister, treasurer and assistant treasurer said.

Funding for the ACCC “will enable the consumer watchdog to crack down on illegal and unfair surcharging practices and increase education and compliance activities”.

The Reserve Bank required card providers such as Visa and Mastercard to remove their no‐surcharge rules in 2003 allowing retailers to directly pass on the costs of accepting card payments.

With the spread of payments by card, surcharges have become ubiquitous.

In a parliamentary hearing in August the head of the National Australia Bank Andrew Irvine complained about having to pay a 10% surcharge when he bought a cup of coffee in Sydney.

He told an inquiry it was “outrageous”, saying he didn’t like “the lack of transparency and lack of consistency”.

The ACCC regulates surcharges and can require merchants prove a surcharge is justified. It can take merchants to court to enforce the regulations governing surcharges, and has done so. But many charges are still higher than they are supposed to be.

The European Union bans surcharges.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said: “Consumers shouldn’t be punished for using cards or digital payments, and at the same time, small businesses shouldn’t have to pay hefty fees just to get paid themselves”.

The total cost to Australian consumers of surcharges is disputed – the RBA review will look at the likely cost.

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. Albanese government has surcharges in its sights, as it pursues the votes of consumers – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-has-surcharges-in-its-sights-as-it-pursues-the-votes-of-consumers-241251

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Raffaele F Ciriello, Senior Lecturer in Business Information Systems, University of Sydney

Artificial intelligence (AI) is getting personal. Chatbots are designed to imitate human interactions, and the rise of realistic voice chat is leading many users to form emotional attachments or laugh along with virtual podcast hosts.

And that’s before we get to the really intimate stuff. Research has shown that sexual roleplaying is one of the most common uses of ChatGPT, and millions of people interact with AI-powered systems designed as virtual companions, such as such as Character.AI, Replika, and Chai.AI.

What does this mean for the future of (human) romance? The prospects are alarming.

Better be nice to your AI overlord

The most prominent AI companion service is Replika, which allows some 30 million users to create custom digital girlfriends (or boyfriends).

While early studies indicate most Replika users are male, Caucasian and under 30, other demographics are catching up. Male sex robots have been in the making for some years. And they’re more than just vibrators with integrated jar openers.

For a subscription fee, users can exchange intimate messages or pictures with their AI partners. Over half a million users had subscribed before Replika temporarily disabled its “erotic roleplay” module in early 2023, fearing regulatory backlash — a move that users dubbed “The Lobotomy.”

The Replika “lobotomy” highlights a key feature of virtual companions: their creators have complete control over their behaviour. The makers of apps can modify or shut down a user’s “partner” – and millions of others – at any moment. These systems also read everything users say, to tailor future interactions and, of course, ads.

However, these caveats don’t appear to be holding the industry back. New products are proliferating. One company, Kindroid, now offers voice chats with up to ten virtual companions simultaneously.

The digital world isn’t the limit either. Sex doll vendors such as Joy Love Dolls offer interactive real-life sexbots, with not only customisable skin colour and breast size, but also “complete control” of features including movement, heating, and AI-enabled “moans, squeals, and even flirting from your doll, making her a great companion”.

For now, virtual companions and AI sexbots remain a much smaller market than social media, with millions of users rather than billions. But as the history of the likes of Facebook, Google and Amazon has taught us, today’s digital quirks could become tomorrow’s global giants.

Towards ethically sourced AI girlfriends?

The availability of AI-driven relationships is likely to usher in all manner of ethically dubious behaviour from users who won’t have to face the real-world consequences.

Soon, you might satisfy any kink with your AI girlfriend for an extra fee. If your AI wife becomes troublesome, just ask the corporate overlord to deactivate her envy module — for a price, of course. Or simply delete her and start fresh with as many AI mistresses as you like in parallel.

The way people form relationships has already been disrupted by dating apps such as Tinder and Bumble.

What will happen if, in the future, people looking for love are competing against perfect synthetic lovers that are always available and horny? Well, at least they’ll be able to create virtual replicas of those hot dates they didn’t land.

And for those who lack the skills to create their own virtual companions, there will be plenty of off-the-shelf alternatives.

An ABC investigation revealed the use of generative AI to create fake influencers by manipulating women’s social media images is already widespread. This is generally done without consent to sell pornographic content. Much of this content depicts unattainable body ideals, and some depicts people who appear to be at best barely of consenting age.

Another likely application? Using AI sexbot technology to bring celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe and Clara Bow back to life. After all, dead people cannot deny consent anymore.

Replika itself was inspired by its founder’s desire to recreate her late best friend through a chatbot. Many use the app to keep deceased loved ones around. What a time to be alive (or dead)!

The potential for emotional manipulation by inventive catfishers and dictators is alarming. Imagine the havoc if figures like Russia’s Vladimir Putin or North Korea’s Kim Jong-un harness this technology to complement their nations’ already extensive cyber-espionage operations.

Perhaps before long we will see corporations offering “responsibly sourced” AI girlfriends for the more ethical consumer – organically grown from consensually harvested content, promoting socially acceptable smut.

Society and the state must act now

With loneliness rising to epidemic levels — surveys suggest up to one in four people in OECD countries lack human connection — the demand for sexbots is only going to grow. Corporations will meet this demand unless society and the state set clear boundaries on what’s acceptable.

Sex and technology have always co-evolved. Just as prostitution is “the oldest profession”, porn sites are some of the oldest corners of the internet. However, the dystopian potential of sexbots for mass-customised, corporate-controlled monetisation of our most intimate sphere is unprecedented.

Users aren’t entirely blameless, either. There’s something vicious about replacing a real human being with a totally submissive lust machine.

Early studies suggest narcissism is prevalent among users of this technology. Normalising harmful sexual behaviours such as rape, sadism or paedophilia is bad news for society.

However, going after users isn’t likely to be the best way to tackle the issue. We should treat sexbot use like other potentially problematic behaviours, such as gambling.

As with other problematic behaviours where the issue lies more with providers than users, it’s time to hold sexbot providers accountable. As our links to AI are growing ever more intimate, there’s not much time to waste.

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

– ref. The AI sexbot industry is just getting started. It brings strange new questions – and risks – https://theconversation.com/the-ai-sexbot-industry-is-just-getting-started-it-brings-strange-new-questions-and-risks-238998

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynzi Armstrong, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

It has been two decades since New Zealand decriminalised sex work. And while sex workers have workplace rights, they still worry about the risks of discrimination in everyday life.

In my recent research, local sex workers explained the benefits of decriminalisation – and what still needs to change. Their experiences highlight that while much has changed for the better, stigma remains an issue. Further change is needed to better protect sex workers from it.

New Zealand’s experience is relevant right now, as a number of governments elsewhere are reviewing their laws around sex work.

Scotland, for example, is considering a proposal that would criminalise the purchase of sex – known as the Nordic model due to its initial adoption in some Nordic countries.

Supporters argue this will help sex workers and extend gender equality. But evidence suggests the Nordic model actually harms sex workers: it impedes safety strategies, increases the risk of violence, limits access to justice, and enables discrimination.

What is decriminalisation?

The other options are decriminalisation and legalisation. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they are different. Legalisation of sex work (in Germany and the Netherlands, for example) means legalising an act that was previously against the law.

For sex workers, this means restrictive government regulation and control, which may include mandatory registration with authorities, compulsory sexual health checks, and permission to work in specific areas only.

Decriminalisation, on the other hand, means repealing laws that make an act or behaviour a crime, but not necessarily introducing restrictive regulations specific to the sex industry.

That said, decriminalisation does not mean there is no regulation. Instead, regulations are comparable to other businesses. The focus is not on regulating sex workers, but providing them with rights.

Under New Zealand’s Prostitution Reform Act (2003) it is an offence to induce or compel a person to do sex work. Sex workers have the right to refuse to see clients for any reason at any time. If a sex worker wishes to stop doing sex work, they can access unemployment benefits immediately (rather than having the normal stand down period ).

Impacts of decriminalisation in New Zealand

Research three years after the law came into force found a majority of participants felt they had more rights and were more able to refuse to see clients than before. Several participants felt police attitudes towards them had improved.

Subsequent research found relationships between street-based sex workers and police had improved. Decriminalisation supported the safety strategies of these sex workers better.

There have also been several high-profile cases where sex workers have exercised their legal rights. Brothel-based sex workers won sexual harassment cases against business owners, and convictions of rape against two clients who covertly removed condoms during their bookings.

Among the 26 sex workers we interviewed in New Zealand, participants described feeling fortunate to work in the decriminalised context. They also felt working conditions for sex workers were better than in other countries.

One participant said:

I also feel that we shouldn’t have to say “oh we’re so lucky” but we are compared to other people in other countries.

Another felt decriminalisation gave sex workers a “protective layer”.

This meant, as one participant put it, “we have rights, full stop”.

Participants appreciated sex work being defined as work and the rights that accompany this. Decriminalisation was considered both ideal and normalised. As another explained,

it’s been decriminalised for a long time now, like it’s part of our reality.

Room for improvement?

While participants felt grateful to work in the decriminalised context, this doesn’t mean there weren’t issues.

Decriminalisation in New Zealand doesn’t include legal protection from discrimination. Sex workers have little recourse if they are treated unfairly because of their job.

The sex workers we spoke with believed the social stigma of sex work was gradually fading, and instances of discrimination described by participants were rare. But they still feared the consequences of discrimination (such as being denied accommodation or premises to work from if their work became known to a landlord).

They supported further legal protection from discrimination. For one participant this meant,

I could tell people my job without […] any fear of backlash, and that would be fantastic.

Participants also wanted the protections of decriminalisation extended to temporary migrants. People who hold temporary visas face deportation if they are found to be working in the sex industry, making them vulnerable to exploitation.

Falling behind

After two decades of decriminalisation, New Zealand risks falling behind as more jurisdictions (such as Victoria and Queensland in Australia) adopt decriminalised frameworks that build in protection from discrimination.

Such protections mean it is no longer legal to deny a person accommodation or a job based on their sex work experience, or deny them a bank loan or mortgage.

To keep up, New Zealand needs to follow suit. The next step is therefore to strengthen and expand the rights sex workers have.

Perhaps then, in another 20 years, the country will still be seen as one that put the human rights of sex workers first and showed the rest of the world what equality really looks like.

