Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diti bhattacharya, Senior research fellow, Griffith University

As preparations for Paris’ Olympic and Paralympic Games gather momentum, South East Queensland is preparing its legacy strategy in anticipation for the 2032 Brisbane games.

The Queensland government’s Olympic committee recently published its legacy strategy, Elevate 2042.

At the centre of this strategy is a goal to deliver a more active, healthier, connected and inclusive community through the power of sports and mega sporting events in Queensland.

While inclusivity and diversity are identified as a foundation in this legacy plan, there is little clarity on how the organising committees will work with state and local sporting clubs to support recently arrived and settled refugees in Queensland.

How sports can help refugees

Refugees form an integral and growing part of Australia’s multicultural population and beyond.

Local community sporting initiatives and individual city councils have outlined how vital sport has been to the betterment of refugees’ lives here in Australia.

Our research, due to be published later this year, examines how inequities such as gender, disability, sexuality and ethnicity affect sport participation among marginalised communities in Queensland. It also shows how we can work with these communities ahead of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Our research focuses on how Olympic legacy planning can better support those on the margins of sport, including refugee girls and women.

For the past 12 months, we have been travelling across south-east Queensland talking with community groups, sports clubs and recently settled refugees.

Initial findings from this project show localised community groups operating from Brisbane city, Logan city, Toowoomba and the Gold Coast among others have consistently used sport as a strong catalyst in aiding refugees with settlement and belonging processes.

Group sports such as hockey, soccer and rugby have been particularly successful among women and children from refugee backgrounds.

In this context, it is worth noting community sports have consistently kick-started the belonging and settlement process of recently arrived refugees across Australia.

The Olympics and refugees

The relationship between the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the Olympic and Paralympic Games, asylum seekers and refugees has been longstanding and complicated.

Some critics argue the IOC has been overly concerned about how political gestures of protest will overshadow stories of sports success and triumph, while questions have also been raised about why the IOC and the Olympics have not done more to raise awareness around human rights issues

However, an important factor missing from these conversations is how host cities can design effective legacy strategies to boost refugee settlement and belonging.

Legacy planning initiatives are a great opportunity for Brisbane to genuinely engage with local community sporting groups ahead of the 2032 Olympics.

So far, the legacy strategy – called a “living document” – has identified 15 focus areas as pathways that will deliver the three primary desired outcomes of the mega event.

These primary desired outcomes are:

1. higher levels of physical activities leading to healthier general population
2. increased sport participation with specific focus on culturally, linguistically marginalised communities
3. enhanced sporting achievement at the elite competition level.

However, within these wide segments, there is little detail around how engagement will take place at a grassroots level for these legacy promises to be realised.

How Brisbane can do better

Here are three ways the Brisbane legacy and organising committees can engage with sport clubs to help refugees find their footing in their local communities.

1. Targeted financial and infrastructural support to small, innovative sporting programs that facilitate physical activities and informal sports among recently settled refugees. One focus area of the Elevate 2042 strategy promises “creation of more great places and precincts” that will benefit the diverse and multicultural community of Queensland. Yet, there is no clarity around how this support local community-based clubs and initiatives to foster strong relationships with refugee communities.

2. Targeted focus on women and children from culturally and linguistically diverse refugee backgrounds. This can aid them in negotiating challenges that are unique within their own communities. The Elevate strategy lacks an explicit focus on issues facing women and girls through its 15 identified focus areas. Notably, non-binary and gender diverse people are completely omitted from the plan.

3. A culturally informed and sustainable consultation between local councils, sporting clubs, state level sporting bodies and settlement agencies to identify the unique ways in which legacies of mega sport events can benefit communities on the margins of the society.

Refugees need a voice in the strategy

Focus area 15 of the Elevate 2042 plan aims to deliver a dynamic and inspiring cultural program, representing the nation’s strong diversity and inclusivity, beyond 2042.

The Olympic Agenda 2020+5 recommends strengthening support for refugees and populations affected by displacement. However, Focus area 15 makes no mention of the refugee community.

The burgeoning refugee community certainly cannot be left out of these conversations, as their stories and voices are becoming ever more relevant and integral to Australia’s social fabric and sporting culture.

Adele Pavlidis receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Simone Fullagar receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Diti bhattacharya 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. Grassroots sport can help refugees find their feet in Australia – Brisbane’s Olympic planners need to lead the way too – https://theconversation.com/grassroots-sport-can-help-refugees-find-their-feet-in-australia-brisbanes-olympic-planners-need-to-lead-the-way-too-231273

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hayward, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy, RMIT University

The Victorian government this week gave the state’s local councils a gargantuan task: solve the housing crisis by accelerating new housing.

Each council now has a target for new housing to reach by 2051. By that time the state’s population will have grown by over 3 million to top 10 million. While the exact targets aren’t final – they’re out for consultation – the general idea of targets applied to council areas is unlikely to change.

That’s because they’re the local expression of the state’s grand plan to build millions of new homes. Released last September, the plan aims to “tackle the root of the problem: housing supply”. This plan gave us bold numbers without detail as to where the numbers came from.

Now we have indicative local targets, announced through a press release. But there’s again no detail – just maps of each council area and how many more homes the government wants. Councils have already raised concerns about the difficulties of meeting these targets, the strains on local infrastructure and services, and the impacts on the character of neighbourhoods.

What’s remarkable about these targets is that if all councils meet their targets, we would have 40% more houses than we would need to meet projected population growth.

Do we really need so many new homes?

To meet projected population growth, Victoria needs to build 57,000 dwellings a year on average for the next 27 years. But the government’s statement also called for an additional 23,000 dwellings a year on average to make up for a supply backlog from previous decades.

In total, the government wants more than 2.2 million extra dwellings built. As of 2021, Victoria had 2.8 million houses in total.

Why do we need so many more houses? According to the government’s plan: “It’s a simple proposition: build more homes, and they’ll be more affordable.”

Here’s the interesting part. According to the government, the housing shortage is to be fixed primarily through local government policy reforms.

The unstated assumption is councils and their planners are to blame for protecting detached house owners against medium-and-higher-density developments in their backyards.

The plan refers to a backlog of around 1,400 applications for multi-unit housing that have been waiting for a council decision over six months.

What’s the solution? Under the government’s plan, it is:

• fast-tracking medium-density developments that use agreed “deemed to comply” templates (if a proposed development meets a codified standard, it is also deemed to comply with the corresponding objective)
• planning permit exemptions for granny flats
• giving the housing minister the power to approve major well-located higher-density developments, including affordable housing, without council involvement.

This is not the first time a state government has tried to fix housing. Over the past three decades, Victoria and New South Wales have tried a number of similar initiatives. These have had no noticeable impact on housing affordability or long-term supply.

The impact of planning on housing supply is overstated. A far more pressing problem is interest rates and incentives to treat housing as an investment rather than a home. Negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts for landlords have only made things worse.

In reality, developers are sitting on a large pile of medium-density developments approved by councils but where construction has not begun. In the last quarter of 2023, builders were shelving more apartments and townhouses than they were starting to build.

The elephant in the room

Rising interest rates have pushed Melbourne house prices down 20% (adjusted for inflation), back to pre-COVID levels. There are also fewer new dwellings starting construction.

It’s very hard to see why private developers would crank up supply by 40% when faced with falling prices. If prices fall, there’s less incentive for developers to build more. And if many more houses are built than there is demand, prices will fall even more sharply.

While the rental market is exceptionally tight, this is largely due to student-driven migration, which surged in mid-2022, around the same time the Reserve Bank started to lift interest rates. In 2023, net overseas migration into Victora was 154,000 (29% of the nation’s total), of which half were students.

This problem is best resolved by federal government policies, such as the proposed cap on international students, rather than local government planning reform.

New movements such as YIMBY Melbourne pin the blame on councils, just as the state government is doing. In April, Premier Jacinta Allan suggested councils that fail to meet their targets could be stripped of their planning powers. Councils such as Booroondara have pushed back, claiming the housing crisis is the result of “poor planning policy by Commonwealth and state governments over many years.”

Over the 30 years to 2021, Melbourne’s 15 main inner and middle-ring municipalities increased housing by 55%, or 318,000 dwellings. Of these, 90% were of medium and higher densities, according to my analysis of census data. Detached housing in these areas has fallen from 66% to barely 50% over that period. If the government’s targets were met, detached houses would be under 33%.

The City of Melbourne itself has grown tremendously. From a permanent population of near zero in the 1980s, it now has more than 88,000 high-density dwellings and a population of more than 150,000. The northern part of the city now has a population density of 38,400 per square kilometre, double that of Hong Kong. Under the government’s plan, the CBD would more than double housing stock again, rising by 122%.

If councils are forced to approve more and more developments with no guarantee they will even be started, it is likely planning standards will drop.

The state government would be better served by choosing less ambitious targets and focusing less on councils and more on its own abilities.

After all, the largest housing crisis is in social and affordable housing.

This is a lever the state government can directly control. In 2020, it began its Big Housing Build, a one-off policy which has 9,200 social and affordable homes built or under construction. If this policy was made permanent, we could expand social and affordable housing through direct investment – and help the people hurting most from overly expensive housing.

David Hayward 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. Plucking numbers from the air: Victoria’s big build for housing relies on impossible targets – https://theconversation.com/plucking-numbers-from-the-air-victorias-big-build-for-housing-relies-on-impossible-targets-232712

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jordana Hunter, School Education Program Director, Grattan Institute

The Victorian Auditor-General has just released an audit of Victoria’s A$1.2 billion tutoring program designed to help struggling students post-COVID.

The report found the program “did not significantly improve students’ learning compared to similar non-tutored students” in 2023.

Late last year, a New South Wales Education Department report into a similar program in the state found it had “minimal” effect.

But this does not mean we should dismiss tutoring programs. As Grattan Institute research shows, they can be very effective if done well.

And Australians students need more help. About one in three students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 did not meet proficiency benchmarks in literacy and numeracy in the 2023 NAPLAN assessments.

When children struggle to keep up with classroom learning, it can spark a vicious cycle. Lack of understanding can lead to frustration and disengagement, which can make learning harder.

What is the Victorian program?

The program is called the “Tutor Learning Initiative” and is designed to provide a short-term learning boost for struggling students.

It was rolled out in 2021 in response to disruptions to schools during the pandemic and is due to run until 2025. More than 1,500 government schools and 600 low-fee non-government schools have been involved each year. In 2023, the initiative involved more than 170,000 students across primary and high schools.

Under the program, tutors – who are qualified teachers – are funded to work with groups of up to five students in tutoring sessions scheduled during the school day.

