Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julia J Rucklidge, Professor of Psychology, University of Canterbury

Antenatal depression affects 15% to 21% of pregnant women worldwide. It can influence birth outcomes and children’s development, as well as increase the risk of post-natal depression.

Current treatments like therapy can be inaccessible and antidepressants can carry risks for developing infants.

Over the past two decades, research has highlighted that poor nutrition is a contributing risk factor to mental health challenges. Most pregnant women in New Zealand aren’t adhering to nutritional guidelines, according to a longitudinal study. Only 3% met the recommendations for all food groups.

Another cohort study carried out in Brazil shows that ultra-processed foods (UPF) accounted for at least 30% of daily dietary energy during pregnancy, displacing healthier options.

UPFs are chemically manufactured and contain additives to improve shelf life, as well as added sugar and salt. Importantly, they are low in essential micronutrients (vitamins and minerals).

The consumption of these foods is concerning because a nutrient-poor diet during pregnancy has been linked to poorer mental health outcomes in children. This includes depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, and inattention.

Increasing nutrients in maternal diets and reducing consumption of UPFs could improve the mental health of the mother and the next generation. Good nutrition can have lifelong benefits for the offspring.

However, there are multiple factors that mean diet change alone may not in itself be sufficient to address mental health challenges. Supplementing with additional nutrients may also be important to address nutritional needs during pregnancy.

Micronutrients as treatment for depression

Our earlier research suggests micronutrient supplements for depression have benefits outside pregnancy.

But until now there have been no published randomised controlled trials specifically designed to assess the efficacy and safety of broad-spectrum micronutrients on antenatal depression and overall functioning.

The NUTRIMUM trial, which ran between 2017 and 2022, recruited 88 women in their second trimester of pregnancy who reported moderate depressive symptoms. They were randomly allocated to receive either 12 capsules (four pills, three times a day) of a broad-spectrum micronutrient supplement or an active placebo containing iodine and riboflavin for a 12-week period.

Micronutrient doses were generally between the recommended dietary allowance and the tolerable upper level.

Based on clinician ratings, micronutrients significantly improved overall psychological functioning compared to the placebo. The findings took into account all noted changes based on self-assessment and clinician observations. This includes sleep, mood regulation, coping, anxiety and side effects.

Both groups reported similar reductions in symptoms of depression. More than three quarters of participants were in remission at the end of the trial. But 69% of participants in the micronutrient group rated themselves as “much” or “very much” improved, compared to 39% in the placebo group.

Participants taking the micronutrients also experienced significantly greater improvements in sleep and overall day-to-day functioning, compared to participants taking the placebo. There were no group differences on measures of stress, anxiety and quality of life.

Importantly, there were no group differences in reported side effects, and reports of suicidal thoughts dropped over the course of the study for both groups. Blood tests confirmed increased vitamin levels (vitamin C, D, B12) and fewer deficiencies in the micronutrient group.

Micronutrients were particularly helpful for women with chronic mental health challenges and those who had taken psychiatric medications in the past. Those with milder symptoms improved with or without the micronutrients, suggesting general care and monitoring might suffice for some women.

The benefits of micronutrients were comparable to psychotherapy but with less contact. There are no randomised controlled trials of antidepressant medication to compare these results.

Retention in the study was good (81%) and compliance excellent (90%).

Beyond maternal mental health

We followed the infants of mothers enrolled in the NUTRIMUM trial (who were therefore exposed to micronutrients during pregnancy) for 12 months, alongside infants from the general population of Aotearoa New Zealand.

This second group of infants from the general population contained a smaller sub-group who were exposed to antidepressant medication for the treatment of antenatal depression.

We assessed the neuro-behavioural development of each infant within the first four weeks of life, and temperament up to one year after birth.

These observational follow-ups showed positive effects of micronutrients on the infants’ ability to regulate their behaviour. These results were on par with or better than typical pregnancies, and better than treatments with antidepressants.

Infants exposed to micronutrients during pregnancy were significantly better at attending to external stimuli. They were also better able to block out external stimuli during sleep. They showed fewer signs of stress and had better muscle tone compared to infants not exposed to micronutrients.

They also displayed greater ability to interact with their environment. They were better at regulating their emotional state and had fewer abnormal muscle reflexes than infants exposed to antidepressant medication in pregnancy.

Reassuringly, micronutrients had no negative impact on infant temperament.

These findings highlight the potential of micronutrients as a safe and effective alternative to traditional medication treatments for antenatal depression.

The prenatal environment sets the foundation for a child’s future. Further investigation into the benefits of micronutrient supplementation would gives us more confidence in their use for other perinatal (from the start of pregnancy to a year after birth) mental health issues. This could provide future generations with a better start to life.

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Hayley Bradley to this research project.

Julia J Rucklidge receives or has received funding from Health Research Council of NZ, University of Canterbury Foundation, Waterloo Foundation, GAMA Foundation, Foundation for Excellence in Mental Health Care, and Canterbury Medical Research Foundation.

Elena Moltchanova, Roger Mulder, and Siobhan A Campbell do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. For women with antenatal depression, micronutrients might help them and their babies – new study – https://theconversation.com/for-women-with-antenatal-depression-micronutrients-might-help-them-and-their-babies-new-study-228097

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Falconer, Lecturer, T.C. Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

In recent weeks, Southern Cryonics – the southern hemisphere’s only cryopreservation facility, located in rural New South Wales – announced it had successfully cryopreserved its first patient.

There are only a handful of cryopreservation facilities across the globe – two in the United States, and one each in Russia, China, Australia and Switzerland. If the claims made on their websites and in the press are accurate, these facilities likely have no more than 600 patients in cryonic storage in total.

Media reports however suggest interest in cryopreservation has risen since the onset of the COVID pandemic, and thousands of people around the world have signed up to be cryopreserved after their death.

So, what is cryopreservation and what are its legal ramifications?

What is cryopreservation?

Cryopreservation is the process of using extreme cold to preserve biological material (such as semen, blood and tissue samples) for an extended time. The first living thing to be cryopreserved was a fowl sperm in the 1940s; the first person was cryopreserved in 1967.

To cryopreserve a person, the most important step is a process called “vitrification”. First, the blood is pumped out of the body. It is replaced with a chemical protectant designed to partially replace the water in the body’s cells with a chemical mixture that prevents the formation of ice (not unlike the antifreeze found in car engines).

The body of the “patient” is then placed in something akin to a sleeping bag and sealed in a dewar – a large vat of liquid nitrogen – and maintained at a temperature of -196°C until the time for resurrection comes.

The ultimate aim is for the cryopreserved patient to be reanimated at a future time when medical science has advanced sufficiently to cure them of whatever caused their initial “death”. However, there’s no evidence to suggest it will ever happen in the future.

A possible legal minefield

While its proponents describe cryopreservation as “a second chance at life”, scientists are quick to point out the chances of a successful reanimation are slim.

A person has to be declared legally dead before their body can be cryopreserved, meaning a successful reanimation would truly be a second (legal) life for the revived patient.

It could also be a legal minefield.

Questions that arise include:

• are you the same person in your second life as you were in your first, or are you a new legal person entirely?

• what happens to the legal obligations you undertook in your first life when you reawaken in your second?

• are you still bound by the phone contract you entered into?

• do you have to restart your mortgage repayments, and is your property even still your property?

The answer to the last question is likely to be “no”. A dead person cannot own property so when they die, their estate – their money and material possessions – is distributed to others according to their will (or, if they die without a will in place, according to the rules of intestacy).

This means, short of radically rewriting our succession laws, if someone is successfully reanimated, none of the wealth or belongings they previously enjoyed will be available to them.

This creates the possibility of “cryonic refugees” – people who wake from cryopreservation in a future time with no social or community ties to rely on and no funds to live off.

In the US, one cryonics facility has attempted to get around this issue by encouraging patients to place their assets in long-term trusts.

A trust is a legal structure whereby Person A becomes the legal owner of a property, but can only use it for the benefit of Person B. There are particular rules about who Person B can be – they have to be legally identifiable, for example, and must be able to claim the trust property within a set time period (80 years in many Australian jurisdictions).

In the case of the cryonics trust, Person B is the reanimated patient – someone of uncertain legal identity (remember, we don’t know if the reanimated patient is the same legal person across their two lives or not) with no guarantee of claiming the trust property within the necessary time period.

These are certainly reasons for lawyers to be sceptical. And of course, even if the trusts are upheld, there is no guarantee the assets they contain will retain their value in an unknown future world.

Other legal grey areas

Even prior to reanimation, however, a cryopreserved patient’s finances can present legal difficulties.

While the upfront costs of the initial cryopreservation procedure – which can come in at more than A$150,000 – are often covered by life insurance policies or a one-off payment in a will, the fact that cryonic storage is intended to last for the very long term raises questions about how ongoing bills will be paid far into the future.

There are even historic examples of cryonics facilities threatening to remove patients from suspension unless outstanding storage bills are paid.

Would such an action constitute murder? Can you kill someone who is already dead?

To reach an answer, the law will likely require a test case.

Kate Falconer 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. You can now be frozen after death in Australia. If you get revived in the future, will you still legally be the same person? – https://theconversation.com/you-can-now-be-frozen-after-death-in-australia-if-you-get-revived-in-the-future-will-you-still-legally-be-the-same-person-230876

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharon Smart, Lecturer and Researcher (Speech Pathology) – School of Allied Health, Curtin University

There is increasing media interest about surgical procedures on new babies for tongue tie. Some hail it as a miracle cure, others view it as barbaric treatment, though adverse outcomes are rare.