Lynzi Armstrong received funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund (2019-2024)

– ref. Two decades after decriminalisation, NZ’s sex workers still need protection from discrimination – https://theconversation.com/two-decades-after-decriminalisation-nzs-sex-workers-still-need-protection-from-discrimination-240787

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

With COVID still classified as an ongoing pandemic, it’s difficult to contemplate the next one. But we need to be prepared. We’ve seen several pandemics in recent decades and it’s fair to expect we’ll see more.

For the final part in a series of articles on the next pandemic, we’ve asked a range of experts what Australia got right and wrong it its response to COVID. Here they share their thoughts on the country’s COVID response – and what we can learn for the next pandemic.

Quarantine

The federal government mandated 14 days of quarantine for all international arrivals between March 2020 and November 2021. During that period, 452,550 people passed through the system.

The states and Northern Territory were given just 48 hours to set up their quarantine systems. The states chose hotel quarantine, while the Northern Territory repurposed an old miner’s camp, Howard Springs, which had individual cabins with outdoor verandas. The ACT had very few international arrivals, while Tasmania only had hotel quarantine for domestic travellers.

During the first 15 months of the program, at least 22 breaches occurred in five states (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia). An inquiry into Victoria’s hotel quarantine found the lack of warning and planning to set up the complex system resulted in breaches that caused Victoria’s second COVID wave of 2020, leading to almost 800 deaths. A breach at Sydney airport led to the introduction of the Delta variant into Australia.

In the next pandemic, mistakes from COVID need to be avoided. They included failure to protect hotel residents and staff from airborne transmission through ventilation and mask usage. Protocols need to be consistent across the country, such as the type of security staff used, N95 masks for staff and testing frequency.

These protocols need to be included in a national pandemic preparedness plan, which is frequently reviewed and tested through simulations. This did not occur with the pre-COVID preparedness plan.

Dedicated quarantine centres like Howard Springs already exist in Victoria and Queensland. Ideally, they should be constructed in every jurisdiction.

Michael Toole

Treatments

Scientists had to move quickly after COVID was discovered to find effective treatments.

Many COVID treatments involved repurposing existing drugs designed for other viruses. For example, the HIV drug ritonavir is a key element of the antiviral Paxlovid, while remdesivir was originally developed to treat hepatitis C.

At the outset of the pandemic, there was a lot of uncertainty about COVID treatment among Australian health professionals. To keep up with the rapidly developing science, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020. We were involved in its COVID response with more than 250 clinicians, consumers and researchers.

Unusually for evidence-based guidelines, which are often updated only every five years or so, the taskforce’s guidelines were designed to be “living” – updated as new research became available. In April 2020 we released the first guidelines for care of people with COVID, and over the next three years these were updated more than 100 times.

While health-care professionals always had access to up-to-date guidance on COVID treatments, this same information was not as accessible for the public. This may partly explain why many people turned to unproven treatments. The taskforce’s benefits could have been increased with funding to help the community understand COVID treatments.

COVID drugs faced other obstacles too. For example, changes to the virus itself meant some treatments became less effective as new variants emerged. Meanwhile, provision of antiviral treatments has not been equitable across the country.

COVID drugs have had important, though not game-changing, impacts. Ultimately, effective vaccines played a much greater role in shifting the course of the pandemic. But we might not be so fortunate next time.

In any future pandemic it will be crucial to have a clear pathway for rapid, reliable methods to develop and evaluate new treatments, disseminate that research to clinicians, policymakers and the public, and ensure all Australians can access the treatments they need.

Steven McGloughlin and Tari Turner, Monash University

Vaccine rollout

COVID vaccines were developed in record time, but rolling them out quickly and seamlessly proved to be a challenge. In Australia, there were several missteps along the way.

First, there was poor preparation and execution. Detailed planning was not finalised until after the rollout had begun.

Then the federal government had overly ambitious targets. For example, the goal of vaccinating four million people by the end of March 2021 fell drastically short, with less than one-fifth of that number actually vaccinated by that time.

There were also supply issues, with the European Union blocking some deliveries to Australia.

Unfortunately, the government was heavily reliant on the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was found, in rare cases, to lead to blood clots in younger people.

Despite all this, Australia ultimately achieved high vaccination rates. By the end of December 2021, more than 94% of the population aged 16 and over had received at least one dose.

This was a significant public health achievement and saved thousands of lives.

But over the past couple of years, Australia’s initially strong vaccine uptake has been waning.

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation recommends booster doses for vulnerable groups annually or twice annually. However, only 30% of people aged 75 and over (for whom a booster is recommended every six months) have had a booster dose in the past six months.

There are several lessons to be learned from the COVID vaccine rollout for any future pandemic, though it’s not entirely clear whether they are being heeded.

For example, several manufacturers have developed updated COVID vaccines based on the JN.1 subvariant. But reports indicate the government will only be purchasing the Pfizer JN.1 booster. This doesn’t seem like the best approach to shore up vaccine supply.

Adrian Esterman, University of South Australia

Mode of transmission

Nearly five years since SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) first emerged, we now know airborne transmission plays a far greater role than we originally thought.

In contrast, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 being transmitted via surfaces is likely to be low, and perhaps effectively non-existent in many situations.

Early in the pandemic, the role contaminated surfaces and inanimate objects played in COVID transmission was overestimated. The main reason we got this wrong, at least initially, was that in the absence of any direct experience with SARS-CoV-2, we extrapolated what we believed to be true for other respiratory viruses. This was understandable, but it proved to be inadequate for predicting how SARS-CoV-2 would behave.

One of the main consequences of overestimating the role of surface transmission was that it resulted in a lot of unnecessary anxiety and the adoption of what can only be viewed in retrospect as over-the-top cleaning practices. Remember the teams of people who walked the streets wiping down traffic light poles? How about the concern over reusable coffee cups?

Considerable resources that could have been better invested elsewhere were directed towards disinfecting surfaces. This also potentially distracted our focus from other preventive measures that were likely to have been more effective, such as wearing masks.

The focus on surface transmission was amplified by a number of studies published early in the pandemic that documented the survival of SARS-CoV-2 for long periods on surfaces. However, these were conducted in the lab with little similarity to real-world conditions. In particular, the amounts of virus placed on surfaces were greater than what people would likely encounter outside the lab. This inflated viral survival times and therefore the perception of risk.

The emphasis on surface transmission early in the pandemic ultimately proved to be a miscalculation. It highlights the challenges in understanding how a new virus spreads.

Hassan Vally, Deakin University

National unity

Initially, Commonwealth, state and territory leaders were relatively united in their response to the COVID pandemic. The establishment of the National Cabinet in March 2020 indicated a commitment to consensus-based public health policy. Meanwhile, different jurisdictions came together to deliver a range of measures aimed at supporting businesses and workers affected by COVID restrictions.

But as the pandemic continued, tensions gave way to deeper ideological fractures between jurisdictions and individuals. The issues of vaccine mandates, border closures and lockdowns all created fragmentation between governments, and among experts.

The blame game began between and within jurisdictions. For example, the politicisation of quarantine regulations on cruise ships revealed disunity. School closures, on which the Commonwealth and state and territory governments took different positions, also generated controversy.

These and other instances of polarisation undermined the intent of the newly established National Cabinet.

The COVID pandemic showed us that disunity across the country threatens the collective work needed for an effective response in the face of emergencies.

The COVID response inquiry, due to release its results soon, will hopefully help us work toward national uniform legislation that may benefit Australia in the event of any future pandemics.

This doesn’t necessarily mean identical legislation across the country – this won’t always be appropriate. But a cohesive, long-term approach is crucial to ensure the best outcomes for the Australian federation in its entirety.

Guzyal Hill and Kim M Caudwell, Charles Darwin University

This article is part of a series on the next pandemic.

Adrian Esterman receives funding from the NHMRC, MRFF and ARC.

Michael Toole receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Steven McGloughlin works with the Australian Living Evidence Collaboration and is a consultant for the World Health Organisation Health Emergencies Program.

Tari Turner receives funding from MRFF; NHMRC; the Victorian, WA and Commonwealth governments; and philanthropy.

Guzyal Hill, Hassan Vally, and Kim M Caudwell 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. Lessons for the next pandemic: where did Australia go right and wrong in responding to COVID? – https://theconversation.com/lessons-for-the-next-pandemic-where-did-australia-go-right-and-wrong-in-responding-to-covid-239819

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Murphy, Visiting Fellow, Economics (modelling), Australian National University

The independent inquiry into the government’s COVID response is due to report on October 25.

As part of its investigation into the government’s economic responses, I briefed it on the findings of my economic modelling, using the sort of model I helped design for the Australian Treasury and consulting firms including Econtech and Independent Economics, specially customised for this study.

I found that government responses such as JobKeeper and the Jobseeker Supplement were initially successful. They reduced the peak rate of unemployment by two percentage points, or by more if we count workers who are stood down as employed.

But they lingered too long, ultimately providing $2 of compensation for every $1 of private income lost to COVID.

Government support was essential

Some parts of the economy were deeply affected by the COVID shutdowns which began in early 2020, others much less so.

It is widely accepted that the best response to that (unusual) circumstance is to replace the income those workers and businesses lose. This means, for example, when movie theatres close, the government should replace the incomes of their workers.

This has two benefits. The first is to allow movie theatre workers to maintain their normal spending, stopping the downturn spreading to unrestricted industries. The second is to ensure movie theatre workers don’t have to bear an unfair share of the cost of measures put in place to protect everyone’s health.

Around one sixth of the Australian economy was severely restricted by government measures in the early months of COVID.

This made measures such as JobKeeper, the Boosting Cash Flow for Employers program and the JobSeeker Supplement appropriate.

Too much support for some, too little for others

The government spent $144 billion on these three programs, and my modelling finds the total was about right to compensate for the early losses of income.
But the pattern of compensation was wide of the mark, with a mix of overcompensation and undercompensation.

JobKeeper was designed to guarantee workers a minimum income rather than compensate them for lost income. This meant typical full-time workers were undercompensated while typical part-time workers were overcompensated.

For businesses, the compensation for lost profits depended on workers being active, which meant the firms that lost the most because they had suspended their entire operations got no compensation for losing their entire profits even though some of their expenses continued.

Better programs were put in place in 2021 when the Delta wave of COVID struck. A COVID disaster payment more accurately compensated workers for lost hours, and programs such as NSW JobSaver more accurately targeted lost profits.

Extra support for the entire economy wasn’t needed

In principle, well-designed compensation for the parts of the economy that were actually shut down would have been enough to support the rest of the economy, but despite this, the government also announced broader supports aimed at the entire economy.

