Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter K. Lee, Research Fellow, Foreign Policy and Defence Program, USSC, University of Sydney

The AUKUS submarine announcement earlier this month reignited a long-running debate about how to best preserve Australia’s sovereignty.

The announcement addressed some key concerns. For example, the United States will sell (rather than lease) Australia its Virginia class submarines so Australia can keep these boats. The submarine commanders and crew will be Australian. The rotational deployments of US and UK submarines through Perth won’t become a foreign base. And Australia will ultimately build its own AUKUS class nuclear-powered submarines, likely in Adelaide.

Even so, the AUKUS announcement was met with sharp criticism. For some commentators, AUKUS is the last nail in the coffin of Australian independence from the US.

There are concerns about the reliance on others for technology and skills, especially regarding the nuclear reactors. Also, the massive investment allocated to the submarines may undermine a more balanced defence force needed for defending the continent.

What’s more, some analysts have questioned whether Australia can maintain independent military decision-making in future conflicts. For example, would Australia’s submarines be used to support the US in a war with China?

These concerns deserve serious consideration.

But many Australian strategists reject them. For them, AUKUS is less revolution than evolution, merely the logical extension of Australia’s robust defence cooperation with the US over many decades.

The AUKUS submarine plan represents a new shade of the dependency that Australia has always had on the US for advanced capabilities, and with which Australia has always been comfortable. So long as Australia is able to use these tools as it sees fit, the argument goes, then sovereignty is ensured. This is the way of the alliance.

We haven’t yet sacrificed our defence sovereignty or sovereign industrial capabilities on the altar of AUKUS.

Here’s why.

Read more:
AUKUS submarine plan will be the biggest defence scheme in Australian history. So how will it work?

What are Australia’s defence sovereignty objectives?

Many critiques of AUKUS go far beyond the specific issue of whether the proposed submarine pathway compromises Australia’s defence sovereignty. Instead, they touch on deeper questions of Australia’s strategic alignment with the US and the UK, and our national decision-making writ large.

For example, the most headline-grabbing critique is that AUKUS has deprived Australia of its freedom to choose what to do in a possible military contingency over Taiwan. But this hinges on a hypothetical future scenario, the answer to which cannot be known today.

We simply don’t know if Australia is now more locked into a potential US-China conflict than was already the case before September 2021, when AUKUS was first announced.

Answering that question involves far more than an assessment of just our submarine industrial capability.

We should instead judge the submarine announcement, and whether it undermines Australia’s sovereignty, against the actual procurement objectives that lay behind the need to replace the retiring Collins class submarines.

Will the submarine plan help Australia enhance its “defence sovereignty”? And will it help Australia build a “sovereign industrial capability” that gives future governments credible military options at a time of their choosing?

The 2018 Defence Industrial Capability Plan defined “defence sovereignty” as

the ability to independently employ Defence capability or force when and where required to produce the desired military effect.

If the Virginia class or AUKUS class submarines couldn’t be independently operated and needed US commanders or nuclear technicians, this would undermine our defence sovereignty. But this isn’t the case.

Similarly, if a future Australian prime minister wished to send a submarine on a mission and could only do so with US and UK approval and technical support, that would also suggest the government didn’t have full defence sovereignty. But this isn’t the case either.

A century of partnerships with others

The same 2018 capability plan defined a “sovereign industrial capability” as

when Australia assesses it is strategically critical and must therefore have access to, or control over, the essential skills, technology, intellectual property, financial resources and infrastructure as and when required.

In fact, Australia’s domestic defence industrial base has focused on controlling key elements of a capability, rather than manufacturing everything onshore. On the submarines, those will be the components to operate and sustain the boats from Australian shipyards.

Australia has, therefore, chosen to largely equip its defence force with the most advanced capabilities available from abroad – it’s the world’s fourth largest arms importer for a reason.

It’s worth remembering Australia has never had a truly sovereign submarine industrial capability. The cancelled program with France was but the latest in a century of partnership with others.

This has included:

• jointly crewed boats with the UK before the first world war

• dependence on the US submarine fleet operating from our ports during the second world war

• British-built Oberon submarines in the Cold War

• and Swedish-designed Collins class submarines in the 1990s, incorporating a US combat system and French sensors and radars.

In this sense, AUKUS isn’t a “Brave New World”. It’s more “Back to the Future” for Australia’s shipbuilding aspirations.

AUKUS is a sovereign choice

The dream of an entirely self-sufficient defence industry is inherently appealing. There’s something unsettling about relying on others for capabilities to defend oneself.

But Australia’s entry into AUKUS doesn’t only entail sovereign risks for Canberra. The US is also making a big bet putting its most closely-guarded nuclear reactor technology and boats in Australian hands at a time when it needs them most.

So what does the US get out of this deal? In 2021, US officials were at pains to reassure us there was no quid-pro-quo to the deal. But even if there were such a request, there’s nothing about AUKUS that locks Australia into actions future governments cannot withdraw from.

The UK received nuclear propulsion technology from the US in 1958 but stayed out of the Vietnam War.

Canada was also offered nuclear-powered submarines in 1988, but chose not to pursue the offer due to budget constraints and public opposition. That backtrack didn’t doom US-Canada relations.

Every day for the next half century, Australia’s leaders will wake up each morning and be free to make a choice about the future of the AUKUS partnership.

So, too, will the Australian people, who at each election will be able to vote for political parties who might offer different visions for the future of AUKUS. That is what it means to be sovereign.

The Foreign Policy and Defence Program where Peter K. Lee works receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence as well as corporate support from Northrop Grumman Australia and Thales Australia. Peter Lee also receives funding as a Korea Foundation research fellow, part of the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at the University of Melbourne.

– ref. Fears AUKUS will undermine Australia’s defence sovereignty are misplaced – https://theconversation.com/fears-aukus-will-undermine-australias-defence-sovereignty-are-misplaced-202607

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Braid, Professional Learning and Development Facilitator in Literacy Education, Massey University

Anyone watching the debate over the National Party’s recent curriculum policy announcement could be forgiven for thinking there is a deep divide in education philosophy and best practice in New Zealand. The truth isn’t quite that simple.

In fact, most (if not all) interested parties would agree that teaching and learning the basics of literacy and numeracy are vital. As one expert observer noted, the policies of the major political parties actually have much in common.

The National Party policy promises a curriculum focused on “teaching the basics brilliantly”. The government says much of this work is already under way with its current curriculum “refresh”. So where exactly is the issue?

The idea of mandated testing checkpoints clearly has some worried that the National Party’s policy is a return to a “back to basics” mentality that ignores or minimises other vital areas of teaching. As one headline had it, “KPIs are for businesses and boardrooms, not children and schools”.

While the basics are important, the argument goes, there are other things schools should focus on. That may be true, but it need not be so binary. Basic early literacy and numeracy skills are the foundation on which much other success is built.

Perhaps a better way to frame the discussion might be: a wider view of learning is important – and the basics are necessary.

Learning to read and write is hard

Foundations take time to put in place, however. With reading and writing, for example, it’s common for capable adults to assume that many of the foundational skills are easily achieved.

In fact, neuroscience shows literacy learning is a remarkably complex process. Learning to identify letters and the sounds associated with them, and learning to read and retain words, involves a kind of repurposing of the brain’s architecture.

Learning to correctly spell words is even more complex than reading them. Successful teaching of spelling requires clear and systematic guidelines. Mastery cannot be left to chance or done through rote learning lists of words.

Read more:
Has a gap in old-school handwriting and spelling tuition contributed to NZ’s declining literacy scores?

Another often undervalued basic skill is handwriting. It can be seen as purely a presentation technique and simply about neatness. But research shows handwriting skill contributes directly to writing achievement and is the best predictor of writing success in younger students.

Reading and writing also rely on a foundation of oral language skill, including understanding sentence structure and having a strong vocabulary. Being proficient with sentences is the building block for paragraph formation, essential to more advanced writing tasks. Vocabulary knowledge is a strong predictor of academic achievement, connected to both reading and writing success.

What teachers want

None of these skills develop by chance. So the question becomes, how can a curriculum best support teachers to teach literacy from its foundations upwards, with as many students as possible succeeding?

In my work as a literacy facilitator, I find teachers want specifics. They want to know what to teach at each stage. They want to know what the children in their classes should be able to do within that year. They want to know what denotes progress, and when they should be concerned.

Read more:
Teachers need a lot of things right now, but another curriculum ‘rewrite’ isn’t one of them

But the curriculum as a whole is necessarily broad and all-encompassing, to reflect the complex needs of society. The curriculum refresh groups learning in broad bands – and this presents problems for specific guidance and benchmarks.

In the English curriculum, one of the literacy goals for learners in the year 1-3 band is to “use decoding strategies with texts to make meaning”. This is far too broad to be helpful in teaching or assessment in any specific way.

More nuanced progress indicators are still being developed, but the draft examples suggest there will be more guidance in more specific age bands.

Read more:
Education expert John Hattie’s new book draws on more than 130,000 studies to find out what helps students learn

Guidelines and benchmarks

As well as through the curriculum, teaching will be supported by the Literacy & Communication and Maths Strategy and the Common Practice Model. As an educator, I hope the final versions of these documents will offer clear guidelines for both teaching and assessment.

And there are new resources recently provided to schools that contribute usefully to a systematic and successful approach to literacy teaching. These are based on current evidence of how reading is best taught. They include a progression of word learning framework, and decodable readers with lesson plans.

All of these resources should provide useful direction for schools in their literacy teaching. While we can never make the task of teaching literacy simple, specific guidelines can make the pathway for teaching more straightforward.

More focus on the basics need not be boring for learners, either. I recently observed a lesson where the children were learning to decode new words. At the end, a six-year-old said “that was fun, can we do more?” The act of laying foundations for literacy is anything but dull.

The National Party’s call for guidelines around “teaching the basics brilliantly” speaks to a vital part of a rounded education. More detail is now needed about what “brilliance” will mean in practice, just as we need more detail on the current curriculum refresh. Making foundation skills a key component of the curriculum may not be the whole answer, but it is absolutely necessary for overall success.

Christine Braid has been involved with the MoE NZC refresh as an advisor on the literacy indicators; and had worked on the scope and sequence, and decodable text resources for the MoE.

– ref. Teaching the ‘basics’ is critical – but what teachers really want are clear guidelines and expectations – https://theconversation.com/teaching-the-basics-is-critical-but-what-teachers-really-want-are-clear-guidelines-and-expectations-202714

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

In January the Albanese government launched a new arts policy, Revive. Among its measures was a commitment to exempt Australia’s seven national performing arts training organisations from the efficiency dividend.

The directors of Australia’s national cultural organisations in the galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAM) sector might well have looked on in envy, but also in hope. Revive did not deal with their problems, but Arts Minister Tony Burke does recognise they are in deep trouble.

Staff at the National Gallery of Australia, for example, are working in mouldy rooms and using towels and buckets to mitigate a “national disgrace”. This week, Burke gave assurances the cultural institutions will receive increased funding in the May budget, but it is not yet clear how much, or for how long.

And for many of the sector’s ills, the efficiency dividend is to blame.

Read more:
‘Arts are meant to be at the heart of our life’: what the new national cultural policy could mean for Australia – if it all comes together

Making cultural institutions ‘efficient’

The Hawke Government introduced the efficiency dividend – an annual decrease in government organisations’ funding – in 1987, levied at 1.25% annually.

While there was much window-dressing about greater efficiency and value for taxpayers, the overriding aim was budget savings. State governments have also levied efficiency dividends for the same reason.

The efficiency dividend has undermined the cultural institutions ever since. Senior public servants considered if big government departments were taking a hit, GLAM should not be treated differently.

But these institutions are not like other government agencies.

While small and specialised – and therefore poorly placed to absorb continuing cuts – they are legally mandated to grow. But these institutions, required by law to “develop their collections”, can barely afford to preserve their existing materials.

The only place where economies could reasonably be made was in employment. As staff numbers and organisational capacity declined, successive governments told the agencies to find new funding sources, such as philanthropy or user charges.

Entry charges were previously levied at the National Gallery, and even briefly at the Australian War Memorial.

Both generated animosity among visitors, who rightly felt that, as taxpayers, they should not have to pay to see the collections maintained on their behalf.

Not neglecting, strangling

In the end, institutions were in the invidious position of maintaining some core functions while neglecting or abandoning others.

When the efficiency dividend took effect in the late 1980s, the newly established National Film and Sound Archive was forced to suspend acquisition to save deteriorating records.

By 2008 similar effects were evident across the board. Required to produce efficiencies each year, the Australian National Maritime Museum found itself cancelling some exhibitions while deferring or scaling back others.

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies told a parliamentary inquiry staff were “racing against time” to preserve materials that would be “lost forever” in the face of staffing cuts.

The institute even reported the likelihood of having to “compromise” its repatriation program to adhere to the efficiency dividend in 2008, the year of the Apology. The hypocrisies involved here were boundless.

The agencies have often been told to do additional work, even as funding disappeared.

The Rudd government reduced the closed period of most Commonwealth records from 30 years to 20 in 2010. The National Archives would have to release two years of cabinet records annually for ten years. Meanwhile, the archives was failing to meet basic statutory obligations for ensuring timely public access to open period records.

In a 2020 review, David Tune reported the timeframe for examining and clearing records was “unachievable because of resource constraints”.

Governments have nonetheless continued to cut funding to these institutions. The Rudd government increased the efficiency dividend by 2% to a total of 3.25% for one year. In December 2015 the Turnbull government imposed another 3% hike with a view to saving A$36.8 million.

Emergency funding was soon required to keep Trove, the National Library’s popular database, operational. That was a more sensitive issue for nervous politicians: there are Trove users in every electorate around the country and they love it passionately. But a leaky roof in the building that houses Trove, the National Library, is harder to see – even from Capital Hill.

Read more:
Trove’s funding runs out in July 2023 – and the National Library is threatening to pull the plug. It’s time for a radical overhaul

Where to?

In 2018 the Coalition government, supported by Labor, was able to find $500 million for massive renovations at the Australian War Memorial. But it took concerted national action by 150 writers, an intense media campaign and the treasurer’s personal intervention to secure $67 million in 2021 to save vital records at the National Archives from disintegrating before they could be digitised.

If the Albanese government really cares about the future of Australia’s national cultural institutions, the government will exempt them from the efficiency dividend. Revive sets a precedent in relation to performing arts institutions. The National Cultural Policy Advisory Group Burke established has advised dropping the efficiency dividend for cultural institutions.

The unpalatable alternative is continuing the cycle of fiscal suffocation and emergency funding we have seen for decades. A government that creates emergencies for itself to solve can never be called efficient. And for citizens, there is no dividend.

Read more:
Getting more bang for public bucks: is the ‘efficiency dividend’ efficient?

Frank Bongiorno is President of the Australian Historical Association.

Joshua Black is Administrative Officer of the Australian Historical Association.

Michelle Arrow receives funding from The Australian Research Council. She is Vice-President of the Australian Historical Association.

– ref. Australia’s cultural institutions are especially vulnerable to efficiency dividends: looking back at 35 years of cuts – https://theconversation.com/australias-cultural-institutions-are-especially-vulnerable-to-efficiency-dividends-looking-back-at-35-years-of-cuts-202727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Kenny, Professor, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University

It is understandable if observers have struggled to neatly categorise the agreement struck on Monday between the Albanese Labor Government and the Australian Greens party to progressively reduce industrial emissions.

Across political, environmental, and even business circles, opinions vary over whether Labor’s substantial renovation of the Coalition-era safeguards mechanism represents a decisive break from Australia’s decade of climate paralysis or is simply more tinkering when structural reform was needed.

At best, it is modest progress that could unlock wider action on emissions while making it harder for new fossil fuel projects, particularly coal and gas mines, to get going. That’s the view of the Australian Conservation Foundation for example, and of the Grattan Institute’s Program Director, Energy, Tony Wood.

To that extent then, it is a net environmental positive. Perhaps even a major one.
But critics, such as Osman Faruqi, culture news editor for Nine Entertainment, are scathing. The former Greens party candidate believes his old party, whose raison d’etre is environmental protection, has been politically manipulated by Labor.

Under Adam Bandt’s leadership, the Greens played hardball in the negotiations, publicly slamming Labor’s climate credentials and demanding a full ban on all future coal and gas projects in exchange for its crucial Senate votes.

“You can’t put the fire out while you’re pouring petrol on it,” Bandt had said to any microphone he could find. He depicted Labor’s approach of forcing existing industrial players to cut year-on-year emissions while also allowing new fossil fuel ventures as contradictory.

This was, and remains, a serious point – even if in the end, Bandt’s party settled for a hard cap on overall emissions by the 215 industrial polluters, limits on greenhouse gas production from any new projects, and a ministerial obligation to step in if agreed emissions limits are exceeded.

Both sides claimed a major victory, which might be the best sign there is of a fruitful negotiation.

For the Greens though, long derided as a party happier in protest mode rather than legislative process, the deal hints at what might be a subtle shift towards seeking material outcomes, even if that means compromise.

To its supporters’ deep umbrage, the party had long carried the blame for having joined with the Coalition to bury Rudd Labor’s emissions trading scheme in 2009, known formally as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or CPRS.

According to a persistent narrative, the environmental party had succumbed to the mistake of “making the perfect the enemy of the good”.

Greens’ loyalists still bristle at this criticism, eager to point out that Bob Brown cooperated with the subsequent Gillard-led Labor government to deliver an economy-wide carbon price-cum-emissions trading scheme that was superior to the “flawed” CPRS.

Read more:
It’s the 10-year anniversary of our climate policy abyss. But don’t blame the Greens

Faruqi calls the Clean Energy Act of 2011 that instituted those advances “the most serious climate legislation in Australia’s history”.

While this is arguable, it rather ignores its fatal context – namely a polity so divided on climate following the demise of the CPRS that it boosted Tony Abbott and fellow centre-right climate deniers. This ultimately poisoned the well of public support for Gillard and for progressive policy more broadly.

Wherever one stands on this historical debating point, there is no denying the dark shadow of 2009-10 loomed over the most recent negotiations around Labor’s improved safeguards mechanism.

Bandt appears to have concluded that sinking another Labor attempt at emissions control – and on essentially the same grounds – would be hard to justify.

But if he was limited at that end by the risk of repeating the CPRS error, he was hemmed in at the other end by the very public interventions of Brown and others. Brown, the party’s revered founding leader, publicly defended his party’s need to vote down Labor’s bill unless it contained the coal and gas ban.

Bandt’s answer to this predicament was to talk tough and look immovable on coal and gas in order to secure other improvements.

What does this tell us about his leadership style and nature of the party he leads?