Tongue tie occurs when the tissue under the tongue is attached to the lower gum or floor of the mouth in a way that can restrict the movement or range of the tongue. This can impact early breastfeeding in babies. It affects an estimated 8% of children under one year of age.

While there has been an increase in tongue tie releases (also called division or frenotomy), it’s important to keep this in perspective relative to the increase in breastfeeding rates.

The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, with breastfeeding recommended into the second year of life and beyond for the health of mother and baby as well as optimal growth. Global rates of breastfeeding infants for the first six months have increased from 38% to 48% over the past decade. So, it is not surprising there is also an increase in the number of babies being referred globally with breastfeeding challenges and potential tongue tie.

An Australian study published in 2023 showed that despite a 25% increase in referrals for tongue tie division between 2014 and 2018, there was no increase in the number of tongue tie divisions performed. Tongue tie surgery rates increased in Australia in the decade from 2006 to 2016 (from 1.22 per 1,000 population to 6.35) for 0 to 4 year olds. There is no data on surgery rates in Australia over the last eight years.

Tongue tie division isn’t always appropriate but it can make a big difference to the babies who need it. More referrals doesn’t necessarily mean more procedures are performed.

How tongue tie can affect babies

When tongue tie (ankyloglossia) restricts the movement of the tongue, it can make it more difficult for a baby to latch onto the mother’s breast and painlessly breastfeed.

Earlier this month, the International Consortium of Oral Ankylofrenula Professionals released a tongue tie position statement and practice guideline. Written by a range of health professionals, the guidelines define tongue tie as a functional diagnosis that can impact breastfeeding, eating, drinking and speech. The guidelines provide health professionals and families with information on the assessment and management of tongue tie.

Tongue tie release has been shown to improve latch during breastfeeding, reduce nipple pain and improve breast and bottle feeding. Early assessment and treatment are important to help mothers breastfeed for longer and address any potential functional problems.

Where to get advice

If feeding isn’t going well, it may cause pain for the mother or there may be signs the baby isn’t attaching properly to the breast or not getting enough milk. Parents can seek skilled help and assessment from a certified lactation consultant or International Board-Certified Lactation Consultant who can be found via online registry.

Alternatively, a health professional with training and skills in tongue tie assessment and division can assist families. This may include a doctor, midwife, speech pathologist or dentist with extended skills, training and experience in treating babies with tongue tie.

When access to advice or treatment is delayed, it can lead to unnecessary supplementation with bottle feeds, early weaning from breastfeeding and increased parental anxiety.

Getting a tongue tie assessment

During assessment, a qualified health professional will collect a thorough case history, including pregnancy and birth details, do a structural and functional assessment, and conduct a comprehensive breastfeeding or feeding assessment.

They will view and thoroughly examine the mouth, including the tongue’s movement and lift. The appearance of where the tissue attaches to the underside of the tongue, the ability of the tongue to move and how the baby can suck also needs to be properly assessed.

Treatment decisions should focus on the concerns of the mother and baby and the impact of current feeding issues. Tongue tie division as a baby is not recommended for the sole purpose of avoiding speech problems in later life if there are no feeding concerns for the baby.

Treatment options

The Australian Dental Association’s 2020 guidelines provide a management pathway for babies diagnosed with tongue tie.

Once feeding issues are identified and if a tongue tie is diagnosed, non-surgical management to optimise positioning, latch and education for parents should be the first-line approach.

If feeding issues persist during follow-up assessment after non-surgical management, a tongue tie division may be considered. Tongue tie release may be one option to address functional challenges associated with breastfeeding problems in babies.

There are risks associated with any procedure, including tongue tie release, such as bleeding. These risks should be discussed with the treating practitioner before conducting any laser, scissor or scalpel tongue tie procedure.

Post-release support by a certified lactation consultant or feeding specialist is necessary after a tongue tie division. A post-release treatment plan should be developed by a team of health professionals including advice and support for breastfeeding to address both the mother and baby’s individual needs.

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Raymond J. Tseng in the writing of this article.

Sharon Smart is Vice Chair for the International Consortium of oral Ankylofrenula Professionals and Treasurer for the Australasian Society of Tethered Oral Tissues. These are volunteer roles.

David Todd is chair for the Australasian Society for Tethered Oral Tissue. This is a voluntary role.

Monica J Hogan has a small private practice where she sees mothers and babies for tongue tie assessment, treatment and review.

– ref. Debate over tongue tie procedures in babies continues. Here’s why it can be beneficial for some infants – https://theconversation.com/debate-over-tongue-tie-procedures-in-babies-continues-heres-why-it-can-be-beneficial-for-some-infants-230008

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael Sharman, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

Family meetings are often touted as an effective way to resolve conflicts, work out some shared goals and bring the family together.

They seem to wax and wane in popularity. But as Google Trends shows, there has been a steady growth in people searching for information about family meetings over the past decade, with a spike during 2021, at the height of the pandemic.

I’m a psychology researcher interested family dynamics and how they affect children’s development. Here are some of the potential benefits – and risks – of holding regular family meetings.

Do you need family meetings?

Well, it depends.

People sometimes question the difference between a family meeting and, say, dinner.

If you all get together at mealtimes and engage constructively with plenty of conversation, it may well be redundant (and a waste of your kids’ valuable play time) to throw in an extra meeting just for the sake of it.

However, some families (including situations where parents are shift workers or FIFO workers) may find getting everyone together around the table on a regular basis quite challenging.

How to hold a productive family meeting

Regular family meetings certainly can have some value – especially if everyone gets a voice, feels heard and feels they can speak freely.

These type of meetings could be framed as an opportunity to:

• catch up with what everyone is doing and feeling

• inform each other about upcoming events or challenges

• genuinely canvass different opinions on how best to move forward.

A positive family meeting ensures everyone (even the quiet kid) is asked their opinion, and can speak their mind without interruption or criticism.

Consider the children’s ages and what issues are actually not up for them to decide. Children don’t get to vote on having ice cream every night for dinner.

At the end of the day, families are not pure democracies. While a child’s brain is still developing, they aren’t ready to forecast outcomes or hypothesise solutions. They rely on their parents to help them do that.

Meetings at different stages of family life

The pre-adolescent child lives in the here and now. What is right in front of them is what they can understand.

The idea of moving house, for example, may seem catastrophic; they might feel they’re being taken away from their school, sports and friends. Using a family meeting to hear their concerns or fears and work together on solutions or compromises might prove useful.

Teenagers are typically quite capable, but it’s developmentally normal for them to feel their emotions very keenly. Their reactions may appear, to adult eyes, a little overwhelming in the moment. Give them time at family meetings to think and process, and articulate their position.

While there are few peer-reviewed studies on family meetings, research does show they can work where there are serious issues to discuss.

For example, family meetings involving adult siblings in the case of elder care or palliative care have been trialled with moderate success.

In general, keeping lines of communication open and ensuring even the family wallflower has a regular contribution sounds positive. But there’s also a wrong way to hold family meetings.

What not to do

There’s a notable lack of actual research around family meetings involving children, even though they are prominently recommended in pop psychology.

Given the paucity of research in this field, I had a quick trawl through some threads on Quora and Reddit, where adults discussed whether their family meetings as children were useful. Many responses revealed some less-than-helpful experiences.

Some described family meetings as being dominated – usually by one parent – to dictate to everyone else in the family what was happening (from their point of view only).

A dictator parent might, for example, use a family meeting to issue orders about what they expected of everyone else (without allowing any feedback on their own performance).

People spoke about:

• having chores assigned to them (with no negotiation)

• parental decisions (such as moving house or schools) being imposed with zero input or feedback allowed from those affected

• a sense that not everyone could speak freely or safely.

Research tells us authoritarian parenting (where communication goes one way only, parents are inflexible and don’t listen) leads to a range of negative impacts on children. These can include anxiety, poor self esteem and feelings of failure.

A weaponised family meeting from the family dictator may well prove extremely detrimental.

It may even go as far as inducing learned helplessness. This is where people “learn” their voice is unimportant, and just give up even trying to have a say.

Others remembered a family meeting was only ever called when divorce or death was about to ensue.

This associates family meetings with a sense of impending doom. Unsurprisingly, this left some adults with a very strong aversion to the idea.

All in all, it seems the concept of a family meeting is a reasonable one. But like most things in life, the devil is in the detail.

As one US study put it:

Just holding meetings does not matter, but inclusiveness of those meetings does matter.

Rachael Sharman 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. Could family meetings help you get on better with your kids? Yes – but they can also go horribly wrong – https://theconversation.com/could-family-meetings-help-you-get-on-better-with-your-kids-yes-but-they-can-also-go-horribly-wrong-231274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dr Imran Ali, Senior Lecturer in Operations and Innovation Management, CQUniversity Australia

Oranges – and all the things we can make from them – are big business. But the industry is facing a severe crisis.

About 50 million tonnes of oranges are grown each year, 34% of them in Brazil. Brazil is also the world’s biggest exporter of orange juice by far, producing about 70% of global supply.

But Brazil’s orange-growing regions have recently endured extreme drought and heat stress in the crop’s flowering period, as well as alarming rates of citrus greening disease – an incurable bacterial infection.

As a result, Brazil’s orange production is now forecast to fall by more than 24% in the 2024–25 season, which would be the country’s smallest harvest since the late 1980s.

The situation in Brazil has been exacerbated by declining production in other major orange-growing regions such as Florida, Israel, Spain and Argentina.