Among them were bringing forward the so-called Stage 2 tax cuts and allowing businesses to immediately expense equipment.

These general stimulus measures almost doubled the size of stimulus from $219 billion to $428 billion. Besides being large and unnecessary, most of the general stimulus was delivered late, after the worst of the pandemic was over.

How it could have been done better

I have modelled what could have happened if the government had only spent on the health measures that were clearly warranted and had limited its compensation to income actually lost at the time it was lost.

This so-called shorter stimulus scenario also includes a more usual response to economic recovery by the Reserve Bank in which it began lifting interest rates one year earlier, in May 2021 instead of May 2022.

In the shorter stimulus scenario, the Reserve Bank’s cash rate would by now be 2.85% instead of 4.35% because of lower inflation. Equally, in two or three years interest rates are similar in both scenarios once the economy has stabilised.

Australia’s unemployment rate would be higher than it is now at about 5.1% instead of 4.2% as it glides towards a sustainable equilibrium rather than having been pushed below it.

This glide path keeps inflation lower by avoiding a boom and bust and results in the same endpoint for unemployment.

Inflation would have peaked much lower at about 5% instead of about 7%.

About 1.4% percentage points of the reduction would have been due to better fiscal (spending and taxing) policy and about 0.7 points due to better management of interest rates.

In addition, the government would have saved about $209 billion in avoidable spending and government debt.

Nevertheless, even if the government had limited its response to the more targeted measures modelled in the shorter stimulus scenario, inflation would have reached 5% and interest rates and government debt would have still climbed, but by less.

Hindsight can help

The government’s responses to COVID were developed quickly at a time when no one knew what was going to happen, which makes some overcompensation understandable.

But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine what happened in order to work out how it could have been done better.

Australia will be hit by future pandemics and pandemic-like crises, which means it’s important to learn from our mistakes. Next time the government should concentrate on replacing income where and when it is lost.

Chris Murphy assisted the COVID-19 Response Inquiry.

– ref. The government spent twice what it needed to on economic support during COVID, modelling shows – https://theconversation.com/the-government-spent-twice-what-it-needed-to-on-economic-support-during-covid-modelling-shows-240999

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Howard, Senior Lecturer, Discipline of English and Writing, University of Sydney

A century ago, French writer André Breton published a manifesto that would go on to become one of the most influential artistic texts of the 20th century. Breton’s Manifesto of Surrealism launched a movement that transformed not only visual art, but also literature, theatre and film.

Surrealism drew on developments in psychology to herald a revolutionary new way of doing, seeing and being. It is, as art critic Jonathan Jones once noted, “the only modern movement that changed the way we talk and think about life”.

Surrealism also fundamentally changed the way we make art. Its cultural impact and legacy can be felt in, to pluck three random examples, the cinematic dreamscapes of David Lynch, the lyrical cut-ups of Bob Dylan and the monumental sculptures of Louise Bourgeois.

The term itself has entered our everyday lexicon. By the same token, some question its significance and aesthetic merits. Moreover, to borrow a couple of rhetorical questions posed by Mark Polizzotti in a book marking the movement’s centenary: “Does Surrealism still matter? Has it ever mattered?”

These questions are hardly new. They’ve been around since the movement’s inception – and continue to be asked in our historical moment of catastrophe. As Polizzotti writes:

young people of the 21st century could hardly be faulted for wondering what a bunch of eccentric writers and artists showing off their dream states could have to do with such pressing concerns as social and racial injustice, a faltering job market, gross economic inequities, the decimation of our civil liberties, questions of gender identity and equality, environmental devastation, education reform, or, once again […] the spectre of world war.

The answer, Polizzotti points out, is simple: “Surrealism engaged with all of these crises.”

While Surrealism started as a literary movement, it quickly evolved into a formidable platform for critiquing dominant sociopolitical inequalities and systems of oppression.

In both word and deed, the surrealists opposed warmongering and colonial expansion. They railed against religious dogma and championed the freedom of sexual expression.

Breton perhaps put it best in 1935. “From where we stand,” he said, while tipping his hat to Karl Marx, “we maintain that the activity of interpreting the world must continue to be linked with the activity of changing the world.”

WWI and meeting Jacques Vaché

Born in Normandy in 1896, André Breton was the only child of a policeman and a seamstress.

While studying medicine, Breton developed an interest in mental illness. He also had a passion for poetry. At an early age, he started exchanging letters with the prominent avant-gardist Guillaume Apollinaire, who coined the term “surrealism” in 1917.

Breton’s interests were disrupted when he was conscripted into the French army in 1914. During World War I, he served as a stretcher bearer, dealing firsthand with shellshocked soldiers. He also worked as a nurse in Nantes, France, where he met a wounded Jacques Vaché.

According to art historian Susan Laxton, the dandyish Vaché was in equal measure “disdainful and deeply cynical”, seeming to live “in a perpetual state of insubordination”. His unconventional approach to life and creativity had a profound impact on Breton’s thinking about Surrealism.

Vaché had little patience for most writers and artists. He was, however, a big fan of Alfred Jarry – best known for his scandalous drama Ubu Roi (1896). Jarry is frequently cited as an influence on Dadaism, an anarchic art movement that was developed in Europe in 1915 and led by Tristan Tzara.

The Dadaists thumbed their noses at convention and embraced chaos, irrationality and spontaneity. As Tzara explained, Dadaism was vehemently opposed to “greasy objectivity, and harmony, the science that finds everything in order”.

Breton was impressed. Keen to establish his credentials as an artist, he set out to build his own avant-garde coalition.

The rise of automatism

Enlisting Louis Aragon and Philippe Soupault, Breton set up Littérature. Running from 1919 to 1924, this review published many key surrealist works, including excerpts of Breton and Soupault’s book The Magnetic Fields (1920).

Drawing on Sigmund Freud’s concept of the unconscious, this groundbreaking collaboration marked the first sustained use of a practice called surrealist automatism.

The Magnetic Fields was written in secret over the course of a single spring week in 1919. The guidelines Breton and Soupault established for themselves were simple. They would engage in writing sessions that could last for several hours at a time – often inducing a state of shared euphoria – without any chance for reflection or correction.

The aim was to bypass rational modes of thinking and tap directly into the imagination, thereby producing a revolutionary new kind of poetry. In the words of art historian David Hopkins, this practice “was predicated on the conviction that the speed of writing is equivalent to the speed of thought”.

Following this breakthrough, Breton and the surrealists continued to refine the technique, pushing it further into new, untrammelled realms of creative possibility. With the subsequent publication of the Manifesto of Surrealism, Breton solidified the movement’s core principles. In it, he offers a definition:

Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of previously neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dreams, in the disinterested play of thought. It tends to ruin once and for all all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute itself for them in solving all the principle problems of life.

In other words, Surrealism was not just an artistic endeavour, but a philosophical stance that sought to radically rethink experience and existence.

Elsewhere in the manifesto, Breton introduces the key surrealist concept of “the marvellous”. For the surrealists, the marvellous could be found in poems, paintings, photographs and everyday objects. It was experienced as a shock or jolt, a moment of recognition that allowed one to transcend the ordinary and glimpse the sublime hidden within the apparently mundane.

By rejecting traditional modes of understanding and embracing the unconscious, the surrealists attempted to upend the established order of things. They viewed automatism and the marvellous as ways to access deeper truths, free from the constraints of rationality which they believed had long dominated Western thought.

A movement transcending borders

The events that followed the publication of Breton’s Manifesto of Surrealism supported his claim, made during a 1934 lecture, that the movement had “spread like wildfire, on pursuing its course, not only in art but in life”.

Surrealism’s public profile expanded internationally, along with its adherents. Luis Buñuel, Frida Kahlo, Aimé Césaire, Lee Miller, Salvador Dalí and Leonor Fini are just some of the important figures who embraced the movement.

And as the raft of high-profile exhibitions currently taking place confirms, the surrealist spirit lives on, decades after the movement wound down. Unabated, the search for the marvellous continues.

Alexander Howard 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. 100 years of surrealism: how a French writer inspired by the avant-garde changed the world forever – https://theconversation.com/100-years-of-surrealism-how-a-french-writer-inspired-by-the-avant-garde-changed-the-world-forever-237464

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Wille, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne

The Australian government has committed A$95 million to fight a virulent strain of bird flu wreaking havoc globally.

With the arrival of millions of migratory birds this spring, there is an increased risk of a deadly strain arriving in Australia, known as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1.

Australia is the only continent free of this rapidly spreading strain. Overseas, HPAI H5N1 has been detected in poultry, wild birds and a wide range of mammals, including humans. But our reprieve will likely not last forever.

As Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek warned on Monday, “the awful reality of this disease is that – like the rest of the world – we will not be able to prevent its arrival”. HPAI H5N1 is like nothing we’ve seen in Australia. The extra funding, which is in addition to Australia’s current biosecurity budget, will help us prepare and respond.

A trail of destruction

Avian influenza is a virus that infects birds, but can infect other animals.

In Australia we have various strains of avian influenza that don’t cause disease, referred to as low pathogenic avian influenza. While these viruses occur naturally Australian wild birds, it is the disease-causing strains, such as HPAI H5N1 and HPAI H7 we are worried about. These HPAI strains have enormous consequences for wild birds, domestic animals, and animal producers and workers.

HPAI H5N1 first emerged in Asia in 1996, and has been circulating in Asian poultry for decades. Following genetic changes in the virus, it repeatedly jumped into wild birds in 2014, 2016 and again in 2020, after which it caused an animal pandemic, or panzootic.

Starting in 2021, the virus rapidly spread. First, from Europe to North America in 2021. Then into South America in 2022. There, in South America, the virus caused the death of more than 500,000 wild birds and 30,000 marine mammals.

While we had seen large outbreaks in wild birds globally, the huge outbreaks in seals and sea lions in South America was unprecedented. With this came substantial concern that the virus was spreading from mammal to mammal, rather than just bird to bird or bird to mammal, as was happening elsewhere.

About a year after arriving in South America, the virus was detected in the sub-Antarctic, and a few months later, on the Antarctic Peninsula.

Australia and New Zealand are still free of the virus, for now.

The rising death toll

Beyond wildlife, HPAI H5N1 is having a huge impact on poultry.

In 2022 alone, it caused 130 million poultry across 67 countries to die of the illness or be euthanased because they were infected.