When Bandt succeeded Richard Di Natale three years ago, I suggested in these pages that he might drag his party further to the left, such had been his combative rhetorical style.

On reflection, I now think this underestimated the significance of his status as the party’s only lower house MP.

What the current episode shows, is that if anything, he has pulled his party towards a more practical orientation, with an emphasis on getting things done.

Read more:
Australia’s safeguard mechanism deal is only a half-win for the Greens, and for the climate

This may reflect several things at once. First, the party’s maturing electoral base, which is seeking something more than determined talk in the face of a gathering climate emergency.

Second, Bandt’s own experience as an MP rather than a senator. And third, the Greens party’s surprising success in the House of Representatives in 2022. In the federal election of May 2022, one MP became four. The presence of other lower house members may have affected the nature of debate and the identification of priorities within the party room.

Lower house electorates call for political representation that is qualitatively different, closer to voters, and therefore closer to political mortality. Terms last a maximum of three years, not six. To hold a House seat, an MP must connect with a broader cross section of voters than in the Senate.

The voting method for senators uses state-wide proportional representation. That means the Greens, as a Senate-based party, could afford to present arguments for strong action on global heating acceptable to a sliver of voters state-wide – sufficient for a senator or two from most jurisdictions.

In contrast, holding onto lower house seats forces MPs to consider the immediate on-ground economic and employment implications of policy positions.

It may well be that the very presence of three new lower house MPs in the Greens party room has shifted the balance of internal debates to more politically attuned goals. And to debates where the economic and employment downsides of policy must be more frontally addressed.

Mark Kenny 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. Safeguard deal shows Bandt’s Greens party has come of age – https://theconversation.com/safeguard-deal-shows-bandts-greens-party-has-come-of-age-202739

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Iain Perkes, Senior Lecturer, child and adolescent psychiatry, UNSW Sydney

Obsessive compulsive disorder, or OCD, is a misunderstood
mental illness despite affecting about one in 50 people – that’s about half a million Australians.

Our new research shows how long and fraught the path to diagnosis and treatment can be.

This initial study showed it takes an average of almost nine years to receive a diagnosis of OCD and about four months to get some form of help.

Read more:
No, OCD in a pandemic doesn’t necessarily get worse with all that extra hand washing

What is OCD?

OCD affects children, adolescents and adults. About 60% report symptoms before the age of 20.

One misconception is that OCD is mild: someone who is extra tidy or likes cleaning. You might have even heard someone say they are “a little bit OCD” while joking about having beautiful stationery.

But OCD is not enjoyable. Obsessions are highly distressing and there are repetitive, intrusive thoughts a person with OCD can’t control. They might believe, for instance, they or their loved ones are in grave danger.

Compulsions are actions that temporarily alleviate, but ultimately exacerbate, this distress, such as checking the door is locked. People with OCD spend hours each day consumed by this cycle, instead of their normal activities, such as school, work or having a social life.

It can also be very distressing for family members who often end up completing rituals or providing excessive reassurance to the person with OCD.

Read more:
You can’t be ‘a little bit OCD’ but your everyday obsessions can help end the condition’s stigma

How is it diagnosed?

People with OCD often don’t tell others about their disturbing thoughts or repetitive rituals. They often feel ashamed or worried that by telling someone their disturbing thoughts, they might become true.

Doctors don’t always ask about OCD symptoms when people first seek treatment.

Both lead to delays getting correctly diagnosed.

When people do feel comfortable talking about their OCD symptoms, a diagnosis might be made by a GP, psychologist or other health-care professional, such as a psychiatrist.

Sometimes OCD can be tricky to differentiate from other conditions, such as eating disorders, anxiety disorders or autism.

Having an additional mental health diagnosis is common in people with OCD. In those cases, a health-care provider experienced in OCD is helpful.

To diagnose OCD, the health professional asks people and/or their families questions about the presence of obsessions and/or compulsions, and how this impacts their life and family.

Read more:
More than a habit? When to worry about nail biting, skin picking and other body-focused repetitive behaviours

How is it treated?

After someone receives a diagnosis, it helps to learn more about OCD and what treatment involves. Great places to start are the International OCD Foundation and OCD UK.

Next, they will need to find a health-care provider, usually a psychologist, who offers a special type of psychological therapy called “exposure and response prevention” or ERP.

This is a type of
cognitive-behavioural therapy that is a powerful, effective treatment for OCD. It’s recommended people with OCD try this first.

It involves therapists helping people to understand the cycle of OCD and how to break that cycle. They support people to deliberately enter anxiety-provoking situations while resisting completing a compulsion.

Importantly, people and their ERP therapist decide together what steps to take to truly tackle their fears.

People with OCD learn new thoughts, for example, “germs don’t always lead to illness” rather than “germs are dangerous”.

There are a range of medications that also effectively treat OCD. But more research is needed to know more about when a medication should be added. For most people these are best considered a “boost” to help ERP.

Read more:
Brain scans reveal why it is so difficult to recover from OCD – and hint at ways forward

But not everything goes to plan

Delays in being diagnosed is only the start:

• treatment is challenging to access. Only 30% of clinicians in the United States offer ERP therapy. There is likely a similar situation in Australia

• many people receive therapies that appear credible, but lack evidence, such as general cognitive therapy that is not tailored to the mechanisms maintaining OCD. Inappropriate treatments waste valuable time and effort that the person could use to recover. Ineffective treatments can make OCD symptoms worse

• even when someone receives first-line, evidence-based treatments, about 40-60% of people don’t get better

• there are no Australian clinical treatment guidelines, nor state or national clinical service plans for OCD. This makes it hard for health-care providers to know how to treat it

• there has been relatively little research funding spent on OCD in the past ten years, compared with, for example, psychosis or dementia.

What can we do?

Real change demands collaboration between health-care professionals, researchers, government, people with OCD and their families to advocate for proportionate funding for research and clinical services to:

• deliver public health messaging to improve general knowledge about OCD and reduce the stigma so people feel more comfortable disclosing their worries

• upskill and support health professionals to speed up diagnosis so people can receive targeted early intervention

• support health-care professionals to offer evidence-based treatment for OCD, so more people can access these treatments

• develop state and national service plans and clinical guidelines. For example, the Australian government funds the National Eating Disorders Collaboration to develop and implement a nationally consistent approach to preventing and treating eating disorders

• research to discover new, and enhance existing, treatments. These include ones for people who don’t get better after “exposure and response prevention” therapy.

Read more:
Seeing a psychologist on Medicare? Soon you’ll be back to 10 sessions. But we know that’s not often enough

What if I think I have OCD?

The most common barrier to getting help is not knowing who to see or where to go. Start with your GP: tell them you think you might have OCD and ask to discuss treatment options. These might include therapy and/or medication and a referral to a psychologist or psychiatrist.

If you choose therapy, it’s important to find a clinician that offers specific and effective treatment for OCD. To help, we’ve started a directory of clinicians with a special interest in treating OCD.

You can ask any potential health professional if they offer “exposure and response prevention”. If they don’t, it’s a sign this isn’t their area of expertise. But you still can ask them if they know of a colleague who does. You might need to call around, so hang in there. Good treatment can be life changing.

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

Iain Perkes is employed by UNSW, Sydney and the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network. He receives funding from Rotary Mental Health, the Mindgardens Neuroscience Network, National Health and Medical Research, the Tourette’s Association of America, and the New South Wales Higher Education and Training Institute.

David Cooper was funded by the UNSW Scientia PhD scholarship for his time on this article. David is also a clinical psychologist in private practice.

Jessica Grisham receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Rotary Mental Health.

Katelyn Dyason receives funding from Rotary Mental Health, and was funded by Mindgardens Neuroscience Network for her time on this article.

Lara Farrell receives funding from Rotary Mental Health, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF).

Lizzie Manning receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Research Council (ARC) and Tourette Association of America (TAA).

– ref. Obsessive compulsive disorder is more common than you think. But it can take 9 years for an OCD diagnosis – https://theconversation.com/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-is-more-common-than-you-think-but-it-can-take-9-years-for-an-ocd-diagnosis-196651

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Asked to find an extra A$20 billion per year to fund government priorities like building nuclear submarines and responding to climate change, Australia’s top economists overwhelmingly back land tax, increased resource taxes, an attack on negative gearing and extending the scope of the goods and services tax.

The 59 leading economists surveyed by The Conversation and the Economic Society of Australia were asked to pick from a list of 13 options (many of them identified in the government’s 2022-23 Tax Expenditures and Insights Statement) and reply as if political constraints were not a problem.

The economists chosen are recognised as leaders in their fields, including economic modelling and public policy. Among them are former International Monetary Fund, Treasury and OECD officials, and a former member of the Reserve Bank board.

Asked to choose tax measures on the basis of efficiency – minimising the economic damage the extra taxes or tightening of tax concessions would do – 40% chose increased or new taxes on land, while 39% choose increased resource taxes.

International consultant Rana Roy said every major economist in every strand of modern economics had found taxes on the use of land and natural resources to be the least damaging way of raising money.

This was confirmed in Hong Kong, which charged for the use of crown land; in Norway, which heavily taxed oil and gas resources; and in countries such as Australia, which charge for the use of broadcast spectrum.

Former OECD official Adrian Blundell-Wignall said Australia’s natural resources were the birthright of every Australian. It was time for a resource rent tax along the lines of the one introduced by the Rudd and Gillard governments and abolished by the Abbott government in 2014.

Blundell-Wignall said politicians should ignore the usual hysteria that arose whenever the idea was discussed.

Centre for Independent Studies economist Peter Tulip said he would lump income from inheritances in with income from changes in land value. In both cases the income was unexpected, undeserved, and not compensation for sacrifice. And it disproportionately went to the already fortunate.

Negative gearing an ‘easy win’

A quarter of those surveyed backed winding back the ability to negatively gear (write off against tax) expenses incurred in owning investment properties, a concession costed by Tax Expenditures Statement at $24.4 billion per year.

Blundell-Wignall said negative gearing should have been wound back years ago. Few other countries allowed it, and it contributed to the build up of exposure to property in Australia’s banking system and financial risk as interest rates climbed.

University of Sydney economist James Morley described getting rid of negative gearing as an “easy win”. There were better ways to support home building.

Independent economist Saul Eslake said while he was inclined to extend capital gains tax to the sale of high-end family homes, the problem with the idea was that it might allow owners to write off against tax their mortgage payments (as is the case for investors who negatively gear), encouraging even larger mortgages.

One quarter of those surveyed wanted to broaden the scope of the goods and services tax (at present it excludes spending on education, health, childcare and fresh food) and one fifth wanted to increase the rate, pointing out that a 10%, it was low by international standards.

‘Unfair’ super concessions and tax-free inheritances

Asked to choose measures on the basis of equity – not treating similar people differently – 52% backed inheritance taxes, 37% backed winding back superannuation tax concessions and 32% backed increased resource taxes.

None would broaden the GST on equity grounds, and only 3.4% would increase its rate on equity grounds.

Grattan Institute chief executive Danielle Wood said two-thirds of the value of super tax breaks went to the top fifth of income earners, who are already saving enough for their retirement and would do so without tax concessions.

Wood said the government should go further than the measures taken against super accounts worth more than $3 billion announced in February.

The University of Adelaide’s Sue Richardson said super concessions had a negative impact on budget revenue, amounting to tens of billions per year. They were used for tax minimisation by high earners who obtained expensive advice.

Missing fixes: Stage 3 and a carbon tax

Guyonne Kalb of the University of Melbourne said the most important tax measure for fairness was one not listed as an option: scrapping the legislated “Stage 3” tax cuts for high earners, due to take effect in 2024.

The tax cuts scheduled for people earning between $120,000 and $200,000 would not have much or any positive impact on Australia’s labour supply and would cost the budget more than $100 billion in their first seven years.

Three panellists, Frank Jotzo, Michael Keating and Stefanie Schurer, said they would have selected “carbon pricing to raise revenue” had it been an option.

Jotzo said if Australia fully taxed emissions at $100 per tonne, the revenue would be around $15 billion per year from electricity, $18 billion from industry, and $9 billion from transport – very large sums in relation to other options.

Schurer would also take away all subsidies to fossil fuel industries. In 2021-22 measures that wholly, primarily or partly assisted fossil fuel industries cost federal, state and territory governments $11.6 billion.

If the government needed $20 billion per year, it could raise around half from fossil fuel subsidies alone.

Leer más:
How can Australia pay $368 billion for new submarines? Some of the money will be created from thin air

Peter Martin no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Inheritance taxes, resource taxes and an attack on negative gearing: how top economists would raise $20 billion – https://theconversation.com/inheritance-taxes-resource-taxes-and-an-attack-on-negative-gearing-how-top-economists-would-raise-20-billion-202630

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

Labor is unlikely to win more than 46 of the 93 lower house seats at Saturday’s New South Wales state election, which would be short of the 47 required for a majority. The Coalition is likely to win 35 seats, the Greens three and independents nine. Depending on the outcome in Ryde, where Labor currently leads narrowly, Labor is likely to win 45 or 46 seats.

In Saturday night’s article on the election that was updated Sunday morning, I said that The Poll Bludger’s results
estimated Labor led in 51 of the 93 seats, based mostly on election day booth swings. I said that unless there was a systematic issue with the remaining votes, Labor would win a majority.

Read more:
Labor very likely to win majority in NSW election

People who voted at pre-poll booths before election day made up 28% of enrolled voters. On Monday and Tuesday, pre-poll booths in the close seats were counted, and the swings on pre-poll booths have been much worse for Labor than the swings on election day booths.

An example of Labor’s poor performance on pre-poll votes is Goulburn, which the Liberals held by a 3.1% margin going into the election. On election day booths, The Poll Bludger’s results
give Labor a 4.4% swing, enough to overturn the Liberal margin. But the Liberals gained a 0.8% swing to them on pre-poll booths.

Owing to the pre-poll votes, Labor has fallen behind in five seats that they appeared to lead on election night. The closest current Liberal leads are Terrigal (Liberals lead by 50.3-49.7), Goulburn (50.5-49.5) and Holsworthy (50.7-49.3).

Remaining votes in these seats will mostly be postals (which help the Liberals), and absents (which help Labor). But it’s unlikely that Labor can overturn any of the current Coalition leads.

The marked difference in swings between the pre-poll and election day booths is evidence there was a late swing to Labor that showed up on election day, but not in the votes cast before election day.

If Labor is short of a majority, they will still have at least a 45-36 seat lead over the Coalition. With three Greens and some left-leaning independents, it’s clear Labor would govern. This is not the hung parliament of the Victorian 1999 or federal 2010 elections, where there was a one-seat gap between the major parties and the next government was decided by independents.

In Kiama, Liberal Gareth Ward was forced out of the party over charges of sexual assault (which he denies). He ran as an independent, and defeated Labor and an endorsed Liberal, although there was an 11% two party swing to Labor when comparing Ward to what he polled in 2019 as a Liberal.

The Poll Bludger’s results estimate Ward will defeat Labor by 51.2-48.8 when all votes are counted, from primary votes of 39.7% Ward, 34.7% Labor, 11.5% Liberals and 10.7% Greens. I wrote in 2021 that sexual misbehaviour does not appear to have an electoral cost.

Read more:
Has a backlash against political correctness made sexual misbehaviour more acceptable?

Labor’s issues with pre-poll voting have also affected their statewide vote. On election night, the ABC was estimating a Labor two party vote of around 55-45, but that has dropped back to 53.8-46.2 with 68% of enrolled voters counted, a 5.8% swing to Labor from the 2019 election.

Current lower house primary votes are 37.1% Labor (up 3.8%), 35.5% Coalition (down 6.1%), 9.5% Greens (down 0.1%), 1.7% One Nation (up 0.6%), 1.5% Shooters (down 1.9%) and 14.7% for all Others (up 3.7%). Others includes 9.0% for independents (up 4.3%).

Coalition also improves in the upper house

The upper house is elected by statewide proportional representation with preferences, and a quota is 1/22 of the vote or 4.5%. With 54% of the statewide upper house vote counted, Labor has 8.14 quotas, the Coalition 6.67, the Greens 2.05, One Nation 1.26, Legalise Cannabis 0.80, the Liberal Democrats 0.72, the Shooters 0.68 and Animal Justice 0.46.

Current results do not include below the line (BTL) votes. Once these votes are included, the Coalition will drop a little. The Coalition is also likely to fall back when absentee votes are counted, but could continue to increase until then. They have gained 0.24 quotas since Saturday.

A seventh seat for the Coalition instead of one for Animal Justice would deny the left-wing parties (Labor, the Greens, Legalise Cannabis and Animal Justice) the 12-9 split at this election they need to take control of the upper house. An 11-10 left split would mean the overall upper house would be tied 21-21 between left and right.

Read more:
NSW election preview: Labor likely to fall short of a majority, which could result in hung parliament

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

– ref. NSW Labor unlikely to win majority after flopping on pre-poll votes – https://theconversation.com/nsw-labor-unlikely-to-win-majority-after-flopping-on-pre-poll-votes-202715

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Old, Associate Professor, Biology, Zoology, Animal Science, Western Sydney University

If you look at where wombats deposit their poo, you realise they must be able to perform some surprising acrobatics. It has always amazed me to see wombat scats on top of grass tussocks or logs, because I’ve always wondered how the stocky creatures must have manoeuvred themselves to put it there.

It turns out these sturdy marsupials also engage in a different kind of acrobatics: we recently received a video from Lyndell Giuliano and Andy Carnahan at Tomboye, New South Wales, who had filmed two wombats in the wild “doing the wild thing”!

While we know it happens, because there are baby wombats replenishing the population over time, it is not often humans get to witness such an event.

A rare sighting of above-ground intimacy

Scientists have previously documented wombat sex in some detail. Prior to the observations noted in the review, it was believed to occur underground in the privacy of the burrow, which was presumably the reason why it was rarely observed.

While we still don’t know a lot about what wombats do get up to underground, wombats have been spotted mating above ground in the open!

In this scenario, the male wombat has been described to chase the female wombat, often biting her, and pushing her on to her side, before also laying on his side and mating with her.

In this recorded “rom-com”, it appears only the male is on his side during mating.

Violence and death

Other marsupials are also quite aggressive during mating. The Tasmanian devil, probably not unsurprisingly given its name, is particularly aggressive. Males drag females into their den and hold them captive, sometimes for days.

Among the tiny, rodent-like antechinus and phascogales, males are so determined to mate with as many females as they can that it results in a huge surge of stress hormones, leading to complete organ failure, and subsequently death.

Read more:
Doing it to death: suicidal sex in ‘marsupial mice’

This reproductive strategy, called “semelparity”, also occurs in salmon, and some frogs and lizards – but it is extremely rare among mammals.