Combined, these pressures saw the futures price of frozen concentrated orange juice – which represents a contract for future delivery – hit an all time high last week.

So how might these global pressures impact Australia – and the breakfast rituals of so many?

Where does Australia get its juice?

Australia certainly grows a lot of oranges itself, with major plantations in the Riverina, Murray Valley and Riverland. We’re the world’s 12th-biggest producer of the fruit.

Despite this, strong demand means we still rely heavily on imports of frozen orange juice concentrate for about half of what is consumed here. About 80% of these imports come from Brazil, followed by Israel at about 10%.

Australian consumers have not yet been as severely affected as those in Europe and the US, as local orange growers have been able to somewhat fill the supply gap in the domestic market. However, it’s likely our over-reliance on orange concentrate from Brazil will eventually lead to a supply crunch here.

At this stage, it’s hard to know exactly what the full effect on consumers will be. Frozen concentrated orange juice is typically used for cheaper retail orange juice, but the shortage will put upward pressure on the price of orange juice more broadly.

Orange juice concentrate has also been used for a wide range of commercial uses, including cosmetics, cleaning products, vitamin supplements and beverage blends. Many of these products rely on orange concentrate as a key ingredient. Therefore, we could also see significant supply disruptions and price spikes across a range of other products.

The situation could prompt consumers and producers to choose alternatives.
In the breakfast beverage market, products blending orange juice with apple, mango or pineapple may become increasingly attractive to consumers on cost alone.

Mandarins may be a particularly promising alternative given how closely their taste and nutritional value aligns with orange juice.

Will the crisis benefit Australia’s orange industry?

In theory, the global shortage could be a boon for Australia’s local industry, given our favourable climate and well-established orange production regions.

Increasing our domestic production of oranges would not only help meet domestic demand, but could also help capitalise on the current shortage by increasing exports.

Australian producers will probably enjoy higher prices for orange juice in the short term, but our local citrus industry isn’t in the best shape. Some orange growers have been leaving the business due to rising production costs, poor supermarket prices and competition from imported products.

Rising input costs and a stubborn shortage of farm workers have intensified financial pressures, making profits elusive. On top of this, the market dominance of Australia’s two major supermarket chains has limited growers’ bargaining power, leading to unfavourable contract terms for many producers.

How could our growers become more resilient?

There’s no quick fix for the current supply shortage of orange juice. But there are a number of steps that could at least make Australia’s citrus industry more resilient to this and any future supply shocks.

In Australia, labour accounts for a substantial amount of total production costs. More investment in automation could decrease the industry’s reliance on labour and ultimately push prices down.

Recognising these technologies may be out of reach for many small and medium-sized growers, governments may need to investigate subsidising them.

Growers could increase their bargaining power against the big supermarkets by further diversifying who they sell to. This could include through direct-to-consumer sales, increasing their presence at farmer markets and engaging in collaborative marketing.

Establishing more fruit-processing facilities and getting better access to the international markets should also be priorities.

And lastly, Australia is highly vulnerable to the severe disruption that climate change poses to the agri-food sector, including orange production. We should prepare for this by conducting more comprehensive research into climate-resilient varieties, renewable energy sources, and offering education programs to growers.

Dr Imran Ali 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. What’s the global orange juice supply crisis – and should Australians be worried? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-global-orange-juice-supply-crisis-and-should-australians-be-worried-231290

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Yule, Professor of Ecology, University of the Sunshine Coast

When I lived in Kalimantan in Indonesia in the 1990s and later in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, I would often wake to toxic, smoke-filled skies. The air would be filled with the distinctive smell of burning peat, as farmers cleared tropical peat swamp forests to make way for oil palm plantations.

Airports and schools would close, and hospitals would fill with people in respiratory distress – myself included. Global greenhouse gas emissions would spike because peatlands are the planet’s most carbon rich ecosystems.

Throughout the world – from the subarctic peat bogs to the tropical peat swamp forests – drainage and rising temperatures are driving increasingly frequent and intense fires, releasing emissions from millions of hectares of peatlands and destroying irreplaceable biodiversity.

Uniquely, an Australian subtropical peatland ecosystem exists that is not only resilient to the frequent bushfires, but actually needs fire to survive.

What are peatlands and why do they matter?

Peat is poorly decomposed plant matter that builds up over millennia in waterlogged environments.

When wet, which is the natural condition, peat can only burn under the most intense fires. As the precursor to coal, however, dried peat is highly flammable. Peat fires can smoulder underground for years until all the peat has burnt away.

We’ve been researching Australian subtropical peatland ecosystems which need fire to survive.

These peatlands were observed by a British scientist flying over K’gari (Fraser Island) in Queensland in 1996, who recognised a characteristic outline suggesting there were peat bogs below.

They were discovered to be peat swamps dominated by the peat-forming plant known as wire rush, Empodisma minus.

Since then, thousands of hectares of these peat swamps have been identified along the ancient sand deposits of the Australian coast from Queensland to New South Wales.

There are many other types of peat swamps and bog in Australia, from the sphagnum bogs of the Australian Alps to the buttongrass moorlands of Tasmania. These are badly affected by fire.

What’s so special about subtropical peat swamps?

These Australian peat swamps hold significant carbon stores in peat deposits up to eight metres deep.

Layers of charcoal are visible throughout peat cores, showing the regular occurrence of fires over many thousands of years.

Their waters shelter rare and endangered fish (including Oxleyan pygmy perch and honey blue-eye), frogs (such as Cooloola and Wallum sedge frogs) and crayfish (such as the sand yabby Cherax robustus), as well as dragonflies, beetles, midges and bugs.

Subtropical wire rush swamps (in places such as K’gari and Cooloola in Southeast Queensland, for example) require fire to suppress other plants – such as dodder, tea trees and banksias – in order to thrive.

Wire rush regrows rapidly after fires from spreading rhizomes (underground roots).

It is a perennial, forming dense masses which eventually die at the centre.

This central detritus is overgrown by foraging roots, forming water filled depressions, eventually creating pools many metres wide.

These wire rush-ringed pools form the distinctive patterns first reported on K’gari.

Intact, long dead, wire rush roots and leaves can be seen deep down in peat cores thousands of years old, along with charcoal and seeds of other plants.

This shows this plant matter doesn’t break down, even after thousands of years. Over many millions of years, peat can form coal – about one metre of peat will turn into about 10cm of coal.

A thick, moist root layer is crucial to fire resistance

Peatland plants are tough and toxic to prevent them being eaten by animals and this slows down microbial decomposition. So instead of completely breaking down, they form the brown mushy substance we call peat.

The plants are rich in carbon-based compounds such as tannins, the chemicals that give black tea its dark colour, creating the distinctive, acidic blackwaters seen in all peatlands.

Wire rush roots have dense hairs that absorb water and nutrients like a microfibre sponge.

These roots grow up, not down, to rapidly scavenge nutrients from leaf litter. They cover the peatland floor, which protects the underlying peat from drying out, and from catching fire.

This thick, moist root layer is crucial to the fire resistance and resilience of the wire rush swamps including the aquatic fauna.

The resident sand yabbies dig multiple burrows through these otherwise almost impenetrable roots to the wet peat below. These wet burrows provide a safe refuge for the fish, frogs and other animals during droughts and fires.

As fires get more intense, we are getting more concerned over the future of these peatlands. The severe 2020 fires on K’Gari resulted in some peat deposits burning down to the sand below.

We still need to know more

Our research group is studying these peat swamps. We want to know how deep and dense the peat is, how animals and plants have adapted to the acidic water, how plants, animals and microbes resist and recover from fires, and whether they can survive hotter and more frequent fires.

The wire rush peat swamps of the subtropical eastern Australian coast are unique and fragile. But they face pressures from urban and agricultural expansion, road construction and climate change. It is important we protect them and the unique ecosystems they harbour.

Catherine Yule receives funding for her peatland research from the Department of Environment and Science, Queensland. Two postdoctoral researchers from Malaysia (previous PhD students of Catherine Yule) received funding for this peatland research from APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) Women in STEM fellowships. The research has also been funded by internal grants from the University of the Sunshine Coast. Catherine Yule is an advisor to the Noosa Biosphere Foundation Board.

– ref. Peat was historically mined overseas because it burns so well. But Australia’s subtropical peat bogs need fire to survive – https://theconversation.com/peat-was-historically-mined-overseas-because-it-burns-so-well-but-australias-subtropical-peat-bogs-need-fire-to-survive-228200

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Currell, Professor of Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Griffith University

High-profile legal disputes, such as the current case between coal giant Adani and the Queensland government, show Australia’s approach to managing large mining projects is flawed.

Many projects are allowed to go ahead even though the environmental impacts are uncertain. The idea is any damage to the environment can be managed along the way. This has been the norm for large coal mines and gas developments in Australia since 2013. That’s when legislation known as the Water Trigger came into effect – ironically, to protect water resources from these industries.

But our research shows this approach – known as “adaptive management” – often creates more problems than it solves. This is particularly true when it comes to groundwater, where impacts are difficult to predict in advance, and monitoring may only detect problems when it is too late to act.

These problems include depleting or contaminating groundwater, drying up springs of major cultural and ecological significance, altering river flows and reducing water quality. There are worrying signs the Adani mine is putting the Doongmabulla springs at risk.

What is adaptive management?

Adaptive management seeks to address uncertainty in environmental impact assessments. The approach can be broadly summarised as “learning by doing”.