In contrast, earlier this year Australia’s biggest avian influenza outbreak to date – caused by a different strain, HPAI H7 – caused the death or destruction of 1.5 million chickens. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to what is occurring globally.

Concerningly, in the United States, the virus has jumped into dairy cattle and so far has affected more than 200 dairy herds in 14 states. It has also jumping into humans: in the past ten days alone, six human cases have occurred – all in dairy workers in California.

Given HPAI H5N1 has spread around the globe, the risk of the virus entering Australia has increased.

In a recent risk assessment, my colleague and I identified two main pathways for H5N1 into Australia.

The most likely route is that H5N1 is brought in from Asia by long-distance migratory birds. Birds such as shorebirds and seabirds arrive in the millions each spring from Asia (and in some cases as far away as Alaska).

A second route is with ducks. If the virus spreads across the Wallace Line (a biogeographical boundary that runs through Indonesia), it will come into contact with endemic Australian duck species.

Unlike shorebirds and seabirds, ducks are not long-distance migrants, and don’t migrate between Asia and Australia. That endemic Australian ducks are not exposed to this virus because they don’t migrate to Asia may be one of the reasons why H5N1 has not yet arrived in Australia.

So, what’s the plan?

The Australian government’s new $95 million funding commitment is a crucial response to the heightened level of risk, and the dire consequences if H5N1 entered the country.

The funding is divided between environment, agriculture and human health – the three pillars of the “One Health” approach.

Broadly, the money will be spent on:

• enhancing surveillance to ensure timely detection and response if the disease enters and spreads in animals within Australia

• strengthening preparedness and response capability to reduce harm to the production sector and native wildlife

• supporting a nationally coordinated approach to response and communications

• taking proactive measures to protect threatened iconic species from extinction

• investing in more pre-pandemic vaccines to protect human health.

Importantly, the funding covers preparedness, surveillance and response.

Preparedness includes proactive measures to protect threatened birds – for example, vaccination or reducing other threats to these species) and improving biosecurity.

Surveillance is essential to catch the virus as soon as it arrives and track its spread. Australia already has a wild bird surveillance program which, among other things, investigates sick and dead wildlife as well as sampling “healthy” wild birds. The additional commitment will bolster these activities.

Response will include things like better and faster tests. It will also include funding for practical on-ground actions to limit the spread and impacts of HPAI H5N1 for susceptible wildlife. This might include a vaccination program for vulnerable threatened species, as an example.

Work has already begun

This funding is a long-term investment, and mostly allocated to future activities. In the short term, my colleagues and I have already begun our spring surveillance program.

We aim to test about 1,000 long-distance migratory birds arriving in Australia for avian influenza. Based on our risk assessments, we are focusing on long-distance migratory seabirds such as the short-tailed shearwater, and various shorebirds including red-necked stints, arriving from breeding areas in Siberia.

This surveillance program is supported by, and contributes to, the national surveillance program managed by Wildlife Health Australia

In addition to our active surveillance, we need your help! If you see sick or dead wild birds or marine mammals, call the Emergency Animal Disease Watch Hotline on 1800 675 888.

In addition, the Wildlife Health Australia website offers current advice for:

• people who encounter sick or dead wild birds

• vets and other animal health professionals

• bird banders, wildlife rangers and researchers

• wildlife managers and wildlife care providers, who can access risk mitigation toolboxes.

For more information, visit birdflu.gov.au or Wildlife Health Australia’s avian influenza page

Michelle Wille receives funding from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Wildlife Health Australia.

– ref. ‘Awful reality’: Albanese government injects $95 million to fight the latest deadly bird flu – https://theconversation.com/awful-reality-albanese-government-injects-95-million-to-fight-the-latest-deadly-bird-flu-241243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lizzy Lowe, Vice Chancellor’s Research Fellow in Ecology and Entomology, Edith Cowan University

If you notice a tiny, strikingly coloured spider performing an elaborate courtship dance, you may have seen your first peacock spider.

New species of peacock spider are discovered every year; the tally is now 113. One newly discovered species, Maratus yanchep, is only known to exist in a small area of coastal dunes near Yanchep, north of Perth.

As Perth’s suburbs sprawl ever further north and south, it means one problem – the housing crisis – is worsening another, the extinction crisis.

The dunes which are home to Maratus yanchep are just 20 metres from land being cleared for large new estates.

If the species was formally listed as threatened, it could be protected. But the spider was only described in 2022 and has not been listed on state or federal threatened species lists. That means Maratus yanchep has no protection, according to the state government.

What’s so special about a spider?

Peacock spiders are tiny. Many have bodies just 4–5 mm across. The males only put on their mating displays during short periods of the year, typically August to September. Their size and habits also make it hard to learn about their populations and preferred habitats. This is partly why we’re only now realising how many peacock spider species there are.

Concerted effort by enthusiasts such as Jurgen Otto has greatly expanded our knowledge. Of the 113 described species, each has distinctive colouring and its own dances (males have the colour and the moves). But we know there are more species of peacock spider waiting to be recognised by western science.

Many species of peacock spider are only known from within a very small area of suitable habitat.

This puts the species at high risk of extinction because a single threat such as a large bushfire or a suburban development can destroy all their habitat at once.

How can this be allowed?

Before any native bushland is cleared in Australia, developers have to undertake an environmental impact survey to look for threatened species and assess what damage the development would do. If a threatened species is found, the development can be scaled back or denied.

The problem is, these surveys only look for species known to be in danger. If a species isn’t listed on Australia’s growing list of threatened species, it won’t be looked for.

But Maratus yanchep has not been assessed to see if it is threatened. This means it has no protection from development.

This points to a wider problem. Large, well-known Australian vertebrates such as koalas and platypuses tend to get more attention – and conservation efforts – than humble invertebrates. We face an uphill battle to conserve our wealth of invertebrates.

Worldwide, many invertebrates are in real danger of disappearing. Australia is home to at least 300,000 invertebrate species, dwarfing the 8,000-odd vertebrates – but only 101 are currently listed under the federal government’s laws protecting threatened species, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act. The problem here is we don’t have enough data to assess most invertebrate species for formal conservation listing and protection.

Data takes money

Listing a species as threatened requires a large amount of data on where the species is and isn’t found. This takes time and specialist knowledge. But funding is scarce.

As a result, our efforts to gather data on invertebrates often relies on passionate volunteers and enthusiasts, who may often pick one genus – say peacock spiders – and set out to expand our knowledge.

When clear and immediate threats do appear – such as clearing coastal dunes in Yanchep – we are again reliant on the unpaid work of volunteers to gather information.

The problem of sprawl

Perth is one of the longest cities in the world. Its suburbs sprawl for 150 kilometres, running from Two Rocks in the north to Dawesville in the south.

Many Perth residents want to live by the coast, driving demand for new housing on the city outskirts. This drives destruction of native bushland and pushes species towards extinction. Some species tolerate the change from bushland to suburbia, but these are a minority – less than 25%. Small, localised species are at highest risk of extinction.

Perth’s sprawl shows no sign of slowing. Land clearing for housing has contributed to the worsening plight of the Carnaby’s cockatoo. Fifty years ago, the iconic cockatoo flew over the city in flocks as large as 7,000. There’s nothing like that now.

What can we do?

Efforts are underway to protect Maratus yanchep. The not-for-profit charity Invertebrates Australia is working to nominate it for the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species. Greens MP Brad Pettitt raised the issue in Parliament in August.

The one thing peacock spiders have going for them is their looks. They are spectacularly beautiful. They’re also easily identified by the distinct patterns on the males – for most species you don’t need expert training to tell them apart, just decent eyesight.

As a result, peacock spiders have drawn attention from dozens of amateur arachnologists and photographers who collect and share information on where they can be found. This citizen science data is often able to be used as evidence in listing a species as threatened – and unlocking vital protection.

Images of these spiders also boosts their public profile and support for their protection.

Despite the recent groundswell of interest in saving this tiny spider, it may be too late. To avoid the mass extinction of iconic Australian species, we must find better ways of building without large-scale habitat clearing.

Read more:
Photos from the field: zooming in on Australia’s hidden world of exquisite mites, snails and beetles

Lizzy Lowe is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia

Jess Marsh is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.

Dr Leanda Denise Mason is affiliated with Centre for People, Place, and Planet.

– ref. This beautiful peacock spider was only found two years ago. Now it could be dancing its last dance – https://theconversation.com/this-beautiful-peacock-spider-was-only-found-two-years-ago-now-it-could-be-dancing-its-last-dance-238437

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julia Powles, Associate Professor of Law and Technology; Director, UWA Tech & Policy Lab, Law School, The University of Western Australia

Since 2019, the Australian Department for Industry, Science and Resources has been striving to make the nation a leader in “safe and responsible” artificial intelligence (AI). Key to this is a voluntary framework based on eight AI ethics principles, including “human-centred values”, “fairness” and “transparency and explainability”.

Every subsequent piece of national guidance on AI has spun off these eight principles, imploring business, government and schools to put them into practice. But these voluntary principles have no real hold on organisations that develop and deploy AI systems.

Last month, the Australian government started consulting on a proposal that struck a different tone. Acknowledging “voluntary compliance […] is no longer enough”, it spoke of “mandatory guardrails for AI in high-risk settings”.

But the core idea of self-regulation remains stubbornly baked in. For example, it’s up to AI developers to determine whether their AI system is high risk, by having regard to a set of risks that can only be described as endemic to large-scale AI systems.

If this high hurdle is met, what mandatory guardrails kick in? For the most part, companies simply need to demonstrate they have internal processes gesturing at the AI ethics principles. The proposal is most notable, then, for what it does not include. There is no oversight, no consequences, no refusal, no redress.

But there is a different, ready-to-hand model that Australia could adopt for AI. It comes from another critical technology in the national interest: gene technology.

A different model

Gene technology is what’s behind genetically modified organisms. Like AI, it raises concerns for more than 60% of the population.

In Australia, it’s regulated by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. The regulator was established in 2001 to meet the biotech boom in agriculture and health. Since then, it’s become the exemplar of an expert-informed, highly transparent regulator focused on a specific technology with far-reaching consequences.

Three features have ensured the gene technology regulator’s national and international success.

First, it’s a single-mission body. It regulates dealings with genetically modified organisms:

to protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment, by identifying risks posed by or as a result of gene technology.

Second, it has a sophisticated decision-making structure. Thanks to it, the risk assessment of every application of gene technology in Australia is informed by sound expertise. It also insulates that assessment from political influence and corporate lobbying.