And in the insect kingdom, it’s not unheard of for males to die after mating, though the reasons are often quite different.

Female praying mantises attract males and after the event decapitate their male companion and devour them. This cannibalism strategy enables females to produce more eggs. Males that are consumed are provided with a reproductive advantage through potentially increased numbers of offspring.

Male bees (drones) mate with females (queens) in the air. In some species, during the height of the “process”, the end of the male’s barbed endophallus is ejected from his body, and is retained with his sperm inside the queen. His work done, the male subsequently falls from the sky dead.

Subterfuge and fusion

Many animals use pheromones, essentially chemical messengers between members of the same species.

Some orchids have taken advantage of these chemicals, mimicking the pheromones of female wasps. Male wasps are tricked into thinking they have found their female, and while mating with the flower, become coated in pollen. These wasps subsequently mate with another orchid, thus transferring the pollen, and subsequently the orchid is fertilised.

Read more:
Warty hammer orchids are sexual deceivers

There are some even more bizarre mating encounters in the animal world. The female deep sea angler fish allows the male to fuse with her, and sometimes even more than one male will fuse to the same female.

In return for sperm, the male anglerfish obtains nutrients from the female via their fused circulatory system. A truly “until death do us part” relationship.

Survival of the quickest

Among marsupials, some species (polyprotodonts) give birth to many more young than they can support. These so-called “supernumerary” young then race to reach a teat first, in what is essentially survival of the fittest.

The maximum number of young able to survive is therefore determined by the maximum number of teats.

Virginian opossums have 13 teats and can give birth to up to 56 young (although the average is more like 21), thus many newborns die shortly after birth, unable to find and attach to a teat. Tasmanian devils likewise produce an average of 39 young, but only have four teats, thus the maximum surviving litter size for devils is four.

Wombats are not polyprotodonts and only have two teats. However they usually only have one joey at a time.

Surprising organs

Much can be said for the phalluses of the animal world. None more so than echidna penises with their four heads, of which they only ever use two at a time.

Sharks likewise have two claspers, extensions of the pelvic fins which support internal fertilisation, of which they only utilise one during mating. Whale penises have been said to have been mistaken for deep sea monsters, or perhaps kraken tentacles, observed wrestling with their whale prey.

Not to be outdone by the males, female marsupials have three vaginas and two uteruses. Two of the three vaginas are used for reproduction to allow sperm to travel up to fertilise the eggs. The third vagina, located between the other two, is for giving birth.

Female platypuses and echidnas have two uteruses and two ovaries. However, in platypus, only the left ovary is functional, and thus they only use one side of their reproductive tract for producing young.

Back to the wombats

As we have seen, there are a broad range of strategies animals use to produce young. Some reproductive strategies we are familiar with, others are deadly.

It puts the wombat video in perspective: our correspondents report the creatures walked away unharmed from the scenario, albeit with some love bites. At least everybody survived.

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

– ref. A rare video of wombats having sex sideways offers a glimpse into the bizarre realm of animal reproduction – https://theconversation.com/a-rare-video-of-wombats-having-sex-sideways-offers-a-glimpse-into-the-bizarre-realm-of-animal-reproduction-202146

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabrielle Appleby, Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW Sydney

This is the first article in our three-part series explaining Voice, Treaty and Truth.

This week, the government will introduce a constitutional amendment into parliament to establish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. If successful, it will go to a referendum likely in October or November.

We now know the wording of the amendment and referendum question the government is proposing. But what exactly is the Voice? Where did it come from? And what it can achieve?

What is the Voice?

The Voice provides permanent representation and recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.

The Voice will be a new body that represents Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from across Australia to provide their input into the decisions, policies and laws that are made by the government and parliament.

This is consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which says Indigenous peoples have a right to participate in government decision-making in matters that affect their rights, through their own political institutions.

Across the world, similar types of institutions and relationships have been established, including in Sweden, Norway and Finland with the Sami people, and with the Māori in Aotearoa. There are also many similar relationships that Indigenous peoples have with the state in North and South America.

However, it’s also important to remember the Voice has been developed as a response to our local circumstances, and in particular, the lack of formal agreement – such as a treaty – or formal recognition of the rightful place of First Nations in Australia.

In Australia, the Voice will be constitutionally enshrined. This means successive governments can’t overturn it. It will be established as a new constitutional body in a new chapter (Chapter 9) at the end of the Constitution.

The key function of the Voice – to make representations to the government and parliament on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people – will also be constitutionally protected. But the government and parliament cannot be compelled (for example, through litigation) to follow these representations. As such, this body would not have “veto” power and is not a “third chamber”.

Rather, the Constitution is setting up a mechanism designed to improve decisions, policies and laws through First Nations input on matters that affect them. These matters might directly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, such as changes to the native title law, but it could also include broader laws and policies that have a particular impact on them, such as environmental protection laws or electoral laws. These decisions would be improved through their input.

Other details about the Voice will be decided by parliament through the normal legislative process. This ensures the Voice’s design can be flexible and evolve as required. These details include:

• how many representatives will comprise the Voice
• how they will be selected
• what its internal processes will be
• what powers it will need to perform its functions, such as accessing government information, and
• how the Voice will interact with parliament and the executive.

As many constitutional experts have explained, establishing the key principles and leaving the detail to be determined through the legislative process is a normal – and desirable – way to design constitutional institutions.

That is not to say we don’t know what the Voice will look like – there has been significant work done on this. Most recently, the government has released a set of principles that will guide the initial legislative design of the Voice, should a referendum be successful.

The Voice also performs another important constitutional role: it recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution. At the moment, the Constitution is entirely silent with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Read more:
Why a First Nations Voice should come before Treaty

Where did it come from?

The Voice has been proposed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the best solution to respond to their overwhelming feeling of disempowerment and structural disadvantage.

The concept of the Voice, when understood as recognition and representation, has a long history. The advocacy for greater political representation for Aboriginal people stretches back to a 1938 petition organised by Yorta Yorta man William Cooper.

Read more:
90 years ago, Yorta Yorta leader William Cooper petitioned the king for Aboriginal representation in parliament

The modern advocacy for constitutional recognition stretches back to Prime Minister Paul Keating’s response to the 1992 High Court native title decision known as “Mabo”. This included a social justice reform package that recommended constitutional recognition, to be determined through a series of conventions and negotiations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

This never happened, however. It wasn’t until 2010 that constitutional recognition was raised again as part of Julia Gillard’s minority government negotiations with independent MP Rob Oakeshott. This resulted in the establishment of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, which reported in 2012.

The panel recommended recognition should be achieved through a series of changes, and most controversially a clause in the Constitution about racial non-discrimination. The Labor government never responded to the proposal and the Coalition dismissed it as a “one-clause bill of rights”.

Following this, in 2015, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders developed the Kirribilli Statement, which requested a new set of consultations to break the stalemate on recognition.

This led to the bipartisan establishment of the Referendum Council and a A$10 million commitment to undertake nationwide consultations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people – as had been proposed back in the 1990s but never happened – as well as non-Indigenous consultations.

At the same time, groups like the Cape York Institute under Noel Pearson began significant work on a proposal for an Indigenous representative constitutional body, which would lay the conceptual foundations of the Voice. This included the development of some initial drafting by constitutional expert and professor Anne Twomey.

The Indigenous members of the Referendum Council, under the leadership of Aunty Pat Anderson, Megan Davis and Pearson, designed a series of locally led dialogues to understand the reform priorities of First Nations people across the country.

Each dialogue selected representatives to attend a First Nations Constitution Convention. After days of negotiations over such pressing questions as sovereignty and how best to achieve aspirations like a treaty, the convention endorsed the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

This called for two stages of reforms. First, a constitutionally enshrined Voice. Second, Makarrata, which is a Yolngu word for “coming together after a struggle”, to include agreement-making (a treaty) and truth-telling. Voice. Treaty. Truth.

Read more:
Your questions answered on the Voice to Parliament

What can it achieve?

The Voice is both a practical and symbolic reform.

Practically, the Voice is informed by decades of research and the experience of people on the ground, that decisions, policies, laws and most importantly outcomes are improved when Indigenous peoples are empowered and involved in the process.

Symbolically, the Voice offers Australia a chance to design a more inclusive narrative of nationhood, informed and strengthened by the participation of First Nations people.

In Australia, we have tried to address these issues before, including through bodies like the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee and the National Aboriginal Conference in the 1970s, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) from 1990-2005, and smaller ministerial advisory bodies.

These bodies did good work and made a real difference, despite having limited power and resources. They often faced hostile political environments where a change in government would undermine the progress made.

But none of these bodies were enshrined in the Constitution, and each was dismantled, often at times of heightened political tension with the government. So, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were not able to have independence, stability, continuity or the necessary capacity to engage with government in a meaningful, ongoing way.

The Voice offers a highly practical reform, which for the first time will offer independence and stability through constitutional enshrinement.

The Voice is also an important stepping stone towards other key reforms in the relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the state – in particular, treaty and truth as described in the Uluru Statement.

The sequencing of Voice, Treaty, Truth has been given significant thought.

Voice precedes Treaty because fair, modern treaty negotiations require first the establishment of a representative Indigenous body to negotiate the rules of the game with the state. It can’t be left to the state alone, and the state must have a group of people with whom to negotiate.

In Victoria, this was achieved through a specific representative institution – the First Peoples Assembly.

Truth follows Voice and Treaty, because, as Torres Strait Islander political scientist Sana Nakata explains, Voice ensures Truth will matter more than just “continued performance of our rage and grief for a third century and longer”. Voice establishes the power for Treaty, and Treaty establishes the safekeeping of Truth.

As historian Kate Fullagar explains, truths about Indigenous history in Australia are well-known – there have already been royal commissions into colonial violence, the stolen generation, and Black deaths in custody. But they have been too easily forgotten, and they have not led to change.

The Voice presents an opportunity for improving the relationship between First Nations and the State through stable political empowerment that will give all Australians an opportunity for a better, shared future.

Read more:
What do we know about the Voice to Parliament design, and what do we still need to know?

Gabrielle Appleby is a member of the Indigenous Law Centre at UNSW (Sydney). She served as a pro bono constitutional consultation to the Regional Dialogues and First Nations Constitutional Convention that delivered the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Eddie Synot is a Senior Engagement Officer with the Uluru Dialogue and a Centre Associate with the Indigenous Law Centre at UNSW (Sydney).

– ref. The Voice: what is it, where did it come from, and what can it achieve? – https://theconversation.com/the-voice-what-is-it-where-did-it-come-from-and-what-can-it-achieve-202138

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Dickinson, Professor, Public Service Research, UNSW Sydney

Work isn’t just about getting paid. Employment can provide a number of benefits for people in terms of health, wellbeing, social, economic and financial inclusion. It can also reduce reliance on government income supports. Arguably, work is even more important for people with disability, who are more likely to be in lower socioeconomic groups and socially isolated.

Our new research shows part-time work is valuable to people with disability and supports their wellbeing. It can also lead to reduced costs for health care.

But if more people with disability are to be supported into part-time and full-time work, we need changes to existing programs and services.

Read more:
Australia is lagging when it comes to employing people with disability – quotas for disability services could be a start

Employment and disability

In Australia, 54% of people with disability are employed, compared with 84% of the wider population. This gap is worsening. In the last ten years, employment of people with disability has decreased by 3%, while the rest of the population is up 23%.

Australia’s federal and state governments invest significant resources in employment supports for people with disability. Notable is the A$800 million spent each year on Disability Employment Services. There are also significant investments through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and other programs.

People with disability are twice as likely to work part time as people without disability. Yet, many of the government-funded programs for people with disability focus on getting people into full-time work.

The right fit

For our research, funded by WISE Employment, we spoke to 25 current Disability Employment Services clients. They told us part-time work can have a positive impact on many areas of wellbeing by building confidence, helping people better engage with families and communities, increase social networks and improve financial stability. As one person explained,

before becoming chronically ill I worked full time and had a lot of pride being independent. Being able to re-join the workforce has given me back that sense of self-sufficiency.

For some people with disability, capacity limitations and having to balance family and medical appointments means that they may only be able to work part time.

I’m recovering from cancer […] I’m hoping I’ll get my energy and stamina back. It’s hard after having time off work and then coming back. I’m just coping with part time, I wouldn’t cope with full time.

Returning to work or entering the workforce for the first time can be a difficult transition. Part-time work can be a helpful springboard into full-time employment.

Care also needs to be taken to match people to the right job – one that uses their skills, with appropriate supports in place. When people go into unsupportive jobs that do not make appropriate accommodations for disability – or if the job or environment is not a good fit – it can have a detrimental impact on their mental health and wellbeing.

Read more:
‘The number one barrier has probably been stigma’: the challenges facing disabled workers in the Australian screen industry

The numbers

We also looked at client data from several sources (including service provider WISE Employment and Personal Wellbeing Index questionnaires completed by Department of Employment Services participants each year) for links between part-time work and wellbeing, mental health and health-care costs.

We found wellbeing scores are higher for those who are employed compared to those who are unemployed. There was no difference in wellbeing scores if individuals were employed full or part time. But we did find evidence those employed in casual jobs have slightly lower wellbeing.

We also drew on data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, which collects information annually on a broad range of topics, including demographic, social, economic and health characteristics of individuals. This data shows engagement with employment is associated with large mental health gains compared to being unemployed. And these effects are more pronounced for people with disability compared to those without disability.

As people work more hours, we see greater mental health benefits for people with disability. These effects seem to be greater for women engaged in part-time work, although the impact is the same for men and women with disability in full-time work.

Read more:
Inclusion means everyone: 5 disability attitude shifts to end violence, abuse and neglect

And it saves health dollars

We also drew on integrated data from sources, including the census, social security payments, tax records, death records and Medicare records. This shows a gradual reduction in costs associated with overall health-care services, mental health services and mental health scripts as the number of hours worked increased.

Finally, we applied the results of our analysis to current Disability Employment Services participants and people with disability on jobactive (now Workforce Australia).

We estimate that if if those who are not working were instead working part time (14–29 hours per week), it would save approximately $62.5 million per year in health-care services (including mental health services) and mental health prescriptions.

Read more:
Low staff turnover, high loyalty and productivity gains: the business benefits of hiring people with intellectual disability

The need for reform

Our research suggests there is value in part-time work for improving the wellbeing of people with disability. This comes with reduced health-care costs. But if we are to increase the number of people with disability working full and part time we need to change existing programs and services.

There needs to be careful thought given to brokerage processes that engage people in part-time jobs and the kinds of incentives offered to employers.

Rather than the frequently “blunt” mechanisms used by Disability Employment Services and the NDIS that categorise people as “working” versus “not working”, there needs to be ways to recognise the potential of part-time work to improve wellbeing.

Helen Dickinson receives funding from ARC, NHMRC, WISE and CYDA.

Dennis Petrie receives funding from WISE, Department of Health and Aged Care, NHMRC, ARC and NDIA.

Zoe Aitken receives funding from NHMRC and WISE.

– ref. Part-time work is valuable to people with disability – but full time is more likely to attract government support – https://theconversation.com/part-time-work-is-valuable-to-people-with-disability-but-full-time-is-more-likely-to-attract-government-support-202711

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Herb Marsh, Distinguished Professor of educational psychology, Australian Catholic University

Your child comes home from school and tells you three classmates are teasing her constantly. One even put chewed gum in her hair as she was listening to the teacher. The other two smiled, laughed and whooped.

Hearing this, you understand your child is being bullied and their physical and mental wellbeing are under attack.

We know bullying is widespread: 30% of adolescents experience bullying, and almost all see it happening. It can devastate victims and lead to depression, anxiety and self-harm.

We are educational psychologists researching how to prevent bullying. And how, in a different scenario, these children could even be friends.

Our new study, published in American Psychology, trialled a new way of tackling bullying among students in South Korea. Instead of trying to change individuals’ behaviour, it puts the focus on how teachers can create an “anti-bullying climate” in their classes.

We believe this could be applied more broadly and provides a potential breakthough in approaches to this crisis.

Previous bullying research

For 50 years, educators have tried and failed to develop successful bullying-reduction programs.

In a recent journal article we reviewed existing school anti-bullying research. The results were disappointing. In particular, we found a focus on changing individual students’ behaviour has been largely ineffective.

We know bystanders can play an important role in standing up to bullies. But this is a risky thing to do. If you stand up to a bully, you put yourself at risk of retaliation and peer rejection. So bystanders are reluctant to support victims and discourage bullies. This is why individual approaches have not worked well.

This suggests we need to think more broadly about bullying and look at the social environment of the classroom to encourage more students to defend victims and defuse bullies.

Read more:
Not every school’s anti-bullying program works – some may actually make bullying worse

Our research

To develop a new approach to tackle bullying, in a separate study we looked at 24 experienced, full-time physical education teachers in Seoul. The group included both male and female teachers, teaching adolescent students.

For each teacher, we looked at two different classes, so there were 48 classes in total and 1,178 students.

The teachers were randomly assigned into two groups over an 18-week semester. One group was given a new approach to bullying to try, called “autonomy-supportive teaching”, while the other had no intervention.

What is autonomy-supportive teaching?

The idea behind autonomy-supportive teaching is to prevent bullying by cultivating a caring, egalitarian classroom that minimises hierarchy, conflict and “me-vs-you” competition.

The teacher sets the tone in the classroom and they can foster an anti-bullying climate when they:

• take the students’ perspective

• use an understanding tone when interacting with students

• provide an explanatory rationale for each request, and

• acknowledge and accept students’ negative feelings if they occur.

Research has shown when teachers do these things, students view teachers as “on their side”. This sense of being listened to and supported by the teacher then spills over to more supportive peer-to-peer relationships. Students then tend to support each other, and interpersonal conflict is low.

What happened in our study?

The teachers in our first group were asked to participate in an eight-hour
autonomy-supportive teaching workshop at the start of semester. The teachers in the second group had no intervention from us, and approached their classes as they normally would.

Students in both groups were then surveyed at three points in the semester, asking them questions about the classroom climate.

Students were asked both how their teacher behaved and how they felt about their classmates. For example, they were asked to agree or disagree with statements including: “My teacher listens to how I would like to do things” and “My classmates try to understand how I see things”.

They were also asked about bystander behaviour and bullying, with questions such as: “I do something to help if I see a kid being called nasty names or threatened” and “In this class I was called names I didn’t like”.

Our findings

Using statistical analysis, we first tested whether teachers in group one followed the autonomy-supportive model as they were taught in the workshop. We found that they did.

We then tested whether students reported their classmates were supportive (as you would expect if the teacher was following the workshop’s advice), and also found they did.

We then tested whether students in this group were more likely to stand up for other students and less likely to experience bullying than those in group two (who did not follow the autonomy-supportive model).

