Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cahyani Widi Larasakti, PhD Student in International Relations, The University of Melbourne

Australia and Indonesia have long had an uneasy relationship, over issues ranging from Timor-Leste’s independence to asylum seekers and bans on live cattle export to the aftermath of the Bali bombings.

While the politics have long been challenging, there’s reason to believe a change may be coming. One of the fastest-growing economies in the world, Indonesia has long been powered by coal. Now, it’s endeavouring to go green through renewables, grid modernisation, electric vehicles and geothermal.

That’s where Australia comes in. In March this year, the two nations formalised a climate partnership, named KINETIK. Through the agreement, Indonesia will secure supplies of lithium for EV batteries, and Australia will gain more export markets for its critical minerals, as well as potential access to the batteries’ industry supply chain.

Why has the relationship been rocky?

Since winning independence from the Dutch, Indonesia has focused heavily on keeping its many islands and ethnic groups united.

But Australia’s role has sometimes been destabilising. During the Cold War, Australian agencies backed the Indonesian army’s bloody purges of communists.

Australia also backed the cause of East Timorese secession. In 1998, Australian Prime Minister John Howard wrote to Indonesia’s President, B.J Habibie, pushing for East Timorese independence. A year later, over 5,500 Australian soldiers arrived as peacekeepers during a tense referendum over the region’s future.

Many people in Indonesia saw Australia’s involvement as a threat to national unity and cohesion. Before Howard and Indonesia’s next president, Megawati Soekarnoputri, had time to restore the relationship, tensions ramped up again after the 2002 terrorist bombings in Bali which killed 88 Australians.

Four years later, the Australian decision to grant temporary protection visas to 43 asylum seekers from Papua, which has long sought independence from Indonesia, led Indonesia’s ambassador to Canberra to be recalled.

This diplomatic incident bore positive fruit, resulting in improved dialogue and, the same year, the signing of the Lombok Treaty, in which both countries promised not to interfere with the sovereignty of the other.

Since then, Australia has been diplomatically silent on other Indonesian territorial issues, such as the separatist movement in Papua.

Despite these efforts, many differences remain. Experts have often warned the relationship is tenuous.

In 2019, the two nations signed a new Comprehensive Economic Partnership after a tortuous negotiation period. With a focus on climate change and energy transition, this paved the way for this year’s announcement.

In a broader context, this partnership also illustrates Australia’s approach as a middle power nation to counterbalance China’s increasing economic dominance in the Indo-Pacific region.

Could the green transition help the relationship?

In 2022, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited Indonesia, where he promised A$200 million to kickstart climate and infrastructure projects.

Now we have a formalised partnership. This is an important step, which should improve the political relationship.

The two nations already trade $18 billion of goods and services yearly, centred on Australian coal and beef and Indonesian fertilisers and petrol.

But there is room for much more growth. Indonesia’s population is young and large, with almost 280 million people. By 2030, estimates suggest it could be the world’s fifth-largest economy.

If the KINETIK partnership works, it will be because it offers both nations what they need – Australia gets a new export market for green minerals, technology and know-how, and Indonesia starts to shift away from coal.

The agreement builds on a memorandum of understanding on electric vehicles and another between Export Finance Australia and Indonesia’s State-owned Electricity Company last year.

What are we likely to see as tangible outcomes?

Indonesia perches on the Pacific Ring of Fire, with a number of active volcanoes and frequent earthquakes. This also means the archipelago nation has huge geothermal resources, estimated at 40% of the world’s total. Many geothermal plants are already running.

But making the most of the resource faces many technological challenges. The best underground heat resources tend to be located in mountains or in isolated areas. The KINETIK partnership could help through connecting Australian mining expertise to Indonesia’s deep heat resources.

Australia’s expertise in using renewables to power isolated communities will be vital to make exploration easier. And Australian investors will be allowed to own a majority share of Indonesian geothermal plants.

The partnerships are expected to align with Indonesia’s National Energy Policy, which aims in part to shift from exporting raw energy resources and critical minerals to exporting value-added energy products through downstream projects such as EV and battery industries.

Australia is home to the world’s largest hard-rock lithium mine, Greenbushes. The new partnership will open up options for Indonesian battery manufacturers to access this key metal.

Indonesia, in turn, is rich in nickel, which will be needed in great quantities for green technologies. In fact, cheaper Indonesian nickel has pushed some Australian producers out of the market. Indonesia has already secured commercial deals with EV and battery manufacturers such as Hyundai and LG from South Korea, as well as Foxconn from Taiwan.

Will this be enough?

Politically, the relationship between Indonesia and Australia has long been thorny. A new focus on mutual advantageous investment could help, especially given the deal has strong political backing on both sides. Developing electric vehicles in Indonesia was also a key campaign issue for the newly elected Indonesian president, Prabowo Subianto.

From the Australian side, the agreement bolsters the Albanese government’s push to make the nation a green energy superpower.

Of course, many agreements stay on paper and don’t shape the real world. But this one has a better chance, given the alignment between Indonesia’s efforts to make itself part of the electric vehicle supply chain, and Australia’s dream of becoming a green superpower.

Bilateral agreements like these also show how the world is changing. More and more, middle power cooperation is emerging as a counterbalance against the intensifying Chinese-American rivalry.

It’s also a positive sign Australia has realised the need to more actively build alliances across the Indo-Pacific region.

Cahyani Widi Larasakti receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Australian Government through the G20 “Recover Together, Recover Stronger” Australia Awards Scholarship for her PhD at the University of Melbourne. She is also a member of Melbourne Climate Future at the University of Melbourne.

– ref. Could a green investment deal help Indonesia and Australia overcome their past tensions? – https://theconversation.com/could-a-green-investment-deal-help-indonesia-and-australia-overcome-their-past-tensions-229913

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Raven, Senior Scientia Lecturer (Research), UNSW Sydney

Last week, at a conference in Geneva, the member states of the World Intellectual Property Organisation agreed on a new treaty aimed at preventing the for-profit piracy of traditional knowledge.

So-called “biopiracy”, in which companies lift ideas from traditional knowledge and patent them, is a significant problem. In one case a US company patented derivatives of the neem tree as pesticides, when the plant’s properties were already well known to local communities in India. There have also been attempts to patent traditionally cultivated plant varieties, such as basmati rice and jasmine rice.

The main purpose of the new Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge is to ensure patent applications disclose any involvement of traditional knowledge.

At last week’s conference, we contributed advice on the treaty text to the Indigenous Caucus, member states and advisors, and gave presentations at side events. The final text of the treaty, while it does contain some compromises, is an important step for protection of traditional knowledge after 24 years of deliberation.

What international law says

International law already has protections for genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The 2010 Nagoya Protocol established some rules.

Under the Nagoya Protocol, “users” of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge must obtain permission from “providers”. “Users” must also come to agreements with “providers” and traditional knowledge holders about sharing the fruits of their research and development activities.

However, the Nagoya Protocol doesn’t cover patents. That’s where the new treaty comes in. It contains three key provisions on genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.

Disclosure: where did the resources and knowledge come from?

The treaty requires applicants for patent claims “based on” genetic resources to disclose where the genetic resources came from. This is often places such as herbariums or gene banks.

For patents “based on” traditional knowledge, applicants must disclose the Indigenous peoples and local communities who provided it. If this is unknown, the applicant must disclose where they sourced it from.

Sometimes the applicant doesn’t know where the genetic resources or traditional knowledge came from. In these cases they must declare they genuinely don’t know the source.

Patent officers are expected to provide guidance to help applicants with the disclosure requirement. They should also provide opportunities to fix any failures to disclose.

The disclosure requirement is not retroactive: it doesn’t apply to patents granted in the past.

Sanctions and remedies: what happens if people don’t follow the rules?

During the treaty negotiations, Japan, the United States and the Republic of Korea claimed that punitive measures for not disclosing would dampen innovation. On the other hand, the Group of Latin American Countries, the Indigenous Caucus and the African Group argued that a treaty without teeth would do little to rein in biopiracy and patent fraud.

This negotiation resulted in a compromise. The treaty doesn’t allow patents to be revoked or made unenforceable if an applicant has failed to disclose. However, it does allow other sanctions and remedies if a patent holder has failed to disclose with “fraudulent intent”, which may include fines.

Information systems: what is already known?

The treaty allows states to establish systems (such as databases) of information about genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. This is to be done in consultation with Indigenous peoples, local communities and other stakeholders.

These systems should then be available to patent offices to use when determining whether patent applications are actually new or cover information that is already publicly available.

While this provision mentions “appropriate safeguards” for these information systems, it doesn’t indicate who should own and control the systems. This is a shortcoming, as it disregards the idea that Indigenous peoples should retain sovereignty over their own data.

Treaty negotiations and compromises

At the conference, members of the Indigenous Caucus made suggestions on the draft treaty text. However, this text needed to be endorsed by a member state to be considered in the negotiations.

This is something of a flaw in the process, as the treaty relates specifically to Indigenous peoples’ knowledge.

The final treaty reflects compromises between the member states of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (influenced by the Indigenous Caucus), industry bodies and representatives of civil society.

What is Australia’s role in combatting biopiracy?

In Australia, patents relating to Kakadu plum, emu oil and native tobacco include claims that seem to be based on traditional knowledge and uses.

Australia’s government agency for intellectual property rights, IP Australia, has created an Indigenous Knowledge Initiative to improve the handling of Indigenous knowledge in our intellectual property system.

Australia played an important role in the treaty negotiations, with an Australian delegate – Jodie McAlister from IP Australia – elected president of one of the two main committees. Australia welcomed Indigenous participation both in informal and formal negotiations, as well as supporting the text proposed to protect traditional knowledge.

Australia’s progress on protecting Indigenous knowledge will be influenced by future negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organisation. These will include working out exactly what sanctions will be faced by those who breach the patent disclosure requirement.

Margaret Raven receives funding from Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with NSW Government as a member of an Indigenous Advisory Group and a grant to examine co-governance.

Daniel Robinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Project Scheme, for the Indigenous Knowledge Futures project. Daniel previously received European Union funding relating to the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in the Pacific.

Alana Gall and Bibi Barba 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. Patents based on traditional knowledge are often ‘biopiracy’. A new international treaty will finally combat this – https://theconversation.com/patents-based-on-traditional-knowledge-are-often-biopiracy-a-new-international-treaty-will-finally-combat-this-231272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Dehm, Senior lecturer, International Migration and Refugee Law, University of Technology Sydney

Anyone following recent news reporting may rightly think Australia’s migration system is in “crisis”. Much of this reporting is fixated on the perceived threat posed by non-citizens to the safety or prosperity of the Australian community.

Last week, this panic was reflected in Immigration Minister Andrew Giles’ proposed revised directive to decision-makers to prioritise vague notions of “community safety” over other important considerations, such as an individual’s connection to Australia, when reviewing visa cancellation cases.

And earlier this month, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton dubiously claimed migration exacerbates Australia’s housing crisis, including through “excessive numbers” of international students.

Such framing misses the real “crisis” of Australia’s migration system and the real harms it enables and produces to non-citizens. Ongoing failures to bring in systemic, migrant-centred reforms has left many non-citizens exposed to situations of exploitation, prolonged immigration detention, painful legal uncertainty or even punitive deportation.

Read more:
Albanese government gives new Ministerial Direction on visa appeals to make ‘community safety’ paramount

Australia’s long history of ‘migration panic’

Sociologist Zymunt Bauman describes “migration panic” as a magnified hostility towards migrants animated by politically motivated fearmongering and xenophobia.

Non-citizen migrants become scapegoats for perceived dangers to the wellbeing of the national population. They can also be blamed for the “uncertainties” of contemporary global capitalism.

Such migration panic fosters an artificial “us and them” divide and creates the perception of a crisis around immigration that is then used to justify more migration controls and restrictions against non-citizens.

Such migration panic is not new. Australia has a long colonial history of racial exclusion through immigration law. The Whitlam government’s formal dismantling of the White Australia Policy in 1973 did not end this racial anxiety. In fact, the Whitlam government commissioned Australia’s first purpose-built immigration detention centres, with Sydney’s Villawood centre opening in 1976.

Today, this migration panic centres around “unauthorised” asylum seekers arriving by boat and criminalised non-citizens.

Prolonged detention or precarity

A key failure of successive recent governments has been their unwillingness to provide a pathway to permanency to all asylum seekers who arrived by boat from August 2012 onwards. During this time, around 35,000 people – mainly from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – arrived “unauthorised” by boat to seek asylum.

The vast majority of these people remained in Australia, first in immigration detention and later on short-term bridging visas. Successive governments have referred to this group of people as the “legacy caseload”.

A small portion of 4,245 people were forcibly sent to Australian-run immigration detention in Nauru and Papua New Guinea between 2012 and 2014. More than 1,000 of them are now in Australia on short-term final departure visas, after a decade of waiting for elusive third country resettlement. Despite the documented harms many suffered, and their rebuilding of lives in Australia, they all remain ineligible for any Australian visas.

From 2015 onwards, individuals in the legacy caseload were invited to apply for temporary protections visas. Unlike asylum seekers who arrived by plane, they were largely barred from permanent visas.

The process for reviewing their asylum applications (known as the “fast track” process) was discriminatory, flawed and unfair, with a disproportionately high rejection rate of cases.

In May 2022, the Albanese government was elected on an election promise to ensure “no migrant is ‘permanently temporary’”. In 2023, it created a pathway for temporary protection visa holders to apply for permanent ones.

But this process excluded around 7,500 people who were rejected via the fast-track process. They now remain either in immigration detention or on short-term final departure bridging visas.

The recent High Court case of a bisexual Iranian man who has been in immigration detention for almost a decade is a well-known example of a person failed by this fast-track process.

As a migration expert recently stated before a senate inquiry:

Given the legitimate criticisms of the fast-track process and the fact that those people have now been living in and contributing to Australian society for over a decade, this parliament should find a way to provide those persons a pathway to permanent residence.

Instead, the current government continues to maintain arbitrarily created distinctions between this population.

Visa cancellations as double punishment

Another failure has been successive governments’ decision to politicise the offending of non-citizens.

Since 2014, Australian law says certain non-citizens must have their visas cancelled. This includes people who have been convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of 12 months or more. These offences “vary enormously in seriousness” and can include non-violent property offences. All visa cancellation decisions can be reviewed by independent tribunal decision-makers.

Between July 2018 and December 2023, immigration ministers cancelled the visas of 4,415 people on the basis of “character grounds”, with New Zealanders being the single largest most cancelled visa nationality group. Many have lived in Australia for years, with strong family ties to Australia. Only a small proportion (883 people) managed to have this decision revoked by an administrative tribunal.

This has long caused friction in Australia’s relationship with New Zealand, prompting Giles to issue Ministerial Direction 99 in early 2023. This directed tribunal decision-makers to weigh up five factors when deciding to revoke a visa cancellation decision, including the “protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct” as well as the “strength, nature and duration of [a person’s] ties to Australia”. It also directed decision-makers to consider any future “risk” to the Australian community.

Last November, the High Court ruled indefinite detention to be unlawful where there was “no real prospect” of removal from Australia. A small cohort of people was then released from long-term immigration detention, including people with criminal convictions or who had been denied visas on “character grounds”.

Since then, there’s been a lot of media coverage around the reoffending of people released from immigration detention, as well as others who have had their visa cancellation decisions revoked by the tribunal decision-makers.

In response, Giles this week announced that he would revise Directive 99 to “ensure the protection of the community outweighs any other consideration” in reviews of visa cancellations.

Yet this means further entrenching how immigration law duplicates the work of the criminal law system. Criminal law can already broadly consider questions of the “risk” to or “protection” of the Australian community when making sentencing or parole decisions.

Mandatory visa cancellation laws effectively punish non-citizens twice. People impacted by visa denials or cancellations have been stuck for many years in immigration detention pending deportation. Even if they are eventually released, they are subject to heightened monitoring through the use of electronic ankle shackles and even drones.

But rather than reexamining this duplication between immigration law and criminal law, the government is now proposing a controversial new law that will further criminalise people who refuse to participate in their own deportation. This will lead to people being further caught between the criminal justice system and immigration detention.

There are currently around 900 people in Australian immigration detention, with the average time a person spends in immigration detention now reaching 610 days (almost two years).

Rather than promoting “migration panic”, perhaps the greater challenge is how to undo the enduring legacies of Australia’s long practice of inflicting harms to non-citizens at our borders.

Sara Dehm receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Migration has been in the news a lot lately. What’s going on? – https://theconversation.com/migration-has-been-in-the-news-a-lot-lately-whats-going-on-231270

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yuting Zhang, Professor of Health Economics, The University of Melbourne

Being able to afford health care is a pressing issue for many Australians. And encouraging GPs to bulk bill is one measure the government is taking to ease the strain.

So what would it take for GPs to bulk bill everyone? In our recent paper, we calculated this is possible and affordable, given the current health budget.

But we show recent incentives for GPs to bulk bill aren’t enough to get us there.

Instead, we need to adjust health policies to increase bulk-billing rates and to make our health system more sustainable.

How do the incentives work?

In recent years, the government has introduced various incentives to try and encourage GPs to bulk bill (so patients pay nothing out-of-pocket).

The most recent has been the “triple bulk-billing incentives” or “triple bonus” for short. These have been in place since November 2023.

Under these incentives, GPs in metropolitan areas are paid a A$20.65 bonus if they bulk bill concession card holders or children under 16 years. GPs in rural and remote areas are paid $31.35-$39.65 extra. These bonus payments are in addition to regular Medicare rebates GPs receive.

But when we looked at whether these latest incentives are likely to work to boost bulk billing, we found a city-country divide.

City GPs may not be convinced

We worked out the triple bonus will not help most people in metropolitan areas.

That’s because in these areas the bonus is much lower than what patients currently pay out-of-pocket. In other words, if GPs did bulk bill these groups, their income would be lower than what they could have charged. So the bonus wouldn’t be enough incentive for them to bulk bill.

For example, we found in greater Melbourne, the average out-of-pocket costs for a non-bulk billed GP visit is about $30-$56 depending on the suburb. This is much higher than the $20.65 triple bonus amount in metropolitan regions. We see similar patterns across all metropolitan areas.

But country GPs may be swayed

The picture is different in rural and remote areas. Here, the average out-of-pocket cost for a non-bulk billed GP visit varies substantially – around $28-52 in rural regions and $32-123 in remote areas. The highest cost on the mainland was $79 but GP visits on Lord Howe Island were the most expensive overall, at $123.

For patients living in areas where their actual payment is less than the bonus amount, the incentive does help. In other words, it would be financially advantageous for GPs to bulk bill these patients, but not where the out-of-pocket costs are higher than the bonus.

Our online map shows where GPs are most likely to bulk bill. The map below shows how out-of-pocket costs vary around Australia.

How about bulk billing for all?

The picture is a little more complex when we start talking about bulk billing all GP visits – regardless of location or patients’ concession card status.

We worked out this would cost about $950 million a year for all GP services, or $700 million a year for face-to-face GP consultations.

This is within reach under the current budget, especially for face-to-face GP consultations.

The government has earmarked $3.5 billion over five years for the “triple bonus” incentives. That’s $700 million a year.

We can afford to, but should we?

Introducing free GP visits for all would require careful consideration, as it would encourage more GP visits.

This might be a good thing, particularly if people had previously skipped beneficial care due to high costs. However, it may encourage more people to see their GP unnecessarily, taking away limited resources from those who really need them. This could ultimately increase wait times for everyone.

So providing free GP visits for all may not be efficient or sustainable, even if it’s within the budget.

But paying more than $50 for a GP visit, as many do, seems too expensive and also makes the health-care system less efficient.

That’s because primary care is often considered high-value and preventive care. So if people can’t afford to go to the GP, it can lead to more expensive hospital and emergency room costs down the track.

So we need to strike a balance to make primary care more affordable and sustainable.

How do we strike a balance?

One, concession card holders and children should get free primary care regardless of where they live. This would allow more equitable care to populations who need health care the most. Bulk bulling children is a long-term investment, which may delay onset of diseases, and prevent intergenerational poverty and poor health.

Two, the government could also provide free primary care to all people in rural and remote areas. It can do this by lowering the triple bonus to match what GPs currently charge. Over time, GPs and the government can evaluate and negotiate fair prices for GPs to charge. This can be adjusted in line with inflation and other measures.

Three, the government can increase Medicare rebates (the amount Medicare pays a doctor for a GP visit) so patients not covered above only pay about $20-30 a visit. We consider this an affordable amount that will not result in more use of primary care than necessary.

Four, the government can design a policy to reduce unnecessary GP visits that take away limited GP time from high-need patients. For example, patients currently need to see GPs to get referral letters although they already have an established specialist for their ongoing chronic conditions.

Five, the government can provide GPs funding needed to improve patient outcomes and reward GPs who provide high-quality preventive care.
The current fee-for-service funding model hurts good doctors who keep their patients healthy because doctors are not paid if their patients do not come back.

Yuting Zhang has received funding from the Australian Research Council (future fellowship project ID FT200100630), Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Victorian Department of Health, and National Health and Medical Research Council. In the past, Professor Zhang has received funding from several US institutes including the US National Institutes of Health, Commonwealth fund, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She has not received funding from for-profit industry including the private health insurance industry.

