Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Smaill, Professor of Film and Screen Studies, Monash University

In 2017, then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull alighted from a helicopter to announce a grand plan: Snowy Hydro 2.0. It would turn the famous hydroelectric scheme into a giant battery, ready to power the green transition.

Turnbull no doubt expected his announcement would associate his leadership with the positive aura of the enormous post-war Snowy scheme, since mythologised as the foremost nation-building achievement of the 20th century.

But bad press has plagued Snowy 2.0. Recent news of a tunnel collapse is the latest episode in ongoing mechanical problems. There have been reports of environmental mismanagement, bogged tunnelling machines and cost blowouts. The constant stream of bad stories have outweighed any nation-building glow.

Or has it? Snowy 1.0 took 25 years to complete. It was a huge task to divert the Snowy River inland through tunnels, bolstering water supplies in the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers and generating power through hydroelectricity. Workers died. Costs blew out. But the mythology of the project grew, partly driven by promotional films depicting the project as a source of national pride and power.

A tale of two projects

Snowy 2.0 is overseen by a government-owned corporation, Snowy Hydro. Its public relations program includes social media, an onsite Discovery Centre and a YouTube channel with monthly video updates narrated by Snowy 2.0 personnel.

To date, the biggest boon for the project has been the three-part SBS series, Building the Snowy, first broadcast in August 2023. While not formally a product of Snowy Hydro, the series has an upbeat tone. Extensive use of archival footage strongly links current works to the celebrated post-war scheme.

Despite these efforts, Snowy 2.0 is now nationally known for slow progress and cost blowouts. The negative perception is fair. Snowy Hydro bosses admit there have been unanticipated setbacks.

Is it too late to change these perceptions? Not necessarily. Energy projects can be powerfully reimagined and legitimated in the public sphere. The original Snowy Scheme of the 1950s offers a formidable template.

This wasn’t by accident. Sir William Hudson, an engineer tasked with managing the Snowy scheme, had witnessed the successful promotion of Roosevelt’s 1930s New Deal policies in the United States, including the construction of the monumental Hoover Dam.

Hudson decided to follow suit, investing heavily in promotion. This, it turned out, was wise. The scheme’s early years were fraught. Political wrangling meant the scheme was started under Commonwealth defence powers until it was formalised by state legislation in Victoria and NSW in 1959. It could easily have been cancelled or curtailed.

As the building progressed, workers began to die in accidents – a tally which would reach 121. States continued to disagree about the allocation of water for irrigation.

Hudson had to convince both the public and politicians of its merits. In addition to the usual press releases and newsreels, Hudson turned the works into a tourist attraction, taking people into the mountains by the busload.

Documentaries by the dozen

From the 1950s to the 1970s, the Snowy Mountain Authority sponsored a prolific photographic section, which put out huge volumes of photos – and around 130 documentaries.

Some of these weren’t aimed at a wide audience, such as safety training films or recruitment films to sustain the workforce.

But there were dozens which deliberately set out to create a favourable image of the scheme. The experienced cinematographer Harry Malcolm produced many of these films, which were shown at film festivals, schools and community group screenings.

The films made much of the spectacular alpine environment. Some showed the lives and accommodation of workers and their families in company towns such as Khancoban and Cabramurra. Only a few mentioned the multicultural workforce the scheme is known for.

Titles include Where Men and Mountains Meet (1963), Challenge of the Great Divide (1967) and Where the Hills Are Twice as Steep (1958). This last features a male narrator speaking from the perspective of Mt Kosciuszko, describing a chronology from deep time to colonisation to the problems of irrigation and electricity the scheme was meant to solve.

A high point was Conquest of the Rivers (1957), which won awards at film festivals and circulating internationally.

The semi-fictionalised documentary tells the story of Tom Carpenter who leaves his drought-affected home west of the Great Dividing Range with his small family and travels to Cooma to work on the Snowy.

Conquest of the Rivers emphasises a better future, created by the labour of male bodies as they carve paths inside mountains. The film draws on wartime tropes of capable masculinity.

Taken together, these documentaries offered a stabilising discourse for the nation against the massive social change brought by the large Baby Boomer generation.

By 1960, the films had done their work. There was widespread enthusiasm for the project and its future was guaranteed.

There’s a telling quote from Tom Mitchell, a critic of the scheme, in Margaret Unger’s Voices from the Snowy:

In 1960 Upper Murray people suffered from a strange disease known as ‘Snowyitis’ which consisted of an overwhelming enthusiasm for the Snowy Scheme, almost rising to the fervour of a Billy Graham crusade. And yet, if asked, no one could really define the benefits

These films were never meant to be even-handed. Instead, Harry Malcolm’s films were a potent mix of truth and illusion, distracting from real problems such as deficient safety standards, low worker morale, and alarmingly, no planning for floods until after devastating floods on the Murray in 1956.

Could history repeat?

Just like the original Snowy scheme, the future of Snowy 2.0 is not assured. Its original backer has left politics. Enormous engineering challenges have yet to be overcome.

Could Snowy 2.0 be reframed as 1.0 did? It is possible. But it would require a much more imaginative storytelling regime, beyond photos of large tunnelling machines or commentary from engineers.

To make it successful in the public eye, it should harness the new story of our time – the essential energy transition away from fossil fuels and the creation of a new grid. It should connect this project in the mountains to the needs of people around the nation, appealing to the senses and conjuring up the desired future.

And it cannot be only in the realm of PR – Snowy 2.0 must make our environmental plight better, not worse.

Read more:
I’m not an apologist for the Snowy 2.0 hydro scheme – but let’s not obsess over the delays and cost blowouts

Belinda Smaill receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Kate Fitch 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. Stirring films made the Snowy scheme a nationbuilding project. Could the troubled Snowy 2.0 do the same? – https://theconversation.com/stirring-films-made-the-snowy-scheme-a-nationbuilding-project-could-the-troubled-snowy-2-0-do-the-same-229365

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ray Nickson, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle

Bullying by judges, magistrates and other judicial officers is a factor in many lawyers leaving the profession.

This month is the first anniversary of the Judicial Commission of Victoria’s conduct guideline about judicial bullying. Yet, as shown in our latest research published this week, judicial bullying remains an issue across all states in Australia.

Judicial bullying is conduct by judges and magistrates that is unreasonable in the circumstances and belittles, humiliates, insults, victimises, is aggressive or intimidating.

In 2023, lawyers across Australia shared in interviews that judicial bullying was a significant contributor to workplace stress. They remarked that it wasn’t clients or the law that might ruin their day – more often it was courtroom encounters with judges and magistrates.

Lawyers often likened this to getting “slapped” or “kicked”. As one lawyer told us,

I’ve seen lawyers leave […] and not gone back to work in criminal law because of what they’ve experienced, and the pressures and the judges and their comments.

Breaking the taboo

Interactions between lawyers and judges or magistrates typically represent an entirely one-sided power dynamic. In courtrooms, judicial officers have all the power, while lawyers and others have limited or no power to challenge bullying behaviour.

Bullying by judicial officers contributes to stress, depression, and burnout for lawyers. So far, Victoria is the only Australian jurisdiction to take formal steps to reduce judicial bullying.

Within the legal profession, judicial bullying has long been a taboo subject. It has traditionally been viewed as a rite of passage for lawyers. Some judges have taken the view that concerns about judicial bullying reflect that lawyers have become too fragile.

Judicial bullying not only affects lawyers but can diminish the health and wellbeing of other court staff and participants. It undermines the integrity of the justice system by giving the impression that judicial officers are biased. Bullying in the courtroom demonstrates a lack of professionalism that may negatively influence the behaviour of others in court.

Surveys of Australian legal practitioners show that judicial bullying is common. For example, 59% of Victorian barristers reported they experienced judicial bullying. That same study found that women barristers experienced judicial bullying more frequently: 66% compared to 55% of male barristers. In our own research, many lawyers observed a gendered dimension to the issue.

Former High Court justice Michael Kirby has acknowledged the issue of judicial bullying. Most judges and magistrates do not bully from the bench. As one lawyer told us “Judicial bullying has definitely gotten a lot better. Thirteen years ago, judicial bullying was the biggest problem.”

Justice Kirby has stated “there are a few serial judicial offenders in the judiciary, who are widely known in the legal profession.”

Judicial bullying is a cause of depression in lawyers. While barristers have reported high levels of job satisfaction overall, judicial bullying was observed as the most significant issue affecting their working life.

Combatting judicial bullying

The Judicial Commission of Victoria has taken steps to combat judicial bullying. They noted that a cultural change in courtrooms was required to develop safer, healthier, and more respectful workplaces. A lack of strong leadership on the issue has been observed as a challenge. There is also a lack of awareness among judicial officers about the effects of judicial bullying, and bad systems for reporting bullying.

Official responses to reduce bullying can include permitting anonymous complaints, allowing witnesses to make reports, and improving complaint processes. Last year, the Legal Practice Board in Western Australia created an online portal that would allow for anonymous complaints of judicial bullying.

Beyond institutional responses, there are measures lawyers can actively take to reduce the risk and impact of judicial bullying. Supervisors shared with us that management of caseloads for junior lawyers can reduce the risk of judicial bullying. Informal debriefing between colleagues, such as office conversations, chats walking to court, and during social gatherings, were the most important ways lawyers coped with workplace stress, including judicial bullying.

It is important to recognise that many lawyers represent vulnerable members of our community in court. This includes victims of domestic and family violence, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients, youth, people with disabilities, and people in custody. The professional expertise of these lawyers is an important legal and social resource in Australia. Steps should be taken to protect this resource from unhealthy working environments, which can include bullying inside and outside the courtroom.

Judicial bullying may itself be caused by professional stress. Ensuring that judicial workloads are manageable is another important feature of reducing the risk for judicial bullying. Judges and magistrates work in high-stress roles and must be provided with the resources and supports to lead healthy professional lives.

The legal profession continues to grapple with the challenges presented by bullying in the workplace. It is important to acknowledge the impact that a minority of judges and magistrates can have on lawyers. Victoria’s response in formally acknowledging the issue of judicial bullying is a positive step that should be adopted throughout Australia.

Ray Nickson is a member of the Law Society of NSW and a legal practitioner in that state. Ray Nickson previously practiced law in South Australia. The views expressed here are his own.

Alice Neikirk 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. Like being ‘slapped’ or ‘kicked’: judicial bullying is a problem in Australian courtrooms – https://theconversation.com/like-being-slapped-or-kicked-judicial-bullying-is-a-problem-in-australian-courtrooms-229501

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Goldie, Adjunct Professor and UNSW Law Advisory Council Member, UNSW Sydney

The government says the budget will help people doing it tough. But it has also opted not to increase JobSeeker and Youth Allowance, despite expert advice these payments should be the highest priority in a cost-of-living crisis.

At the same time, monetary policy is driving up unemployment to cut inflation, which is expected to put 100,000 more people out of paid work.

Despite correctly diagnosing the problems with the economy, the budget fails to deliver the solutions that are arguably needed most.

Instead, it tinkers at the edges while ignoring the gaping hole in Australia’s safety net. Genuine repair requires a substantial boost to the incomes of more than a million people who are trying to survive on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and related payments of $55 or less a day.

The combined effect of the budget’s major “cost-of-living measures”, including the tax cuts, will deliver a $6-a-week increase to a single person relying on JobSeeker (or $15 for the minority who are eligible for rent assistance). Meanwhile, a single person earning $200,000 a year will receive an extra $93 a week.

Before each of the past two budgets, the government’s own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (of which I am a member) urged it to prioritise a big increase in JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and related payments. It made a small ($20 a week) increase in last year’s budget and there was none in this one.

This body, comprised of economists, social security experts, advocates, community service organisations, unions and business organisations, has been clear about its priorities, informed by rigorous research and analysis. First, lift JobSeeker by a substantial amount. Second, boost Commonwealth Rent Assistance.

The rent assistance increase in the budget is limited: it only helps a minority of people on the very lowest incomes, and is so modest it won’t lift people out of rental stress.

The increase will provide up to $9.40 extra a week for a single person getting the maximum rate of rent assistance. However, most people receiving JobSeeker and Youth Allowance do not receive rent assistance – and if they do, they’re likely to remain in deep housing stress. A single student paying median rent of $220 a week will continue to pay more than half their income support in rent alone because the Youth Allowance is so low.

The budeget’s changes to the Carer Payment will make it easier for people to take up paid work without being penalised.

Also welcome is money for homelessness services, Aboriginal family violence prevention services, the creation of 3,000 jobs in remote communities and help for Services Australia to reduce the shocking claims backlog. There are positive signals regarding employment services reform. But the automated payment suspensions still need to be fixed.

Handing $300 in energy bill relief to all households – regardless of income – is wasteful and fails to target those who most need help.

While billions are being pumped into renewables to deal with the climate crisis, people on low incomes are being left behind by the energy transition.

Wealthier homeowners may be able to switch to efficient appliances and rooftop solar, but renters on low incomes are stuck in inefficient homes that cost thousands each year to heat and cool.

Before the budget, the government tried to sideline the push to raise the rate of JobSeeker — from advocates receiving income support, leading economists and women’s safety experts – as worthy but unrealistic. In the government’s dismissal of the economic advisory committee’s report, it said it was not able to adopt every “good idea” in the budget.

Making sure people have enough money to eat three times a day is not a “good idea”. It is a basic responsibility of government. While finding a way to deliver $26 billion in tax cuts, including $4,500 extra a year to people on $200,000, the government hasn’t meaningfully raised the living standards of those most in need. The 2024–25 surplus is about the equivalent of lifting JobSeeker and related payments to the pension rate of $80 a day.

Of the more than one million people currently relying on JobSeeker and related payments, only 4,700 will receive an increase in their base rate. Those eligible have “partial capacity” to work, fewer than 14 hours a week, and will receive an extra $27.50 a week. Arguably, this group should have access to the higher Disability Support Pension anyway.

The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee found that significantly raising the JobSeeker rate to 90% of the Age Pension, or $72 a day, would have a “small to negligible” effect on inflation. At $4.6 billion a year, the cost would represent a tiny fraction of GDP – 0.16% – or just 0.43% of total household spending.

Forcing people to live on incomes so low they eat one meal a day, go without medicine or freeze during winter will not help fight inflation. Inflation is being driven by people with cash to spare on restaurants, holidays and other discretionary spending.

The government insists it is serious about bolstering living standards, economic security and solving the housing crisis. Yet it has failed to provide targeted and long-term relief for the people who need it the most.

Cassandra Goldie is CEO of the Australian Council of Social Service. ACOSS receives a Commonwealth grant. Goldie is a member of the Independent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee

– ref. The budget couldn’t include every ‘good idea’ but not boosting JobSeeker and the Youth Allowance were obvious misses – https://theconversation.com/the-budget-couldnt-include-every-good-idea-but-not-boosting-jobseeker-and-the-youth-allowance-were-obvious-misses-230094

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gwilym Croucher, Associate Professor, Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne

On one level, the 2024 federal budget brought few big surprises for universities.

The two key measures were already announced leading up to May 14: the changes to HELP indexation and payments for nursing, teaching and social work students during work placements.

But what we did see on budget night were some significant indications of where the government is going on higher education reform. In February the government released a wide-ranging report outlining a blueprint for higher education over the decades to come.

In the budget papers, we saw the government’s first major response to the Universities Accord final report.

This shows how the Albanese government intends to proceed with reform for the remainder of this parliamentary term and the next, should it be re-elected.

The changes to indexation and prac payments will naturally be of most concern to students now. But what comes next may shape Australian higher education for decades.

First, what else was in the budget?

The budget did have some other funding announcements. It set aside $350.3 million over four years to fund new fee-free courses at universities to help students prepare for study once they have been accepted.

It also contained measures to enhance student safety and wellbeing. This includes $19.4 million over two years to establish a national student ombudsman to “provide a single, national mechanism for higher education students to escalate complaints regarding the administrative actions of [their institution]”.

It also includes $18.7 million over four years to help establish a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender-based violence.

A new commission

The government announced the long-anticipated Australian Tertiary Education Commission (or ATEC), which had been recommended by Universities Accord final report. It will start work on July 1, 2025.

We are still waiting for precise detail on the key functions of the commission. But we know it will have significant responsibilities, such as stewardship of Australia’s tertiary education system. It will also manage “delivery of funding arrangements for higher education”.