The regulator is informed by two integrated expert bodies: a Technical Advisory Committee and an Ethics and Community Consultative Committee. These bodies are complemented by Institutional Biosafety Committees supporting ongoing risk management at more than 200 research and commercial institutions accredited to use gene technology in Australia. This parallels best practice in food safety and drug safety.

Third, the regulator continuously integrates public input into its risk assessment process. It does so meaningfully and transparently. Every dealing with gene technology must be approved. Before a release into the wild, an exhaustive consultation process maximises review and oversight. This ensures a high threshold of public safety.

Regulating high-risk technologies

Together, these factors explain why Australia’s gene technology regulator has been so successful. They also highlight what’s missing in most emerging approaches to AI regulation.

The mandate of AI regulation typically involves an impossible compromise between protecting the public and supporting industry. As with gene regulation, it seeks to safeguard against risks. In the case of AI, those risks would be to health, the environment and human rights. But it also seeks to “maximise the opportunities that AI presents for our economy and society”.

Second, currently proposed AI regulation outsources risk assessment and management to commercial AI providers. Instead, it should develop a national evidence base, informed by cross-disciplinary scientific, socio-technical and civil society expertise.

The argument goes that AI is “out of the bag”, with potential applications too numerous and too mundane to regulate. Yet molecular biology methods are also well out of the bag. The gene tech regulator still maintains oversight of all uses of the technology, while continually working to categorise certain dealings as “exempt” or “low-risk” to facilitate research and development.

Third, the public has no meaningful opportunity to assent to dealings with AI. This is true regardless of whether it involves plundering the archives of our collective imaginations to build AI systems, or deploying them in ways that undercut dignity, autonomy and justice.

The lesson of more than two decades of gene regulation is that it doesn’t stop innovation to regulate a promising new technology until it can demonstrate a history of non-damaging use to people and the environment. In fact, it saves it.

The UWA Tech & Policy Lab receives funding from nationally competitive research grants and philanthropic partners. The present research was supported by GA308883: Effective Ethical Frameworks for the State as an Enabler of Innovation, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Julia Powles is the Director of the Lab and has served as an independent member of the National AI Centre’s Think Tank on Responsible AI, the Australian Government’s National Robotics Strategy Advisory Committee, and the Advisory Panel supporting the Australian Parliamentary Inquiry into the Use of Generative AI in the Australian Education System. Through each of these bodies, she has provided advice on comparative AI regulation.

Haris Yusoff 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 led the way regulating gene technology for over 20 years. Here’s how it should apply that to AI – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-led-the-way-regulating-gene-technology-for-over-20-years-heres-how-it-should-apply-that-to-ai-240571

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kellie Toohey, Associate Professor Clinical Exercise Physiology, Southern Cross University

When you think of lung cancer treatment, what comes to mind – chemotherapy, radiation, surgery? While these can be crucial, there’s another powerful tool that’s often overlooked: exercise.

Our recent study, published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, challenges the common belief that people with lung cancer are too sick to be physically active.

In fact, we found exercise can play a vital role in improving life for those battling this disease.

What we did and what we found

Our review involved analysing 26 high quality studies on how best to incorporate exercise into treatment for lung cancer.

We found the overwhelming weight of evidence shows exercise offers benefits at every stage of the lung cancer journey. This includes:

• before surgery (being more fit can lead to faster recovery and potentially fewer complications)
• after surgery (gentle exercise helps regain strength and makes daily tasks easier)
• during other treatments (physical activity can ease side effects like fatigue and muscle weakness)
• at advanced stages of disease (even for late-stage patients, evidence shows exercise can improve quality of life and maintain independence)
• patients experiencing muscle wasting (evidence shows exercise, especially strength training, helps preserve muscle and keeps patients stronger).

What does exercise look like?

When we say “exercise,” we’re not talking about running marathons. For someone with lung cancer, it might mean:

• taking a short walk around the block
• doing some gentle cycling on a stationary bike
• swimming or doing some movement in the water
• lifting light weights or doing banded exercises
• doing yoga or tai chi for more mobile, flexible joints, as well as stress and pain reduction.

The key is to start slowly and listen to your body. What works for one person might not work for another.

Getting started safely

If you or a loved one has lung cancer and wants to be more active, start by talking with your doctor. They can advise on any precautions you should take and send you to an exercise specialist if needed.

You might also consider working with an exercise physiologist or physiotherapist who can design a safe, personalised program.

It’s OK to start small – even five to ten minutes of activity is beneficial, according to the Cancer Council Australia .

Try to be consistent, if you can. Regular, gentle exercise is better than occasional intense bursts.

It can help to keep track of your progress and how you feel after each session. You might also try looking for support groups or exercise classes specifically for cancer patients at local hospitals or community centres.

The Cancer Council Australia website offers inspiration and ideas on exercises to start with, even in the home.

The real-world benefits

Research shows regular physical activity can significantly improve quality of life for lung cancer patients. These can include:

• reduced fatigue, even though that might seem counterintuitive
• less breathlessness, as exercise can improve lung function
• less muscle weakness, which makes daily tasks easier
• better mood, as physical exercise can help fight depression and anxiety
• better sleep; many patients report sleeping more easily after starting an exercise routine.

Ditch the stigma, and get the exercise support you deserve

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed worldwide. It’s a devastating illness that affects not just the body, but also a person’s mental health and quality of life.

Unfortunately, there’s often a stigma attached to lung cancer. Many patients feel judged, or that they must have done something – such as smoking – to “deserve” their diagnosis.

This shame can prevent people from seeking help or joining support programs.

But here’s an important truth: anyone can get lung cancer, even if they’ve never smoked.

And regardless of how someone developed the disease, they deserve compassion and the best possible care – including support for physical activity.

Never too late to start

It’s important to note exercise can be beneficial even for those receiving palliative care.

In palliative care, the goals shift from fighting the cancer to enhancing comfort and quality of life, and physical activity can play a significant role in this.

A lung cancer diagnosis is undoubtedly daunting. But we’re learning patients have more tools to improve their wellbeing than we once thought.

Exercise isn’t a cure, but it can be a powerful complement to traditional treatments and medications.

If you or someone you know is facing lung cancer, don’t be afraid to discuss incorporating exercise into the treatment plan with your health-care team. Start small, be patient and consistent, and remember that every bit of movement counts.

By challenging old assumptions and embracing exercise as part of lung cancer care, we can empower patients to take a more active role in their treatment.

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. For people with lung cancer, exercise can be gruelling. It’s also among the most important things – https://theconversation.com/for-people-with-lung-cancer-exercise-can-be-gruelling-its-also-among-the-most-important-things-240216

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

Is Reko Rennie Australia’s equivalent of Keith Haring? Both Rennie, a Melbourne-based Aboriginal artist who celebrates the heritage the Kamilaroi people of northern New South Wales, and Haring, the American pop art great, emerged out of an urban graffiti culture.

Both create a widely recognisable visual language that has a striking vitality, sense of authenticity and a pulsating vibrancy. Both are deeply autobiographical artists who created a visual code through which to share their personal histories.

Rennie is an interdisciplinary artist who seamlessly moves between video, printmaking, sculpture, painting and neon art. With more than a hundred works on display, drawn from the artist’s two-decade-long career, this is the first significant retrospective of his art.

Rennie possesses the gift of creating memorable images that are simultaneously puzzling, intriguing and entertaining. On entering the gallery, you encounter a 1973 Rolls-Royce Corniche decorated with the strange camouflage colours that reoccur throughout Rennie’s art. The physical car is accompanied by a three-channel video work with a Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds soundtrack.

Beginnings

Although born in Footscray in Melbourne, the artist’s grandmother Julia, who belonged to the Stolen Generation in the 1920s and was enslaved on a pastoral station, raised him and imparted to him his Kamilaroi heritage. In his youth, Rennie saw a photograph of a pastoralist and his wife dressed up for Sunday church and seated in their luxury Rolls-Royce car. At the time, he reflected on the poverty his grandmother would have experienced while working on a pastoral station.

The markings he made on the car, that are layered with a traditional diamond pattern of the Kamilaroi people, claim ownership over the vehicle. Inside it is a photograph of his grandmother. In the video, with a setting sun as a backdrop, Rennie drives the car down dirt tracks to his home country and, in something resembling burnouts, he makes traditional sand engravings with the tyres of the car. The work is poignant, evocative and becomes quickly embedded in your memory.

The piece references an earlier one, with a pink 1973 Holden Monaro. In that video, the car performs a series of burnouts and doughnuts, the traditional initiation ceremony with Westie drag-racing culture of suburbia into which the artist was born. This is in contrast with the initiation practices and traditional sand engravings of the Kamilaroi people. The video is accompanied with an operatic score from Yorta Yorta woman, composer and soprano, Deborah Cheetham, performed with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra. Again, the video becomes a haunting and somewhat surreal experience.

Street spaces

Rennie is an artist who looks best when he operates in a public environment.

His early street art, accompanied by break dancing and hip hop, thrives in the accidental lighting of urban spaces. He loves the way street art can ambush the viewer and employ strategies that catch and hold the gaze of the casual passerby. Keith Haring and Howard Arkley were two of the artists who pointed a way for Rennie to move from the street and onto the gallery wall. Although they may have suggested some of the formal strategies, Aboriginal culture provided the content that would consummate the work and give it a narrative.

When in 2020 there was a commemoration of the 250th anniversary of Lieutenant James Cook’s first landfall at Botany Bay and the HMB Endeavour’s charting of the East Coast of Australia, the Carriageworks in Sydney commissioned Rennie to make a piece for the occasion.

His monumental text work is made up of LED neon lettering held up in an aluminium armature. It measures over two-and-a-half metres in height and almost 19 metres in length. The simple message, one anchored in a tradition of street art, reads: “REMEMBER ME”. Cook’s landing marked the beginning of a process of invasion and dispossession, Rennie’s text affirms an opposition to the invasion and stresses that First Nations people survived. Sovereignty was never ceded.

This message has been at the core of much of Rennie’s art, for instance, in the two neon pieces, OA Warrior I (pink) and OA Warrior I (blue), both from 2020. They are based on an 1800s photograph of a defiant Kamilaroi warrior with his raised club. The message is that the OA (Original Aboriginal) will never cede sovereignty.

In a much earlier piece from 2016, that has always been one of my favourites in Rennie’s art, a ten-metre-long banner bears the inscription, “I was always here”. It is made of hand-pressed metallic foil on satin where he employs the geometric diamond patterning of the Kamilaroi people as a background to the words.