Karinna Saxby has previously received funding from the department of health and aged care.

– ref. Australia can afford to bulk bill all GP visits. So why don’t we? – https://theconversation.com/australia-can-afford-to-bulk-bill-all-gp-visits-so-why-dont-we-230204

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melanie Davern, Associate Professor, Director Australian Urban Observatory, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

Less than 1% of the 12 million Australians who travelled to work on Census Day in 2021 rode a bicycle to get there.

Bicycles are readily available and affordable. Cycling also supports healthy, liveable and sustainable cities.

Yet most of us shun this form of transport in Australia. The number of people cycling to work fell by 26.4% between 2016 and 2021.

So, on World Bicycle Day, we ask why is this form of transport so undervalued and neglected?

We offer the following ideas about what needs to happen so more of us use bicycles for everyday transport.

1. Improve cycling infrastructure across our cities

Remember the pop-up cycling lanes during COVID and how quickly many of them vanished? With multiple local and state governments managing roads across the country, we have no way of knowing where all the painted or separated cycling lanes currently exist.

Better-connected cycling infrastructure is needed to increase the use of bicycles for transport. At present we don’t understand how well, safely and equitably cycling routes connect up across Australian cities.

2. Use AI to help fill the gaps

Deep-learning artificial intelligence (AI) methods can help pinpoint areas with limited or no cycling infrastructure across the nation. The Australian Urban Observatory will lead a new research project to trial this technology.

AI could help governments identify neighbourhoods lacking cycling infrastructure and end-of-trip facilities, street signs, measure cycling participation and monitor cycling lanes to ensure they’re well marked and maintained. Deep-learning AI is already used to improve cycling performance. It has huge potential to support detailed, cost-effective, real-time identification, management and maintenance of cycling infrastructure.

A big advantage of AI is it can be scaled up. Once trained, AI models can be replicated across many neighbourhoods to identify urban design features that support cycling. It’s even more useful when combined with citizen science and rider experiences, as we plan to do.

This AI technology requires high-resolution satellite imagery and spatial data to identify objects and features. Imagery collected by organisations such as Australia Post, transport departments and road maintenance companies would be perfect for AI analysis. We welcome approaches from potential industry partners for our project.

3. Use simulations to evaluate decisions on cycling

Our cities are growing fast. This creates many challenges, including climate change, traffic congestion, air quality and health. To tackle these challenges, we need evidence to minimise trial-and-error decision-making.

Virtual laboratories can be very useful for evaluating policies and investments before they are put into effect. The key question for decision-makers is where to invest for maximum benefit and minimal harm. Computer transport simulation models can help answer this question.

These models can calculate changes in traffic, cycling uptake and emissions before infrastructure is built. They have traditionally been used to build business cases for infrastructure investment.

However, these models have often neglected cycling. The result is a lack of quantitative, case-specific evidence to support investment decisions on cycling infrastructure.

That’s why we developed the Transport Health Assessment Tools for Brisbane and Melbourne. The results show the health benefits of walking and cycling.

4. Plan with a focus on cycling

Australia will have to do more than set up a Net Zero Economy Authority to get to net zero. Electric vehicles won’t solve the problem soon. Transport produces about a fifth of Australia’s emissions but its share is predicted to grow, becoming the largest source of emissions by 2030.

Cycling offers transport that’s almost free, sustainable, time-efficient and healthy. Walking and cycling are no-brainer options to get to net zero sooner.

We can measure basic walkability across neighbourhoods, but where is the connected urban policy support for cycling? We need academics, policymakers and cycling advocates to work together on these problems.

It would be great to see “bicycle mayors” such as Chennai’s Felix John in our cities. Places like the Netherlands and New Zealand give priority to cycling through planning policies and infrastructure such as bike paths and dedicated cycle lanes. The result is high rates of cycling, including children, women and older people who are considered more vulnerable road users.

Australian rates of cycling for transport are dismally low. There’s also a huge gender gap.

5. Make active transport a funding priority

Government infrastructure policies prioritise large, costly road megaprojects, such as Victoria’s A$26 billion North East Link. They entrench many harms of car use, including carbon emissions and other pollution, and displace more active and sustainable forms of travel.

By comparison, walking and cycling infrastructure is cheap and small scale. But to get the greatest benefit it must be broadly spread and connected. We need comprehensive cycling infrastructure plans for our cities that put cycling projects ahead of megaroads for funding.

The federal budget provided an extra $3.2 billion for the over-budget North East Link in Victoria. It announced $100 million for a National Active Transport Fund and a national approach to sustainable urban development.

Halting or deferring funding for massive road projects could free up enough money to transform metropolitan cycling networks. That would support a shift away from cars, creating savings as road projects could be deferred or cancelled.

6. Connect cycling to long-term health benefits

A lack of safe cycling infrastructure denies vulnerable road users the use of this sustainable and healthy transport. This has a long-term and compounding effect: if people don’t take up cycling when young it translates into fewer adult cyclists later. They miss out on being physically active through cycling and its life-long health benefits.

Cycling improves physical and mental health. Some studies suggest cyclists are happier and more productive workers. There’s an incentive for employers to support cycling – even at their desks.

Cycling also benefits children by improving their health, social wellbeing and academic performance.

For all these reasons, cycling is an undervalued mode of transport that needs urgent support. It’s critical for healthy, sustainable and liveable cities of the future.

Melanie Davern receives funding from the ARC, NHMRC and The Ian Potter Foundation, which is funding the Australian Urban Observatory AI research project.

Afshin Jafari receives funding from VicHealth, iMOVE, and The Ian Potter Foundation, which is funding the Australian Urban Observatory AI research project.

Alan Both receives funding from VicHealth, iMOVE, NHMRC and The Ian Potter Foundation, which is funding the Australian Urban Observatory AI research project.

RMIT University receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute to support Jago Dodson’s research.

Lucy Gunn receives funding from the ARC, NHMRC and The Ian Potter Foundation, which is funding the Australian Urban Observatory AI research project.

Qian (Chayn) Sun receives funding from ARC, AURIN and The Ian Potter Foundation, which is funding the Australian Urban Observatory AI research project.

– ref. Why do so few people cycle for transport in Australia? 6 ideas on how to reap all the benefits of bikes – https://theconversation.com/why-do-so-few-people-cycle-for-transport-in-australia-6-ideas-on-how-to-reap-all-the-benefits-of-bikes-229811

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Program Director, Economic Policy, Grattan Institute

As the government consults on potential reforms to points-tested visas for skilled migrants, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Skilled migrants contribute enormously to Australia’s prosperity – shaping our diverse society, making us more productive and boosting Australians’ earnings.

The points test allocates points to potential migrants depending on characteristics such as their age, proficiency in English, education, and work experience.

It’s the workhorse of Australia’s skilled migration program. Points-tested visas account for nearly two-thirds of all permanent skilled visas offered each year.

On current trends, Australia will offer 800,000 points-tested visas over the next decade. But the system isn’t perfect.

Our latest report shows that tweaking the allocation of points would increase the long-term earnings of points-tested visa holders, boosting government budgets by $84 billion over the next 30 years.

It would also increase the prospects that migrants raise the productivity of Australian workers.

There are three key problems that need fixing.

The points test does not reward the most-skilled migrants

First, points-tested visas should be allocated to migrants who are likely to make the biggest economic contribution to Australia, for which lifetime earnings is a good proxy.

Earnings certainly don’t capture everything, including the value of unpaid work or working in underpaid occupations. But they’re a better measure than the alternatives.

All else being equal, higher earnings provide a bigger budgetary boost to Australian governments since migrants pay more tax and rely less on government-funded supports. Higher earnings are also more likely to reflect skills that employers value and are more likely to be associated with productivity spillovers to other workers.

New ABS data allows us to measure what drives skilled migrants’ long-run earnings, for up to 20 years after their visa is granted.

Our analysis shows that education levels, English language proficiency, occupational skill levels, and high prior earnings in Australia matter most for migrants’ earnings in the long run.

Yet these factors account for just 70 of the 130 points available.

The points test has become bloated with unnecessary points

The second problem stems from allocating points for characteristics that are poor predictors of migrants’ lifetime earnings.

This includes studying in Australia. Applicants receive five points if they have an approved Australian qualification, and an additional five points if they studied outside of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

But skilled migrants who studied in Australia tend to earn around 10% less than migrants with equivalent qualifications earned abroad. This is partly because offering extra points for domestic study lowers the bar for graduating students who receive a points-tested visa.

Similarly, pushing students to study in the regions doesn’t help their lifetime earnings, and doesn’t guarantee they will stay there after they graduate.

Migrants are also granted five points for completing a “professional year”. This qualification was created exclusively for international students graduating from accounting, IT and engineering degrees, and costs up to $15,000. Yet it does not appear to make them more employable, or boost their long-term earnings.

Many skilled migrants are ineligible for points-tested visas

Third, permanent points-tested visas are currently limited to applicants qualified in skilled occupations deemed in shortage.

This limits our access to much of the best global talent. Prospective migrants working in more than 200 other high-skilled occupations are currently ineligible for the Skilled Independent visa.

On top of this, most migrants don’t keep working in their nominated occupation over the long term.

Within one year of being granted permanent residency, only half of employed points-tested visa-holders were working in the occupation they nominated when they applied for the visa.

And within 15 years, only about 40% were working in their nominated occupation, often switching to other, high-skilled occupations that better utilise their skills.

Simple changes could make us all better off

Our reformed points test would reward skilled migrants who are more likely to succeed in Australia. We recommend:

• Increasing the maximum points available to 500, up from 130
• Offering more points to applicants with higher degrees, excellent English language skills, and those with skilled spouses
• Offering more granular points based on an applicant’s age
• Abolishing bonus points for Australian study, regional study, a professional year, and specialist education qualifications
• Offering points for only the first two years of high-skilled employment experience and also for high-paying Australian work experience
• Opening points-tested visas to all high-skill occupations
• Setting the minimum points floor for a points-tested visa to 300 points and guaranteeing an invitation to apply for a visa to applicants with at least 400 points

When it comes to selecting skilled migrants for permanent visas, even small changes quickly add up.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities, as disclosed on its website. We would also like to thank the Scanlon Foundation for its generous support of our migration research.

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

– ref. How should the skilled migration points test be reformed? It’s an $84 billion question – https://theconversation.com/how-should-the-skilled-migration-points-test-be-reformed-its-an-84-billion-question-231283

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arvid O. I. Hoffmann, Professor of Marketing, University of Adelaide

About half the states in the United States have introduced so-called universal demand laws that make it harder for aggrieved shareholders to sue company directors and hold managers personally liable for decisions that have harmed the company.

One such lawsuit by Boeing shareholders resulted in current and former directors of the airline agreeing to pay it US$225 million over claims they had failed to properly oversee matters related to the safety of the relatively new 737 MAX after crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people.

The payment went to the company rather than the shareholders who sued, allowing them to benefit indirectly along with other shareholders.

Boeing is incorporated in Delaware. Had it instead been incorporated in one of the 25 or so states with “universal demand” laws, the lawsuit would have been harder to get off the ground.

Universal demand laws make it harder to sue directors

In an attempt to work out the way in which the spread of these laws has changed the behaviour of directors and managers, we took advantage of their staged introduction, which began with the state of Georgia in 1989.

Our findings, analysing over 30 years of data from thousands of firms, were published this year in the Journal of Marketing. They point to an alarming unintended consequence of universal demand laws: a reduced willingness of firms to recall potentially hazardous products.

Firms incorporated in states that have adopted these laws are on average about 30% less likely to announce product recalls than firms incorporated in states without these rules.

We can find nothing else – neither improvements in product quality nor improvements in operational processes – that explains what we have found.

We have also observed a delay in the timing of the product recalls that firms in these states do issue.

On average, firms incorporated in states that have adopted universal demand laws wait about 50% longer before announcing recalls than firms in states that have not.

It means customers of firms incorporated in these states are exposed to potentially dangerous products for longer than customers of other firms.

In Australia and the UK too

Although our research uses data from the United States, its insights are universal.

Australia and the United Kingdom are two countries in which legal precedents make it hard for shareholders to sue directors and officers of companies. This means the rules are more like those of the US states that have adopted universal demand laws than those that have not.

Our findings suggest that, by shielding Australian and UK executives from personal liability, the law in these countries makes product recalls less likely than it could be. In turn, that makes the continued use of potentially dangerous products more likely.

In the absence of effective legal sanctions in these countries and in the US states that have adopted universal demand laws, it is up to companies themselves to make it harder for their executives to cut corners.

Firms need to help themselves

Our research has identified two things that can help. Both seem to have an effect in the US states that make it hard for shareholders to sue directors.

One is oversight by institutional investors. As shareholders with large financial stakes, they are motivated to monitor executives in order to protect their long-term interests in a way in which company officials might not be.

We found the effect on product recalls of being incorporated in a state with universal demand laws was 10% less strong in firms with a high proportion of institutional ownership.

It’s an argument for firms to try to build up the proportion of their shares owned by long-term institutional investors.

Customer advocates can make a difference

The other thing that helps is a customer-focused culture. Such a culture is often denoted by the appointment of a chief marketing officer to the board of directors or the appointment of a consumer advocate.

We used text analysis of financial disclosures to develop a metric for the extent to which public companies were customer-focused.

We found the effect on product recalls of being in a state with universal demand laws was 11% less strong in companies that were highly customer-focused.

Without a strong customer-focused culture or pressure from investors or laws that focus the minds of executives, we have found firms are more likely to take shortcuts that will hurt both their customers and their enduring reputations.

For example, in 2021 the execise equipment company Peloton finally announced a recall of its treadmills after weeks of saying there was “no reason” to stop using them. Its share price fell 15.8%.

Dozens of customers had been injured and one child was reported to have died.

Peloton’s chief executive, John Foley, was forced to admit: “Peloton made a mistake in our initial response.” It cost it US$165 million in sales.

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. Sue me, if you can. How laws that prevent directors being sued make firms less likely to recall potentially dangerous products – https://theconversation.com/sue-me-if-you-can-how-laws-that-prevent-directors-being-sued-make-firms-less-likely-to-recall-potentially-dangerous-products-224360

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

Josh Frydenberg is mulling over whether to try to make a lunge for his old Melbourne seat of Kooyong, now that new circumstances have suddenly raised his political heart rate.

Friday’s draft redistribution of Victorian federal electoral boundaries have opened a possible path. But he’d have to smash through formidable barriers to walk down it.

Frydenberg, despite a high-paying, high-prestige position in the banking sector, still yearns for politics and supporters want him to be the candidate. Recently he has been in the public eye with a powerful documentary about antiseminitism in Australia.

To have Frydenberg in the parliament after the next election would be an asset for the Liberals. Assuming they lose, he would be the stand-out candidate for next leader.

But to have him try to wrest preselection for Kooyong now would bring the party all sorts of pre-election trouble.

The central problem is the Liberals have selected a well-qualified young woman, Amelia Hamer – a grand niece of former Victorian premier Dick Hamer – to run for the seat.

For Frydenberg and the Liberals to argue he should replace Hamer would invite the criticism that the party was not just failing to promote women as candidates, but actively trashing a woman it had chosen.

Hamer sent a careful but pointed message when at the weekend she posted a picture of herself with a local elite athlete, accompanied by the line, “Here in Kooyong the community loves to support strong women”.

On the other hand, former Liberal federal minister Karen Andrews has weighed in to strongly back Frydenberg, telling The Age that he “is someone we need to bring back into the Liberal Party and into federal politics.”

“I think that this is an opportunity to bring Josh Frydenberg back, but I also think it’s an opportunity for the party to look at who is going to be [in] the best possible position to not only win the seat, but then to go on and take a strong leadership role in the party.”

If Frydenberg did become the candidate for Kooyong, that would produce some unwelcome leadership speculation for Dutton; it would relate to after the election but get a big run in the media before it.

Frydenberg’s supporters argue he’d have the best chance to retaking Kooyong. But overturning Hamer, or forcing her to stand aside, would also give ammunition to teal incumbent Monique Ryan to mount the gender case, a strong point for the teals.

The draft boundaries have abolished Higgins, won by Labor in 2022 but previously a Liberal seat, and pushed substantial parts of it into both Kooyong and Chisholm, also won by Labor last time. The abolition of Higgins not only leaves its member,  Michelle Ananda-Rajah, without a perch but also the Liberal candidate, Katie Allen, who was the previous member.

The draft redistribution has taken some 35,000 Higgins voters into Chisholm and some 30,000 into Kooyong.

The changes have improved the chances of the Liberals regaining Chisholm. But the situation is more complicated in Kooyong and no one quite knows where it stands. Some Liberals argue the draft new boundaries improve it for them, but others believe there is zero evidence it is more winnable. ABC election analyst Antony Green does not believe the Liberal position has been substantially improved there. It is not possible to estimate at this stage how the voters new to the seat would affect Ryan’s support.

The final boundaries are not expected until October, and the AEC will receive submissions from those unhappy with the draft. But it is considered unlikely to make major changes.

Whether the Liberals reopen nominations for Kooyong and Chisholm is up to the party’s state administrative committee.

In Kooyong a major factor would be if Frydenberg put up his hand. If he doesn’t, there would be little reason to reopen.

While large parts of Higgins are destined for both Kooyong and Chisholm, obviously Allen’s best chance of staying a candidate will be to look to Chisholm. The Liberals already have a candidate, Theo Zographos, who was chosen in an uncontested preselection.

Allen would be a higher-profile candidate and, if she were running in Chisholm those wanting Frydenberg in Kooyong would have the argument that the gender balance would be maintained.

While logically the Victorian party should wait for the final boundaries before deciding what to do about the preselections, in practical terms it needs to act faster than that. So does Frydenberg. To let the speculation run is neither good for the Liberal Party or indeed for his own reputation.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Josh Frydenberg mulls political temptation after Kooyong gets new draft boundaries – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-josh-frydenberg-mulls-political-temptation-after-kooyong-gets-new-draft-boundaries-231456

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

In the week leading up to the conviction delivered in a Manhattan courtroom on Friday, right-wing media was focused on Donald Trump’s innocence. Hosts of the popular podcast “Timcast IRL”, which scored an exclusive, 17-minute interview with the former president before his speech at the Libertarian National Convention, discussed the case at length.

Their guest, Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official, argued that he had watched Michael Cohen – Trump’s former lawyer and the star witness in the criminal case against the former president – “implode the prosecution’s case”. Host Tim Pool agreed that “there is nothing here” and the case was “absurdity and insanity”.

The three hosts and their guest had all been watching the case very closely; they were deep in the weeds. And they were utterly convinced it was bogus, that only a “rigged system” would find him guilty.

On Friday, a jury of his peers did find Trump guilty of falsifying business records in relation to hush money payments intended to cover up his affair with an adult movie star. Trump, who was found guilty on all 34 felony counts he faced, is now the first president in American history to be convicted of a crime.

Much about Trump is unprecedented. This moment is history-making.

Is America more polarised than ever?

Many Trump supporters, like Pool and his friends, had suspected this was coming. The guilty verdict only reinforced their certainty that the system is “rigged” against Trump – and by extension, anyone who supports him or even just some of his politics.

In the right-wing media universe, that is the only logical conclusion.

Trump has successfully deployed this narrative in the right-wing media for years now, and it has stuck. A day after the verdict was handed down, Trump told his supporters – as he has many times before – that “if they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.”

Outside of the right-wing media universe, however, comments like these are reported on with a mixture of incredulity and concern. Mainstream media outlets note the significant threat this kind of rhetoric – and the increasing normalisation of political violence – pose to the institutions of American democracy.

This increasing divide in American politics, culture and society is often described as “polarisation” – a phenomenon where two entirely separate political universes (one right-wing, the other left) move further away from each other and into the extreme.

But the notion that polarisation is getting worse or is the biggest problem in American politics today suggests there was, at some point, a golden age of political consensus in the US. It also assumes there is a constant political centre to return to, and that there is a similar level of extremism on both sides of the political divide.

This plays into a very Trumpian framing that labels US President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party as extremists – or, in Trump’s words, “socialists” and “Marxists” – when they are nothing of the sort.

The reality of American politics today is not a simple question of polarisation that can somehow be reversed. Rather, the stark division between the two camps – and their world views – is, for the moment at least, irreconcilable.

That division has a long history. The wildly different reactions to the conviction are emblematic of a fundamental truth: the United States has never been one country. Trump did not create that situation, but he is better than anyone at exploiting it. He is already turning a criminal conviction into a winning campaign strategy.

Read more:
1968 was an inflection point for the US. Is another one coming in 2024?

The new normal

Those with enduring faith in the strength of American democracy and its institutions will argue this division is not necessarily all-encompassing. They might point to polling which has fairly consistently shown that Trump supporters outside of his core base might be shifted by a criminal conviction. This is particularly true of Democrats and independents who had previously voted for Trump – the voters Biden was able to attract back into the fold in the 2020 presidential election and needs to keep onside come November.

But even that is changing; recent polling suggests it might be prison time over a criminal conviction that would be decisive for voters – an unlikely outcome. Some polling suggests a criminal conviction may not matter at all.