Many higher education stakeholders are nervous ATEC will have extensive powers to direct government funding to particular institutions. This would be a big change from the current system, which is based on legislation and established formulas to allocate funding to universities.

There is a fear this could lead to fewer choices for students because ATEC may concentrate resources in some areas and other universities might be asked to do more with less.

At the moment, Australian universities enjoy a great degree of autonomy over what and how they teach and what research they support. This is not always the case in other countries, where the government can be more prescriptive about university operations.

But we also know current policy arrangements haven’t worked on a number of other levels. They have not been able to encourage enough students from underrepresented backgrounds to enter higher education or develop sustainable education in regional areas.

Transparency will be key

There are some hard choices and trade-offs ahead. How can the number of places for underrepresented students be expanded and regional higher education provisions be sustained if resources are limited? How can the government shape the system as a whole, while maintaining autonomy for individual universities?

Transparency will be key to this. We need to make sure any ATEC advice on policy or funding allocations are clear for all to see and scrutinise.

New approach to funding

Following the Universities Accord final report, the government has also indicated it wants to see to greater higher education participation. The aspiration is for 80% of the working age population to have a tertiary qualification by 2050.

This means we will likely need new institutions or TAFEs to teach growing numbers of bachelor’s degree students and a new funding system will be required to do this.

The current system for funding education has evolved over decades, most recently changing through the former government’s Job-ready Graduates scheme. These policies raised the fees for many students, particularly in the liberal arts. But they failed to address the additional costs of regionally based education or offer courses to many students from underrepresented backgrounds.

To address this, the Albanese government has indicated it will develop a “needs-based” funding system from January 2026. This is aimed at better supporting First Nations students, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, students with disability and students in regional and remote areas.

While this extra support will be welcomed, the silence about student contributions will come as cold comfort to current students, many of whom are faced with mounting debts. The changes to the way student debts are indexed will go some way to addressing the affordability of higher education, but unless the underlying student contribution is lowered, debts will continue to grow.

This is no small task. A reversal of the Job-ready Graduates scheme will likely cost close to a billion dollars a year.

More to come

Education Minister Jason Clare has repeatedly said the govenrment’s response to the Universities Accord will take more than one budget. So this is unlikely to be the final word on changes to universities.

The government has also set up an advisory committee to oversee the implementation of the new ATEC and needs-based funding. It will headed by Tony Cook, the Department of Education secretary.

As part of the process, the committee will consult with students, universities and states and territories about their role in shaping post-secondary education in Australia. They have a big job ahead of them.

Until more of the details are worked out, it is hard to know what the future will hold for higher education students.

Gwilym Croucher 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. Funding might change, but Job-ready Graduates stays for now. What does the budget fine print say about higher education? – https://theconversation.com/funding-might-change-but-job-ready-graduates-stays-for-now-what-does-the-budget-fine-print-say-about-higher-education-230104

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

Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Tuesday handed down his third budget. It had a second successive surplus and sweeteners, including relief on energy bills, and tax breaks for development of green hydrogen and critical minerals processing.

The opposition will back the energy bill subsidy but oppose the tax breaks in the Future Made in Australia policy.

In this podcast we were joined by Angus Taylor, who is shadow treasurer, and Chalmers.

On the $300 household energy relief, Taylor says it’s an acknowledgement of a government broken election promise:

Look, this is an admission of failure by Labor, who promised the $275 electricity price reduction. It’s clear now that it’s not going to be delivered. So, instead, they’re giving a government handout. They’re putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

On the Coalition’s opposition to the tax breaks for the development of green hydrogen and critical minerals processing:

This is the biggest-ticket item in the budget, $13.7 billion. And, it’s a huge amount of money. It is inflationary to spend that kind of money at a time like this. It is part of creating what is a sea of red ink as we go out and across the budget. We do want to see a successful manufacturing sector in this country but the pathway to do that is not to subsidise every unit of production.

Chalmers tackles criticism levelled at the universal nature of the energy rebates:

First and most importantly, we work on the implementation of this with the states who receive the funding and the retailers who provide the credit. And so we’re always looking for the best way to do that.

It would have been complex and time-consuming to set up a whole new system [to determine income and thus eligibility]. Our focus here, our priority here, is on providing cost-of-living relief to millions of people doing it tough and this is the best way to go about it.

He also makes it clear that while some people will get the rebate more than once if they are paying the energy bill on more than one property, this is not the case where properties are rented out.

It’s whoever’s name is on the bill. That’s what happened last time. That’s the principle that we apply.

On the looming Senate fight on the Future Made in Australia tax breaks, Chalmers says:

We understand that any coalition led by Peter Dutton’s first instincts are going to be nasty and to be negative, and to say no and to oppose things. We’ve seen this movie before. We play the cards that were dealt in the Senate, we do our best, but our intention is to pass the package that we announced.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Budget fight looms on Future Made in Australia tax breaks – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-budget-fight-looms-on-future-made-in-australia-tax-breaks-230095

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Budgets and Government, Grattan Institute

This year’s budget has “something for everyone”, with very little in the way of cuts and no new taxes.

It’s a classic “good news” pre-election budget.

Whether it is too good to be true hinges on whether this budget represents not just good news but also good economic and fiscal management.

Throwing the dice on inflation

At the centre of the budget is a big gamble on inflation.

A surge of new spending when inflation is still above the Reserve Bank’s target range is a risky move.

Several of the government’s measures, among them energy rebates and extra Commonwealth rent assistance, will directly, mechanically, lower the Consumer Price Index, resulting in lower-than-expected inflation.

The gamble is how much more Australians will spend on other things as a result, and whether a cooling economy offsets that extra spending.

It is a big gamble, because a lot of extra consumer spending would delay interest rate cuts or even force another interest rate rise this year. Either of those outcomes could damage the government’s re-election prospects, so it’s a political as well as an economic bet.

Banking windfalls, until now

Every budget is a product of its time. Some treasurers are lucky enough to preside over stronger-than-expected economic growth, high prices for minerals, and the revenue windfalls that result. Other treasurers have been dealt a global pandemic or global financial crisis.

Good management is about what you do with the cards you are dealt.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has had good luck so far. His three budgets to date have delivered him net windfalls totalling $257 billion.

Until now, he has taken the fiscally responsible path of “banking” most of these windfalls – 76% across the three budgets – although more in his earlier budgets than this in one.

Little to fix the structural deficit

Banking windfalls is just one indicator of good management. This budget’s medium-term forecasts paint a bleak picture of ongoing structural deficits. Last year’s Intergenerational Report showed that in the absence of major policy changes, they will only grow.

So, what has this budget done to tackle the growing structural deficit? Very little.

The budget contains hardly any revenue-raising measures and no sign of tax reform. There is also little in the way of explicit spending cuts, although there is a promise to further rein in the growing cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

No single budget was ever going to fix the structural deficit. But this one raises big questions about how this government plans to tackle the structural problems.

Even to meet the current forecasts, formidable spending restraint will be required. Spending growth would need to be well below that of previous governments.

Spending pressures are only likely to grow

The spending forecasts only reflect the decisions the government has already taken – not those it is likely to want or need to make in the next few years, including in the lead-up to the next election.

There is growing pressure for further spending on several fronts, including the truly inadequate level of Australia’s unemployment payment and the ballooning cost of payments to the states to prop up the West Australian GST deal (now estimated to cost $52.9 billion over 11 years, with pressure to extend it).

And it is still to be seen whether this government can actually rein in growth in the cost of the NDIS. Its projected costs have blown out a further $15.6 billion since the December budget update.

The government insists it will be able to largely offset this with savings of $14.1 billion through legislative changes it calls Getting the NDIS Back on Track.

But we will need more than just spending restraint to fix the structural budget problem. It is incumbent on both the government and opposition to put forward some ideas, dare I say tax reforms, to consider at the next election.

When the luck dries up, good management will depend on them.

The 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.

– ref. The budget is full of good news, but good news isn’t the same as good management – https://theconversation.com/the-budget-is-full-of-good-news-but-good-news-isnt-the-same-as-good-management-230110

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Ziguras, Director, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne

The federal government is due to introduce legislation on Thursday to enable new caps on the number of international student places at educational institutions in Australia. These include universities, TAFEs and private colleges.

The government is proposing that education providers wanting to go over their allocated limit would have to build new accommodation for international and domestic students.

As Treasurer Jim Chalmers noted in his budget speech on Tuesday night:

We will limit how many international students can be enrolled by each university based on a formula, including how much housing they build.

So, what’s been proposed and how did we get here?

What’s been proposed?

The legislation will:

• pause applications for registration from new international education providers and of new courses from existing providers for periods of up to 12 months

• require new providers seeking registration to demonstrate a track record of quality education delivery to domestic students before they are allowed to recruit international students

• prevent providers under serious regulatory investigation from recruiting new international students.

How did we get here?

For the last 40 years or so, successive federal governments have focused on developing the international education sector. That’s included national branding campaigns, regulation of international education providers, and creating favourable visa conditions that allow students to work part time during their studies.

It worked very well, making Australia one of the world’s leading destinations for international students.

International students enliven our campuses and cities, contribute to meeting our skills needs, and create lasting connections between Australia and our region. And, as the Universities Accord final report noted, international education is now Australia’s fourth largest export, supporting around 250,000 jobs and funding a significant proportion of our universities’ research.

But the rapid growth in student numbers post-COVID has the government worried about unscrupulous education providers and the shortage of rental accommodation in our big cities.

Many have argued that international students, who constitute only 4% of renters in Australia, are not a major cause of Australia’s housing shortage. Nevertheless, the accommodation shortage does significantly impact students, who often have great difficulty securing a place to live.

Strong recent growth after COVID

For the last couple of decades, enrolment of international students has dipped here and there but has been fairly consistent over the long term. Since 2005, the number of international enrolments has grown by less than 6% per year on average, according to official figures.

The international student enrolment numbers we see now are not an aberration from historical norms. The number of students last year was only slightly higher than five years earlier.

The issue right now is that year-on-year growth has been very strong as students return to Australia after arrivals were ceased for years during the pandemic.

The previous government put in place a range of settings, such as allowing international students to work more hours, to address labour shortages and to help attract students back after COVID. That also helped to diversify the student population, reducing dependence on China, attracting more students from countries in South Asia and Southeast Asia.

So the rate of growth has been quite fast in the last couple of years. That has spooked politicians and some sectors of the public.

People in the education sector have been saying this recent growth looks huge but that’s because we are coming from a low recent number of international students. As international education expert Jon Chew has written, “this is a textbook V-shaped recovery and catch-up rebound”.

According to this view, student numbers will soon stabilise.

What are other countries doing?

There is no easy way for governments to manage changes in the number of international students. And it’s not just an issue for Australia. Canada and the United Kingdom have also experienced rapid growth after COVID are similarly grappling with ways to quickly reduce the number of new students to sustainable levels.

The UK has restricted the ability of international students to bring accompanying family members. Canada has introduced caps on international students at a provincial level and limited access to post-study work visas.

So far, Australia’s approach to managing growth has been to quietly introduce new procedures for assessing visa applications, resulting in unprecedented numbers of refusals.

What about the issue of ‘ghost colleges’?

There has been extensive reporting in Australia on the problem of “ghost colleges”.

The government has promised to crack down on “dodgy operators” who are taking advantage of international students.

This is not the first time we have seen a small number of private colleges tarnish the reputation of the whole sector, and moves to improve quality assurance have been wholeheartedly supported by peak bodies.

What will it mean for universities and colleges?

Some parts of the tertiary education sector are expressing strong concerns about the potential impact of caps on students, providers and Australia’s reputation as a welcoming country.

The government has not yet announced how caps will be set. It has signalled that it wants to use caps to increase the proportion of students outside of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, because regional universities haven’t benefited as much from the surge in international enrolments.

This would require restricting student numbers at institutions in those cities while allowing those in the rest of the country to grow. But students may choose to go to different countries altogether.

As University of Sydney vice-chancellor, Mark Scott (who is also chair of The Conversation’s board) told the ABC:

If you send a message to international students that they’re not welcome, they have many other options.

What happens now?

The tertiary education sector is now waiting to see more detail in the legislation, which will obviously need to pass both houses of parliament.

At it’s heart, the government is trying to deal with multiple complex issues here. These include public perceptions about migration levels, a national housing crisis and universities’ reliance on international students to fund facilities and research.

In the past, governments were able to respond to such concerns by setting the rules and allowing education providers and students to make their own decisions.

Now the federal government is proposing an unprecedented level of micromanagement, giving it a much greater role in deciding where students enrol, what they study, and where they live.

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

– ref. Why is the government proposing caps on international students and how did we get here? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-government-proposing-caps-on-international-students-and-how-did-we-get-here-230003

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Walker, Visiting Fellow, Australian National University

This year’s federal budget is making up for decades of lost time – both in our clean energy transition and in betting on new technological breakthroughs.

The Future Made in Australia Act holds tantalising potential for building Australian science, research and development. The aim is to turn Australia into an innovation and clean technology superpower.

It includes big climate change investments that would leverage our comparative advantage in net-zero technologies, such as green hydrogen and battery storage. There’s also the promise to jumpstart new industries by building on our critical minerals assets and growing advanced manufacturing.

Australia has natural advantages in these areas. We have resources such as mineral wealth, abundant sunlight and wind. We also have a solid research and development track record.

Despite this, historic underinvestment in Australian innovation means Australia is starting from the back of the pack compared to partners like the United States, Japan and Germany. These countries spend more than 3% of their GDP on the research and development that powers and future-proofs their economies.

Which raises the question: are the investments announced in this budget in the right places if we’re really going to prime a future-ready Australia underpinned by science and technology? Let’s get into the significant investments aimed at boosting key areas.

A future manufactured in Australia

With the Future Made in Australia policy, the government aims to directly invest in building Australian industry, particularly manufacturing. This would reduce our dependency on other countries and power the net-zero transformation. It would also build up our resilience to shocks, such as increasingly severe and unpredictable weather extremes or global pandemics.

The net-zero investments are promising:

• $549 million over eight years for battery manufacturing

• $8 billion in renewable hydrogen tax incentives over ten years

• $7.1 billion over 11 years in critical minerals processing tax incentives.

These are areas where we have a comparative advantage in the global supply chain. They are also fundamental for the clean energy jobs of the future.

Overall, it’s the start of strong investments in Australia’s green energy future. However, what will make or break the Future Made in Australia plan will be investment in research and development.

Reviving the innovation sector

Investment in the application of great Australian research, and in the creation and application of new knowledge has been woefully low for years. It remains so in this year’s budget.

Yet, it’s fundamental if we want thriving homegrown manufacturing, particularly in technologies where we have a clear comparative advantage, such as batteries, advanced computing and medical technologies.

Research is also important to create robust industries and support a skilled national workforce.

On this front, the budget contains a research and development review. It is welcome, but decades overdue.

The review will need to be accompanied by action, including greater investment from both government and industry to overcome a decade of falling research and development investment.

The budget does contain some measures for bolstering modern research and research infrastructure. One example is the recently announced PsiQuantum quantum computer to be built in Brisbane.

Our future prosperity and security depend on investment in the underpinning skills, knowledge and infrastructure that produce discoveries, along with a highly trained future workforce.

Educating our future science and technology innovators

With this in mind, STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) education is also a mixed bag in this year’s budget.

New payments for students with study placements in teaching, nursing and social work are a positive move – but many more degrees with practical placements are not covered, including engineering. We urgently need more engineers, and this shortage will only grow as we transition to clean energy.

Diversity in STEM industries will also be fundamental to addressing our national skill shortages. A welcome measure is the promise of $38.2 million for programs to increase diversity in STEM. These will build on proven initiatives, alongside the Elevate scholarship program delivered by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.

On the negative side, new restrictions on international student numbers are short-sighted and unmeasured. This decision came with little consultation and will likely reduce the funding universities have available for infrastructure upgrades, research and support for high-quality education.

Overall, the budget provides welcome backing to build clean energy systems and return to homegrown manufacturing. But if we’re really serious about claiming our place as a global innovation and clean energy player, we need to invest properly in Australian science, innovation and people.

Kylie Walker is the CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) which receives funding from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. She is the chair of Aged Care Research and Industry Innovation Australia which receives funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care.