The original intention was to allow decisions to be made about development proposals without full certainty about the environmental impacts. Ongoing monitoring and continuously updated modelling is then supposed to improve the knowledge base over time. This should help identify new or improved management strategies.

Environmental objectives are supposed to be clearly outlined at the outset. Objectives may include the protection of a key habitat, water resource or region of high ecological significance.

Establishing these objectives is a lengthy process of consultation with groups who have a stake in the project, such as people who live nearby and Traditional Owners with deep connections to the land. These discussions are meant to continue throughout the project as new data and knowledge come to light.

However our research shows adaptive management is often poorly suited to managing impacts on groundwater. This is especially true in cases where:

• there are long lag times between project activity (such as groundwater extraction lowering the water table before pit excavation) and the full effects on the groundwater system

• the impacts could be irreversible, meaning actions taken to address a change in the condition of the environment may come too late to stop permanent damage.

Protecting Doongmabulla Springs

The Adani coal mine was embroiled in many years of controversy about potential impacts on water, climate and endangered animals. When it began operating, scientists warned it was too close to the sacred Doongabulla Springs and risked permanently drying them up.

Our analysis published in 2020 found problems with the miner’s reported understanding of the groundwater system supporting the Doongmabulla Springs. Little effort was made to plan specific actions to protect the springs if monitoring later showed such action was required.

We argue Adani’s use of adaptive management, which the environment minister accepted in approving the mine, was not fit for the agreed purpose of protecting the springs.

The Queensland Department of Environment, Science and Innovation appeared to echo these views in the Supreme Court last month.

The legal action was brought by Adani in 2023, after the Department refused to accept updated groundwater modelling the company had to submit within two years of opening the mine. Instead, the Department issued an Environment Protection Order, which prevents any underground mining until the company:

can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department that the activity can be conducted in a way that does not exceed the approved impacts

This followed a review by CSIRO and Geoscience Australia. The review found the company’s groundwater model was “unable to support a robust uncertainty analysis and therefore confidence in the range of predicted impacts is low”.

In court, Department staff testified that deficiencies in modelling and gaps in groundwater monitoring mean the “risk of potential impacts (which are potentially irreversible) to the [Doongmabulla] springs is increased while [mining] continues”.

This echoes similar warnings by groundwater researchers prior to the initial approval of the mine.

These springs are vital to the cultural life of the Wangan and Jagalingou people, who testified to the United Nations that the loss of these springs would decimate their culture.

A way forward

Protracted reform of Australia’s environmental laws provides an opportunity to establish clear criteria for when adaptive management can be used.

We argue alternative, more precautionary approaches should be adopted when there is a long interval between the mining activity and potentially irreversible damage.

For example, limits should be placed on the mine’s location, size and water extraction rates. This should be informed by detailed upfront research into the site’s water systems, geology and the ecosystem’s tolerance for changes in water levels and quality.

If adaptive management is to be used in mining projects, there must be a reasonable prospect (and a clear mechanism) to detect and prevent environmental harm. There must also be clarity around when project activities must cease. In line with best practice adaptive management, guidance should be provided to ensure miners clearly outline:

• how monitoring data will be used, in an ongoing process of revising both impact predictions and management strategies
• what specific actions will be taken, and at what point in time if data show unpredicted greater than expected impacts
• how stakeholders will be involved throughout the process of setting and reviewing environmental objectives and monitoring criteria.

Unless these issues are urgently addressed, the “learning by doing” approach will continue to put Australian ecosystems and water resources at risk.

Matthew Currell receives funding from the Australian Research Council through its Linkage Projects scheme to conduct groundwater research with industry partners including the registered charity Coast and Country, Inc.

Adrian Werner receives funding from the Australian Research Council through its Linkage Projects program to conduct groundwater research on the Doongmabulla Springs, including with industry partner Coast and Country, Inc. Adrian was also an expert witness in the Queensland Land Court Case: Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Land Services of Coast and Country Inc & Ors (2015) QLC 48.

– ref. Australia’s ‘learning by doing’ approach to managing large mines is failing the environment – https://theconversation.com/australias-learning-by-doing-approach-to-managing-large-mines-is-failing-the-environment-230857

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugo Olierook, Senior Research Fellow in Geology, Curtin University

We need two ingredients for life to start on a planet: dry land and (fresh) water. Strictly, the water doesn’t have to be fresh, but fresh water can only occur on dry land.

Only with those two conditions met can you convert the building blocks of life, amino acids and nucleic acids into tangible bacterial life that heralds the start of the evolutionary cycle.

The oldest life on Earth left in our fragmented rock record is 3.5 billion years old, with some chemical data showing it may even be as old as 3.8 billion years. Scientists have hypothesised life might be even older, but we have no records of that being the case.

Our new study published in Nature Geoscience provides the first evidence of fresh water and dry land on Earth by 4 billion years ago. Knowing when the cradle of life – water and land – first appeared on Earth ultimately provides clues as to how we came to be.

Water and land: the essences of life

Imagine you’ve stepped into a time machine and gone back 4 billion years ago. As the dials whirr to a halt, you look out and see a vast ocean all around you. Not blue as you know it, but brown with iron and other dissolved minerals. You look up into the sky and it’s dark orange, with a smog of carbon dioxide and regular flashes from incoming meteors. Inhospitable to life.

This is what scientists think Earth looked like 4 billion years ago. But did it?

Just as you abandon all hope for life, you spot it on the horizon: land. Kicking the time machine into travel mode, you fly across to this expanse of emerged rock and touch down.

You quickly realise you’ve stepped onto a volcanic island, with lava spewing across its flanks. But you also feel raindrops on your nose, and you spot water collecting in little pools at the base of the volcano. Cautiously you cup your hands and have a taste … it’s fresh! The first proof there was fresh water on Earth, at least by 4 billion years ago.

Fresh water and emerged land go hand in hand. If all land is underwater, then you can only have salty, ocean water. This is because salty water wants to encroach under land, a phenomenon known as seawater intrusion.

So, if you find fresh water, you must have dry land – and a reasonably large expanse of it.

How do we know there was fresh water and land on the early Earth?

Fresh water is very different from sea water. Obviously, you might say, but how do you know if one or both were present on Earth if you can’t actually go back in a time machine?

The answer is in the rock record and chemical signals preserved in that time capsule. Earth is a bit over 4.5 billion years old, and the oldest rocks scientists have found are just a little older than 4 billion years.

To really understand our planet in its first 500 million years, we have to turn to crystals that once came from older rocks and ended up deposited in younger rocks.

Unlike rocks, the oldest preserved crystals go back as far as 4.4 billion years. And the bulk of these super-old crystals comes from one place on Earth: the Jack Hills in Western Australia’s midwest.

This is precisely where we went. We dated over a thousand crystals of a mineral called zircon, famed for its extreme resistance to weathering and alteration.

That’s quite important, as over the span of billions of years, a lot of later processes can erase the primary chemical signal when the crystals first formed. Most other types of minerals are much easier to alter, a process that would erase their original chemistry and not provide us with clues into Earth’s deep past.

Truly ancient grains

Our work shows that about 10% of all the crystals we analysed were older than 4 billion years. That might seem small, but it’s an enormous amount of super-old grains compared to other places around the world.

To figure out whether these grains held a record of fresh water, we used tiny beams of ions on these dated zircon grains to measure the ratio of heavier to lighter oxygen. This ratio, known as an oxygen isotopic ratio, is thought to be nearly constant through time for seawater, but much lighter for fresh water.

Conspicuously, a small portion of zircon crystals from 4 billion years ago had a very light signature that could only have formed from the interaction of fresh water and rocks.

Zircon is extremely resistant to alteration. For the Jack Hills’ zircon to obtain this light oxygen signature, the rock altered by fresh water had to melt and then re-solidify to impart the light oxygen isotopic signature into our zircon.

Thus, fresh water had to be present on Earth before 4 billion years ago.

Whether life also began so early in Earth’s history is a question we can’t quite be sure of yet. But we’ve at least found evidence for the cradle of life on Earth some time before 4 billion years ago – extremely early in our planet’s 4.5-billion-year history.

Hugo Olierook receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Hamed Gamaleldien receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Khalifa University, UAE.

– ref. Fresh water and key conditions for life appeared on Earth half a billion years earlier than we thought – https://theconversation.com/fresh-water-and-key-conditions-for-life-appeared-on-earth-half-a-billion-years-earlier-than-we-thought-228789

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phoebe McInerney, Researcher in Palaeontology, Flinders University

Until around 45,000 years ago, Australia was home to a giant flightless bird called Genyornis newtoni, which was two metres tall and weighed up to 230 kilograms.

Palaeontologists first discovered these so-called “thunder birds” in the late 1800s. Yet exactly what Genyornis looked like has remained a mystery, because until now no well-preserved fossil of a Genyornis head has been found.

Scientists have instead interpreted its appearance based on large, flightless relatives, such as Dromornis and the more distantly related emus.

From the dry salt lakes in north-eastern South Australia, we have now discovered several new Genyornis fossils, including a complete skull. These finds show what this ancient thunderbird really looked like, and offer clues to how it evolved, lived and died. This research is now published in Historical Biology.

The skull

Genyornis and its cousins in the family Dromornithidae (known as dromornithids) have unusually large skulls for flightless birds. They also have short braincases and oversized jaws. Genyornis is set apart from other dromornithids by a distinctive upper jaw which gives the bird a unique appearance.

Genyornis has a tall skull, joined to a large and robust lower jaw, suiting the name Genyornis, which roughly means “jaw bird” in Greek.

