Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ran Porat, Affiliate Researcher, The Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Monash University

Close to midnight on April 13, hundreds of military drones were launched from both Iran and Iraq toward Israel. Subsequently, several waves of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and rockets followed, originating from Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon – all directed at Israel.

This unprecedented multi-front attack on Israel constitutes a de facto declaration of war and marks the first direct assault against Israel from Iranian soil. However, despite the scale of the operation, it appears to be a tactical failure.

If Iran wanted to test Israel’s ability to deal with a multi-front aerial assault, than the Israeli score is almost a perfect 100. According to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), 99% of the more than 330 weapons fired at Israel (at least 185 drones, 110 surface-to-surface missiles and 36 cruise missiles) were intercepted mostly over other countries.

Only minor damage occurred at the Nevatim Airbase (near Be’er Sheva in the south). A 7-year-old girl was seriously injured by shrapnel, possibly from an intercepting unit.

Why Iran felt it had to act

The attack was a direct response to the killing of Iranian General Mohammad Reza Zahedi (also known as Hassan Mahdawi) in Israeli airstrikes on April 1.

Zahedi, a senior commander in the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force in Syria and Lebanon, was allegedly responsible for terror attacks against Israel and the arming of Iranian proxies in the region. His death occurred while he was in a building adjacent to Iran’s consulate in Damascus – a location the Iranians claimed is protected by international law.

This incident represents a tipping point. The regime in Tehran, incensed by Zahedi’s death, vowed strong retaliation against Israel. In Tehran’s collective memory, Israel’s history of attacks includes numerous strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, assassinations of scientists within Iran, and actions against Iranian proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.

Despite these provocations, Iran’s counter-strikes against Israel have been so far minimal or insignificant. Iran’s response to the US assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in 2020, for instance, was feeble.

Due to the pressure the extremist leadership in Tehran is facing, it evidently felt it could no longer ignore such insults. The regime is increasingly concerned about its own stability, grappling with a failing economy battered by decades of sanctions.

Despite violent oppression and an increasing number of executions, internal dissent persists. This has been fuelled by years of popular protests (most recently following the 2022 death of 22-year-old Iranian woman Mahsa Amini) and ISIS-affiliated terror attacks within the country.

But this weekend’s attack appears to be a grave miscalculation by the leadership in Tehran. The US and other countries in the West swiftly rallied to support Israel. Although tensions between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Joe Biden are high due to the ongoing war in Gaza, Washington still strongly and unequivocally stands by Israel.

Most of the Iranian projectiles were intercepted through a coordinated effort by Israel and the US, UK and France militaries. Notably, Jordan also intercepted the Iranian drones despite threats from Tehran not to intervene after weeks of Iranian attempts to destabilise the country.

Both sides would rather avoid a war

Israeli officials were quick to promise a robust response to the attack. The government cannot tolerate another blatant infringement on Israel’s sovereignty, reminiscent of what Hamas tragically achieved in its October 7 attacks.

Israel has an array of retaliation options, including cyberattacks, long-range missile strikes on Iranian soil, aerial operations using jets and drones, and covert operations.

A strong action would be crucial to sending a powerful message to Iran and the broader region: “Don’t mess with us.” Despite Iranian officials’ desperate attempts to contain the situation, declaring the score with Israel is settled, Israel’s response is expected to be severe, as its Middle Eastern allies anticipate, and maybe even hope for.

The risk of escalation toward an all-out war remains real. However, both sides would prefer to avoid it. Israel’s military is already stretched thin with the war in Gaza and rocket attacks from Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hezbollah in the north.

Tehran would likely be worried about Israel striking its advanced nuclear program sites, which have been exposed as a cover for nuclear weapons development.

Meanwhile, the US is wary of being further entangled in the regional conflict, since it is already dealing with the Iran-aligned Houthi rebels attacks on ships in the Red Sea.

Read more:
Why US strikes will only embolden the Houthis, not stop their attacks on ships in the Red Sea

In addition, Biden reportedly does not trust Netanyahu’s judgement. Washington does not believe Israel was fully transparent with the US on its operational plans in Gaza and the killing of the Iranian general this month.

Too many Palestinian civilian deaths are also creating a moral and political problem for Biden’s re-election campaign. Biden promptly contacted the Israeli PM when this weekend’s attack began, cautioning against an Israeli counterattack.

The upcoming days will be crucial – a test of the international community’s ability to stabilise the tormented Middle East. Unfortunately, the signs at the moment are not encouraging.

Ran Porat is a Research Associate at The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) and Research Fellow at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Reichman University, Herzliya, Israel. He is affiliated with Australian Centre for Jewish Civilization, Monash University,

– ref. Iran’s unprecedented attack on Israel was a strategic miscalculation. Can all-out war now be averted? – https://theconversation.com/irans-unprecedented-attack-on-israel-was-a-strategic-miscalculation-can-all-out-war-now-be-averted-227872

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

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has flagged substantial public investment, likely tax breaks and other incentives in next month’s budget to encourage industry, while stressing there won’t be a “free-for-all” of public funds.

“We’re talking about incentivising private investment rather than replacing it,” he said, as debate rages about Anthony Albanese’s announcement last week of his new interventionist policy.

Chalmers also said he will soon unveil reforms to the government’s foreign investment guidelines. These will streamline processes for some bids but make the rules tougher for others.

The May 14 budget is still expected to have a surplus. But poor growth in the Chinese economy and a tumble in the iron ore price have produced headwinds.

Chalmers told the ABC the treasury had downgraded the forecast for China’s growth.

China’s growth was expected to have “a four in front of it, for three consecutive years,” Chalmers said. That would be the slowest period of growth in China since that country began opening in the late 1970s. More figures on the Chinese economy will be out on Tuesday.

The plunge in iron ore prices has delivered a hit to the budget’s bottom line. The price has gone from more than US$130 a tonne in January to the low US$90s. According to treasury, this fall has reduced the upgrade to the nominal economy by A$35 billion and cut the upgrade to tax receipts by nearly AU$9 billion over the forward estimates.

A major reason for the price plunge has been concern about demand for steel from China.

Chalmers sought to play down criticism of the government’s industry policy from the head of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, whom he appointed. Wood last week warned of the danger of support becoming entrenched and urged there be an exit strategy.

“Danielle Wood made some important points but some obvious points about making sure we get value for money. We’ve got strict frameworks, we’ve got exit strategies and off-ramps and we’re taking into consideration the impact of these plans on the economy more broadly.”

Chalmers said the policy would align Australia’s national and economic security interests. “It’s how we deliver another generation of prosperity, by making ourselves an indispensable part of the global push to net zero.

“When it comes to public and private investment, it’s really important to remember that what we’re talking about here isn’t some kind of free‑for‑all of public funds, we’re talking about incentivising private investment rather than replacing it.

“The heavy lifting will still be overwhelmingly done by the private sector but there’s an important role to play by governments and by public investment as well.

“That will still only be a sliver of the hundreds of billions of dollars that we need to land this energy transformation, to make ourselves a renewable energy superpower and to secure our place in a future which will be dominated by the net zero economy.”

Chalmers said there would be “substantial” public investment in the budget.

“But it still won’t be the biggest piece of the story here and that’s why the budget will also have a very big focus on how we attract and deploy and absorb private sector investment as well in the service of these really important national economic objectives.”

Whatever is done on tax won’t include a cut in the company tax rate, the Treasurer said.

Chalmers will visit Washington this week for a round of economic meetings.

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

– ref. Jim Chalmers seeks to allay fears industry policy will be financial ‘free-for-all’ – https://theconversation.com/jim-chalmers-seeks-to-allay-fears-industry-policy-will-be-financial-free-for-all-227871

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terry Goldsworthy, Associate Professor in Criminal Justice and Criminology, Bond University

There are few scenes more shocking than random acts of extreme violence against people simply going about their daily lives. Yet this is what Australians are coming to terms with after a man went on a rampage through a Bondi shopping centre on Saturday afternoon, killing six people and injuring at least 12 others, including a baby. The attacker was also killed at the scene.