Trump is masterful at shifting the political ground. And voters have known who he is for a long time. His ability to avoid accountability – to defy the “rigged” system – is something many of them admire.

Many things about his presidency and his political career are unprecedented. It is now entirely possible Trump will be the first former president to win an election despite – or perhaps even because of – multiple criminal convictions.

Emma Shortis is Senior Researcher in International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. What Donald Trump’s fiery reaction to his conviction says about this moment in US politics – https://theconversation.com/what-donald-trumps-fiery-reaction-to-his-conviction-says-about-this-moment-in-us-politics-231381

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

It was often said of the former Morrison government that it found parliamentary sittings particularly fraught. The same has become true of its successor.

Labor has had a very ragged sitting week, and there are several more weeks to go before the relief of the winter recess.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been hosing down speculation of a reshuffle, after Immigration Minister Andrew Giles found himself once again in turbulent seas.

The immigration row stifled the government’s sales job for a budget that contained significant measures for cost of living relief – the major issue on which voters remain focused.

Obviously, Albanese is not going to throw Giles to the sharks just now.

But his Friday words are worth parsing: “Andrew Giles is the Immigration Minister. I’m the Prime Minister and I have no intentions of making changes imminent.”

The word “imminent” flashed out.

In Labor circles there is an increasing expectation a reshuffle is likely in coming months. Put it this way: it would be extraordinary if Giles was still immigration minister at the next election.

Albanese flagged on Tuesday that Labor was going onto an election footing – although the poll is still expected to be nearly a year away – with cabinet working on a second-term agenda. A refresh of the team logically could accompany this work.

Organisationally, Labor will soon be headed into a period of intense activity. .

On Friday the Australian Electoral Commission released the proposed redistribution of seat boundaries in Victoria and Western Australia. The new boundaries for New South Wales are imminent.

In Victoria, the AEC proposes to scrap the Melbourne seat of Higgins, held by Labor’s Michelle Ananda-Rajah, (although previously a Liberal seat). In WA a new seat will be created, to be called Bullwinkel, set to be Labor. A seat will disappear in NSW, but it is not clear who will lose out.

The changes will have flow-on effects for many electorates and MPs.

These are only provisional boundaries and there will be submissions to the AEC. But it is considered unlikely to dramatically alter its proposals, and Labor will start its preselections on the basis of the draft boundaries.

One question being asked is whether during the preselection process any ministers will announce they don’t intend to contest the election. There has long been speculation the Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney might not seek another term.

If there were any such announcements that would give Albanese a useful (and respectable) peg for a reshuffle. (Of course, a minister can get re-selected but then announce later they plan to depart at the election.)

Meanwhile, Albanese has to concentrate on cleaning up the current political mess around immigration.

Sensibly, he quickly announced the “Migration Direction” that has caused the latest problem would be rewritten. This had elevated a person’s ties to Australia as a criterion when considering whether criminal non-citizens should be deported. It was a concession Albanese had given to former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (one Morrison had refused to grant).

But actions can bring reactions, and Albanese was immediately fielding a complaint from the present New Zealand PM, Christopher Luxon.

Luxon told a press conference:“We understand Australia is a sovereign nation and it can make its own decisions, but we have great concern about that decision because we don’t think that people who have very little attachment to this country but with strong connections to Australia should be deported here”.

Luxon said Albanese had told him a “common sense approach would remain”.

As he struggled for defences over the immigration snafu, Albanese tried to shift some blame onto the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which overrode deportation decisions (and, coincidentally, was abolished this week, to be replaced by a new Administrative Review Tribunal). Labor also pointed to criminals who had had favourable decisions when Peter Dutton was the minister.

But the defensive tactics couldn’t counter the damage. And that damage was not only to the minister but to the Home Affairs Department.

Its secretary Stephanie Foster (appointed by Albanese) admitted at an estimate committee hearing the department had not notified Giles when the AAT had overruled visa decisions. That was despite an agreement to do so. It seems to have been too busy.

Giles is responsible for the department but he has reason to be angry at its sloppiness and incompetence.

Is it too much to hope that when a reshuffle does come, Albanese considers breaking up the Home Affairs behemoth? Probably.

.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: parliamentary sittings have become as painful for Albanese as they were for Morrison – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-parliamentary-sittings-have-become-as-painful-for-albanese-as-they-were-for-morrison-231395

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Chen, Senior Lecturer, Deakin Law School, Deakin University

This week, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on its Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework. By majority, it recommended the federal government introduce an Australian Human Rights Act.

This represents a generational milestone to greatly improve human rights protections for Australia. It remains to be seen whether the federal government will accept this main recommendation, but is a significant development.

Where did it come from?

The inquiry was prompted by an earlier Free and Equal Inquiry undertaken by the Australian Human Rights Commission. The first inquiry’s purpose was to conduct “a national conversation on human rights” and find out “what makes an effective system of human rights protection for 21st century Australia, and what steps Australia needs to take to get there”. This put the question of whether we should have an Australian Human Rights Act back on the political agenda.

After several years of engagement with the public and stakeholders, the commission concluded that introducing such an act was “strongly supported”. It recommended a new national human rights framework with an Australian Human Rights Act as its “centrepiece”.

Why an Australian Human Rights Act?

Human rights acts already exist in three states and territories – the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Queensland. There are many examples demonstrating how these acts protect human rights:

• people with mental health illnesses are not forced to undergo electroconvulsive treatment, when they have the capacity to refuse

• strip searches of prisoners are to be carried out in a manner that respects dignity

• human rights need to be properly considered when mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for the police force

• requests for independent investigations of alleged racist assaults by the police have to be properly considered.

It is time to build on these successes at the federal level.

The commission’s report described the current federal protection of human rights as “piecemeal” and “patchy”. Over the past decade, the government and parliament have been required to consider human rights in the process of making laws.

However, this has not proven enough. The commission proposed an Australian Human Rights Act to fill the gaps. It would mean human rights considerations will also influence the government when it makes decisions and develops policies.

Every Australian deserves to have their human rights respected and protected, including at the federal level. This applies to aged care residents, social security recipients (such as those affected by the Robodebt scandal), people with a disability, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Access to human rights protection should not depend on where a person lives or which level of government carries the responsibility.

What did the parliamentary inquiry report say?

The report observed a “clear need” for a comprehensive and enforceable rights-based framework – to ensure a “fair go” for all. It agreed existing protections were “piecemeal”.

Submissions received overwhelmingly favoured (87%) an Australian Human Rights Act. The committee was reassured by the ACT, Victoria and Queensland experiences. It said these showed human rights legislation “could help embed a rights-respecting culture” and “has not led to overwhelming litigation”.

The report made 17 recommendations, including the enactment of an Australian Human Rights Act that broadly reflects the commission’s model. The act would protect rights based on those under international treaties to which Australia has agreed to be bound. This includes the right to freedom of religion and a prohibition against advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred.

The act would include basic aspects of economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to education, health and social security. The framing of cultural rights, and a right to a healthy environment, would be informed by consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The act would impose a positive duty on public authorities to comply with and properly consider human rights in their decision-making and actions. They could still impose limits on human rights where parliament permits or where the limits are reasonable and justifiable.

The positive duty would be directly enforceable by a federal court, where conciliation is not appropriate. Courts would also need to interpret statutes so as not to breach human rights, so far as is reasonably possible.

The report recommended strengthening scrutiny by government and parliament of policy and legislation for compatibility with human rights. It also recommended extensive human rights education in schools and the broader community, in part to drive the cultural changes needed to fully realise rights.

By contrast, a minority of the committee recommended an Australian Human Rights Act not be introduced.

Where to next?

The recommendations are now with the federal government to consider and seek further advice. The report helpfully provides an example of what a human rights bill might look like, to promote understanding and discussion.

It is up to government to decide whether to accept the recommendations and, if so, for parliament to vote.

Securing an Australian Human Rights Act would demonstrate that Australia is a modern democratic nation that values fairness, transparency and accountability.

Bruce Chen is affiliated with the Human Rights Committee of the Law Institute of Victoria, the peak body for the Victorian legal profession.

Julie Debeljak is affiliated with the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Act Coalition, which is a coalition of 104 civil society organisations.

Pamela Tate is the Patron of the Human Rights Law Association and a member of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law.

– ref. Report finds ‘clear need’ for an Australian Human Rights Act. What difference would it make? – https://theconversation.com/report-finds-clear-need-for-an-australian-human-rights-act-what-difference-would-it-make-231376

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Hanna, Honorary Associate Professor in Environmental Health, Australian National University

Delhi is reeling from the most extreme heatwave India has ever seen. While the record-breaking maximum recorded temperature of 52.9°C has been called into question by India’s Meteorological Department, it’s entirely possible. The city has been sweltering, with top temperatures ranging from 45.2°C to 49.1°C, at the limit of human endurance.

This event follows hot on the heels of extreme heatwaves across Asia as well as the Sahel in Africa.

Climate scientists have long warned these days would come. The recent acceleration in warming means it’s happening sooner than we expected. So we need to work harder and faster to reduce greenhouse emissions and get global heating under control.

Fortunately, India’s current heatwave conditions are expected to ease over the coming days. But the death toll is likely to rise, as people succumb to multiple health effects. Extreme heat has a long tail of destruction. Almost every chronic health condition is made worse by exposure to such temperatures.

Australians should take note. We are not safe, and we need to prepare for heat to hit us just as hard. It could even be worse here, because people with air conditioning can be lulled into a false sense of security. There’s no guarantee these air con units will extract enough heat to effectively cool our living and working areas, and electricity networks can fail.

What does extreme heat do to people?

When you’re hot, your body tries to cool off by sweating. This involves sending blood to the surface. Blood vessels at the skin dilate and the skin looks flushed, but this causes your blood pressure to fall. The heart has to work harder.

We need to keep our core temperature around 36–37°C. If the surrounding air is hotter, the body’s efforts to cool down can do just the opposite and absorb more heat. This is made worse during exercise, when 80% of the energy produced by working muscles is heat.

When we cannot shed that extra heat, our core temperature increases. At the microscopic level, cellular damage occurs. Extended heat exposure can lead to organ failure and death.

The “wet bulb globe temperature” factors in the humidity of the atmosphere. High humidity means the air is already saturated with water, so sweat on our skin doesn’t evaporate and we don’t get that cooling mechanism.

That’s why 33°C in dry Melbourne can be warm but tolerable, but 33°C in Darwin can feel stifling.

It’s not as if we could climb into an oven and be ok though, just because an oven is dry. There’s a dry heat maximum, which varies from person to person depending on their overall health and fitness. There is no particular temperature at which we can say a certain proportion of people will die, because there are so many variables.

In public health we talk about extreme heat having a “long tail” in a statistical sense. The number of excess deaths spikes during and immediately after the heatwave, but death rates don’t drop back to zero straight away. Organ damage is a likely cause. Mass heat death events are a relatively new phenomena, so the detailed understanding of the physiological mechanisms is still lacking.

India: hot and humid on the campaign trail

The India Meteorological Department installed more automatic weather stations across Delhi and the national capital region during the summer of 2022.

Wednesday’s maximum temperature ranged from 45.2°C to 49.1°C, except for Mungeshpur on Delhi’s northwest outskirts, which reported 52.9°C. As this was an outlier compared to other weather stations, the Department said it could be due to an error in the sensor.

However, it’s also possible Mungeshpur is a genuine hotspot due to local heat generation and trapping – the so-called “heat island effect”.

Delhi is crowded, hot and humid with limited access to air conditioning. What’s more, people have been coming out in the heat during India’s elections.

In previous heatwaves across India and Pakistan, many thousands of people died in their homes. It’s unclear what the ultimate death toll from the current heatwave will be.

The message for other nations

Clearly it’s time for other hot countries to ramp up their own heatwave preparations.

Australia, for example, is vulnerable to extreme heat, not just because of its hot climates but also because people acclimatise to their average local conditions. Problems arise when the weather is extreme for a particular location.

Tasmanians can succumb to temperatures regarded as normal for people in Broken Hill, New South Wales. Human tolerance for heat is variable, and can vary markedly within each individual, depending on their fitness level, stage of life, familiarity with heat and capacity to regulate their core temperature.

Climate science, modelling and human physiology may be complex, but how we must respond is simple. Everyone should be familiar with the signs and symptoms of heat stress, first aid treatment and when to call an ambulance. This includes school-aged children who may be the first to encounter their parent in strife.

People most at risk include those who are working outside or caring for others, travelling long distances, suffering from chronic illness, or simply ill-informed about the dangers of extreme heat.

Climate change is here, now

Climate scientists have been warning the world about the dangers of extreme heat for decades. It’s just going from bad to worse.

The Delhi heatwave is further evidence that climate modelling has been largely underestimating the speed and intensity of global warming.

Heat beyond the limits of human endurance is no longer a distant dystopian future. It’s here and now.

Liz Hanna has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council to study the human health effects of extreme heat.

– ref. The Delhi heatwave is testing the limits of human endurance. Other hot countries should beware and prepare – https://theconversation.com/the-delhi-heatwave-is-testing-the-limits-of-human-endurance-other-hot-countries-should-beware-and-prepare-230866

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University

To support its climate agenda, the Albanese government is building new institutions. One of the most important will be the Net Zero Economy Authority. The proposed laws to create this authority are currently before the Senate.

Institutions like this can prove enduring despite Australia’s contested climate politics. While the carbon price introduced in 2012 was repealed, the climate and renewables institutions the Rudd/Gillard Labor governments created continue to this day.

You might ask why we need another one. It’s because getting to net zero is a very big job, as new low-emissions industries come online while high-emissions industries exit. This authority would take the lead on aligning policies between different tiers of government, facilitating investment, helping fossil fuel workers transition to new jobs, and communication.

What should it look like? We reviewed international best practice in a newly released report for the authority’s predecessor, the Net Zero Economy Agency. Our recent submission suggests Australia’s authority should identify green investment options and co-ordinate, but should not invest itself. It should focus on finding and evaluating new green industrial options. And it should focus not just on helping coal workers change careers, but on the surrounding communities as well.

The authority should look for green investments but not invest directly

We already have a rich landscape of green investment support, including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the National Reconstruction Fund, and the Powering the Regions Fund, as well as the new Future Made in Australia agenda, and direct government grants and tax credits.

There is no need for another funding body.

What the authority can do here is provide insights and a coordination role, using sound investment principles such as cost effectiveness and assessing the likelihood of future financial and economic returns to governments and society.

It could help policymakers prioritise actions amid a complex mix of policy objectives, such as low-emissions systems, supply-chain security, jobs, regional development, benefits to First Nations communities, and social equity.

Find and scrutinise new industrial opportunities

Governments globally are turning to green industrial policies to support jobs and growth as well as to decarbonise. The United States, the European Union, and Japan are using green stimulus in the race with China, which dominates many renewable industries.

As a mid-sized economy, Australia cannot compete in every sector and segment of the value chains likely to thrive through the energy transition. We have to choose.

That’s where the Net Zero Economic Authority comes in. We need a lead agency to coordinate industry strategies, including identifying Australia’s competitive advantages across global value chains.

Green industry policies should be understood as a process of discovery and problem solving, not just handing out subsidies.

Focus on fossil fuel communities

Many communities have grown up around fossil fuel power stations and industries, including towns in Gippsland in Victoria, the Hunter Valley in New South Wales and the gas export hub of Gladstone in Queensland.

To do its job well, the authority should not be limited to helping workers directly affected by the closure of coal power stations, as the bill indicates.

Just under 20% of coal mined in Australia is burned here for electricity generation. Almost 50% is exported for coal plants overseas, and metallurgical coal exports for steel-making make up the remainder. In the global transition to net zero, demand for both thermal and metallurgical coal will fall, and with it, Australian export income.

At present, the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill relies on planned closures of domestic power stations as the trigger to provide worker transition support. The scope is limited to workers in coal power stations and the supplying coal mines –  excluding the vast majority of Australia’s coal workers. It is difficult to see the rationale for this.

It would be better if the authority’s remit included a strong focus on regional prosperity in the transition. That’s because shutting down a major mine has wider effects, including to contractors and regional small businesses. The authority has a sizeable budget allocation for its support functions, which could be used more widely toward broader regional prosperity.

Extending support out beyond just the affected workers is something we should have learned from the painful shutdown of Australia’s car manufacturing industry.

Learning, participation, monitoring and reporting

Many other nations have moved to create new institutions to usher in the new economy, for instance Germany’s Coal Commission, Canada’s Ministry of Just Transition, and South Africa’s Presidential Climate Commission. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel – we can draw on international experience.

For Australia’s authority to be effective, it will have to excel in policy coordination. Often, state and federal policies may not align directly – or may even pull in different directions.

For instance, it could play a vital role in coordinating the efforts of NSW’s authority overseeing renewable energy zones, EnergyCo, and the federal green manufacturing and mining agenda, Future Made in Australia. Let’s say you wanted to make green hydrogen. It makes sense to locate federally backed hydrogen plants next to big state-run renewable zones.

Change can be confronting – especially when communities feel it is being imposed on them. To avoid this, the authority must make community participation a central part of its efforts, especially in the regions set to house many of our new green industries and power sources.

The final role for the Net Zero Economic Authority could be to monitor, report and evaluate progress. This is essential, given the size of the transition. It can help governments, business and the community understand whether policy interventions are working or if it’s time to rethink.

Transparency about successes and failures of transition will be essential to build and maintain public trust during a time of fundamental change in parts of Australia’s economy.

Frank Jotzo currently leads the Australian government’s Carbon Leakage Review, alongside his university roles. He leads research funded from a variety of government and non-government sources.

Llewelyn Hughes has received funding from a variety of different government and non-government sources, and sits on the Clean Energy Transition Committee of the Australia Japan Business Cooperation Committee.

Rebecca Colvin serves on advisory/research committees/panels for: the Australian Museum’s Climate Solutions Centre; The Climate Risk Group; The Blueprint Institute; the RE-Alliance; the NSW Environmental Trust. She receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. Why do we need a Net Zero Economy Authority? And how can it fulfil its promise? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-need-a-net-zero-economy-authority-and-how-can-it-fulfil-its-promise-228408

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paula Gerber, Professor of Human Rights Law, Monash University

Australia is the only Western democracy that does not have a national Human Rights Act, but this may be about to change.

After an inquiry lasting more than a year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has just delivered its report to parliament. The report sets out 17 recommendations, including that “the government introduce legislation to establish a Human Rights Act”.

The report is a comprehensive 486 pages. Of particular note is that of the 335 submissions received, 87.2% (292) support the adoption of federal Human Rights Act.

So why do we need laws like this, and what might they look like?

A ‘patchwork quilt’ approach

Australia has a notoriously “patchwork quilt” approach to protecting human rights. We have some specific laws that aim to prevent discrimination based on particular attributes, such as sex, race, disability and age.

But these laws only prohibit discrimination. They don’t set out the basic human rights we all have, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to education and the right to freedom of religion and belief.

Our existing anti-discrimination laws do not provide adequate protection against government conduct that violates human rights. As President of the Australian Human Rights Commission Rosalind Croucher noted:

Policy failures like Robodebt and evidence from the Disability Royal Commission have focused community attention on the need for better human rights protections.

Australia needs comprehensive laws that address the rights of all people across the country. Three of Australia’s eight states and territories have such acts, which means rights protection in Australia is a geographic lottery, with Victorians, Canberrans and Queenslanders the winners.

These state laws are having a positive impact on the lives of people in these jurisdictions. For example, in Queensland, a single mother who had experienced family violence was able to rely on the state Human Rights Act to stop her being evicted as a result of serious breaches of the lease caused by her ex-partner, who had refused to leave the premises.

A federal Human Rights Act in Australia would go a long way to fixing our current unequal and lopsided approach to protecting human rights.

International broken promises

It’s more than 40 years since Australia ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

When the government committed to these two landmark international treaties (along with more than 170 other countries), it promised to implement these human rights laws in Australia. It has not.

In 2017, the United Nations Human Rights Committee urged Australia to “adopt comprehensive federal legislation giving full legal effect” to the treaties. In the same year, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, stated:

The Committee remains concerned that in spite of its previous concluding observations, the Covenant provisions are still not fully incorporated into the State party’s domestic legal order.

Incorporating these treaties into a Federal Human Rights Act would bring us into line with all other western democracies who have implemented agreed global norms.

What would a Human Rights Act look like?

Helpfully, the parliamentary committee’s report includes a model Human Rights Act the government can use as a draft bill. The model legislation includes important fundamental rights, currently not well protected in Australia, such as,

• protection of children

• protection of families

• freedom of thought, conscience and religion

• rights to culture

• right to health

• right to adequate standard of living

• right to a healthy environment.

What difference would laws like this make?

Having a national Human Rights Act will not fix every human rights problem we have in Australia. It won’t magically end family violence, stop climate change or solve the housing crisis. No law alone can do this.

But it will create a more rights-respecting culture, in government decision-making and in the community broadly, which will contribute to a stronger society. Having a Human Rights Act will make government more attuned to respecting human rights and more accountable for the consequences if it acts contrary to human rights.

Laws like these won’t lead to human rights eclipsing other democratic values and concerns. This is because the proposed Human Rights Act allows reasonable and justifiable limits to be placed on rights.