Again, we found they were more likely to stand up to bullying and less likely to experience it.

Read more:
‘There’s a lot of places where you can’t be seen’: how bullying can be invisible to adults

Next steps

Our study showed how programs that change classroom climates can minimise bullying.

We are now hoping to extend our research in Australian school settings. We plan to scale up our program through online delivery.

This way, we can reach a larger, more diverse sample of schools, including those in remote locations.

Herb Marsh receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Johnmarshall Reeve receives funding from the National Institute of Health (NIH, USA).

– ref. Our new study provides a potential breakthrough on school bullying – https://theconversation.com/our-new-study-provides-a-potential-breakthrough-on-school-bullying-195716

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edith Jennifer Hill, Associate lecturer, Flinders University

Review: Wellmania, Netflix.

What does it mean to be well? Wellmania, inspired by Brigid Delaney’s book of the same name, attempts to answer this question.

Liv (Celeste Barber) is stranded in Australia after losing her green card, desperate to return to her job in the United States. After failing the necessary medical exam to apply for a new card, Liv embarks on a journey to “get well”.

And she’s going to do it in four weeks.

The show dives into the world of overconsumption of all kinds: food, drugs, sex and, eventually, wellness. Wellmania is a show where a glass of orange juice can’t be presented without a comment about the vitamin C content.

Liv’s health (or apparent lack thereof) is never presented in terms of her weight; instead, her “have it all” lifestyle is constantly critiqued by her friends and family.

You cannot, it turns out, have it all – if the all is a functioning career, family life, and copious amounts of cocaine and alcohol.

Throughout the eight episodes of this mini-series, Liv encounters all manner of wellness tropes, from green juices to vaginal crystal eggs. We are taken on a journey with her to cupping massages, watching intensely attractive people glistening on exercise bikes, to a nude session with a sex therapist.

Her journey is never presented as the clean, soft and beautiful acts of wellness we see on our Instagram feeds. Instead, it is hilarious, sweaty, vomit-covered, and has fallen so far off the wagon we are left wondering if she ever actually got on.

In the words of Liv: “Fuck diet, fuck exercise. All I need to do is starve myself and have my colon rinsed out.”

Wellmania shows us in no uncertain terms that while many of us crave quick fixes for our health, no such thing exists. It is quickly apparent Liv’s wellness extends beyond what she puts in her body (or up her nose). We see a complex relationship between friends, family and coming home.

This is, of course, coupled with all the humour of returning home and turning into an adolescent version of yourself when you are around your adult sibling. There is nothing quite like being 39 and flipping off your younger brother behind your mum’s back.

Read more:
Marketing, not medicine: Gwyneth Paltrow’s The Goop Lab whitewashes traditional health therapies for profit

What we mean when we talk about wellness

Wellness is a part of our everyday vernacular. We see it on our Instagram feeds, in news headlines and in a recent trend in publishing.

Self-help books, keto diets, green juices and ways to “get well” are promoted everywhere.

Wellness meant something distinctly different when the word first became commonplace. The history of the word wellness dates back to 1961, with medical doctor Halbert Dunn’s book High Level Wellness.

Dunn’s definition of wellness relies on an individual’s ability to function to their maximum potential physically, mentally and emotionally.

Dunn’s work inspired physician John W. Travis to create the world’s first wellness centre. Travis believed health is not the absence of disease, but an “ongoing dynamic state of growth”.

His centre did not claim to treat or diagnose patients, but to help them understand why they are sick.

Since then, wellness has transformed from an ideology of self-examination used to describe relaxation, meditation and managed nutrition, to its current medicalisation alleged to treat health issues. Today, wellness is an unregulated word. With the popularisation of social media platforms and the commodification of bodies and health, wellness can be bought and sold online.

In Wellmania, we see Liv enter multiple wellness spaces.

Some of these spaces endeavour to help Liv understand her mind and body, like her very concerned and unbelievably patient GP. Others indirectly assist Liv to explore her past and relationship with her body: she hitchhikes to Canberra with a death doula; she sees a tarot card reader while microdosing on LSD.

It’s not all health and wellness. The show includes a significant amount of drug use and shows the dangers and dark side of the wellness industry, and of Liv. Liv’s self-destructive behaviour is mixed in a dangerous cocktail with fasting, bloodletting cupping and an inability to confront the past.

Read more:
Could microdosing be as good as yoga for your mood? It’s not that big a stretch

A holistic journey

Health is not linear. A consistent theme running through wellness discourse for the past 60 years is that to be completely well requires a holistic approach – not holistic as in the bastardisation of the word by the multibillion-dollar industry of juice cleanses and essential oils, but holistic as in the sense of the whole body.

Wellness is the physical body, yes, but also emotional, mental, sexual and spiritual health. Each episode of Wellmania shows us this, woven throughout a story of family, home, flourishing careers and the downfalls of them all.

Alongside its wonderful, crude humour (necessary in a show featuring colonics), Wellmania unexpectedly tells the story of grief and how uniquely it penetrates and devastates our bodies.

This series shows us one woman’s world of wellness. But, more than that, it reminds us how closely wellness is tied to our lives, bodies and loved ones, and the consequences of being unwell.

Wellmania is on Netflix from today.

Edith Jennifer Hill 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. Green juice, microdosing, cupping and … cocaine? Netflix’s Wellmania takes a humorous dive into the heady world of wellness – https://theconversation.com/green-juice-microdosing-cupping-and-cocaine-netflixs-wellmania-takes-a-humorous-dive-into-the-heady-world-of-wellness-202235

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Petousis-Harris, Associate Professor Primary Health, University of Auckland

Following the deaths of two infants, doctors and scientists worry New Zealand’s whooping cough epidemic could be the worst in years.

Known as pertussis or the 100-day cough, whooping cough is a bacterial respiratory infection caused by Bordetella pertussis. It is extremely infectious and endemic in New Zealand.

Usually, pertussis epidemics occur in three-to-five-year cycles. Community (herd) immunity is thought to account for such cycles, with the end of an epidemic indicating herd immunity has been reached.

Then, over the subsequent three to five years, the pool of susceptible individuals grows until a threshold of susceptibility triggers another epidemic.

But the COVID pandemic, years of declining immunisation coverage and some nasty microbes have conspired to create a perfect storm of infectious diseases – including whooping cough, measles, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza – for the coming winter.

Infants and young children, particularly Māori, will face the brunt.

Read more:
Respiratory infections like whooping cough and flu have plummeted amid COVID. But ‘bounce back’ is a worry

Symptoms of whooping cough

Whooping cough symptoms vary depending on many factors, including age, vaccination history and pre-existing conditions.

Initially, symptoms are non-specific, reading from the common cold’s playbook – runny nose, sneezing, occasional cough and maybe a mild temperature. This is the most infectious stage and also when antibiotics are most effective.

Features such as violent coughing, sometimes ending in vomiting or turning blue, and the “whoop” sound on breathing occur one to two weeks after these initial symptoms. At this stage, antibiotics are not expected to help symptoms, and for severe cases, care is only supportive, rendering clinicians and loved ones feeling helpless.

Social distancing slowed spread of pertussis

The youngest infants are most vulnerable to pertussis. Complications usually arise from violent coughing, and range from facial swelling, broken ribs and lack of oxygen to brain bleeds and swelling. There is also evidence B. pertussis has immune-suppressing qualities, increasing the risk for co-infections or secondary infections.

Over the past 21 years, at least ten deaths in babies have been caused by pertussis in New Zealand. There have likely been more, with some potentially incorrectly attributed to sudden unexpected death in infancy.

Under normal circumstances, whooping cough epidemics happen in cycles, but the arrival of COVID sparked rigorous and unprecedented social distancing and other infection control measures. This was essentially a global war against infectious diseases.

Read more:
Future infectious diseases: Recent history shows we can never again be complacent about pathogens

As its only host, B. pertussis relies on humans in order to spread. It is possible its spread was disrupted by the measures we took to protect ourselves from COVID, particularly in regions with more severe and prolonged social distancing measures such as Auckland.

The effect of social distancing on transmission patterns and epidemics has not yet been investigated specifically for pertussis. But work on other endemic airborne respiratory diseases, including influenza and RSV, warns large future outbreaks could happen following periods of extended social distancing. These findings are plausible for pertussis.

A third of infants lack protection

Social distancing measures may have reduced circulation of B. pertussis and a corresponding reduction in immunity may have increased susceptibility to pertussis infection. A disruption to the cyclic pattern of an epidemic disease may alter the timing and severity of the following epidemic. It may delay onset but increase severity.

While our pandemic actions may have an influence, we can be certain the alarmingly low immunisation coverage rates will result in some very severe cases among our most vulnerable infants. Around a third of our youngest infants are not appropriately immunised against pertussis. For Māori infants, more than half are at risk.

Prior to the COVID pandemic, New Zealand immunisation coverage had been diving, following a short but glorious period of high and relatively equitable vaccine coverage. This downward trend continued over the past three years, made worse through the diversion of resources that were already strained. The greatest declines in coverage have been among Māori.

This all means that since the last pertussis epidemic, New Zealand has been accruing susceptible individuals, accentuated by the pandemic and the declining immunisation coverage. It is like an all-you-can-eat smorgasbord of hosts for the pertussis bacterium to infect and travel through.

How to curb the immediate risk

The first most important action to prevent infant deaths is by vaccinating pregnant women. This provides transient protection to the newborn until old enough to receive their own vaccinations.

Less than half of pregnant women in New Zealand receive a pertussis booster, and for Māori women this is halved again. We need urgent action to raise awareness and improve access to services because this pregnancy boost is around 90% effective in preventing pertussis in infants.

The second most important task is to ensure infants receive their vaccines on time, every time. Getting these services to where they are most needed is vital and it requires urgent action to improve awareness and support for services to be delivered. This vaccine is about 85-94% effective in preventing pertussis in infants and young children in New Zealand.

While COVID remains an ongoing challenge, the pandemic has left us more vulnerable than we were to many other respiratory infections. There are many other factors that contribute to infectious diseases like pertussis, including poverty. Interventions that reduce risk through social and environmental policies, such as improving housing conditions, are central to infectious disease control.

However, with a burned-out and under-resourced workforce, and a revised health system that has yet to demonstrate its worth, some of the best tools in our kit for this winter are our underutilised vaccines.

Helen Petousis-Harris receives research funding for investigator-led research from GSK. She has severed on Advisory Boards for industry. She does not receive industry honoraria. She has received funding from research councils for studies related to vaccine coverage. She also has grants from the US CDC for vaccine safety studies and vaccine confidence workstreams.

Hannah Chisholm 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. Low vaccination and immunity rates mean NZ faces a harsh whooping cough winter – what needs to happen – https://theconversation.com/low-vaccination-and-immunity-rates-mean-nz-faces-a-harsh-whooping-cough-winter-what-needs-to-happen-202499

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Crowley, Adjunct Associate Professor, Public and Environmental Policy, University of Tasmania

Labor and the Greens on Monday announced a deal to strengthen a key climate policy, the safeguard mechanism, by introducing a hard cap on industrial sector emissions.

But the Greens failed in their bid to force Labor to ban new coal and gas projects.

Labor did give ground in setting a hard cap on emissions which should – if it works – make many new fossil fuel projects unviable.

This isn’t the end of the climate wars – but the politics are changing. Denial and inaction are over. Now we’re seeing a tussle between the urgency of the Greens, Teals who want to ban fossil fuels and the Labor government as it balances demands from industry, climate voters and the unions.

All the while, our carbon budget is shrinking and the time available to act on climate change is disappearing.

How did we get here?

In May last year, the Coalition government lost office after almost a decade of climate policy failures.

Labor won government. But the balance of power changed in other ways too. Seven Climate 200-backed Teal independent MPs were elected. The Greens had a record four members elected to the House of Representatives and gained the balance of power in the Senate.

Labor immediately set a new goal of cutting emissions 43% by the end of the decade. To do it, they pledged to strengthen the Coalition’s questionable safeguard mechanism. This scheme’s emissions allowances had been set too high, and there were too many exemptions, meaning it wouldn’t have cut the promised 200 million tonnes of emissions by 2030.

Read more:
Greens will back Labor’s safeguard mechanism without a ban on new coal and gas. That’s a good outcome

Labor promised to fix these problems. The Greens and Teals were extremely sceptical. The resulting negotiations have lasted months, and left many disillusioned about how ambitious Labor will really be on climate.

But we do have something. Yesterday, a deal was announced and Labor’s reformed plan passed the lower house en route to the Senate. The Liberal and National parties voted against the reforms, even though it is their own – indeed their only – climate policy.

Were the negotiations worth it?

Hopefully. But it hasn’t been smooth sailing to secure Green and Teal support.

From the outset the Greens tried to drive a hard bargain by seeking an end to all new coal and gas projects. This, the government made clear, was not going to happen, and it didn’t.

Relations deteriorated rapidly as the government looked set to keep backing new coal and gas projects. Even so, the Greens kept negotiating. This produced an early win – the government ruled out using its new A$15 billion National Reconstruction Fund to invest in coal, gas or logging native forests.

Labor did not give ground on no new coal and gas. But the Greens did secure a legislated cap on the total industrial emissions covered by Australia’s 215 largest polluters covered by the safeguard mechanism – essentially, fossil fuel industries and manufacturers.

Greens leader Adam Bandt says the cap will mean only half of the 116 proposed coal and gas projects can proceed. But this isn’t guaranteed. Some projects would not have been viable regardless. And laws can be readily changed.

It remains to be seen how the concessions won by the Greens will work in practice.

What about the Teals?

The Teals have been less visible in this process, but they haven’t been sitting idle. Both the Teal independents and independent senator David Pocock have called for an absolute cap on industrial emissions.

Indeed, founding Teal Zali Steggall was the first to call for a UK-style “climate budget”, which proved palatable for that country’s conservative government.

Besides an emission cap, the Teals have called for restraint around the use of offsets and increased legitimacy on the use of controversial carbon offsets to ensure emissions are actually cut, not just offset. They advocate stronger oversight by the Climate Change Authority and other regulators.

Teal Sophie Scamps has proposed a means of ending the revolving door between the fossil fuel industry and government positions which influence government’s climate policy.

Teal Kylea Tink proposes expanding the safeguard mechanism to cover more of the economy. At present, the mechanism only covers about 30% of Australia’s emissions and is limited to industrial facilities emitting over 100,000 tonnes a year. Tink wants this to be lowered to 25,000 tonnes.

In the Senate, Labor needs David Pocock’s vote as well as the Greens to pass the bill. Pocock’s constituents are worried about the effect of new fossil fuel projects on our shrinking carbon budget. But as a pragmatist wanting action rather than inaction, he has given his support.

Where to next?

Attention will remain on the Greens, given they hold the balance of power in the Senate. They have capitalised on this, making sure to capture the media narrative by claiming the win – and flagging political fights to come over new fossil fuel projects.

But the Greens have also taken some friendly fire. Many environmentalists have been privately and publicly critical of a deal struck which does not rule out continued fossil fuel expansion in one of the world’s largest suppliers. Greens senator Nick McKim hit back at those in the movement he claim had undermined negotiations.

Greens founder Bob Brown dubbed Labor’s rejection of no new coal and gas a “colossal mistake”. He warned if climate minister Chris Bowen moves to weaken the hard cap on emissions, he will “bring the house down.”

We’ve seen this kind of backlash before, and it can be dangerous. Similar outrage helped kill the Rudd Labor government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

This is just the start. Having achieved a hard emissions cap, the Greens must ensure the cap actually caps emissions. That it’s set at the right level. And that it can’t be dodged or gamed. Stopping half of the mooted 116 fossil projects is hypothetical right now. Their voters will want them to deliver.

Read more:
Australia has a once in a lifetime opportunity to break the stranglehold fossil fuels have on our politics

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

– ref. Australia’s safeguard mechanism deal is only a half-win for the Greens, and for the climate – https://theconversation.com/australias-safeguard-mechanism-deal-is-only-a-half-win-for-the-greens-and-for-the-climate-202612

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

Senator Lidia Thorpe’s defection from the Greens changed the power dynamic in the Senate. Now the government needs two crossbenchers (and the Greens) to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition. Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie and her colleague Tammy Tyrrell can provide those two votes, which puts them in a potentially strong bargaining position.

Lambie has never been afraid to call things how she see’s them. She recently visited Alice Springs and urged the situation needed some “tough love”.

In this podcast Lambie urges a return to the old Community Development Employment Projects program for Indigenous communities. Under the CDEP people exchanged unemployment benefits for work and training managed by a local Indigenous community organisations. “I don’t know how many of these places I’ve visited in the Indigenous communities over the last nine years where they just so much praise that old jobs program.”

“This is where the Indigenous [people were] taught to build their own communities. [Where] we have young Indigenous kids out there that are getting apprenticeships and therefore they’re staying in their communities and they start looking after their communities.”

Lambie says the government wants to say the Voice is going to make a difference. “Well, here’s the voice of the people for nine years. Start moving on these sort of programs. They work and they work really well. You’re talking about you want to build all these thousands of new Indigenous homes. This is the perfect time to grab the bull by the horns and run with this old CDE program. It needs to be restarted. You get those skill sets and they stay in the communities”.

Lambie is taking a cautious approach to the Voice, with her view to be driven by her Tasmanian constituency.

“I have to say to you, Michelle, no, I don’t [have a view]”, although she has no problem with the wording Anthony Albanese has announced.

Lambie has found this government better to deal with than the Morrison one, and noticed a much improved atmosphere in Canberra.

“Compared to them [the former government] it’s actually been quite delightful. So as long as they stay honest and the trust remains – hopefully that will remain.

You know, towards that last election walking into this building nearly made me feel sick to the stomach. And if there’d been any more people in dark clothes, I would have thought in those last half a dozen sitting weeks I was attending a funeral up here. That is what it was like – it was god awful.”

Michelle Grattan 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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Lambie urges return of former employment program for Indigenous communities – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-lambie-urges-return-of-former-employment-program-for-indigenous-communities-202722

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Crowley, Adjunct Associate Professor, Public and Environmental Policy, University of Tasmania

Labor and the Greens on Monday announced a deal to strengthen a key climate policy, the safeguard mechanism, by introducing a hard cap on industrial sector emissions.

But the Greens failed in their bid to force Labor to ban new coal and gas projects.

Labor did give ground in setting a hard cap on emissions which should – if it works – make many new fossil fuel projects unviable.

This isn’t the end of the climate wars – but the politics are changing. Denial and inaction are over. Now we’re seeing a tussle between the urgency of the Greens, Teals who want to ban fossil fuels and the Labor government as it balances demands from industry, climate voters and the unions.

All the while, our carbon budget is shrinking and the time available to act on climate change is disappearing.