Police have named the attacker as 40-year-old Joel Cauchi, who was originally from Queensland and had a history of mental health issues.

There are many questions yet to be answered about the attack. But cases of mass murder are so shocking in part because they are relatively rare in Australia.

How common are such events in Australia?

To answer this, we first need to look at what we mean by the term “mass murder”, of which there are various definitions around the world. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for instance, describes mass murder as an incident in which four or more people are murdered, within one event, and in one or more locations in close geographical proximity.

While unusual, there have been mass killings before in Australia, each of them shocking the country.

These include the Bourke Street incident in Melbourne in 2017, when the driver of a stolen car drove into pedestrians, killing six people and injured many other. Another occurred in 2019, when a gunman shot and killed four people during a rampage across the Darwin CBD.

Perhaps the most notorious, though, was the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, when Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people, and injured many others in the Tasmanian town. A 2017 study identified that Australia had 14 mass shootings incidents between 1964 and 2014.

Read more:
The arguments that carried Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms

Homicide and knives

In mass murders, most focus is on the use of firearms. However, the use of knives in homicide is significant. The latest national homicide report from the Austalian Institute of Criminology shows that in 2020-21, knives and other sharp instruments were used in 38% of murders, followed by firearms (11%) and hands and feet (9%).

The report notes that:

Knives and other sharp instruments have consistently been the primary homicide
weapon in Australia between 1989‒90 and 2020‒21, with 35 percent […] of all homicide incidents committed with this weapon type.

The 2023 United Nations Global Study on Homicide showed that around the world, sharp objects accounted for 22% of homicides, while firearms were the most commonly used murder weapon at 40%. Australia’s tight guns laws, introduced in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, would most likely explain the prevalence of knives as weapons in Australia.

Read more:
FactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?

How big a problem is knife crime in Australia?

In recent years, we have seen increased efforts to fight knife crime. In Queensland, new laws and a media campaign were rolled out in 2023 to try to reduce the number of young people carrying knives.

In Victoria, gang members using knives as weapons has become increasingly problematic , with the chief commissioner giving evidence to a parliamentary committee and describing knife crime as being a significant issue for police.

In New South Wales, legislation was passed to double the penalties for people carrying knives in public, despite the executive director of the states Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (Bocsar) stating that use of knives in crime was at historically low levels.

Active armed offender responses

The events that unfolded at Bondi last weekend are what police call an active armed offender incident. The Australia-New Zealand Counter Terrorism Committee defines such events as:

An Active Armed Offender is defined as an armed offender who is actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people, and who demonstrated their intention to continue to do so while having access to additional potential victims.

In 2014, NSW Police, in collaboration with academics, adopted new policy responses to active armed offenders, with more than 10,000 officers trained in the new procedures.

The characteristics of such attacks can involve groups or lone offenders, who may be armed with firearms, knives or other weapons.

The selection of a major shopping centre on a weekend is in line with the methodology of active armed offenders in that they will chose a crowded environment that gives them freedom of movement and ready access to victims in order to achieve maximum harm.

The heroic actions of shopkeepers taking people into their shops, shoppers confronting the offender and the lone police officer who confronted and shot the offender would all have contributed to reducing the ability of the offender to kill or harm more victims.

As the terrorism committee noted in their guidelines, time plus freedom of movement equals increased casualties. The offender was denied this at Bondi.

What happens now?

The tragic events at Bondi will now be subject of a coronial inquest. The entire shopping centre has been declared a crime scene, which will likely take days to process. The investigation will be ongoing for months as police interview hundreds of witnesses and collate CCTV and private video footage of the incident.

Most crucially, police will now need to look at the history of the deceased offender, to try to determine his motivation in carrying out such an attack.

At sometime in the future the bravery of the civilians and first responders will also have to be acknowledged and celebrated for the many lives that were saved.

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

– ref. As Australia reels from the Bondi attack, such mass murder incidents remain rare – https://theconversation.com/as-australia-reels-from-the-bondi-attack-such-mass-murder-incidents-remain-rare-227864

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

Australia’s top economists overwhelmingly want Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to scrap a special deal with Western Australia that’s set to deliver it an extra A$40 billion in Commonwealth funding by the end of the decade.

Albanese pledged to maintain the special treatment for Western Australia in a visit to Perth in February. He even signed a promise on a newspaper front page and a reporter’s arm with a marker pen.

The deal was struck in 2018 by the then Western Australian premier, Mark McGowan, and then federal treasurer, Scott Morrison. It gives Western Australia a much greater share of the centrally collected goods and services tax than it is entitled to under the formula administered by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

In place in various forms since Federation, the formula distributes funds in such a way as to ensure each state and territory would be able to deliver comparable services if it made a similar effort to raise revenue from its own resources. It has been used to distribute GST collections since 2000.

For most of the past 100 years the formula has delivered more to the smaller states (including Western Australia) than would be expected on the basis of population, and less to the larger states of New South Wales and Victoria.

In the leadup to 2018, the mining boom changed that. The amount of GST delivered to Western Australia was pushed down to only 45% of what it would have got if the GST was split on the basis of population, in recognition of its much greater ability to raise revenue.

Morrison and McGowan’s deal phased in a floor under how much of the GST each state could get. In June it will climb to 75% of what the state would get on the basis of population, and from 2026 to no less than the strongest of Victoria and NSW get, no matter how strong the state’s economy.

Haul of $30 billion to $50 billion

The extra payments to Western Australia will initially be funded from general Commonwealth tax revenue, rather than by cutting GST payments to other states.

Estimates of the cost by 2030 range from $30 billion to $50 billion. Independent economist Saul Eslake puts the cost at $39.2 billion, assuming the iron ore price falls in line with budget assumptions.

Beyond 2029‑30, any extra payments to Western Australia will come from the GST total at the expense of other states.

Asked whether the long-standing method of distributing GST revenue in accordance with need and ability to pay is broadly the best one, 25 of the 38 top economists who responded to the Economic Society of Australia poll said yes.

Ten said no, five of them saying it would be better to move towards a system where revenue was distributed on the basis of population or gross state product.

Asked whether the 2018 changes that advantaged Western Australia should be kept or scrapped, 28 of the 38 wanted them scrapped.

Only four wanted them kept.

The 38 experts who took part are recognised by their peers as leaders in fields including tax and budget policy. Two are from Western Australia.

Several observed that the natural resources with which Western Australia is endowed are a matter of luck, “even acknowledging that it takes skill and effort to extract them”.

Sue Richardson from the University of Adelaide argued that minerals were a national rather than a local resource and it undermined the integrity of the nation to have the benefits from mining them concentrated in the part of the nation in which they sat.

Read more:
It’s time to end Western Australia’s $4 billion-per-year GST bonus

Eslake said that even if Australia had no state governments and just one central government, as did Japan and New Zealand, it would still make sense to distribute resources to the parts of the nation with the greatest need in much the same way as the Grants Commission has traditionally done.

Consultant Rana Roy said that distributing resources away from the rich states in order to make the poorer states more liveable was actually in the rich states’ best interests.

“Paris would not benefit if an impoverished rest-of-France were to decamp to Paris,” he said. “And London would not benefit if an impoverished rest-of-Britain were to decamp to London.”

Tasmania’s Hugh Sibly added that Australians move between states and many retire in a different state to the one in which they paid taxes, giving the entire nation an interest in ensuring all parts of the nation were liveable.

Equalisation good, but complex

Others surveyed said the calculations used to deliver what was once known as “full equalisation” and since 2018 has been known as “reasonable equalisation” were complicated – “almost farcical” – and should be replaced by something simpler, even if it made the system less fair.

One suggestion was that GST revenue should be allocated on the basis of the size of each state’s economy. Another was that it be allocated on the size of each state’s population, with top-up grants used to meet particular needs.

Former OECD official Adrian Blundell-Wignall said the needs of Indigenous Australians in particular should be addressed directly rather than by GST distributions as the governments that got GST money on the basis of their high Indigenous populations did a very poor job of spending it on those populations.

Two of the economists surveyed suggested a Commonwealth resource tax of the kind promoted by former Treasury head Ken Henry who said earlier this month Australia should stop revering plunder and dumb luck, and abandon its “finders keepers” approach to minerals.