– ref. For a ‘future made in Australia’, we need more innovation and diverse people in science and tech – https://theconversation.com/for-a-future-made-in-australia-we-need-more-innovation-and-diverse-people-in-science-and-tech-229717

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jaana Dielenberg, University Fellow, Charles Darwin University

Australians have more pet cats than ever before – more than 5 million in total. With the growing number, expectations on pet owners are shifting.

Many cat owners are now voluntarily keeping their cats indoors or in secure runs, and local governments mandate it in some areas. But most pet cats in Australia still roam local streets and gardens.

Broader adoption of keeping cats safe at home would have large benefits for cat welfare, human health, local wildlife and even the economy. So, should pet owners be required to keep their pets contained to their property, as dogs are?

We put that question to thousands of people in a national survey in late 2023, and recently published the results.

We found most people support requiring owners to contain cats. Just one in 12 people (8%) are opposed. The time might be right for nationwide change in how we manage our pet cats.

Local councils are embracing cat containment

From November 1, Geelong City Council will join a fast-growing group of local governments in urban and regional areas that require pet cats to be securely contained 24 hours a day.

More than a third of local councils in Australia now require cats to be contained overnight or 24 hours a day. Most are in the ACT and Victoria.

Given how good cats are at climbing and jumping, containing cats usually requires keeping them indoors or in secure runs.

The main reasons cited by local govenments for these regulations are:

• improving pet welfare: contained cats live longer and healthier lives with fewer vet bills because they are protected from traumatic injuries from car accidents, dog attacks and cat fights, infections, diseases and other misadventures.

• saving wildlife: four out of five cats allowed outside will hunt and kill an average of two to three animals per week. With millions of pet cats in Australia, each year this adds up to 6,000–11,000 animals killed in our suburbs per square kilometre and 323 million native animals killed nationally. Night curfews only protect nocturnal species such as possums.

• reducing nuisance to neighbours: containment results in less disturbance from cat fights and prevents the neighbour’s cat killing the birds and lizards living in your backyard or nearby park, which many community members value.

The public health toll of roaming cats

Another major benefit is less talked about. Stopping pet cats from roaming would greatly reduce rates of cat-borne diseases.

Several diseases which could not exist without cats can be passed to humans. These cost Australia more than $6 billion a year based on costs of medical care, lost income and other related expenses.

The most widespread of these diseases is toxoplasmosis, a parasitic infection that can be passed to humans but must complete its life cycle in cats. Australian studies have reported human infection rates between 22% and 66% of the community.

Cat-borne diseases cause considerable community harm, with an estimated 8,500 hospitalisations and 550 deaths from acute infections and also from increased rates of car accidents, suicides and mental health issues in infected people.

Pet cats are crucial to the rates of these diseases in the community. In suburbs that do not require containment, you’ll find up to 100 roaming pet cats per square kilometre.

Eliminating stray cats from our suburbs is also important to reduce disease rates – just one of the reasons why people should not feed stray cats.

Read more:
Cats carry diseases that can be deadly to humans, and it’s costing Australia $6 billion every year

Most of us support containment

A policy requiring all cats to be contained has clear benefits. But would it have support? Rules only produce benefits if people follow them.

This is why colleagues at Monash University and I surveyed more than 3,400 people on whether they would support policies that “require cat owners to keep their cat contained to their property”.

We found a clear majority (66%) of people support cat containment. A strikingly small proportion of people, about one in 12 people (8%), are opposed. The remaining 26% were ambivalent, selecting “neither support nor oppose”.

Other surveys have found almost half (42% or 2.2 million) of Australia’s pet cats are already kept contained by their owners.

Some councils can’t legally require cat containment

Our findings suggest communities would broadly support their local councils if they moved to require cats to be contained.

While councils are responsible for pet issues, state and territory laws greatly influence what councils can and can’t do.

In New South Wales and Western Australia, state laws actually prevent local councils from requiring cat containment (except for in specific circumstances, such as in declared food preparation areas in NSW).

Rules are just the start

To boost compliance, councils need to invest in communicating new rules and the reasons for them. After a grace period, council officers will also need to monitor and enforce the rules.

Communities may need support too, especially if there are costs involved. Councils could, for example, offer rebates for flyscreens to stop cats slipping out of open windows.

Working with other colleagues in 2020, we surveyed Australia’s local governments about their approaches to cat management. Most reported tiny budgets for cat management.

Local governments should not be left to shoulder the cost alone. Federal, state and territory governments are also responsible for Australia’s wildlife (and human health). These governments have a range of projects covering both feral and pet cats.

The Australian government collects A$3 billion a year in GST from spending on pets. Diverting a small proportion into responsible pet ownership programs would make an enormous difference.

Containment has wide backing

Our research shows the community is ready for widespread reform of how we manage all these cats.

Requiring pet cats to be contained is a sound policy choice. But to realise the full benefits, we also need to invest in effective communication for communities, provide rebates to help contain cats, and make sure the rules are followed.

Kim Borg, Melissa Hatty and Emily Gregg contributed to the national survey, and Sarah Legge, John Woinarski and Tida Nou contributed to research on cat impacts and management.

Jaana Dielenberg works for the Biodiversity Council and The University of Melbourne, and previously worked for the National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Recovery Hub. Jaana is a pet cat owner.

– ref. Two-thirds of us support banning pet cats from roaming. A ban would save millions of native animals – and billions of dollars – https://theconversation.com/two-thirds-of-us-support-banning-pet-cats-from-roaming-a-ban-would-save-millions-of-native-animals-and-billions-of-dollars-229180

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Campbell, Lecturer, Performing Arts, UniSA Creative, University of South Australia

Symphonie of the Bicycle is a tour de force. Actor and writer Hew Parham takes the audience through comic and heartfelt parallel stories about the trials and triumphs of the quest to win and to find purpose in life, as seen from the seat of a bicycle.

Symphonie celebrates the life of Italian champion cyclist Gino Bartali, winner of the Tour de France in 1938 and again ten years later in 1948. A parallel story follows a contemporary character, “Hew”, who is warmly and recognisably pathetic, alone and adrift from his track in life.

Bartali is a champion who rejects fame and wants only to ride and make a good life; Hew desperately wants to be noticed and remembered.

In this contrast between the desire to be great and the desire to live a life with great meaning, Parham creates an extensive cast of supporting characters, effortlessly switching between them to great comic effect, or to create moments of breath-holding pathos.

It is a fast-paced, captivating piece and Parham doesn’t miss a beat. I felt joy throughout, and delighted in the small moments of comedy and the huge bellyaching laughs we in the audience shared.

The moments of genuine heartfelt loss and sacrifice were equally effective: Parham’s moments as Bartali where he smuggles documents in his bicycle to help Jewish people escape during the second world war are keenly felt.

An actor’s delight

Chris Drummond directs deftly and with genuine humanity. It is a manically energetic, multi-layered story; Drummond and dramaturg Caleb Lewis have shaped a nuanced and insightful ride over a perfectly paced 90 minutes.

Parham delights in the moments of clowning, switching between a hysterical crying Hew and the “winner coach” Gavin Chestnut. Equally impressive is his physical ability to literally ride through whole scenes, especially in the parallel final races of Bartali and Hew.

Parham creates each character with an actor’s delight in, and love for, their unique humanity. Parham’s extraordinary skill means the audience is with him every step of the way, whether he is narrating the story of Karl von Drais – the volcano-eruption-inspired inventor of the bicycle – or bringing to life Cheryl, the unsuspecting and love-inspired cheese shop attendant.

The collaboration of theatre

The aura of genuinely collaborative work is evident, especially in the delicious sound design and composition of Will Spartalis, incorporating classical music so important to Parham’s clown comedy.

The use of these monumental and profound pieces of music, set against the absurd and profound moment of human life, is a hallmark of Parham’s work. The so-well-known-they-are-almost-clichéd classical works – the Lachrymosa from Mozart’s Requiem, Handel’s Lascia ch’io pianga, Mussorgsky – create an immediate inner world.

A bare stage dominated by a monolithic dark block is brought to life by Wendy Todd’s astonishingly beautiful lighting design. Todd creates gorgeous and rich worlds from deceptively simple designs for each of Parham’s characters to inhabit.

The use of noir-inspired black-and-white moments, the actor fading into shadows and mist, hard white blocks of light on the floor becoming train platforms, a wrestling-ring spotlight for the piñata, the changing weather conditions for the parallel races: this is a masterful element of the storytelling.

Parham uses his voice like an opera singer. The low bass-resonance, gruff Italian-accented English of Bartali is a truly beautiful and memorable rendering of character. His use of the higher, lighter range conveys both calm strength in Bartali’s wife-to-be, and then wife, Adriana, and ruthless comedy in former best friend, and cycling- and life-nemesis, Jake Johnson.

Voice coach Anna McCrossin-Owen brings out the virtuosic contrasts in Parham’s voice, finding nuance in each character. Coupled with Parham’s sometimes bouffon-inspired, sometimes subtle physicality, this enables the audience to create relationships with each character that endure through the story.

Humanitarian comedy

I saw this piece in its first sprint up the mountain, as Symphonie de la Bicyclette, during the Tour Down Under in 2023. There have been some subtle changes and tightening of the script, but it remains a delight of theatre and humanitarian comedy.

The journey of this piece is a testament to how important this kind of high-level collaboration and development time is to an artist and to refining and shaping work for an audience.

The opening night audience saw a well-oiled feat of theatrical engineering; the only noticeable imperfection was a slight echo effect in the actor’s microphone, rapidly and unobtrusively remedied after the first scene.

Symphonie of the Bicycle is a tribute to the value of laughter and comedy and the power of theatre in these ruthless times. May it see many tours and winner’s jerseys.

Symphonie of the Bicycle, from the State Theatre Company of South Australia and Brink Productions, is at the Adelaide Festival Centre until May 25, then touring regionally.

Catherine has previously worked alongside Hew Parham as a cabaret performer as part of the Adelaide Cabaret Festival.

– ref. Symphonie of the Bicycle: on the desire to be great, and the desire to live a life with great meaning – https://theconversation.com/symphonie-of-the-bicycle-on-the-desire-to-be-great-and-the-desire-to-live-a-life-with-great-meaning-228013

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Theresa Larkin, Associate professor of Medical Sciences, University of Wollongong

Why is blood red?

– Asher, 6 years 11 months, New South Wales

What a great question about something in our body, Asher.

Blood is inside our body, but we see it on the outside when we bleed, like when we get a cut or a nose bleed.

Blood is red because of something called haemoglobin. Haemoglobin is red and this makes our blood red.

But what is haemoglobin for? Well, we need haemoglobin to carry oxygen in our blood.

This might sound a bit complicated, so let’s look more closely at why we need oxygen, and why we need haemoglobin to carry oxygen in our blood.

Everyone needs oxygen to stay alive

We need oxygen for our body to work.

Our body is made up of millions and millions of tiny cells. All the cells in our body need oxygen from the air we breathe and nutrients from the food we eat.

Cells use oxygen and nutrients to make energy so they can do their job. For example, cells in our muscles need energy to move us, and our brain cells need energy so we can learn.

Every time you take a breath in, you breathe oxygen into your lungs. Our heart pumps blood to the lungs to pick up this oxygen.

The heart then pumps the blood with this oxygen to all our body’s cells.

After the blood drops off oxygen for the cells to use, it travels back to the heart and lungs to pick up more oxygen again.

Our cells need oxygen all the time because they are always working.

So where does haemoglobin come in?

Oxygen travels in blood to our cells in tubes called blood vessels. But oxygen doesn’t dissolve very well in blood.

If we just had oxygen on its own in our blood, we could get air bubbles. These bubbles would stick to the sides of the blood vessels. This means the oxygen could get stuck and not travel to our cells.

Luckily, haemoglobin carries oxygen in our blood so it doesn’t form air bubbles and get stuck.

We can think of this like trying to move a stone down a river. A stone can’t float down a river because it will sink to the bottom. But if we put the stone in a container that floats, the container can float down the river and carry the stone with it.

Haemoglobin is like a red coloured container for oxygen. It’s our oxygen carrier.

So, because we have red haemoglobin in our blood to carry oxygen, our blood is red.

Blood can be bright red or dark red

When haemoglobin carries more oxygen, it is a brighter shade of red.

This means blood travelling from the heart and lungs to the cells with lots of oxygen is bright red.

After haemoglobin drops off its oxygen to the cells, it is a dull, dark red. This means blood travelling back to the heart and lungs with less oxygen is darker red.

We can see some of our veins (the blood vessels that carry blood back to the heart) just under our skin. For example, on the back of our hands.

The blood in these veins can appear a green-blue colour. That’s because we are looking at this blood through our skin. This changes what colour we see.

But we know when we bleed, our blood is not blue or green – it’s definitely red.

Not all animals have red blood

An octopus can have blue blood and some lizards even have green blood.

This blue and green blood is also because of the colour of their oxygen carrier. These animals don’t have red haemoglobin like we do. They have a blue or green oxygen carrier. This makes their blood blue or green.

If you could choose to have blood of any colour, what colour would you choose?

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Theresa Larkin 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. Curious Kids: why is blood red? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-is-blood-red-229121

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Wilson Mountford, Associate Professor in History, Australian Catholic University

Around 90 years ago, two-thirds of Western Australian voters voted in favour of leaving the Commonwealth at a state referendum.

This 1933 result – often seen as a protest vote against the economic and political disadvantages imposed on WA and exacerbated by the Great Depression – was never enacted.

After the referendum, WA secessionists turned to the British parliament, hoping London would intervene to free them from the Australian federation. Despite some sympathy for WA, however, the British government was reluctant to involve itself in a stoush between Perth and Canberra.

Today, WA secessionists are often regarded as more of an amusing curiosity than a serious political movement. But, as our research explores, the curious tale of WA secession in the 1930s resonated well beyond Australian shores, and was taken more seriously overseas.

Internationally, it threatened to undermine the idea of political federations, at a time when they seemed crucial to the future of international relations.

For the British, it represented an unpleasant thought: if you couldn’t keep somewhere like WA happy, what hope did you have in holding the British empire together?

Read more:
Republic of Western Australia: how the west has always charted its own course, from secession to COVID

The secessionists go to London

In 1934, a year after the referendum result, the WA government sent a delegation to London. The delegation included members of the leading secessionist organisation at that time, the Dominion League of Western Australia.

The delegates petitioned the British government to legislate to liberate WA from the federation of Australia, and to enable the state to revert to its former status as a self-governing British dominion.

“Westralia shall be free!” was their rallying cry.

It would have been a major intervention by London in Australian affairs.

Once there, the delegation unfurled the homespun flag of a new “Dominion of Western Australia” on the roof of the Savoy Hotel in central London.

They carried a printed 489-page analysis of the “Case for Secession”, which was to be presented to all British parliamentarians who would take it.

Meanwhile, three copies of WA’s petition had been painstakingly written out by hand. They came upon rolls of sheepskin, some 26 feet long, and were each encased in wooden caskets made of jarrah.

But after all the hype, the situation came to a resounding anti-climax. A joint parliamentary committee at Westminster eventually ruled WA’s petition could not even be received by the British parliament. The decision was fatal to the secessionist cause.

With time, improving economic conditions, political change and the new geopolitical realities of the later 1930s, WA moved on. The broader impact on imperial and international politics, however, was more significant.

A fraught issue at a fraught time

For Britain, the issue of WA secession was fraught for a number of reasons.

First, it carried implications for imperial integrity and governance, near and far.

News of the referendum result had been keenly watched in parts of Tasmania and South Australia.

More broadly, WA secessionist sentiment came to be seen by some as inspiration for challenging existing political arrangements in other parts of the British Empire.

As Canadian researcher Christopher Besant put it:

The movement has to be seen in the context of the growing problem of nationalism within the British Empire itself between 1919-1935.

At the very time that the Western Australian secession petition was presented to parliament, the Irish under Eamon De Valera were straining against their ‘treaty’ with Great Britain, the Scottish National Party were agitating for Scotland’s liberation, Indian reformers were demanding self-government, and South Africans had their own demands. The very Statute of Westminster which recognised the reality of nationalist spirit in Canada and Australia was but three years old, and not yet ratified in Canberra.