The upper jaw is long and a bit higher than it is wide, with an especially spatulate, or goose-like, rounded tip, and an enclosed palate. A tall ridge runs down the centre of the beak, and a bulbous structure called a casque is positioned just in front of the eyes, above its small nostrils. The casque’s purpose is unknown but it might have been for sexual display.

Highly flexible joints in the skull allowed Genyornis to open its mouth wide, like parrots can, and the arrangement of jaw muscles suggests a higher bite force than originally expected. Powerful muscles attaching to the back of the braincase allowed a strong backwards pull of the head.

How did Genyornis evolve?

The fossil record for dromornithids extends back to at least 55 million years ago, though their origin is certainly more ancient. Although Genyornis existed relatively recently, this long evolutionary history, paired with a shortage of older fossils, has made understanding dromornithid evolution very complex.

The Dromornithidae family is part of a broader group which includes landfowl (such as chickens and quails) and waterfowl (including ducks and geese). Dromornithids share skull features with both.

Only through extensive comparisons of dromornithid skull fossils with those of these relatives could we interpret the anatomy and evolution of Genyornis’ surprising skull.

Several skull features dromornithids share with landfowl appear to have been present in the last common ancestor of dromornithids, landfowl, and waterfowl.

However, skull features that dromornithids share with ducks and geese are likely linked to the early evolution of waterfowl from a more chicken-like ancestor. Notably, the arrangement of jaw muscles and bony structures on the side of the braincase and lower jaw are almost identical to those of the screamers (Anhimidae) found in South America today.

Screamers are the most early-diverging waterfowl still alive today. Our research shows dromornithids were closely related to screamers and other early waterfowl. Interpreting how skeletal structures relate between dromornithids and their relatives was crucial to this understanding.

What do we know about Genyornis’ lifestyle?

The structure of the new Genyornis skull also supports previous ideas about how the species lived. This includes their dietary preferences for soft, non-fibrous plants including fresh new growth, shoots and fruit.

Newly discovered though, are adaptations for immersing the head in water, including an enclosed palate, nostrils far back by the eyes, and isolation of the ear from the regions involved in jaw movement. All help to prevent water inflow and limit hearing interference while feeding submerged.

These features indicate Genyornis was adapted to thrive around swamps, wetlands and lakes. Fittingly, Genyornis fossils have been recovered from areas associated with these environments – and of course they were closely related to early waterfowl.

Today, the large bodies of freshwater once present in northern South Australia are mostly dry salt lakes. While Genyornis had broad, short toes and hoof-like claws for moving across open ground between bodies of water, their partial reliance on freshwater and new plant growth would have become more difficult as ponds and lakes shrunk and disappeared.

While not the whole story, the drying of the Australian continent likely contributed to the eventual extinction of Genyornis – and the demise of the dromornithid dynasty.

Trevor H. Worthy has received funding from the Australian Research Council in the past.

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

– ref. New fossils show what Australia’s giant prehistoric ‘thunder birds’ looked like – and offer clues about how they died out – https://theconversation.com/new-fossils-show-what-australias-giant-prehistoric-thunder-birds-looked-like-and-offer-clues-about-how-they-died-out-221599

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jess Reia, Assistant Professor of Data Science, University of Virginia

As a scholar of urban governance and data policy, I viewed the responses to protests on U.S. campuses as about more than threats to academic freedom and freedom of speech.

They are also threats to the fundamental rights of people in public spaces.

The protesters’ tactics, particularly their use of tents in encampments, have brought debates around definitions of public order and disorder to the fore.

Over the past couple of months, students in universities across the country, from the University of California, Los Angeles to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have occupied courtyards, classrooms and libraries in solidarity with Palestinians. Students in Canada, Brazil and France have also joined in, setting up encampments to demand changes in their governments’ policies toward Israel due its war in the Gaza Strip.

Most encampments and buildings have been cleared in the name of order or safety – often by the police, sometimes with the use of excessive force. These police responses can have ripple effects in communities far beyond the university walls.

After studying the ways in which technology can be deployed in public spaces , I’ve started to view calls for public order with suspicion. When those in power frame dissent and poverty as disorder, more than freedom of expression is at stake.

Public order versus the ‘right to the city’

As the populations of cities swelled during the 19th and 20th centuries, some residents started decrying the “disorder” of urban spaces.

Whether it was due to loud noises, informal markets or political protests, calls to tame the unruly city grew louder. Everything and everybody seen as undesirable, inadequate or a nuisance could be targeted.

Legislation like Virginia’s Vagrancy Act of 1866 made it a crime to be homeless in cities – a concept that remains in the country’s regulatory framework through state and local loitering laws. These statutes continue to be used to police people of color and the poor.

Other laws that have since been overturned – women being prohibited from using public restrooms, public bathing laws that led to arrests of beachgoers – might sound ridiculous today, but they show how notions of what counts as disorder can change over time.

Laws that police what people can and can’t do in public often conflict with what French philosopher Henri Lefebvre called the “right to the city.”

Laid out in his 1968 book “Le Droit à la Ville,” it speaks to the right of all residents to shape and govern urban life. Decades later, the right to the city was seen as so important that it was included in the New Urban Agenda, which was signed at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development in 2016.

The issue today is that city residents with the least amount of power – the poor, the young, immigrants, people of color – have little say in how cities are governed. And public order laws tend to target them.

Public order crimes refer to the acts that disrupt the running of society. The U.S. has around 117,000 people currently incarcerated under public order offenses.

Although public order is an important element of modern city life, it’s also been used as a mechanism to justify surveillance and control – especially of the most vulnerable communities. Historically, public order has served to organize urban spaces, but also to dampen government criticism and crush dissent.

Last year, for example, the U.K. passed its Government Public Order bill, which gave the government the ability to break up protests deemed too noisy or unruly.

Clearing the camps

Encampments – a military word used since at least the late 1500s – have been in the spotlight not only due to student protesters. Homeless communities also set up clusters of tents as makeshift shelters in public spaces. These have drawn the attention of city residents and policymakers, some of whom see them as unsightly symbols of disorder.

In cities where shelters are scarce or nonexistent and proper policies to tackle poverty and homelessness fall short, sleeping in tents and cars, on public transit or under bridges – all forms of “rough sleeping” – have become improvised responses to a nationwide problem.

The crackdown on rough sleeping can be both proactive and reactive. The implementation of spikes on ledges or bars on benches to prevent people from lying down – what’s called hostile architecture – is a defensive approach. The clearing of encampments, meanwhile, might happen in response to complaints and outcry.

Regardless of the approach, you’ll often hear safety and public order as justifications.

Taming the city

Debates over order, disorder and the right to the city don’t just involve whether people experiencing homelessness can sleep in public spaces. They also include alternative economies.

Can street performers pass the hat? What about street vendors selling their wares?

Both groups have been battling regulators for centuries.

When city leaders want to showcase their city, order becomes an even bigger priority.

For instance, in preparation for the 2014 FIFA World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics, the then-mayor of Rio de Janeiro, Eduardo Paes, decided to create a Department of Public Order.

Through heavy policing, Paes tried to make the city look more orderly and safe for an international audience.

The reality meant brutal crackdowns in Rio’s favelas, the city’s informal settlements of improvised homes. The authorities euphemistically described this campaign as “pacification”. In other areas, they cleared the roads of street vendors and homeless people, while installing surveillance cameras.

AI in the name of order

When new technologies enter the picture, public order is translated – and enforced – by big data. Some technocrats even envision cities operating with the efficiency of a computer.

In March 2024, news emerged that San Jose, California, was planning to use an artificial intelligence detection tool trained to identify “signs of habitation” in vehicles and encampments.

By targeting primarily people experiencing homelessness in one of the least affordable housing markets in the U.S., these kinds of predictive algorithms are worrisome trends. To me, they’re representative of technological solutionism – the idea that all problems can be solved with technology.

Other controversial tools, such as predictive policing and emotion recognition, have been met with backlash because of their potential to discriminate, encroach on privacy and profile people.

Facial recognition systems have triggered a series of false positives and wrongful arrests, mostly affecting people of color. This has led to their ban in some cities.

The indiscriminate deployment of AI in cities can undermine trust in technology and governments, and it’s easy to see how deploying big data under the guise of enforcing public order can backfire, limiting freedom of expression and assembly while harming people living on the margins of society.

In “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” Jane Jacobs explains how cities can provide something for everybody – that they are wellsprings of spontaneity, creativity and connection.

To me, surveillance, control and repression are at odds with these aims.

Order is ultimately an illusion. The right to the city means living with unpredictability, whether it’s in the form of a student protest, a block party or a busker.

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

– ref. Who gets to decide what counts as ‘disorder’? – https://theconversation.com/who-gets-to-decide-what-counts-as-disorder-229783

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luis Gómez Romero, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights, Constitutional Law and Legal Theory, University of Wollongong

On October 17, 1953, constitutional reform granted women the right to vote in Mexico, and two years later, women cast ballots for the first time in a federal election.

Now, nearly 70 years later, Mexico has elected a woman president for the first time, according to an official quick count.

Claudia Sheinbaum, the former mayor of Mexico City with a PhD in energy engineering, is also the first Jewish person to lead Mexico, where 70% of the population is Catholic.

The election was mainly contested between two candidates, both of whom were women. Sheinbaum, the front-runner, represented the left-wing coalition “Let’s Keep Making History”. This was formed by the ruling party, Morena, and its minor partners, the Green Party (PVEM) and the Labor Party (PT).