What did the Auditor-General find?

Beyond the impact on student learning, the Victorian Auditor-General considered four implementation measures in its report: was tutoring timely, targeted to the right students, appropriate to the school context and appropriate to student needs?

It found nearly all schools delivered timely tutoring in 2023, despite workforce shortages.

But fewer than one-third of schools achieved “fully effective practice” on the other measures. Primary schools generally had more effective tutoring than high schools.

The audit concluded the Victorian Education Department should do more to improve schools’ delivery of the initiative. It found the department has data on school-level implementation, but isn’t using it to drive system-wide improvement.

The Auditor-General recommended the state Education Department collects more detailed data on the tutoring models schools use and how much tutoring they offer.

This would help schools to better understand how effective their tutoring has been and help the department to better target extra help to struggling schools. The audit also calls for rigorous pilot studies to help the department and schools to better understand which practices work and in what contexts.

The department has accepted these recommendations in full or in-principle

We know this can work

The findings of this audit are not surprising. Catch-up tutoring can be challenging to deliver, particularly in high schools.

In a 2022 survey of nearly 400 secondary teachers and school leaders, run by the Australian Education Research Organisation, only about half said their school consistently provided catch-up support to students struggling with reading or maths. About one in two teachers were not confident in their school’s approach to helping students catch-up.

But we also know tutoring can be very effective. Studies suggest when implemented well, it can add four months to a student’s learning over a single year. A 2020 systematic review of 96 randomised controlled trials (the “gold standard” for evidence), found consistently large, positive results from catch-up tuition on maths and reading across grade levels.

Even when classroom teaching is highly effective, studies estimate about 20% of students may need additional intensive learning support to develop strong foundational literacy and numeracy skills. These students can benefit from small-group tutoring or one-on-one support.

But we need to get the delivery right. As our research shows, ideally tutoring sessions should be no more than an hour, and be held at least three times a week, over one or two school terms.

What should the government do now?

In a 2023 report, Grattan Institute set out a five-year plan for all Australian governments to embed high-quality small-group tuition in all schools. Along with the Victorian Auditor-General’s recommendations, this would help Victoria tackle underachievement in its schools.

Tutoring is most effective when it is embedded within a broader “Response-to-Intervention” model for teaching and learning.

Under this model, classroom teaching is based on best practice, evidence-informed approaches. Small-group tutoring supplements this. It provides short bursts of additional teaching to help struggling students catch up and stay on track.

The Victorian government should now closely review schools’ capacities to implement this model and identify the most effective ways to help struggling schools.

It should start with a deeper examination of a sample of 25-to-50 schools, examining their approaches to monitoring student learning, the extent to which their teaching is evidence-informed, and whether teachers have access to high-quality assessments, training and materials.

Small-group tutoring in schools is a practical way to help teachers and students. But it is not a magic wand. Students won’t get benefits unless the government gets the implementation right.

Jordana Hunter is the Director of the Education Program at the Grattan Institute. The 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.

Amy Haywood is the Deputy Program Director in the Education Program at the Grattan Institute. The 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.

Amy is a registered teacher and a member of the Tasmanian Premier’s Lifting Literacy Outcomes Monitoring Group.

– ref. Victoria’s $1.2 billion school tutoring program has not ‘significantly improved’ learning. How could it work better? – https://theconversation.com/victorias-1-2-billion-school-tutoring-program-has-not-significantly-improved-learning-how-could-it-work-better-232832

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

Among the many sayings attributed to Winston Churchill is, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

This sentiment seems appropriate as Israel potentially appears ready to embark on a war against the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz said this week a decision on an all-out war against Hezbollah was “coming soon” and that senior commanders of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had signed off on a plan for the operation.

This threat comes despite the fact Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza is far from over. Israel has still not achieved the two primary objectives Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put forth at the start of the conflict:

• the destruction of Hamas as a military and governing entity in Gaza
• the freeing of the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas (about 80 believed to still be alive, along with the remains of about 40 believed to be dead).

Why Hezbollah is attacking Israel now

Israel has cogent reasons for wanting to eliminate the threat from Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been launching Iranian-supplied missiles, rockets and drones across the border into northern Israel since the Gaza war began on October 8. Its stated purpose is to support Hamas by distracting the IDF from its Gaza operation.

Hezbollah’s attacks have been relatively circumscribed – confined so far to northern Israel. But they have led to the displacement of some 60,000 residents from the border area. These people are understandably fed up and demanding Netanyahu’s government takes action to force Hezbollah to withdraw from the border.

This anger has been augmented this week by Hezbollah publicising video footage of military and civilian sites in the northern Israeli city of Haifa, which had been taken by a low-flying surveillance drone.

The implication: Hezbollah was scoping the region for new targets. Haifa, a city of nearly 300,000, has not yet been subject to Hezbollah attacks.

The most far-right members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, have openly called for Israel to invade southern Lebanon. Even without this pressure, Netanyahu has ample reason to want to neutralise the Hezbollah threat because residents of northern Israel are strong supporters of his Likud party.

US and Iranian interests in a broader conflict

The United States is obviously concerned about the risk Israel will open a second front in its conflicts. As such, President Joe Biden has sent an envoy, Amos Hochstein, to Israel and Lebanon to try to reduce tensions on both sides.

In Lebanon, he can’t publicly deal directly with the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, because the group is on the US list of global terrorist organisations. Instead, he met the long-serving speaker of the Lebanese parliament, Nabih Berri, who as a fellow Shia is able to talk with Nasrallah.

But Hezbollah answers to Iran – its main backer in the region. And it’s doubtful if any Lebanese leader can persuade it to desist from action approved by Iran.

Iran’s interests in the potential for an Israel-Hezbollah war at this time are mixed. It would obviously be glad to see Israel under military pressure on two fronts. But Iranian leaders see Hezbollah as insurance against an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities.

Hezbollah has an estimated 150,000 missiles and rockets, including some that could reach deep into Israel. So far, Iran seems to want Hezbollah to hold back from a major escalation with Israel, which could deplete most of that arsenal.

That said, although Israel’s Iron Dome defensive shield has been remarkably successful in neutralising the rocket threat from Gaza, it might not be as effective against a large-scale barrage of more sophisticated missiles.

Israel needed help from the US, Britain, France and Jordan in countering a direct attack from Iran in April that involved some 150 missiles and 170 drones.

Lessons from previous Israeli interventions in Lebanon

The other factor – especially for wiser heads mindful of history – is the country’s previous interventions in Lebanon have been far from cost-free.

Israel’s problems with Lebanon started when the late King Hussein of Jordan forced the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), then led by Yasser Arafat, to relocate to Lebanon in 1970. He did that because the PLO had been using Jordan as a base for operations against Israel after the 1967 war, provoking Israeli retaliation.

From the early 1970s, the PLO formed a state within a state in Lebanon. It largely acted independently from the perennially weak Lebanese government, which was divided on sectarian grounds, and in 1975, collapsed into a prolonged civil war.

The PLO used southern Lebanon to launch attacks against Israel, leading Israel to launch a limited invasion of its northern neighbour in 1978, driving Palestinian militia groups north of the Litani River.

That invasion was only partially successful. Militants soon moved back towards the border and renewed their attacks on northern Israel. In 1982, then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin decided to remove the PLO entirely from Lebanon, launching a major invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut. This eventually forced the PLO leadership and the bulk of its fighters to relocate to Tunisia.

Despite this success, the two Israeli invasions had the unintended consequence of radicalising the until-then quiescent Shia population of southern Lebanon.

That enabled Iran, in its early post-revolutionary phase under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, to work with Shia clerics in Lebanon to establish Hezbollah (Party of God in Arabic), which became a greater threat to Israel than the PLO had ever been.

Bolstered by Iranian support, Hezbollah has become stronger over the years, becoming a force in Lebanese politics and regularly firing missiles into Israel.

In 2006, Hezbollah was able to block an IDF advance into southern Lebanon aimed at rescuing two Israeli soldiers Hezbollah had captured. The outcome was essentially a draw, and the two soldiers remained in captivity until their bodies were exchanged for Lebanese prisoners in 2008.

Many Arab observers at the time judged that by surviving an asymmetrical conflict, Hezbollah had emerged with a political and military victory.

For a while during and after that conflict, Nasrallah was one of the most popular regional leaders, despite the fact he was loathed by rulers of conservative Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia.

Will history repeat itself?

This is the background to discussions in Israel about launching a war against Hezbollah. And it demonstrates how the quote from Churchill is relevant.

Most military experts would caution against choosing to fight a war on two fronts. Former US President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq in 2003 when the war in Afghanistan had not concluded. The outcome was hugely costly for the US military and disastrous for both countries.

The 19th century American writer Mark Twain is reported to have said that history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Will Israel’s leaders listen to the echoes of the past?

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. Does Israel really want to open a two-front war by attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon? – https://theconversation.com/does-israel-really-want-to-open-a-two-front-war-by-attacking-hezbollah-in-lebanon-232900

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University

It is very difficult to take Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear announcement seriously. His proposal for seven nuclear power stations is, at present, legally impossible, technically improbable, economically irrational and environmentally irresponsible.

Given the repeated community objections to much more modest nuclear proposals, such as storage of low-level radioactive waste, there is almost certainly no social licence for nuclear power stations.

Dutton promises that, if elected, he would make nuclear power a reality within a a little over ten years. Given the enormous obstacles even to turn the first sod, this seems like a pipe dream.

Here’s why.

Legal status: seemingly impossible

Some 25 years ago, the Howard Coalition government legislated a ban on nuclear energy in its environment laws. Coalition governments have been in power federally for most of the time since, but have made no attempt to repeal the ban.

Even a sweeping victory in the forthcoming federal election would not give the Coalition the Senate majority necessary to change the ban in the next term of parliament. As is usually the case, only half the Senate will be elected, so simple arithmetic shows no prospect of a Coalition majority. The only possibility would be negotiating with the crossbench.

Of the seven nuclear power stations Dutton is proposing to build on the site of old coal stations, five would be in the eastern states: two in Queensland at Tarong and Callide, two in New South Wales at Mount Piper and Liddell, and one in Victoria at Loy Yang.

Each of these states have their own laws banning nuclear power. The eastern premiers have made clear they will not change their laws. Even Dutton’s Queensland Liberal National Party colleagues, who face a state election in October, do not support the plan.

So the proposal does not satisfy current laws and there is no realistic possibility of these changing in the timeframe Dutton would need to get the first reactors built (he says the first would be operating by the mid-2030s).