The work commemorates all of the Frontier Wars, massacres and oppression suffered by First Nation peoples in this country and in many other countries in a powerful way.

Impressive and consistent

Rennie, who turns 50 this year, exhibited at the 56th Venice Biennale in 2015 and with the 2016 XIII Bienale de Cuenca in Ecuador and has held numerous exhibitions across Australia, Asia, the United States and Europe.

His star is in the ascendancy and he is widely regarded as one of Australia’s most distinctive and versatile artists, who is attracting international acclaim.

Beautifully curated by Myles Russel-Cook as his final show at the NGV before he takes up the directorship of ACCA, Rekospective is impressive in scope, consistent in content but not repetitive.

While Keith Haring died at the age of 31, I feel Reko Rennie will be viewed, in retrospect, as an artist at least as significant as Haring and one of growing importance in Australian art.

REKOSPECTIVE: The Art of Reko Rennie is at The Ian Potter Centre: NGV Australia until 27 January 2025. Free admission.

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

– ref. NGV’s Reko Rennie retrospective asks whether he should be considered Australia’s Keith Haring – https://theconversation.com/ngvs-reko-rennie-retrospective-asks-whether-he-should-be-considered-australias-keith-haring-238881

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mia Cobb, Research Fellow, Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne

When you hear about “science focused on how dogs can live their best lives with us” it sounds like an imaginary job made up by a child. However, the field of animal welfare science is real and influential.

As our most popular animal companion and coworker, dogs are very deserving of scientific attention. In recent years we’ve learned more about how dogs are similar to people, but also how they are distinctly themselves.

We often think about how dogs help us – as companions, working as detectors, and keeping us safe and healthy. Dog-centric science helps us think about the world from a four-paw perspective and apply this new knowledge so dogs can enjoy a good life.

Here are five tips to keep the tails in your life wagging happily.

1. Let dogs sniff

Sniffing makes dogs happier. We tend to forget they live in a smell-based world because we’re so visual. Often taking the dog for a walk is our daily physical activity but we should remember it could be our dogs’ only time out of the home environment.

Letting them have a really good sniff of that tree or post is full of satisfying information for them. It’s their nose’s equivalent of us standing at the top of a mountain and enjoying a rich, colour-soaked, sunset view.

2. Give dogs agency

Agency is a hot topic in animal welfare science right now. For people who lived through the frustration of strict lockdowns in the early years of COVID, it’s easy to remember how not being able to go where we wanted, or see who we wanted, when we wanted, impacted our mental health.

We’ve now learned that giving animals choice and control in their lives is important for their mental wellbeing too. We can help our dogs enjoy better welfare by creating more choices and offering them control to exercise their agency.

This might be installing a doggy door so they can go outside or inside when they like. It could be letting them decide which sniffy path to take through your local park. Perhaps it’s choosing which three toys to play with that day from a larger collection that gets rotated around. Maybe it’s putting an old blanket down in a new location where you’ve noticed the sun hits the floor for them to relax on.

Providing choices doesn’t have to be complicated or expensive.

3. Recognise all dogs are individuals

People commonly ascribe certain personality traits to certain dog breeds. But just like us, dogs have their own personalities and preferences. Not all dogs are going to like the same things and a new dog we live with may be completely different to the last one.

One dog might like to go to the dog park and run around with other dogs at high speed for an hour, while another dog would much rather hang out with you chewing on something in the garden.

We can see as much behavioural variation within breeds as we do between them. Being prepared to meet dogs where they are, as individuals, is important to their welfare.

As well as noticing what dogs like to do as individuals, it’s important not to force dogs into situations they don’t enjoy. Pay attention to behaviour that indicates dogs aren’t comfortable, such as looking away, licking their lips or yawning.

4. Respect dogs’ choice to opt out

Even in our homes, we can provide options if our dogs don’t want to share in every activity with us. Having a quiet place that dogs can retreat to is really important in enabling them to opt out if they want to.

If you’re watching television loudly, it may be too much for their sensitive ears. Ensure a door is open to another room so they can retreat. Some dogs might feel overwhelmed when visitors come over; giving them somewhere safe and quiet to go rather than forcing an interaction will help them cope.

Dogs can be terrific role models for children when teaching empathy. We can demonstrate consent by letting dogs approach us for pats and depart when they want. Like seeing exotic animals perform in circuses, dressing up dogs for our own entertainment seems to have had its day. If you asked most dogs, they don’t want to wear costumes or be part of your Halloween adventures.

5. Opportunities for off-lead activity – safely.

When dogs are allowed to run off-lead, they use space differently. They tend to explore more widely and go faster than they do when walking with us on-lead. This offers them important and fun physical activity to keep them fit and healthy.

A recent exploration of how liveable cities are for dogs mapped all the designated areas for dogs to run off-leash. Doggy density ranged from one dog for every six people to one dog for every 30 people, depending on where you live.

It also considered how access to these areas related to the annual registration fees for dogs in each government area compared, with surprising differences noted across greater Melbourne. We noted fees varied between A$37 and $84, and these didn’t relate to how many off-lead areas you could access.

For dog-loving nations, such as Australia, helping our canine friends live their best life feels good. Science that comes from a four-paw perspective can help us reconsider our everyday interactions with dogs and influence positive changes so we can live well, together.

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

– ref. The science of happier dogs: 5 tips to help your canine friends live their best life – https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-happier-dogs-5-tips-to-help-your-canine-friends-live-their-best-life-236952

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

Nearly a year on from its formation, it’s clear a three-party coalition is not quite the same as the two-party versions New Zealand is accustomed to.

Normally, the primary dynamic has been clear: the major party sets the pace while the smaller governing partner receives a bauble or two for supporting the lead act. There may be occasional concerns about tails wagging dogs, but the dog is clearly in charge.

With the present National-ACT-NZ First coalition, however, things are more complex and less predictable. The dog has two tails, both of which are more than capable of vigorous wagging.

On the anniversary of the 2023 election, which produced the first three-party coalition government since the MMP system was adopted in 1996, we are perhaps beginning to get a picture of where dog ends and tails begin.

Speed wobbles

If that picture has been a little blurry until now it’s partly because of the speed with which the government has moved – not always to its own advantage.

In the process of ticking off the 49 items on its plan for the first 100 days, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s administration has kept some election promises but broken or fudged others, having to backtrack as a result.

It has delivered tax cuts, but been forced to trim and cap spending in areas (like health and infrastructure) crying out for extra investment.

It has given the impression of urgency and action with its Fast-track Approvals Bill. But it had to scrap the policy’s core element of granting three ministers unprecedented constitutional authority over which projects to fast-track.

Concerns about executive overreach and potential conflicts of interest have dogged other policy areas, too. These range from the repeal of ground-breaking smoke-free legislation to firearms control – both the responsibility of junior coalition party ministers.

This sense of a government somewhat at odds with itself extends to the swingeing cuts made to the public service workforce. Marketed as freeing up resources for front-line staff, the cuts are increasingly likely to be affecting actual service delivery in health, police, defence and elsewhere.

An ‘executive paradise’

Some of this can be put down to a new government’s distrust of a public service inherited from its predecessor, and a desire to make the most of its first year before the shadow election campaign kicks off mid-term.

But the coalition’s vigorous embrace of the executive authority baked into New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements has still been something to behold. As constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer put it, the fast-track legislation risked turning New Zealand into “an executive paradise, not a democratic paradise”.

The government has used parliamentary urgency more frequently than any other contemporary administration. It has been rattling legislation through the House faster than the wheels of parliamentary democracy are meant to turn.

Submitters on the Māori wards legislation, for example, were given just three working days to prepare their arguments. Those wanting to comment on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill had four days.

And the government has been making less use of parliament’s expert select committees than is standard practice. This has limited public participation and constrained scrutiny of proposed legislation.

Ministers have also been prepared to ignore public service advice while paying plenty of attention to operational matters in the departments that furnish that advice.

New Zealand’s system of public management distinguishes between ministers’ responsibility for policy outcomes and senior officials’ responsibility for the operational decisions required to deliver those outcomes.

Nonetheless, Cabinet has commandeered oversight of operational matters in Whaikaha/Ministry of Disabled People, following botched communications over changes in disability funding. And civil servants have recently been told to stop working from home and return to the office.

The government will be betting this tactical disposition bolsters its “getting stuff done” narrative. But no one wants a concern with short-term operational details to come at the expense of long-term policy thinking.

Treaty principles pantomime

Nowhere is the coalition’s internal tension more evident, however, than in its confrontational approach to Māori and te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi issues.

Having courted voters already sceptical or disgruntled about Māori cultural assertiveness, the coalition moved fast to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora/Māori Health Authority, repeal legislation supporting Māori wards in local government, row back on official use of te reo Māori, and cut funding for Māori language revitalisation.

But its proposed Treaty Principles Bill – an ACT Party initiative – looks set to be especially constitutionally fraught and politically divisive.

National and NZ First have indicated they will not support the bill beyond its first reading, but have agreed it will receive a full six months in front of a select committee.

This only raises the question of why any parliamentary time and money should be spent on the proposal at all – especially given the government’s supposed “laser focus” on cost and efficiency elsewhere.

Can the centre hold?

The politics around the Treaty Principles Bill also reveal just how much the prime minister has had to cede to ACT, for whom the proposed legislation was a bottom line during the government formation process.

And it inevitably casts doubt on the extent and exercise of prime ministerial authority under three-way governing arrangements. ACT leader and soon-to-be deputy prime minister David Seymour has questioned Christopher Luxon’s authority more than once.

And Luxon’s apparent unwillingness to at least censure an under-performing minister from another party (NZ First’s Casey Costello, for example) contrasts starkly with his firmer treatment of those in his own National Party (Melissa Lee and Penny Simmons, both demoted).

One year into a three-year term, these issues can perhaps be dismissed as part of the process of bedding down a new government. But politics never rests. Winston Peters hands the deputy prime minister role to David Seymour at the end of next May. Both NZ First and ACT will want to distinguish themselves from National.

As the next election nears and the jockeying for attention begins, the prime minister’s authority over his administration, and the coalition’s coherence, will be tested further.

Richard Shaw 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. Election anniversary: a year into 3-party coalition government, can the centre hold? – https://theconversation.com/election-anniversary-a-year-into-3-party-coalition-government-can-the-centre-hold-240189

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Blackwell, Research Fellow (Indigenous Diplomacy), Australian National University

It’s one year since the failed referendum to enshrine a First Nations Voice to Parliament in the Australian Constitution.