The Productivity Commission will review the Western Australian deal in 2026.

Individual responses. Click to open:

Peter Martin is Economics Editor of The Conversation and serves on the Central Council of the Economic Society of Australia.

– ref. Scrap the West Australian GST deal set to cost $40 billion – leading economists – https://theconversation.com/scrap-the-west-australian-gst-deal-set-to-cost-40-billion-leading-economists-227551

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

Among the critics emerging to find fault with Anthony Albanese’s interventionist industry policy, the one who gave the most damaging prick to the Prime Ministerial balloon was Danielle Wood, the new head of the Productivity Commission,

Wood, former chief of the Grattan Institute, a policy think tank, made extensive comments to the Australian Financial Review and The Australian on Thursday, the day of the PM’s speech.

She said that while the government was responding to a changing world (a point stressed by Albanese), “we shouldn’t pretend … that this is going to be costless”.

“If we are supporting industries that don’t have a long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost,” she said. It meant workers and capital were diverted from other parts of the economy.

“We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.” An “exit strategy” was needed, where support was stepped back from or at least reviewed.

The Productivity Commission is well known for its free market approach. In that sense, the views of its current head were not just unexceptional but the sort of thing someone in the role would likely say. The commission, there to give advice to the government, is (up to a point) independent.

But two factors made Wood’s contribution both surprising and potent. She had been appointed by Treasurer Jim Chalmers. And she was being very forthright, immediately after its launch, about what is a major government economic and political initiative.

Where it can’t manage the messages the Albanese government likes to be able to anticipate where the counter-messages will come from.

It was blindsided by the Wood critique – not least because it was before the full detail of the policy, centred on a yet-to-be-released Future Made in Australia Act, are known.

While Wood going public might have been unexpected, the substance of what she said was not. Everything she’s argued in the past would have led you to think she wouldn’t be a fan of the Albanese policy.

By her strong comments, Wood has sent a clear signal that she is determined, on occasion, to have a public voice in the economic debate. That can only be a good thing.

Former treasurer and current ALP president Wayne Swan fired off a salvo, telling morning TV Wood was “completely out of touch with the international reality”. Swan said: “We need energy independence and to do that, we’ve got to make up for a lost decade”.

Chalmers held his tongue. He and Wood get on well personally. When he does publicly respond, you can be sure he’ll be a lot more diplomatic than his old boss Swan.

Chalmers, for all that he might be uncomfortable that Wood has spoken out, will know her remarks contain some significant warnings.

With the new interventionism the government is embarking on a risky (and expensive) strategy. It will be vital the policy, when fleshed out, contains whatever safeguards can be mustered to ensure if wrong decisions on support are made, they are spotted early and there is, indeed, an “exit strategy”. One of the prime dangers in interventionism is that it become a rort for the rent seekers.

Wood’s advice is important, even if it was delivered inconveniently for the government through a megaphone.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Danielle Wood pricks Albanese’s industry policy balloon – but leaves him with good advice – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-danielle-wood-pricks-albaneses-industry-policy-balloon-but-leaves-him-with-good-advice-227786

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

Among the critics emerging to find fault with Anthony Albanese’s interventionist industry policy, the one who gave the most damaging prick to the Prime Ministerial balloon was Danielle Wood, the new head of the Productivity Commission,

Wood, former chief of the Grattan Institute, a policy think tank, made extensive comments to the Australian Financial Review and The Australian on Thursday, the day of the PM’s speech.

She told the AFR that while the government was responding to a changing world (a point stressed by Albanese), “we shouldn’t pretend … that this is going to be costless”.

“If we are supporting industries that don’t have a long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost,” she said. It meant workers and capital were diverted from other parts of the economy.

“We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.” An exit strategy was needed, where support was stepped back from or at least reviewed.

The Productivity Commission is well known for its free market approach. In that sense, the views of its current head were not just unexceptional but the sort of thing someone in the role would likely say. The commission, there to give advice to the government, is (up to a point) independent.

But two factors made Wood’s contribution both surprising and potent. She had been appointed by Treasurer Jim Chalmers. And she was being very forthright, immediately after its launch, about what is a major government economic and political initiative.

Where it can’t manage the messages the Albanese government likes to be able to anticipate where the counter-messages will come from.

It was blindsided by the Wood critique – not least because it was before the full detail of the policy, centred on a yet-to-be-released Future Made in Australia Act, are known.

While Wood going public might have been unexpected, the substance of what she said was not. Everything she’s argued in the past would have led you to think she wouldn’t be a fan of the Albanese policy.

By her strong comments, Wood has sent a clear signal that she is determined, on occasion, to have a public voice in the economic debate. That can only be a good thing.

Former treasurer and current ALP president Wayne Swan fired off a salvo, telling morning TV Wood was “completely out of touch with the international reality”. Swan said: “We need energy independence and to do that, we’ve got to make up for a lost decade”.

Chalmers held his tongue. He and Wood get on well personally. When he does publicly respond, you can be sure he’ll be a lot more diplomatic than his old boss Swan.

Chalmers, for all that he might be uncomfortable that Wood has spoken out, will know her remarks contain some significant warnings.

With the new interventionism the government is embarking on a risky (and expensive) strategy. It will be vital the policy, when fleshed out, contains whatever safeguards can be mustered to ensure if wrong decisions on support are made, they are spotted early and there is, indeed, an “exit strategy”. One of the prime dangers in interventionism is that it become a rort for the rent seekers.

Wood’s advice is important, even if it was delivered inconveniently for the government through a megaphone.

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

– ref. Danielle Wood pricks Albanese’s industry policy balloon – but leaves him with some good advice – https://theconversation.com/danielle-wood-pricks-albaneses-industry-policy-balloon-but-leaves-him-with-some-good-advice-227786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yuanyuan Huang, Research Scientist, CSIRO

We all know about the carbon in Earth’s atmosphere, and probably about the carbon contained in plants and the bodies of animals. But a substantial fraction of the carbon in the planet’s land-based ecosystems is held in something so obvious we might overlook it: soil.

Even if we do think about carbon in soil, we are usually thinking of carbon in organic matter in the soil, such as plant litter, bacteria or animal waste. However, the inorganic, mineral component of soil also contains carbon.

In a new study just published in Science, we show there is much more soil inorganic carbon than anybody realised – and that it may be a surprisingly big player in Earth’s carbon cycle.

We analysed more than 200,000 soil measurements from around the world to calculate that the top two metres of soil globally holds about 2.3 trillion tonnes of inorganic carbon. We estimate some 23 billion tonnes of this carbon may be released over the next 30 years, with poorly understood effects on Earth’s lands, waters and atmosphere.

What is soil inorganic carbon?

Inorganic carbon exists in soils in various forms. It can be trapped carbon dioxide gas, dissolved in water or other liquids, or it can be in solid form as carbonate minerals.

Most of the inorganic carbon by weight is solid carbonates, often calcium carbonate (a common substance found in materials such as limestone, marble and chalk). They give soil a whitish look, while organic carbon makes it dark.

Soil carbonates can come either from weathering of rocks or from the reaction of soil minerals with atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Inorganic carbon tends to build up more in soil in arid and semi-arid environments such as Australia. That’s because when water runs through soil it tends to carry away some of the carbonates with it.

Our estimates show the top two metres of Australia’s soil harbours some 160 billion tonnes of inorganic carbon. This makes Australia home to the fifth-largest pool of soil inorganic carbon in the world.

In wetter regions, soil carbonates may also be found along rivers and around lakes and coastal areas, in the form of calcium-rich alluvial deposits or calcareous rocks. Soils in karst regions – areas rich in rocks like limestone, and often characterised by caves and sinkholes – typically contain carbonate in rocks. In areas such as central Asia large deposits of wind-blown sediments (loess) contribute to the accumulation of carbonate minerals.

Why should we care?

This huge pool of carbon is affected by changes in the environment, especially soil acidification. Acids dissolve calcium carbonate, meaning the carbon dissolves in water or is released as carbon dioxide gas.