How did we get here?

In May last year, the Coalition government lost office after almost a decade of climate policy failures.

Labor won government. But the balance of power changed in other ways too. Seven Climate 200-backed Teal independent MPs were elected. The Greens had a record four members elected to the House of Representatives and gained the balance of power in the Senate.

Labor immediately set a new goal of cutting emissions 43% by the end of the decade. To do it, they pledged to strengthen the Coalition’s questionable safeguard mechanism. This scheme’s emissions allowances had been set too high, and there were too many exemptions, meaning it wouldn’t have cut the promised 200 million tonnes of emissions by 2030.

Read more:
Greens will back Labor’s safeguard mechanism without a ban on new coal and gas. That’s a good outcome

Labor promised to fix these problems. The Greens and Teals were extremely sceptical. The resulting negotiations have lasted months, and left many disillusioned about how ambitious Labor will really be on climate.

But we do have something. Yesterday, a deal was announced and Labor’s reformed plan passed the lower house en route to the Senate. The Liberal and National parties voted against the reforms, even though it is their own – indeed their only – climate policy.

Were the negotiations worth it?

Hopefully. But it hasn’t been smooth sailing to secure Green and Teal support.

From the outset the Greens tried to drive a hard bargain by seeking an end to all new coal and gas projects. This, the government made clear, was not going to happen, and it didn’t.

Relations deteriorated rapidly as the government looked set to keep backing new coal and gas projects. Even so, the Greens kept negotiating. This produced an early win – the government ruled out using its new A$15 billion National Reconstruction Fund to invest in coal, gas or logging native forests.

Labor did not give ground on no new coal and gas. But the Greens did secure a legislated cap on the total industrial emissions covered by Australia’s 215 largest polluters covered by the safeguard mechanism – essentially, fossil fuel industries and manufacturers.

Greens leader Adam Bandt says the cap will mean only half of the 116 proposed coal and gas projects can proceed. But this isn’t guaranteed. Some projects would not have been viable regardless. And laws can be readily changed.

It remains to be seen how the concessions won by the Greens will work in practice.

What about the Teals?

The Teals have been less visible in this process, but they haven’t been sitting idle. Both the Teal independents and independent senator David Pocock have called for an absolute cap on industrial emissions.

Indeed, founding Teal Zali Steggall was the first to call for a UK-style “climate budget”, which proved palatable for that country’s conservative government.

Besides an emission cap, the Teals have called for restraint around the use of offsets and increased legitimacy on the use of controversial carbon offsets to ensure emissions are actually cut, not just offset. They advocate stronger oversight by the Climate Change Authority and other regulators.

Teal Sophie Scamps has proposed a means of ending the revolving door between the fossil fuel industry and government positions which influence government’s climate policy.

Teal Kylea Tink proposes expanding the safeguard mechanism to cover more of the economy. At present, the mechanism only covers about 30% of Australia’s emissions and is limited to industrial facilities emitting over 100,000 tonnes a year. Tink wants this to be lowered to 25,000 tonnes.

In the Senate, Labor needs David Pocock’s vote as well as the Greens to pass the bill. Pocock’s constituents are worried about the effect of new fossil fuel projects on our shrinking carbon budget. But as a pragmatist wanting action rather than inaction, he has given his support.

Where to next?

Attention will remain on the Greens, given they hold the balance of power in the Senate. They have capitalised on this, making sure to capture the media narrative by claiming the win – and flagging political fights to come over new fossil fuel projects.

But the Greens have also taken some friendly fire. Many environmentalists have been privately and publicly critical of a deal struck which does not rule out continued fossil fuel expansion in one of the world’s largest suppliers. Greens senator Nick McKim hit back at those in the movement he claim had undermined negotiations.

Greens founder Bob Brown dubbed Labor’s rejection of no new coal and gas a “colossal mistake”. He warned if climate minister Chris Bowen moves to weaken the hard cap on emissions, he will “bring the house down.”

We’ve seen this kind of backlash before, and it can be dangerous. Similar outrage helped kill the Rudd Labor government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

This is just the start. Having achieved a hard emissions cap, the Greens must ensure the cap actually caps emissions. That it’s set at the right level. And that it can’t be dodged or gamed. Stopping half of the mooted 116 fossil projects is hypothetical right now. Their voters will want them to deliver.

Read more:
Australia has a once in a lifetime opportunity to break the stranglehold fossil fuels have on our politics

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

– ref. Australia’s safeguard mechanism deal is only half a win for the Greens, and for the climate – https://theconversation.com/australias-safeguard-mechanism-deal-is-only-half-a-win-for-the-greens-and-for-the-climate-202612

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bianca Fileborn, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, The University of Melbourne

The following article discusses sexual violence, self-harm and suicide.

Gender and sexuality diverse (LGBTQ+) people experience disproportionately high levels of sexual violence, but we still know very little about their experiences of sexual violence and seeking support in Australia.

Our new research, released today, is one of the most comprehensive Australian studies on this to date. We surveyed 330 NSW-based LGBTQ+ survivors of sexual violence.

We found most participants experienced sexual violence at multiple points across their lives. And participants often reported negative experiences when trying to access support services.

Our findings also provide insights into what helped survivors on their journey to recovery, and how we can better support LGBTQ+ survivors.

Experiences of sexual violence

Nearly 25% of people we surveyed had experienced sexual violence in the past year, with this figure rising to 34% for participants aged 18-25 years.

Common forms of sexual violence the participants experienced included: non-consensual sexual touching (88%); sexual harassment (80%); someone continuing to have sex with them when they didn’t want to (80%); and someone having sex with them when they felt they couldn’t say no (82%).

Participants also experienced forms of sexual violence relating to their LGBTQ+ identity, such as being insulted, ridiculed or shamed about their body and gender expression (42%).

Participants told us:

• sexual violence most commonly occurred in a private residence (71%)

• most knew their perpetrator, and 86% of people said their perpetrator was a cisgender man. Contrary to myths promulgated by anti-trans lobbyists, our participants reported that trans women, trans men and non-binary people were least likely to have been perpetrators of sexual violence

• for participants who knew their perpetrator, 51% said they were part of LGBTQ+ communities, while 49% were not

• when asked about their perpetrator’s motivation, participants identified sexism (30%), homophobia (16%), biphobia (7%) and transphobia (5%) as driving factors.

Nearly 85% said their experiences impacted their mental health, and contributed to thoughts about self-harming (52%) and suicide (43%). For younger participants, thoughts about self-harm and suicide rose to 73%.

More than half of participants said experiencing sexual violence directly contributed to them self-harming or attempting suicide.

Read more:
Trans people aren’t new, and neither is their oppression: a history of gender crossing in 19th-century Australia

Survivors must be heard and believed

Telling someone about an experience of sexual assault is a vital step on the pathway to support and healing. Most participants (78%) did disclose their experiences to someone, typically a friend (66%), mental health provider (32%), partner (24%) or family member (23%).

Helpful responses ensured the survivor felt heard, believed, and free from judgement:

My dad was the most helpful. He just listened, and he gave me space and time, didn’t ask for details. Just let me tell him what I was ready to tell.

Another participant said:

Friends that I told were supportive and listened to my experiences. They never expressed any doubt that “it didn’t count as assault”, and had nuanced understandings of the factors of age, gender and power at play.

Helpful responses also included helping survivors to access support, and ensuring survivors had control over what happened next.

Yet, many participants experienced unhelpful or harmful responses when they disclosed. This included:

• being dismissive or invalidating someone’s experience

• minimising the impact of the event(s)

• blaming the survivor for what happened

• not believing the survivor’s experience.

One participant said:

I got a few “guys are assholes” responses. Just a throwaway comment, no validation or support. Or I was told that I was too young, and I should’ve known better.

Inappropriate responses made the survivor feel unsupported or misunderstood, and this contributed to self-doubt and self-blame. This can create barriers to seeking further help, such as survivors feeling like there would be no point to disclosing to other people.

‘The police were dismissive’

Participants told us that not all support services are knowledgeable about LGBTQ+ relationships and cultures. Some said they had to educate practitioners on LGBTQ+ relationship dynamics when they were seeking support.

Very few people reported their experience to police, and there’s a well-documented history of criminalisation and violence by police against LGBTQ+ people.

Of the 15% of participants who did report to police, most described negative or “mixed” experiences at best:

The police were dismissive, rude, and minimising of what happened.

Another said:

It was horrible… honestly the reporting process was more traumatising than the assault itself.

However, some participants did discuss positive experiences:

The police officer, he made me feel safe and quietly reassured me and it felt like I wasn’t judged.

Nevertheless, current service provision didn’t adequately address the needs and experiences of LGBTQ+ people, and was in some cases actively retraumatising.

What helped survivors?

LGBTQ+ survivors identified a number of support methods, resources and strategies that services can learn from and implement.

These included services:

• adopting a holistic, trauma-informed approach to support. This approach focuses on survivors’ strengths, and aims to create safe and empowering environments that avoid retraumatising survivors

• training and educating staff on LGBTQ+ relationships and dynamics of sexual violence

• hiring LGBTQ+ people

• centring the voices and experiences of LGBTQ+ survivors.

Ongoing psychological assistance and medical support were helpful for some people. Others found hope in connecting with family, spending time in nature, and hobbies. Participants used physical exercise to reconnect with their body, and recommended reading about trauma to reduce feelings of disempowerment.

Our findings indicate services need to facilitate holistic and creative responses for survivors that may differ from current “talk therapy” practices.

I saw a trauma-informed psychologist who worked with me for years afterwards to help me understand that it was not my fault and I shouldn’t carry the shame of what happened.

Support services need to create an inclusive and affirming environment that reflects the diverse needs of LGBTQ+ communities. This might include services tailored towards these communities.

For example, gendered programs such as “women’s groups” can be important sources of peer support for cisgender heterosexual women survivors. But they may leave women from LGBTQ+ communities, cis and trans men, and non-binary people without access to peer support programs.

There’s an urgent need for these insights to be taken up in policy and practice so we can appropriately support all survivors on their pathways to healing.

Eloise Layard, Jade Parker and Teddy Cook from ACON contributed towards this article.

If this article has raised any concerns for you, inclusive support is available from:

The Rainbow Sexual, Domestic and Family Violence Helpline (1800 497 212). And 1800Respect (1800 737 732).

Further information and resources are available through Say It Out Loud.

Bianca Fileborn receives funding from ACON, the Australian Research Council, the City of Sydney, and the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Services.

Angela Dwyer receives funding from ACON, the Australian Research Council, and the Tasmanian Department of Police, Fire, and Emergency Management.

Ash Barnes receives funding from ACON.

Nicole L. Asquith receives funding from ACON, and the Tasmania Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services.

– ref. ‘The reporting process was more traumatising than the assault itself’: LGBTQ+ survivors on accessing support after sexual violence – https://theconversation.com/the-reporting-process-was-more-traumatising-than-the-assault-itself-lgbtq-survivors-on-accessing-support-after-sexual-violence-202142

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jesse J. Fleay, Republic Constitutional Scholar, Federalist, Co-Author of the Uluru Statement, University of Notre Dame Australia

Australia is preparing for a referendum to decide on the proposed Voice to parliament for First Nations people. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has stated the referendum is likely to happen sometime between October and December this year.

If the Voice passes the referendum, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will be represented by a dedicated body to advise parliamentarians on the challenges faced by First Nations Australians.

At the same time, we are also seeing growing public support for the idea of Australia becoming a republic. This, like instituting a First Nations Voice to parliament, would involve significantly amending our Constitution.

If the referendum for a First Nations Voice is successful, what lessons might it hold for future possible constitutional amendments, such as Australia turning away from the monarchy and embracing republic status?

Read more:
The 1881 Maloga petition: a call for self-determination and a key moment on the path to the Voice

Why we need the Voice

By committing to a referendum and steering Australia on the path towards a First Nations Voice, the Albanese government has provided an opportunity to focus firmly on the needs of First Nations communities.

Significant issues need to be addressed, such as ongoing health and social inequities. First Nations Australians are more likely to die early than non-Indigenous Australians.

In addition, ongoing systemic harm across generations continues to impact First Nations peoples and their families.

Even with the little detail we know so far of the Voice’s proposed design, the ethical reasons behind its implementation are enough for many people to have already given the proposal their backing. In my view, instituting the Voice would be a vital step towards reconciliation between First Nations peoples and Australians of settler backgrounds.

To achieve reconciliation, another pivotal step on this long journey would be to consider what began the centuries of injustice and domination of First Nations peoples: British invasion.

The British invasion of Australia disrupted at least 40,000 years of cultures and traditions, and remaining part of that monarchy makes reconciliation between Australia’s First Peoples and its settler population much more difficult and unlikely.

Read more:
Our research has shown Indigenous peoples’ needs cannot be understood and met, without Indigenous voices

Australia’s allegiance to the Crown

Last year’s accession of King Charles III prompted renewed debate about whether and when Australia should end its allegiance to the British Crown.

Under Australia’s current constitutional arrangements, the Crown-appointed governor-general can decide whether a democratically elected prime minister remains in office. This is what led to the 1975 crisis in which Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was sacked by Governor-General Sir John Kerr.

In Australia, successive governments have done everything from removing the religious element from Queen Elizabeth II’s regal title in 1973, to establishing principles that prevent undue interference in Australia’s legislative or judicial processes. Despite this, the Crown’s presence and institutions remain ingrained in our governance and constitution.

Consider also that First Nations MPs, upon entering parliament, have to swear their allegiance to the reigning British monarch. This is something many would find difficult and contrary to why they are entering political life.

Would we ever have to choose between a Voice and a Republic?

There has been a lot of disagreement about constitutional transformation, yet there is clear support for a Voice from Australian republic advocates. Naturally, thousands of Australians feel they are not being heard, and want a more direct voice to their government as well.

Australians demonstrated they’re unhappy with their politicians and their government in a State of the Nation survey in 2022. Australians may be increasingly unhappy with their governments, yet Australians do not often vote yes in a referendum, which naturally raises concern for those who want the voice and a republic.

Although the State of the Nation survey demonstrated a lack of trust in politicians and our system of government, that alone is not enough to prompt people to vote for constitutional transformation. People need to see how a change will make life in Australia better for them. For a republic, the power is shifted from an elite family to the majority through an elected representative.

Republic supporters may be particularly apprehensive, having already fallen short of a victory in the previous referendum in 1999. Could the voice referendum throw out the republic debate for another decade?

The Albanese government has made it clear the First Nations Voice must take priority, but has fully committed to a republic referendum, and has appointed an assistant minister to the project of shaping Australia’s sovereignty.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart states First Nations sovereignty was never ceded and that it coexists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not challenging the Crown in the call for self-determination, but for coexistence alongside the Crown. Should that Crown cease to hold sovereignty over Australia, naturally, First Nations people will continue to coexist with whatever sovereignty takes its place.

Read more:
‘We’re all in’, declares an emotional Albanese as he launches the wording for the Voice referendum

How can we best move forward?

Apart from caring for people, lands and waters, both the Voice to Parliament and the Australian Republic referenda have the potential to bring a more independent identity for our country.

This is especially important as we live in a time where far-right groups and false information place Australia’s freedom and democracy at risk.

These steps are also important in addressing the burden of crisis and torment experienced by First Nations people since Britain’s invasion.

The question is no longer whether we should have a voice for First Nations Australia, but why we don’t have one already. Surely the same can be said of our nation’s independence.

Jesse J. Fleay is affiliated with Australian Labor Party.

– ref. The First Nations Voice to parliament could get us to revisit conversations about Australia becoming a republic – https://theconversation.com/the-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-could-get-us-to-revisit-conversations-about-australia-becoming-a-republic-199285

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matevz (Matt) Raskovic, Associate Professor of International Business & Strategy, Auckland University of Technology

Nearly two-thirds of New Zealanders are worried about the cost of living, and a quarter are worried about putting food on the table. But the shame that can come with financial stress is preventing some people from seeking help.

According to a recent survey, a third of New Zealanders were not completely truthful with their family or partners about the state of their finances, and 12% actively hid their debt. This shame and worry about money can spill over into addiction, violence and suicide.

Considering the effect of financial stress on our wellbeing, it is clear we need to overcome the financial stigma that prevents us from getting help. We also owe it to our kids to break the taboo around money by communicating our worries and educating them on how to manage finances better.

The burden of growing debt

Ballooning mortgage repayments are compounding the financial distress of many New Zealanders. At the beginning of 2023, an estimated 11.9% of home owners were behind on loan payments, with more than 18,400 mortgagees in arrears.

Given the majority of household wealth in New Zealand is in property, our financial vulnerability is closely linked to the ebbs and flows of the second most overinflated property market in the world.

There are also cultural reasons for growing financial distress. Many households have taken on significant debt to “keep up with the Joneses” and to pursue the quintessential quarter-acre dream. Social comparison and peer pressure act as powerful levers contributing to problem debt and over-indebtedness.

The average household debt in New Zealand is more than 170% of gross household income. That is higher than the United Kingdom (133%), Australia (113%) or Ireland (96%).

The rise of problem debt

And we are digging a deeper hole. Over the past year, demand for credit cards increased by 21.7%. The use of personal debt such as personal loans and deferred payment schemes is also climbing. There is a real risk this debt could become problem debt.

Problem debt can have severe and wide-reaching consequences, including housing insecurity, financial exclusion (the inability to access debt at affordable interest rates), poor food choices and a plethora of health problems.

Yet, the hidden psychological and social cost of financial distress remains often unspoken, overlooked and underestimated.

Read more:
How financial stress can affect your mental health and 5 things that can help

Even before the pandemic, 69% of New Zealanders were worried about money. The share of people worrying about their financial situation was higher for women (74%), and particularly women aged 18-34 (82%). It is no coincidence that the latter are particularly at risk of problem debt through so-called “buy now, pay later” schemes.

The stigma of financial distress extends beyond the vulnerable and the marginalised in our society. A growing number of middle-class New Zealanders are quietly suffering financial distress, isolated by financial stigma and the taboos around discussing money. When pressed, one in two New Zealanders would rather talk politics over money.

Time to talk about money

Navigating financial distress and stigma can feel overwhelming. Where money is a taboo subject, it may feel safer to withdraw, maintain false appearances, be secretive or shun social support.

This tendency to avoid open discussions and suffer in silence can lead to feelings of isolation and contribute to poor mental health, such as depression, anxiety and emotional distress.

Sadly, the trauma of living in financial distress can also break up families. Losing the symbols of hard-gained success and facing the prospect of a reduced lifestyle can be tough. It often triggers feelings of personal failure and self doubt that deter us from taking proactive steps to talk openly and seek help.

But what can families do to alleviate some of this distress?