In this world, WA secession mattered. It focused attention on a recurrent concern of interwar British imperial policy-making. That was the fear federations – a common British response to challenges to imperial authority – didn’t work or were, at the very least, beset with problems.

WA’s situation soon interacted with debates on the future of India. Two days after the flag of the Dominion League was unfurled in London, the Government of India Bill was introduced into the British parliament. This legislation proposed a federal model for governing India, as Britain’s attempt to contain the forces of Indian nationalism.

The hearings on the merits and demerits of receiving the WA secession petition took place in the middle of the heated parliamentary debate over the India Bill.

In other words, much of the attention the WA delegation received in London was because of its implications for one of the central political issues of the day – Indian reform.

For Tory diehards like Winston Churchill and George Lloyd – who hoped to resist attempts at Indian reform – the secession of WA was useful ammunition against the argument India should get greater autonomy. It showed the difficulties associated with political federations.

The WA secessionists also came to the attention of Canadians at the time. F. Maclure Sclanders, a commissioner in New Brunswick, referenced WA’s case in his own investigation into the “inequalities” of federation in Canada.

The Scottish National Party also expressed interest in the “Westralian” cause. It offered to set up meetings with those “interested in the self-government movement” both in Scotland and abroad.

For London, the consequences of WA secession were hard to predict and even harder to control.

So while WA’s secession movement foundered, it nonetheless sparked a series of debates around London’s obligations to overseas Britons, Britannic identity, and the future of imperial relations.

Read more:
Breaking up is hard to do: why Western Australia would find it difficult to divorce Canberra

Benjamin Wilson Mountford has received funding from ACU.

Robert Fletcher has received funding from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council and the University of Missouri.

– ref. ‘Westralia shall be free!’ How Western Australia’s secessionists stoked British fears the Empire was at risk – https://theconversation.com/westralia-shall-be-free-how-western-australias-secessionists-stoked-british-fears-the-empire-was-at-risk-219222

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, Australian National University

The Gaza war has now entered its eighth month and a resolution to the conflict still seems far off.

Israel claims to have killed 13,000 Hamas militants so far. If that figure is correct, one can assume the number of wounded or incapacitated militants is at least twice or maybe three times that number.

Prior to the war breaking out, Israel estimated there were around 30,000 Hamas fighters in Gaza. If this total can also be taken at face value, then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be correct in arguing the removal of the last battalions in the southern city of Rafah would likely thwart the group’s ability to be a threat to Israel.

However, there are flaws in this reasoning. Israel has not explained how it calculates the number of militants the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has killed. Given the chaotic conditions in Gaza, it’s not difficult to believe the 13,000 figure is merely an estimate based on the approximate number of military-aged men (18-40 years) among the 35,000 Palestinians killed in total.

In addition, if the remaining militants are hiding in tunnels beneath Rafah, as Netanyahu claims, what is to stop them from using the tunnel network to move north out of harm’s way? There is some evidence this is already occurring. The IDF and Israeli media say Hamas has regrouped in areas in central and northern Gaza that Israel claims to have “cleared” months ago.

More importantly, the IDF has been unable to locate and eliminate the two primary Hamas leaders – political leader Yahya Sinwar, who masterminded the October 7 attacks, and military leader Mohammed Deif. While these two remain at large, Israel cannot claim victory.

On top of that, Israel has not succeeded in rescuing the remaining hostages held by Hamas. Only three of the approximately 240 hostages seized by Hamas on October 7 have been freed by military action. Just over 100 other hostages have been released through negotiations and unilateral action by Hamas.

And international anger over Israel’s conduct of the war is growing exponentially, as demonstrated by the growing university sit-ins around the world and even the loud booing directed at Israel’s entrant in the Eurovision song contest.

US President Joe Biden has also held back a delivery of heavy-duty munitions to Israel due to Netanyahu’s decision to press ahead with the Rafah assault. However, this is symbolic. The Biden administration is still moving forward with US$1 billion (A$1.5 billion) in new weapons deals for Israel, as reported by the Wall Street Journal this week.

Pressure growing on Netanyahu

Although Hamas has not given reasons for its shocking attack that started the current war, it’s reasonable to assume they were along the following lines:

• to get the Palestinian cause to the top of the Middle East agenda at a time when Saudi Arabia was on the verge of reaching a peace agreement with Israel

• to draw international attention to the appalling conditions in Gaza, which has been described as the world’s largest open-air prison

• to stoke Israel’s anger to such an extent, it responds with excessive force and draws widespread international criticism.

On this logic, Hamas set a trap for Israel, and Israel walked into it.

Given the current situation, with Netanyahu far from achieving his stated aims in the war and international criticism only getting worse, where does this leave Netanyahu? He’s facing pressure from three sides, with no good options.

First, he leads the most right-wing government in Israeli history. The more extreme among his coalition partners, particularly Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, have been clear they will walk out of the government and cause fresh elections if Netanyahu agrees to a lengthy ceasefire.

With 71% of Israelis wanting Netanyahu to resign, according to a recent poll, he would almost certainly lose an election held any time soon.

Second, the families and supporters of the remaining 130 or so hostages believed to be held by Hamas – of whom Israeli intelligence estimates about a quarter have died – are applying relentless pressure on Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire in return for their release.

And third, Biden, his chief ally, wants the war over as quickly as possible due to the upcoming US presidential election. Biden is well aware of the risk that progressives and Arab Americans may not turn out to vote in November – handing the presidency to Donald Trump by default.

Withholding the munitions shipment earlier this month was just one of many signals Biden has sent to Netanyahu that his patience is wearing thin.

The tragic irony is that negotiations led by Egypt and Qatar for a ceasefire and release of hostages have come remarkably close to success. The failure to close the deal has led The Economist to ask if Netanyahu actually wants to accept a deal.

Power vacuum emerging

The longer the war has dragged on, the more it has highlighted that Israel, which has been under Netanyahu’s almost continuous rule since 2009, has no long-term strategy for living side-by-side with its Palestinian neighbours.

Even if a ceasefire could be agreed to, Netanyahu’s government hasn’t articulated a plan for the “day after”. Already, this lack of a plan is creating a dangerous power vacuum in northern Gaza that has been filled by gangs, clans and criminals.

The US deputy secretary of state, Kurt Campbell, this week warned the current situation is reminiscent of what the US faced in Iraq and Afghanistan after invading in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks:

[…] after civilian populations had been moved and lots of violence […] the insurrections continue.

So, what is the plan for Gaza? Neither Israelis nor Palestinians would support the IDF reoccupying the strip for the long term.

Netanyahu has also made clear his government would not accept a reformed Palestinian Authority, which currently governs part of the West Bank, from taking control of Gaza. And Netanyahu’s preferred option – persuading non-aligned clan leaders to manage the strip on Israel’s behalf – is a recipe for corruption and score-settling between rival families.

Options involving outside forces from the region or the United Nations have also failed to gain traction.

Where does this leave the people of Gaza? As they flee from one conflict zone to another, Palestinian residents are losing hope. As one community leader in Rafah recently said,

The war has changed everything but most of all there is now no security. There is nothing now for the weak. Only the strong can survive now.

Ian Parmeter 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. Israel’s invasion of Rafah will not eliminate Hamas or end the war. So, what is Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan? – https://theconversation.com/israels-invasion-of-rafah-will-not-eliminate-hamas-or-end-the-war-so-what-is-benjamin-netanyahus-plan-229995

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Raven Cretney, Postdoctoral Fellow, Environmental Planning, University of Waikato

Adaptation to climate change will challenge New Zealand politically and economically. As such, it becomes a problem of imagination. We will need to fund things differently, build differently, restructure aspects of our economy, and develop innovative new policies.

As the government launches a new cross-party inquiry into adaptation policy, it will be important to move beyond politics as usual. We’ll need to think creatively about what is politically possible, and better communicate how climate adaptation can benefit different groups.

In 2022, the previous government launched the first National Adaptation Plan (NAP) for consultation. The plan sets out the vision, purpose, goals and priorities for change. It includes a focus on difficult decisions, such as managed retreat. And it establishes the Rauora framework to allow “planning for Māori, by Māori”.

Our new research analysed all 294 public submissions on the NAP. But rather than focus on answers to individual questions (as the government might), we aimed to identify deeper patterns across the entire range of submissions.

By mapping zones of agreement and disagreement among various groups, we can reveal how new coalitions of interest might form to support adaptation policies and actions.

4 imagined futures

Climate change can be a contentious and politically partisan issue. But our analysis identifies promising areas of broad agreement on future action – albeit sometimes for different reasons.

We distill these into four collective themes of “imagined futures”. They represent key areas of alignment that could inform future cross-party considerations on climate adaptation.

1. Data-driven resilience

Almost everyone was supportive of the government increasing investment in science to provide both authoritative national data sets, and more local and culturally specific information.

For the business sector, data helps strategic growth or investment decisions. For nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), it helps understand risks and responses. For communities, it can stimulate the conversations needed for local adaptation.

Data was seen as fundamental to empowering action and monitoring progress, regardless of who took that action. This is crucial – the more people and businesses feel they are able to act now, the lower the potential liability for future governments.

2. Growth and opportunity

This had a strong economic focus, and was characterised by business sector submissions. The more imaginative responses involved climate-resilient construction, regenerative agriculture or digital innovation. Others simply positioned their sector as a crucial part of the solution and called for more economic support.

Perspectives on government regulation varied. Some called for less compliance to allow agility. Others wanted more regulation to create certainty for investment.

While this theme broadly sought to create change within existing political and economic systems, it gives some insight into how private sector interests see the opportunities and value of adaptation action.

3. Nature-society change

There was significant cross-sector support for working with the natural environment.

Strong agreement existed on using nature-based solutions, such as enabling sponge cities, to help manage the effects of climate change. Others went further, advocating for restoring the health of ecosystems and enabling biodiversity.

Some submissions from local government emphasised opportunities for linking nature to wider policy goals, such as providing health and amenity benefits, alongside urban densification.

4. Flaxroots transformation

The most radical submissions represented a desire to transform society to tackle the underlying drivers of climate change, including colonisation and the more extractive aspects of capitalism.

This came through strongly in many individual and NGO submissions. These stressed how adaptation is connected to wider societal issues such as political power and resources, and the need to move away from business as usual.

There was a clear call for removing barriers to Māori self-determination and empowering communities to implement local solutions. Many noted there were excellent initiatives, such as zero-waste schemes, already happening.

Political possibilities

There were also areas of disagreement. The most stark involved the scale of required change.

The diagram below represents each of the four themes on a continuum, representing differing degrees of social and political adaptation.

Many – particularly in the business sector – wanted to see adaptation occur within existing economic systems, with new tools, incentives or guidance used to address problems.

This contrasted with those emphasising the need for transformative political change. They saw this as inseparable from addressing broader societal issues such as poverty, inequality or colonisation.

As we move away from the status quo we can see how more transformative futures may require deeper public engagement or stronger political leadership.

Our analysis also showed how the consultation process is skewed. There was strong representation from industry and local government, but significantly fewer submissions from young people or youth organisations.

Some noted the lengthy and technical submission process. Others highlighted the need to go beyond traditional consultation to better involve those on the front lines of climate impacts. This was particularly highlighted by Māori, Pasifika and disabled communities.

Nonetheless, looking across the submissions to identify patterns provides a timely insight into the political possibilities. This will be important if we are to shift away from conventional left-right dynamics and make progress on developing an enduring adaptation policy.

It shows us where differing groups can agree, how we can communicate the policy benefits in different ways to different groups, and where more fundamental disagreement or disengagement will require more thought.

Raven Cretney receives funding from the Resilience to Nature’s Challenges National Science Challenge: Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūro, and from the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge: Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho.

Christina Hanna receives funding from the National Science Challenge: Resilience to Nature’s Challenges: Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa, and from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund.

Iain White receives funding from the National Science Challenge: Resilience to Nature’s Challenges: Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund, and from Toka Tū Ake EQC. He is New Zealand’s National Contact Point for the European Union Horizon Europe program for the Climate, Energy, and Mobility research cluster.

– ref. New Zealanders have had their say on climate adaptation: here’s where we agree and disagree – https://theconversation.com/new-zealanders-have-had-their-say-on-climate-adaptation-heres-where-we-agree-and-disagree-229799

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

Health was a centrepiece of last year’s budget, based on a new vision for Medicare. This year, there is less health reform, but the budget does set the foundation for a new approach to community-based mental health care.

The themes of reducing cost-of-living pressures, and expanding care in the community to keep people out of hospital, span several key initiatives. Here’s what the budget means for the health system and Australians’ access to care.

A new approach to mental health services

Many Australians are missing out on the mental health support they need, with the biggest problems in disadvantaged areas that have higher needs but far fewer services:

A 2022 evaluation of the Better Access initiative – which provides Medicare-subsidised mental health services – found it was not very well targeted to people with mild to moderate illness, was often ineffective, and often didn’t reach those on the lowest incomes.

The government’s new approach appears more promising. It will spend A$361 million over four years to better target support to people’s level of need:

• for those with mild mental health concerns, from January 1 2026, there will be a new free digital health service which can be used without a referral

• for those with moderate-to-severe mental health needs, the government is beefing up and rebranding the Head to Health network, which will bring it up to 61 free walk-in community mental health services

• for those with more complex needs, Primary Health Networks (bodies responsible for improving primary care) will be funded to work with GPs to build a team of mental health nurses and other allied health professionals to provide free coordination and support.

This more targeted approach is welcome, and could ensure fewer people fall through the cracks in the system. But getting the design and implementation of this new system right will be crucial. And given workforce constraints, including the short supply of psychiatrists, it may be a struggle to meet demand.

New urgent care clinics

Twenty-nine more urgent care clinics will be built, at a cost of $227 million, bringing the total to 87. These clinics provide relatively straightforward care for urgent problems, such as sprains or fevers, and are intended to keep people out of overflowing emergency departments.

Shifting care out of hospitals is important because hospital demand and costs keep surging higher. But the way these new clinics are designed and run must be informed by evaluations of the ones that have already been built, to ensure they reduce pressure on hospitals and are good value for money.

Supporting older people to get out – and stay out – of hospital

Older people can get stuck in hospital for too long because they can’t get the support they need in the community.

The federal government will work with the states to better tackle this issue in multiple ways, including more hospital outreach services and virtual care, adding up to $882 million over five years. If done well, this would not only improve quality of life for older people, but also help to free up hospital beds.

Freezing medicine costs

Patient medicine costs have already fallen because of previous cuts to patient fees and the introduction of 60-day dispensing. This budget does a bit more by freezing maximum prescription fees at $31.60 for non-concession card holders for one year, and at $7.70 for concession card holders for five years, at a total cost of $318 million over five years.

The longer freeze for poorer patients makes sense, because they are about twice as likely as the wealthiest people to say that cost stops them getting prescribed medicines. And concession card holders didn’t get a fee cut when a $12.50 reduction was given to other Australians in the 2022–23 budget.

This year’s budget also allocates $3.4 billion to adding new drugs to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, while pharmacists will be funded to provide free vaccinations to aged care residents in their homes.

But one measure goes against the cost-of-living grain. The $1 discount that pharmacies can offer on prescriptions will gradually fall to zero, further dampening price competition, which is already limited in the highly regulated community pharmacy sector.

Other investments

As always, there are dozens of other health items. Some of the more notable ones include:

• more money for medical research, with $1.4 billion over 13 years, including spending on existing initiatives and two new focus areas from 2027–28: low-survival cancers and reducing health inequities

• $90 million over three years to help get overseas-trained doctors into Australia, in line with a review

• $70 million over four years to make MRI scans more accessible and affordable

• a focus on women’s health, including nearly $50 million over four years on gynaecology consultations for women with complex conditions, and more spending on women’s sexual and reproductive health services, including longer midwife consultations, and indemnity insurance cover for privately practising midwives supporting homebirths.

What’s missing?

There is some spending on prevention, including measures to prevent and treat HIV, new vaccine funding, expansion of bowel screening to people aged 45 to 50, and funding to continue a range existing programs. But the new investment is limited given how far Australia lags behind other wealthy countries in funding to keep people healthy, and there is no sign that Australia will be building the strong Centre for Disease Control we need.

Some areas where costs are a barrier to care for many got little attention, including dental care and specialist care. And while there were measures to boost the health-care workforce, and improve rural health, new funding in these areas was limited.