Soil in many regions of the globe (such as China and India) is becoming more acidic due to acid rain and other pollution from industrial activities and intense farming.

Scientists have viewed carbonates in soil as a relatively stable pool of carbon that changes only slowly over time. However, human activities have made soil inorganic carbon more mobile.

Read more:
Soil isn’t dirt: it’s the foundation of life and needs real care

Irrigation and fertilisation of farmland speed up the rate at which soil inorganic carbon is dissolved and leaches out of the soil.

Inorganic carbon has accumulated in soil over vast periods of Earth’s history. Disturbances to this carbon will have a profound impact on soil health.

Disruption to this carbon compromises soil’s ability to neutralise acidity, regulate nutrient levels, foster plant growth, and stabilise organic carbon. Not only does soil inorganic carbon act as a store of carbon, it also supports soil’s many crucial functions in ecosystems.

In our research, we found that 1.13 billion tonnes of inorganic carbon are lost from soils each year to inland waters. This loss has profound yet often overlooked effects on carbon transport between the land, freshwater bodies, the atmosphere and the oceans.

What to do?

There is a growing recognition of the importance of soil carbon as a fundamental part of nature-based solutions to combat climate change. However, much of the focus so far has been on organic carbon. Our research shows inorganic carbon warrants equal attention.

Improved land practices can reduce disturbance to the global pool of soil inorganic carbon, and may even be able to make it bigger. In agriculture, making irrigation and fertilisation better adjusted to plant growth needs can reduce impact on inorganic carbon. In some soils, organic amendments such as compost and manure can protect against acidification, improve calcium levels and increase soil inorganic carbon.

Read more:
Eyes down: how setting our sights on soil could help save the climate

Our research shows efforts to mitigate climate change by sequestering carbon in soil must incorporate inorganic carbon as well as organic.

Inorganic carbon in soil is linked to global changes such as climate change, industrial pollution and soil overuse in different ways from those of organic carbon. However, some strategies to lock up more carbon in soil – such as enhanced rock weathering, afforestation, and trapping organic carbon in soil minerals – might also serve to increase levels of inorganic carbon.

There are already international soil carbon programs like the 4 per mille initiative, which aims to increase soil carbon storage by 0.4% annually across the globe. These efforts could further increase their ambition by considering the critical role of inorganic carbon in achieving sustainable soil management and reaching climate targets.

Pep Canadell receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program – Climate Systems Hub

Yingping Wang receives funding from a GHG project from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, and Water.

Yuanyuan Huang 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. Trillions of tonnes of carbon locked in soil has been left out of environmental models – and it’s on the move – https://theconversation.com/trillions-of-tonnes-of-carbon-locked-in-soil-has-been-left-out-of-environmental-models-and-its-on-the-move-227597

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor and Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney

Cooler temperatures are fading our memories of summer and reducing numbers of mosquitoes in southern parts of Australia. But up north, warmer temperatures and plenty of rain will keep mosquitoes active.

While their bites are annoying, more concerning is the diseases mosquitoes carry. Health authorities have recently warned local communities and travellers heading to the Kimberley and Pilbara regions of Western Australia to be vigilant to the risk of one particular mosquito-borne infection – Murray Valley encephalitis.

Which mosquito-borne diseases are a risk?

Australia is fortunate to be generally free of many of the world’s most dangerous mosquito-borne diseases.

Each year globally, malaria can cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and dengue infects hundreds of millions of people. While these two diseases aren’t a high risk in Australia, we do have a number of viruses spread by mosquitoes that can cause severe and potentially fatal illness.

Thousands of Australians are infected with Ross River or Barmah Forest virus each year, and while these diseases aren’t fatal, they can be debilitating. Symptoms can include fever, rash, joint pain and fatigue.

Authorities in Queensland and New South Wales have recently issued warnings about these diseases.

Read more:
How can the bite of a backyard mozzie in Australia make you sick?

In recent years, we’ve seen increased activity of the Murray Valley encephalitis virus and the closely related Kunjin virus. This is due to explosions in mosquito numbers as a result of persistent flooding.

Murray Valley encephalitis virus cases in humans are rare but fatalities do occur. Kunjin virus, which has the potential to cause human disease, can also severely affect animals.

New mosquito-borne viruses have emerged in Australia, with widespread activity of Japanese encephalitis virus in southern regions of Australia recorded for the first time in 2021–22. This had significant impacts on human health, as well as economic consequences for the pork industry due to the reproductive losses resulting from infected pigs. The Australian government declared a communicable disease incident of national significance.

Why is Murray Valley encephalitis so dangerous?

Murray Valley encephalitis virus is one of the most dangerous pathogens spread by mosquitoes in Australia. The virus belongs to the flavivirus family alongside Japanese encephalitis, dengue, yellow fever and West Nile viruses; the most important mosquito-borne viruses on the planet.

The virus is only spread by mosquito bite (it doesn’t spread from person to person). Mosquitoes, most notably a common Australian species Culex annulirostris, transmit the virus to humans. This species is found in freshwater habitats and acquires the virus from biting a waterbird.

Most people infected don’t get sick – perhaps as few as one in 1,000 develop symptoms. For those who do, these can range from fever and headache to paralysis and encephalitis (swelling of the brain).

Symptoms are variable but fatality rates for people with symptomatic disease can be up to 30%, with up to 50% of people experiencing permanent neurological complications requiring life-long medical care.

Read more:
How Australian wildlife spread and suppress Ross River virus

From Australian X disease to Murray Valley encephalitis

While Murray Valley encephalitis virus can be found in many parts of Australia, outbreaks in south-eastern Australia have caused the most concern, especially throughout the Murray Darling Basin region, due to the high human population. That said, activity in other regions is still a worry.

The virus is thought to have been causing an illness known as “Australian X disease” since at least the early 1900s. The most significant outbreak was in 1974, resulting in 58 cases.

During the summer of 2022–23, the virus was detected in mosquito and sentinel chicken surveillance programs in NSW, Victoria and South Australia. A total of 26 human cases were reported across Australia in 2023 after only a handful of cases since 2011, which saw 16 cases.

There’s been no evidence that Murray Valley encephalitis virus is present along the east coast of Australia. Activity of the virus is generally limited to regions west of the Great Dividing Range.

What about northern Australia?

Murray Valley encephalitis is considered endemic in northern Australia. It’s detected almost every year in health surveillance programs in WA and the Northern Territory.

Human cases occur too. Although fewer people live in these regions, northern Australia (including tourists visiting the area) has accounted for most cases of Murray Valley encephalitis over the past 30 years.

Surveillance is critical to provide an early warning of elevated outbreak risk. In the north of WA, health authorities have detected Murray Valley encephalitis virus in local mosquito populations and their sentinel chicken surveillance program. This prompted the recent warnings for the Kimberley and Pilbara regions.

However, no cases of human infection have been reported this year.

Read more:
Insect repellents work – but there are other ways to beat mosquitoes without getting sticky

How can the community and travellers protect themselves?

While activity of Murray Valley encephalitis virus across northern Australia should be expected every year, the recent warnings are a reminder of the potential health risk associated with mosquitoes.

With no vaccination available for Murray Valley encephalitis – and no cure – the only way to prevent becoming infected is to avoid mosquito bites. Wearing light, loose-fitting clothing, avoiding peak mosquito activity times around dawn or dusk, and using a suitable insect repellent containing DEET, picaridin or oil of lemon eucalyptus are effective ways to help prevent bites.

Andrew Jardine and Jay Nicholson from the Department of Health, Western Australia, contributed expert advice to this article.

Cameron Webb and the Department of Medical Entomology, NSW Health Pathology, have been engaged by a wide range of insect repellent and insecticide manufacturers to provide testing of products and provide expert advice on mosquito biology. Cameron has also received funding from local, state and federal agencies to undertake research into mosquito-borne disease surveillance and management.