Seek help

First, understand that you are not alone. Over 300,000 New Zealanders owe more than they earn.

Second, seek help. There are many services that help people work through their financial situation and formulate a plan. In the case of excessive debts, debt consolidation or debt solution loans may help reduce the overall burden and simplify your financial situation.

For those struggling with increasing interest on their mortgages, reaching out to your bank early is critical. During the 2008 recession, banks in New Zealand worked with customers to avoid defaulting on mortgages, including reducing servicing costs, capitalising interest and moving households to interest-only loans. It is essential to understand that the banks do not want mortgagees to fail, and that options exist.

Read more:
Are you financially literate? Here are 7 signs you’re on the right track

To help future generations avoid debt traps, we need open communication about money – also known as “financial socialisation”. This includes developing values, sharing knowledge and promoting behaviours that help build financial viability and contribute to financial wellbeing.

The lessons about handling money from family and friends are crucial for improving our children’s financial capability, helping them be more financially resilient and better able to survive the stresses we are experiencing now – and those yet to come.

Matt Raskovic is also a visiting professor at Zhejiang University in China and is also Vice-President Administration at the Academy of International Business (AIB).

Aaron Gilbert receives funding from Te Ara Ahunga Ora (Retirement Commission).

Smita Singh 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. Don’t let financial shame be your ruin: open conversations can help ease the burden of personal debt – https://theconversation.com/dont-let-financial-shame-be-your-ruin-open-conversations-can-help-ease-the-burden-of-personal-debt-202496

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Charlson, Conjoint NHMRC Early Career Fellow, The University of Queensland

Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comprised of the world’s most esteemed climate experts, delivered its sixth report and “final warning” about the climate crisis. It outlined several mental health challenges associated with increasing temperatures, trauma from extreme events, and loss of livelihoods and culture.

The report followed news that the jail sentence for a climate protester who blocked the Sydney Harbour Bridge had been quashed by a judge, who noted she’d been diagnosed with climate anxiety.

But what is “climate anxiety”? Is it a normal emotional response to a real and imminent threat? Or is it a condition that could require clinical treatment?

Read more:
‘It can be done. It must be done’: IPCC delivers definitive report on climate change, and where to now

A sense of panic, worry and fear

As people become increasingly affected by climate-related events, many may find themselves feeling anxious, angry and sad about the state of the planet.

“Climate anxiety” describes a sense of panic, worry and fear towards the consequences and uncertainty brought by climate change. The term “climate anxiety” is sometimes used interchangeably with “eco-anxiety”, which some health professionals and researchers refer to as anxiety felt about wider ecological issues. Researchers suggest climate anxiety can be shaped by our environments. For example, the type of media we see about climate change, how the people around us feel, or how our communities and governments are responding.

Research shows climate anxiety is felt around the world, especially among young people.

However, climate anxiety is not officially recognised as a condition or a mental health disorder in the diagnostic manuals relied upon by psychologists, psychiatrists and other health professionals. In fact, many researchers and health professionals warn against medicalising this understandable and expected response.

Read more:
Ten years to 1.5°C: how climate anxiety is affecting young people around the world – podcast

Natural responses to danger

We know anxiety is an in-built natural reaction when we feel in danger. Such feelings prompt us to prepare for and reduce threats to our wellbeing and safety.

For example, anxiety might help us when we encounter an animal in the wild, but it can also help us prepare for a difficult exam.

The findings of the latest climate report indicate humans have a lot to prepare for and act on, if we are to reduce the threats of climate change. To some extent, humans need to experience some levels of climate anxiety in order to prompt the changes that we need for a sustainable future.

But anxiety can become overwhelming and appropriately diagnosed as a clinical anxiety disorder. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders (DSM-5), anxiety disorders are marked by anxiety that is persistent, excessive and usually out of proportion to the threat.

Research shows climate anxiety can affect people’s ability to go to work or study, concentrate, sleep, or even enjoy time with their friends and family.

The challenge for health professionals is whether climate anxiety can be deemed persistent or excessive, given the nature of climate change. Whether or not climate anxiety is currently seen as a clinical diagnosis, there is a clear need to support the people that experience it.

Read more:
Friday essay: how many climate crisis books will it take to save the planet?

Channelling climate anxiety for good

While climate anxiety can have a negative impact on mental wellbeing, research findings from 32 countries have shown that some people may be channelling their climate anxiety in ways to help the environment, such as through pro-environmental behaviours and environmental activism, such as climate protests.

Australian data shows experiencing “eco-anger” – which refers to anger or frustration about ecological issues – leads to better mental health outcomes and is a key adaptive emotional driver of engagement with the climate crisis.

But more intense experiences of frustration and anger in relation to climate change are associated with greater attempts to take personal actions to address the issue. This suggests getting angry may help prompt some people to do something about climate change.

Read more:
You’re not the only one feeling helpless. Eco-anxiety can reach far beyond bushfire communities

Staying grounded

In the absence of official diagnoses or recognised treatments, collective action against climate change may therefore be an effective solution to climate anxiety.

And there are other things people can do to manage climate anxiety. While further research is needed to find the most effective strategies for climate anxiety, health professionals suggest:

• spending time in nature
• learning ways to ground yourself during distressing emotions
• seeking support
• taking breaks to prevent burnout
• taking small everyday actions for self-care.

Small actions to help the planet might also help foster feelings of agency and wellbeing.

When climate anxiety veers into overwhelming or unhelpful territory, seeking support from a “climate-aware” health professional can be an important step to take.

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

Fiona Charlson receives funding from the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Queensland Health.

Tara Crandon receives funding from the Child and Youth Mental Health group at QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute.

– ref. Is ‘climate anxiety’ a clinical diagnosis? Should it be? – https://theconversation.com/is-climate-anxiety-a-clinical-diagnosis-should-it-be-202232

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Manlik, Casual Academic and PhD Candidate, Macquarie University

The recent ABC mini-series, In Our Blood, offers a fictionalised account of Australia’s response to AIDS, focusing on the development of a partnership between impacted communities, health professionals and government.

Lesbians are placed at the centre of this narrative, but more needs to be done to ensure these representations capture the complex histories of AIDS information activism in Australia.

The series features two lesbian characters: activist Deb (Jada Alberts) and high-school teacher Mish (Anna McGahan). Deb and Mish are shown attending activist rallies, speaking up in meetings with government representatives, transforming their home into an office for AIDS activists, and caring for people living with HIV.

Their inclusion serves to historicise lesbians’ immense contribution to Australian AIDS activist movements – but it perpetuates a well-established trope of the “altruistic” lesbian carer and advocate.

In this re-telling, we risk forgetting that lesbians also protested their own exclusion from epidemiological, medical and public health information about AIDS.

Are lesbians at risk of HIV?

The answer is complicated.

While sex between cisgender women is thought to be low risk, several studies suggest that transmission is possible.

It is, however, important to understand how HIV risk transmission hierarchies can render lesbian and queer women invisible in our surveillance data.

When a person is diagnosed with HIV, risk transmission hierarchies are used to record their most probable source of exposure to the virus. In Australia, these risk hierarchies have never recognised female-to-female sex as a potential route for HIV transmission.

This means, for example, that if a woman reports having sex with both men and women, her exposure to the virus is recorded as “heterosexual contact”. If she has never had sex with a man but uses injecting drugs, her exposure is recorded as “injecting drug use”. And if she has never had sex with a man or used injecting drugs, her exposure is recorded as “undetermined”.

Yet, even if we understand sex between cisgender women as low risk, lesbians are not a homogenous group. Some lesbians use injecting drugs, have sex with men or could become infected with HIV through another source of transmission.

But for these lesbians to be included in HIV surveillance data, their sexual identities must be obscured.

Because of this, we have no way of knowing how many lesbian and queer women are living with HIV or have died from AIDS-related illness in Australia. Although, anecdotally, we do know that four of the first seven women diagnosed with HIV were lesbians.

Untold histories of lesbian AIDS activism

Since the 1980s, when In Our Blood takes place, lesbians have advocated for their inclusion in Australia’s public health, medical and epidemiological response to AIDS.

Much lesbian AIDS activism occurred from within Australian AIDS organisations, such as the AIDS Council of New South Wales (now known as ACON). In 1988, ACON’s Women and AIDS Working Group produced the organisation’s first lesbian information pack, entitled Sapph Sex – its title a pun on safe and sapphic sex.

Outside the context of Australian AIDS organisations, activists used lesbian magazines to produce, debate and circulate lesbian-specific information about HIV. Lesbian magazines published articles contesting the dominant assumption that lesbians were “immune” to HIV, and provided a platform for HIV-positive lesbians to write on their experiences.

Readers of Australia’s largest lesbian magazine, Lesbians on the Loose, were also encouraged to write in to the magazine’s resident doctor, Doctor on the Loose, to request guidance on a range of health-related concerns.

During the height of the epidemic, Doctor on the Loose provided readers with advice on the risks associated with specific practices: sex, injecting drug use, sperm donation, and blood sharing rituals. In their responses, Doctor on the Loose worked to dispel common misunderstandings about HIV transmission:

you can’t catch it from toilet seats, sharing food, sharing joints, shaking hands or kissing (there is no evidence that tongue kissing passes on HIV).

HIV-positive lesbians were, of course, at the forefront of these activist endeavours. One such lesbian was Jennifer Websdale. As one of the first seven women diagnosed with HIV in Australia, she was committed to ensuring lesbians were visible as a distinct population in the global AIDS epidemic.

In 1991, Websdale received funding to attend the Ninth National AIDS/HIV Forum in New Orleans. When she returned to Australia, she coined the term “cuntaphobia” to describe the complex intersections of sexism and homophobia that work to silence HIV-positive lesbians in wider conversations about HIV.

Websdale died from AIDS-related illness in 1994 at the age of 33. Three decades on, her activism retains an enduring relevance.

As we move toward ending HIV in Australia, it is imperative for us to interrogate how our ingrained re-tellings of the Australian AIDS epidemic foreground some histories, and marginalise others.

After all, the project of ending HIV will require us to ensure that HIV prevention, testing and treatment information and services are available to all Australians – including lesbian and queer women.

Kate Manlik received funding from a Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship while undertaking this research.

– ref. The ABC’s In Our Blood shines a light on lesbian activism during the AIDS crisis – but there’s more to their story – https://theconversation.com/the-abcs-in-our-blood-shines-a-light-on-lesbian-activism-during-the-aids-crisis-but-theres-more-to-their-story-202354

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Oliver A.H. Jones, Professor, RMIT University

You might have noticed many skin and haircare products are advertised as “paraben-free”, or come across online influencers warning parabens are terrible for your health.

But what is a paraben? And could a minor ingredient in products that many of us use daily really be that bad for us?

Let’s take a closer look.

Read more:
What does exposure to environmental chemicals mean for our health?

What are parabens?

Chemically speaking, paraben is the collective name for a group of closely related compounds – the parahydroxybenzoates. The “para” refers to the positions of certain parts of the molecule (it’s also where the “para” in “paracetamol” comes from).

There are several different types of paraben, so you might see methylparaben, ethylparaben propylparaben, or butylparaben, in a product’s ingredient list. They may also be listed as a more formal chemical name. Methylparaben can be listed as 4-hydroxy methyl ester benzoic acid or methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate for example.

The shorter version is that parabens are a group of related molecules added in small amounts (less than 1%, usually lower) to food, drugs and cosmetics as preservatives.

They work by preventing the growth of harmful bacteria and fungi to improve product shelf life and safety. More than one paraben may be used, and they may be combined with other preservatives to protect against a broad range of microorganisms.

Parabens can be absorbed through the skin or ingested but are generally excreted quickly, usually via urine. They have been in use for decades and no parabens have been banned in Australia.

Some studies on cell cultures or animals have suggested parabens can affect the endocrine system (which controls our hormones) but it’s not clear how or even if this is relevant to humans.

The amounts used in some of those animal studies are much, much higher than you would find in make-up, for example. A lot of these studies also involved feeding the chemicals to the animals or injecting them, rather than putting them on the skin (which results in much lower absorption into the body).

You might also have heard parabens are “oestrogenic” (meaning they can mimic or affect oestrogen in the body). In fact, parabens are far less oestrogenic than natural oestrogen (that both males and females produce). They are also less oestrogenic than phytoestrogens, compounds produced naturally by many plants.

So, even though there have been studies raising concern, the overall risk in humans using parabens in normal doses is low. As the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme puts it:

The available data do not indicate any risks associated with exposure to the chemicals in this group. The chemicals have been shown to have weak oestrogenic activity, but there are no established adverse outcome pathways for this effect.

The US Food and Drug Administration reached a similar conclusion, noting

Studies have shown, however, that parabens have significantly less oestrogenic activity than the body’s naturally occurring oestrogen. Parabens have not been shown to be harmful as used in cosmetics, where they are present only in very small amounts.

Isn’t natural better? Aren’t human-made chemicals bad for you?

Whether something is natural or not tells you nothing about its safety.

Snake venom is natural, as is uranium, lead and mercury. I wouldn’t buy personal care products with these “natural” ingredients in them.

Many things we use every day without a second thought – like aspirin, nylon, and silicone cookware – are synthetic.

The name of a chemical also tells you nothing about risk. If I told you a substance contained ethyl butanoate, pentyl acetate, ethene and capric acid, would you eat it? Well, you probably already have; these are all found in bananas and many other fruits.

So why are people worried about parabens, then?

This goes back to an often misinterpreted 2004 study that found parabens in breast tissue and breast cancers. But this doesn’t mean much by itself and doesn’t justify claims parabens cause cancer.

Correlation is not causation. The presence of parabens in a tumour does not mean parabens caused the tumour.

In fact, the researchers in the 2004 study only looked at breast cancer tissue (and didn’t compare it with healthy tissue). They even found parabens in their blank samples (with no tissue in them at all). So, as others have noted, it’s hard to draw any real conclusion from it about the role parabens may or may not play in cancer risk.

A lot of the endocrine disruptor stuff you hear on social media about parabens is usually from someone trying to spruik a “natural” or “clean” alternative, so you might not be seeing the full picture.

And remember: the presence of something does not automatically mean it is harmful. Toxicology 101 is “the dose makes the poison”. Everything is toxic in the right amount, even water. We should not ask whether a chemical causes cancer or acts as an endocrine disruptor, but whether it does so at the levels to which we are exposed.

The scientific consensus from the US Food and Drug Administration, the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme and the European Medicines Agency and others is that for parabens at normal dosages, the health risk is very low.

So why are so many products marketed as ‘paraben-free’?

Going “paraben-free” has become a very effective marketing tool. If people want paraben-free products and will pay more for them, why not give them paraben-free products?

But paraben-free does not mean preservative-free, nor does it mean the products are safer (even if that’s what is implied).

If you remove parabens from a product, you need to add other preservatives, which may be less effective. This increases the risk of the product going off (some users of “clean” make-up brands have reported finding mould in products) and could even cause harm.

So what’s the verdict?

Ultimately, the choice to use products containing parabens is a personal one.

As a chemist I think parabens are well-researched, safe and and necessary, but if you are worried, you can opt for paraben-free products. Just be aware they will probably have a shorter shelf life, contain other (less effective) preservatives, and could well have other problems. I’d take a small amount of a well studied, and well-regulated, chemical in my skincare products over mould any day.

Read more:
Health Check: is makeup bad for your skin?

Oliver A.H. Jones 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 is a paraben and why are so many products advertised as ‘paraben-free’? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-paraben-and-why-are-so-many-products-advertised-as-paraben-free-198994

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clancy William James, Senior Lecturer (astronomy and astroparticle physics), Curtin University

We have just published evidence in Nature Astronomy for what might be producing mysterious bursts of radio waves coming from distant galaxies, known as fast radio bursts or FRBs.

Two colliding neutron stars – each the super-dense core of an exploded star – produced a burst of gravitational waves when they merged into a “supramassive” neutron star. We found that two and a half hours later they produced an FRB when the neutron star collapsed into a black hole.

Or so we think. The key piece of evidence that would confirm or refute our theory – an optical or gamma-ray flash coming from the direction of the fast radio burst – vanished almost four years ago. In a few months, we might get another chance to find out if we are correct.

Brief and powerful

FRBs are incredibly powerful pulses of radio waves from space lasting about a thousandth of a second. Using data from a radio telescope in Australia, the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP), astronomers have found that most FRBs come from galaxies so distant, light takes billions of years to reach us. But what produces these radio wave bursts has been puzzling astronomers since an initial detection in 2007.

The best clue comes from an object in our galaxy known as SGR 1935+2154. It’s a magnetar, which is a neutron star with magnetic fields about a trillion times stronger than a fridge magnet. On April 28 2020, it produced a violent burst of radio waves – similar to an FRB, although less powerful.

Read more:
A brief history: what we know so far about fast radio bursts across the universe

Astronomers have long predicted that two neutron stars – a binary – merging to produce a black hole should also produce a burst of radio waves. The two neutron stars will be highly magnetic, and black holes cannot have magnetic fields. The idea is the sudden vanishing of magnetic fields when the neutron stars merge and collapse to a black hole produces a fast radio burst. Changing magnetic fields produce electric fields – it’s how most power stations produce electricity. And the huge change in magnetic fields at the time of collapse could produce the intense electromagnetic fields of an FRB.

The search for the smoking gun

To test this idea, Alexandra Moroianu, a masters student at the University of Western Australia, looked for merging neutron stars detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in the US. The gravitational waves LIGO searches for are ripples in spacetime, produced by the collisions of two massive objects, such as neutron stars.

LIGO has found two binary neutron star mergers. Crucially, the second, known as GW190425, occurred when a new FRB-hunting telescope called CHIME was also operational. However, being new, it took CHIME two years to release its first batch of data. When it did so, Moroianu quickly identified a fast radio burst called FRB 20190425A which occurred only two and a half hours after GW190425.

Exciting as this was, there was a problem – only one of LIGO’s two detectors was working at the time, making it very uncertain where exactly GW190425 had come from. In fact, there was a 5% chance this could just be a coincidence.

Worse, the Fermi satellite, which could have detected gamma rays from the merger – the “smoking gun” confirming the origin of GW190425 – was blocked by Earth at the time.

Unlikely to be a coincidence

However, the critical clue was that FRBs trace the total amount of gas they have passed through. We know this because high-frequency radio waves travel faster through the gas than low-frequency waves, so the time difference between them tells us the amount of gas.

Because we know the average gas density of the universe, we can relate this gas content to distance, which is known as the Macquart relation. And the distance travelled by FRB 20190425A was a near-perfect match for the distance to GW190425. Bingo!

So have we discovered the source of all FRBs? No. There are not enough merging neutron stars in the Universe to explain the number of FRBs – some must still come from magnetars, like SGR 1935+2154 did.