Perhaps the biggest black hole is public hospital funding. Last year, the federal government agreed to pay a bigger share under a new five-year deal, but the budget papers on health spending don’t take this into account.

Even so, federal public hospital spending is predicted to grow by about $2 billion a year. This will be higher under the deal that the federal and state governments are close to finalising. When the deal is done, hopefully it will come with a new approach to national health reform that tackles some of the problems that weren’t addressed in this budget.

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

Anika Stobart 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. Cheaper medicines and a new approach for mental health care. Will the budget make us healthier? – https://theconversation.com/cheaper-medicines-and-a-new-approach-for-mental-health-care-will-the-budget-make-us-healthier-229612

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Walker-Munro, Senior Lecturer (Law), Southern Cross University

Over the weekend, Queensland University of Technology PhD student Xiaolong Zhu became national news – and not for a good reason. Zhu is a Chinese citizen, and his visa to study in Australia has been denied on the grounds of being “directly or indirectly associated with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”.

The story begins in October 2019, when the university offered Zhu a scholarship to undertake a PhD in robotics. His research would focus on how drones navigate in urban environments without access to GPS.

But in June 2020, Zhu was told the foreign minister had ruled him a risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, specifically missiles and rockets. That decision may be in part motivated by Zhu’s prior education at Beihang University, an institution closely aligned with China’s military and a lead developer of ballistic missiles and stealth aircraft.

Zhu’s appeal is ongoing, and he has done nothing obviously wrong and has not been charged with or convicted of any crime. So why is his story such a big deal? Zhu’s case, the fifth in which a researcher has been barred from the country on suspicion of links to weapons of mass destruction, is just the latest outcome of Australia’s patchy and irregular approach to “research security”.

Australia’s approach to research security

Australia’s approach to protecting certain types of research from national security threats is inconsistent and out of step with that of many of our allies.

The United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union and New Zealand all have national policies on research security. Australia does not.

Read more:
Australia risks falling behind allies on research security. Will it take a spy scandal in our universities to catch up?

Instead, we have voluntary University Foreign Interference Taskforce guidelines, first written in 2019 and updated in 2021. These guidelines were originally written before COVID, the US–China “chip war” and the announcement of AUKUS.

One of Australia’s biggest funders of university research – the Australian Research Council – has only just published a research security framework in the past six months. Our other major research funders, CSIRO and the National Health and Medical Research Council, don’t appear to have anything similar.

At the same time, most, if not all, Australian universities are increasingly turning to foreign funding in response to government cutbacks.

Blunt instruments

At present, the Australian government seems intent on using blunt instruments to regulate research security.

For example, the foreign minister can refuse or cancel a visa if a person poses a risk to security, fails the “good character” test or (as in Zhu’s case) is deemed to be potentially associated with weapons of mass destruction. Since April 2024, the foreign minister can also refuse or cancel visas if the person poses “an unreasonable risk of an unwanted transfer of critical technology”.

Such controls can be incredibly risky when universities are also facing potentially crippling limitations on international student numbers, and where international education is one of Australia’s biggest exports.

Australian university researchers also face export controls. They must seek a permit if they share or publish military or “dual use” technology (research with both military and civilian applications, such as radar).

Many countries have similar controls, but the definition of “dual use” technologies can be incredibly subjective. In 2012, a Dutch researcher was infamously taken to court after publishing influenza research that allegedly could have been used to make biological weapons.

Universities in Australia are also required to publicly list every arrangement with a foreign government entity. A recent study of these arrangements found a disturbing number of potentially high-risk ventures at our universities.

Disclosure doesn’t appear to stop questionable research associations going ahead. A parliamentary inquiry has even found the public register to be no longer fit for purpose.

What Australia could be doing better

There has been a lack of consolidated action on research security.

Two years ago, a parliamentary inquiry heard of sustained and repeated acts of foreign interference at our universities. To date, fewer than a quarter of the committee’s recommendations have been acted upon.

The final report of the Universities Accord, released this year – which Federal Education Minister Jason Clare called “a blueprint for the next decade and beyond” – doesn’t mention research security at all. In fact, it mentions national security only three times in 408 pages.

Another problem is the complete secrecy surrounding these kinds of cases. Had Zhu not appealed, we might never have heard about it.

Neither the government nor the university made substantial public statements about the case. And Zhu himself will probably never even know what information the minister considered to ban him. Instead, the government issued a variety of certificates to protect “lawful methods for preventing, detecting, and investigating breaches or evasions of the law” and “confidential sources”.

Where to from here

Australia could take some lessons from our allies.

In Canada, any federal funding involving a “sensitive technology” will be refused if it involves association with anyone on a list of specific organisations. In New Zealand, high-risk research can be secured by the use of encrypted devices, security clearances, and keeping all research data offline. In the US, universities can be fined or even have their funding suspended if they do not comply with disclosure rules.

That said, our universites are unlikely to welcome more regulation. Such rules may infringe on academic freedom – the protection of academics’ rights to pursue risky or controversial topics.

Universities already complain they are one of the most “over-regulated” sectors in the country. Worse yet, universities say stifling international competition could stunt our innovation and “leave us worse off”.

But these objections shouldn’t be the end of the story. In 2021, ASIO head Mike Burgess said that “taking a sensible approach to national security risks shouldn’t stop [universities] from getting on with their core roles”.

Three years on, even discussion of this “sensible approach” seems to have fallen by the wayside. It needs to start again – or any “Future Made in Australia” might stall before it even gets started.

Brendan Walker-Munro is affiliated with Southern Cross University, the Australian Cyber Defence Alliance and the Social Cyber Institute. The views expressed here are personal and are not necessarily the views of any institution or organisation.

– ref. A student’s visa has been cancelled for links to ‘weapons of mass destruction’. What’s going on with Australian research security? – https://theconversation.com/a-students-visa-has-been-cancelled-for-links-to-weapons-of-mass-destruction-whats-going-on-with-australian-research-security-230002

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Gallo, Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences, School of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast

Growing a healthy baby relies on getting enough nutrients while pregnant.

But rather than following a healthy diet to provide those nutrients, we’re concerned too many people are relying on “pink” multivitamins.

These supplements are widely promoted for people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, and those who are planning to become pregnant. They contain folic acid, iodine, iron, vitamin D, vitamin B12, calcium, and a shopping list of other vitamins and minerals.

Multivitamins during pregnancy are, for the most part, a waste of money. At worst, there’s a risk they can harm you and your baby.

Most need only folate and iodine

Official dietary advice recommends only two nutrient supplements before and during pregnancy: folic acid (folate) and iodine.

A folic acid supplement is recommended from the month before conception and during the first three months of pregnancy. The recommended dose is 400 micrograms a day to reduce the risk of neural tube defects (such as spina bifida) in the newborn. Requirements for folate remain high for the whole pregnancy, and some people may be prescribed higher folic acid doses or other forms of folate based on their individual medical needs.

Due to mild iodine deficiency in Australia, people who are pregnant, breastfeeding or considering pregnancy should also take an iodine supplement at 150 micrograms a day to support the baby’s brain development. People with thyroid issues should speak to their doctor first.

However, individual circumstances may need someone to take other nutrients while pregnant. For instance, on advice from their health-care provider, people who are vegetarian or vegan may need to take vitamin B12 and iron supplements. People diagnosed with deficiencies such as vitamin D or iron will be prescribed a supplement to build up their levels. Those at risk of certain health conditions, such as pre-eclampsia, may need to take a calcium supplement from mid-pregnancy.

So why are multivitamins so popular?

Multivitamins are advertised as an essential part of the pregnancy toolkit, and maternity care providers often prescribe them.

In Australia, we found more than four in five people take multivitamins while pregnant. People see this as “insurance” to ensure they get adequate nutrition.

Our study, which uses data from a Queensland cohort of pregnant families, suggests socioeconomic factors influence the likelihood of using multivitamins in pregnancy. We found those with access to private obstetric care and health insurance, and who eat more meat (all associated with having more money) were more likely to use them.

This is not surprising given the hefty price tag. The most popular pregnancy multivitamin costs, at minimum, A$180 when taken from the month before conception and throughout pregnancy. Compare this with less than $40 for a supplement that contains only folic acid and iodine when taken for the same length of time.

Expensive brands are not better. Price is largely determined by public perception of brand quality, which is influenced by strong marketing. For most vitamins, any excess is excreted via your urine, making it, at best, expensive wee.

What happens if you have too much?

Our study found a very high dependence on supplements, particularly for folic acid, iron and iodine, to meet nutrient requirements.

If people’s diets are already providing adequate levels of those nutrients and the supplements give them extra, there’s a risk of nutrient overload.

For instance, more than one in 20 people in our study had high levels of folate intake (more than the safe “upper level of intake”). Almost half of all those in the study surpassed the upper level of intake for total iron. Virtually all of these were taking a multivitamin and had higher-than-usual blood levels of the respective nutrients.

Taking folic acid above the upper level of intake has been associated with babies being shorter at birth, lower levels of children’s cognitive development and a higher risk of childhood asthma. Folic acid supplementation, at the recommended daily dose of 400 micrograms after the first trimester, however, could be beneficial for child cognitive development although further trials would be necessary before this is routinely recommended.

High doses of iron increase the risk of high red blood cell concentration in the expectant mother. This condition increases the risk of pregnancy complications, including the baby being small for gestational age, stillbirth, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia and low birth weight.

When we look at iodine, about one in four expectant mums taking a multivitamin in our study had very high intakes, which has been linked to lower neurodevelopmental scores in children.

Chances are, you’re getting enough nutrients

In low- and middle-income countries, multivitamins have a place; they improve weight gain while pregnant, newborn weight and might reduce the risk of preterm birth.

In high-income countries, such as Australia, food is abundantly diverse. There are also mandatory fortification programs – folic acid and iodised salt have been used in conventional breadmaking since 2009.

In these countries, frequent multivitamin use may pose risks to both maternal and fetal health. These include developing gestational diabetes (which might be due to high iron intake) and autism spectrum disorder in children.

There are some people, however, who do not take any supplements in pregnancy. Our study, which looked at supplement intake at around 28 weeks of pregnancy, found those under 30 years old and those with a lower household income were least likely to be taking a supplement. These are the same groups that generally have a poorer diet.

What should I take?

People should look for a supplement that contains only folic acid and iodine at the recommended dose, or take these as individual supplements.

They should work closely with their maternity providers, and perhaps an accredited practising dietitian, to focus on eating enough from each of the five food groups.

Supplements should not substitute a wholefood diet. There are benefits to eating a variety of foods, which contain many complementary nutrients and other compounds we cannot obtain from supplements. Following the dietary guidelines might also save you money.

Health-care providers also need to stop routinely recommending these expensive “pink” multivitamins, and instead focus on encouraging people to eat a healthy diet. Besides folic acid and iodine, supplements should only be prescribed according to someone’s specific needs. Multivitamins don’t have a place in everyone’s pregnancy toolkit.

Shelley Wilkinson is a project officer, Department of Obstetric Medicine, Mater Mothers’ Hospitals, Brisbane. She is also the director and principal dietitian of Lifestyle Maternity, a telehealth private practice for preconception, pregnancy and postnatal care.

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

– ref. I’m pregnant. Do I need a multivitamin? – https://theconversation.com/im-pregnant-do-i-need-a-multivitamin-228190

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Neal, Senior lecturer in Economics / Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

Last night’s budget is another missed opportunity to arrest the poor and deteriorating state of the Australian environment.

Subsidising green industry in Labor’s Future Made in Australia policy may offer economic advantages if implemented well, but there is nothing in this budget to help address the immediate environmental crisis facing Australia.

The story so far

After being elected in 2022, Labor made a number of good promises. The new government legislated an emissions reduction target – a 43% cut by 2030 on 2005 figures and net zero by 2050. Last year, Labor reformed the Coalition’s only emissions monitoring program, the safeguard mechanism, to help deliver these reductions. (Recent research has cast doubt on the integrity of the system’s carbon credits). And the government signed an international biodiversity pact, which commits us to protect 30% of our land (currently at 22%) and halt biodiversity loss by 2030.

But Labor also promised to rewrite Australia’s main environment laws, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which governs the protection of places and species, and approvals for significant projects. This was motivated by the horrendous bushfires in 2019–20 and a damning review, which found the laws were not up to the task of stopping environmental decline.

In the lead-up to tonight’s budget, Labor announced that the stronger laws had been indefinitely delayed. Instead, Australia would get a national environmental protection agency, Environment Protection Australia. While a strong and independent agency would improve compliance and monitoring, it will be enforcing ineffective laws until reforms are passed. Labor also shocked environmental groups by supporting a future for fossil gas, including opening up new gas fields.

Made in Australia

So if we’re not getting new environment laws, what is in the budget for the environment?

A whole lot for green industries. The 2024 budget’s centrepiece is the Future Made in Australia policy, a series of initiatives costing A$23 billion over ten years that focuses on subsidies for manufacturing industries including solar panels and green hydrogen.

Here, the Government is actively intervening in the market to push the economy towards specific ends – boosting green industries and making supply chains more resilient. As the budget papers state, one goal is to make Australia “an indispensable part of global net zero supply chains.”

In recent years western governments have embraced industrial subsidies, most notably seen in the CHIPS and Science Act and Inflation Reduction Act in the United States.

So what’s the government planning? Included in the announced package is:

$3.2 billion over ten years in additional funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. This includes $1.7 billion in grants for innovation in green metals, low carbon liquid fuels, and batteries.

$1.7 billion over 10 years for an additional round of Hydrogen Headstart. This will fund the difference between the cost to produce renewable hydrogen and the current market price for eligible firms. Also planned is an additional $2 a kilogram tax incentive for renewable hydrogen produced from 2027–28.

$7 billion over the medium term for tax incentives in critical mineral production. Firms will be eligible to rebate 10% of refining and processing costs of 31 critical minerals from 2027-28.

$1.5 billion over ten years for solar PV and battery manufacturing. This will fund grants to firms for manufacturing solar PV components at all stages of the supply chain and batteries.

Is this the right thing to do? Economists are usually pessimistic about government efforts to guide industry in this way, pointing to the difficulty of picking winners and the potential for funding to flow in the direction lobbyists want rather than on merit.

Nevertheless, there’s recent evidence industry policy can be effective in spurring long-term structural change to an economy – when done well. After all, targeted assistance and direction by government may have played a role in how East Asian nations such as Japan, Korea and China became manufacturing titans.

But what about the environmental outcomes of these subsidies? Will they turn Australia into a green export giant, shipping green hydrogen instead of LNG and make homegrown solar panels a reality? Will they help drive the green transition?

This is even less clear. Australia’s once-significant manufacturing sector began its sharp decline after we dropped tariffs and opened up to international competition from the 1980s.

Could Labor turn the tide? That will depend on whether the subsidies succeed in creating manufacturing sectors able to compete with international competition. It’s far from guaranteed. But it is possible.

And what about trade-offs between green industry and conservation? In the rush to secure lithium and critical minerals for the green transition, the government has invested $566 million to give mining companies free data and maps. This could do further damage to the environment, if new projects are built on land home to threatened species.

Where’s the “Conserved in Australia” policy?

Nothing is in the budget to tackle our biodiversity and extinction crisis.

This is another missed opportunity. The postponed environment laws aside, the government could have addressed the severe lack of funding for conservation.

What about the goal of protecting 30% of land and seas by 2030? This will take funding to expand protected areas – and to actually conserve species in existing protected areas. Invasive species from deer to blackberries run riot in many national parks.

How much should the government be spending and for what? To give some examples:

– $5 billion would fund the purchase of private land for conservation and long-term management. Australia previously had a fund like this, which is why our protected area estate has grown so much.

– $1.7 billion a year is the expert estimate for how much it would cost to bring all of Australia’s threatened species under active management and recover their numbers.

– $2 billion a year for 30 years would restore 13 million hectares of degraded land, without touching farms or urban areas – about twice the size of Tasmania.

Our natural environment affects our national identity, our mental health, and even our future economic prosperity.

Yes, conservation costs money. But the costs may turn out to be very small relative to the benefits, not only for the diverse species we share Australia with but for its people too. People don’t just need manufacturing jobs – they need nature, too.