Dutton could try to bypass the states by building on Commonwealth land. But this would mean missing the supposed benefit of locating reactors next to existing transmission lines at old coal plant sites.

Cost: astronomical

Cost is a huge problem. Dutton has promised nuclear will deliver cheap power. But CSIRO’s latest GenCost study on the cost of different power generation technologies shows there is no economic case for nuclear power in Australia. Nuclear power would cost at least 50% more than power produced by renewables and firmed with storage.

This estimate is conservative – in reality nuclear would likely cost even more, as GenCost relies on the nuclear industry’s cost estimates. All recent projects have gone way over budget.

The three nuclear power stations being built in western Europe are all costing two to four times the original budget estimate.

It is true a renewables-dominated grid will require more storage, which means building more grid batteries and pumped hydro schemes. It is also true we’ll need to expand our existing 40,000 kilometres of transmission lines by 25% to get renewable electricity to consumers.

But even when we add these extra costs, and even when we accept industry figures, nuclear still cannot compete with solar farms or wind turbines. CSIRO costs nuclear at between A$8 and $17 billion for a large-scale reactor.

There are no private investors lining up to build nuclear. Overseas, nuclear has always been heavily bankrolled by the taxpayer. Dutton’s plan would either require a huge spend of public money or a major increase to power bills. In the United Kingdom, for example, the government has assured the developer of its Hinckley Point C reactor they will be able to recoup the cost by charging higher rates for the power.

While Dutton is promoting nuclear as a way to avoid building expensive and often unpopular new transmission lines, this is not true. Several proposed reactors would need their own lines built, as coal transmission capacity is rapidly being taken up by renewables, as South Australia’s energy minister Tom Koutsantonis has pointed out.

Time: we’re out of it

Building a nuclear reactor takes years or even decades. Dutton has promised Australia would have its first nuclear power station operational in a decade, assuming his party is elected and their scheme implemented without delay in 2025.

This claim is wholly without merit. In 2006, the Coalition government commissioned a study on whether nuclear power was viable in Australia, which found it would likely take 15 years to build a reactor here. The timeframe today would be similar, because we don’t have a workforce with experience of building large nuclear reactors. We also don’t have the regulatory framework needed to give the community confidence nuclear power stations could be built and operated safely.

Even in the United States, the UK and France – three countries with long experience with nuclear – no recent project has been completed within ten years.

It defies logic to suggest we could start with a blank sheet of paper and build complex systems faster than countries with long-established industries and regulatory regimes.

Nuclear backers often point to examples in China and the United Arab Emirates, which have both built reactors within about a decade. But these countries do not tolerate the community objections which would be inevitable. In Australia, consultation, legal challenges and protests often delay far less controversial projects.

Why does this matter? Dutton’s push for nuclear isn’t happening in a vacuum. This is the crucial decade for action on climate change. As Australian climate scientist Joëlle Gergis has written, we are now paying the cost of long inaction on climate change in damage from more severe bushfires, floods and drought.

Let’s say the Coalition is elected and sets about making this plan a reality. In practice, this would commit us to decades more of coal and gas, while we wait for nuclear to arrive. We would break our Paris Agreement undertaking to make deep cuts to emissions, and keep making climate change worse.

Read more:
Peter Dutton has promised to solve our energy problems – but his nuclear policy still leaves Australians in the dark

I was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014. My doctoral research was supported by the UK Atomic Energy Authority.

– ref. No costing, no clear timelines, no easy legal path: deep scepticism over Dutton’s nuclear plan is warranted – https://theconversation.com/no-costing-no-clear-timelines-no-easy-legal-path-deep-scepticism-over-duttons-nuclear-plan-is-warranted-232822

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Senior Lecturer of Urban Mobility, Public Safety & Disaster Risk, UNSW Sydney

Each year, millions of Muslims from across the world embark on the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The mass migration is unparalleled in scale, and pilgrims face numerous health hazards.

Mecca is considered the holiest city for Muslims. And Hajj is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, making it a mandatory religious duty for Muslims to perform at least once in their lifetime if they are physically and financially capable.

The 2024 Hajj pilgrimage has been overshadowed by disaster/tragedy, with the death of at least 900 pilgrims, mostly due to heat exhaustion and related complications.

This isn’t the first deadly disaster during Hajj

One of the most devastating incidents occurred in 2015 during the ritual of “Rami al-Jamarat” in Mina, near Mecca. This ritual involves pilgrims throwing stones at pillars symbolising the devil. On that day, overcrowding and the movement of large groups of pilgrims in opposite directions led to a deadly crowd crush. More than 2,400 pilgrims lost their lives, making it one of the deadliest disasters in the history of Hajj or any mass gathering.

Another mass casualty event occurred in 1990, in the Al-Ma’aisem pedestrian tunnel near Mecca, which led to the holy sites. A combination of ventilation failure and an enormous influx of pilgrims caused a suffocating crush inside the tunnel; 1,426 pilgrims died.

There have also been other incidents during the Hajj pilgrimage over the years. In 1994, a stampede near the Jamarat Bridge resulted in the deaths of around 270 pilgrims. The 1998 Hajj saw 118 pilgrims killed in another stampede.

Over the past half-century, more than 9,000 people have died in mass religious gatherings, with more than 5,000 of these occurring during the Hajj in Saudi Arabia. India follows with at least 2,200 deaths across nearly 40 tragic events. These two countries are hotspots for such tragedies.

Why is the Hajj pilgrimage so risky?

With millions of pilgrims converging in a confined area, the potential for overcrowding and crowd-crush accidents is high. This situation is worsened by the high emotion and passion associated with the pilgrimage. Pilgrims perform rituals with intense devotion and enthusiasm, which can sometimes lead to overexertion.

Another factor is the age of the pilgrims. Many are elderly, having saved for years to afford this spiritual journey. Their advanced age makes them particularly vulnerable to the harsh conditions and physical demands of the pilgrimage. The intense heat, prolonged periods of walking, and sheer physical strain of performing the rituals can exacerbate existing health issues and lead to new complications.

The extreme congestion of people also amplifies health risks, particularly from infectious diseases. Communicable diseases such as SARS, avian influenza and meningococcal disease have posed significant threats during Hajj in the past.

High temperatures make mass gatherings riskier

A study documenting deaths and injuries at mass gatherings up to 2019 shows that, while the 1980s saw most fatalities at sporting events, such events are now rare, while fatalities during religious pilgrimages, particularly in India and Saudi Arabia, are becoming more common.

While most Hajj fatalities have been due to crowd crushes and stampedes, a new threat has emerged: extreme climate. Saudi Arabia’s climate can be brutal. During this year’s pilgrimage, temperatures soared to 50°C.

Saudi Arabia is warming at a rate 50% higher than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. The decade from 2010 to 2019 was the warmest on record, with more frequent and severe heatwaves. This rising temperature, combined with higher humidity, makes conditions increasingly unbearable without artificial cooling.

The timing of the Hajj pilgrimage, dictated by the lunar Islamic calendar, means it shifts approximately 10 to 11 days earlier each year in the Gregorian calendar. This means Hajj can occur in different seasons over a 33-year cycle. Currently, Hajj is being held during the summer months, leading to extreme heat risks.

Saudi Arabia has also experienced an increase in extreme rainfall events in recent years, particularly towards the end of summer and into the fall. These torrential downpours and thunderstorms have caused significant flooding in regions such as Mecca and Jeddah.

As climate patterns continue to evolve, the occurrence of such rainfall could align with the Hajj season, creating additional hazards for pilgrims.

What can be done to mitigate the risks?

Unlike concerts or sporting events, the Hajj pilgrimage cannot be rescheduled or relocated. Being outdoors is an integral part of Hajj.

It’s crucial for pilgrims to perform the Hajj rituals correctly for their pilgrimage to be accepted. According to Islamic teachings, the Hajj must be conducted with precise adherence to its rituals and timings. Any deviation or omission can render the pilgrimage invalid.

The Saudi Ministry of Health has implemented various measures, including encouraging vaccinations, health checks and educational campaigns urging pilgrims to stay hydrated, use umbrellas and avoid prolonged sun exposure.

The ministry deployed thousands of paramedics and set up field hospitals to manage the crisis. Cooling measures such as misting systems and portable water stations were used.

Yet the extreme heat proved overwhelming, indicating more needs to be done.
Educational campaigns can do more to raise awareness among (especially non-local) pilgrims and health-care workers about heat risks and preventive measures.

The introduction of new technologies such as smart bracelets for monitoring pilgrims’ health could further enhance medical responses.

Milad Haghani receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. Amid scorching heat, 900 people died this week in Saudi Arabia. Climate change has made the Hajj pilgrimage more risky – https://theconversation.com/amid-scorching-heat-900-people-died-this-week-in-saudi-arabia-climate-change-has-made-the-hajj-pilgrimage-more-risky-232836

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Clift, Lecturer in Law, The University of Melbourne

Robert Irwin, son of Steve “Crocodile Hunter” Irwin, recently threatened to sue a video production company if they didn’t take down an episode in One Nation’s “Please Explain” animated video series. It depicted him – together with canine sidekick Bluey – spruiking the virtues of Queensland as they crumble around him.

But several days after the deadline imposed by Irwin’s legal team, the video remains live and there’s no sign of legal proceedings. One Nation is harvesting political capital from the spat.

This storm in a teacup reveals the weaknesses and inconsistencies of Australian law on certain personal rights.

An uphill defamation battle

Irwin’s letter hints at a few legal avenues, primarily defamation. This is a powerful course of action, but not an easy case to make.

Irwin would need to prove the video lowers him in the estimation of the ordinary reasonable viewer, or exposes him to substantial ridicule, or would cause him to be shunned or avoided.

As the video depicts Irwin as a largely well-meaning character experiencing a series of unfortunate events, it’s hard to see how this would be made out.

Irwin was unlikely keen to litigate and more likely acting on advice that a stern threat of expensive defamation proceedings would see the video removed posthaste. But the weakness of his case meant that One Nation could confidently – and gleefully – refuse the request.

Litigation can bring vindication and court-ordered remedies, but even when successful it can result in unwelcome publicity – the so-called Streisand effect. This is something Irwin will now realise all too well, with this story being widely reported and the original video garnering more than 300,000 views, around double those of its counterparts.

The “Please Explain” videos are at least partly trolling, and the troll has been fed.

Ineffective legal weapons

If you were thinking that a lot of public figures are complaining about defamation lately, you’d be onto something.

Defamation is a very popular weapon for those who can afford it (or who think they can). Setting aside its tactical use as a coercive measure, sometimes it fits the facts of the case and sometimes it does not.