– ref. Murray Valley encephalitis: summer is over but mosquito-borne disease remains a risk in northern Australia – https://theconversation.com/murray-valley-encephalitis-summer-is-over-but-mosquito-borne-disease-remains-a-risk-in-northern-australia-227573

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rod Davies, Lecturer in Popular Music, Monash University

It has been a big few weeks in the Australian live music scene. The cancellations of major festivals Groovin’ the Moo and Splendour in the Grass have ushered in a stream of news reports about the challenges affecting live music, and how current economies are making the sector unsustainable.

So far the focus has largely been on the big festival market. But I contend that without a healthy and sustainable grassroots economy, we can’t make a quality live music industry in Australia. The first step towards achieving this is bringing confidence back.

Read more:
Why are so many Australian music festivals being cancelled?

New inquiry, new perspective?

Presumably, the federal inquiry into Australia’s live music industry, announced just two days before Splendour in the Grass was cancelled, will aim for better governance of the sector, including at the grassroots.

According to John Wardle of the Live Music Office, local industries “have faced a range of continuing challenges for decades”. Wardle says local arts and cultural planning, urban renewal and government funding aren’t keeping pace with each other:

There are some good planning instruments available, such as zoning special entertainment precincts, but they aren’t being deployed to the degree in which they might.

A report by Creative Australia, based on a 2022 survey, indicates something shifted in Australia’s arts sector when COVID hit. For instance, while 97% of Australians said they engaged with the arts, and more than half (68%) attended live events, this attendance was less frequent than in pre-COVID times.

Another report released this week by the arts body found just 56% of Australian music festivals in the last financial year made a profit, citing impact from factors such as rising costs of insurance and policing.

We have reached a breaking point in the music industry and there needs to be a concerted effort to reorganise it.

Some argue what we’re seeing is a “market failure” – too many festivals, poor programming, high costs and low confidence – and is therefore a problem for businesses to repair. But the overwhelming public interest in this issue demonstrates just how important live music is to the fabric of our culture.

A collapse in market confidence

The live music sector has become increasingly disconnected from its customers. Audiences have evolved in what they want and expect from live music, while also discovering less complicated ways to be entertained. The industry must evolve with them if it wants to thrive.

Emerging and mid-tier artists all over Australia currently work in venues whose core business is “live music”, yet it’s common for musicians to be booked to play with no guaranteed income.

Araminta, 22, is an independent artist from Naarm (Melbourne) who regularly performs at venues across the city. She told me venues expected her to organise 100% of event promotion and ticket sales:

The venues almost act as hire-spaces rather than working together with artists to ensure a good turnout. We are all working two to three jobs to make ends meet and on top of that we treat our artistry like a full-time job.

If the confidence returns, so will the gigs

In 2024, it’s unethical for a three-piece band working in a professional live music venue to only be offered a percentage of the bar takings as payment, yet this happens.

One outcome from the inquiry could be a pilot program that financially and organisationally supports quality, ethical and sustainable live music business models. And this would ideally be done with an eye to creating self-sustaining venues and music models that can be replicated across cities and towns.

The sector should work with governments to develop artists, champion their value and pay them accordingly. There should also be incentives offered for venues that don’t exploit music creators’ work, or rely solely on gambling and alcohol sales to be sustainable.

Araminta says setting a standard minimum rate for venues to pay musicians would make a notable difference:

The main reason artists are hesitant to gig recently is the amount of profit uncertainty – especially artists that are independent without any financial assistance.

Making the most of the inquiry

The terms of reference for the federal inquiry indicate a thorough and holistic approach to improving the sector. This means addressing issues at every level, from local artist development and economic benefit, to sustainability and growth internationally.

In covering this much ground, it will be a challenge to not spread the outcomes too thinly, or focus on short-term fixes rather than meaningful long-term reform.

Wardle cautions that unless we see an increase in jobs for musicians offering fair pay and conditions, more big announcements simply won’t stack up:

Ensuring the voices across the sector are listened to is critical to guide priorities and investment. I’d like to see more artists’ voices and representative opportunities, and structures that ensure that people aren’t excluded because of their cultural background or the type of music they play.

The industry must guarantee the quality of its product and provide safe, accessible and valuable experiences for both customers and musicians. Once audiences and musicians come running, word of mouth will do much of the heavy lifting, and investors will follow suit.

Rod Davies is affiliated with the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance

– ref. Australia’s live music crisis is essentially a crisis of confidence. How could we bring it back? – https://theconversation.com/australias-live-music-crisis-is-essentially-a-crisis-of-confidence-how-could-we-bring-it-back-227160

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naoise McDonagh, Senior Lecturer, School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

Australia is a trading nation. Its economy relies on a strong and open global trade environment.

Australian governments have historically rejected protectionist industrial policies that undermine fair competition, and Canberra has long been a staunch advocate of the World Trade Organization, whose rules help “promote and protect the open global trading system”.

Yet Labor has just announced a major new industrial policy – the Future Made in Australia Act – that will break with Canberra’s historical aversion to large-scale economic intervention. It will also cost taxpayers billions to fund.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s rationale for doing so is as succinct as it is paradoxical:

This is not old-fashioned protectionism or isolationism – it is the new competition … we must recognise that the partners we seek are moving to the beat of a new economic reality.

What is this “new reality”, and what does it mean for Australia’s economic future?

Australia joins the “geoeconomic game”

With this announcement, Australia has joined the great “geoeconomic game” currently transforming the world economy.

In a geoeconomic world economy, nations use economic relations as tools to achieve their strategic goals.

This could include coercing a country to change its policies by blocking their imports, as China has done to Australia. Or using export controls to prevent advanced technology reaching a strategic geopolitical rival, as the United States has applied to China to limit the flow of advanced semiconductors.

Read more:
Anthony Albanese puts interventionist industry policy at the centre of his budget agenda

Under these conditions, relations between countries shift from win-win to zero-sum. The resulting risks and vulnerabilities can be leveraged by geopolitical foes. Growing concern over this shift is driving economic “ghettoisation” – countries that were already on friendly terms are trading more between themselves, and with those on less friendly terms, trading less.

Australia has already been participating in “friend-shoring” – the relocation of crucial supply chains to diplomatically friendlier countries.

New policies for a new business reality

Some countries have already established policies in recognition of the new realities of international business, speeding up the formation of these blocs.

Two major recent policies by the US – the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act – aim to boost US electric vehicle and semiconductor manufacturing, respectively, with hundreds of billions of dollars in new government spending.

Japan is also spending big to bring more semiconductor production onshore.

These policies have also attracted vast sums of new private investment in relevant “strategic sectors” – totalling more than half a trillion dollars in the US alone.

Levelling the playing field or distorting the market?

This new economic approach by Washington and Tokyo almost certainly breaches the World Trade Organization’s rules, because it discriminates in determining who can access funds and where things have to be made.

China has already launched a dispute against the US Inflation Reduction Act on these very grounds. But China itself is also the biggest user of industrial policy by far.

On one hand, the new US and Japanese industrial policies will distort global markets, but – returning to Albanese’s “new competition” paradox – level the playing field on the other.

Consider Indonesia’s rise to become a nickel exporting powerhouse.

Jakarta applied an export ban – illegal under World Trade Organization rules – on unprocessed nickel in 2020, while attracting investment from China, where state-owned enterprises can access subsidised financing.

Combined with poor environmental and labour standards during production, the effect was extremely low-cost Indonesian nickel, which undercut global prices. As a result, some Australian mines could face closure.

This situation was not the product of free markets, but rather of state intervention. Canberra needs its own plan to counter such policies.

How should business leaders respond?

We still don’t know the full details of Labor’s strategy. But if the act is anything like Washington’s policies, it will aim to boost Australian firms with protectionist and discriminatory provisions. Awkwardly, this could well be in breach of the international trade rules Canberra has staunchly defended for so long.

Levelling the playing field implies sweeping changes in the dynamics of international commerce, with implications for Australian businesses, consumers and government.

In formulating strategy, Australian business leaders will increasingly need to think geopolitically. The world is no longer one big open economy.

Australian industries will certainly get a shot in the arm from Labor’s new policy.

There will be more downstream value-add processing in areas of existing strength, such as critical minerals.

Major investments in solar manufacturing will benefit regional Australia. These and other strategic sectors will enjoy higher levels of government support. But many non-strategic sectors could be left behind, facing new geoeconomic costs without extra funding.