For example, the right to free speech, is limited by defamation, privacy and hate speech laws, and the right to freedom of assembly can be limited by the need for public safety. The proposed Human Rights Act will “force parliament to be more transparent about the justifications for limiting rights, and this contributes to the democratic accountability of parliament”.

So, will it actually happen?

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the government’s own appointees have recommended Australia enact a federal Human Rights Act.

In 2009, the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, led by Frank Brennan, recommended these laws. This recommendation was rejected, and we instead got a non-legislative “Human Rights Framework”.

It would be a brave government that rejects a second recommendation, particularly when it comes from their own parliamentary committee and has such wide community backing, as evidenced by the hundreds of submissions in support.

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. An inquiry has recommended Australia legislate a Human Rights Act. Here’s why we need one – https://theconversation.com/an-inquiry-has-recommended-australia-legislate-a-human-rights-act-heres-why-we-need-one-229387

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meru Sheel, Associate Professor and Epidemiologist, Infectious Diseases, Immunisation and Emergencies Group, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

It’s a week since Papua New Guinea (PNG) experienced a massive landslide in the Enga province, in the country’s highlands.

More than 7,800 people have been affected by the landslide, including more than 3,300 children. This could mean they’ve been displaced from their homes or are lacking access to basic necessities.

The exact death toll is still unknown, and estimates have varied, but the figure could be as many as 2,000 or more. Estimating deaths in disasters comes with a range of challenges and we may never know the actual number of lives lost.

But even many survivors are likely to be facing serious injuries and illness, with warnings of a significant risk of disease outbreaks in the region.

So what are the potential health risks following a landslide? And what can we do to mitigate them?

From injuries to illness

Like many natural disasters, landslides can lead to serious physical harms. Rapidly flowing water and debris can cause injury and death. People may become trapped as the landslide carries buildings, structures and people in an unpredictable manner.

The Enga landslide happened in the middle of the night, which sadly meant most people could not escape in time.

Early efforts after a natural disaster almost always focus on minimising casualties and providing essential and immediate medical care.

Once the situation stabilises, the health situation on the ground may require a risk assessment to review the potential public health impacts and further determine the needs of the community.

Other natural disasters show us it’s likely there will be an increased risk of disease outbreaks after the landslide. This could include water-borne diseases, such as diarrhoea, possibly due to disrupted access to clean drinking water, as well as reduced sanitation and hygiene.

Skin diseases, such as scabies and yaws (a bacterial infection), occur commonly in PNG, which could also lead to outbreaks with close contact in overcrowded settings.

Heavy rainfall and landslides can also lead to proliferation of mosquitoes and other vectors. This could increase the risk of vector-borne diseases, such as dengue, especially if the disease is already circulating, which is the case in PNG.

PNG is one of the few countries in the Pacific region where malaria transmission is ongoing. So there could also be a risk of increased cases of malaria (another mosquito-borne disease) in the region.

We could even see a surge in vaccine-preventable diseases. The 2005 tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia, resulted in an outbreak of tetanus. While tetanus is not spread from person to person, contaminated wounds in people where vaccine coverage is low can result in tetanus cases and deaths.

Aceh also saw clusters of measles after the tsunami due to overcrowding among displaced populations, combined with patchy vaccination coverage.

Health system weaknesses

The risk of infectious diseases outbreaks in PNG stems from some underlying weaknesses in the health system, and poorer health outcomes. For example, in PNG, it’s estimated that for children under five years old, 41 children die for every 1,000 live births. In Australia, this number is ten times lower, at four deaths per 1,000 live births. Disparities also exist for maternal deaths, and infectious diseases such as HIV.

Nationally, PNG’s immunisation rates are low. For example, in 2023, coverage for the first dose of the measles vaccine for children was only 52%. Because measles is so transmissible, 95% of children should be vaccinated with at least two doses of measles vaccine.

Low vaccination coverage can lead to outbreaks during natural disasters, so PNG may be at risk.

The risk of infectious diseases outbreaks might also be influenced by the disruption in access to health-care services. This can result in delayed diagnosis and treatment of infections.

Mitigating the risks

A disaster like this will have severe societal and economic impacts that will last for some time. We also know individuals affected by natural disasters can face mental health problems and gender-based violence.

Beyond providing medical care, local and international agencies are working to offer shelter, clean water and food, and mental health support to affected people.

Over the coming days and weeks, it will be important to closely monitor the health situation in PNG. This will require close coordination between, and leadership from local, national and international agencies.

As primary health care is restored around the affected area, one of the key aspects to preventing outbreaks is to have effective disease surveillance systems in place. These can detect outbreaks early, enabling a rapid response.

For example, in Fiji after cyclone Winston in 2016, a similar surveillance system detected outbreaks of influenza, conjunctivitis and typhoid. This prompted public health responses to prevent further spread of infection.

A rough road

PNG, like the Pacific more broadly, is vulnerable to the health risks from climate change due to the geography, rising temperatures and communities living in remote locations.

In the past ten years, PNG has experienced storms, droughts, floods, earthquakes, volcanic activity and landslides. We know climate change can increase the risk of these sorts of natural disasters.

Places such as PNG are at heightened risk of landslides due to their geographical location, terrain and climate.
Landslides are also difficult to predict.

Ultimately the health effects from natural disasters and other emergencies can be minimised through preparedness, strengthening the health system, and mitigating the impacts of climate change. Beyond focusing on helping people in the Enga province, these are the things we should be working towards.

Meru Sheel 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. From injuries to infectious diseases, what are the health risks in the aftermath of PNG’s landslide? – https://theconversation.com/from-injuries-to-infectious-diseases-what-are-the-health-risks-in-the-aftermath-of-pngs-landslide-231163

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

The electoral commission today released draft boundaries from a federal redistribution of Victoria and Western Australia. In WA, the new seat of Bullwinkel was created, while in Victoria, Higgins was abolished.

The Poll Bludger said Bullwinkel will be Labor-held by a 52.9–47.1 margin. All other WA seats will be held by their previous party, with the biggest change a 4.7-point lift in Labor’s Hasluck margin to 60.7–39.3.

At the 2022 federal election, there was a 10.6% two-party swing to Labor in WA, compared with a 3.7% national swing. This made WA the best state for Labor, with a 55.0–45.0 two-party vote in their favour.

Historically, WA has been relatively weak for federal Labor, and Labor would be worried by the possibility of a significant swing back to the Coalition at the next federal election. If this occurs, Bullwinkel and Tangney (also Labor-held by 52.9–47.1) are vulnerable.

In Victoria, Labor gained Higgins at the last election, so its abolishment costs Labor. However, the Liberal-held Menzies will be notionally Labor by 50.7–49.3 after Labor gained 1.3 points, and the Liberal-held Deakin lineball at 50.0-50.0 after Labor gained 0.2 points. But Labor’s margin in Chisholm was reduced to 52.8–47.2, a 3.6% swing to the Liberals.

Seats held by teal independents (Goldstein and Kooyong) have been expanded. New areas of these seats did not have a teal running at the last election, and this is likely to make it more difficult for the teals to retain. The Poll Bludger’s three-way two candidate splits suggest Monique Ryan (Kooyong) has a more difficult task to retain than Zoe Daniel (Goldstein).

Greens leader Adam Bandt’s seat of Melbourne has also been expanded, and The Poll Bludger’s three-way two candidate vote suggests Bandt only leads Labor by 47.4–44.4 with 8.2% for the Liberals.

Overall, these redistributions slightly help Labor, since the abolishment of Higgins in Victoria is compensated by the gain of Menzies while Deakin is line-ball. And in WA, Bullwinkel is notionally Labor, although WA could swing back to the Coalition.

The Victorian and WA redistributions are drafts, and are unlikely to be finalised for months. The new boundaries cannot be used at an election until after finalisation. We are also still waiting for a New South Wales draft proposal; NSW will lose a seat.

Morgan poll: Coalition’s best position since last election

In the national Morgan poll conducted May 20–26 from a sample of 1,488, the Coalition led by 51.5–48.5, a two-point gain for the Coalition since the May 13–19 poll. This is the Coalition’s best position in this poll since the last election.

Primary votes were 37% Coalition (steady), 28.5% Labor (down two), 15% Greens (up 0.5), 6% One Nation (up 0.5), 9% independents (up 0.5) and 4.5% others (up 0.5). An estimate based on 2022 election preference flows would give Labor about a 51–49 lead, so respondent flows were weak for Labor.

Redbridge MRP poll: 52–48 to Labor

Redbridge and Accent Research jointly conducted a national poll from February to May from a sample of 4,040. Overall, Labor led by 52–48, from primary votes of 36% Coalition, 32% Labor, 13% Greens and 19% for all Others; these figures are almost identical to the 2022 election results.

If this poll were replicated at an election, few seats would change hands, and Labor would retain government in minority or majority. The four-month fieldwork period means this poll is not useful as a measure of current voting intentions.

Further Resolve questions

I covered a federal Resolve poll for Nine newspapers on May 20. In further questions, respondents were told that the “government recently released its future gas strategy, which outlines its plans for gas in Australia for the next few decades”. By 60–15, voters supported the use of gas in Australia’s energy mix. There was strong support for various uses of gas.

Tasmanian EMRS poll: major parties down since election

A Tasmanian EMRS poll, conducted May 16–23 from a sample of 1,000, gave the Liberals 35% of the vote (down two since the March 23 election), Labor 28% (down one), the Greens 15% (up one), the Jacqui Lambie Network 7% (steady), independents 12% (up two) and others 3% (down one).

Incumbent Liberal Jeremy Rockliff led new Labor leader Dean Winter by 40–32 as preferred premier (41–38 for Rockliff against former Labor leader Rebecca White in February).

Labour landslide likely at July 4 UK general election

United Kingdom national polls have Labour over 20 points ahead of the Conservatives. If this happens at the July 4 election, the first-past-the-post system will give Labour a massive landslide. I covered this for The Poll Bludger on Thursday.

Right-wing Indian PM Narendra Modi is expected to win the seven-stage Indian election, with votes to be counted next Tuesday. Far-right parties are expected to make gains at the June 6–9 European parliament election. In the US, Donald Trump narrowly leads Joe Biden nationally, though this post was written before Trump’s conviction.

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

– ref. Labor slightly helped by Victorian and WA draft federal redistributions – https://theconversation.com/labor-slightly-helped-by-victorian-and-wa-draft-federal-redistributions-230937

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Oscar, Senior Lecturer, Visual Communication, School of Design, University of Technology Sydney

Over the past few days, one image has been shared at least 45 million times on Instagram. It shows an aerial landscape with hundreds of thousands of tents, pitched in rows, on red earth. In the centre, the tents align to form the slogan “All Eyes on Rafah”.

The immense popularity of this image provokes questions about the ethics of how we portray atrocity. Do we, as distributors of the image, have a certain moral responsibility? And why has an AI-generated image ultimately captured the world’s attention over the thousands coming directly out of Gaza?

Image origins and going viral

The image appears to have been made as a shareable sticker by Instagram user @shahv4012 in the days following an air strike by Israel that killed around 45 people in Rafah, including many women and children. Its relatively non-confronting nature means it has bypassed social media censorship (which might help explain its popularity).

Numerous media articles suggest the image is AI-generated based on certain irregularities. For instance, it is slightly blurred around the margins, the tents are uniformly distributed, and there is some inconsistency between the different areas of light and shadow.

The image borrows the tropes of aerial/drone photography, offering a totalising view of the earth from above, devoid of people. With its golden light and bucolic snow-capped mountains, it could have been plucked from a fictional world. Unlike the horrifying photos coming out of Gaza, there is no suffering to be witnessed.

Criticisms and moral responsibility

Criticisms have surfaced over why people are more comfortable sharing this AI-generated image over the countless photographs of Palestinian casualties taken by photojournalists and citizens who are risking their lives to document the conflict.

At the crux of this criticism is the demand that the images we share should authentically communicate the truth of the war. Critics contend the AI image sanitises the horrors, and call into question the virtue of people who would share this image, but not others.

In a post-truth era, the weaponising of images to deliberately spread misinformation has made AI images particularly contentious. At a time where there is concern over finding “the truth”, it becomes a moral question as to whether it is useful, or even appropriate, to represent war with an AI image.

In approaching this question, it helps to look at the history of picturing atrocity – and how the All Eyes on Rafah image circumvents the paralysing burden of real war photography.

War images are (very) confronting

We’ve seen images of warfare in films, video games and on the news: think of the hunt scenes from the raid on Osama Bin Laden, the so-called images of “weapons of mass destruction” in the Iraq War, or the 2015 photograph by Turkish journalist Nilüfer Demir of drowned Syrian toddler, Alan Kurdi.

Or consider some of the most explicit representations of atrocity popularised by the media, such as Nick Ut’s iconic 1972 photograph, Napalm Girl – often referred to as the image that changed the Vietnam War – or Malcolm Browne’s photograph of the self-immolation of monk Thich Quang Duc.

Such examples reveal the power of images to capture tragedy. But they also provoke questions around voyeurism and the ethics of witnessing suffering. For instance, for people in the West, such images may normalise the depiction of those in the Middle East and Global South as always being subjected to war and atrocity.

The earliest discussions on the ethics of viewing and sharing images of atrocity came in the late 1960s, during the Vietnam War, from American writer Susan Sontag. Sontag initially said photographic representations of war “anaesthetised” people to the reality of suffering. She wrote:

To suffer is one thing; another thing is living with the photographed images of suffering, which does not necessarily strengthen conscience and the ability to be compassionate […] after repeated exposure to images it also becomes less real.

However, she later revised this position following a first-hand experience of the 1993 siege of Sarajevo.

What is war imagery for?

The All Eyes on Rafah image enables social media users to share their solidarity in a politically “safe” and non-contentious way. The image’s somewhat diluted nature has no doubt contributed to its rapid spread.

In assessing it as a war image, we must ask the question: what is an image of conflict supposed to do, and does it do this?

We might hope such an image would stop the war altogether, but this is probably unrealistic. Perhaps, then, the sharing of the image to raise awareness and express solidarity is the most we can hope for – even though, as Sontag said, such images are ultimately destined to fade from view.

Or, it might be more productive to instead think of this AI image as a symbol, or a new form of graphic storytelling. Similar powerful symbols in the past have been granted meaning through a collective investment in them, such as the black square of the Black Lives Matter movement, the raised fist symbol of the anti-Apartheid movement, or the appropriation of the pink triangle to represent the AIDS movement.

Maybe this is a better way to approach AI images in the context of war, by untethering them from photography’s connection to “the real” spectacle of war. As long as the real images are also shared and centred, there is no harm in using a symbol to signal solidarity.

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. All Eyes on Rafah: sharing images of war comes with a moral responsibility. What can we make of this AI-generated anomaly? – https://theconversation.com/all-eyes-on-rafah-sharing-images-of-war-comes-with-a-moral-responsibility-what-can-we-make-of-this-ai-generated-anomaly-231271

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Harcourt, Industry Professor and Chief Economist, University of Technology Sydney

The axing of the Melbourne Rebels from the Super Rugby competition, though not unexpected, is another blow to rugby union in Australia.

The Rebels were axed because they were in serious debt to the tune of A$23 million (including $11.5 million owed to the tax office) and in administration since January.

Rugby Australia rejected a rescue package from a consortium led by former Qantas and Rio Tinto supremo Leigh Clifford, ultimately taking the view there wasn’t enough rugby talent to spread across five teams in Australia.

The fact the Perth-based side Western Force was also axed in 2017 and then resurrected adds to the uncertainty surrounding the sport in Australia.

Rugby union’s glory days are long gone

It wasn’t always this way – Australian rugby was once rich in talent and finances.

Two decades ago, the Wallabies were riding high under captain John Eales, with two World Cups and a trophy cabinet full of silverware. The sport was well run and about to host the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Australia.

Rugby union was also considered to be strong financially, too. I knew this as chief economist at Austrade when we set up Rugby Business Club Australia to encourage trade and investments deals for business people coming to the World Cup.

The model was based on the Business Club Australia, which we hosted very successfully at the Sydney Olympics in 2000. We chose rugby union as the first sport after the Olympics as it was considered well-heeled and would allow the nation to benefit from the “power of schmooze”.

Yes, rugby union in those days was rich, having just turned professional, while the Wallabies were winning and the code was very popular with the general sporting public.

But things are very different now.

Australian rugby’s money issues

Financially, rugby is now far from rich. According to its 2023 annual report, Rugby Australia posted a $9 million loss, revealing an equity of negative $13 million.

By contrast, when we ran the Rugby Business Club Australia in 2003, Rugby Australia had $35 million in positive equity. That’s a $48m loss at a time when rival football codes like AFL and NRL have boomed.

So where did the money go?

Like all sports, Rugby Australia revenues did grow, from $58 million in 2001 to $124 million in 2023. It gained a $50 million injection from the highly successful British and Irish Lions tour in 2013 but also copped a $45 million loss thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic.

But expenses grew too – astronomically. Rugby Australia expenses grew from $51 million in 2001 to $130 million in 2023, shrinking the $35 million World Cup windfall (made from hosting the tournament) over time.

The money was spent on expansion of Super Rugby teams, grants to state unions, a write-off for the (now defunct) Australian Rugby Championship and even a multi-million payout to high-profile player Israel Folau, who was sacked before suing Rugby Australia for religious discrimination and then receiving a financial settlement.

Rugby Australia’s broadcast deal has been a big Achilles heel. Deakin University’s Hunter Fujak has estimated rugby’s revenues are 14% of the AFL’s, with Rugby Australia’s $30 million annual broadcast deal with Nine/Stan tiny compared to the AFL’s $650 million rights deal for 2025.

The Super Rugby expansion doesn’t appear to have been supported by the public, with crowds and viewers declining.

Rugby union, like soccer, desperately needs a new broadcast deal to generate fan interest in the game for those at home and in the stands.

What about things on the pitch?

Things are not much better on the field either.

The Wallabies are a shadow of their former selves, being bundled out at the last World Cup in the pool matches in the shadow of the Eddie Jones-Japan coaching saga – when he quit his post less than 10 months into a five-year deal before signing to coach Japan – and they are now rarely competitive in the Bledisloe Cup against the All Blacks.

There’s also confusion about how to best structure a national provincial club competition to develop pathways at different tiers of the sport.

And then there’s participation levels.

On an international basis, Australian rugby is growing compared to rugby elsewhere, but not in comparison to rival codes in sports-mad Australia.

In 2023, the Australian Sports Commission reported there were 145,000 adults and 95,000 kids playing rugby. But Australian rules football had four times that many, while 500% more kids played basketball.

Rugby union was Australia’s ninth most popular participation sport, behind even badminton and rock climbing.

So, what can be done?

Critics believe rugby union has a governance issue, and some have suggested radical change is needed.

The sport is also governed very differently and makes it difficult for Rugby Australia to have the leadership authority of the NRL and AFL. In NRL and AFL, there is a governing commission that makes decisions but in rugby union, state unions have voting rights which means Rugby Australia can only act with the blessing of the states.

Rugby Australia also has a problem those rival codes don’t have: the global nature of the sport. The northern hemisphere controls the rules but the southern hemisphere has more of the talent, making reform difficult.

For a start, rugby needs leadership that can deliver a better broadcast deal, so it’s not a case of out of sight, out of mind as it has been for a long time now.

Are there reasons to be cheerful?

There are some bright spots.

Like with soccer, people still love the World Cup, and with men’s and women’s World Cups both coming up in Australia in 2027 and 2029 respectively, that will provide a windfall to Rugby Australia, along with the very popular British and Irish Lions tour in 2025.

International tournaments are still popular in the Rugby 7s, including at the Olympics where the Australian women’s team in particular has captured the imagination of the Australian public.

Finally, in the tense geo-politics of the Pacific, having two Pacific teams, Moana Pasifika and Fijian Drua, in Super Rugby can potentially assist Australian foreign policy objectives in the same way that the Papua New Guinea team in rugby league may help in terms of soft diplomacy.

The Pacific teams also provide professional sports labour market opportunities for Pacific players at home as well as in Australia and New Zealand.

The bottom line is, rugby union in Australia needs change in terms of “the three Rs” – rules, revenue (especially broadcasting deals) and reform in governance and structure to get it back to a financial place where people can again enjoy “the game they play in heaven”.

Tim Harcourt 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. Rugby union cops another body blow as the Melbourne Rebels are axed. How can the sport bounce back? – https://theconversation.com/rugby-union-cops-another-body-blow-as-the-melbourne-rebels-are-axed-how-can-the-sport-bounce-back-230959

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Richardson, Professor, Australian National University

For the best part of two centuries, the principle of “comparative advantage” has been a foundation stone of economists’ understanding of international trade, both of why it occurs in the first place and how it can be mutually beneficial to participants.

The principle largely aims to explain which countries produce and trade what, and why.

And yet, even 207 years on from political economist David Ricardo’s first exposition of the idea, it is still frequently misunderstood and mischaracterised.

One common oversimplification is that comparative advantage is just about countries making what they’re best at.

This is a bit like saying Macbeth is a play about murder – yes, but there’s quite a bit more to it.

Costs represent missed opportunities

Comparative advantage does suggest that a country should produce and export the goods it can produce at a lower cost than its trading partners can.