The vote represents a moment of deep sadness and frustration for many First Nations people for the lost opportunity to move towards meaningful change in our lives, communities and for our futures. Many elders and old people will likely not live to see change.

I was one of the many people in the Uluru Dialogue at UNSW who worked last year across the country educating on and advocating for the constitutional change. I spoke to communities across New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, from Boorowa to Melbourne.

I not only saw the campaign first-hand, I also have read every think piece imaginable in the 12 months since about why the referendum failed.

A ceaseless blame game

From the expected pieces blaming the usual suspects (Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, Indigenous peoples, the Yes campaign, the No campaign and the media), there were also some weirder supposed culprits.

Some blamed “wokeness”, Donald Trump and dark money, secret elites, identity politics, and all manner of culture war issues.

To my mind, no single thing doomed the Voice. It was a mix of a lot of the above.

Albanese treating the referendum like an election campaign but without the usual level of resourcing and advocacy. The Coalition’s outright opposition to the idea (despite previous indications of support). The media’s failure to grapple with Indigenous issues and dogmatic insistence on giving prominence to “both sides” of the debate.

The YES23 organisation was also disorganised from the start. Yes campaigners were forced onto the back foot daily by relentless misinformation, seemingly deliberate, from the No campaign.

Read more:
Why did the Voice referendum fail? We crunched the data and found 6 reasons

This built on a distinct lack of civic education among most Australians.

It was further amplified by the No campaign’s very successful “If you don’t know, vote no” slogan – the idea being that their untruths warranted little scrutiny.

That’s on top of a large undercurrent of racism that was never properly called out, and which has never been properly addressed.

Campaigns like this are something we as a nation haven’t come to terms with. We’ve seen in the United States how effective misinformation can be at confusing people, creating false senses of reality and distorting public perception.

Even if Australians supported the ideas behind the Voice in the abstract, neither they nor the media were prepared for the level of dishonesty and bad dealing from the No campaign. It was never a fair fight.

No, no, and no again

The Voice to Parliament represented a consensus plea from Indigenous communities for systemic reform. The idea was that the structure of the Australian political system was, either by design or outcome, causing many of the social and economic issues that we face, and therefore a structural solution was needed.

The No campaign claimed after the referendum that the result was a rejection of this idea of a Voice to Parliament as a solution to issues in Indigenous communities or among Indigenous peoples more generally, “because it wasn’t going to fix the things that needed to be fixed”.

Prominent No campaigner Warren Mundine even called the referendum the “most divisive, most racially charged attack on Australia I’ve ever seen”.

“Australia has voted no to the Voice of division”, was the common refrain from people like Pauline Hanson and other No campaigners. Australians “wanted practical solutions” to Indigenous issues, not a body without any detail that wouldn’t hear “real communities”.

I am not bringing up these issues again to relitigate the issues of the referendum. Instead, I want to ask a very important question: the Voice to Parliament was designed to address our systemic disadvantage, so what solutions to these serious structural issues have any of the No campaigners offered in the past 12 months?

Read more:
A royal commission won’t help the abuse of Aboriginal kids. Indigenous-led solutions will

We have seen some policies from the Coalition. Plans to reduce “fly in, fly out” workers in remote communities. Reforming land rights and native title. A royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. Less need for programs with “a specific Indigenous focus” in urban areas, where most First Nations people live.

Some of these are just a rehash of failed Coalition policies of the past, as many others have mentioned. Some appear to have come personally from Senator Jacinta Price and are seemingly not backed by experts (or many people in Indigenous communities). Others appear to be tied directly into conservative political talking points, rather than really addressing Indigenous need.

The Coalition also abandoned its plan for an alternative second referendum almost immediately after the failed vote.

The Coalition and other leading No campaigners clearly have no plans to address the structural issues facing our peoples. They’re only offering more of the regular policy tinkering and seesawing we have seen far too often before.

Abandoning the cause

The same is true of the government. I have already written for this masthead about the government’s abject failures at implementing the Closing the Gap targets and its lack of meaningful consultation.

The government’s current attempts at Indigenous policy remain exercises in seeking consent over genuine consultation. Its proposed “economic empowerment” agenda for First Nations peoples is a perfect example.

Aside from the lack of codesign and meaningful engagement, such policies have been bandied about for the better part of two decades and still have not substantively moved the dial.

The pursuit of market-based wealth for some privileged few First Nations peoples and communities, under the guise of closing the gap, as well as focusing on the overexaggerated benefits of renewable energy as a driver of Indigenous economic power, is not “economic development” for all mobs.

The policy focus was also announced as Albanese abandoned his commitment to a Makaratta Commission – the Treaty and Truth components that were meant to follow the Voice to Parliament.

These ideas fall into the same tired policy stereotypes of throwing money at some of the usual organisations and peoples who have long benefited, and claiming this solves the systemic problems we face. The problem isn’t money, it’s the very rules of the game.

Charting a way forward

Research following the referendum shows that 87% of Australians think First Nations peoples should be able to decide for ourselves about our way of life. Moreover, 64% think the disadvantages faced by our communities warrant extra government attention, and 68% believe this disadvantage comes from “past race-based policies”.

Only 35% believe Indigenous peoples are now treated equally to other Australians, and only 37% believe injustices faced by our community are “all in the past”.

This clearly shows a level of recognition by the Australian people that something needs to be done about Indigenous policy and the structural issues in this country.

According to the same data, 87% of Australians agree it is “important for First Nations peoples to have a voice/say in matters that affect them”. This jumps to 98.5% among Yes voters, but also is true of 76% of No voters.

This suggests that Australian people see the problem and can identify the structural issues.

The real work, then, is on civics education, getting people to understand that the structural issues they can see need structural change; but also making them more aware of the effects of misinformation. It’s not right that proposals that should get the support of the Australian people can be derailed the way this was.

But what also isn’t right is the current abdication of Indigenous policy by both major parties and their abandonment of any attempt to remedy structural issues. Following the referendum, the major parties have given up.

To paraphrase myself from February’s Closing the Gap announcement: the next time you run into an MP, ask them what their plan for Indigenous people is. Ask them not just about closing the gap, but to fix the structural issues that so clearly disadvantage our people.

That’s the question no one wants to answer, but it’s what we need to do if we are to move on from the 2023 referendum in a positive direction.

James Blackwell is a member of the Uluru Dialogue at UNSW. He is also an Independent Councillor for Hilltops Council in NSW.

– ref. The Voice defeat set us all back. And since then, our leaders have given up – https://theconversation.com/the-voice-defeat-set-us-all-back-and-since-then-our-leaders-have-given-up-239732

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Procter, Professor and Chair: Mental Health Nursing, University of South Australia

Escalating violence in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon in recent weeks, has brought news of death, casualties and displacement.

In response, the Australian government has organised evacuation flights for Australian citizens and is urging all Australians in Lebanon to take the earliest available flights due to the unpredictable nature of the conflict.

For the more than 248,000 Australians with Lebanese ancestry, and others, this has been a deeply distressing time.

Escalating violence in Lebanon has also resonated deeply with other diasporas in Australia, such as those from Palestine and Ukraine. These scattered communities share similar experiences of conflict and displacement.

So how do Australians with links to Lebanon, Gaza or other conflict zones look after their mental health at this time? And how can you support others who may be struggling?

Identifying with pain and suffering

People with emotional ties to conflict zones overseas identify with the pain and suffering they see and hear. Australians with shared cultural heritage may be living in the shadow of homeland events and experiencing what research has called “push-pull” dynamics.

This may be experiencing periods of calm and ease mixed with intermittent periods of intense fear, uncertainty and emotional pain as upsetting events unfold.

For some, sleeplessness, irritability, fear, frustration, uncertainty and emotional exhaustion combine. People are no longer isolated from their country of origin. Rather, global events influence their personal and social life, and mental health.

The way people manage the interplay between homeland events, sense of powerlessness, and mental health in Australia are complex. It is easy to be rapidly consumed by what is happening. Events are graphic, compelling and fast moving.

How to look after yourself

So what can you do if you notice yourself or someone close to you is becoming impacted?

Know your distress triggers. For some, this might be witnessing violence on television news or social media. For others, this might be stories about children and young people who have been killed. Seeing and hearing images and stories can be distressing if they are repeated across multiple platforms. Some people may need to minimise their media exposure.

Talk to people you trust about how you are feeling. Describe what is happening and what you notice about yourself. If you are feeling fragile or concerned about your mental health, or the mental health of a loved one, seek support from your health-care provider.

Reconnect with and strengthen personal support networks. Supportive cultural connections and family members, and other supports including friends and colleagues, can protect against the onset or worsening of mental distress.

Getting help early can create more options for support. It can also make it easier to accept help in the future.

Refer to trusted sources of information and calibrate media exposure. While many people need to know about events, news stories and imagery are distressing.

Incorporate activities that comfort and distract you, and make your situation feel safer. This can include:

• spending time with family members or friends

• spiritual, faith or religious reconnecting

• distraction through music or food.

Avoid taking devices to bed to protect your sleep and your mental health.

How to support others

If you work with or support someone who is impacted, recognise this is a time for sensitivity and compassion. Show you are concerned and, at the same time, check they’re OK. Ask:

What would be most helpful in our support for you?

What is the best way for me/the team at work to be supportive and alongside you?

It is also important to ask about someone’s mental health. You can ask:

With events unfolding, how are things at home for you right now?

When validating a person’s experience, remember it is not always important to know personal detail or circumstances in fine detail. What is important is to demonstrate genuine interest, create trust and psychological safety. Aim to really listen, rather than listening so you can respond.

As a friend, colleague or manager, offering support and listening without judgement may help a person impacted by global catastrophic events.

In times like these, validation, human connection and support are some of the best things you can do to protect your own and other people’s mental health.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Nicholas Procter currently receives funding from Overseas Services to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Foundation House and SA Health. He has previously received sitting fees from the Department of Home Affairs.

Mary Anne Kenny has previous received funding from the Australian Research Council and sitting fees from the Department of Home Affairs.

– ref. How to look after your mental health right now if you have family in the Middle East or another conflict zone – https://theconversation.com/how-to-look-after-your-mental-health-right-now-if-you-have-family-in-the-middle-east-or-another-conflict-zone-240995

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

Battery electric vehicle sales in Australia have flattened in recent months. The latest data reveal a sharp 27.2% year-on-year decline (overall new vehicle sales were down 9.7%) in September. Tesla Model Y and Model 3 cars had an even steeper drop of nearly 50%.