Read more:
It’s time to strike an environmental grand bargain between businesses, governments and conservationists – and stop doing things the hard way

Timothy Neal 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. Green industry yes, conservation no: a budget for people, not for nature – https://theconversation.com/green-industry-yes-conservation-no-a-budget-for-people-not-for-nature-229904

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Trelease, Senior Lecturer in Communication Studies, Auckland University of Technology

Television producer and screenwriter Shonda Rhimes has come a long way since being a scriptwriter for the 2002 film Crossroads.

Her production company Shondaland now shines in its delivery of romance shows, with Bridgerton (on which she is an executive producer) being a major recent success. With season three hitting Netflix tomorrow, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Shondaland landed another surefire hit.

Rhimes understands romance as a technical art form. But beyond that, she shows us love doesn’t necessarily always exist between two people; it also exists between people and their passions, and in the way they view themselves.

The art of romance

First airing in 2005, Rhimes’ debut primetime TV series Grey’s Anatomy (still in production today) leaned heavily into the soap opera elements of romance and drama.

Rhimes masterfully executes romance in a contained setting – whether it’s a hospital, a social season in Regency era London, a Seattle firestation, or the political scene of Washington DC.

She also upholds one of most important characteristics of soap opera: there shall be no ending in sight. We’re still following Meredith Grey’s love life from that first fateful meeting with McDreamy, dropping in even now to get updates about her and Nick.

In Bridgerton, viewers have waited with bated breath for Colin and Penelope’s union. Will their relationship reach its climax in season three? Rhimes’ ability to effectively carry such story lines is what keeps us coming back.

Bridgerton’s spinoff Queen Charlotte also delivers the show’s backstory in a way that frames it as having no end and no set beginning.

Marrying familiar with foreign

The romance genre is often relegated to two categories: romantic drama or romantic comedy.

Both, unfortunately, may be perceived by audiences and critics as being “for women” and largely lowbrow. However, the key characteristics of romance afford audience as much a sense of connection as any other celebrated genre.

Romance tends to follow a narrative “masterplot”. This predictable structure emulates the natural milestones of a relationship: meet someone, fall in love and live happily ever after.

But the narrative may also include a range of difficulties, such as love triangles, unrequited love or forbidden love. The obstacles tend to cover such a range that viewers will likely identify with at least one.

This balance of predictability and conflict allows the viewer to escape into an exciting fantasy, while also knowing all will end well (or that even if the couple doesn’t end up together, it will still be the “right” ending).

In any given Shondaland series, there are multiple masterplots taking place simultaneously. These are often at different milestones, and staggered across the season (or multiple seasons).

Bridgerton’s period-setting helps enhance the tribulations faced by the characters. It adds to the escapism, while depicting all-too-familiar relationship issues.

Music is the key

One way to put viewers in characters’ minds is through the use of music, and Rhimes does this expertly.

Incorporating a recognisable music track can add more layers to an already emotional scene. One example from Rhimes’ early years is the use of Snow Patrol’s Chasing Cars in the Grey’s Anatomy season two finale.

The track features alternating musical notes that build aural tension, echoing the visual juxtaposition of formal wear/frivolity with the coolness of the hospital.

Izzy’s confession confirms her love for Denny while also destroying her career. The questioning lyrics, “would you lie with me?”, are heard as Meredith decides between two suitors. These visual and aural signs strengthen an already emotional scripted narrative.

Five years later, Rhimes references this scene once more in the show as Dr Callie Torres fights for her life (and her unborn child’s).

In an out-of-body experience, Callie sings the lyrics to Chasing Cars and her colleagues join in. This time, however, the focus is on the lyrics as they communicate the characters’ heightened emotional state.

Bridgerton also excels in using modern music in a period setting, by incorporating classical covers of chart-topping hits. These tracks are carefully placed to help communicate characters’ feelings.

In previous seasons, viewers will have recognised Madonna’s Material Girl, Alanis Morrisette’s You Oughta Know and Miley Cyrus’ Wrecking Ball.

Season three will bring a fresh lineup of covers including Billie Eilish’s Happier Than Ever, BTS’s Dynamite, Sia’s Cheap Thrills and Taylor Swift and Lana Del Rey’s Snow On The Beach.

In love with the craft

While romantic plot points are often at the heart of Rhimes’ shows, these aren’t always between a couple. Rhimes has always placed a focus on women who love their work and find a sense of romance in it.

In Scandal, Olivia Pope says, “I am very good at what I do. I am better at it than anyone else.” And while her torrid romance with Fitz spans the series’ entire seven seasons, she is not defined by it. Similarly, in How to Get Away with Murder, Annalise Keating is a troubled yet future-proofing mentor to her students.

Rhimes’ viewers are always following principal characters loving their work, their mentees and their legacy.

Even Bridgerton’s Queen Charlotte shows a commitment to the “work” of romance by identifying the most flawless debutante of the coming season. Through this process she reinforces her ability and authority as a matchmaker.

Viewers also share in Lady Whistledown’s immense pleasures of publishing. Julie Andrews’ narration highlights the absolute joy Whistledown feels in scouting, writing and delivering gossip.

Two decades ago, romance plots tended to feature a protagonist with a fabulous big-city job (often in publishing), but their occupation would come second to the goal of finding “the one”. How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Never Been Kissed and 13 going on 30 are just some examples.

Meanwhile, in Shondaland, a romance masterplot can be superseded by the trials and tribulations of a woman’s career and her journey of self-fulfilment. The joy of escapism now twists into watching women excel in their own right alongside the expectation of the happy ending, or at least the “right” ending.

It’s no wonder we’re still hanging around for Rhimes’ stories in 2024.

Rebecca Trelease 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 Bridgerton to Grey’s Anatomy, Shonda Rhimes is the queen of romance. Here’s how she gets our hearts pounding – https://theconversation.com/from-bridgerton-to-greys-anatomy-shonda-rhimes-is-the-queen-of-romance-heres-how-she-gets-our-hearts-pounding-229005

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

The government has handed down its budget for 2024–25. It’s delivered a $9.3 billion surplus for the financial year just about to finish but is forecasting a $28.3 billion deficit for next year. Here’s the key points:

– ref. At a glance: the 2024 federal budget split four ways – https://theconversation.com/at-a-glance-the-2024-federal-budget-split-four-ways-227451

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

Jim Chalmers has produced a benign third budget aimed at soothing hard-pressed voters agitated about their high cost of living and punishing interest rates.

At the same time he has walked a tightrope, trying to avoid the handouts making things worse rather than better.

Despite its appearance, this is unlikely to be THE pre-election budget. With the poll due by next May, Anthony Albanese is still anticipated to run full term.

His very narrow parliamentary majority and voters’ grumpy state of mind would make an election this year a risk. That means another budget can be expected around March. Indeed, the prime minister has flagged it.

An early ‘election budget’

But this budget still has the election firmly in mind. The voters’ mood has to be improved, and Chalmers is hoping its relatively substantial assistance will help do the trick. And the government desperately needs interest rates to fall – hence the stress on caution, so that the projected fall in inflation materialises.

What the Reserve Bank thinks of this budget looms as almost as important as what the average voter thinks of it.

So, as Chalmers has been telling us, the treasurer has had to juggle the economics and the politics.

Read more:
Relief on energy bills for all in a federal budget that bets on lower inflation

The universal help on energy bills and the extra rent assistance fit both requirements nicely. They give relief which cut inflation (at least in the short term) rather than adding to it.

The biggest relief, of course, comes from the tax cuts, which are in themselves the equivalent of a reduction in interest rates. The government’s decision early this year to recalibrate the Stage 3 tax cuts, meaning all taxpayers get a prize, has been long vindicated – the broken promise has faded from most memories.

Apart from hard-pressed households, the government has had a careful eye in the budget to particular constituencies, including women (superannuation on paid parental leave and more) and young people (changes to HELP indexation and payments for placements).

Handouts aplenty, negatives hard to find

Many welfare advocates, however, will be disappointed. While they’ll welcome the rent assistance, the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee’s recommendation for a big boost to the overall level to JobSeeker has not been met (although there is an increase for Australians with only a partial capacity to work).

With an emphasis on handouts, the budget is also notably light on negatives. Whatever nasties it has are limited or well-hidden.

Its future large deficits indicate the government has deferred a serious attack on the structural deficit to another day. Or another term.

The budget launches the prime minister’s signature Future Made in Australia policy, which is costed at $22.7 billion over the next decade.

Read more:
At a glance: the 2024 federal budget split four ways

The government hopes voters will make their immediate judgements about the budget on the criterion of “what’s in it for me?” With Future Made in Australia, it is relying on people responding to the “vibe” – the idea of Australia becoming an energy superpower, or making more things.

Chalmers and Albanese justify the policy, which includes expensive tax incentives, largely on the basis other countries are playing on this ground, and Australia can’t be left behind. Perhaps. But many respected economists condemn it as little more than old-fashioned interventionism and picking winners.

Read more:
Budget 2024: Chalmers fights inflation, will it be enough for a rate cut?

However it will be years before the wisdom of some of the policy’s investments can be properly assessed, so the government will feel reasonably confident any backlash is likely to be a long time coming.

Albanese told the Labor caucus on Monday this was “a Labor budget through and through”.

It’s a pretty accurate description. It’s generous in spending,with an ideological tinge. The critics will say it’s too “Labor” for the times.

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: What the Reserve Bank thinks of Chalmers’ budget will be nearly as important as the voters’ opinion – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-what-the-reserve-bank-thinks-of-chalmers-budget-will-be-nearly-as-important-as-the-voters-opinion-229271

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

A $300 energy rebate for all households from July 1 and a 10% increase in Commonwealth Rent Assistance are key measures in a budget targeting cost-of-living relief that put downward pressure on inflation.

Delivered by Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Tuesday night, the budget also freezes the maximum cost of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) prescriptions for everyone for the year of 2025 and concession card holders for five years.

As Chalmers told federal parliament, “this is a budget for the here and now and it’s a budget for the decade to come”.

After an estimated surplus of $9.3 billion this financial year, a deficit of $28.3 billion is forecast for next financial year, before rising to $42.8 billion in 2025-26. The projected deficits then reduce to smaller but still substantial amounts in the following two years. Across the budget period, deficits total $112.8 billion.

The various cost-of-living measures are expected to take 0.5 of a percentage point off inflation over the coming year, as the government tries to boost the prospect of an interest rate fall before the election.

Looking to boost growth in the longer term, the budget invests $22.7 billion in a Future Made in Australia package over a decade to “help make us an indispensable part of the global economy”. This funding is loaded into the latter stages of the decade.

This includes $13.7 billion for production tax incentives for green hydrogen and processed critical minerals “so industries are rewarded for scale and success”.

A $1.7 billion Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund aims to “develop new industries like green metals and low carbon fuels” and $520 million is allocated “to deepen net zero trade and engagement with our region”.

‘Rigor’ for Future Made in Australia Fund

The policy will have a National Interest Framework to impose “rigour” on government decisions.

The energy relief, which will be provided through the states and providers, costs $3.5 billion over three years and will also extend to one million small businesses, which will get $325.

Households will benefit from the energy help at the same time as all taxpayers receive a tax cut, which is worth an average of $36 a week.

The boost in Commonwealth Rent Assistance – coming after a 15% rise in last year’s budget – will cost $1.9 billion over five years. New investment in housing is $6.2 billion.

Chalmers said the budget showed the government was “realistic about the pressures people face now – and optimistic about the future”.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers told his news conference that on inflation it was “not mission accomplished because people are still hurting.”

International uncertainty combined with cost-of-living pressures and high interest rates will slow the economy, with growth forecast at 1.75% this financial year and 2% in the next.

Unemployment is set to rise to 4.5% by the June quarter next year. Unemployment is currently at 3.8%

“I want Australians to know that despite everything coming at us, we are among the best placed economies to manage these uncertainties and maximise our opportunities,” Chalmers said.

He said the government was limiting real spending to an average of 1.4% a year since it came to office. It will be an estimated 3.6% in the coming financial year.

The budget contains earlier announced changes to the indexation arrangements for HELP student debt and placement payments for teaching, social work and nursing students.

Read more:
At a glance: the 2024 federal budget split four ways

There is $2.2 billion to deliver more key reforms in aged care. The budget also includes unspecified provisions for wage rises in aged care and child care.

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said: “In this budget, Labor has added $315 billion of new spending, at a time when we need restraint.

“After two years in office and three Labor budgets, the government is no closer to dealing with its homegrown inflation crisis – which means more pressure on cost of living and interest rates higher for longer.”

Greens leader Adam Bandt said: “This band-aid budget is a betrayal of renters, women, students and mortgage holders. Labor’s offering a future for coal and gas that will wreck the climate, unleash corporate greed, and throw ordinary people to the wolves”.

Read more:
Chalmers is bitten by the giveaway bug in a budget that contains good news for almost everyone

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. Relief on energy bills for all in a federal budget that bets on lower inflation – https://theconversation.com/relief-on-energy-bills-for-all-in-a-federal-budget-that-bets-on-lower-inflation-229272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

Treasurer Jim Chalmers promised an “inflation-fighting and future-making budget” and he has delivered by introducing measures aimed at directly bringing down inflation.

Combined, his A$300-per-household energy rebate and his 10% increase to the maximum rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance will cut inflation in the year ahead by 0.50 percentage points, or so his forecasts say.

This means during 2024-25 inflation is forecast to be 2.75% and within the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band rather than 3.25%.

If the Reserve Bank is as good as its word, and prepared to cut interest rates as inflation moves back towards its target, we can expect a rate cut within the year.

Weak economic growth

Chalmers says he is treading a “responsible middle path” helping those most struggling with the higher cost of living and keeping us out of a recession, without spending so much he stimulates the economy excessively and drives inflation back up.

Economic growth is projected to pick up from an estimated 1.75% in 2023-24 to 2% in 2024-25 and 2.25% in 2025-26.

The main boost to consumer spending will come from the long-planned Stage 3 tax cuts. The government modified these earlier in the year so all taxpayers will benefit rather than just those on higher incomes.

It says they will add 1% to household disposable incomes.

Another change that may support consumers is more than three million Australians will have $3 billion less student debt.

It will now be indexed to whichever is lower, the Consumer Price Index or wages, rather than always the Consumer Price Index. The change will be backdated to June last year when wages growth was lower than prices growth, slashing the increase to apply from July this year from 7.1% to 3.2%.

Chalmers says the Future Made in Australia program – a plan to capture the economic benefits of moving to net zero – will cost $23 billion over the next decade. But less than $3 billion of that cost appears in the budget forecasts, which stretch over four years.

Employment is forecast to grow by only 0.75% during 2024-25, down from 2.25% during 2022-23. With the population growing faster, this will still mean the unemployment rate climbs to 4.5% by mid-2025.

Weak global outlook

Treasury expects the global economy to expand by a mediocre 3.25% over the next three years .

Growth in China, our largest customer, is expected to slow from 5.2% in 2023 to 4.25% in 2025 and 2026, reflecting problems in China’s property market.

The forecast underpins an expected halving of iron ore price from its recent peak. In accordance with its usual practice, Treasury assumes iron ore and coal prices will fall back to their “long-run anchors” by early 2025.

This usual practice has meant that for quite some time Treasury has under-estimated the prices of Australia’s main exports, and therefore underestimated company tax.

While this might occur again, the troubles of the Chinese property sector make a big fall in the price of iron ore more plausible this time.

Inflation and interest rates

Wages are expected to climb faster than prices over the forecast period but not so fast as to themselves put pressure on inflation.

Wage growth is forecast to slow from 4% during 2023-24 to 3.25% in 2024-25 and 2025-26. If things work out as planned, inflation will be back within the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band by the end of this year, falling to 2.75% by the middle of next year and 2.5% by mid 2027.

Of course, the Reserve Bank’s latest forecasts do not take into account the measures announced by Chalmers in the budget.

If the forecasts are correct, the Reserve Bank is likely to cut interest rates sooner than the market expects, either late this year or in the first half of next year.

Critics will argue any measures which give households more money, even in the form of electricity price rebates, will add to inflation down the track.

But are the measures really large enough to materially add to inflationary pressures? Perhaps not. They amount to $3 billion out of total spending of almost $700 billion in 2024-25.

Another possible source of inflationary pressure is capacity constraints in the construction industry.