Her main rival, Xóchitl Gálvez, who was trailing by nearly 30% in the official quick count, represented the coalition “Strength and Heart for Mexico”. This is composed of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), National Action Party (PAN) and the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD). Jorge Álvarez of the Citizen Movement party trailed in third place.

This was the largest election in Mexico’s history, with more than 98 million citizens registered to vote. Nearly 20,000 elected positions were being contested, including the presidency, both chambers of Congress and thousands of local seats.

It was also the most violent election, with more than 30 politicians killed.

The new president will now face two major challenges: confronting the rampant violence in Mexican society and increasing militarisation of public life, and the deterioration of checks and balances on executive power.

Sheinbaum’s mentor, current President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has not solved the first issue, and has significantly worsened the second.

A populist leader

Part of Gálvez’s defeat is attributed to the tarnished reputation of the PRI, PAN, and, to a lesser extent, the PRD. These parties are associated with a period known as Mexico’s democratic transition from 1988-2018.

The democratic transition resulted in new laws reinforcing independent decision-making in electoral practices in the 1990s.

The transition governments, however, were marked by the mediocre performance of political leaders, as well as a growing inequality in society. The military also became more involved in law enforcement in response to the worsening Mexican drug war, leading to unprecedented violence.

López Obrador was elected in 2018 after two failed campaigns. He has never accepted his 2006 defeat, alleging the opposition parties stole the election. When he lost the 2012 vote by seven points, he again claimed there was electoral fraud.

López Obrador has seen himself as the continuation of Mexico’s three great periods of emancipation: independence from Spain (1810-1821), the Reform War that marked the separation between church and state (1857-1861), and the Revolution (1910-1920) that ended a 30-year dictatorship and ushered in the current Constitution. López Obrador labelled his regime as the “Fourth Transformation” of Mexico.

He deeply despises the imperfect and fragmented achievements of Mexico’s democratic transition, a period he considers a betrayal of Mexican history, tainted by neo-liberal policies and corruption. He has frequently denounced the opposition — even during the electoral period, despite laws against this.

López Obrador still maintains a 65% approval rating. Many Mexicans considered his economic and social programs a success, such as scholarships and pensions for lower-income residents.

So while his popularity benefited Sheinbaum’s campaign, his shadow will now loom over her government.

More militarised society

By 2018, around 227,000 Mexicans had lost their lives due to the drug war initiated by former President Felipe Calderón. López Obrador began his term promising to withdraw the army from policing duties. “Hugs, not bullets,” he has said on numerous occasions.

That changed quickly. López Obrador dismantled the federal police and replaced it with a new force called the National Guard, primarily composed of military personnel. He also pushed for this new force to be attached to the National Defense Secretariat (Sedena), without civilian oversight. Sedena is under the direct control of the president.

López Obrador has argued the military guarantees loyalty and honesty, which is highly questionable given allegations of corruption and summary executions against the military.

And in the past six years, violence has reached unprecedented levels in the country. Official data shows between 2018 and 2023, there were more than 171,000 homicides, of which nearly 5,000 were femicides (the killings of women by men in acts of gendered violence).

In addition, more than 50,000 Mexicans went missing since López Obrador took office — this is roughly one person per hour.

Sheinbaum denies Mexico is becoming more militarised. She has also promised to pursue López Obrador’s plan to attach the National Guard to the Sedena.

Consolidating power

López Obrador has gradually concentrated power in the office of the president.

In the second half of his term, the opposition said it would no longer support his government’s legislative initiatives. The ruling bloc decided to ignore the opposition and pass reforms with the support of minor parties that were later invalidated by the Supreme Court.

This included a legislative overhaul of the national electoral authority, which critics said would give more power to officials affiliated with Morena.

Then, on February 5, the anniversary of the signing of the Mexican Constitution, the president presented a series of constitutional reforms to Congress aimed at fundamentally changing the judiciary’s structure.

López Obrador did not have the necessary congressional majority to achieve the reforms, but Sheinbaum has promised to carry out the amendments.

Restoring hope

One Mexican woman, Leticia Hidalgo, voted for her son for president in last weekend’s election. He was not a candidate. Rather, police took the 18-year-old from his home in Monterrey in 2011 and he never returned.

His mother, along with several other activists, launched a protest during the election to encourage people to cast their ballot for a disappeared person. The goal: to make visible those who have disappeared in Mexico.

Sheinbaum must now govern a country that has become polarised by López Obrador’s policies and governing style. She must govern not only for those who voted for her opponents, but also those, like Hidalgo, who demand the government finally provides Mexicans with the means to live in freedom, equality and peace, without fear of losing their lives or disappearing.

Luis Gómez Romero 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. Mexico has elected its first female president. Claudia Sheinbaum inherits a polarised, violent country looking for hope – https://theconversation.com/mexico-has-elected-its-first-female-president-claudia-sheinbaum-inherits-a-polarised-violent-country-looking-for-hope-231475

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Buchanan, Professor, Discipline of Business Information Systems, University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney

The Fair Work Commission has boosted the wages of workers on awards by 3.75%, just a touch above the official inflation rate of 3.6%.

The increase will apply to fortnightly pay packets from next month and will only directly apply to the one-fifth of Australian workers on centrally determined awards.

Taking into account other workers who will get pay rises because their pay is linked to awards, the Commission says the decision will affect one in four employees.

Most of the workers affected are part time, most are women, and almost half are casual.

While the decision will maintain real wages in the sense that it is just above the official rate of inflation, the Commission reports that even after it real wages for award-reliant employees will remain lower than they were five years ago.

Workers with mortgages will fall further behind. The employee living cost index (which takes into account changes in mortgage interest rates, unlike the consumer price index) has climbed 6.5% over the past 12 months.

Why didn’t the Commission do more?

The Commission noted that “discretionary expenditure” in the retail and hospitality sectors is down. These two industries alone account for one-third of employees on awards.

Less spending means less ability of employers to fund pay rises.

As well, employers of workers on awards are going to have to find an extra 0.5% of each wage to pay the latest increase in the compulsory superannuation contributions, which comes into effect in July.

The Commission also noted low-paid workers will get help from a number of the measures announced in the budget, including the energy bill rebate and an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance.

There’s more to come, for some

In a year’s time, next July, the Commission has offered hope of extra increases for workers in industries including childcare, where work is largely done by women and has historically been undervalued.

The Commission has already received a report on the effect of gender-based occupational segregation and plans to commence work within weeks on determining the size of the increases needed.

In line for extra increases are

• early childhood education and care workers

• disability home-care workers and social and community services workers

• dental assistants

• medical technicians

• pharmacists

• psychologists

• other health professionals (including Aboriginal health workers)

Importantly, the Commission says it’s reviews won’t begin with a “blank slate”. They will build on the reasoning used to increase the wages of aged-care workers and teachers.

Those decisions found the “invisible” caring skills of interpersonal and contextual awareness, verbal and non-verbal communication and emotion management had been “effectively disregarded” by the simplistic use of masculinised benchmarks such as technical skills, strength and responsibility.

The Commission’s new approach, required by legislation, opens up the possibility of a new era in wage setting in which revaluing work traditionally done by women becomes a lever for lifting the pay of people neglected for decades.

For now, it’s a safe decision

This year’s decision is best described as “safe” – or more accurately, unlikely to feed inflation. It affects around 11% of Australia’s wage bill, and it won’t increase it by much. It will lift the minimum hourly wage from $23.23 to $24.10.

Last year’s bigger increase of 5.75% didn’t flow through to overall wages, which have climbed 4.1% over the year to March, with the rate of increase slowing.

For those on low pay, Monday’s decision will be disappointing. The increase of 3.75% won’t be nearly enough.

But the Commission has maintained the possibility of modest but permanent increases in the pay and status of some of Australia’s lowest paid, but most essential, workers. There’s more to come.

Professor John Buchanan has built his career through undertaking scholarly and applied research for ALP and Coalition Governments, employers, unions and non-government bodies. Currently he is undertaking applied research projects supported by Industry Funds Management (associated with the industry superannuation funds), the NSW Teachers Federation, the NSW Nurses and Midwives Association and the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union – as well as for icare NSW. He has been a member of the National Tertiary Education Union since 1991 and was a member of the Enterprise Bargaining Team at the University of Sydney from 2021 – 2023.

– ref. Low-paid wages up 3.75%, with more to come for childcare and health professionals – https://theconversation.com/low-paid-wages-up-3-75-with-more-to-come-for-childcare-and-health-professionals-231473

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harrington, Senior Lecturer in English and Cultural Studies, University of Canterbury

June is set to be a month of holding up the mirror to reality, with our experts recommending three new non-fiction watches.

No streaming list is complete without some true crime, so we’ve got the long-awaited second season of The Jinx (which comes nearly a decade after the first). We also look at Netflix’s scandalous Ashley Madison: Sex, Lies & Scandal, a three-part docuseries that dissects the infamous site designed for people seeking affairs.

Of course, we’d be remiss to not pay attention to the latest Bridgerton offering, which has proven to be equal parts sultry, dramatic and inventive. And if, after all the crime, scandal and heavy petting, you seek some light relief – we’ve got some great options for that too.

There’s no shortage of captivating storytelling on hand, so dive in!

The Jinx season two

Binge

Season one of the gripping American true crime documentary The Jinx (2015) culminated in its subject, enigmatic millionaire Robert Durst, seemingly confessing his role in the murders of his first wife, his best friend and his neighbour when he thought Director Andrew Jarecki’s microphones weren’t rolling.