Read more:
China has finally removed crushing tariffs on Australian wine. But re-establishing ourselves in the market won’t be easy

A new, smaller world

For consumers, the era of getting the most competitively priced goods on the global market is coming to a close.

As the global economy fragments, Australians will have to pay more for the duplication of global supply chains, and additional costs of subsidised production.

However, they may also see better supply chain security, and a domestic jobs boom in advanced manufacturing. Governments and businesses can work to reduce the risk of any economic coercion effects.

Much like the Old Testament principle of an “eye for an eye”, the principle of a “tariff for a tariff” is foundational in international trade. As Australia joins the geoeconomic game, pressure will mount on countries not yet playing to join in, simply to stay competitive. Trade and industry measures will continue to proliferate globally, reinforcing the new dynamics of geoeconomic competition.

The Albanese government faces great risks in implementing its new industrial strategy. Yet in taking action, it may have avoided a much greater risk – doing nothing at all in the face of a historic global economic change.

Naoise McDonagh 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 is playing catch-up with the Future Made in Australia Act. Will it be enough? – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-playing-catch-up-with-the-future-made-in-australia-act-will-it-be-enough-227762

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

Around the world, the human rights of transgender people are under attack. Media reports of trans women being vilified, excluded and discriminated against are frequent, and the consequences of this rise in hatred towards trans people can be deadly.

In the United States, animosity towards trans people is reaching fever pitch with 42 of the 50 states introducing laws that seek to limit trans people’s access to healthcare, participation in sport, use of bathrooms and serving in the military, as well as censoring education about gender identity.

There is increasing concern that a US-style anti-trans campaign is underway in Australia. This week, a spotlight was shone on these issues in the Federal Court, where a trans woman, Roxanne Tickle, has taken a women-only social media platform to court for discrimination.

This case is providing the court with a rare opportunity to determine the extent to which the Sex Discrimination Act protects a trans woman from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity. Although the act was amended more than a decade ago to prohibit discrimination on such a basis, this is the first time these laws are being tested in court.

Read more:
Dave Chappelle has built a reputation for ‘punching down’ on trans people – and now he’s targeting disabled people

What’s the case about?

Section 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act reads:

it is unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, or breastfeeding […]

Tickle is asking the Federal Court to find that excluding her from the social networking app, Giggle for Girls, breached this section and another in the Sex Discrimination Act.

Tickle, whose birth certificate designates her sex as female, following her transition from male to female, downloaded the app, which is marketed as a platform exclusively for women to share experiences and speak freely in a “safe space”.

To access the app, Tickle had to upload a selfie. Artificial intelligence (AI) assessed the photo as being of a woman and Tickle was given access to the app.

However, seven months later, the chief executive of Giggle for Girls, Sally Grover, blocked Tickle from using the app on the basis that she was male. She stated:

I looked at the onboarding selfie and I saw a man. The Al software had let them through, thereby making a mistake that I rectified.

What legal issues are up for debate?

The case highlights the distinction between sex discrimination and gender identity discrimination.

“Sex” is not defined in the Sex Discrimination Act. It is a term that is used to refer to whether a person is male, female or another non-binary status. It is assigned at birth according to biological attributes that are primarily associated with physical and physiological features.

Although some people don’t agree, a person’s sex is not fixed and can be changed, as reflected in the language of section 32I of the NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. It states:

a person the record of whose sex is altered under this Part is, for the purposes of, but subject to, any law of New South Wales, a person of the sex as so altered.

Grover evidently sees a person’s sex as immutable. Tickle’s barrister put it to Grover that “a transgender woman who had a female birth certificate, hormone therapy, breasts, gender affirmation surgery, wore makeup and women’s clothes, had a woman’s hairstyle and used women’s facilities, […] is a woman in our society.” Grover replied “I don’t agree”.

Gender refers to a person’s personal and social identity; how they feel, present and are recognised within the community. It is a social construct, and varies between cultures.

A person’s gender may be reflected in outward social markers, including their name, outward appearance, mannerisms and dress. A trans person’s gender identity does not correspond with the gender expected of them by society, given the sex assigned to them at birth.

Tickle’s claim is that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender identity. She asserts that she was treated less favourably than cisgender women (women whose gender identity corresponds with their sex assigned at birth), because of her gender identity. That is, because she is a trans woman.

Read more:
What’s going on with the wave of GOP bills about trans teens? Utah provides clues

Giggle for Girls and Grover are defending the proceedings on the basis their refusal to allow Tickle to use the app constituted lawful sex discrimination.

They say the app counts as a “special measure” under a different section of the Sex Discrimination Act, because it helps advance equality between men and women, and therefore they are allowed to exclude men. Since Grover perceives Tickle to be a man, she submits that excluding Tickle from the app was lawful as a special measure.

These arguments are contrary to the submissions made to the court by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody, who, as a “friend of the court”, was permitted to make submissions about how the act should be interpreted.

The commissioner submitted:

the Court need only conclude that, for a person to be of the female “sex”, it is sufficient if that sex is recorded on the person’s birth certificate and/or they have undergone gender affirming surgery to affirm their status as female.

That is the case for Tickle.

Cody also noted the Sex Discrimination Act was amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity, to provide “maximum protection for gender diverse people”.

The evidence, as reported, suggests Tickle, as a trans woman, was treated differently to how the respondents treated people with a different gender identity, namely cisgender women. This is contrary to purpose of the act.

We will await the court’s decision with interest. Depending on the outcome, we may see Australia going down a very different path to the anti-trans trajectory the US is currently on.

Read more:
Will things be better for LGBTIQ+ people under Labor? Here’s what the new government has promised

Paula Gerber is Chair of Kaleidoscope Human Rights Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation that advocates for the rights of LGBTIQA+ people in the Asia Pacific region.

– ref. Tickle vs Giggle: in a world where transgender people are under attack, this is a test case for Australia – https://theconversation.com/tickle-vs-giggle-in-a-world-where-transgender-people-are-under-attack-this-is-a-test-case-for-australia-227702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Micaela Sahhar, Lecturer, History of Ideas, Trinity College, The University of Melbourne

What is the significance of the Australian government signalling this week that it may finally recognise Palestinian statehood?

Though not universally popular, Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s diplomatic gesture towards Palestinian statehood has been welcomed in some quarters as a departure from Australia’s longstanding bipartisan consensus on the Middle East.

Formerly reluctant to interfere in the affairs of other nations, many countries have become frustrated by the lack of progress on a resolution to the decades-old question of Palestine and are moving to unilateral recognition of its statehood.

Yet, it is hard not to associate the timing of Wong’s speech with public outrage over the killing of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom and concern over the impact that Labor’s position on Palestine is having on its electoral prospects.

Why has this issue been so contentious for so long in Australia, and what could
its recognition of Palestinian statehood mean?

Australia’s role in the creation of Israel

Australia played a key role in preparing the groundwork for Israeli statehood in the early 20th century.

As a loyal servant of the British empire, the Australian army actively participated in the destruction of the Ottoman empire during the first world war. Battles in which Australian troops played a decisive role – such as the 1917 Charge of the Light Horse Brigade in Beersheba and the Allied capturing of Damascus in 1918 – are remembered in Australian and Israeli history as milestones in the achievement of Israeli statehood.

“Self-determination” was a watchword coined by Leon Trotsky and popularised by US President Woodrow Wilson towards the end of the first world war. However, in the postwar settlement, self-determination was unequally applied.

Zionist claims to self-determination were endorsed by the British government’s Balfour Declaration of 1917. But under the terms of the mandate of Palestine administered by Britain under the new League of Nations charter, indigenous Palestinian Arabs were catalogued among the “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world”.

Two decades later, Australia played a key role in the recognition of Israeli statehood at the United Nations. It is now well known that Australian Herbert Vere “Doc” Evatt, who presided over the UN Special Committee on Palestine, was instrumental in garnering international support for the proposed partition of Palestine. Australia was one of the first countries to recognise Israel in 1948.