Read more:
Inflation is slowly falling while student debt is climbing: 6 graphs that explain the CPI

The Future Made in Australia package involves considerable infrastructure spending, and the budget also spends more on housing and on transport infrastructure. All will need skilled and unskilled labour.

At the same time, cuts to immigration will make a smaller contribution to expanding the construction workforce.

The government is forecasting net overseas migration of about 260,000 per year in the years ahead, down from 528,000 in 2022-23.

While elsewhere in the budget there are funds to train more construction workers, it will take a while for them to join the workforce.

An early budget next year?

Next year’s budget is likely to be brought forward to March to accommodate an election in May.

According to this budget, things will be looking pretty good by then – good enough for the Reserve Bank to feel much more comfortable about inflation and to have started cutting interest rates.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economic analyst and forecaster in the Reserve Bank and Australian Treasury.

– ref. Budget 2024: Chalmers fights inflation, will it be enough for a rate cut? – https://theconversation.com/budget-2024-chalmers-fights-inflation-will-it-be-enough-for-a-rate-cut-229274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

Treasurer Jim Chalmers promised an “inflation-fighting and future-making budget” and he has delivered by introducing measures aimed at directly bringing down inflation.

Combined, his A$300-per-household energy rebate and his 10% increase to the maximum rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance will cut inflation in the year ahead by 0.50 percentage points, or so his forecasts say.

This means during 2024-25 inflation is forecast to be 2.75% and within the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band rather than 3.25%.

If the Reserve Bank is as good as its word, and prepared to cut interest rates as inflation moves back towards its target, we can expect a rate cut within the year.

Chalmers says he is treading a “responsible middle path” helping those most struggling with the higher cost of living and keeping us out of a recession, without spending so much he stimulates the economy excessively and drives inflation back up.

The outlook for domestic activity

Economic growth is projected to pick up from an estimated 1.75% in 2023-24 to 2% in 2024-25 and 2.25% in 2025-26. The main boost to consumer spending will come from the long-planned Stage 3 tax cuts. The government modified these earlier in the year so all taxpayers will benefit rather than just those on higher incomes.

It says they will add 1% to household disposable incomes.

Another change that may support consumers is more than three million Australians will have $3 billion less student debt.

It will now be indexed to whichever is lower, the Consumer Price Index or wages, rather than always the Consumer Price Index. The change will be backdated to June last year when wages growth was lower than prices growth, slashing the increase to apply from July this year from 7.1% to 3.2%.

Chalmers says the Future Made in Australia program – a plan to capture the economic benefits of moving to net zero – will cost $23 billion over the next decade. But less than $3 billion of that cost appears in the budget forecasts, which stretch over four years.

Employment is forecast to grow by only 0.75% during 2024-25, down from 2.25% during 2022-23. With the population growing faster, this will still mean the unemployment rate climbs to 4.5% by mid-2025.

Global outlook

Treasury expects the global economy to expand by a mediocre 3.25% over the next three years .

Growth in China, our largest customer, is expected to slow from 5.2% in 2023 to 4.25% in 2025 and 2026, reflecting problems in China’s property market.

The forecast underpins an expected halving of iron ore price from its recent peak. In accordance with its usual practice, Treasury assumes iron ore and coal prices will fall back to their “long-run anchors” by early 2025.

This usual practice has meant that for quite some time Treasury has under-estimated the prices of Australia’s main exports, and therefore underestimated company tax.

While this might occur again, the troubles of the Chinese property sector make a big fall in the price of iron ore more plausible this time.

Inflation and interest rates

Wages are expected to climb faster than prices over the forecast period but not so fast as to themselves put pressure on inflation.

Wage growth is forecast to slow from 4% during 2023-24 to 3.25% in 2024-25 and 2025-26. If things work out as planned, inflation will be back within the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band by the end of this year, falling to 2.75% by the middle of next year and 2.5% by mid 2027.

Of course, the Reserve Bank’s latest forecasts do not take into account the measures announced by Chalmers in the budget.

If the forecasts are correct, the Reserve Bank is likely to cut interest rates sooner than the market expects, either late this year or in the first half of next year.

Critics will argue any measures which give households more money, even in the form of electricity price rebates, will add to inflation down the track.

But are the measures really large enough to materially add to inflationary pressures? Perhaps not. They amount to $3 billion out of total spending of almost $700 billion in 2024-25.
Another possible source of inflationary pressure is capacity constraints in the construction industry.

The Future Made in Australia package involves considerable infrastructure spending, and the budget also spends more on housing and on transport infrastructure. All will need skilled and unskilled labour.

At the same time, cuts to immigration will make a smaller contribution to expanding the construction workforce.

The government is forecasting net overseas migration of about 260,000 per year in the years ahead, down from 528,000 in 2022-23.

While elsewhere in the budget there are funds to train more construction workers, it will take a while for them to join the workforce.

Looking ahead

Next year’s budget is likely to be brought forward to March to accommodate an election in May.

According to this budget, things will be looking pretty good by then – good enough for the Reserve Bank to feel much more comfortable about inflation and to have started cutting interest rates.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economic analyst and forecaster in the Reserve Bank and Australian Treasury.

– ref. Budget 2024: As Chalmers fights inflation, will it be enough for a rate cut? – https://theconversation.com/budget-2024-as-chalmers-fights-inflation-will-it-be-enough-for-a-rate-cut-229274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been bitten by the giveaway bug. This budget contains not only the well-foreshadowed tax cuts for all taxpayers, but a range of new spending measures in health, education, infrastructure, aged care and more. There are few savings measures.

There are no new taxes, only the promise of stronger tax compliance from the Australian tax office in receipts. On the spending side the largest saving comes from reduced spending on consultants and contractors to government.

This is bad news for any consultants who evade tax, but good news for almost everyone else.

Chalmers delivered a A$22 billion surplus in 2022-23. Barring some extraordinary disaster, he will deliver another, predicted at $9.3 billion, in the current year.

But it stops there. From the next financial year onwards, the budget year, and the three forward estimates years, it’s all deficits.

In isolation, whether a government has a surplus or deficit is not significant. It is largely a consequence of what are called “automatic stabilisers”. When the economy is doing well, unemployment and its associated benefit payments fall, income and company taxes rise. The reverse happens in a downturn.

For the past two years, the government has reaped the benefits of high employment and a booming iron ore price. To its credit, it has chosen to bank most of that windfall. It could keep doing that – but at a high political cost.

A key factor has been that notorious villain, bracket creep. As people’s incomes rise, they move into higher tax brackets and pay more income tax.

Read more:
Relief on energy bills for all in a federal budget that bets on lower inflation

Eventually taxpayer patience is tested, and governments feel obliged to deliver back some or all the creep in the form of tax cuts. That inspired the previous government’s Stage 3 tax cuts, which have found their way, following much modification, into the latest budget.

This, together with Treasury’s forecast on iron ore prices, are the main reasons why there is less of a windfall for the treasurer to bank in 2024-25. He is faced with new spending programs to deal with cost of living, energy transition and housing pressures.

On top of that, the budget reveals traditional Labor priorities in terms of spending on health, infrastructure and education, and some bipartisan ones like defence. It is little wonder the deficit has grown to $28 billion in the budget year, $42.6 billion in 2025-26.

The story laid bare

The story is laid bare by the wonderful reconciliation table in Budget Statement 3.

This table sets out what changes to the budget numbers come from government policy decisions, and what arises from factors outside the government’s control (for example, the outcomes of wage cases, changes in numbers of participants in the NDIS, or natural disasters).

In 2023-24 the factors outside government control added to the budget bottom line by far more than government spending decisions reduced it. In the budget year, 2024-25, this no longer happens.

The net impact of factors beyond the government’s control is only $51 million, hardly more than a rounding error in the budget totals. Government policy decisions reduce the budget balance – that is, they amount to net spending– by $9.5 billion. It is a similar pattern in each of the forward years. That is why we have deficits in those years.

Nevertheless, they are only modest deficits, 1% or less of Australia’s economic output (GDP) in all years but 2025-26 (still only 1.5% of GDP).

If, as the government predicts, inflation drops below 3% in each of the budget and forward years, there is little in the fiscal policy settings to prompt the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates. The far more important drivers of inflation are overseas and domestic business conditions.

Inherently a modest deficit like this is sustainable. If all the forecasts pan out, the government is on track to gradually reduce debt over time. This is important for intergenerational equity, not burdening future generations with the national credit card bill.

In fact, there is potential for unexpected surpluses in future years if the iron ore price defies Treasury predictions and remain high. For years now, Treasury has been predicting iron ore prices will return to trend levels. Eventually they must be right. In any one year though, it’s hard to pick.

What drives this is not Australian domestic demand but China’s.

That is very hard to predict. It does appear China’s economy has been slowing in recent years, due to changes in domestic priorities.

This could drive down Chinese demand for Australian iron ore and thus prices. But again, it might not. Forecasting China is notoriously difficult. Still, mostly our surprises on this front have been positive – and that might happen again.

Stephen Bartos 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. Chalmers is bitten by the giveaway bug in a budget that contains good news for almost everyone – https://theconversation.com/chalmers-is-bitten-by-the-giveaway-bug-in-a-budget-that-contains-good-news-for-almost-everyone-229273

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Greste, Professor of Journalism and Communications, Macquarie University

Governments and their agencies wield awesome power. At times, it is quite literally the power over life and death. That is why in any functioning democracy, we have robust checks and balances designed to make sure power is exercised responsibly and with restraint.

So, what message does a sentence of more than five years in prison for someone who exposed credible allegations of war crimes by Australian soldiers send?

On Tuesday, ACT Supreme Court Justice David Mossop despatched the former military lawyer David McBride to prison for five years and eight months, for passing classified military documents to journalists. Those documents formed the basis of the ABC’s explosive “Afghan Files” investigation, revealing allegations that Australian soldiers were involved in the unlawful executions of unarmed civilians.

It is hard to think of any whistleblowing more important.

Read more:
David McBride is facing jailtime for helping reveal alleged war crimes. Will it end whistleblowing in Australia?

McBride’s case forced us to confront the way our own troops had been conducting the war in Afghanistan, as well as the government’s ongoing obsession with secrecy over the public interest.

McBride had been concerned about what he saw as systemic failures of the SAS commanders, and their inconsistency in dealing with the deaths of “non-combatants” in Afghanistan. In an affidavit, he said he saw the way frontline troops were being

improperly prosecuted […] to cover up [leadership] inaction, and the failure to hold reprehensible conduct to account.

He initially complained internally, but when nothing happened he decided to go public. In 2014 and 2015, McBride collected 235 military documents and gave them to the ABC. The documents included 207 classified as “secret” and others marked as cabinet papers.

It is hard to deny the truth of what McBride exposed. The Brereton Inquiry later found what a parliamentary briefing described as “credible information” of 23 incidents in which non-combatants were unlawfully killed “by or at the direction of Australian Special Forces”. The report said these “may constitute the war crime of murder”.

Brereton went on to recommended prosecutions of the soldiers who were allegedly responsible. Yet, the first person to face trial and be sent to prison in the whole debacle is not any of those who might have been responsible for alleged killings, but the man who exposed “misconduct” in the Australian Defence Force.

Much has been made of McBride’s reasons for going to the media, but this focus on motives is a form of misdirection. Whistleblowers take action for a host of reasons – some of them less honourable than others. But ultimately, what matters is the truth of what they expose, rather than why.

That is why we recognise media freedom as an essential part of a healthy democracy, including the right – indeed the responsibility – of journalists to protect confidential sources. Unless sources who see wrongdoing can confidently expose it without fear of being exposed and prosecuted, the system of accountability falls apart and gross abuses of power remain hidden.

It is also why the formal name for Australia’s whistleblower protection law is the “Public Interest Disclosure Act”.

This law is designed to do what it says on the tin: protect disclosures made in the public interest, including those made through the media. It recognises that sometimes, even when the law imposes certain obligations of secrecy on public servants, there may be an overriding interest in exposing wrongdoing for the sake of our democracy.

As a highly trained and experienced military lawyer, McBride knew it was technically illegal to give classified documents to the media. The law is very clear about that, and for good reason. Nobody should be able to publish government secrets without a very powerful justification.

But nor should the fact that a bureaucrat has put a “secret” stamp on a document be an excuse for covering up serious crimes and misdemeanours.

In McBride’s case, the judge accepted the first premise, but rejected the second.

This is why my organisation, the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom, is advocating for a Media Freedom Act. The act would oblige the courts to weigh up those competing public interests – the need for secrecy in certain circumstances against the sometimes more compelling need to publish and expose wrongdoing – rather than assume secrecy as a given.

It is hard to overstate the impact this case is likely to have on anybody with evidence of government misdeeds. Do they stay quiet and live with the guilt of being complicit, or do they speak up like McBride and others, and risk public humiliation, financial ruin and possibly even prison?

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has committed to reforming the whistleblower protection regime, and before the last election, promised to set up an independent Whistleblower Protection Authority. Those commitments are laudable, but they ring hollow while McBride sits in prison and another prominent whistleblower, Richard Boyle from the Australian Taxation Office, faces trial later this year.

It is hard to see the former military lawyer being locked in a cell, and say Australia is either safer, or better because of it.

Peter Greste is professor of journalism at Macquarie University, and the executive director of the advocacy group, the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom.

– ref. David McBride goes to prison – and Australian democracy takes a hit – https://theconversation.com/david-mcbride-goes-to-prison-and-australian-democracy-takes-a-hit-230007

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University

Ahead of today’s federal budget, health minister Mark Butler last week announced an investment of A$49.1 million to help women with endometriosis and complex gynaecological conditions such as chronic pelvic pain and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

From July 1 2025 two new items will be added to the Medicare Benefits Schedule providing extended consultation times and higher rebates for specialist gynaecological care.

The Medicare changes will subsidise $168.60 for a minimum of 45 minutes during a longer initial gynaecologist consultation, compared to the standard rate of $95.60. For follow-up consultations, Medicare will cover $84.35 for a minimum of 45 minutes, compared to the standard rate of $48.05.

Currently, there’s no specified time for these initial or subsequent consultations.

But while reductions to out-of-pocket medical expenses and extended specialist consultation times are welcome news, they’re only a first step in closing the gender pain gap.

Chronic pain affects more women

Globally, research has shown chronic pain (generally defined as pain that persists for more than three months) disproportionately affects women. Multiple biological and psychosocial processes likely contribute to this disparity, often called the gender pain gap.

For example, chronic pain is frequently associated with conditions influenced by hormones, among other factors, such as endometriosis and adenomyosis. Chronic pelvic pain in women, regardless of the cause, can be debilitating and negatively affect every facet of life from social activities, to work and finances, to mental health and relationships.

The gender pain gap is both rooted in and compounded by gender bias in medical research, treatment and social norms.

The science that informs medicine – including the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease – has traditionally focused on men, thereby failing to consider the crucial impact of sex (biological) and gender (social) factors.

When medical research adopts a “male as default” approach, this limits our understanding of pain conditions that predominantly affect women or how certain conditions affect men and women differently. It also means intersex, trans and gender-diverse people are commonly excluded from medical research and health care.

Minimisation or dismissal of pain along with the normalisation of menstrual pain as just “part of being a woman” contribute to significant delays and misdiagnosis of women’s gynaecological and other health issues. Feeling dismissed, along with perceptions of stigma, can make women less likely to seek help in the future.

Inadequate medical care

Unfortunately, even when women with endometriosis do seek care, many aren’t satisfied. This is understandable when medical advice includes being told to become pregnant to treat their endometriosis, despite no evidence pregnancy reduces symptoms. Pregnancy should be an autonomous choice, not a treatment option.

It’s unsurprising people look for information from other, often uncredentialed, sources. While online platforms including patient-led groups have provided women with new avenues of support, these forums should complement, rather than replace, information from a doctor.

Longer Medicare-subsidised appointments are an important acknowledgement of women and their individual health needs. At present, many women feel their consultations with a gynaecologist are rushed. These conversations, which often include coming to terms with a diagnosis and management plan, take time.

A path toward less pain

While extended consultation time and reduced out-of-pocket costs are a step in the right direction, they are only one part of a complex pain puzzle.

If women are not listened to, their symptoms not recognised, and effective treatment options not adequately discussed and provided, longer genealogical consultations may not help patients. So what else do we need to do?