And even with all the evidence, there’s still a one in 200 chance this could all be a giant coincidence. However, LIGO and two other gravitational wave detectors, Virgo and KAGRA, will turn back on in May this year, and be more sensitive than ever, while CHIME and other radio telescopes are ready to immediately detect any FRBs from neutron star mergers.

In a few months, we may find out if we’ve made a key breakthrough – or if it was just a flash in the pan.

Clancy W. James would like to acknowledge Alexandra Moroianu, the lead author of the study; his co-authors, Linqing Wen, Fiona Panther, Manoj Kovalem (University of Western Australia), Bing Zhang and Shunke Ai (University of Nevada); and his late mentor, Jean-Pierre Macquart, who experimentally verified the gas-distance relation, which is now named after him.

Clancy William James receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. For the first time, astronomers have linked a mysterious fast radio burst with gravitational waves – https://theconversation.com/for-the-first-time-astronomers-have-linked-a-mysterious-fast-radio-burst-with-gravitational-waves-202341

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wanning Sun, Professor of Media and Cultural Studies, University of Technology Sydney

Early this month, the Daily Mail published a story online implying three Chinese men taking photos at the Avalon Airshow in Melbourne were spies. After complaints and an open letter condemning the paper for racially profiling the Chinese communities and throwing around baseless accusations, the story disappeared from the Mail’s site without explanation.

Then The Sydney Morning Herald’s Red Alert series hit people’s WeChat feeds, claiming a war with China could happen within three years.

The Daily Mail, like many other media outlets, possibly believed it could make insinuations of spying with impunity, since many of its intended readers would likely be sufficiently primed to accept such narratives as common sense.

In fact, a 2022 poll reveals: “Just over four in 10 Australians (42%) say ‘Australians of Chinese origin can be mobilised by the Chinese government to undermine Australia’s interests and social cohesion’.”

Commenting on the Mail’s “spy” story, La Trobe University’s Nick Bisley tweeted, “Yep, this is what happens when the red menace crap is thrown around carelessly”, apparently connecting it with the Red Alert series. Several foreign affairs specialists have called the series “pretentious”, “hyperbolic”, “irresponsible” and “implicitly racist” reporting.

Similarly, a survey I conducted recently on behalf of UTS’s Australia-China Relations Institute (ACRI) points to another kind of fear. The respondents were 500 migrants from mainland China. A key aim was to understand how their reading of Australian media stories about China and Chinese-Australian communities affected their sense of belonging.

A full analysis of the survey will be detailed in a forthcoming ACRI report. But one survey question was: “To what extent would you be concerned about your own wellbeing and that of the Chinese-Australian communities if Australia were at war with China?” More than half (54.68%) said they were “extremely concerned”. Another 36.10% said they were “quite concerned”. Only around 9% said they were not concerned.

When juxtaposed, these two sets of survey figures raise a “red alert” of another kind: regardless of whether a war with China will ever eventuate, Chinese Australians are rapidly becoming the first casualties of persistent war talk.

Read more:
Time to grow up: Australia’s national security dilemma demands a mature debate

Yet, while there has been a highly polarised response to the Red Alert series, very few commentators on either side have thought much about how these publications affect Chinese Australians, especially first-generation migrants from mainland China. As Yun Jiang observes:

Among all talks about preparation for a war, preparing the population for a potentially divisive society is not part of it.

Mainstream media outlets and commentators seem to concern themselves even less with the emotional and psychological impact such media stories have almost daily on Australian citizens with Chinese ancestry.

Our recently published study, based on three years’ longitudinal research of Chinese-language digital and social media in Australia, has revealed many first-generation Mandarin speakers here experience a high level of internal conflict in relation to mainstream Australian media coverage of China. Funded by the Australian Research Council, the study found these migrants, who by 2021 numbered over half a million, were caught in an increasingly hostile relationship between the two countries.

The study also found most respondents did not identify with the propaganda of Chinese state media. However, they were increasingly disillusioned with the Australian English-language media’s interest in reporting on China with fairness and balance.

For many in the various Chinese-Australian communities, including mainland migrants, reading speculations about whether there will be a war with China within six months, two years or three years is not a matter of neutral speculation. It is a constant source of anxiety, fear and uncertainty.

The specific nature of their anxiety and fear became clearer after I conducted in-depth interviews with 20 individuals in the Mandarin-speaking community about their media consumption habits.

Read more:
New research shows Chinese migrants don’t always side with China and are happy to promote Australia

First, many of these interviewees wondered, with a growing sense of alarm, what would happen to them if war did happen. One middle-aged female accountant said:

During WW1, many German Australians were interned in Australia. During WW2, many Italian migrants were interned. Sure, ours is now a very multicultural society, but who can assure us that this won’t happen to us when war breaks out? When war happens, rationality may go out the window. Look at what happened to Jewish people. I’m really worried. My daughter recently came back from school and asked me if it’s true that China will invade Australia.

Second, many interviewees expressed the fear that this loose talk about war in the media could make war more likely. A male interviewee who works in a university said:

A few years ago, if someone mentioned a war between Australia and China over Taiwan, it would have sounded preposterous. But now, people no longer find such talk fanciful. I believe the media normalises war-mongering. It upsets me very much each time I read such predictions.

Third, my interviewees, like many other Chinese Australians – and Asian Australians generally – know too well they will be more vulnerable to random racist attacks in public, and treated as potential agents of a hostile country, as long as talk of war persists in the media.

It is for precisely this reason that the Daily Mail’s “spy” story sends a chill down the spine of many people and has aroused widespread condemnation from Chinese-Australian communities. As one interviewee said:

These days, it doesn’t take too much to provoke a racist. All it takes is seeing someone who looks Chinese.

Wanning Sun receives funding from Australian Research Council and Australian-China Relations Institute (ACRI) UTS.

– ref. ‘The media normalises war-mongering’: how Chinese Australians respond to talk of war in mainstream media – https://theconversation.com/the-media-normalises-war-mongering-how-chinese-australians-respond-to-talk-of-war-in-mainstream-media-202500

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and clinical academic gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

We all get hiccups from time to time, and sometimes they just won’t seem to go away.

Hiccups are involuntary contractions of the diaphragm – the muscle separating your chest from your abdomen, which plays a key role in breathing – followed by a sudden closure of the vocal cords.

The medical term for hiccups is singultus. This derives from the Latin word singult which means “to catch ones breath while sobbing”.

For most of us, hiccups are annoying and don’t last that long. But for some people, they can be persistent, lasting more than two days.

The good news is, there are simple ways to alleviate regular hiccups – and treatments for when they persist.

What causes hiccups?

Hiccups are caused by a reflex arc: a neuromotor pathway that translates a sensation into a physical response. The sensations in this arc come from the brain, ear, nose and throat, diaphragm and organs in the chest and abdomen.

The sensation signals travel to a part of the brain which, along with the top of the spinal cord, is known as the “hiccup centre”.

From the hiccup centre, the signals travel back out to the diaphragm and the muscles that lay between your ribs (intercostal muscles), causing them to twitch.

The twitching of these muscles draws air into the lungs and this sudden inhalation makes the opening between the vocal cords, or glottis, close tightly shut. This rapid closure makes the “hic” sound.

Anything that affects the arc can lead to hiccups. The most common is stretching the stomach from eating a large meal or drinking soft drinks. This means sensation signals from the stomach can trigger off the reflex arc.

Consuming hot chilli pepper, alcohol, smoking, and over-excitement can also trigger the reflex arc, leading to hiccups.

Hiccups have even been observed in healthy fetuses during prenatal ultrasound checks. In fact, some researchers believe hiccups are a mechanism to help prepare the lungs for breathing shortly after birth.

How long will they last? And what can you do about them?

An attack of hiccups that lasts less than 48 hours is generally unconcerning. Such an attack usually ends by itself.

Where it doesn’t resolve by itself, there are ways to suppress the reflex arc. The Valsava manoeuvre, consuming ice-cold drinks and gentle eyeball pressure are thought to increase the activity of a long nerve (vagus) to the brain.

Manoeuvres such as rebreathing into a paper or plastic bag work by increasing the carbon dioxide concentration in the blood. This helps to suppress the movements of the muscles associated with hiccups. However, rebreathing carries a small but serious risk of heart attack so should only be performed under medical supervision.

However there is very limited evidence to show these manoeuvres and interventions work.

When should we get worried about hiccups?

If hiccups last longer than two days, they are called persistent hiccups. If they last beyond two months they are known as intractable hiccups.
Persistent and intractable hiccups, known collectively as chronic hiccups, can be quite distressing and may signify a serious underlying cause, so it’s important to see your doctor.

People with chronic hiccups will undergo a comprehensive investigation. Their medical history will often give valuable clues to triggers. Certain medications such as anti-epileptic drugs, alcohol, smoking and recreational drug use are all associated with hiccups.

As organs in the chest and abdomen are involved in the reflex arc, investigations of these organs such as lung imaging or upper endoscopy (where a tube with a tiny camera is inserted into the throat to view the upper digestive tract), may be required.

One study from France found 80% of patients with chronic hiccups had abnormalities in their oesophagus and stomach, with reflux disease being the most common finding.

Read more:
Explainer: what is gastric reflux?

Your clinician will also inspect your ear, nose and throat, as irritation of the ear by a foreign body or infection of the throat can be triggers for hiccups.

Imaging of the brain may be necessary, especially if there are concerning signs such as changes in speech and weakness of facial and limb muscles.

How are chronic hiccups treated?

After a thorough investigation, the underlying cause should be treated, where possible.

People suffering from hiccups often have problems with gastric reflux, so treatment may include a short course anti-reflux medication.

Other medications with a strong evidence base that are used to treat hiccups include the anti-nausea drug metoclopramide and baclofen, which is used to treat muscle spasticity (excessive tightness or tone).

There is emerging evidence that gabapentin, used to treat seizures, may also be effective for hiccups.

What treatments might we see in future?

Researchers have recently developed a rigid drinking tube with an inlet valve that requires active suction effort to draw water from a cup into the mouth. This tube has been called forced inspiratory suction and swallow tool, or FISST.

FISST is thought to stop the hiccup reflex arc by stimulating the sensory nerves to cause contraction of the diaphragm and glottis.

In one study, of the 249 participants who trialled FISST, just over 90% reported results better than home remedies.

However, the FISST research so far hasn’t compared it to a control group who didn’t receive the treatment, so it’s unclear how much more effective it is than a placebo, or dummy version.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why do we burp?

Vincent Ho 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 causes hiccups and how can you get rid of them? – https://theconversation.com/what-causes-hiccups-and-how-can-you-get-rid-of-them-196557

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Van Dijk, Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

A new report card on Australia’s environment reveals 2022 was a bumper year for our rivers and vegetation – but it wasn’t enough to reverse the long-term decline in plant and animal species.

The analysis was drawn from many millions of measurements of weather, biodiversity, water availability, river flows and the condition of soil and vegetation. The data is gathered from satellites and field stations and processed by a supercomputer.

From the data, we calculate a score between 0 and 10 to determine the overall condition of Australia’s environment.

In 2022, a third and very wet La Niña year brought a strong improvement in several key indicators, leading to a national score of 8.7 out of 10. This is the best score since 2011. But unfortunately, three wicked problems remain.

First, the good news

By some measures, 2022 was the best year for water availability and plant growth since our national score system began 23 years ago.

New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT enjoyed the highest environmental scores since before 2000. South Australia and Queensland also improved.

Scores for rainfall, river flows and the extent of floodplain inundation were the highest since before 2000 in many parts of eastern Australia. The water supplies of all eastern capital cities all rose and several reached capacity.

Wetland area and waterbird breeding were well above the long-term average. Vegetation density, growth rates and tree cover in NSW and Queensland were the best since before 2000.

It was a bumper year for dryland farmers. Average national growth rates in dryland cropping were a massive 49% better than average conditions. The many full or filling reservoirs are also good news for irrigators.

What about the losers?

Some regions missed out on the rainfall bonanza, and many environmental indicators declined. They include the Top End in the Northern Territory, southern inland Western Australia and western Tasmania.

Across the NT, low rainfall and high temperatures meant environmental scores once more declined to the low values seen before 2021.

And in areas where rainfall was high, not everyone benefited. Many homes and businesses flooded, and some farmers lost crops or stock.

At the end of 2022, reports emerged that floodwaters were causing so-called “blackwater events” and fish kills in the Murray River. Murky floodwaters also ran into the ocean and smothered seagrass meadows, leading dugongs and sea turtles to starve.

The ocean around Australia was the warmest on record in 2022. The Great Barrier Reef suffered the fourth mass bleaching event in seven years – and alarmingly, the first to occur during a La Niña year, which is usually cooler.

Fortunately, conditions for the remainder of the year favoured coral recovery.

Read more:
New report shows alarming changes in the entire global water cycle

Chronic ailments

Despite many positive indicators, three severe, chronic and untreated problems continue to weaken our environment: habitat destruction, invasive species and climate change.

The rate of habitat destruction shows little sign of improvement. Much vegetation continues to be removed for new housing, mining and agriculture. Fire activity in 2022 was low, but climate change means bushfires will be back soon, and become more frequent and severe over time.

La Niña is already on the way out, although it will probably take more than one hot and dry year before we experience megafires such as those in the Black Summer of 2019-20.

The scorecard also shows Australia is still struggling to combat pest species. They include fungi, invasive weeds, carp, cane toads, rats, rabbits, goats, pigs, foxes and cats. Every year, about eight million feral cats and foxes kill 1.5 billion native reptiles, birds and mammals.

Climate change remains a huge problem. La Niña normally brings cool conditions and the average temperature last year in Australia was the coolest since 2012. But it was still relatively warm, at 0.5℃ above the long-term average.

Read more:
Fear and Wonder podcast: how scientists know the climate is changing

The combination of habitat destruction, invasive species and climate change has already decimated many Australian species. In 2022, 30 plants and animals were added to the official list of threatened species.

That’s a 43% increase since 2000, bringing the total number to 1,973. Most species added last year were affected by the Black Summer fires.

Our analysis drew on the Threatened Species Index, which reports with a three-year time lag. In 2019 the index showed a steady decline of about 3% in the abundance of threatened species each year. This is an overall decline of 62% since 2000.

Threatened plants showed the worst decline (72%), followed by birds (62%) and mammals (33%).

We can avoid the worst

Amid the gloom, there are glimmers of hope. Many species feared impacted by the fires proved resilient. Some large new national park areas have been added. Active management is recovering – or at least slowing – the decline of some threatened species, albeit sometimes within the narrow confines of reserves.

Also in 2022, humpback whales were one of the few species in Australian history to be taken off the threatened species list due to a population increase. The species has staged a remarkable recovery since the global moratorium on whaling.

Sadly, there is no fast solution to climate change. Greenhouse gases will linger in the atmosphere for decades to come and further warming is unavoidable. But we can still prevent worse outcomes, by dramatically curbing global emissions.

Australia’s emissions are not falling anywhere near fast enough. They were almost the same in 2022 as in the previous year. And our national emissions remain among the highest in the world per person.

Decisive action is needed. Slowing down habitat destruction, invasive species and climate change is key to preserving our natural resources and species for future generations.

Read more:
We found 29 threatened species are back from the brink in Australia. Here’s how

Australia’s Environment is produced by the ANU Fenner School for Environment & Society and the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), an NCRIS-enabled National Research Infrastructure. Albert Van Dijk receives or has previously received funding from several government-funded agencies, grant schemes and programmes.

Geoff Heard is a current employee of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), funded by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. Geoff has previously received funding from several government agencies in Australia for the study and monitoring of threatened species.

Mark Grant is a current employee of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN).

Shoshana Rapley 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. 2022 was a good year for nature in Australia – but three nasty problems remain – https://theconversation.com/2022-was-a-good-year-for-nature-in-australia-but-three-nasty-problems-remain-201778

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darcy Watchorn, PhD Candidate, Deakin University

Discoveries of albino animals have a unique ability to capture the public imagination, often leading to flurries of social media and news coverage. (Think Migaloo, the famous white humpback whale.)

It’s easy to see why albino animals are so fascinating. Their stark white appearance typically sets them apart from the world around them, providing a striking contrast against the green forest, red desert or blue ocean.

But while people are captivated by the likes of white whales, kangaroos and koalas, it’s a different story for poor old rats and mice.

Our new research is the first study of Australia’s native albino rodents. By raising the profile of these adorable little creatures, we hope more people will come to appreciate Australia’s rodents as remarkable animals worth protecting.

Read more:
Meet the territorial females and matriarchs in Australia’s backyard

The unfair stigma of the repulsive rodent

Rodents, especially rats, have long been viewed with disdain – often seen as filthy, disease-ridden pests. The terms “dirty rat” and “vermin” are used as insults in many cultures, and even Hollywood films.

Unfortunately, this negative perception of rodents often extends to our native species, dampening public enthusiasm for conservation.

Public perception plays a crucial role in wildlife conservation, and rodents are one of Australia’s most diverse and ecologically important groups of mammals, with a disproportionately high rate of extinction. So if people don’t care about them, or if they actively dislike them, there’ll be little effort to help them.

What is albinism, and how does it impact wildlife?

Albinism is a rare genetic condition that typically occurs once in every few thousand births. It affects an animal’s ability to produce melanin, the pigment that gives colour to the skin, hair and eyes. There are several types of albinism, which vary in their genetic cause and the degree of pigment loss. But animals with the condition typically have white or light-coloured skin, scales or fur, and pink or blue eyes.

While albinism is common in laboratory rats, these animals have been selectively bred for this trait. In wild rodent populations it has been very rarely observed.

The condition was previously reported in less than 2% of the world’s 2,683 rodent species (including the 48 extinct species). (It’s now 2.8%).

In the wild, albino animals struggle to survive. Albinism can result in poor eyesight, a heightened sensitivity to ultraviolet radiation, and an increased risk of being spotted by predators. Plus, albino animals may be targeted by trophy hunters and poachers.

Australia’s remarkable rodents

When most Australians think of rodents, they think of invasive species such as black rats or house mice (stinky pests sneaking around their homes). Many would be surprised to learn that more than 50 species of rodents are native to Australia. They’re wonderful, diverse, and rarely smelly.

Sadly, since Europeans arrived, at least 13 species have become extinct and 25 species are listed as threatened at state or federal levels.

Read more:
Another Australian animal slips away to extinction

Our native rodents help maintain healthy ecosystems. They contribute to soil turnover and disperse seeds and fungi. We have species adapted to every environment, from the alps to the deserts, forests, rivers and coastlines. Some dig complex burrow systems. Others nest in trees, or make houses out of sticks or pebbles. And some, like the rakali, meticulously dissect the invasive and toxic cane toads to eat their hearts and livers. We have a native rodent for every occasion.