The more difficult cases reveal some stark gaps in Australian law’s protection of personal interests, driving aggrieved parties towards defamation where little else is available.

For instance, Australians enjoy no general right to privacy. That was why former rugby league player Andrew Ettingshausen sued for defamation after a magazine published a blurry photo of his naked form in the shower. To fit defamation law, the publication had to be tortuously framed as suggesting that “ET” was the kind of person who would agree to such a publication.

More recently, Alex Greenwich’s defamation suit against Mark Latham was gymnastically constructed to frame a tirade of vulgar abuse as suggesting that Greenwich was unfit to serve as a member of New South Wales parliament. An imputation that a person is professionally incompetent is defamatory, whereas mere abuse is not.

Reportedly, Irwin’s legal letter complained that the video attempted to “pass off” One Nation as being affiliated with Irwin. “Passing off” is a legal cause of action that protects a trader’s goodwill and business reputation.

However, passing off requires deceptive conduct. It would be hard to argue that such transparent satire purports to be authorised by Irwin.

The letter also complained of unauthorised use of Irwin’s image. In the United States – the home of Hollywood – the “publicity right” gives a person exclusive commercial use of their name or likeness.

But that isn’t the case in Australia, and even the US has an exception for parody and satire – see the TV series South Park for evidence of that.

Satire and parody exceptions exist in some Australian laws – for example, in defence of some copyright infringements – but if the satirist creates their own image of a person, as cartoonists do, there isn’t a copyright infringement to start with.

As an aside, these gaps around privacy, obscenity and image rights also leave Australians legally unprotected from deepfakes, unless other, usually criminal laws are engaged, such as those against direct victimisation or child exploitation material.

Is it defamatory, or just objectionable?

Political satire is an important form of expression, protected in most liberal jurisdictions. It is strongly guarded by the US First Amendment and it will often deserve the protection of the Australian Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication.

But free speech is not a trump card. It exists within boundaries and the law of defamation represents one of many areas in which speech can attract legal sanction, notwithstanding underlying commitments to expressive freedom.

As of now, satire is not a defence under Australian defamation law – but the publication needs to be defamatory in the first place. Plenty of material to which people might object simply does not meet that test.

Brendan Clift 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. Robert Irwin wanted to sue One Nation for using his likeness. We don’t really have laws for that – https://theconversation.com/robert-irwin-wanted-to-sue-one-nation-for-using-his-likeness-we-dont-really-have-laws-for-that-232902

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

After beating a first-term South Australian Liberal government in 2022, Labor premier Peter Malinauskas has gone on to be a reform advocate on issues including social media and politcal donations.

His government is looking at a ban on children under 14 accessing social media accounts, with parental consent required for those 14 and 15.

Malinauskas is also proposing changes that would ban most political donations in South Australian politics.

On AUKUS, he is urging a greater national effort to prepare the Australian workforce for the demands for labour the agreement will bring, dirtectly and indirectly.

Peter Malinauskas joined the podcast to talk about these issues.

On political donation reform, he says politicians are spending far too much time raising money:

We want to get money out of politics. We believe that’s important for a number of reasons, but the least well-understood is the fact that fundraising is increasingly taking up the time of politicians, and we don’t want politicians to become professional fundraisers.

We want them to be developing thoughtful public policy and engaging with their constituents.

On a social media ban for young teens, Malinauskas says it’s worth doing even if some kids find a workaround:

Are there people under age who drink? Yes. Are there people underage who smoke? Yes. Are there people who speed every day on our roads? Yes.

But that doesn’t stop us from having limits on the provision of alcohol or cigarettes, that doesn’t stop us from having speed limits. Always there are going to be examples of people who circumvent the law or find a way around it, or choose to just not follow it. But the majority of people do and are better off for it.

So, if we didn’t put in place standards only on the basis of the fact that […] there might be one person out there that doesn’t follow them, then we’d never do any of it.

With South Australia heavily involved in the AUKUS submarine program, Malinauskas is a strong defender of the agreement:

The strategic value of nuclear submarines, the moment the AUKUS submarines enter the water, it completely recalibrate’s Australia’s negotiating position strategically in our region at a really important time.

The second element it goes to is cost. Well, of course, it’s expensive but it’s expensive because it is the most advanced capability of any defence platform that exists. I mean, it immeasurably recasts the way that any would-be adversary thinks about the defence of Australia, and that’s worth it.

On Peter Dutton’s nuclear power announcement this week which would place a small modular reactor near Port Augusta, Malinauskas says:

I believe that nuclear power is important in the global energy mix to achieve decarbonisation. I don’t think we achieve net zero by 2050 globally unless nuclear power is playing a role around the world. It’s safe and it produces zero carbon emissions.

So the question is how much more expensive is nuclear power going to make energy bills in Australia? And all the economists who actually know something about this, all of the scientists tell us it’ll make it more expensive unless there is a rapid change in the technology which there is no evidence of yet.

Now, the small modular reactors, I challenge anybody to demonstrate an example of where a small modular reactor exists that is providing civil nuclear power to a population of 1.7 million and is doing it cheaper than renewables.

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: Peter Malinauskas on political donations, kids on social media, and the nuclear option – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-peter-malinauskas-on-political-donations-kids-on-social-media-and-the-nuclear-option-232823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Galloway, Professor of Law and Social Justice, Australian Catholic University

Commonwealth Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has announced that the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) would review the Native Title Act to “rectify any inefficacy, inequality or unfairness”.

The purpose of the Native Title Act is to ensure traditional owners fully enjoy their native title rights. In the interests of equality, native title holders’ rights should receive the same protection as those of freehold land owners. Although native title determinations tend to make the news, the Native Title Act also regulates third party activity on native title land. Any future activities that would affect native title are referred to as “future acts”. Future acts may include, for example, grants of land, mining, agriculture, construction, and so on.

The inquiry will focus on the future acts provisions, and Australia’s obligations under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

So why is it needed?

Future acts on native title land

Future act processes happen routinely. They are a part of doing business in areas subject to native title or a native title determination. The Native Title Act gives procedural rights to traditional owners depending on the type of activity proposed and the extent of native title rights affected.

Procedural rights include: being informed of a future act, the right to be consulted and to comment on the proposal, and in some cases, a right to negotiate with the third parties involved.

The process establishes the terms on which the (future) act might be carried out. This may include, for example, requirements to obtain cultural heritage advice, or compensation paid to the traditional owner group. The act also allows for objections by any member of the native title group.

If an entity wishes to validly carry out activities that affect native title, they must enter into an indigenous land use agreement (ILUA) with the traditional owner group concerned, and register the agreement.

Although the future acts regime provides a structured interface between native title holders and other intending land users, there are some well-recognised problems with the system.

Limits of the future acts regime

The future acts regime does at least inform native title holders when their land rights are going to be interfered with (by a future act). It can also give native title holders an opportunity to negotiate the terms of use of native title land.

However, native title law generally prioritises other rights. Consequently, in practice, power remains largely with non-Indigenous parties at the expense of traditional owners.

For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not have the right to refuse other activities on their land – even when they hold exclusive use rights. They often feel pressured to consent to future acts because if they do not, the other party will seek an arbitrated outcome that generally favours that party. In other words, the system works against traditional owners freely giving their consent.

In practice, ILUAs are confidential and often subject to non-disclosure provisions. These provisions prevent traditional owners from commenting publicly on matters affecting their land. The case study of Juukan Gorge illustrates the potential for disastrous outcomes where people are not able to speak up about activities on their land.

Further, over the years, commentators have observed that the courts have interpreted the future acts provisions to the detriment of traditional owners. The protection provided by the provisions has therefore been diminished, and a review is warranted.

Human rights considerations

The inquiry’s terms of reference require the ALRC to take account of the 2021 report by the former Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, “A Way Forward”. The report recommends review of the Native Title Act, including the future acts regime, protection of the right to free prior and informed consent, and prohibition of non-disclosure clauses in ILUAs. These recommendations have apparently informed the framing of the current ALRC review although its scope is broader than that of the report.

The failure of the 2023 Voice referendum leaves Australia without an entrenched mechanism for expression of First Peoples’ determination of their own affairs. However, we do have an existing native title framework and the future acts regime potentially provides First Peoples in Australia with one of the few opportunities for self-determination recognised by Australian law. This new review provides the chance to update the future acts framework to give expression to Australia’s obligations under UNDRIP by including a right to self determination and the associated right to free prior and informed consent on matters affecting land.

A commitment to the opportunity for traditional owners to engage fully in decisions affecting their land and to benefit fully from their land, would see a substantive overhaul of the existing legislation. The well-understood UNDRIP principles are a helpful place to start in re-balancing the dynamic of land negotiations.

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

– ref. The Albanese government has ordered an inquiry into native title – why is it needed? – https://theconversation.com/the-albanese-government-has-ordered-an-inquiry-into-native-title-why-is-it-needed-232696

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tash Pocovi, Postdoctoral research fellow, Department of Health Sciences, Macquarie University

Do you suffer from low back pain that recurs regularly? If you do, you’re not alone. Roughly 70% of people who recover from an episode of low back pain will experience a new episode in the following year.

The recurrent nature of low back pain is a major contributor to the enormous burden low back pain places on individuals and the health-care system.

In our new study, published today in The Lancet, we found that a program combining walking and education can effectively reduce the recurrence of low back pain.

The WalkBack trial

We randomly assigned 701 adults who had recently recovered from an episode of low back pain to receive an individualised walking program and education (intervention), or to a no treatment group (control).

Participants in the intervention group were guided by physiotherapists across six sessions, over a six-month period. In the first, third and fifth sessions, the physiotherapist helped each participant to develop a personalised and progressive walking program that was realistic and tailored to their specific needs and preferences.

The remaining sessions were short check-ins (typically less than 15 minutes) to monitor progress and troubleshoot any potential barriers to engagement with the walking program. Due to the COVID pandemic, most participants received the entire intervention via telehealth, using video consultations and phone calls.

The program was designed to be manageable, with a target of five walks per week of roughly 30 minutes daily by the end of the six-month program. Participants were also encouraged to continue walking independently after the program.

Importantly, the walking program was combined with education provided by the physiotherapists during the six sessions. This education aimed to give people a better understanding of pain, reduce fear associated with exercise and movement, and give people the confidence to self-manage any minor recurrences if they occurred.

People in the control group received no preventative treatment or education. This reflects what typically occurs after people recover from an episode of low back pain and are discharged from care.