Nine years on, the second season is just as compelling, although its remit is wider. We follow the fallout from the first season, the launch of a new investigation into the murder of Durst’s friend, Susan Berman, in 2000, and ultimately a new trial. Jarecki and producer Marc Smerling have impressive access. They interview the victims’ families, journalists, the prosecution, some of Durst’s most loyal longtime friends and even his defence team, all while acknowledging their own roles as participants.

They also draw on decades’ worth of archival material, tastefully staged reenactments and candid prison phone calls that do much to undermine Durst and his closest supporters’ credibility. The show ultimately builds an unsettling picture of how Durst used his wealth and charisma to attract a messy network of people who were willing to enable and protect him at the expense of victims and their families – some of whom have waited more than 40 years for justice.

Even those who know what’s coming will find this captivating, illuminating viewing.

– Erin Harrington

The Beach Boys

Disney+

Disney’s documentary The Beach Boys feels like catching a wave through the iconic band’s storied past. From their humble beginnings in a garage in the 1960s to their mid-70s revival, the documentary highlights some touching moments and celebrates many a sunny success.

However, unlike a surfer riding the crest, we don’t get to witness those defining wipeouts. Rather, the production seems to avoid delving into the darker, more complex aspects of the band’s history. I couldn’t help but notice the absence of member Brian Wilson, who is portrayed largely through archival footage. This year, the death of Wilson’s wife (and subsequent declining health) led to him being placed under a conservatorship. With this in mind, his omission takes on a bittersweet tone.

Ultimately, The Beach Boys misses an opportunity to embrace all the bumps and pivots in the band’s illustrious career. And this is a shame since their story has always been about celebrating life despite its hardships.

That said, the documentary is enjoyable, and it serves as a great entry point for those yet to ride the ups and downs of the band’s career. So grab your board and dive in!

– Jadey O’Regan

Read more:
New Disney documentary The Beach Boys tells the iconic band’s story – but not the whole story

Bridgerton season three (part one)

Netflix

As someone raised on BBC’s North and South and Pride and Prejudice, I was convinced Bridgerton wasn’t my cup of tea. However, curiosity caught me during a COVID-induced moment of weakness: I binged it all and added season three’s dates to my calendar.

Bridgerton’s seduction lies in creative world-building, extravagant visuals and gripping social tensions. Heaped servings of lustful fervour don’t hurt either. I shock myself by saying these elements are well executed because of, and not in spite of, a gleeful lack of historical accuracy.

We see the inimitable Lady Featherington (Polly Walker) grill her married daughters about sex, to which a gormless Phillipa cheerily asks, “inserts himself where?” Elsewhere, the Queen wears a gasp-worthy mechanical wig, one smutty scene in a carriage is set to a (genuinely) stirring string rendition of a Pitbull song, and Cressida Cowper’s satellite-like sleeves are big enough to transmit the show itself.

Bridgerton’s inventiveness is balanced by genuine onscreen chemistry. Our friends-to-lovers couple, Penelope Featherington (Nicola Coughlan) and Colin Bridgerton (Luke Newton), orbit one another beautifully. There is true tension via an alternative suitor, along with some tender self-discovery.

All is heightened by the suspicion these fledgling foundations will shake in part two. It is escapist storytelling at its most charming.

– Marina Deller

Ashley Madison: Sex, Lies & Scandal

Netflix

Ashley Madison: Sex, Lies & Scandal is a recent three-part docuseries that delves into the history of an infamous dating website that guaranteed anonymity for individuals seeking extramarital affairs. It spans the startup of the online service soon after the dot-com boom, the impact of a massive data breach in 2015 and the stories of those affected.

With elements we’ve come to expect of Netflix’s storytelling style, the docuseries presents nail-biting narratives and cliffhangers typical of a true crime documentary set in the digital age. Interviews are expertly conducted, providing valuable insights from key individuals involved – although some responsible parties are notably absent.

One intriguing aspect of the plot is the self-righteous hackers known as the The Impact Team, whose identities remain unknown to law enforcement to this day. They broke through Ashley Madison’s paltry cybersecurity defences, outing millions of users and publicly spilling the tea on the company and its duplicitous CEO, Noel Biderman.

What I discovered watching this docuseries is trust means little when it comes to infidelity. Many associated with the website learned this lesson the hard way and have only restored their reputations by coming clean. The debacle serves as a cautionary tale: if you build relationships on deceit, don’t expect them to last.

– Phoebe Hart

Hacks season three

Stan

At the time of writing, eight episodes of Hacks’ third season are currently available on Stan. Critics and fans of the show, myself included, had their misgivings upon hearing there would be a third season – given how neatly all the storylines had concluded at the end of season two. Deborah Vance (Jean Smart) had a successful comedy special, where she took a humorous look at her life’s trauma and fired her comedy writing assistant, Ava (Hannah Einbinder), so she would pursue bigger and better opportunities.

I am so thankful for this third season, however, because it’s the strongest one yet. The writing is a lot tighter and the jokes richer. The season arc focuses on the friendship between Deborah and Ava where, on her break from her esteemed comedy writing gig for a late-night talk show, Ava assists Deborah in securing a late-night hosting gig of her own.

The season smartly focuses on this friendship, whereas season two featured extensive distractions from several subplots with the supporting cast, which ultimately felt like just that: distractions. The focus on Deborah’s aspirations for the top hosting gig provides a poignant commentary on ageing and the “boys’ club” nature of comedy.

– Stuart Richards

Read more:
Psychological drama, wilderness reality and everyone’s favourite dog: the best of streaming this May

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

– ref. Carriage romps, good vibrations and a web of lies: what we’re streaming in June – https://theconversation.com/carriage-romps-good-vibrations-and-a-web-of-lies-what-were-streaming-in-june-230785

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

Former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has ruled out attempting to displace Amelia Hamer as the Liberals’ candidate for Kooyong.

Frydenberg’s quick decision comes after a public backlash against the possibility he could push aside an already preselected woman.

It had also become clear the redrawn draft boundaries for Kooyong, unveiled by the Australian Electoral Commission on Friday, are unlikely to give the boost to the Liberal vote in the seat that some Liberals had initially thought. The seat is held by teal Monique Ryan.

Under the Victorian draft boundaries, the seat of Higgins, held by Labor, is set to be abolished, with large numbers of its voters pushed into Kooyong and Chisholm. Chisholm, now in Labor hands, improves for the Liberals.

Frydenberg posted on X (formerly Twitter) on Monday that he was “not rushing back to politics.

“My position on contesting the next election remains unchanged. I will continue to support the Liberal Party and our local candidate Amelia Hamer.”

The speculation about Frydenberg had split Liberals, with a faultline between those appalled at the idea of dumping a woman – the Liberals are under criticism for not promoting enough female candidates – and those who argued Frydenberg’s return (assuming he won the seat) would boost the parliamentary party’s talent pool.

Former minister Karen Andrews had strongly backed an effort to get him back into parliament.

But Charlotte Mortlock, founder of Hilma’s Network, which encourages women to join the Liberal Party, posted: “Josh could have challenged Scott Morrison for the leadership, he didn’t. Josh could have put his hand up for Kooyong, he didn’t. He could have run for the Victorian Senate vacancy, he didn’t. Women are not collateral damage for Josh Frydenberg’s regrets.”

With Kooyong settled, the Victorian Liberal Party will still have to decide whether to reopen nominations for Chisholm where Theo Zographos was preselected unopposed. There is a push to have Katie Allen, who is the Higgins Liberal candidate, moved to Chisholm.

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. Josh Frydenberg rules out seeking Kooyong preselection – https://theconversation.com/josh-frydenberg-rules-out-seeking-kooyong-preselection-231487

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Post-COVID housing stress has been especially intense in Queensland. Brisbane property prices have climbed by 65% since the pandemic began. That’s almost double the Australian capital city average (34%).

According to new data released by CoreLogic this week, Brisbane now has the second-most expensive housing in the country, behind Sydney. Prices rose by 1.4% in May, with the median property price hitting $843,231.

Across the state, new tenancy rents are up by 45% in just four years. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a 23% increase in real terms, much more than the growth in incomes over that time. Without doubt, rising accommodation costs are inflicting financial pain on many in the Sunshine State.

Soaring rents have squeezed people on lower incomes particularly hard. Our analysis shows the share of new lettings at rents low-income households can afford has slumped from 23% to 10% of all private tenancies since 2020. And less than 1% of available Queensland rentals in March 2024 were affordable to a single person earning minimum wage or a pensioner couple.

These conditions push some people into homelessness. With “tent cities” appearing across Brisbane, the crisis looks to be deepening.

Yet, as we report today, this situation has triggered a flurry of constructive housing policymaking. Queensland has begun to reverse a long-term decline in its social housing stock. The state has also boosted homelessness funding and services.

What led to this crisis?

The pandemic’s economic disruption and state population growth well above the national rate have made the housing situation worse. Since COVID hit in 2020, Queensland’s population has grown by 6.6%, compared with 4.7% for Australia as a whole.

But historic policy inaction and complacency on housing are also to blame. Both state and federal governments have been highly culpable. And, given their complexity, the fundamental flaws of our housing system cannot be quickly solved, even if there is the political will to do so.

Despite this, as argued in our new report for Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS), we have recently seen something of a sea change in official policy responses to the state’s housing challenges. The past two years, especially, have been a remarkably fertile time for housing policy (both state and federal).

Social housing is expanding at last

Nowhere is this shift more striking than in the area of social housing – public or community housing for the lowest income earners.