But the most important detail of the principle is that cost is not measured simply in terms of resources used. Rather, it is in terms of other goods and services given up: the opportunity cost of production.

An asset like land used for agriculture has an enormous range of other potential productive purposes – such as growing timber, housing or recreation. A production decision’s opportunity cost is the value forgone by not choosing the next best option.

Ricardo’s deep insight was to see that focusing on relative costs explains why all countries can gain from comparative advantage based trade, even a hypothetical country that might be more efficient, in resource-use terms, in the production of everything.

Imagine a country rich in capital and advanced technology that can produce anything using very few resources. It has an absolute advantage in all goods. How can it possibly gain from trading with some far less efficient country?

The answer is that it can still specialise in those goods at which it is “most best” at producing. That’s where its advantage relative to other countries is greatest.

Who’s best at producing wheat?

Here’s an example. In 2023, Canada’s wheat industry produced about three tonnes of wheat per hectare. But across the Atlantic, the United Kingdom yielded much more per hectare – 8.1 tonnes. So which country has a comparative advantage in wheat production?

The answer is actually that we can’t say, because these numbers are about absolute efficiency in terms of land used. They tell us nothing about what has been given up to use that land for wheat production.

The plains of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba are great for growing wheat but have few other uses, so the opportunity cost of producing wheat there is likely to be pretty low, compared with scarce land in crowded Britain.

It’s therefore very likely that Canada has the comparative advantage in wheat production, which is indeed borne out by its export data.

Why does it matter?

We have recently seen a lot in the news about industrial policy: governments actively intervening in markets to direct what is produced and traded. Current examples include the Future Made in Australia proposals and the US Inflation Reduction Act. Why is comparative advantage relevant to these discussions?

Well, to the extent that a policy moves a country away from the pattern of production and trade governed by its existing comparative advantage, it will involve efficiency losses – at least in the short term.

Resources are allocated away from the goods the country produces “best” (in the terms discussed above), and towards less efficient industries.

It’s important to note, however, that comparative advantage is not some god-given, immutable state of affairs.

Certainly, some sources of it – such as having a lot of natural gas or mineral ore – are given. But innovation and technical advances can affect costs. A country’s comparative advantage can therefore change or be created over time – either through “natural” changes or through policy actions.

The big hard-to-answer question concerns how good governments are at doing that: will claimed future gains be big enough to offset the losses?

Does everybody gain from international trade?

Supporters of free trade are often accused of arguing that everybody gains from trade. This was true in Ricardo’s early model, but pretty much only there. It has been understood for centuries that within a country there will typically be gainers and losers from international trade.

When economists talk of the mutual gains from comparative-advantage-based trade, they’re referring to aggregate gains – a country’s gainers gain more than its losers lose.

In principle, the winners could compensate the losers, leaving everybody better off. But this compensation can be politically difficult and seldom occurs.

But the concept can’t explain everything

The theory of comparative advantage is a powerful tool for economic analysis. It can easily be extended to comparisons of many goods in many countries, and it helps explain why there can be more than one country that specialises in the same good.

But it isn’t economists’ only basis for understanding international trade. A great deal of international trade in recent decades, particularly among developed nations, has been “intra-industry” trade.

For example, Germany and France both import cars from and export cars to each other, which cannot be explained by comparative advantage.

Economists have developed many other models to understand this phenomenon, and comparative-advantage-based trade is now only one of a suite of tools we use to explain and understand why trade happens the way it does.

Read more:
Australia is playing catch-up with the Future Made in Australia Act. Will it be enough?

Martin Richardson 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. Business basics: what is comparative advantage? – https://theconversation.com/business-basics-what-is-comparative-advantage-230869

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Honorary (Senior Fellow) School of Culture and Communication University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne

Wayne Tunnicliffe, head of Australian art at the Art Gallery of NSW, has a sense of humour. The main entrance to this year’s Archibald, Wynne and Sulman Prize exhibition features a giant black and white photograph of a student demonstration from 1953. At the time the gallery trustees, who are named in Archibald’s will as the judges of the prize, were actively hostile to any idea of modern art. Their taste was so predicable that the gallery’s director, Hal Missingham, would write the telegram congratulating the winner before the voting.

By the 1970s, when I was working at the gallery, trustees were less likely to vote for their mates. But there was a deep cultural disconnect between the aesthetic taste of the gallery’s professional curators, the arts community and the media, who lived in hope of a controversy such as the 1944 William Dobell court case.

The task of turning the trustees’ choice into an interesting exhibition was best described as “a challenge”.

In recent years, the gallery’s board has learned to have more faith in the two artist trustees, and winners have tended to reflect their interests. It is therefore appropriate to thank both Tony Albert and Caroline Rothwell, who also judged last year’s prize, for this year’s very lively exhibition. The awarding of the prize to Julia Gutman’s embroidered and painted collage last year appears to have unleashed an especially lively range of entries this year.

In addition, the Packing Room prize is now judged by a trio of the gallery’s expert installation crew, all of whom know more about art than just what they like. This year’s prize winner, Matt Adnate, began as a street artist spraying graffiti. He is now better known for his murals, including some of the popular Yolngu rapper Baker Boy – the subject of his winning painting.

The biggest change is that the exhibition has been hung by the Head of Australian Art, an indication the gallery now takes the Archibald very seriously indeed. Only a very brave person would predict this year’s winner of the Archibald Prize.

Whether or not they are likely to win, there are quite a few works that deserve a closer look. Some because they are wittily original, others because of the political message they carry, or because their subject is especially newsworthy. Then there are paintings that simply bring joy.

There is a special pleasure in looking at Emily Crockford’s Singing with my selfie at the top of the world with my imagination, remembering her previous exhibits and seeing how her art has developed. That is also true of Digby Webster, another returned exhibitor who has painted his filmmaker, Trevor. Meagan Pelham, who like Crockford works through Studio A, has called her portrait of the National Portrait Gallery’s curator, Isobel Parker Philip, Highlight in the moonlight.

Drew Bickford’s gloriously lurid Direct-to-Video portrait of filmmaking duo Soda Jerk is at first a puzzle as the two sisters have been melded into one, but he has captured both their ambiguity and their glorious sense of anarchy as they happily make “directors’ cuts” of iconic cinema.

Camellia Morris’s Wild Wild Wiggle is just fun, while Thom Roberts’ Big Bamm-Bamm is a reminder of a time when anything relating to Ken Done (the sitter) would automatically be rejected.

Several entries in this year’s prize, while not being of politicians, can be described as political, as their subjects are the change-makers who prick our conscience. Chief among these is Shaun Gladwell’s A spangled symbolist portrait of Julian Assange floating in reflection (pictured at the top of this article). Assange’s eyes look out from a balloon of his head, gagged by a US flag. An image of the Queen is stamped on one cheek, based on the banknote Gladwell used to sketch Assange during his time in Belmarsh Prison, while below his head is suspended in profile.

It hangs next to Anna Mould’s Complicit, ostensibly a portrait of Joan Ross, but as with Ross’s own work, this is a critique of colonisation. More conventional portraits of newsmakers include Sam Leach’s sensitive portrait of Louise Milligan and Kirsty Nielson’s angst-ridden portrait of Cheng Lei.

Julia Gutman did not exhibit in this year’s Archibald. Instead she has entered the Wynne with Olive, a suspended sculpture of textiles and wire, showing Olive the dog comforting a grieving friend.

Also in the Wynne Prize, the creative duo of Clair Healy and Sean Cordero use flashing lights on their Grey Nomadic Visions. The traditional divisions between different forms of media continue to be dissolved, with Billy Bain’s The fighters incorporating a flag, sewn by his mother.

Juanita McLauchlan’s mudhay burrugarrbuu- bula / Possum Magpie also dissolves the barriers between printing, embroidery and collage to evoke a sense of place. More conventionally, Jenna Mayilema Lee has woven a xanthorrhoea in Grass tree (at rest). But the weaving includes pages from an old dictionary of Aboriginal words.

The dominance of Indigenous artists in this year’s Wynne Prize is a reminder of how John Olsen, who as an art student vocally objected to the trustees’ conservatism, later became a trustee. In his extreme old age he complained to various news media outlets that Aboriginal artists were not painting landscapes. He was, of course, wrong.

Joanna Mendelssohn has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. Archibald Prize 2024: this year’s finalists range from downright fun to politically ferocious – https://theconversation.com/archibald-prize-2024-this-years-finalists-range-from-downright-fun-to-politically-ferocious-228492

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Florence Monique Boulard, Senior Lecturer in Humanities and Education, James Cook University

In recent weeks, New Caledonia has been wracked by the worst unrest on the island in 40 years, making headlines around the world. Hundreds of Australians were trapped in the French territory, unable to return home until French troops restored order.

However, despite its geographical proximity to Australia, New Caledonia (also known as Kanaky to the Indigenous Kanak population) rarely enters into the imagination of everyday Australians.

One of us, (Florence), emigrated from New Caledonia to Australia 20 years ago. I’m often struck by how confused some Australians seem when I tell them there is a French-speaking island less than a two-hour flight from Brisbane.

This is not surprising, given that in Australian schools, the Pacific Islands remain a topic studied only at the discretion of educators. Given the ever-increasing presence of Pacific Islanders in Australian culture, sport and society, this lack of awareness about our neighbours needs to be rectified.

What our research found

Kanak people have a long history in Australia due to the infamous practice of blackbirding, also known as the Pacific labour trade. Thousands of Kanak people were among those shipped from across the Pacific to work in the sugarcane plantations in Queensland from the 1860s onwards.

Research on contemporary Pacific mobility tends to focus on just a few countries, particularly New Zealand, Vanuatu, Tonga and Samoa. As a result, we know little about the cultural diversity of other Pacific migrant communities in Australia, including those from Kanaky-New Caledonia.

As scholars researching Kanaky-New Caledonian migration patterns, we have seen a significant interest in Australia as a destination in recent years.

According to the 2021 census data, there were 1,378 people living in Australia that year who were born in Kanaky-New Caledonia.

Visitor numbers are much bigger. Data from the Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies New Caledonia showed that in 2023 more than 40,000 New Caledonians had visited Australia. That compares with around 32,000 who went to France and 12,000 who travelled to New Zealand.

Our research shows that for some residents, these trips to Australia are more than a holiday – they prompt many to imagine a life in this country. For example, one participant in our study explained:

We were hearing a lot about Australia. We came with some mates. We had a great time. […] Then I came back and when I told my wife about the experience, she said that she wanted to go with her girlfriends. She went. She came back and she said it is so great there, let’s go back.

It took this family ten years, but they achieved their dream of moving permanently to Australia.

In addition, a Facebook group called “Calédoniens en Australie”, created during the height of the COVID pandemic, also highlights this increasing desire to come to Australia. Many of the 13,600 members are regularly seeking advice on how to migrate.

However, interviews we conducted in 2023 revealed a number of challenges for these prospective migrants:

• having French qualifications recognised by Australian employers
• demonstrating advanced English language skills for the visa
• the need for a skilled immigration agent.

That same research participant from above explained:

It cost us so much. We put all our savings into this. We had to do so many tests. Language tests. Medical tests. […] We began talking about this in 2003, started the paperwork in 2004 and we got granted Australian citizenship in 2013.

Many potential migrants are driven by the prospect of better economic or educational opportunities in Australia. With the political instability in the territory in recent years, Australia is perceived as a safe option, too.

As another participant in our study suggested:

I’m still scared for [my dad] sometimes because you don’t know what’s gonna happen in ten years or 15 […] I feel like it would be so much easier if there was at least the structure [to migrate] in case something is happening. For example, if my dad had to be kicked out of the country, who knows? I want to be able to get him into Australia but it’s not possible […].

Limited pathways

Despite Australia’s deepening security and defence links with Kanaky-New Caledonia, emigration remains an unreachable dream for most residents of the island.

Kanaky-New Caledonia was reinstated to the Australia Awards scholarship program in February 2023 after a ten-year absence, but this is currently limited to just five students per year. And the list of countries eligible for the new Pacific Engagement Visa does not include Kanaky-New Caledonia.

Read more:
Is it time for Australia to reassess its position on France’s role in New Caledonia?

One can only hope the Australia-France roadmap agreement, launched in December 2023 to deepen cooperation between Australia and France on defence, security and critical minerals, will also provide easier migration pathways between Kanaky-New Caledonia and Australia.

Even in the worst news stories, there is always a ray of hope. While the world has been looking at Kanaky-New Caledonia for all the wrong reasons, the recent unrest at least provides an opportunity to shift Australia’s attention to its neighbours in the Pacific region.

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. New Caledonians are looking to Australia as a safe haven. But for most, migration remains out of reach – https://theconversation.com/new-caledonians-are-looking-to-australia-as-a-safe-haven-but-for-most-migration-remains-out-of-reach-230669

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Langmore, Professor, Australian National University

How do new species arise? And why are there so many of them? One possible reason is the arms race between animals such as predators and parasites, and the victims they exploit.

Many predators and parasites have evolved specialised strategies to avoid detection, such as mimicking their prey or host. In these cases, when the exploiter adopts a new victim, it needs to mimic the new victim to succeed.

As a result, the exploiter can diverge from its original population and ultimately become a new species. Charles Darwin proposed this process more than 160 years ago, but it has been difficult to observe in practice.

In new research published in Science, we show how this process drives the creation of new species of cuckoos. These birds lay their eggs in the nests of other species, and their chicks mimic the appearance of their host’s chicks to avoid detection.

An escalating arms race

The deceptive behaviour of bronze-cuckoos imposes heavy costs on their hosts. They lay their eggs in the nests of small songbirds, such as fairy wrens and gerygones, and abandon their young to the care of the host.

Soon after hatching, the cuckoo evicts the host eggs or chicks from the nest to become the sole occupant. The host parents not only lose all their own offspring, but also invest several weeks rearing the cuckoo, which eventually grows to around twice the size of its foster parents.

Not surprisingly, given these high costs, hosts have evolved the ability to recognise and reject odd-looking chicks from their nests.

Only the cuckoo chicks that most closely resemble the host’s chicks will evade detection, and so with each generation, the cuckoo chicks become a closer and closer match to the host chicks. This is why the chicks of each species of bronze-cuckoo look almost identical to their hosts’ chicks.

Divergence between populations that exploit different hosts

This exquisite mimicry has evolved to an even more fine-tuned level. Within a single species of bronze-cuckoo that exploits several different hosts, the appearance of the chicks tracks that of their hosts.

In response to chick rejection by hosts, both the little bronze-cuckoo and the shining bronze-cuckoo have diverged into several separate subspecies. Each subspecies exploits a different host and produces a chick that matches that of the host.

This divergence can happen even when two hosts live in the same geographic area. In northern Queensland, the little bronze-cuckoo exploits both the large-billed gerygone and the fairy gerygone. The cuckoos have undergone selection to match the chicks of their respective hosts, leading to genetic divergence into two separate subspecies.

This shows the split into subspecies cannot be explained by geographic separation.

A higher cost for hosts leads to more new species

It was difficult to find out exactly what was happening with these birds, because we couldn’t easily find cuckoo chicks in host nests in the wild. So we developed a non-destructive method for extracting DNA from the shells of tiny cuckoo eggs (2.5cm long), which allowed us to sample museum egg specimens that have been collected over many decades.

Our results also suggest that the evolution of cuckoos and their hosts is most likely to drive the creation of new species when the cuckoos impose a high cost on their hosts – such as by killing off all the host’s own offspring. This leads to an “evolutionary arms race” between the host’s defences and the cuckoo’s counter-adaptations.

This finding was supported by our broad analysis using evolutionary modelling across all cuckoo species. We found lineages that are most costly to their hosts split into new species more often than less costly cuckoo species (those that live alongside their host’s chicks) and their non-parasitic relatives.

Interactions between exploiters and their victims may be one of the main drivers of biodiversity. The process of speciation we described, in which the exploiter shows very specialised adaptations to their victim, may occur in other parasites and hosts, and in predators and prey. These tightly coupled interactions might even explain why there are millions, rather than thousands, of uniquely specialised species across the globe.

Naomi Langmore receives funding from the Australian National University and the Australian Research Council.

Alicia Grealy received funding from the Centre for Biodiversity Analysis (CBA).

Clare Holleley receives funding from the Australian Research Council and CSIRO, Australia’s National Science Agency.

Iliana Medina receives funding from The University of Melbourne and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. What’s that in my nest? How the evolutionary arms race between cuckoos and hosts creates new species – https://theconversation.com/whats-that-in-my-nest-how-the-evolutionary-arms-race-between-cuckoos-and-hosts-creates-new-species-230986

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Koplin, Group Leader, Childhood Allergy & Epidemiology, The University of Queensland

Australia has often been called the “allergy capital of the world”.

An estimated one in ten Australian children develop a food allergy in their first 12 months of life. Research has previously suggested food allergies are more common in infants in Australia than infants living in Europe, the United States or Asia.

So why are food allergies so common in Australia? We don’t know exactly – but local researchers are making progress in understanding childhood allergies all the time.

What causes food allergies?

There are many different types of reactions to foods. When we refer to food allergies in this article, we’re talking about something called IgE-mediated food allergy. This type of allergy is caused by an immune response to a particular food.

Reactions can occur within minutes of eating the food and may include swelling of the face, lips or eyes, “hives” or welts on the skin, and vomiting. Signs of a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) include difficulty breathing, swelling of the tongue, swelling in the throat, wheeze or persistent cough, difficulty talking or a hoarse voice, and persistent dizziness or collapse.

Recent results from Australia’s large, long-running food allergy study, HealthNuts, show one in ten one-year-olds have a food allergy, while around six in 100 children have a food allergy at age ten.

In Australia, the most common allergy-causing foods include eggs, peanuts, cow’s milk, shellfish (for example, prawn and lobster), fish, tree nuts (for example, walnuts and cashews), soybeans and wheat.

Allergies to foods like eggs, peanuts and cow’s milk often present for the first time in infancy, while allergies to fish and shellfish may be more common later in life. While most children will outgrow their allergies to eggs and milk, allergy to peanuts is more likely to be lifelong.

Findings from HealthNuts showed around three in ten children grew out of their peanut allergy by age six, compared to nine in ten children with an allergy to egg.

Are food allergies becoming more common?

Food allergies seem to have become more common in many countries around the world over recent decades. The exact timing of this increase is not clear, because in most countries food allergies were not well measured 40 or 50 years ago.

We don’t know exactly why food allergies are so common in Australia, or why we’re seeing a rise around the world, despite extensive research.

But possible reasons for rising allergies around the world include changes in the diets of mothers and infants and increasing sanitisation, leading to fewer infections as well as less exposure to “good” bacteria. In Australia, factors such as increasing vitamin D deficiency among infants and high levels of migration to the country could play a role.

In several Australian studies, children born in Australia to parents who were born in Asia have higher rates of food allergies compared to non-Asian children. On the other hand, children who were born in Asia and later migrated to Australia appear to have a lower risk of nut allergies.

Meanwhile, studies have shown that having pet dogs and siblings as a young child may reduce the risk of food allergies. This might be because having pet dogs and siblings increases contact with a range of bacteria and other organisms.

This evidence suggests that both genetics and environment play a role in the development of food allergies.

We also know that infants with eczema are more likely to develop a food allergy, and trials are underway to see whether this link can be broken.

Can I do anything to prevent food allergies in my kids?

One of the questions we are asked most often by parents is “can we do anything to prevent food allergies?”.

We now know introducing peanuts and eggs from around six months of age makes it less likely that an infant will develop an allergy to these foods. The Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy introduced guidelines recommending giving common allergy-causing foods including peanut and egg in the first year of life in 2016.

Our research has shown this advice had excellent uptake and may have slowed the rise in food allergies in Australia. There was no increase in peanut allergies between 2007–11 to 2018–19.

Introducing other common allergy-causing foods in the first year of life may also be helpful, although the evidence for this is not as strong compared with peanuts and eggs.

What next?

Unfortunately, some infants will develop food allergies even when the relevant foods are introduced in the first year of life. Managing food allergies can be a significant burden for children and families.

Several Australian trials are currently underway testing new strategies to prevent food allergies. A large trial, soon to be completed, is testing whether vitamin D supplements in infants reduce the risk of food allergies.

Another trial is testing whether the amount of eggs and peanuts a mother eats during pregnancy and breastfeeding has an influence on whether or not her baby will develop food allergies.

For most people with food allergies, avoidance of their known allergens remains the standard of care. Oral immunotherapy, which involves gradually increasing amounts of food allergen given under medical supervision, is beginning to be offered in some facilities around Australia. However, current oral immunotherapy methods have potential side effects (including allergic reactions), can involve high time commitment and cost, and don’t cure food allergies.

There is hope on the horizon for new food allergy treatments. Multiple clinical trials are underway around Australia aiming to develop safer and more effective treatments for people with food allergies.

Jennifer Koplin receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. She is a member of the Executive Committee for the National Allergy Centre of Excellence (NACE), which is supported by funding from the Australian government.

Desalegn Markos Shifti is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)-funded Centre for Food and Allergy Research (CFAR) Postdoctoral Funding.