What the results showed

We monitored the participants monthly from the time they were enrolled in the study, for up to three years, to collect information about any new recurrences of low back pain they may have experienced. We also asked participants to report on any costs related to their back pain, including time off work and the use of health-care services.

The intervention reduced the risk of a recurrence of low back pain that limited daily activity by 28%, while the recurrence of low back pain leading participants to seek care from a health professional decreased by 43%.

Participants who received the intervention had a longer average period before they had a recurrence, with a median of 208 days pain-free, compared to 112 days in the control group.

Overall, we also found this intervention to be cost-effective. The biggest savings came from less work absenteeism and less health service use (such as physiotherapy and massage) among the intervention group.

This trial, like all studies, had some limitations to consider. Although we tried to recruit a wide sample, we found that most participants were female, aged between 43 and 66, and were generally well educated. This may limit the extent to which we can generalise our findings.

Also, in this trial, we used physiotherapists who were up-skilled in health coaching. So we don’t know whether the intervention would achieve the same impact if it were to be delivered by other clinicians.

Walking has multiple benefits

We’ve all heard the saying that “prevention is better than a cure” – and it’s true. But this approach has been largely neglected when it comes to low back pain. Almost all previous studies have focused on treating episodes of pain, not preventing future back pain.

A limited number of small studies have shown that exercise and education can help prevent low back pain. However, most of these studies focused on exercises that are not accessible to everyone due to factors such as high cost, complexity, and the need for supervision from health-care or fitness professionals.

On the other hand, walking is a free, accessible way to exercise, including for people in rural and remote areas with limited access to health care.

Walking also delivers many other health benefits, including better heart health, improved mood and sleep quality, and reduced risk of several chronic diseases.

While walking is not everyone’s favourite form of exercise, the intervention was well-received by most people in our study. Participants reported that the additional general health benefits contributed to their ongoing motivation to continue the walking program independently.

Why is walking helpful for low back pain?

We don’t know exactly why walking is effective for preventing back pain, but possible reasons could include the combination of gentle movements, loading and strengthening of the spinal structures and muscles. It also could be related to relaxation and stress relief, and the release of “feel-good” endorphins, which block pain signals between your body and brain – essentially turning down the dial on pain.

It’s possible that other accessible and low-cost forms of exercise, such as swimming, may also be effective in preventing back pain, but surprisingly, no studies have investigated this.

Preventing low back pain is not easy. But these findings give us hope that we are getting closer to a solution, one step at a time.

Tash Pocovi received scholarships during her PhD candidature from both the NHMRC Low Back Pain Centre of Research Excellence (ANZBACK) and Macquarie University.

Christine Lin receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is a member of the Australian Physiotherapy Association and serves on the editorial board of Journal of Physiotherapy.

Mark Hancock receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Simon French has received grant funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Petra Graham 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. Walking can prevent low back pain, a new study shows – https://theconversation.com/walking-can-prevent-low-back-pain-a-new-study-shows-231682

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Myra Williamson, Senior Lecturer in Law, Auckland University of Technology

Housing security for New Zealand’s 1.7 million renters could be threatened if the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill becomes law.

Among some potentially positive changes in the amendment – such as the introduction of a pet bond – are rule changes that could cause real harm to renters. In particular, the proposed return of “no-cause” evictions is troubling.

Landlords will be able to give a 90-day termination notice to end any periodic tenancy, at any time, without giving a reason. Currently, landlords can evict someone for being more than three weeks late with rent, when the owner wants to live in the house themselves, or wants an employee to live on the property, amongst other grounds.

Landlords must provide the reason for the termination, and any notice can be disputed in the Tenancy Tribunal.

For renters, the proposed amendment could cause real problems. Submissions on the bill are open until July 3, so this is a good time to consider what this law will achieve and who it could potentially hurt.

Who loses with no-cause evictions?

Housing Minister Chris Bishop claimed last year that no-cause evictions were a “…progressive, pro-tenant move” requested by people who worked on the front line with the homeless (though subsequent reporting failed to find evidence supporting the claim).

It is hard to square how no-cause evictions could be pro-tenant. Renters will not know why they are being evicted, and they won’t be able to dispute it. They will just have to pack up and leave.

Additionally, tenants will incur all the costs involved in moving, plus the time needed to view rentals and apply for new properties. If the tenant has children, there may be a change of schools and related uniform costs.

Tenants will bear the full mental, physical and financial toll of being forced to move against their will.

The rule changes also mean renters will be reluctant to complain about problems with the property. A recent survey of tenants by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development found 15% felt they had a bad relationship with their landlord.

These bad relationships were mainly caused by the dwelling not complying with health and fire regulations, issues with condensation, wet or cold homes, and a failure to repair or maintain the property.

How will these issues be addressed if tenants know complaining could result in their eviction? Tenants in Australia have reported eviction notices sometimes arrive after they’ve made complaints.

No-cause evictions have also become an election issue in the United Kingdom. Both the Conservative Party and Labour Party have pledged to abolish them if elected in July.

An unnecessary change

Reinstating no-cause evictions is problematic for three reasons.

Firstly, it lacks supporting evidence. According to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s regulatory impact statement accompanying the proposed ammendment:

our analysis is constrained by limited evidence regarding the specific impacts the 2020 RTA changes had on the rental market and […] HUD does not have, and is not able to readily create, a market analysis model that would enable us to produce quantified estimates of the potential impact of regulatory changes on the operation of the market and intended outcomes.

In other words, there is no evidence bringing back no-cause terminations will help tenants, according to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

Secondly, this is bad law because it will deny tenants one of the oldest legal rights – the right to natural justice. The idea of listening to the other side has been entrenched in British (and subsequently New Zealand) law since the Magna Carta was issued in 1215. That is, everyone has the right to a fair hearing.

To have your right to live in a rented home taken away without knowing the reason or having the chance to explain your side of the story goes against this fundamental legal principle.

Thirdly, no-cause evictions will hurt those who are most vulnerable in New Zealand society – those who cannot buy their own home and Māori. As outlined in the disclosure statement from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development accompanying the proposed amendment:

Evidence suggests that the termination related proposals will negatively impact on actual and perceived security of tenure for many tenants compared to the status quo. These negative impacts are likely to disproportionately affect Māori, as Māori are more likely to live in rented accommodation, have a lower overall median income, and are more likely to experience discrimination than the general population

Any law that harms the most vulnerable should give lawmakers pause for reconsideration.

Bringing back no-cause evictions would give all the power to landlords and property managers – a profession that is still unregulated, who need no qualifications or training, and who are not accountable to any professional body. Property managers and landlords will hold all the power to determine whether a renter has somewhere to live.

And importantly, all the other grounds for evicting renters (being behind in rent, illegal or antisocial behaviour, for example) are still going to be available to landlords. The no-cause eviction would be in addition to those. So what exactly does the no-cause eviction amendment achieve?

Myra Williamson is a member of Renters United.

– ref. No-cause evictions have the potential to hurt renters – with little gain for good landlords – https://theconversation.com/no-cause-evictions-have-the-potential-to-hurt-renters-with-little-gain-for-good-landlords-232810

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Senior Lecturer of Urban Mobility, Public Safety & Disaster Risk, UNSW Sydney

We’re seeing more big cars on our roads, especially large wagon-style vehicles with a four- or all-wheel drive, known as sport utility vehicles or SUVs. For every passenger car sold in Australia, almost three SUVs are sold.

Vehicles such as pickup trucks, large utes, minivans and SUVs tend to offer more protection to their occupants than smaller cars. This is largely due to their larger mass and the way their structures are designed to absorb impact. For the drivers and passengers, this can mean a lower risk of injury in multi-vehicle collisions.

But those same attributes increase the risks to occupants of smaller vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. The height of the large vehicle’s front end can intrude into the passenger compartment of a smaller vehicle and its greater mass can lead to more forceful impacts.

The invincibility perception

Surveys show drivers believe larger vehicles are safer. This has a major influence on deciding which car to buy (among other factors such as prestige and off-road capabilities).

The perception of safety could potentially lower a driver’s sense of risk aversion, leading to riskier driving behaviours, such as adopting less cautious hand positions on the steering wheel. SUV drivers more frequently drive with one hand (as opposed to a “10-2 o’clock” hand position), suggesting they feel safer than other car drivers.

Impact on collisions

A study from the Netherlands found a significant increase in fatality risk with heavier vehicles.

This has also been seen in the United States, where a study found a 500 kilogram increase in vehicle weight, which could mean the difference between an SUV and a sedan, correlated with a 70% higher fatality risk.

The 2003 bumper height-matching standard aimed to reduce the severity of crashes between SUVs/pickup trucks and cars. By aligning the bumper heights of these vehicles, their bumpers would engage properly during a collision, improving the crash force distribution and better protecting occupants.

But it has had mixed results. It modestly decreased death risks in side-collisions but was less effective in head-on crashes. This suggests further safety improvements are needed to address vehicle-to-vehicle collision impacts effectively.

The likelihood of SUVs causing fatalities to drivers in other cars reduced from being 132% more likely for a collision with an SUV in the early 90s, to 28% more likely by 2016. Likely reasons for the decrease include implementation of the bumper height-matching standard, as well as improvements in vehicle design: the implementation of crumple zones, better side-impact protection and advanced safety features such as electronic stability control.

However, we haven’t seen similar improvements with pickup trucks, suggesting weight is a possible cause of the increased risk of fatalities.

What about pedestrians and cyclists?

Pedestrians are more likely to suffer fatal injuries in a collision with a large vehicle than a passenger car.

The design of these vehicles, particularly their higher front-ends, significantly elevates the risk. A mere 10 centimetre increase in front-end height can elevate the risk of pedestrian death by 22%, with impacts more likely occurring at critical injury points like the chest or head.

Studies have shown a correlation between the surge in larger vehicle sales, such as SUVs, and an increase in pedestrian fatalities in the United States between 2000 and 2019. Children are eight times more likely to die when struck by an SUV compared to lighter and smaller cars.

Researchers estimate that substituting larger vehicles with smaller cars in 2019 could have prevented around 460 US pedestrian fatalities that year alone.

Computer simulations have examined the impact of car accidents on the human brain of pedestrians, comparing the effects of being struck by an SUV versus a sedan. SUVs exert twice as much force on the brain as sedans when moving at equivalent speeds, significantly increasing the risk of severe injuries, even before direct head contact occurs.

Computer simulations have also shown that high-front vehicles cause pedestrians to hit the ground at higher speeds.

Cyclist injuries from SUV-related crashes have also been found to be notably more severe than those from car-related crashes, with a particular increase in the severity of head injuries for collisions involving SUVs.