This is a sector in long-term decline across Australia. Investment has been minimal since the 1990s. By 2021, social housing was down to barely 3% of all occupied dwellings in Queensland.

The sector has withered on the vine, even as demand for its secure and affordable tenancies soared. To manage the resulting mismatch, the state government ratcheted up entry restrictions on social housing.

The income limit to be eligible for social housing has been frozen since the 2000s. The freeze has effectively lowered the income limit by 30% in real terms. The effect is to exclude more of those who are merely poor, rather than extremely poor.

In the past five years, though, we have seen a marked turnaround. Thanks to increasing state investments, the number of social housing dwellings has begun to grow.

Building on that progress, the Queensland government pledged in early 2024 to add 53,500 social housing units by 2046. This would expand the stock of public and community housing by 73%.

Compatible with this target, a medium-term goal is to expand annual output to 2,000 units by 2027-28 – a fourfold increase on the late 2010s.

Crucially, committed (or reasonably expected) state and federal government funding and building contracts underpin this four-year goal. The “reasonably expected” part of this is the Commonwealth’s Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), a share of which should flow to Queensland.

Adding 2,000 social housing units a year by the late 2020s would reverse the sector’s historic decline. If sustained over time, it would begin to expand social housing back towards 5% of all housing, where it once was.

State leads way on evidence-based policy

An aspect of this story is notable not so much for the policy itself, but for the policymaking process. By its own account, the Queensland government scaled its long-term social housing construction target based on demographic modelling of current and projected need.

For readers familiar with service planning in areas like health or education this might sound pretty humdrum. For social housing, though, it is virtually unprecedented in Australia. For example, no such evidence base underpins the size of the Albanese government’s HAFF program.

Queensland can therefore reasonably claim to be leading the way on long-term, evidence-informed planning of social housing investment. That said, the government’s very limited disclosure of its modelling assumptions makes it difficult to assess the adequacy of its 53,500 target. Compared with our own census-based estimate of currently unmet need, it appears relatively low.

Will Queensland’s ambition inspire others?

In other creditable recent initiatives, the state government has stepped up homelessness service funding, acquired former National Rental Affordability Scheme homes that would otherwise revert to market prices, and expanded homelessness case co-ordination and outreach services.

In other areas, reform has been more hesitant. These include tenants’ rights and the use of the planning system to leverage affordable housing production.

At the federal level, the current modest scale and duration of pledged social and affordable housing investment under the Housing Australia Future Fund is similarly concerning. A broader Commonwealth shortcoming is the continuing lack of any commitment to consider – at the very least – the fundamental property tax reforms needed to rebalance Australia’s distorted housing system.

Nevertheless, the recent direction of housing policy has been generally more positive for Queensland than many might imagine. Let’s hope this trajectory continues, as well as inspiring more progressive ambition and action by other Australian governments.

Hal Pawson receives research funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation (Melbourne) and Crisis UK. He is also an advisor to Senator David Pocock and a Director of Community Housing Canberra.

– ref. The housing crisis hit Queensland hard. Jolted into action, the state has raised its game – https://theconversation.com/the-housing-crisis-hit-queensland-hard-jolted-into-action-the-state-has-raised-its-game-230870

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Livingstone, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University

What’s the difference? is a new editorial product that explains the similarities and differences between commonly confused health and medical terms, and why they matter.

Vegan and vegetarian diets are plant-based diets. Both include plant foods, such as fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grains.

But there are important differences, and knowing what you can and can’t eat when it comes to a vegan and vegetarian diet can be confusing.

So, what’s the main difference?

What’s a vegan diet?

A vegan diet is an entirely plant-based diet. It doesn’t include any meat and animal products. So, no meat, poultry, fish, seafood, eggs, dairy or honey.

What’s a vegetarian diet?

A vegetarian diet is a plant-based diet that generally excludes meat, poultry, fish and seafood, but can include animal products. So, unlike a vegan diet, a vegetarian diet can include eggs, dairy and honey.

But you may be wondering why you’ve heard of vegetarians who eat fish, vegetarians who don’t eat eggs, vegetarians who don’t eat dairy, and even vegetarians who eat some meat. Well, it’s because there are variations on a vegetarian diet:

• a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet excludes meat, poultry, fish and seafood, but includes eggs, dairy and honey

• an ovo-vegetarian diet excludes meat, poultry, fish, seafood and dairy, but includes eggs and honey

• a lacto-vegetarian diet excludes meat, poultry, fish, seafood and eggs, but includes dairy and honey

• a pescatarian diet excludes meat and poultry, but includes eggs, dairy, honey, fish and seafood

• a flexitarian, or semi-vegetarian diet, includes eggs, dairy and honey and may include small amounts of meat, poultry, fish and seafood.

Are these diets healthy?

A 2023 review looked at the health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets from two types of study.

Observational studies followed people over the years to see how their diets were linked to their health. In these studies, eating a vegetarian diet was associated with a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease or a stroke), diabetes, hypertension (high blood pressure), dementia and cancer.

For example, in a study of 44,561 participants, the risk of heart disease was 32% lower in vegetarians than non-vegetarians after an average follow-up of nearly 12 years.

Further evidence came from randomised controlled trials. These instruct study participants to eat a specific diet for a specific period of time and monitor their health throughout. These studies showed eating a vegetarian or vegan diet led to reductions in weight, blood pressure, and levels of unhealthy cholesterol.

For example, one analysis combined data from seven randomised controlled trials. This so-called meta-analysis included data from 311 participants. It showed eating a vegetarian diet was associated with a systolic blood pressure (the first number in your blood pressure reading) an average 5 mmHg lower compared with non-vegetarian diets.

It seems vegetarian diets are more likely to be healthier, across a number of measures.

For example, a 2022 meta-analysis combined the results of several observational studies. It concluded a vegetarian diet, rather than vegan diet, was recommended to prevent heart disease.

There is also evidence vegans are more likely to have bone fractures than vegetarians. This could be partly due to a lower body-mass index and a lower intake of nutrients such as calcium, vitamin D and protein.

But it can be about more than just food

Many vegans, where possible, do not use products that directly or indirectly involve using animals.

So vegans would not wear leather, wool or silk clothing, for example. And they would not use soaps or candles made from beeswax, or use products tested on animals.

The motivation for following a vegan or vegetarian diet can vary from person to person. Common motivations include health, environmental, ethical, religious or economic reasons.

And for many people who follow a vegan or vegetarian diet, this forms a central part of their identity.

So, should I adopt a vegan or vegetarian diet?

If you are thinking about a vegan or vegetarian diet, here are some things to consider:

• eating more plant foods does not automatically mean you are eating a healthier diet. Hot chips, biscuits and soft drinks can all be vegan or vegetarian foods. And many plant-based alternatives, such as plant-based sausages, can be high in added salt

• meeting the nutrient intake targets for vitamin B12, iron, calcium, and iodine requires more careful planning while on a vegan or vegetarian diet. This is because meat, seafood and animal products are good sources of these vitamins and minerals

• eating a plant-based diet doesn’t necessarily mean excluding all meat and animal products. A healthy flexitarian diet prioritises eating more whole plant-foods, such as vegetables and beans, and less processed meat, such as bacon and sausages

• the Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend eating a wide variety of foods from the five food groups (fruit, vegetables, cereals, lean meat and/or their alternatives and reduced-fat dairy products and/or their alternatives). So if you are eating animal products, choose lean, reduced-fat meats and dairy products and limit processed meats.

Katherine Livingstone receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP117380) and the National Heart Foundation (ID106800).

– ref. What’s the difference between vegan and vegetarian? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-vegan-and-vegetarian-225275

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

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

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

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

Why has the relationship been rocky?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could the green transition help the relationship?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are we likely to see as tangible outcomes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will this be enough?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What international law says

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

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

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

Disclosure: where did the resources and knowledge come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information systems: what is already known?

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

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

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

Treaty negotiations and compromises

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

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

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

What is Australia’s role in combatting biopiracy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australia’s long history of ‘migration panic’

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

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

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

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

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

Prolonged detention or precarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a migration expert recently stated before a senate inquiry:

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

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

Visa cancellations as double punishment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sara Dehm receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do the incentives work?

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

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

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

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

City GPs may not be convinced

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

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

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

But country GPs may be swayed

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

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

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

How about bulk billing for all?

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

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

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

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

We can afford to, but should we?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do we strike a balance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Improve cycling infrastructure across our cities

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

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

2. Use AI to help fill the gaps

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

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

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

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

3. Use simulations to evaluate decisions on cycling

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

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

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

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

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

4. Plan with a focus on cycling

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

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

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

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

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

5. Make active transport a funding priority

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

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

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

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

6. Connect cycling to long-term health benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three key problems that need fixing.

The points test does not reward the most-skilled migrants

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

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

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

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

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

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

The points test has become bloated with unnecessary points

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

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

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

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

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

Many skilled migrants are ineligible for points-tested visas

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

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

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

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

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

Simple changes could make us all better off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universal demand laws make it harder to sue directors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Australia and the UK too

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

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

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

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

Firms need to help themselves

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

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

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

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

Customer advocates can make a difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is America more polarised than ever?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new normal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word “imminent” flashed out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

Where did it come from?

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

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

Why an Australian Human Rights Act?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did the parliamentary inquiry report say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where to next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does extreme heat do to people?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India: hot and humid on the campaign trail

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

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

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

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

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

The message for other nations

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

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

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

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

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

Climate change is here, now

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

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

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

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

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