1. Physician knowledge

Doctors’ knowledge of women’s pain requires development through both practitioner education and guidelines. This knowledge should also include dedicated efforts toward understanding the neuroscience of pain.

Diagnostic processes should be tailored to consider gender-specific symptoms and responses to pain.

2. Research and collaboration

Medical decisions should be based on the best and most inclusive evidence. Understanding the complexities of pain in women is essential for managing their pain. Collaboration between health-care experts from different disciplines can facilitate comprehensive and holistic pain research and management strategies.

3. Further care and service improvements

Women’s health requires multidisciplinary treatment and care which extends beyond their GP or specialist. For example, conditions like endometriosis often see people presenting to emergency departments in acute pain, so practitioners in these settings need to have the right knowledge and be able to provide support.

Meanwhile, pelvic ultrasounds, especially the kind that have the potential to visualise endometriosis, take longer to perform and require a specialist sonographer. Current rebates do not reflect the time and expertise needed for these imaging procedures.

4. Adjusting the parameters of ‘women’s pain’

Conditions like PCOS and endometriosis don’t just affect women – they also impact people who are gender-diverse. Improving how people in this group are treated is just as salient as addressing how we treat women.

Similarly, the gynaecological health-care needs of culturally and linguistically diverse and Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander women may be even less likely to be met than those of women in the general population.

Challenging gender norms

Research suggests one of the keys to reducing the gender pain gap is challenging deeply embedded gendered norms in clinical practice and research.

We are hearing women’s suffering. Let’s make sure we are also listening and responding in ways that close the gender pain gap.

Marilla Druitt is a gynaecologist / obstetrician who researches mind body treatments for pain and endometriosis with Deakin University. She is the current president of Pelvic Pain Victoria, is involved in the Victorian state government redesign of gynaecology outpatient clinics in the public system, and is on the Victorian Women’s Pain Inquiry. Marilla is also a RANZCOG councillor, helped write the national Endometriosis Guideline, and was involved in discussions leading to the new MBS item numbers for longer specialist appointments mentioned in this article.

Mike Armour receives funding from the Medical Research Futures Fund (MRFF), the Victorian Government, and philanthropic donors for research on endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain. He is on the clinical advisory committee for Endometriosis Australia and part of the expert working group that develops the RANZCOG endometriosis guidelines.

Hannah Adler and Michelle O’Shea 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. Longer appointments are just the start of tackling the gender pain gap. Here are 4 more things we can do – https://theconversation.com/longer-appointments-are-just-the-start-of-tackling-the-gender-pain-gap-here-are-4-more-things-we-can-do-229802

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Chalmers, Senior Lecturer in Human Movement, University of South Australia

The tragic death of Manly rugby league player Keith Titmuss in 2020 due to exertional heat stroke is a reminder of the life-threatening nature of the condition.

Titmuss died after a pre-season training session which was “more likely than not inappropriate”, according to the magistrate who oversaw a recent inquest.

Deputy NSW coroner Derek Lee made several recommendations in reviewing Titmuss’ death in the hope of reducing the chance of it happening again.

So, what is exertional heat stroke, and what should athletes and coaches know about it?

What is exertional heat stroke?

Exertional heat stroke is the most severe form of a spectrum of conditions classified as exertional heat illness.

During sport and exercise, the body is challenged to maintain an ideal core temperature of about 36-38°C.

This is because exercise produces a massive amount of internal heat, which needs to be released from the body to avoid overheating. Hot and humid conditions stress the ability of an person to release this internal heat, as well as potentially adding to the heat load.

If someone’s body is unable to control the rise in core temperature during physical activity, it may ultimately display central nervous system dysfunction. Signs of this include loss of muscle control in the arms and legs, combativeness, seizures, or loss of consciousness.

A highly elevated core temperature (typically, but not always, above 40°C) and multi-organ damage and failure are also characteristics of exertional heat stroke.

In one study, 27% of people suffering severe exertional heat illness died. But even those who survive often face long-term negative health consequences, such as an increased risk of cardiovascular disease later in life.

How often does exertional heat stroke occur?

Less severe forms of exertional heat illness (termed as heat exhaustion and heat injury) are more common during sport and exercise than exertional heat stroke. However, the life-threatening nature of the condition means precautions must be considered, especially for summer sports.

The condition strikes “weekend warriors” through to elite athletes and military personnel. A recent paper published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport reported there were 38 deaths in Australia from exertional heat stroke from sport and exercise between 2001 to 2018.

However, exertional heat illness cases are thought to be broadly underreported.

In an effort to reduce the risk of future cases of exertional heat stroke in rugby league, Coroner Lee made recommendations following the inquest into the death of Titmuss.

1) Mandatory 14-day heat acclimatisation training

The human body can adapt quickly (in one to two weeks) to repeated gradual exposure to hot and humid environments, which ultimately reduces the risk of heat illness.

Research shows that pre-season heat acclimatisation protocols reduce the risk of heat illness in team sport athletes.

2) Consider screening and classifying players for exertional heat stroke risk

The United States National Athletic Trainer’s Association recommends players be screened for heat illness when competing in hot and humid conditions.

This process seems intuitive, but we lack a standardised and validated questionnaire.

Other important risk factors include hydration status, prior history of heat illness and/or recent viral illness or infection, body composition (high body fat percentage), and age (older people).

3) Identify cooling strategies that are relevant and effective

Cooling interventions that serve both as a prevention (during play) and treatment (for a victim) should be considered in hot and humid conditions.

In terms of cooling interventions, the evidence suggests cold water immersion, cold water or ice ingestion, cooling garments (such as ice vests or ice towels), portable fans (with or without additional wetting of the skin), or additional breaks in play can help.

The type of sport will influence the decision about which cooling intervention/s are possible.

Other considerations include the level of resourcing (amount of finances and support staff), type of sport (the number of athletes who need an intervention will differ between team vs individual sports) and game demands (continuous exercise vs sports that have regular breaks).

Is there anything else that athletes and coaches can consider?

Many elite sport organisations in Australia and abroad are working with researchers to develop modernised heat policies that look to reduce the risk of heat illness for elite competition.

An example is the revamped Australian Open tennis heat policy.

At the community level, coaches and athletes can consult Sports Medicine Australia’s online tool. This provides an estimation of risk according to the type of sport and current geographical location.

Sporting and educational organisations should also consider better education for administrators, staff, and athletes to reduce the risk of exertional heat stroke in players.

Samuel Chalmers is a Senior Lecturer at the University of South Australia and receives funding from Rowing NSW, Swimming Australia, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Orlando Laitano is an Assistant Professor at the University of Florida and receives funding from the United States (US) National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the US Department of Defense (DoD). He is a consultant for the Gatorade Sports Science Institute and currently serves as an Associate Editor for the Journal of Applied Physiology.

– ref. An NRL player died at training due to exertional heat stroke. What is it and what should coaches and athletes know? – https://theconversation.com/an-nrl-player-died-at-training-due-to-exertional-heat-stroke-what-is-it-and-what-should-coaches-and-athletes-know-229382

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Broomhall, Director, Gender and Women’s History Research Centre, Australian Catholic University

Wartime has often presented opportunities for women to step into leadership roles denied them in peacetime. The Italian Wars, a series of military conflicts fought mainly in Italy between 1494 and 1559 by Europe’s dominant political powers, were no exception.

By the end of the wars, many parts of Italy had fallen under Hapsburg rule, joining an empire that stretched across much of the European continent and even to the Americas, shaping Europe’s power hierarchies for centuries to come.

Our new research has revealed the significant roles elite women played in prosecuting war and negotiating peace during this pivotal time in European history. We looked particularly at Isabella d’Este (1474–1539), marchioness of Mantua, and her sister-in-law, Lucrezia Borgia (1480–1519), duchess of neighbouring Ferrara.

Men deputised women to free themselves up to fight. They knew these women were well educated and would handle affairs competently. The women we examined made important administrative, diplomatic and financial contributions to retain power in small Italian states often perilously close to the front line.

Against all odds, both Mantua and Ferrara survived the wars, remaining in the control of the Gonzaga and Este families, respectively. This was in no small part because of the work of the prominent women within these ruling dynasties.

Lucrezia Borgia

Following her marriage in 1502 to Alfonso I d’Este, heir to the duchy of Ferrara, Lucrezia Borgia made important economic and political contributions to the war effort.

Ferrara was threatened first by its neighbour, the Republic of Venice, intent on expanding its land borders, and later by Pope Julius II, who wished to reclaim Ferrara as territory for the Papal States.

Lucrezia invested her dowry in land reclamation and food production. This was crucial to her husband’s capacity to pay for innovative new cannons, which proved lethal in a surprise attack in 1509, destroying the invading navy of the powerful Venetian republic.

In 1512, Alfonso was lured to Rome by the Pope to negotiate a peace settlement, only to find himself arrested and imprisoned. This left the duchess to oversee military preparations. With the Pope’s army occupying nearby towns, Lucrezia quickly organised the fortification of bastions on Ferrara’s borders.

She also outwitted the Pope’s spies by using an ingenious secret code. During Alfonso’s imprisonment, Lucrezia secretly updated him about the war. Unlike the usual system of encryption, Lucrezia’s worked by providing seemingly innocuous family news about their son, the state of her health and that of other family members. These were in fact strategic messages.

Alfonso finally escaped the Pope’s clutches with the help of Rome-based allies, and returned to Ferrara and the defence of the city-state he ruled.

Isabelle d’Este

Isabella d’Este, who became marchioness of Mantua when she married Francesco Gonzaga in 1490, was likewise a crucial actor.

She was 20 when Charles VIII of France invaded the Italian peninsula in 1494, and assumed increasingly weighty political responsibilities while her husband devoted himself to fighting.

Her authority was initially fragile. The citizens of Mantua were sceptical of the capacity of such a young woman. So Isabella commissioned works of art that associated her with virtues such as prudence, magnificence and fortitude.

This self-fashioning is on display in a medallion by Gian Cristoforo Romano. The obverse portrait evokes ancient Roman empresses and an illustrious dynastic pedigree. The reverse features Sagittarius flying above a winged female victory, an allusion to the marchioness’s fitness to exercise authority.

In 1512, the French military campaign to take territory in northern Italy collapsed. The victorious Spanish-led league – a coalition of powers including the papacy – convened a congress in Mantua to divide the spoils of war.

Pope Julius II – an ally of the Spanish Holy Roman Emperor, and determined to reclaim the duchy of Ferrara – demanded the imperial army oust Ferrara’s Este rulers as soon as the congress concluded.

As a woman, Isabella could not hold an official role at the congress. However, like Lucrezia Borgia, she worked diplomatically behind the scenes to save the Este regime of her brothers.

Isabella focused her diplomacy on the imperial general and Spanish viceroy of Naples, Ramón de Cardona. Personally guiding Cardona and his entourage around her prized collection of antiquities and paintings by leading contemporary artists, she convinced her foreign visitors to take her seriously as a woman of diplomatic consequence and eventually persuaded Cardona to delay the attack on Ferrara.

The reprieve Isabella achieved proved lasting. Julius II died in early 1513 and his successor, Pope Leo X, did not pursue the restoration of papal rule in Ferrara. The threat to Este rule had dissipated.

New visions of women and warfare

The Italian Wars provided women with opportunities to showcase their administrative competence and diplomatic talents, manipulate their own public image and associate themselves with attributes that would bolster their legitimacy in similar ways to male leaders.

Many placed emphasis on advancing themselves as women of influence, authority or power, showing (for better or worse) they, too, could be protagonists of war as well as peacemakers.

Looking through the lens of gender and at the activities of women permits a reconsideration of where and how early modern war was conducted. It shows the conflicts played out not just on the battlefield and during official diplomatic encounters, but also through cultural forms of politics and the dynastic service of female as well as male actors.

Susan Broomhall receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Carolyn James receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Influence, authority and power: how elite women played a crucial role in the Italian Wars of the 16th century – https://theconversation.com/influence-authority-and-power-how-elite-women-played-a-crucial-role-in-the-italian-wars-of-the-16th-century-223184

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olli Hellmann, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Waikato

The stories Aotearoa New Zealand tells itself about the history of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi have evolved considerably over time. For many decades, starting with the 1940 centennial, state-sponsored commemorations of the signing, the event was romanticised as a coming together of two peoples.

Increasingly, these collective memories were challenged – primarily by Māori activism, but also by the work of revisionist historians. As a result, today’s official narratives acknowledge the Treaty was broken repeatedly, often violently, during European colonisation. And they also recognise the Crown’s obligation to remedy past breaches.

Some conservative politicians have seen this shift in collective remembering as an opportunity for political point scoring. They denounce recent reinterpretations of the Treaty as sowing social division and weakening national unity.

For example, in his 2004 Orewa speech, then National leader Don Brash reviled the Treaty settlements process for creating “a racially divided state”. In 2017, National Prime Minister Bill English claimed many New Zealanders “cringe” at Māori protests on Waitangi Day.

Lately, ACT party leader David Seymour has attacked current interpretations of the Treaty as being “divisive”. His Treaty Principles Bill aims to rewrite those principles, against loud opposition from Māori.

But my new research, published recently in the journal Political Science, does not support claims the Treaty divides New Zealanders. In fact, the survey suggests quite the opposite: the Treaty provides a powerful symbol that promotes mutual understanding and reconciliation.

Our most important historical event

The survey involved a broadly representative sample of over 1,000 people. The key question asked respondents to spontaneously name the most important event in the history of Aotearoa New Zealand. This may seem simple, but it is an effective way to tap into readily accessible – and therefore meaningful – memories.

The Treaty of Waitangi was the most frequent response, among both Pākehā/European New Zealanders (38%) and Māori (59%).

Younger respondents were significantly more likely to recall the signing of the Treaty than older generations. This possibly reflects efforts since the late 1990s to educate citizens on the Treaty and the role of the Waitangi Tribunal in redressing historical injustices.

In fact, among those respondents born between 2000 and 2006, more than 70% identified the Treaty as the most important event in national history.

Remembering the past matters

The survey data make it possible to investigate how collective memories of the historical past shape what individuals think about politics and society in the present.

In particular, we can compare two groups of respondents: those who recalled the Treaty of Waitangi as most important, and those who attached the greatest importance to Eurocentric historical events (such as the arrival of Captain Cook and European settlers, World War I, and women’s suffrage).

Participants were also prompted to rate their “warmth” towards other social groups. In addition, the survey included a range of questions about national identity and redress of historical wrongs against Māori.

Analysis of the responses revealed four important findings.

1. There was no evidence Māori who rated the Treaty as the most important historical event felt markedly “cool” towards European New Zealanders. Rather, it was Pākehā respondents calling to mind Eurocentric historical events who exhibited little warmth for Māori.

2. There was no evidence that singling out the Treaty as the most important event undermined individuals’ sense of national belonging – among either Pākehā or Māori.

3. Pākehā respondents who named the Treaty as the most important event were likely to support a broader definition of what it means to be a New Zealander. Specifically, they understood national identity to be inclusive of Māori culture and values, rather than insisting on a narrow, monocultural understanding.

4. Pākehā who identified the Treaty as the most important historical event showed a significant tendency to support redress for historical injustices to Māori.

The symbolic power of the Treaty

When nations craft narratives about their historical origins – be it revolutions, wars or the making of constitutions – they tend to frame these stories positively.

Aotearoa New Zealand is different. The Treaty of Waitangi – often considered the nation’s founding document – includes in its more recent narratives an admission of guilt and an obligation to remedy past wrongs.

Some politicians have taken aim at these narratives. They claim dwelling too much on historical breaches of the Treaty – for example, through Waitangi Tribunal proceedings or Māori protest – strains the social fabric.

However, the recently published survey findings indicate such concerns are misplaced. Rather, narratives that foreground Treaty breaches help forge a bicultural sense of belonging and commitment to work through those breaches.

The survey also finds the Treaty holds especially strong symbolic power among young people. This suggests electoral strategies that seek to undo decades of revisionist storytelling about the Treaty will likely lead to diminishing returns in the future.

Olli Hellmann 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. Some say the Treaty of Waitangi divides NZ – a new survey suggests the opposite is true – https://theconversation.com/some-say-the-treaty-of-waitangi-divides-nz-a-new-survey-suggests-the-opposite-is-true-229469