This difference in injury severity is attributed to the design of SUVs, which are more likely to cause cyclists to hit the ground or to inflict injury.

Impact on driveway collisions

Large vehicles increase the risk of driveway accidents, particularly involving children aged under five, as their design often limits rear visibility.

An eight-year study from Utah identified 495 vehicle-pedestrian injuries, with 128 occurring in driveways. These accidents disproportionately involved larger vehicles such as SUVs, trucks and vans, due to their extensive blind spots.

The “Spot the Tot” public awareness campaign and similar initiatives aim to combat these incidents by promoting safety practices such as visual checks behind the vehicle before moving.

The emergence and adoption of technologies such as backup cameras and parking sensors has markedly improved visibility, reducing blind zones by around 90%.

Despite these advances, the need for heightened driver awareness and precaution remains critical.

Stopping the vehicle arms race

With more and more drivers opting for larger vehicles under the guise of personal safety, they may inadvertently compromise the safety of pedestrians and other road users. For every fatal accident avoided by someone inside a large vehicle, there are at least 4.3 additional fatal accidents involving others.

Changing the trend towards bigger cars requires strong policy and (dis)incentives.
There’s currently a discussion about imposing heavier taxes and/or registration fees on SUVs and larger cars, particularly for their safety implications on others.

In some places, such as Paris, heavier vehicles are discouraged by tripling parking rates for cars over a certain weight.

But given the popularity of large vehicles, such policy change won’t be easy.

Milad Haghani receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

– ref. Big cars might make you feel safer. But here’s how vehicle size impacts others in a crash – https://theconversation.com/big-cars-might-make-you-feel-safer-but-heres-how-vehicle-size-impacts-others-in-a-crash-223343

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chrissy Severinsen, Associate Professor in Public Health, Massey University

Health services struggle to provide affordable and nondiscriminatory healthcare to Māori, Pacific, disabled, and rainbow whānau, according to the latest NZ Health Survey.

Nearly a quarter of Māori reported unmet primary care needs over the past year, signalling deep cracks in the system.

It is important we understand these gaps in healthcare access and why healthcare remains out of reach for so many. Our earlier research suggests this is about more than cost and poor logistics.

To investigate the complex reasons behind unmet healthcare needs in Aotearoa New Zealand, we have launched a new research initiative, using the online platform Wāhi Kōrero to provide users with an anonymous space to share their experiences with the health system. Early results suggest systemic biases that prevent equitable access and stop some people from even seeking healthcare.

Examining barriers to healthcare

The project invites people to share their stories in response to the prompt “I felt too whakamā to go to the doctor”.

Whakamā refers to a feeling of embarrassment or shame that can deter people from seeking necessary healthcare. The research explicitly seeks to uncover these health service experiences as a way to improve health outcomes and reduce persistent health inequities.

The experiences of those who do not seek care tend to be absent from conventional health and consumer experience surveys. Rather than focusing on times when care was insufficient, our research invites people to anonymously share their stories of when care was not even sought.

This is a new approach to existing understandings of unmet need. Unlike healthcare service reviews, our research deliberately seeks the voices of people who forgo care.

The telling of unmet need

The stories already submitted to Wāhi Kōrero expose the complexity of unmet needs and the multiple barriers preventing equitable access to healthcare.

One participant shared:

In my family, we’ve been taught to believe that you basically had to be dying before you’d even think about going to the doctors. There’s a GP shortage, they’re stressed and underfunded.

Another recounted a traumatic experience disclosing family violence and being dismissed by their GP:

She made it sound so easy. People are constantly told to talk about these things and reach out for help. But it can make it worse if professionals don’t actively help.

A trans participant described their experience of misgendering:

When I called to make an appointment with the GP I tried to give them some info so they didn’t misgender me. I told the lady on the phone my preferred name. She said that wasn’t possible, I had to go by my ‘real’ name. So I didn’t show up for the appointment.

The stories also shed light on the challenges people with invisible illnesses and neurodivergence face. One participant shared their struggle to receive an accurate diagnosis:

I’ve only just now received an ADHD diagnosis after years of being told I had major depression, including a three-day hospitalisation at a psychiatric ward.

Empowering voices and driving change

In addition to contributing their own stories, participants and readers can access and learn from the experiences shared by others on the Wāhi Kōrero platform. This collective storytelling fosters a sense of community, reduces feelings of isolation and promotes understanding of the diverse challenges people seeking healthcare face.

By reading these stories, people can see that they are not alone in their struggles. It can be empowering to know others have faced similar challenges and that there is a growing movement to address these systemic issues.

Our research is more than data collecting. It is an opportunity to build understanding that makes health systems more responsive to people’s realities. Behind the statistics are untold stories of people who feel whakamā and don’t access medical help, worsening symptoms and preventable emergency department visits.

Our research aims to generate insights that will guide policy and practice, ultimately improving health outcomes and reducing persistent inequities.

We are seeking more participants to share their stories, in response to the prompt “I felt too whakamā to go to the doctor”. For more information, please visit our Wāhi Kōrero site.

Chrissy Severinsen, Angelique Reweti and Mary Breheny received a Health Research Council Explorer Grant for this research.

Angelique Reweti and Mary Breheny 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. ‘I felt too whakamā to go to the doctor’ – how feelings of shame stop people seeking healthcare – https://theconversation.com/i-felt-too-whakama-to-go-to-the-doctor-how-feelings-of-shame-stop-people-seeking-healthcare-231683

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Future Urban Mobility, Swinburne University of Technology

Just last year, data suggested plug-in hybrid cars were on the way out in Australia. But they’re back. New data shows plug-in hybrids and conventional hybrids combined have overtaken battery electric vehicle sales in the first quarter of 2024. The trend continued during April and May.

In the first quarter last year, hybrids accounted for 6.8% of all car sales. In the same period this year, their share has almost doubled to 13%. Similar trends have been reported in international markets.

This is concerning. Although hybrids are cleaner than traditional petrol and diesel cars, they still burn fossil fuels and produce more emissions than their manufacturers claim. They’re no match for zero-emissions battery electric vehicles.

So why do consumers want hybrids? Let’s find out.

What makes a hybrid?

Two types of hybrid vehicles are proving to be popular with consumers.

1. Conventional hybrids: these combine an internal combustion engine with an electric motor and battery. They use regenerative braking to convert energy created from braking into electrical power to recharge the battery. You cannot plug them in – the only way to get energy into the car is by filling them up with petrol or diesel. The advantage is they drive further on a tank of petrol or diesel than a traditional car.

2. Plug-in hybrids: these vehicles also combine an internal combustion engine with a larger electric engine and a battery. The difference is you can charge their batteries directly using a power outlet. Plug-ins also use regenerative braking to recharge the battery. They can drive on battery power alone but the fuel engine kicks in when the battery level drops or if more power is required.

Both types of hybrid are cleaner than traditional internal combustion counterparts. But they are not as clean as battery electric. They have been found to run more often on their petrol or diesel engines than their electric motors and produce substantial emissions.

By contrast, battery electric vehicles run only on an electric motor and batteries. They produce zero emissions while driving, and can – if charged off your solar array or green power – be extremely low emissions to charge. You never need to fill up at a petrol station. You can often charge them at home, or at public chargers.

Why are hybrids so popular right now?

It’s not by chance. Hybrids are being heavily promoted by carmakers as a transitional step to cut emissions from transport. Notably, Toyota, the world’s largest carmaker, is sceptical of battery electric vehicles and is instead focusing on hybrids until, it says, public chargers are widespread and electric cars are cheaper.

Plug-in hybrids are particularly popular in Europe. In 2022, they made up two-thirds of sales in Greece and more than half in Belgium, Spain, Italy, and Finland. The average across the European Union was 44%.

Hybrids have also become popular for a number of other reasons.

For one, they are cheaper than battery electric. They’re also cheaper to run than internal combustion vehicles.

But there are other factors at work. Hybrids reassure drivers worried about the range of electric cars. Drivers see the internal combustion engine as a backup. They also have stronger torque and acceleration than traditional cars.

This, for many drivers, is enough to offset their disadvantages, which include a higher purchase price than traditional cars. For plug-in hybrids, there’s another consideration – the large battery often means there’s less boot space, often resulting in no spare tyre. And then there’s the emissions.

Hybrids are not much cleaner

Hybrids – especially plug-ins – have been found to produce more emissions and cost more to run than their manufacturers claim.

Recent real-world tests on a sample of 123,740 plug-ins in Europe showed their carbon dioxide emissions were, on average, 3.5 times higher than the laboratory values reported by manufacturers. Why? Because in practice, plug-ins weren’t being charged and driven in electric mode as frequently as expected.

In the lab, average emissions for plug-ins was about 40 grams per kilometre. When experts tested new plug-in hybrids, they found average real-world emissions were vastly higher – 139 grams per kilometre. That means they’re only 23% lower than petrol and diesel cars, which emit an average of 180 grams per km.

These test results also show large differences in average fuel consumption. The yearly cost of fuelling plug-ins was nearly double what manufacturers claimed, costing European plug-in drivers on average A$960 more a year on fuel.

In reality, this means plug-in hybrids are not being driven as electric cars – they’re largely driven as fossil-fuel burning vehicles.

What does this mean for Australian drivers?

Hybrids came under the spotlight in 2022, when the Greens and independent senator David Pocock jointly opposed the federal government’s Electric Car Discount Bill – because it included plug-in hybrids in the list of vehicles exempt from fringe benefits tax.

They argued plug-ins are effectively a fossil fuel technology which should not be subsidised. Labor eventually agreed to end the subsidies for plug-in hybrids from April next year.

Labor also committed $14 million to fund a local real-world fuel testing program for 200 models.

The testing began in the second half of 2023. Initial tests of five hybrid models have revealed similar trends to Europe, though not as extreme. Fuel consumption of these models is up to 12% higher than laboratory tests.

The road ahead

Are hybrids a waste of time and resources? Not necessarily. Many drivers are sceptical of battery electric vehicles, find them too expensive, or are worried about being caught away from a charger. For these drivers, hybrids may make sense.

But we cannot spend too long on these transition vehicles. Electrifying our vehicle fleet alongside boosts to public transport, cycling and working from home can help rapidly cut emissions from transport – a sector whose emissions are steadily growing.

By 2030, the International Energy Agency forecasts the cost of most electric cars will be comparable to their petrol counterparts due to falling prices. Top Chinese brands such as BYD are already approaching this.

As we approach price parity and charging infrastructure becomes more common, it’s likely more and more drivers will feel comfortable leaving fossil fuels behind for good.