Sales also fell in August (by 18.5%) and July (1.5%). There’s a clear downward trend.

Before this downturn, electric vehicle sales had been rising steadily, supported by increased choices and government incentives. In early 2024, year-to-date sales continued to grow compared to the same period in 2023. Then, in April, electric vehicle sales fell for the first time in more than two years.

Australia isn’t simply mirroring a broader global trend. It’s true sales have slowed in parts of Europe and the United States — often due to reduced incentives. But strong sales growth continues in other regions, such as China and India.

A range of factors or combinations of them could help explain the trend in Australia. These include governments axing incentives, concerns about safety and depreciation, and misinformation.

Governments are cutting incentives

Electric vehicles typically cost more upfront. However, the flood of cheaper Chinese vehicles is lowering the cost barrier.

Federal, state and territory governments also provide financial incentives to buy electric vehicles. These have been among the main drivers of sales in Australia.

Nationally, incentives include a higher luxury car tax threshold and exemptions from fringe benefits tax and customs duty. But several states and territories have scaled back their rebate programs and tax exemptions in 2023 and 2024.

New South Wales and South Australia ended their $3,000 rebates on January 1 this year. At the same time, NSW ended a stamp duty refund for new and used zero-emission vehicles up to a value of $78,000. Both incentives had been offered since 2021.

Victoria ended its $3,000 rebate, also launched in 2021, in mid-2023.

In the ACT, the incentive of two years’ free registration closed on June 30 2024.

Queensland’s $6,000 electric vehicle rebate ended in September.

The market clearly responded to these changes. However, reduced financial incentives alone cannot explain the full picture. Despite several rounds of price cuts, sales of popular Tesla models are falling.

Buyers are increasingly opting for hybrid vehicles instead. In September, sales of hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles were up by 34.4% and 89.9%, respectively.

These sales trends reflect other consumer concerns beyond just the upfront cost.

Resale value worries buyers

One major issue for car buyers in Australia, and globally, is uncertainty about their resale value. Consumers are concerned electric vehicles depreciate faster than traditional cars.

These concerns are particularly tied to battery degradation, which affects a car’s range and performance over time. And batteries account for much of the vehicle’s total cost. Potential buyers worry about the long-term value of a used electric vehicle with an ageing battery.

For example, a 2021 Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus with nearly 85,000km currently lists for about $34,000. It has lost roughly half its value in just three years.

While Tesla offers transferable four-year warranties and software updates, the rapid evolution of EV technology also makes older second-hand models less desirable, further reducing their value.

Fires raise fears about safety

Electric vehicle fires have made headlines globally. This has created doubts among consumers about the risks of owning them.

In Korea, a high-profile battery fire in August 2024 led to a ban on certain electric vehicles from underground car parks. While similar bans are not common in Australia, some have been reported. These could have harmed local consumer confidence.

Incidents of electric vehicle fires have increased along with vehicle numbers. Statistically, these vehicles are not more prone to fires than conventional cars – in fact, the risk is clearly lower.

For example, analysis of publicly available statistics from South Korean government agencies, one of the early adopters of electric vehicles, show the number of fires per registered electric vehicle is steadily increasing. Fire risk remains lower than for traditional vehicles, although the gap is shrinking as the electric vehicle fleet ages. And the highly publicised nature of their fires is a source of growing buyer hesitancy.

Misinformation and politicisation are rampant

The full environmental benefits of electric vehicles depend on widespread adoption. However, there is a wide gap between early adopters’ experiences and potential buyers’ perceptions.

Persistent misconceptions include exaggerated concerns about battery life, charging infrastructure and safety. Myths and misinformation often fuel these concerns. Traditional vehicle and oil companies actively spread misinformation in campaigns much like those used against other green energy initiatives.

In response, coalitions such as Electric Vehicles UK have formed to combat these false narratives and promote accurate information.

The politicisation of green initiatives adds to the challenge. When electric vehicles become associated with a specific political ideology, it can alienate large parts of the population. Adoption then becomes slower and more divisive.

Green transition is a work in progress

The electric vehicle market in Australia is facing challenges, despite the growing variety of models and price cuts.

The EV sales trend signals deeper issues in the market. Broader trends, such as the dominance of SUVs and utes, underscore the fact that while the transition to greener vehicles is progressing, it remains uneven.

Further efforts will be needed to reduce misconceptions and misinformation, and bridge the gap between owners’ experience and potential buyers’ perceptions. Only then can Australia enjoy the environmental benefits of widespread EV adoption.

Hadi Ghaderi receives funding from the iMOVE Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, IVECO Trucks Australia limited, Victoria Department of Education and Training, Australia Post, Bondi Laboratories, Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre, Sphere for Good, Australian Meat Processor Corporation,City of Casey, 460degrees and Passel.

Milad Haghani 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. Electric car sales have slumped. Misinformation is one of the reasons – https://theconversation.com/electric-car-sales-have-slumped-misinformation-is-one-of-the-reasons-240545

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenn Savage, Associate Professor of Education Policy and the Future of Schooling, The University of Melbourne

As Australian students begin the final term of 2024, governments are in the middle of a bitter standoff over public school funding for next year.

The federal government has offered states and territories a 2.5% funding increase for schools to the tune of A$16 billion, but some are demanding 5%.

The deadline for states and territories to sign the proposed new school funding agreement ended on September 30, leaving the future of Australian school funding beyond 2025 in limbo.

On top of ongoing funding uncertainty, there are also significant issues with how the proposed new agreement is designed. How can we fix this?

How does school funding work?

Federal, state and territory governments each contribute to public school funding.

The federal government currently contributes 20% of the schooling resource standard. This is the estimate of how much public funding a school needs to meet students’ educational needs.

The Commonwealth ties this funding to reforms and targets aimed at improving equity and learning outcomes for students. The remaining 80% is up to states and territories to fund.

The current agreement expires at the end of this year and the Albanese government is proposing to replace it with the ten-year Better and Fairer Schools Agreement from the start of 2025.

The new agreement provides some important opportunities to improve schools and student outcomes, including measures to enhance student wellbeing, increase attendance, strengthen the teacher workforce, and increase the proportion of students who leave school with a Year 12 certificate.

Read more:
There’s a new school funding bill in parliament. Will this end the funding wars?

Painfully slow progress

The current round of funding negotiations has been plagued by sour politics and persistent roadblocks.

The new national agreement was originally due to begin in 2024, but was delayed after a damning December 2022 Productivity Commission review. This found the current agreement had “done little” to lift student outcomes.

The federal government then commissioned an expert review panel (of which one of us, Pasi Sahlberg, was a member) to inform a new agreement. This year, we have seen negotiations with states and territories over funding and details of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement were released in July.

But progress has been painfully slow. While Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have signed on, other states and territories are holding out.

In August, federal Education Minister Jason Clare issued an ultimatum: sign the agreement by September 30 or forgo the 2.5% funding increase. The federal government has since downplayed the missed deadline while critics suggest it was always an “arbitrary” ultimatum.

Ambiguous equity targets

The political theatre and inability to find consensus raises major concerns about how effective the national reform agenda can be.

A closer look at the targets also raises questions about how they might work in practice.

For example, the new agreement is supposed to have equity at its core (it claims to be “better and fairer”) but it lacks a clear definition of equity. It also lacks specific equity targets to narrow achievement gaps between students from low and high socioeconomic backgrounds.

The new agreement has “learning equity targets”. This includes measures to reduce the proportion of students in the “needs additional support” NAPLAN category for reading and numeracy by 10% and increase those in the “strong” and “exceeding” categories by 10% by 2030.

The only specific target for disadvantaged students is there is a “trend upwards” of the proportion in higher NAPLAN proficiency levels.

Past experience suggests schools will likely “triage” students to reach these targets. This means they will focus more on students who are just below or above the target levels, and less on those unlikely to make the mark. This is what happened when similar targets were set in Ontario in the 2000s.

So, even if overall average NAPLAN scores improve, achievement gaps (between advantaged and disadvantaged students) could grow. This will not improve equity – it will do the opposite.

Toothless targets

There are also no mechanisms to hold states and territories accountable for meeting targets until schools are “fully funded” under the agreement.

Fully funded means states and territories are receiving 100% of the schooling resource standard. To make matters worse, even when jurisdictions are fully funded, there are no penalties or sanctions for failing to cooperate with the agreement.

Timelines to reach full funding in the bilateral agreements already signed are years away. For example, it is 2026 for Western Australia and 2029 for the Northern Territory.

This means states and territories can choose whether they meet the targets or not.

3 ways to fix school funding

Failure to fully and fairly fund schools, mixed with an inability to set meaningful targets, creates deep uncertainty for schooling systems as a new year approaches.

For example, last week the Australian Education Union placed a nationwide ban on the implementation of the new agreement, including “unfunded” reforms that would increase teachers’ workloads.

This is not a sustainable situation. So, how can we fix it?

1. Set meaningful targets: it is not enough to have ambiguous goals for improvement that might improve test scores for some but also worsen inequities. At a minimum, we need to rethink targets to ensure they narrow achievement gaps between equity groups. Without this, education systems will continue to fail those who need the most support.

2. Ensure accountability for the targets: we need to make sure states and territories cannot escape or delay their obligations to improve equity and learning outcomes. To do this, schools should be fully funded from 2025, so current (not future) education ministers are compelled to act.

3. Distance the politics from school funding: schools need stability and consistency to plan effectively. The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement has a helpful ten-year term but reforms are needed to ensure funding decisions remain fair and consistent across the nation. Instead of messy and protracted political negotiations between governments, we could instead set up a national agency to oversee the distribution of school funding.

These measures would help avoid political interference and ensure funding is allocated in line with student needs, national reform priorities and agreed targets.

It’s time to address the deeper issues

The ongoing failure to fairly resource and set meaningful reforms for our schools is a symptom of a broken national funding system.

Unless we address its foundational issues, Australian teachers and students — particularly those in disadvantaged schools — will continue to be short-changed.

Glenn C. Savage receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Pasi Sahlberg was a member of the Australian Government’s Expert Panel to inform a better and fairer education system in 2023.

– ref. Australia’s school funding system is broken. Here’s how to fix it – https://theconversation.com/australias-school-funding-system-is-broken-heres-how-to-fix-it-240908