– ref. We’re the ‘allergy capital of the world’. But we don’t know why food allergies are so common in Australian children – https://theconversation.com/were-the-allergy-capital-of-the-world-but-we-dont-know-why-food-allergies-are-so-common-in-australian-children-228786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mahima Kalla, Digital Health Transformation Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

Renowned scientist and conservationist Jane Goodall is touring Australia and New Zealand this week and next.

The 90-year-old “woman who redefined man” is best known for her discovery of tool-making in chimpanzees, our closest living relatives.

But I believe her impact on young people all over the world is even more profound.

For more than three decades, “Dr Jane” has inspired generations of conservationists through her youth-led action program Roots & Shoots. This successful self-directed project-based learning approach must be integrated into the school curriculum to support progress towards the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

The rise of ‘Roots & Shoots’

A global environmental education movement was born in 1991, when a group of 12 distressed teenagers gathered on Goodall’s front porch in Tanzania. The teens shared their concerns for the planet and explained they felt powerless to do anything about it.

Goodall listened. Together, they exchanged stories and ideas about potential solutions. The group left with a plan of action and “reasons for hope”.

More than 30 years later, Roots & Shoots is active in more than 60 countries.

Through Roots & Shoots, members select a cause they feel strongly about. Then they receive the tools, resources and support they need to develop and carry out their plan of action.

In this way, children as young as five can make a difference. Projects range from helping bring back local bird and bee populations, to reforesting derelict plots of urban land, or raising awareness of environmental issues through podcasts and videos.

Dear World – sharing success stories

Our new book, Dear World, is a collection of letters from environmental and social justice activists of all ages.

Both renowned and unsung activists share their personal stories and offer advice to others who want to create positive change.

For example, 13-year-old Spencer Hitchen of Noosa in Queensland was worried about the “Wallum ecosystem” of shrubs and grasslands in his “backyard” at Sunshine Beach.

He received a A$250 mini grant from Roots & Shoots Australia to help create a calendar featuring his photography, to raise awareness.

Other Roots & Shoots members are helping bring back local bee populations, raising awareness of “amazing animals” through educational videos, and offering earth-friendly lifestyle tips online.

It is the unstructured, informal nature of Roots & Shoots activities that make them so successful.

But there’s no reason why this model couldn’t work in the classroom. Students could be given the opportunity to conceptualise and implement their own environmental and social justice projects, applying their natural talents and interests to a cause of their choosing.

Expanding the Roots & Shoots model into formal education

As our research shows, there’s a strong evidence base for this. The free-choice project-based learning approach can be integrated into the curriculum on sustainable development. This would enable students to solve real-world environmental and social challenges.

The students could take part in a project for a single school term or a whole year, in the following way:

1) select a Sustainable Development Goal and topic of inquiry (such as a specific local environmental or social justice issue) of their choice, based on personal interest and curiosity

2) conduct self-directed research into potential solutions

3) tap into the expertise of local community leaders, Indigenous elders, older students, teachers and peers

4) implement the project and report back to the class about their impact

5) celebrate their success and learn from each other at a suitable forum, such as an open day or community exhibit.

Technology such as multimedia resources, online discussion forums and virtual field trips can also support the curriculum.

Step-by-step approach to implementing the Roots & Shoots program in the classroom

A lasting legacy

Young people will inherit the Earth. Their education must include developing skills to tackle the challenges they will surely face. This goes beyond learning about abstract concepts such as deforestation in the Amazon and climate change in Antarctica.

Nothing beats first-hand experience of developing and implementing practical solutions. Imagine the benefits of restoring a local ecosystem to witness the return of birdlife during the course of their schooling? Or making recycled toys for refuge dogs.

Last month we celebrated Goodall’s 90th birthday. I can’t think of a better way to honour her evolving legacy than to embed her Roots & Shoots model in our classrooms. It can be so much more than a nice-to-have extracurricular activity, enjoyed by a select few.

The author would like to acknowledge fellow Dear World co-editors, Nila Taylor and Benjamin Howes, and the 18 contributors who shared their stories for the book. Thanks also to Sakshi Srivastava for her comments on the draft of this article.

I have volunteered for the Jane Goodall Institute for more than 10 years. I have never received any financial compensation from the organisation or its youth-led education program Roots & Shoots.
I am the co-editor of the new book, Dear World, which is a partnership between the Jane Goodall Institute Australia and education social enterprise, Upschool. However, I will not receive financial compensation from sales of this edition. All of the profits will be directed to charity.

– ref. Jane Goodall inspires generations of conservationists – we need her education program in schools – https://theconversation.com/jane-goodall-inspires-generations-of-conservationists-we-need-her-education-program-in-schools-228365

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Gurrieri, Associate Professor in Marketing, RMIT University

Mattel released a new range of Barbie dolls this week honouring nine trailblazing women in sport. The recognised athletes include Matildas soccer star Mary Fowler, tennis champion Venus Williams and seven other record-breaking and world champion sports stars from across the globe.

Mattel’s Krista Berger said the brand wishes to acknowledge “the impact of sports in fostering self-confidence, ambition and empowerment among the next generation”.

But is this a genuine effort by a corporation to be gender progressive, or is it a marketing ploy that co-opts feminism in the pursuit of profit?

Dolls and ‘learning’ gender

Discussions about Mattel’s revamping of its Barbie range matter, as research has long recognised that “play” is foundational to children’s development.

Dolls matter in all kinds of ways: they connect us to our younger selves and are transitional objects that provide us with an early sense of comfort and security.

However, doll play has historically been marketed as “for girls”, while promoting gendered norms of domesticity and ideals of physical attractiveness.

Feminists have long raised concerns about the impacts of such stereotypical portrayals – and especially their potential to socialise children in ways that both highlight and exaggerate gender differences.

Barbie in particular has often been accused of spreading narrow ideals of femininity, girlhood and womanhood into the lives of young girls.

Does this latest range promise something different? Part of answering this question requires us to trace Barbie’s origins.

A chequered history

Barbie was originally a West German doll named Bild Lilli, which was crafted for an adult consumer. Ruth Handler’s discovery of this German figurine led to her adaptation for an American marketplace, which included a name change and wardrobe update.

Significantly, Barbie was first marketed as a “teenage fashion model” whose anatomically impossible curves and dimensions proved to be a marketing triumph. Ever since, Barbie’s unrealistic body has generated body image and appearance-focused anxieties. The long-term cultural repercussions still resonate today.

The doll also communicates a narrow set of beauty ideals that conflate blondness and whiteness with physical attractiveness. In response to growing backlash, Mattel has introduced more “diverse Barbies” in recent times.

The founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, said there is something uncanny about dolls, in that they mediate between reality and fantasy — a tension sustained by a fear and wish they could somehow come alive.

The question is, does this new range of Barbies modelled on real pioneering athletes fall within the realm of reality or fantasy? Is it a genuine attempt to make Barbie more relatable?

Broadening and narrowing representation

On face value, Mattel’s recent efforts to diversify its range of Barbies through embracing and promoting women’s sporting is positive. After all, women’s visibility in sport is a longstanding problem, plagued by issues of unequal pay, representation and participation. And you can’t be what you can’t see.

But what exactly are we seeing in the new Barbies? While the range promotes diversity in terms of skin colour and abilities, we’re once again confronted with a sameness of bodies. Each of the Barbies conforms to a prescriptive thin ideal and doesn’t convey the athleticism of their likeness.

For instance, Venus Williams’s muscularity – a feature that makes her a powerful tennis player – is missing in her replica.

A corporate hijacking of feminism

By portraying Barbie viz a viz these pioneering women athletes as strong, capable and accomplished, the doll appears to challenge gender stereotypes.

Yet, in popular culture, the contemporary woman is increasingly being represented by notions of autonomy, agency and choice. This sensibility, that women can “have it all” (known as post-feminism) positions women as individually responsible for their own wellbeing, care and liberation.

When taken up by brands that promote this kind of “girl power”, a new type of corporate feminism is created. The result is a watering down of feminism. Women’s empowerment is reduced to a marketable commodity rather than a genuine engagement with feminist politics.

The dolls in Barbie’s new range embody a combination of physical perfection and sporting prowess. As such, they communicate new levels of expectation and standards for young girls to “aspire” to.

Realistic Barbie?

Mattel’s new range suggests the company is willing to go only so far in its efforts to be “inclusive” – unable to break away from the rigid plastic mould of Barbie’s unrealistic contours.

Evidence shows that girls who play with a doll with a more realistic body exhibit less body dissatisfaction than those who play with Barbie. Could Barbie be realistic? Could she ever represent the countless women in the world who might be “ordinary”, unremarkable and even flawed?

If Mattel really wants to join the inclusive revolution, it ought to rethink the rigid ideals that Barbie continues to promote.

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. Mattel’s new athlete Barbies might seem like a win for feminists and young girls – but they’re not – https://theconversation.com/mattels-new-athlete-barbies-might-seem-like-a-win-for-feminists-and-young-girls-but-theyre-not-231064

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

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and his “shadow”, Michaelia Cash, are both volatile characters. When they met this week to discuss the government’s draft religious discrimination bill, an incendiary issue in the best of circumstances, sparks flew.

After a few minutes, Cash stormed out. The version from her side is that Dreyfus told her to “take a breath”, leaned across the desk and raised his voice. The Dreyfus side says she was the aggressive one doing the shouting.

Whatever the truth of this unedifying “she said, he said” dispute, the more important point is that the religious discrimination legislation looks near-dead, albeit not yet cremated.

Anthony Albanese promised it at the election, for political purposes, but has since said the government will not proceed without Coalition support.

The Coalition hasn’t given a definite yes or no, but is stringing out the issue for its own advantage. If Albanese wants to try a salvage operation, he’ll need to undertake it himself, directly with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. (The Greens have offered to deal themselves into the play, but that could be an even more difficult route for the government. Their support seldom comes cheap.)

From the government’s point of view, there’s little to be gained by attempting to breathe fresh life into this legislation. At next year’s election, the PM can tell the faith communities “well, I tried, but the Coalition wouldn’t agree”.

Meanwhile, the government is embarking on another, equally fraught, legislative journey – trying to turn the PM’s promise of action against “hate speech” into law.

Albanese said in February he’d asked Dreyfus “to develop proposals to strengthen laws against hate speech, which we will be doing”.

The proposed law would cover speech that incites hatred in relation to sex, sexuality, gender, race, and religion. The government claims it would strengthen existing Commonwealth laws. We already have provisions that prohibit urging violence against groups and members of groups – in section 80.2A and 80.2B of the Criminal Code. New offences would be created.

The government expects its legislation to be ready for introducing in August.

The opposition says it will wait for the details before it declares its position. However, Dutton – who a few months ago said the government should investigate whether stronger laws were needed – was cautious about the issue at this week’s Coalition parties meeting. There would be resistance to the move within the opposition.

There are several threshold questions about the pursuit of federal hate speech legislation. Is it necessary? Is it desirable? How practical is it? Is it worth the potentially divisive debate it will bring?

A driver behind the legislation is the desire to send signals (of both support and warning) in the present fractured domestic climate, after the Israel-Hamas war has fuelled antisemitism (which was already rising in Australia before the conflict) and Islamophobia.

Although there have been calls for new anti-hate speech legislation from Jewish and Muslim communities for several years, the widening of social divisions in the wake of this war has given impetus to these calls.

On the other hand, there is not a legal vacuum – there are existing state criminal laws that could be used against, for example, hate preaching, although they haven’t been invoked. The NSW Law Reform Commission, under former NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst, is currently inquiring into Section 93Z of the NSW Crimes Act to assess its efficacy. That section proscribes threatening or inciting violence on the basis of race or other attributes.

When we consider the desirability of federal hate speech legislation, we quickly run into the freedom-of-speech conundrum.

Reasonable people agree the right to freedom of speech is not absolute. Where it intersects with incitement to violence, a clear line has been crossed.

But the issues become murky when we examine, for example, the chants “from the river to the sea” and “intifada”. What is actually being said when they are chanted?

Education Minister Jason Clare said recently: “I’ve seen people say that those words mean the annihilation of Israel. I’ve seen people say that it means the opposite. I’ve seen people say that they’re slogans that Israeli political parties have used too.”

He got a mild put-down from his prime minister, who sees “from the river to the sea” as denying a two-state solution. But Clare is right; the words have different meanings to different people. Also, and importantly, it’s a matter of context. It’s one thing if the words are used to stir up a potentially violent crowd (incitement); it’s another when they’re used by protesters at a peaceful demonstration (free speech).

Earlier this month, the Group of Eight Universities asked Dreyfus for advice, in relation to federal law, on intifada and “from the river to the sea”.

Dreyfus replied he did not provide legal advice. He then referred them to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, that provides a civil remedy for a public act found likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate on the ground of race.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has lodged two complaints, under 18C, with the Australian Human Rights Commission over inflammatory speeches by two Sydney preachers.

The Senate this month passed a motion with bipartisan support that declared “the slogan ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ opposes Israel’s right to exist and is frequently used by those who seek to intimidate Jewish Australians via acts of antisemitism”. The Australian Muslim Advocacy Network immediately claimed, in an open letter to senators, the motion “infringes on the right to freedom of expression by Palestinian Australians and their allies in criticising Israel”.

Katharine Gelber, professor of politics and public policy at the University of Queensland, has written extensively on hate speech.

She says the existing federal criminal code sections were originally introduced as counter-terrorism measures. “If what the government means to do is remove those provisions and instead have a criminal hate speech law, that might be helpful. Otherwise they might be introducing more confusion,” she says.

Gelber is not convinced the phrase “from the river to the sea” would automatically be caught by 18C, let alone by a new criminal provision. “It would be very hard to define a criminal law to include that”.

She does believe, however, that a vilification law would be useful in an educative sense – a “line in the sand as much as for prosecution – important even if there was no enforcement”. She says that, in principle, anti-vilification laws in both civil and criminal form have an appropriate role to play in drawing those lines in democratic debate, to ensure people engaged in free speech exercise it in ways that don’t harm others.

“One could expect that the prime minister wants to make a symbolic gesture,” she says.

In political terms, however, the attempted gesture could bog down in arguments on multiple fronts that pleased none of the major stakeholders in the debate and left the rest of the public thinking the government had, once again, got itself into a cul-de-sac.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Government’s pursuit of a hate speech law could take it down another cul-de-sac – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-governments-pursuit-of-a-hate-speech-law-could-take-it-down-another-cul-de-sac-231275

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Austin, Lecturer in Theatre, The University of Melbourne

Back to Back Theatre is an internationally lauded ensemble of collaborators based in Geelong. With some members identifying as intellectually disabled and/or neurodiverse, the company has spent more than two decades producing performance works that address the politics of visibility and power.

The company has been described as having an “astonishing ability to dissect the unspoken imaginings of society”. And its latest show, Multiple Bad Things, directed by Tamara Searle and Ingrid Voorendt, showcases this capacity.

With great sophistication and certainty, the performance takes the dynamics of a workplace and reflects it to the audience to reveal the complex power dynamics, inequitable structures and political tensions that underpin and uphold the damaging status quo.

The workplace as a site of tensions

Taking place in a context that seems part-factory and part-construction site, four workers appear. One (Simon Laherty) directly addresses the audience as a narrator, blithely providing trigger warnings for the work they are about to see, and takes a seat at a desk as if he is a supervisor in his site office.

His computer screen is visible to the audience. He begins playing a game of solitaire, but eventually we watch as he doomscrolls through video clips of highly muscled men working out, fast cars, guns, porn and nature documentaries. Laherty’s character implicates the audience in this world, positioning them as present but silent voyeurs.

A second worker (Scott Price) arrives and promptly parks himself on a giant inflatable pool floatie shaped like a flamingo. They are then joined by the other two (Bron Batten and Sarah Mainwaring). Batten is the only non-disabled person on stage, while Mainwaring is physically and intellectually disabled.

Batten and Mainwaring appear to have the most work ethic. They begin piecing together the structure that dominates the centre of designer Anna Cordingley’s compelling set. It resembles a kind of post-apocalyptic Ikea nightmare: an enormous spiky tangle of poles or pipes that must somehow fit together.

In what appears to be a demonstration of human futility, the workers begin listing “bad things” while assembling the structure. As they work, apparently banal conversations take place.

At one point, they discuss the “international” aisle at the supermarket. As Price interjects with the kind of cuisines that can be found in this aisle (Mexican! Dutch! Japanese!), Mainwaring points out British food is now also located in the international aisle. Batten remarks that this seems pointless, given British food also occupies the rest of the supermarket.

These seemingly innocuous exchanges of dialogue underscore a central thread in the work, as the performers begin to wrestle with notions of difference and diversity, and the question of who gets to take up space. As the exchanges take place, we start to see a painfully obvious embodied representation of inequity among the workers, as Mainwaring physically struggles with the task at hand and requests help.

The harms of moral righteousness

As the show progresses, Batten reacts to Price’s perceived laziness by removing the air from the inflatable, triggering a great argument between them. Price claims he has been violently targeted because of his autism. Batten counteracts this by adopting the language of the oppressed to assert her own diversity and need for support.

In doing so, she maintains the system of power that clearly has her at the top of the pecking order as the only non-disabled person of the four.

Mainwaring watches on, at times saying she doesn’t understand what’s happening between them. Price seems to lose the argument, carrying the deflated flamingo and lying on the floor, proclaimed “dead” by Batten, who poses hero-like around the structure, celebrating her victory.

This moment reveals the disquieting outcome of Batten’s self-victimisation. It also speaks to the harm that can be caused by those who come from a place of moral righteousness and certitude.

The structures seemingly set up to support inclusion are revealed as redundant tools through a sly referencing of the workplace’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee, and a hopelessly frustrating and hilarious phone call Mainwaring makes to a support helpline. The audience is shown how these tools maintain control and drown out the voices of the most disenfranchised, leaving the workers to manage their own issues without support.

Negotiating power onstage

Multiple Bad Things demonstrates Back to Back Theatre’s leading approach to a growing area of interest in disability arts practice: the aesthetics of access. This is where we see sophisticated ways of incorporating access, for both audience and performers, into the framework and design of the performance.

One example was the use of the oval screen at the rear of the stage used to display subtitles. This text was, thanks to the audio-visual design by Rhian Hinckley, seamlessly integrated into the design of the broader work – and at times strategically used to disrupt or underscore the action on stage.

Directors Searle and Voorendt have crafted a proficient, seamless, complex and sophisticated hour-long work. They bring the unique performances and identities of the ensemble, along with an evocative score by Zoë Barrie and assured lighting design by Richard Vabre, into symbolic interplay. As these elements weave together, the performance oscillates between playful and poignant, flippant and horrific.

The final moments of the show see Mainwaring alone on stage, completing the assembly herself and it then initiating the final transformation of the spiky poles in a powerful theatrical moment.

Laherty leaves his office post for the third time in the performance and delivers a monologue about computer solitaire. “Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose,” he says. “You have to be prepared to lose a few games before you win.”

Mainwaring and Laherty embrace. In stark juxtaposition to the conflict and suffering we have just witnessed, we see a moment of care between the performers. While much is left unresolved regarding the central question of difference, diversity and who is entitled to take up space, Laherty’s reflections on solitaire resonate with this image.

Multiple Bad Things highlights there may be no singular perspective on what is right and wrong. Perhaps, as we collectively negotiate the building of more equitable structures, success relies on what it is we’re prepared to lose in order to win.

I have worked with Richard Vabre and Zoe Barrie on previous projects and Anna Cordingley is an employee at my institution.

– ref. Back to Back’s Multiple Bad Things takes a sophisticated look at the moral ambiguities of today’s ‘culture wars’ – https://theconversation.com/back-to-backs-multiple-bad-things-takes-a-sophisticated-look-at-the-moral-ambiguities-of-todays-culture-wars-227567

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

Craig Elliffe: Small cuts, big consequences

Honestly, who would want to be Nicola Willis at this point?

The effect of $14.7 billion of tax cuts is going to mean a dramatic rethink on expenditure in New Zealand in the long term, and about what sort of public services we expect as a country. The government’s cut-it-back strategy appears focused on the next four years, not a longer horizon.

From a broader economic perspective, the hope is the cuts will provide help for households. But that is not great relief if interest rates do not come down. So, the story for 2024 will be increasing job losses and a gloomier economy.

The tax cuts spread a little over a lot of people. And you have to ask, will $50 or $100 a fortnight really make a difference if interest rates stay high and the ability of the government to pay for core services reduces?

If the government keeps tightening the belt to pay for what are, in reality, small tax cuts, we’re going to end up with poor infrastructure, low wages and a struggling economy.

One positive thing about the tax policy, however, is that the government is facing up to the fiscal drag question. More than 14 years of inflation have moved people into new tax thresholds, eating away at the benefits of salary increases.

Taking a longer-term view, organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and OECD would have preferred the government to focus on paying down debt to get New Zealand to a surplus faster. To do that, those organisations suggest New Zealand introduce a tax on capital – but this budget avoids such big questions.

Dennis Wesselbaum: Prudent fiscal management

Fiscal budgets involve the crucial task of strategically allocating resources across various vital sectors, such as health, education and infrastructure.

The big-ticket items in this year’s budget are the tax relief – adjusting tax thresholds and the FamilyBoost childcare payment – and spending increases in health, schools and policing.

Tax relief is achieved by adjusting tax brackets for those on low and middle incomes. This should have a positive effect on the economy without creating inflation.