Read more:
A battery price war is kicking off that could soon make electric cars cheaper. Here’s how

Hussein Dia receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.

– ref. Hybrid cars are having a moment – even though they’re dirtier than we think. What’s behind their popularity? – https://theconversation.com/hybrid-cars-are-having-a-moment-even-though-theyre-dirtier-than-we-think-whats-behind-their-popularity-231160

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laurie Berg, Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

The widespread underpayment of migrant workers in Australia is now well-documented. The vast majority never recover the wages they are owed.

In 2009, the federal “small claims” court process was established in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The idea was to give workers a simple and accessible forum to claim unpaid wages and entitlements from their employers – without needing a lawyer.

But our new research has found that in reality, this process is virtually impossible to use without legal support.

The Fair Work Act aims to ensure a “guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable” minimum legal rights and entitlements. But without widespread government enforcement or an accessible wage claims process, this is a pipe dream for many migrants and other vulnerable workers in Australia.

Reforms are urgently needed to make the small claims process work better for everyone.

It’s just too hard to fight underpayment

Based on figures from a Grattan Institute study published last year, we estimate that between 490,000 and 1.26 million workers in Australia were paid less than the minimum wage in 2018.

Importantly, this figure does not include the many additional workers paid above the basic minimum wage but less than their full entitlements, who would also have substantial claims for unpaid wages.

There is no official data on the action taken by those workers. But our separate 2016 survey revealed that among more than 2,200 migrant workers who knew they were underpaid, nine out of ten took no action.

For these people, the perceived risks and costs of taking action substantially outweighed the slim prospect of success.

Recent data confirms the very low number of workers using these processes. Only 137 people across Australia brought claims through the federal “small claims” process in 2022-23.

Through its compliance activities, the Fair Work Ombudsman recovered just over $150,000 for people who identified themselves as migrant workers in 2022-23 – a tiny slice of the $509 million recovered for underpaid workers in total that year.

Why is it so hard to use the small claims process?

Let’s use a fictional example to illustrate. An international student from Colombia works nights cleaning a local convenience store, and is paid a flat rate of $16 per hour (the national minimum wage is now $24.10 per hour).

After many months, she finds a better paying job and realises she’s been underpaid. She asks her employer to pay all of the money he owes – she thinks it could be more than $15,000. He laughs at the request. So she considers trying to get her wages back through the small claims process.

First, she must lodge an application in court, which includes identifying the formal business name of her employer (she only knows the shop name and never received a contract or payslips).

Then, she must precisely quantify her outstanding entitlements. This means accurately identifying her job classification and applicable wage rates under a modern award or enterprise agreement (she has never heard of these).

After this, she must produce complex spreadsheet calculations for every hour worked, factoring in overtime and the different pay rates for evenings, weekends and public holidays.

If she manages to correctly file an application, she must then formally serve documents on her employer, attend court and participate in an online hearing, complying with its various technical requirements.

The challenges do not stop there. An employer may disappear or refuse to pay even after a worker wins in court. The worker’s only option in that situation is to initiate enforcement proceedings – virtually impossible without legal assistance.

And if an employer can’t pay up, temporary visa holders are left without any safety net because they are ineligible for the Fair Entitlements Guarantee.

The free legal assistance programs currently on offer are highly limited by under-funding. And if workers use private lawyers to recover their wages, much of what they recover goes to paying their legal costs.

What needs to change?

If dishonest employers know migrants and other vulnerable workers are too afraid to report exploitation, they will continue to systemically underpay them.

Our report – All Work, No Pay –sets out a roadmap for the changes that are urgently needed.

First, the government should expand free and affordable legal services that are essential for migrant workers to bring claims. This should include:

• a new free wages and superannuation calculation service
• shifting costs so a worker who brings a successful claim can recover their legal expenses from the employer
• increasing funding for community-based legal services and a new duty lawyer service to assist self-represented litigants on their day in court.

Second, court processes should be simplified and made more flexible. This could include:

• creating a new jurisdiction to resolve wage claims within the Fair Work Commission, a more user-friendly forum that would dispense with the necessary formality of a court
• increasing the accessibility of the current small claims process – such as by making application forms and rules of service simpler and offering stronger case management support.

Third, all workers should be guaranteed payment when they obtain a court order against their employer. This would mean:

• creating a new government guarantee scheme to pay workers their wage judgement if their employer disappears or refuses to pay
• extending the Fair Entitlements Guarantee to all workers in Australia, regardless of immigration status.

A historic opportunity for change

A government review of the small claims process is currently underway.

In July, the government will pilot new visa protections that will enable migrant workers to safely pursue wage claims without jeopardising their visa.

The government must further seize this historic opportunity and use its review to ensure that those migrant workers who are now willing to break their silence have an accessible process through which to enforce their rights and hold abusive employers to account.

Laurie Berg is co-executive director of the Migrant Justice Institute.

Bassina Farbenblum is co-executive director of the Migrant Justice Institute.

– ref. Recovering lost wages is nearly impossible for Australia’s underpaid migrant workers. Here’s how to fix the problem – https://theconversation.com/recovering-lost-wages-is-nearly-impossible-for-australias-underpaid-migrant-workers-heres-how-to-fix-the-problem-232263

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

This year’s Sydney Film Festival’s rich offerings of films more than compensated for the minor technical issues that led to some screenings being interrupted.

Out of the 40-odd films I saw, here are my top five, along with some notable mentions and three disappointments (including a genuine dud).

1. The Girl with the Needle

Cowritten and directed by Swedish filmmaker Magnus von Horn, The Girl with the Needle is loosely based on the story of notorious early-20th century serial killer Dagmar Overbye.

But this is no procedural true crime film, painstakingly attempting to recreate crimes with historical accuracy. It’s a stylish Danish nightmare dazzling with cinematic acrobatics right from the opening sequence, in which black and white faces hideously morph, looking at the viewer like deranged figures from a hellish circus. It is, indeed, one of the most terrifying films I’ve seen.

The narrative follows the struggles of new mother Karoline (Vic Carmen Sonne) as she gives her baby to Dagmar’s informal adoption agency and begins working with her as a wet nurse, unaware of what’s really going on.

Sonne is as self-assured as ever – and none of the actors put a foot wrong here. Seasoned Danish film star Trine Dyrholm is exceptional in bringing nuance to what could have become a caricaturishly evil role as Dagmar. And Besir Zeciri endows Peter, a war-wounded veteran who can only find employment in a circus freakshow, with an unexpected warmth and tenderness.

The Girl with the Needle features some of the most distressing sequences one could find in a commercial film. Its meticulously rendered shades of German expressionism never distract from its smorgasbord of horrors, offering an almost unbearably bleak vision of the world in the aftermath of the Great War. If only all films were this good!

2. Dying

I’d normally suppress a yawn if you told me I had to sit through a three-hour social realist drama about the everyday difficulties of a bourgeois German conductor and his family. Yet writer-director Matthias Glasner’s Dying is a near perfect film (no surprise it won four prizes at the German Film Awards).

The film is complex and engrossing – deeply sad in places and hysterical in others – formally controlled, but underpinned by an anarchic sensibility. It is life-affirming without any skerrick of sentimentality.

Lars Eidinger is astonishingly good as maestro Tom, who is trying to keep his career on track as his family life crumbles around him. He is matched by Lilith Stangenberg, mesmerising as his unhinged sister Ellen. Robert Gwisdek is equally exceptional as the highly strung composer and friend Bernard, while Corinna Harfouch anchors the film’s first section as Tom’s far from maternal mother, Lissy.

At one point, Ingmar Bergman’s 1982 period film Fanny and Alexander is playing on the TV (Tom watches it every Christmas). Even though Dying feels like a contemporary film committed to interrogating the difficulties of being in the modern world, there’s something of late Bergman here as it unfolds across its epic length.

It is a three-hour film about middle-class life, but like a great 19th-century novel, it never feels long. The fact that nothing particularly extraordinary happens is testament to how well-made the film is.

3. Kill

Director Nikhil Nagesh Bhat’s Indian action film Kill is cheesy, sentimental and at first seems remarkably silly.

Commando Amrit, played by beefy TV star Lakshya, is travelling to New Delhi by train with his buddy, fellow commando Viresh (Abhishek Chauhan). His true love Tulika (Tanya Maniktala) is also on board and has recently become engaged to another man through an arrangement by her wealthy father, Baldev Singh Thakur (Harsh Chhaya), who happens to own the train company. When a group of 30-plus bandits led by the charming but ice-cold Fani (Raghav Juyal) move to rob the train, Amrit must defend Tulika, her family and the rest of the passengers.

When the title card appears 40 minutes into the film, suddenly emblazoned on the screen, it seems like a distracting quirk at first. But it begins to make sense as the train rolls on. All of the violence and bone-crushing action of the first section is mere preamble, leading to a point of transition from an extremely violent but fun action film, to a much darker – and bloodier – revenge film.

Kill is an exceptionally well-wrought genre film. The kinetic and balletic action recalls the golden era of Hong Kong action cinema, but with hammers, daggers and sickles instead of guns and the frenetic staging of hand-to-hand combat instead of poetic slow-motion footage. It is also a great example of a film being more than the sum of its parts. No element is perfect, yet they come together to transcend these limitations, its flow reaching sublime levels by the end.

There’s also an undercurrent of sadness throughout. We see an India of haves and have-nots, of families of bandits struggling to survive and of the supreme violence sustaining the social and political order. As Fani says to Amrit near the end: “Who kills like this? I killed four of your people. You finished off 40 of my family. You’re not a protector. You’re a monster. A fucking monster.” The title says it all.

4. Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story

Biographical films about celebrities inevitably feel gossipy. Ian Bonhôte and Peter Ettedgui’s Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story is no exception. But it is so well made (and well-resourced, one would imagine, as it’s produced by DC) that it moves beyond its tabloid-like qualities.

Interviews with Reeve’s friends and colleagues, including Susan Sarandon, Glenn Close and Jeff Daniels, are interspersed with home footage shot by Reeve and his family throughout his career and during his recovery from the near-fatal riding accident that left him paralysed and breathing through a respirator for the rest of his life.

Reeve’s close friendship with “brother” Robin Williams assumes central importance, with the film implying the two men were so emotionally dependent on each other that Williams would probably still be alive if Reeve hadn’t died in 2004.

But the most interesting parts of the film involve carefully assembled archival footage looking at how Reeve’s decision to play Superman negatively impacted his career and personal life. He never starred in another profitable film, and his father and colleagues such as William Hurt loathed his decision to play a comic book character.