Read more:
Eat your heart out: native water rats have worked out how to safely eat cane toads

Our study of Australia’s albino rodents

In 2021, I was lucky to discover an albino bush rat in Victoria’s Otway Ranges. Gazing at this remarkable ginger fuzzball with soul-piercing red eyes, I realised I’d never heard or read about albino Australian rodents.

After that first encounter, I searched the academic literature, and found nothing. There were no published accounts of Australian rodents with albinism. However, given how many rodents there are in Australia, I knew I couldn’t be the first ecologist to see one.

So my colleagues and I conducted a survey of Australian ecologists, museums and historic newspaper articles to find albino rodent records. We found 23 records of albinos (representing eight species) from a sample of more than 50,000 individual rats and mice. While this is but a handful of species, it represents a 12% increase in the recorded number of rodent species with albinism worldwide.

The frequency of albinism can also increase under certain conditions, such as among small, isolated populations or between closely related individuals. We found a population of rakali on Barrow Island (60km off the coast of Western Australia) had a much higher rate of albinism than mainland populations. About 2% of this population were albino at the time of our survey, potentially due to the population’s long isolation and low genetic diversity.

Rare and precious

Australia has lost more than its fair share of native rodents since Europeans arrived. Now more than ever, it’s important to appreciate and protect all of Australia’s unique and fascinating wildlife.

So, regardless of whether they’re albino or not, let’s all make some room in our hearts for Australia’s fuzzy little rodents. Unless you’re a cane toad, of course, because our rakali are on their way to gobble your heart.

Read more:
‘Gut-wrenching and infuriating’: why Australia is the world leader in mammal extinctions, and what to do about it

Darcy is grateful to Phoebe Burns, Native Rodent Biologist at Zoos Victoria, for her contribution to this article.

Darcy Watchorn receives funding from the Hermon Slade Foundation, Parks Victoria, the Conservation and Wildlife Research Trust, the Ecological Society of Australia, the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, and the Geelong Naturalists Field Club. He is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Society for Conservation Biology Oceania.

– ref. Ghost rodents: get ready to fall in love with Australia’s albino rats and mice – https://theconversation.com/ghost-rodents-get-ready-to-fall-in-love-with-australias-albino-rats-and-mice-201458

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brian Moore, Lecturer, Educational Psychology & Child Development, School of Education, Charles Sturt University

Schools are an obvious place to do mental health work with young people. This is important, as about one in seven young Australians are diagnosed with a mental illness. This includes issues like psychological distress, anxiety, depression, school refusal, and complex trauma.

However, the ratio of school counsellors and psychologists to students means they can be very difficult for students to access. For example, there is about one counsellor for every 750 students in NSW public schools.

Consequently, teachers are often seen as front-line mental health providers by default. This has particularly been the case since the start of the pandemic.

But what is reasonable to expect of teachers when it comes to students’ mental health?

Read more:
‘It’s almost like a second home’: why students want schools to do more about mental health

Training is patchy

There is little consistency in the types of mental health services provided by schools or who actually performs this role.

Many schools have counsellors or psychologists, while others may have access to Department of Health and non-government staff who might come into schools to deliver a specific program or provide targeted support to at-risk students. But availability is a huge issue.

Meanwhile, there is no consistent mental health training for new teachers.
Many teacher education programs do not explicitly address mental health. If it is included, it often occurs as a single day of training, or sometimes features as part of other subjects. The level of training a student receives is often up to a lecturer’s interest in mental health rather than identified needs.

Even then, the focus is also often around supporting student wellbeing, rather than addressing mental illness.

There are professional development training and resources on mental health for existing teachers. But again, these are not consistently applied.

Teachers are not confident

Given inconsistent and potentially inadequate training, it is unsurprising that while teachers take mental health seriously, many report low confidence about supporting their students’ mental health. In one 2017 study in the United States, almost 50% of teachers reported they had received inadequate mental health training, and 85% indicated they would like further training in mental health issues.

Even experienced mental health professionals report feelings of incompetence when addressing their clients’ mental health needs.

So, if qualified mental health practitioners feel this way, our expectations of teachers in the mental health space should be carefully considered.

What can teachers do?

Teachers do of course have a valuable role in supporting student mental health. But this needs to occur in the context of teaching.

They can do this by developing a positive, supportive learning environment that supports students’ individual needs and strengths. Teachers can provide opportunities to build positive student identity and self-esteem by providing genuine opportunities for students to succeed in the classroom. Teachers can have positive relationships with their students and foster healthy peer interactions.

It is important teachers know how to identify students with possible mental health problems as well as being aware of potential referral options (noting lack of availability is an issue). It is also important teachers develop and maintain open and honest communication with caregivers.

Read more:
School principals are reaching crisis point, pushed to the edge by mounting workloads, teacher shortages and abuse

What more can be done?

Clearly, much more needs to be done around mental health in schools. It makes sense to make greater provision for funding and training of school counsellors and psychologists. We should also examine ways of better integrating mental health services like the Department of Health and Headspace in schools.

However, with supply and recruitment difficulties these are not straight forward solutions.

A consistent national approach to the mental health curriculum in teacher training is urgently needed.

Critically, the role of teachers in school based mental health services needs to be clearly defined to manage expectations and support students more effectively.

Teachers belong to the helping category of professionals and are inclined to support their students in every way they can. They need to be equipped to provide assistance with learning that can take mental health into account.

However, policy makers and school communities need to remember, teachers are not trained as mental health practitioners.

If this article has raised issues for you or someone you know, you can call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.

Sarah Redshaw is elected to the Blue Mountains City Council as a Greens councillor and is a member of the party.

Brian Moore 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. Students’ mental health is a big issue for schools – but teachers should only be part of the solution – https://theconversation.com/students-mental-health-is-a-big-issue-for-schools-but-teachers-should-only-be-part-of-the-solution-200993

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Dumay, Professor – Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie University

What distinguishes a company that makes “good” chocolate (chocolate untainted by child labour, modern slavery, deforestation and the overuse of agrichemicals) from one that merely makes chocolate?

Our annual Chocolate Scorecard investigation, which is a collaboration between Be Slavery Free, Macquarie University, The University of Wollongong and the Open University, suggests it might be a mission that goes beyond making food and profit.

‘Good eggs’ trumpet ambition

Only five of the 38 leading global chocolate makers we assessed received our green “good egg” award for exemplary practices.

They are the Netherlands-based Orignal Beans and Tony’s Chocolonely, Madagascar’s Beyond Good, US-based Alter Eco, and Switzerland’s HALBA.

Original Beans are at the forefront of Europe’s artisan chocolate revolution. Its mission statement includes the words “regenerate what you consume”. Its website asks its customers to “heal the future, don’t steal it”.

Tony’s Chocolonely has as its mission making slave-free chocolate and turning all chocolate slave-free.

It says 60% of the world’s cocoa comes from 2.5 million farms in West Africa that are placed under the kind of pricing pressure that leads to child labour and modern slavery. The average cocoa farmer earns less than US$1.20 per day, and women cocoa farmers are thought to earn around 50 cents per day.

‘Broken eggs’ say little

At the other end of the scale, firms such as Unilever (which makes Magnum icecreams) and Mondēlez (which makes Cadbury) were awarded “broken eggs” for not engaging with the survey.

Mondēlez describes its mission as going “the extra mile to lead the future of snacking around the world”, rather than tackling environmental or social concerns.

It’s a long way from Cadbury’s original mission. Founder John Cadbury was a Quaker “driven by a passion for social reform” who helped found the forerunner to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and planned a “model village” for his workers including schools, shops, parks and childcare.

In 2022, Britain’s Channel 4 broadcast undercover footage from Ghana purporting to show children as young as 10 barefoot, wearing shorts and T-shirts, using machetes to harvest cocoa pods and sharpened sticks to extract beans that were eventually used in Cadbury chocolate.

Mondelēz said it was deeply concerned. It explicitly prohibited child labour and had been making significant efforts to improve the protection of children in the communities where it sourced cocoa, including Ghana.

If such efforts are afoot, Chocolate Scorecard would like to hear about them.

‘Rotten eggs’ can improve

Among those companies that did respond, there are signs of improvement. In 2020, Godiva received a “rotten egg” award for “failing to take responsibility for the conditions with which its chocolates are made despite making huge profits off its chocolate”.

Godvia now says it is dedicated to “a sustainable and thriving cocoa industry where farmers prosper, communities are empowered, human rights are respected, and the environment is conserved”.

It has earned an “orange” rating, demonstrating that progress is achievable.

Similarly, Sücden – a previous red “rotten egg” – improved to yellow in this year’s scorecard.

Nestlé’s inclusion in this years top ten gives us hope.

It now says its purpose is to “unlock the power of food to enhance quality of life for everyone, today and for generations to come”.

Companies require profits to survive. But if profit and making chocolate are their only drivers, they are likely to hurt people and the environment while doing it.

This Easter it is possible to support firms that are making profits without hurting the planet or its inhabitants. Our scorecard finds there are more and more of them.

Read more:
Want to buy guilt-free Easter chocolate? Pick from our list of ‘good eggs’ that score best for the environment and child labour

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. At chocolate time, we’ve discovered what the brands that score best on child labour and the environment and have in common – https://theconversation.com/at-chocolate-time-weve-discovered-what-the-brands-that-score-best-on-child-labour-and-the-environment-and-have-in-common-201682

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle de Souza, Lecturer in Law, University of New England

British comedy Romantic Getaway recently dropped on streaming service Binge. The show stars Katherine Ryan and Romesh Ranganathan as Alison and Deacon, a couple desperate for a child.

Alison and Deacon have been unable to conceive naturally, and previous in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) attempts funded by the UK National Health Service have also failed. They decide their only hope of having a baby is to go to a private IVF clinic – the “posh clinic”, as they describe it. While no direct references are made to the couple’s age, there are references to time running out, suggesting that perhaps Alison is close to Ryan’s age, 39.

At the private clinic, the doctor advises Alison that her ovarian reserve is low and they would be lucky to get one or two eggs. Further, he notes that the eggs may be of questionable quality. Even in the face of high-cost treatment that has low prospects of success, the couple still undergo the procedure.

To fund their IVF, Alison and Deacon decide to steal £50,000 in bitcoin from their crooked boss Alfie, played by Johnny Vegas. However, unbeknown to Alison, Deacon steals half a million.

What extent will you go to start a family?

Most of the show’s six episodes are devoted to the chaos that ensues as a consequence of this theft, but the show’s premise raises important issues about the lengths to which prospective parents will go to start a family.

While Romantic Getaway represents an extreme scenario, it is not unheard of for people to remortgage their house or take money out of their superannuation to access assisted reproductive technology.

Romantic Getaway highlights the struggles that individuals and couples face on their journey to start a family. As well as the difficulties Alison and Deacon face in funding their treatment, we also see the emotional toll the hormone injections take on Alison.

After a negative pregnancy test, Alison tells Deacon she’s had enough of the hormones, the injections and “the crushing, gut-wrenching disappointment that my womb is a deformed fucking failure”.

The show also raises questions such as when faced with very low prospects of assisted reproductive technology being successful, should people be permitted to invest time, money and emotions in the process?

Read more:
Women are often told their fertility ‘falls off a cliff’ at 35, but is that right?

IVF and profit

In Australia, most IVF clinics operate in the private sector and are run as profit-making companies. It has been predicted that by 2026 the assisted reproductive technology industry worldwide will be worth US$41 billion.

One of the problems with the commercialisation of assisted reproductive technology is that companies are primarily responsible to their investors. The effect on patients is that they may receive higher-cost treatments, even though cheaper ones are available, and may be offered treatment “add-ons” of unproven effectiveness (such as “embryo glue”), which do little more than increase the cost of IVF.

A further problem with the privatisation of this technology is that patients become clients – patients get what they need, clients get what they want. This may lead to a greater emphasis on patient preferences over clinical effectiveness. For example, a clinic may be willing to transfer two embryos to a woman, even though there are significant risks associated with multiple pregnancies.

How do we solve this issue?

What are the possible solutions to the affordability of IVF treatment? In New South Wales, women can access a $2,000 rebate if they underwent an assisted reproductive technology procedure at a registered clinic after October 1 2022.

While this one-off payment will be welcome news for women who become pregnant and have a child following their first IVF cycle, $2,000 is a drop in the ocean for the women who endure multiple treatment cycles.

In Victoria, the state government is rolling out more public services, thereby making IVF affordable for people who do not have the financial means to undergo treatment in the private sector. These services are aimed at a number of groups, including low income earners, the LGBTIQA+ community, single people, and those at risk of passing on a genetic condition who require preimplantation genetic testing.

An alternative solution may be better fertility education, to remind individuals that declining fertility is inevitable and while IVF exists, it comes with costs that extend beyond the financial. Fertility education does not mean “quick, go and freeze your eggs”, but ensuring an informed understanding about what waiting to conceive may entail. This needs to take place before individuals reach a point at which their fertility has already started to decline.

Read more:
Problems conceiving are not just about women. Male infertility is behind 1 in 3 IVF cycles

Public education campaigns exist, but websites such as Your Fertility, funded by the federal Department of Health and Aged Care and the Victorian government, require individuals to turn their mind to the issue of their own fertility and then search for information online.

Public education campaigns such as this need to be better funded and more proactive – perhaps visiting university campuses and speaking to students. Students in their late teens or early twenties might not seem that interested at the time, but even if it does nothing more than place the Your Fertility website on their radar, it will be a step in the right direction.

Ultimately, Romantic Getaway is a comic caper that scratches the surface of the trials and tribulations of the IVF journey. In the absence of public education, it may be up to pop culture shows like this to raise awareness of these issues.

Michelle de Souza 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. IVF heist: Romantic Getaway on Binge explores the desperation couples can feel during the costly IVF journey – https://theconversation.com/ivf-heist-romantic-getaway-on-binge-explores-the-desperation-couples-can-feel-during-the-costly-ivf-journey-201172

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute

Labor and the Greens have reached a compromise on the safeguard mechanism after months of tense negotiations, giving the government the numbers it needs to pass the bill into law.

Greens leader Adam Bandt on Monday announced his party had secured a hard cap on emissions from polluters covered by the scheme. The cap will potentially affect new or expanding fossil fuel projects. But it falls short of the main concession the Greens originally demanded from Labor – an outright ban on new gas and coal projects.

The safeguard mechanism aims to curb emissions from about 215 of Australia’s biggest polluters. Labor’s tightening of the policy is crucial if Australia is to meet its emissions reduction target of 43% by 2030.

Building a hard emissions cap into the safeguard mechanism will go some way to giving this policy teeth. By limiting emissions to 140 million tonnes – the current emissions from industries covered by the scheme – it will make it harder for new fossil fuel projects to be viable.

How will the hard cap work?

Under the hard cap, the energy minister of the day will decide whether to permit a new fossil fuel project. The decision will be based on advice from the Climate Change Authority on projected gross emissions – meaning without carbon offsets being used.

The carbon budget for the sector will ensure Australia’s net emissions are in line with the central objective of the policy.

While the cap doesn’t prevent new projects, it does give us a level of confidence that any future projects can’t emit past a certain level.

Some 116 fossil fuel projects are being planned in Australia. Bandt says the cap means half of them will no longer proceed – and projects further along, such as fracking in the Northern Territory’s Beetaloo Basin, may no longer be feasible.

Bandt says Labor “still wants to open the rest” of the 116 projects in the pipeline, adding: “now there is going to be a fight for every new project that the government wants to open”. In reality, history suggests many of these projects would not have proceeded anyway, so we shouldn’t put too much weight on Labor’s concession.

Read more:
Australia’s 116 new coal, oil and gas projects equate to 215 new coal power stations

No new fossil fuels was a hard sell

From the outset of negotiations, Labor would not budge on the Greens’ demand to ban new coal and gas projects. On Monday, Bandt said trying to strike a deal with Labor was:

like negotiating with the political wing of the coal and gas corporations. Labor seems more afraid of the coal and gas corporations than climate collapse. Labor seems more afraid of Woodside than global warming.

But banning new coal and gas projects is a hard sell.

Fossil fuel projects in Australia have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. The Coalition likes them because they support corporations and exports. And many in Labor’s union base like the well-paid, reliable work the mines offer.

And then there’s the simple fact of supply and demand. Right now, the world is still 81% powered by fossil fuels. We have not yet built enough clean alternatives.

Right now, we ship large volumes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal to countries in our region such as China, Japan and South Korea. If Australia banned new gas projects, these exports would be at risk. Our Asian trading partners would probably have to find new suppliers once the long-term contracts ended.

For these reasons and more, the odds were stacked against the Greens and their demands.

Read more:
A tonne of fossil carbon isn’t the same as a tonne of new trees: why offsets can’t save us

Where to now?

Bandt has rightly pointed to the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which makes it clear the world must stop opening coal and gas mines if it wants to avert the worst damage from climate change.

But for the next few decades, the world is likely to keep using fossil fuels alongside renewables and other clean options. So what options does Australia have to make a significant dent in global emissions?

It should publicly plan to for a future without fossil fuel exports – and work with our fossil fuel customers in Asia to offer them green alternatives.

Australia is well placed to explore industries such as green cement, critical minerals such as cobalt, green iron ore and green hydrogen. If we can ramp these industries up as demand for legacy fossil fuels wanes, we could find a sweet spot.
We should take punts on technologies and products which may – or may not – become vitally important. Not every clean tech development will succeed. But some will.

We want companies such as Nippon Steel to invest in green steel in Australia. We need business leaders to invest in green hydrogen exports – even though there’s a chance of failure.

United States President Joe Biden has embraced this logic. Environmentalists have condemned his approval of new fossil fuel projects. But the Biden administration last year passed a A$530 billion bill to pump huge funds into heat pumps, solar, wind and other clean technologies. If we don’t tackle demand, there will be no way to stop supply.

And Australia must also reduce its own fossil fuel demand, by shifting to zero-emissions in power and transport sectors as quickly as possible.

Do we now have a legitimate emissions policy?

The policy outcome announced on Monday will make a major contribution to meeting Australia’s emissions reduction targets, and marks a major jump in climate ambition.

But as ever, the devil can be in the detail. We must wait to see how the reformed scheme, with its new conditions, will work.

Read more:
‘It can be done. It must be done’: IPCC delivers definitive report on climate change, and where to now

Tony Wood owns shares through his superannuation in companies that may have an interest in these issues.

– ref. Greens will back Labor’s safeguard mechanism without a ban on new coal and gas. That’s a good outcome – https://theconversation.com/greens-will-back-labors-safeguard-mechanism-without-a-ban-on-new-coal-and-gas-thats-a-good-outcome-202444