Spending is financed by redistributions, cuts in other areas, and by shrinking the public sector (by about 4,000 jobs), with fiscal surpluses predicted to return by 2027-2028. The underlying economic outlook from the Treasury looks reasonable, and we should see interest rate cuts by early to mid 2025.

Overall, this budget is a welcome return to focusing on outcomes and prudent fiscal management. Delivering a budget that simultaneously addresses many structural problems during a recession is always a difficult task, but this is a step in the right direction.

Timothy Welch: Infrastructure funding falls further behind

The 2023 budget was all about rebuilding and resilience: the extension of free public transport for children under 13 and half-price fares for under-25s; millions for rail and road restoration and resiliency; funding for more public housing and a clear emphasis on protecting the country from natural disasters and climate change.

All of that is gone now. While not exactly an austerity budget, it significantly cuts public spending, aside from on roads, as New Zealand falls further behind on funding critical infrastructure.

The budget does allocate some funding to important transport initiatives, such as Auckland’s Rail Network Rebuild Programme ($159.2 million). But this comes at the expense of Auckland Light Rail, the Clean Vehicle Discount, Clean Vehicle Standard Administration – and, surprisingly, from cuts to the Community Connect public transport affordability programme.

Much of the transport budget ($1.955 billion) goes to implementing the Draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, primarily dedicated to delivering the Roads of National Significance program, with another $1 billion being held in contingency.

The budget does not mention the cycling, walking or important green infrastructure investments that would help deliver decarbonisation. It is also silent on needed investments in storm water management and flood control, while taking “savings” from the repealed Three Waters program.

There is a bright spot for infrastructure, however, with the creation of the National Infrastructure Agency – though operational details are not yet available.

While the cost of living looms large for many, tax cuts in place of essential infrastructure upgrades and investments look short-sighted in the face of increasing traffic congestion, more extreme weather and flooding, and the threat climate change poses to all infrastructure.

Mark Barrow: Education funding favours the private sector

Generally, the government has (so far) kicked the tertiary sector can down the road. The university system review and winding down of Te Pūkenga (the merged polytech system) has left the focus mainly on schools, schooling and teachers.

As such, the education policy settings supported by the budget resurrect old conflicts around theory versus practice, whole language learning versus structured literacy, and university teacher training versus school-based apprenticeship models.

Ahead of the budget, both Education Minister Eric Stanford and Associate Minister David Seymour painted a grim (frequently inaccurate) picture about the state of New Zealand’s education system and the people who work in it.

Their answer has been to use the budget to direct public money to the private sector. This includes funding for new charter schools (where school owners will not face the restrictions being imposed on state schools), and increased support for the private early childhood education sector and private teacher training establishments.

While schools will welcome the relatively small increases in operational and property funding, this budget is moving more money into the hands of the private sector.

Anna Matheson: Health holds steady

With $8.2 billion in new spending over four years, it is good to see health being prioritised, although most will cover existing cost pressures. The current fragmented state of the health system cannot be blamed on this government, but those in power now have a choice: bow to expediency and continue with superficial or isolated attempts to fix things, or learn from the past and deliver an improved system.

But opting for tax cuts instead of signalling effective and sustainable approaches to the country’s complex health, social and environmental challenges seems shortsighted.

Yes, an additional $20 a fortnight from tax cuts may be the difference between seeing a GP or not. But the removal of free prescriptions for most people could also mean the difference between having access to medicines or not.

A better investment would be to make access to primary care easier and more affordable. And we know primary care, alongside healthier local environments, can keep people out of our expensive hospital system.

So, the focus on the health workforce is essential and overdue. But part of keeping people out of hospital is what happens within other sectors, not just health. Depending on how it is implemented, the new Social Investment Fund could help here, but we need more detail to know.

Hiran Thabrew: Not enough for mental health

Despite the National Party’s pre-election promises to improve mental health and the government’s introduction of a minister for mental health, it is disappointing to see the limited amount of funding overall: private provider Gumboot Friday ($24 million over four years) and a Mental Health Innovation Fund ($9.7 million over four years).

Tax cuts and the relatively small amounts they will put into the pockets of the “squeezed middle” may alleviate some stress-related mental health issues. But one in five New Zealanders experiences mental distress and illness. This costs $12 billion (5% of the GDP) each year.

The previous Labour government invested $1.9 million in primary and community-based services for those with mild to moderate mental health issues. Meanwhile, demand for specialist mental health services grew by 75% over the past decade, without a corresponding increase in resourcing.

It is a shame the needs of those with moderate to severe mental illness remain ignored. This is the group with the greatest need of support, and many New Zealanders and their whānau could be among them at some point in their lives.

In 2022, specialist mental health services saw a 12% staff departure rate, versus a 9% recruitment rate. Some 20% of psychiatry positions are currently vacant, and crisis-driven acute care is becoming the norm.

If the government doesn’t urgently address workforce shortages, ring-fence mental health funding, and update a 20-year-old mental health survey on which current funding is based, it won’t have the Labour Party to blame by the next election.

Julia Talbot-Jones: Silent on the environment

Leading up to its first budget, the coalition government has dismantled environmental protections and introduced new legislation to support economic growth.

Environmental advocates have called it “a war on nature” and some have compared the pace and magnitude of reform underway to the “Think Big” mistakes of the 1975-1984 National government.

The controversial Fast-Track Approvals Bill has received much attention and is now going through a submissions process. But the government is also replacing freshwater and biodiversity legislation, and it has relaxed marine protections and cancelled a swathe of climate policies.

The budget does nothing to allay public concern about the repercussions of these policy decisions. Instead, it underlines the government’s support for development. It delivers nothing new for the environment, climate or conservation.

Willis was notably silent about the environment in her budget speech, only mentioning a continued $2.6 billion investment in existing climate initiatives, and the growing importance of the Emissions Trading Scheme. A preliminary assessment of Treasury documents shows a reduction in overall funding across most environmental protection domains over the next five years.

Climate and environment are not solely “environmental” issues, they are economic matters: both of New Zealand’s largest export earners (agriculture and tourism) depend on New Zealand upholding its international image as a healthy environment.

This cannot be maintained without continued government involvement and investment through strong environmental policy and financial commitments. To do otherwise is to jeopardise New Zealand’s long-term economic future.

Hiran Thabrew receives funding from the Health Research Council. He is Chair of the Tu Te Akaaka Roa, the NZ Office of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists.

Julia Talbot-Jones receives funding from the Royal Sociey Te Apārangi. She is an Affiliate at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research where she leads the freshwater programme.

Anna Matheson, Craig Elliffe, Dennis Wesselbaum, Mark Barrow, and Timothy Welch 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. NZ Budget 2024: ‘tax relief’ for the ‘squeezed middle’ – but who’s paying? 7 experts follow the money – https://theconversation.com/nz-budget-2024-tax-relief-for-the-squeezed-middle-but-whos-paying-7-experts-follow-the-money-230102

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Taucher, Lecturer in History, Murdoch University

The world has reacted with anger this week after an Israeli air strike on a safe zone for displaced civilians in southern Gaza reportedly resulted in the deaths of at least 45 people, including women and children.

This latest action in the Israel’s war in Gaza has come despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivering an order last Friday that it must immediately halt its military campaign in Rafah due to the risk to civilians.

It appears Israel is determined to defy the ICJ’s order. Israeli tanks moved into the heart of Rafah earlier this week.

If it continues its assault on Rafah, it would present the ICJ (the UN’s top court) with perhaps the greatest challenge to its legitimacy since it was established following the second world war.

The ICJ view of the conflict

The court became directly involved in the conflict in December when South Africa lodged a case against Israel, arguing its offensive had amounted to or created the conditions for a genocide of the Palestinian people.

In late January, the ICJ issued a range of orders, including that Israel must take immediate steps to prevent acts of genocide against the Palestinian people and ensure humanitarian aid gets into Gaza.

Last week, the ICJ reiterated its concern over aid, and more critically, ordered Israel to:

Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

There is a large amount of legal ambiguity in the wording of this order.

In one interpretation – favoured by the Israeli government – military and other actions in Rafah can continue, provided these actions are not genocidal.

In another interpretation, the order prohibits Israel from carrying out any further military or other actions in Rafah full-stop.

There’s also a question over how to interpret the word may. That is, at what point can it be said that Israel’s actions may lead to physical destruction?

While the order is ambiguous from a legal standpoint, arguably it is not to many observers: the court wants Israel to stop what it is doing.

The lack of enforcement

It is likely no accident the panel of judges provided such ambiguous orders.

The ICJ is an independent court, but it operates in a difficult political and diplomatic environment. Critically, it also has no independent ability to enforce its orders – there is no world police the ICJ can rely on to ensure its orders are carried out.

Instead, the court relies on the support of powerful countries that are willing to enforce its decisions through diplomatic measures, including sanctions.

Officially, the UN Security Council – as the global body responsible for peace and security – enforces ICJ decisions. However, in practical terms, the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council extends to the ICJ.

As such, the United States would likely veto any Security Council resolution to restrict Israeli actions in any substantive way.

While the US has warned Israel not to launch a major offensive in Rafah, a senior administration official has reportedly said this week’s air strike did not cross a “red line”.

This kind of roadblock to the enforcement of the ICJ’s orders threatens the legitimacy and credibility of the court. To exist as a trusted adjudicator in international law, it has to be seen to be applying that law impartially and fairly. And its rulings cannot be ignored.

The court alone can’t stop the fighting

In the past, the effective pursuit of states and individuals for breaches of international humanitarian law has required overwhelming political will, usually in the wake of the complete military defeat of a country at war.

This was the case with the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials following the second world war, and in other international trials since then. In these past cases, the nations and leaders in question were powerless to resist the overwhelming pressure of the international community.

Read more:
There has been much talk of war crimes in the Israel-Gaza conflict. But will anyone actually be prosecuted?

When it comes to allegations of genocide and other breaches of international law, it is also much easier for judges on international courts and tribunals to make decisions after the events have occurred, rather than while they are still continuing, as in the Gaza war.

A government that legitimately holds power is likely to regard the orders of an international body as an encroachment on its sovereignty, as Israel does with the current orders of the ICJ and International Criminal Court.

Ultimately, what the conflict in Gaza and the various legal and political responses have shown is that no court in the world – nor any international law – alone has the capacity to effectively protect civilians during times of war.

Legal thinkers can debate the wording of the ICJ’s latest order, and political leaders can debate the power of the court, but the only thing that can end the war is widespread international pressure for both sides to agree to a ceasefire. This includes from powerful nations such as the US.

Thus, it is not the legitimacy of the ICJ that is most urgently in question at the moment, but rather how deeply the world’s most influential powers believe in the role of international institutions to maintain peace and security.

Dean Aszkielowicz has previously received funding from the Australian Army Research Scheme.

Paul Taucher 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. As Israel pushes into Rafah, it exposes an uncomfortable truth: no court alone can protect civilians in war – https://theconversation.com/as-israel-pushes-into-rafah-it-exposes-an-uncomfortable-truth-no-court-alone-can-protect-civilians-in-war-231052

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nenad Naumovski, Professor in Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Canberra

Humans have long been searching for a “magic elixir” to make us smarter, and improve our focus and memory. This includes traditional Chinese medicine used thousands of years ago to improve cognitive function.

Now we have nootropics, also known as smart drugs, brain boosters or cognitive enhancers.

You can buy these gummies, chewing gums, pills and skin patches online, or from supermarkets, pharmacies or petrol stations. You don’t need a prescription or to consult a health professional.

But do nootropics actually boost your brain? Here’s what the science says.

What are nootropics and how do they work?

Romanian psychologist and chemist Cornelius E. Giurgea coined the term nootropics in the early 1970s to describe compounds that may boost memory and learning. The term comes from the Greek words nӧos (thinking) and tropein (guide).

Nootropics may work in the brain by improving transmission of signals between nerve cells, maintaining the health of nerve cells, and helping in energy production. Some nootropics have antioxidant properties and may reduce damage to nerve cells in the brain caused by the accumulation of free radicals.

But how safe and effective are they? Let’s look at four of the most widely used nootropics.

1. Caffeine

You might be surprised to know caffeine is a nootropic. No wonder so many of us start our day with a coffee. It stimulates our nervous system.

Caffeine is rapidly absorbed into the blood and distributed in nearly all human tissues. This includes the brain where it increases our alertness, reaction time and mood, and we feel as if we have more energy.

For caffeine to have these effects, you need to consume 32-300 milligrams in a single dose. That’s equivalent to around two espressos (for the 300mg dose). So, why the wide range? Genetic variations in a particular gene (the CYP1A2 gene) can affect how fast you metabolise caffeine. So this can explain why some people need more caffeine than others to recognise any neurostimulant effect.

Unfortunately too much caffeine can lead to anxiety-like symptoms and panic attacks, sleep disturbances, hallucinations, gut disturbances and heart problems.

So it’s recommended adults drink no more than 400mg caffeine a day, the equivalent of up to three espressos.

2. L-theanine

L-theanine comes as a supplement, chewing gum or in a beverage. It’s also the most common amino acid in green tea.

Consuming L-theanine as a supplement may increase production of alpha waves in the brain. These are associated with increased alertness and perception of calmness.

However, it’s effect on cognitive functioning is still unclear. Various studies including those comparing a single dose with a daily dose for several weeks, and in different populations, show different outcomes.

But taking L-theanine with caffeine as a supplement improved cognitive performance and alertness in one study. Young adults who consumed L-theanine (97mg) plus caffeine (40mg) could more accurately switch between tasks after a single dose, and said they were more alert.

Another study of people who took L-theanine with caffeine at similar doses to the study above found improvements in several cognitive outcomes, including being less susceptible to distraction.

Although pure L-theanine is well tolerated, there are still relatively few human trials to show it works or is safe over a prolonged period of time. Larger and longer studies examining the optimal dose are also needed.

3. Ashwaghanda

Ashwaghanda is a plant extract commonly used in Indian Ayurvedic medicine for improving memory and cognitive function.

In one study, 225-400mg daily for 30 days improved cognitive performance in healthy males. There were significant improvements in cognitive flexibility (the ability to switch tasks), visual memory (recalling an image), reaction time (response to a stimulus) and executive functioning (recognising rules and categories, and managing rapid decision making).

There are similar effects in older adults with mild cognitive impairment.

But we should be cautious about results from studies using Ashwaghanda supplements; the studies are relatively small and only treated participants for a short time.

4. Creatine

Creatine is an organic compound involved in how the body generates energy and is used as a sports supplement. But it also has cognitive effects.

In a review of available evidence, healthy adults aged 66-76 who took creatine supplements had improved short-term memory.

Long-term supplementation may also have benefits. In another study, people with fatigue after COVID took 4g a day of creatine for six months and reported they were better able to concentrate, and were less fatigued. Creatine may reduce brain inflammation and oxidative stress, to improve cognitive performance and reduce fatigue.

Side effects of creatine supplements in studies are rarely reported. But they include weight gain, gastrointestinal upset and changes in the liver and kidneys.

Where to now?

There is good evidence for brain boosting effects of caffeine and creatine. But the jury is still out on the efficacy, optimal dose and safety of most other nootropics.

So until we have more evidence, consult your health professional before taking a nootropic.

But drinking your daily coffee isn’t likely to do much harm. Thank goodness, because for some of us, it is a magic elixir.

Dr Nenad Naumovski has previously received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Malaysian Health and Research Council, ACT government, Dementia Research Foundation, Arthritis ACT, Australian Association of Gerontology, Hospital Foundation and the ACT Board of Secondary Studies. He has had university funding from the University of Newcastle (Australia), Australian National University, University of Canberra, Monash University, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine and Health Polytechnic Ministry of Health Jakarta. He has had industry funding from Assistive Technology Australia, Chiron Health Products, Capitol Chilled Foods Australia, Archer Daniels Midland and Australian Beverage Council. He has received travel funding from the Nutrition Society of Australia, Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology, and Australian Atherosclerosis Society. He is a member of Nutrition Society Australia, the Australian Atherosclerosis Society, Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology, Asian-Pacific Society of Atherosclerosis and Vascular Disease, International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry, Early Intervention in Mental Health, Nutrition Society of United Kingdom and American Society for Nutrition. To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware that any of the companies in this disclosure are involved in the research or marketing of nootropics mentioned in this article.

Amanda Bulman receives funding from the University of Canberra. She is a member of the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology.

Dr Andrew McKune has previously received funding from the ACT Health Research and Innovation Fund, Australian Institute of Sport, Dementia Research Foundation, Arthritis ACT, Australian Association of Gerontology, Hospital Foundation, University of Canberra, Chiron Health Products and Archer Daniels Midland. He is a member of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry, and International Early Intervention and Prevention in Mental Health Association. To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware that any of the companies in this disclosure are involved in the research or marketing of nootropics mentioned in this article.

– ref. What are nootropics and do they really boost your brain? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-nootropics-and-do-they-really-boost-your-brain-224628

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cher McGillivray, Assistant Professor Psychology Department, Bond University

Welcome aboard the roller coaster of parenthood, where emotions run wild, tantrums reign supreme and love flows deep.

As children reach toddlerhood and beyond, parents adapt to manage their child’s big emotions and meltdowns. Parenting terminology has adapted too, with more parents describing their child as “dysregulated”.

But what does this actually mean?

More than an emotion

Emotional dysregulation refers to challenges a child faces in recognising and expressing emotions, and managing emotional reactions in social settings.

This may involve either suppressing emotions or displaying exaggerated and intense emotional responses that get in the way of the child doing what they want or need to do.

“Dysregulation” is more than just feeling an emotion. An emotion is a signal, or cue, that can give us important insights to ourselves and our preferences, desires and goals.

An emotionally dysregulated brain is overwhelmed and overloaded (often, with distressing emotions like frustration, disappointment and fear) and is ready to fight, flight or freeze.

Developing emotional regulation

Emotion regulation is a skill that develops across childhood and is influenced by factors such as the child’s temperament and the emotional environment in which they are raised.

In the stage of emotional development where emotion regulation is a primary goal (around 3–5 years old), children begin exploring their surroundings and asserting their desires more actively.

It’s typical for them to experience emotional dysregulation when their initiatives are thwarted or criticised, leading to occasional tantrums or outbursts.

A typically developing child will see these types of outbursts reduce as their cognitive abilities become more sophisticated, usually around the age they start school.

Express, don’t suppress

Expressing emotions in childhood is crucial for social and emotional development. It involves the ability to convey feelings verbally and through facial expressions and body language.

When children struggle with emotional expression, it can manifest in various ways, such as difficulty in being understood, flat facial expressions even in emotionally charged situations, challenges in forming close relationships, and indecisiveness.

Several factors, including anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, giftedness, rigidity and both mild and significant trauma experiences, can contribute to these issues.

Common mistakes parents can make is dismissing emotions, or distracting children away from how they feel.

These strategies don’t work and increase feelings of overwhelm. In the long term, they fail to equip children with the skills to identify, express and communicate their emotions, making them vulnerable to future emotional difficulties.

We need to help children move compassionately towards their difficulties, rather than away from them. Parents need to do this for themselves too.

Caregiving and skill modelling

Parents are responsible for creating an emotional climate that facilitates the development of emotion regulation skills.

Parents’ own modelling of emotion regulation when they feel distressed. The way they respond to the expression of emotions in their children, contributes to how children understand and regulate their own emotions.

Children are hardwired to be attuned to their caregivers’ emotions, moods, and coping as this is integral to their survival. In fact, their biggest threat to a child is their caregiver not being OK.

Unsafe, unpredictable, or chaotic home environments rarely give children exposure to healthy emotion expression and regulation. Children who go through maltreatment have a harder time controlling their emotions, needing more brainpower for tasks that involve managing feelings. This struggle could lead to more problems with emotions later on, like feeling anxious and hypervigilant to potential threats.

Recognising and addressing these challenges early on is essential for supporting children’s emotional wellbeing and development.

A dysregulated brain and body

When kids enter “fight or flight” mode, they often struggle to cope or listen to reason. When children experience acute stress, they may respond instinctively without pausing to consider strategies or logic.

If your child is in fight mode, you might observe behaviours such as crying , clenching fists or jaw, kicking, punching, biting, swearing, spitting or screaming.

In flight mode, they may appear restless, have darting eyes, exhibit excessive fidgeting, breathe rapidly, or try to run away.

A shut-down response may look like fainting or a panic attack.

When a child feels threatened, their brain’s frontal lobe, responsible for rational thinking and problem-solving, essentially goes offline.

This happens when the amygdala, the brain’s alarm system, sends out a false alarm, triggering the survival instinct.

In this state, a child may not be able to access higher functions like reasoning or decision-making.

While our instinct might be to immediately fix the problem, staying present with our child during these moments is more effective. It’s about providing support and understanding until they feel safe enough to engage their higher brain functions again.

Reframe your thinking so you see your child as having a problem – not being the problem.

Tips for parents

Take turns discussing the highs and lows of the day at meal times. This is a chance for you to be curious, acknowledge and label feelings, and model that you, too, experience a range of emotions that require you to put into practice skills to cope and has shown evidence in numerous physical, social-emotional, academic and behavioural benefits.