In contrast, Britain initially maintained a policy of non-recognition of Israel, a position still held by some 30 countries.

The creation of Israel was also inextricably linked to the Palestinian Nakba, when an estimated 750,000 people were expelled during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. As former Knesset member Haneen Zoabi has observed, the Nakba is therefore indivisibly a part of the Jewish history of the land, as much as it is Palestinian history.

Read more:
10 books to help you understand Israel and Palestine, recommended by experts

A long history of bipartisan support for Israel

So, why has it been so difficult for Australia to recognise Palestinian aspirations for statehood?

The emergence of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in the 1960s under the leadership of Yasser Arafat thrust the Palestine question back into the spotlight. For mainstream Australian politicians, the PLO was akin to the African National Congress in South Africa, seen at the time as an irredeemable terrorist organisation.

Yet, unlike the bipartisan position later adopted against South African apartheid in Australia during the 1980s, no such revision has come with regard to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, which many observers in Israel and internationally also consider to be apartheid.

One South African observer, Andrew Feinstein, the son of a Holocaust survivor and former colleague of Nelson Mandela, has described Israeli apartheid as “far more brutal than anything we saw in South Africa”.

Read more:
Gareth Evans: the case for recognising Palestine

In recent years, Australian politicians on both sides have recommitted to their unwavering support of Israel. This is part of a broader phenomenon that US historian Ussama Makdisi has described as “philozionism” (or love of Zionism).

While the Rudd-Gillard government repositioned Australia’s relationship with Israel in a more critical light, the country’s politicians soon returned to the former bipartisan consensus around Israel. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was a cofounder of the Australian Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, though many have observed that his government has resiled from that affiliation. Prime ministers from both sides of the aisle have also had parks in Israel named in their honour.

The Palestine question has been a particularly tortured one for the Labor Party, as illustrated by Australia’s abstention in the 2012 vote at the United Nations to grant Palestinian observer status.

Labor’s shifting policy

The gradual move towards recognition of Palestinian statehood has followed Labor’s attempts to return to the fold of international consensus on the Israel-Palestinian issue after a decade of Coalition leadership. This has included reversing the Coalition stance on Israel’s West Bank settlements, recognising them as illegal under international law.

Though hubristic to imagine Australian diplomatic recognition will have any impact on Palestinian lives, the change in position of one of Israel’s historically staunch allies does coincide with a broader shift in the Western consensus.

Following Israel’s bombardment of Gaza during the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, lawmakers in Sweden and the United Kingdom voted to recognise the state of Palestine. These moves had little material impact but carried symbolic value.

Read more:
Explainer: what is the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

It is important to recall that UN Resolution 194, recognising Israeli statehood, did so on the condition that Palestinians ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands would be given the right of return, or be appropriately compensated. This resolution has been reaffirmed annually since 1949 and is fundamental to the question of a just peace.

Australia’s belated recognition of Palestinian statehood would be a welcome first step. It is the result of decades of grassroots activism by Palestinians and their allies in Australia. However, much work remains to be done if Australia is to be a constructive partner in the meaningful achievement of Palestinian self-determination.

Micaela Sahhar has signed numerous public statements in support of Palestinian self-determination.

Stephen Pascoe has signed numerous public statements in support of Palestinian self-determination.

– ref. The politics of recognition: Australia and the question of Palestinian statehood – https://theconversation.com/the-politics-of-recognition-australia-and-the-question-of-palestinian-statehood-227563

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naoise McDonagh, Senior Lecturer, School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

Australia is a trading nation. Its economy relies on a strong and open global trade environment.

Australian governments have historically rejected protectionist industrial policies that undermine fair competition, and Canberra has long been a staunch advocate of the World Trade Organization, whose rules help “promote and protect the open global trading system”.

Yet Labor has just announced a major new industrial policy – the Future Made in Australia Act – that will break with Canberra’s historical aversion to large-scale economic intervention. It will also cost taxpayers billions to fund.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s rationale for doing so is as succinct as it is paradoxical:

This is not old-fashioned protectionism or isolationism – it is the new competition … we must recognise that the partners we seek are moving to the beat of a new economic reality.

What is this “new reality”, and what does it mean for Australia’s economic future?

Australia joins the “geoeconomic game”

With this announcement, Australia has joined the great “geoeconomic game” currently transforming the world economy.

In a geoeconomic world economy, nations use economic relations as tools to achieve their strategic goals.

This could include coercing a country to change its policies by blocking their imports, as China has done to Australia. Or using export controls to prevent advanced technology reaching a strategic geopolitical rival, as the United States has applied to China to limit the flow of advanced semiconductors.

Read more:
Anthony Albanese puts interventionist industry policy at the centre of his budget agenda

Under these conditions, relations between countries shift from win-win to zero-sum. The resulting risks and vulnerabilities can be leveraged by geopolitical foes. Growing concern over this shift is driving economic “ghettoisation” – countries that were already on friendly terms are trading more between themselves, and with those on less friendly terms, trading less.

Australia has already been participating in “friend-shoring” – the relocation of crucial supply chains to diplomatically friendlier countries.

New policies for a new business reality

Some countries have already established policies in recognition of the new realities of international business, speeding up the formation of these blocs.

Two major recent policies by the US – the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act – aim to boost US electric vehicle and semiconductor manufacturing, respectively, with hundreds of billions of dollars in new government spending.

Japan is also spending big to bring more semiconductor production onshore.

These policies have also attracted vast sums of new private investment in relevant “strategic sectors” – totalling more than half a trillion dollars in the US alone.

Levelling the playing field or distorting the market?

This new economic approach by Washington and Tokyo almost certainly breaches the World Trade Organization’s rules, because it discriminates in determining who can access funds and where things have to be made.

China has already launched a dispute against the US Inflation Reduction Act on these very grounds. But China itself is also the biggest user of industrial policy by far.

On one hand, the new US and Japanese industrial policies will distort global markets, but – returning to Albanese’s “new competition” paradox – level the playing field on the other.

Consider Indonesia’s rise to become a nickel exporting powerhouse.

Jakarta applied an export ban – illegal under World Trade Organization rules – on unprocessed nickel in 2020, while attracting investment from China, where state-owned enterprises can access subsidised financing.

Combined with poor environmental and labour standards during production, the effect was extremely low-cost Indonesian nickel, which undercut global prices. As a result, some Australian mines could face closure.

This situation was not the product of free markets, but rather of state intervention. Canberra needs its own plan to counter such policies.

How should business leaders respond?

We still don’t know the full details of Labor’s strategy. But if the act is anything like Washington’s policies, it will aim to boost Australian firms with protectionist and discriminatory provisions. Awkwardly, this could well be in breach of the international trade rules Canberra has staunchly defended for so long.

Levelling the playing field implies sweeping changes in the dynamics of international commerce, with implications for Australian businesses, consumers and government.

In formulating strategy, Australian business leaders will increasingly need to think geopolitically. The world is no longer one big open economy.

Australian industries will certainly get a shot in the arm from Labor’s new policy.

There will be more downstream value-add processing in areas of existing strength, such as critical minerals.

Major investments in solar manufacturing will benefit regional Australia. These and other strategic sectors will enjoy higher levels of government support. But many non-strategic sectors could be left behind, facing new geoeconomic costs without extra funding.

Read more:
China has finally removed crushing tariffs on Australian wine. But re-establishing ourselves in the market won’t be easy

A new, smaller world

For consumers, the era of getting the most competitively priced goods on the global market is coming to a close.

As the global economy fragments, Australians will have to pay more for the duplication of global supply chains, and additional costs of subsidised production.

However, they may also see better supply chain security, and a domestic jobs boom in advanced manufacturing. Governments and businesses can work to reduce the risk of any economic coercion effects.

Much like the Old Testament principle of an “eye for an eye”, the principle of a “tariff for a tariff” is foundational in international trade. As Australia joins the geoeconomic game, pressure will mount on countries not yet playing to join in, simply to stay competitive. Trade and industry measures will continue to proliferate globally, reinforcing the new dynamics of geoeconomic competition.