This is counterpointed with his post-accident career as a director and disability advocate. Interviews with Reeve’s children add a genuinely tragic sense of pathos to this slick, well-made and emotionally exhausting “true Hollywood” story. It’s everything one could want from such a documentary.

5. Kneecap

Cowriter-director Rich Peppiatt’s Kneecap is a riotous, irreverent biopic following the career of Belfast drug-dealers Móglaí Bap and Mo Chara as they team up with high school music teacher DJ Próvai to become the first Irish-language rap group, Kneecap.

The real Kneecappers cowrote the film and play themselves and, given none of them are actors, do so remarkably well. They’re joined by Irish heavyweights Josie Walker, playing the detective who has it in for them, and Michael Fassbender, playing Móglaí’s father, an old-school Irish radical who has been on the run for the past few decades.

The film depicts their hedonistic drug use and anarchic disregard for the law in the context of their radical political motivation to speak Irish against the colonial English. And while it may be a bit cartoonish in its presentation of Belfast’s history and the struggle to keep Gaelic alive, it is a music biopic after all.

Kneecap is violent, coarse and laced with infectiously good humour – a genuinely fun film, buoyed by its charismatic stars and lively style. Only the most stringent moralist wouldn’t enjoy this one!

Notable mentions

It’s extremely difficult to pick a top five when 15 or so of the films I saw were standouts. And this is testament to the quality of the festival’s selection.

It was a pleasure watching heavyweight Sean Penn go head-to-head with Dakota Johnson in writer-director Christy Hall’s Daddio, even if the story takes an uninteresting turn in the final third. Despite the banality of the premise – a New York cabbie chats with a passenger – and the inanity of some of the dialogue, this romantic ode to urban life in all its alienated, fluoro-lit techno glory is so well crafted that we happily go along for the ride.

Equally affective is the melancholic and beautifully performed Puan, a restrained comedy set in a University faculty in Buenos Aires. Puan could easily make my top five, as could André Téchiné’s My New Friends), an offbeat French melodrama starring Isabelle Huppert as a disillusioned police officer who becomes friends with an anti-cop activist in the suburbs.

Poor performers

Of the lot, I only found three films disappointing.

The first, Among the Wolves, is a Belgian-French documentary in which a photographer and illustrator lie waiting in a tiny, makeshift building to encounter wild wolves. While some of the footage is striking, the film is let down by its scientific inaccuracy, such as references to the “alpha male” wolf – a term and concept that has long been discredited. Such innacuracy is a cardinal sin for a documentary, which is supposed to inform the viewer.

Though critically acclaimed, Hollywood horror film The Substance – a story of an ageing entertainer who turns to a mysterious substance to stay young (with unsurprisingly horrific ramifications) – feels neither new nor particularly interesting. And while it’s great to see Demi Moore and Dennis Quaid back on the big screen, their caricaturish characters make the whole thing seem like a boring joke: an inflated short film that is both irritatingly silly and painfully didactic.

But rarely does a film so resolutely reaffirm a sense of the absurd hubris of humans as Francis Ford Coppola’s self-financed mega-flop, Megalopolis. This cartoonish, incoherent mess set in a dystopian version of the United States, “New Rome”, is howlingly bad in places.

Imagine the worst parts of The Hunger Games and Fellini Satyricon (1969) crossed with Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and you begin to get a sense of the kind of self-indulgent, heavy-handed nonsense that is Megalopolis.

Side-splittingly funny moments come courtesy of bad dialogue (“Utopias become dystopias,” actor Giancarlo Esposito says at one point with a straight face). And stilted acting by Adam Driver and Aubrey Plaza had the (remaining) audience in stitches. Megalopolis is like one of the great fiascos from days gone by – the 21st century’s Heaven’s Gate – and there is definitely something delightful about the existence of this US$120 million (roughly A$180 million) flop.

But as a dud, Megalopolis is the outlier. And in a year following Barbie, Oppenheimer, Napoleon and Poor Things (talk about heavy-handed cinema), much of the menu of this year’s Sydney Film Festival once again proves there are still good filmmakers out there making good films.

Ari Mattes 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 watched some 40 films at this year’s Sydney Film Festival. Here are my top five picks – and one hilarious flop – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/232706

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

In 1971 on a family holiday, my father drove us to look at a huge concrete slab at Jervis Bay, on the South Coast of New South Wales. Still visible today, it was the foundation for what would have been Australia’s first nuclear power plant. The project had just been cancelled by then-prime minister Billy McMahon who had recently replaced John Gorton. A Treasury analysis showed coal-fired power was much cheaper.

That long-ago episode is still relevant to Australia’s policy choices. Today, Opposition leader Peter Dutton revealed seven sites across Australia where the Coalition, if elected, would build nuclear power stations. Unsurprisingly, the plan has already run into opposition from state politicians, both Labor and the LNP.

The announcement answers a few basic questions about the Coalition’s nuclear plans. For example, Dutton said the plants would be Commonwealth-owned, and built at the site of decommissioned coal plants. But central issues remain unaddressed. Exactly what kind of reactors will be built? Who will build them? And how much they will cost?

As the Jervis Bay experience shows, nuclear energy can be a hard sell in Australia. Times have obviously changed since the 1970s, but significant political and economic barriers remain – and the problem of cost is still unsolved.

What the Coalition has revealed

The seven sites for nuclear power plants mooted by the Coalition are:

• Tarong and Callide in Queensland
• Liddell and Mount Piper in NSW
• Port Augusta in South Australia
• Loy Yang in Victoria
• Muja in Western Australia.

At a press conference in Sydney, Dutton said:

We know the government has [a] renewables only policy which is not fit for purpose. No other country in the world can keep the lights on 24/7 with the renewables only policy.

We want to utilise existing assets that we have got […] new poles and wires that are used at the moment on the coal-fired power station sites can be utilised to distribute the energy generated from the latest generation nuclear reactors.

Under the Coalition plan, the federal government would own and pay for the plants. In this respect, Dutton is following the precedent set by the Snowy Scheme – and more recently, by the National Broadband Network.

This is a welcome acknowledgement of the reality that, whatever technology we adopt, private investment is likely insufficient to manage the transition away from coal and gas in the electricity sector – let alone the massive electrification in other sectors needed to meet Australia’s 2050 emissions targets.

Dutton says he remains committed to the 2050 target for now, despite flagging the Coalition will abandon Australia’s 2030 emissions goal.

The Coalition says it will develop two “establishment projects” using either small modular reactors or larger plants. It claims the small reactors will start producing electricity by 2035, and the larger plants by 2037.

These timeframes are at odds with analysis by the CSIRO, which recently found reactors could not be operational in Australia until 2040 at the earliest.

The same report found construction of a large-scale nuclear power facility would cost at least A$8.6 billion, and possibly up to $17 billion. It said the electricity produced would be about 50% more costly than renewable energy.

On Wednesday, Dutton refused to provide a price tag for the Coalition policy. But he claimed it would be a “fraction” of Labor’s renewable energy policy.

Lessons from Jervis Bay

Dutton this week ruled out Jervis Bay as a nuclear reactor location, should the Coalition win the next federal election. But the 1970s experience still holds valuable lessons.

The Jervis Bay territory was ruled directly by the federal government – circumventing any potential state opposition. The Coalition faces a different battle with regards to its proposed sites.

Queensland LNP Leader David Crisafulli on Wednesday said he did not support Dutton’s plan for a nuclear power station in Central Queensland, and has previously ruled out lifting a state ban on nuclear power if elected in October.

NSW Labor Premier Chris Minns says building a nuclear reactor in the Hunter Valley is impossible under existing laws, and would disrupt the renewable energy transition.

Dutton pledged to work with state premiers to resolve such issues, and suggested financial incentives would be offered.

It’s unclear whether existing coal plant owners, including state-owned generators, will be willing to sell the sites to the federal government. However, Dutton said on Wednesday that, according to legal advice, the government could compulsorily acquire the sites if needed.

When Jervis Bay was on the table as a nuclear site, there was no question the federal government would build, own and operate it. The idea that something as crucial as a nuclear power plant might be entrusted to a state government, let alone a foreign corporation, was never entertained.

The national government was at the postwar height of its power and confidence. It employed the best and brightest, and was expanding the scope and scale of its activity. The Snowy Mountains Scheme, a massive engineering endeavour built under the Commonwealth’s defence power, was nearing completion.

Dutton says the government will own the proposed nuclear plants, but form partnerships with nuclear companies to build and operate them. But which companies?

Internationally, about 60 nuclear plants are under construction, mostly in Asia. The vast majority are Chinese and Russian designs, built by Chinese and Russian firms. Presumably, for national security reasons, that is not an option for Australia.

The only real contenders for large modern projects in Australia are South Korea’s KEPCO, and Electricity de France (EDF).

KEPCO built four plants at Barakah, in the United Arab Emirates, between 2009 and 2024. But no new orders for KEPCO plants outside South Korea have been announced since 2009.

EDF is building a reactor at Flamanville in France and two at Hinkley Point in the United Kingdom. The projects have suffered massive delays and cost overruns. The UK government is also struggling to organise finance for an additional EDF reactor proposed at the existing Sizewell plant.

And what about the so-called small modular reactors suggested by Dutton? This term is applied to two types of technology.

First, there are reactors of less than 100 megawatt capacity, which would be built in a factory and shipped to the required site where they would be installed as individual modules.

The most promising contender was the NuScale Voygr design, however its pilot project has been abandoned. Similarly, Rolls Royce has spiked its plans for a factory in Wales that would have progressed technology used in small modular reactors.

The term is also applied to cut-down versions of existing large-scale designs: reactors of 300 to 500 megawatt capacity compared to the traditional 1,000 to 1,500 megawatts. These are “modular” only in the sense that most parts are built in factories and assembled onsite.

The government of Ontario in Canada has announced plans for four such reactors to be built by GE-Hitachi, but no final commitment has been made.

Meanwhile, the climate crisis continues

As the next federal election rolls closer, Dutton will come under pressure to reveal crucial details underpinning the Coalition’s nuclear plan – most importantly, how much it will cost.

Nothing announced by Dutton today changes the fact that nuclear energy is, according to reams of expert analysis, economically unfeasible in Australia. This is as true today as it was in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, the climate crisis continues to worsen. Solar panels, wind turbines and energy storage must be rolled out as rapidly as possible – and we must not allow Dutton’s policy detour to distract from the task.

John Quiggin is a former Member of the Climate Change Authority

– ref. Peter Dutton has promised to solve our energy problems – but his nuclear policy still leaves Australians in the dark – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/232816