Spending even small amounts (five minutes a day!) of quality one-on-one time with your child is an investment in your child’s emotional wellbeing. Let them pick the activity, do your best to follow their lead, and try to notice and comment on the things they do well, like creative ideas, persevering when things are difficult, and being gentle or kind.

Take a tip from parents of children with neurodiversity: learn about your unique child. Approaching your child’s emotions, temperament, and behaviours with curiosity can help you to help them develop emotion regulation skills.

When to get help

If emotion dysregulation is a persistent issue that is getting in the way of your child feeling happy, calm, or confident – or interfering with learning or important relationships with family members or peers – talk to their GP about engaging with a mental health professional.

Many families have found parenting programs helpful in creating a climate where emotions can be safely expressed and shared.

Remember, you can’t pour from an empty cup. Parenting requires you to be your best self and tend to your needs first to see your child flourish.

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. Parents are increasingly saying their child is ‘dysregulated’. What does that actually mean? – https://theconversation.com/parents-are-increasingly-saying-their-child-is-dysregulated-what-does-that-actually-mean-221989

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Freestone, Professor of Planning, School of Built Environment, UNSW Sydney

In March 2021, then-Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese declared “cities policy has been one of the abiding passions of my time in public life”. He promised a new national urban policy framework if Labor was elected.

That moment has (almost) arrived with the release of a draft National Urban Policy.

The policy aims to inject an “urban lens across policymaking” in support of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

The policy revolves around five main goals: liveability, equity, productivity, sustainability and resilience. Six key objectives expand on these goals by also stressing belongingness, safety, health and wellbeing. Six principles “to guide decision-making” complement the goals and objectives.

The government is seeking public feedback on the policy before July 4. Two recent and substantive research documents may help in thinking about that feedback. They consider complementary aspects of what issues need to be addressed and policies explored in a national urban policy.

The draft policy’s goals and objectives largely align with those of the two documents. However, some areas of concern are surprisingly omitted. The most troubling gap relates to specifics on how the desired urban transformation will be achieved in practice.

How does the research relate to the policy?

The first research document is an edited collection, Australian Urban Policy. This new book emerged from a 2021 workshop enabled by the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. It offers a compendium of policy analyses, reviews and prescriptions.

Second, Future Earth Australia (hosted at the Australian Academy of Sciences) published the strategy Sustainable Cities and Regions. This is an update to its 2019 strategy to transform urban systems. It’s based on broad consultation with urban stakeholders and communities around Australia.

The strategy focuses on what is needed to transform a range of critical national to local urban capabilities. Among these are cohesive leadership and governance, inclusive engagement, urban systems understanding, knowledge sharing, and innovation and learning.

Then, on May 23, Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Minister Catherine King released the National Urban Policy at the Planning Institute of Australia’s annual congress.

So how does the policy stack up?

The draft policy’s five goals align identically with the five urban outcomes of the Sustainable Cities and Regions strategy. Most of the challenges identified in the strategy also resonate through the policy’s six objectives.

However, the policy lacks a strong focus on building capabilities as an essential component. It makes some supportive statements on coordinated governance, stakeholder and community engagement, and evidence-based decisions. But there are no specifics in the national objectives, challenges and possible responses on these and related areas.

Shared policy-level commitment to enhancing transformative capabilities is essential.

The National Urban Policy tackles the wide-ranging interdependent issues (aka “interconnected challenges”) canvassed in the book Australian Urban Policy. It even goes further into arts and culture, tourism, freight transport and, disarmingly, very specific targets like koala crossings and cool paints.

But the draft reads as an extensive if not repetitive statement of aspirations. For the most part, these are hard to disagree with.

The policy’s decision-making “principles” add some groundedness, but the conceptual matrix needed to summarily tie all of these together with the goals and objectives is missing.

The draft injects a powerful and overdue First Nations theme. But there are some surprise omissions:

• “smart cities” are not mentioned at all
• towns are squeezed out by cities and suburbs
• knowledge industries seem forgotten
• high-speed rail doesn’t feature

And despite a concern with “urban development patterns”, this is mainly sprawl. A national plan of settlement recommended by a 2018 parliamentary inquiry is not resurrected.

How to go beyond ‘business as usual’

A categorisation of an array of current federal programs, schemes and agreements reassures that the NUP is already “under way”. But business-as-usual won’t achieve truly transformative change. Both research-based documents stress the need for detailed mapping of how specific policy transitions will be achieved.

Most importantly, the governance to make the National Urban Policy happen – including a hopeful suggestion of “cross-portfolio engagement” – is still undeveloped beyond current ministerial and cross-jurisdictional forums, meetings and working groups. The all-important shared vision and partnerships with the states and territories remain a “placeholder” in the draft policy as negotiations continue.

The two research-based initiatives are complementary. One was based on broad consultation focused on developing the urban capabilities needed across policy areas and spatial scales. The other assembled the insights of leading researchers on more specific policy topics. Together they identify new ideas that need to be debated in formulating the National Urban Policy.

This is a critical moment in the decade to deliver on a coherent vision for Australia’s cities and regions. The government is to be commended for initiating a process to identify policy improvements. Whatever your views, we encourage all to share their feedback before the policy is finalised.

Robert Freestone receives funding from the Australian Research Council. The workshop and publication of ‘Australian Urban Policy’ (co-edited with Bill Randolph and Wendy Steele) was supported by the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, and the School of Built Environment and City Futures Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

Bob Webb has received funding in the past from the CSIRO, Commonwealth Department of the Environment and ACT government for research on climate change. He is affiliated with the Australian National University, following employment with the Commonwealth government and in the private sector. The consultations for and publication of the Sustainable Cities and Regions Strategy (which he co-authored with Jago Dodson, Wendy Steele, Mark Stafford Smith, Anna Pradhan and Kate Nairn) were supported by Future Earth Australia and the Australian Academy of Science.

– ref. Labor’s new National Urban Policy is welcome. But will it be transformative? – https://theconversation.com/labors-new-national-urban-policy-is-welcome-but-will-it-be-transformative-231158

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Jucker, Lecturer in Atmospheric Dynamics, UNSW Sydney

Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (Hunga Tonga for short) erupted on January 15 2022 in the Pacific Kingdom of Tonga. It created a tsunami which triggered warnings across the entire Pacific basin, and sent sound waves around the globe multiple times.

A new study published in the Journal of Climate explores the climate impacts of this eruption.

Our findings show the volcano can explain last year’s extraordinarily large ozone hole, as well as the much wetter than expected summer of 2024.

The eruption could have lingering effects on our winter weather for years to come.

A cooling smoke cloud

Usually, the smoke of a volcano – and in particular the sulphur dioxide contained inside the smoke cloud – ultimately leads to a cooling of Earth’s surface for a short period.

This is because the sulphur dioxide transforms into sulphate aerosols, which send sunlight back into space before it reaches the surface. This shading effect means the surface cools down for a while, until the sulphate falls back down to the surface or gets rained out.

This is not what happened for Hunga Tonga.

Because it was an underwater volcano, Hunga Tonga produced little smoke, but a lot of water vapour: 100–150 million tonnes, or the equivalent of 60,000 Olympic swimming pools. The enormous heat of the eruption transformed huge amounts of sea water into steam, which then shot high into the atmosphere with the force of the eruption.

All that water ended up in the stratosphere: a layer of the atmosphere between about 15 and 40 kilometres above the surface, which produces neither clouds nor rain because it is too dry.

Water vapour in the stratosphere has two main effects. One, it helps in the chemical reactions which destroy the ozone layer, and two, it is a very potent greenhouse gas.

There is no precedent in our observations of volcanic eruptions to know what all that water would do to our climate, and for how long. This is because the only way to measure water vapour in the entire stratosphere is via satellites. These only exist since 1979, and there hasn’t been an eruption similar to Hunga Tonga in that time.

Follow the vapour

Experts in stratospheric science around the world started examining satellite observations from the first day of the eruption. Some studies focused on the more traditional effects of volcanic eruptions, such as the amount of sulphate aerosols and their evolution after the eruption, some concentrated on the possible effects of the water vapour, and some included both.

But nobody really knew how the water vapour in the stratosphere would behave. How long will it remain in the stratosphere? Where will it go? And, most importantly, what does this mean for the climate while the water vapour is still there?

Those were exactly the questions we set off to answer.

We wanted to find out about the future, and unfortunately it is impossible to measure that. This is why we turned to climate models, which are specifically made to look into the future.

We did two simulations with the same climate model. In one, we assumed no volcano erupted, while in the other one we manually added the 60,000 Olympic swimming pools worth of water vapour to the stratosphere. Then, we compared the two simulations, knowing that any differences must be due to the added water vapour.

What did we find out?

The large ozone hole from August to December 2023 was at least in part due to Hunga Tonga. Our simulations predicted that ozone hole almost two years in advance.

Notably, this was the only year we would expect any influence of the volcanic eruption on the ozone hole. By then, the water vapour had just enough time to reach the polar stratosphere over Antarctica, and during any later years there will not be enough water vapour left to enlarge the ozone hole.

As the ozone hole lasted until late December, with it came a positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode during the summer of 2024. For Australia this meant a higher chance of a wet summer, which was exactly opposite what most people expected with the declared El Niño. Again, our model predicted this two years ahead.

In terms of global mean temperatures, which are a measure of how much climate change we are experiencing, the impact of Hunga Tonga is very small, only about 0.015 degrees Celsius. (This was independently confirmed by another study.) This means that the incredibly high temperatures we have measured for about a year now cannot be attributed to the Hunga Tonga eruption.

Disruption for the rest of the decade

But there are some surprising, lasting impacts in some regions of the planet.

For the northern half of Australia, our model predicts colder and wetter than usual winters up to about 2029. For North America, it predicts warmer than usual winters, while for Scandinavia, it again predicts colder than usual winters.

The volcano seems to change the way some waves travel through the atmosphere. And atmospheric waves are responsible for highs and lows, which directly influence our weather.

It is important here to clarify that this is only one study, and one particular way of investigating what impact the Hunga Tonga eruption might have on our weather and climate. Like any other climate model, ours is not perfect.

We also didn’t include any other effects, such as the El Niño–La Niña cycle. But we hope that our study will stir scientific interest to try and understand what such a large amount of water vapour in the stratosphere might mean for our climate.

Whether it is to confirm or contradict our findings, that remains to be seen – we welcome either outcome.

Martin Jucker receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Tonga’s volcanic eruption could cause unusual weather for the rest of the decade, new study shows – https://theconversation.com/tongas-volcanic-eruption-could-cause-unusual-weather-for-the-rest-of-the-decade-new-study-shows-231074

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carla Pascoe Leahy, Adjunct Researcher, University of Tasmania

When we think of climate and environmental issues such as climate-linked disasters or biodiversity loss, we don’t tend to think about gender. At first glance, it may seem irrelevant.

But a growing body of evidence demonstrates women and gender-diverse people are disproportionately vulnerable to the changing climate and the consequences it brings.

Women are 14 times more likely to die in a climate change-related disaster than men. Women represent 80% of people displaced by extreme weather.

Although extreme weather events such as fires and floods might appear to affect everyone equally, the evidence shows crises exploit existing social faultlines. This means people who are already socially marginalised suffer exacerbated impacts.

What does this look like?

Women are acutely impacted by environmental crises because they experience pre-existing social and economic disadvantage. Another reason is they tend to take responsibility for caring for other vulnerable groups, such as children or older people.

In a meta-analysis of 130 studies, 68% found women were more impacted by climate-linked health issues than men. Maternal and perinatal health is particularly effected by climate change hazards such as extreme heat. So too is the health of older women.

Most disturbingly, studies across Australia and around the world have revealed gender-based violence consistently increases during and after disasters. Both the most recent National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children and the associated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan briefly recognise this. Even still, policymakers and service providers are yet to comprehensively grapple with what this means for women in an era of multiple and compounding disasters.

The impact of climate change on housing and living is also experienced in gendered ways. The Climate Council estimates that by 2030, 520,940 Australian properties, or one in every 25, will be “high-risk” and uninsurable. Rising costs of living, homelessness and under-insured housing are all affecting Australian women, who are particularly vulnerable to losing food security and shelter.

Over 2016–21, men’s homelessness increased by 1.6% while women’s increased by just over 10%. The Australian housing crisis is being exacerbated by the climate crisis, and these impacts are distinctly gendered.

Leadership drives results

Research demonstrates women and gender-diverse people bring crucial perspectives and leadership to tackling these problems. They’re not just helpless victims.

Evidence from across a range of sectors demonstrates gender-diverse leadership results in more effective and equitable approaches. Larger numbers of women in politics and policy-making results in stronger climate action policies, more ambitious climate targets and more pro-environmental legislation. Despite this, at the COP28 climate talks in 2023, only 15 out of 140 speakers were women. Only 38% of party delegation members were women.

Gender diversity in industry leadership also yields environmental benefits. Research by the World Economic Forum shows that a 1% increase in women managers in a company results in a 0.5% decrease in carbon emissions. Boards with higher gender diversity receive higher scores on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance measures and have fewer environmental lawsuits.

Companies with more than 30% women on their boards display better climate governance, climate innovation and sustainability performance. Yet, as of 2022, women hold just one in four executive leadership positions in ASX300 companies. At the current rate of progress, it will take a century for women to constitute 40% of chief executives among ASX200 companies.

Women and gender-diverse people are also in the minority in renewable energy industries. Only around 35% of the clean energy workforce is female. These women are predominantly in jobs such as office administration, accounting and cleaning, rather than trade-qualified or engineering roles.

In the recent federal budget, the government announced $55.6 million for a Building Women’s Careers Program. It also pledged $38.2 million to increase diversity in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education and industries. These are welcome developments.

But gender inclusion and equity need to be centred in major initiates like the Future Made in Australia Plan and the Net Zero Plan. This would help achieve urgent climate change mitigation targets and to ensure the associated economic benefits are genuinely inclusive.

Deep social change will be required to adequately address these issues. This is not just a matter of making space for more women to take up leadership positions, but requires grappling with the fact gendered social and economic inequality is caused by discriminatory gender attitudes, leaving women and gender-diverse people vulnerable to environmental impacts. Moreover, the kind of unpaid care work so often performed by women has been systematically undervalued, but is foundational to our economy, society and environment.

Fuelling disaster recovery

Women also have a key role to play in preparing for and recovering from climate-fuelled disasters.

Research shows women tend to take on emotional and relational roles within communities, sustaining networks of care at the local level. Community-level care is crucial to helping local communities stay strong in the face of increasing disasters, the impacts of which often exceed the capacity of emergency responders. Our disaster response policies and agencies need to recognise the often gendered nature of community resilience work and deliberately support this kind of “soft infrastructure”.

Climate and environmental issues do not affect us all equally. Women and gender-diverse people are acutely affected. We need targeted policy responses that recognise this vulnerability. In addition, women and gender-diverse people offer distinctive and much-needed leadership styles. These approaches are urgently required if we are to rapidly transition to a renewable economy.

The gendered impact of climate change is well-recognised at the international level, including by the United Nations. Australia has ambitions to host the COP31 global climate change conference with our Pacific neighbours in 2026. To be in the running, Australia needs to demonstrate it recognises and takes seriously the gendered nature of climate and environmental issues.

Dr Carla Pascoe Leahy works for Women’s Environmental Leadership Australia (WELA). WELA has just released a new report on Gender, Climate and Environmental Justice in Australia, funded by Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation and Equity Trustees.

– ref. Women are 14 times more likely to die in a climate disaster than men. It’s just one way climate change is gendered – https://theconversation.com/women-are-14-times-more-likely-to-die-in-a-climate-disaster-than-men-its-just-one-way-climate-change-is-gendered-230295

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacquie Rand, Emeritus Professor of Companion Animal Health, The University of Queensland

Stray cats are a big problem across most Australian cities and towns. They cause many complaints related to nuisance behaviours and concerns about urban wildlife, as well as straining government resources. Ratepayers ultimately pay for the substantial costs created by roaming cats.

Mandatory registration, desexing, microchipping and containment of cats on owners’ properties have had limited effect. We see owned cats and strays roaming across most urban areas. Most strays are in disadvantaged suburbs, where compassionate residents (considered semi-owners) feed and care for them.

Discussions about cat overpopulation tend to focus on the cats themselves and the challenges they bring. The limitations of current management strategies to control cat numbers, such as local government trapping programs, are neglected.

Councils keep covering the costs of cat management without asking “why are current practices not working?” or “are we in line with our social licence to operate?” In other words, is there broad support for euthanising huge numbers of cats?

An estimated 50,000 are killed each year. This has devastating effects on the mental health of many animal management staff.

It’s imperative to shift the focus to adopting more effective management methods. The solution is a no-barrier, community cat desexing program. This also requires a shift in mindset so animal management officers give priority to community assistance over enforcement.

Our new research reveals the remarkable results of one such program, entirely funded by one local council. Over eight years, cat intakes fell to a third of what they were and euthanasia to less than a fifth. Cat-related complaints fell too. These outcomes saved the council nearly half-a-million dollars over the eight years.

Tackling a complex problem

Cat overpopulation is a complex issue with far-reaching social implications.

Council practices can create extra problems, particularly for communities where residents struggle to comply with curfews, can’t afford to pay for desexing, or lack transport to get to the vet. Individuals are left feeling overwhelmed and unable to care adequately for their pets.

Council officers spend a lot of time dealing with the repercussions. This work includes trapping and impounding cats. Knowing the likely outcome will be euthanasia harms their mental health.

So, not only is there a lack of support for cat owners and semi-owners, but the mental wellbeing of people in animal care roles is neglected. They include animal management officers, shelter workers, rescue groups and veterinarians who must euthanise healthy animals.

The stark reality is owners reclaim only about 7% of cats taken to pounds and shelters in Australia. That leaves the challenging options of adoption or euthanasia for most of the cats.

Across Australia, one-third of cats and kittens entering shelters and pounds are killed. Most of them are young and healthy.

How one council found a better way

Banyule City Council in Victoria ran a council-funded, no-barriers and targeted community cat desexing program from 2013. Our study reports on the results after eight years.

Cat desexing, microchipping and registration were free in the first year. There were no limits on the number of cats from each household. Free desexing is still offered.

To ensure everyone had access, the program provided free transport to these services. It encouraged semi-owners, who regularly fed stray cats, to take part and make the transition to official cat ownership.

The program also targeted disadvantaged suburbs. These areas were identified as hotspots for cat-related complaints and impoundments.

Two Banyule animal management officers implemented this program. They believed there was a better way to manage cats in their community – and they were right.

Over the eight years, large falls in impoundments (66%), euthanasia (82%) and cat-related calls (36%) were recorded across Banyule. In the three target suburbs, an average 4.1 cats a year per 1,000 residents were desexed.

Desexing costs totalled A$77,490. The council saved an estimated $440,660. This was largely due to reduced charges by Banyule’s contracted service for accepting cats, and savings for officers’ time because of fewer complaints.

A program built on earning public trust

Winning the trust of cat owners and carers is imperative. At first, people were hesitant and suspicious of Banyule’s animal management officers. This was mainly due to their perceived role of enforcement, such as issuing fines, rather than helping the community.

For the first year, many people worried about potential repercussions for owning or feeding more than the legally permitted two cats per property. Residents were reluctant to disclose the actual number of cats they owned or cared for. Some households harboured four or five cats, sometimes more, but concealed their presence at first.

Controlling cat numbers becomes a daunting task when the true extent of the problem remains uncertain. Without desexing all cats on a property, the program’s success will be limited.

The study findings highlight the importance of local councils and communities working together to manage urban cat populations. It’s equally important to minimise barriers to sterilisation and microchipping, and to target areas with the highest rates of cat-related issues and cats impounded.

Cat management is a community problem. It can only be solved by involving everyone who’s affected. Leveraging community centres, local social workers and support services, and other relevant agencies for referrals to the council is imperative.

Understanding each community and its unique needs depends on actively engaging with residents. This means walking the streets and talking with residents in a relatable manner, not as an authority figure. It’s essential to provide assistance, guidance and educational resources to support this approach.

This supportive approach is aligned with the One Welfare philosophy based on evidence that the wellbeing of animals, people and their environments are connected. The targeted free desexing program achieved better outcomes for people, animals, the council and the environment than a traditional compliance-based approach.

Jennifer Cotterell, Policy Officer with the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation, is lead author on the research paper discussed in this article and contributed to the article. Jacquie Rand is a registered specialist veterinarian in small animal internal medicine. She is also the Executive Director and Chief Scientist of the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation, which provides a consultancy service on urban cat management to local governments. APWF receives funding from the Queensland government’s Gambling Community Benefit Fund and from many state, national and international granting bodies, not-for-profits and donors. She is affiliated with the Australian Veterinary Association, Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists, American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine and the Society of Comparative Endocrinology.

Dr Rebekah Scotney is affiliated with the Veterinary Nurses Council of Australia, the Australian and New Zealand Laboratory Animal Association and the Australian Psychological Society.

Dr Tamsin Barnes is affiliated with the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists and is the Director of Epivet Pty Ltd.

– ref. How to cut stray cat numbers in a way that works better for everyone – https://theconversation.com/how-to-cut-stray-cat-numbers-in-a-way-that-works-better-for-everyone-229291