The Albanese government faces great risks in implementing its new industrial strategy. Yet in taking action, it may have avoided a much greater risk – doing nothing at all in the face of a historic global economic change.

Naoise McDonagh 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 is playing catchup with the Future Made in Australia Act. Will it be enough? – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-playing-catchup-with-the-future-made-in-australia-act-will-it-be-enough-227762

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

Beetroot has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. Supply issues in recent months have seen a shortage of tinned beetroot on Australian supermarket shelves. At one point, a tin was reportedly selling on eBay for more than A$65.

But as supplies increase, we turn our attention to beetroot’s apparent health benefits.

Is beetroot really vegetable Viagra, as UK TV doctor Michael Mosley suggests? What about beetroot’s other apparent health benefits – from reducing your blood pressure to improving your daily workout? Here’s what the science says.

Read more:
Can beetroot really improve athletic performance?

What’s so special about beetroot?

Beetroot – alongside foods such as berries, nuts and leafy greens – is a
“superfood”. It contains above-average levels per gram of certain vitamins and minerals.

Beetroot is particularly rich in vitamin B and C, minerals, fibre and antioxidants.

Most cooking methods don’t significantly alter its antioxidant levels. Pressure cooking does, however, lower levels of carotenoid (a type of antioxidant) compared to raw beetroot.

Processing into capsules, powders, chips or juice may affect beetroot’s ability to act as an antioxidant. However, this can vary between products, including between different brands of beetroot juice.

Read more:
These 5 foods are claimed to improve our health. But the amount we’d need to consume to benefit is… a lot

Is beetroot really vegetable Viagra?

The Romans are said to have used beetroot and its juice as an aphrodisiac.

But there’s limited scientific evidence to say beetroot improves your sex life. This does not mean it doesn’t. Rather, the vast number of scientific studies looking at the effect of beetroot have not measured libido or other aspects of sexual health.

Read more:
Is your partner a man-child? No wonder you don’t feel like sex

How could it work?

When we eat beetroot, chemical reactions involving bacteria and enzymes transform the nitrate in beetroot into nitrite, then to nitric oxide. Nitric oxide helps dilate (widen) blood vessels, potentially improving circulation.

The richest sources of dietary nitric oxide that have been tested in clinical studies are beetroot, rocket and spinach.

Nitric oxide is also thought to support testosterone in its role in controlling blood flow before and during sex in men.

Beetroot’s ability to improve blood flow can benefit the circulatory system of the heart and blood vessels. This may positively impact sexual function, theoretically in men and women.

Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest there could be a modest link between beetroot and preparedness for sex, but don’t expect it to transform your sex life.

Read more:
Monday’s medical myth: eating oysters makes you randy

What else could it do?

Beetroot has received increasing attention over recent years due to its antioxidant and anti-tumour effect in humans.

Clinical trials have not verified all beetroot’s active ingredients and their effects. However, beetroot may be a potentially helpful treatment for various health issues related to oxidative stress and inflammation, such as cancer and diabetes. The idea is that you can take beetroot supplements or eat extra beetroot alongside your regular medicines (rather than replace them).

There is evidence beetroot juice can help lower systolic blood pressure (the first number in your blood pressure reading) by 2.73-4.81 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit of measuring blood pressure) in people with high blood pressure. Some researchers say this reduction is comparable to the effects seen with certain medications and dietary interventions.

Other research finds even people without high blood pressure (but at risk of it) could benefit.

Beetroot may also improve athletic performance. Some studies show small benefits for endurance athletes (who run, swim or cycle long distances). These studies looked at various forms of the food, such as beetroot juice as well as beetroot-based supplements.

How to get more beetroot in your diet

There is scientific evidence to support positive impacts of consuming beetroot in whole, juice and supplement forms. So even if you can’t get hold of tinned beetroot, there are plenty of other ways you can get more beetroot into your diet. You can try:

• raw beetroot – grate raw beetroot and add it to salads or coleslaw, or slice beetroot to use as a crunchy topping for sandwiches or wraps

• cooked beetroot – roast beetroot with olive oil, salt and pepper for a flavour packed side dish. Alternatively, steam beetroot and serve it as a standalone dish or mixed into other dishes

• beetroot juice – make fresh beetroot juice using a juicer. You can combine it with other fruits and vegetables for added flavour. You can also blend raw or cooked beetroot with water and strain to make a juice

• smoothies – add beetroot to your favourite smoothie. It pairs well with fruits such as berries, apples and oranges

• soups – use beetroot in soups for both flavour and colour. Borscht is a classic beetroot soup, but you can also experiment with other recipes

• pickled beetroot – make pickled beetroot at home, or buy it from the supermarket. This can be a tasty addition to salads or sandwiches

• beetroot hummus – blend cooked beetroot into your homemade hummus for a vibrant and nutritious dip. You can also buy beetroot hummus from the supermarket

• grilled beetroot – slice beetroot and grill it for a smoky flavour

• beetroot chips – slice raw beetroot thinly, toss the slices with olive oil and your favourite seasonings, then bake or dehydrate them to make crispy beetroot chips

• cakes and baked goods – add grated beetroot to muffins, cakes, or brownies for a moist and colourful twist.

Are there any downsides?

Compared to the large number of studies on the beneficial effects of beetroot, there is very little evidence of negative side effects.

If you eat large amounts of beetroot, your urine may turn red or purple (called beeturia). But this is generally harmless.

There have been reports in some countries of beetroot-based dietary supplements contaminated with harmful substances, yet we have not seen this reported in Australia.

Read more:
Health Check: what your pee and poo colour says about your health

What’s the take-home message?

Beetroot may give some modest boost to sex for men and women, likely by helping your circulation. But it’s unlikely to transform your sex life or act as vegetable Viagra. We know there are many contributing factors to sexual wellbeing. Diet is only one.

For individually tailored support talk to your GP or an accredited practising dietitian.

Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health and Mater Misericordia. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

Emily Burch works for Southern Cross University.

– ref. No, beetroot isn’t vegetable Viagra. But here’s what else it can do – https://theconversation.com/no-beetroot-isnt-vegetable-viagra-but-heres-what-else-it-can-do-222508

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trang Nguyen, Southeast Asia Lead, Climateworks Centre

Next week, more than 100 green energy, technology, education and finance companies from Australia and Vietnam will gather in Ho Chi Minh City. The meeting is billed as the first “green economy summit” between the two nations.

The conference builds on Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s pledge at last month’s Australian ASEAN Special Summit to invest A$2 billion in Southeast Asia. There’s a focus on boosting clean technology.

So what’s on the agenda at this week’s meeting? And what are the prospects for success?

We are in Vietnam for the summit, drawing on our experience in economics, banking and finance to lead sessions on clean technology supply chains and green finance. This is the culmination of nine months of work with Australia’s National Centre for Asia Capability to increase regional prosperity while reducing emissions.

Read more:
Albanese to announce $2 billion financing facility to boost economic relations with Southeast Asia

What’s in it for the two nations?

As Albanese has said, “Australia and Vietnam share an ambitious agenda across climate change and sustainability”. And there is “enormous potential to be realised through closer ties” between our two countries.

Both have net zero goals for 2050, both want to develop clean technology industries and minimise supply chain disruption. There are shared challenges around decarbonisation, as large agriculture and manufacturing sectors try to shift away from fossil fuels. And both know our broader Indo-Pacific region is extremely vulnerable to climate change.

Currently, global supply chains for clean energy technology and associated critical minerals are highly concentrated in China, especially for solar panels, wind and batteries. For electrolysers and heat pumps, the United States and the European Union play a larger role. But China still dominates the manufacturing and trade of these technologies.

This concentration of manufacturing in a limited number of countries highlights the need to diversify. As a global trade hub with progressive trade policies, Vietnam has an important role to play here. Vietnam is among the few countries outside China with existing significant solar PV manufacturing capabilities. This includes wafer production, cell manufacturing and module assembly.

Vietnam is well placed to support Australian companies in the green economy. It has policies for attracting green investment, along with an established regional supply chain and market for consumption. Then there’s the increasingly educated and skilled labour force. All will be useful in the commercialisation and scale-up of Australia’s latest solar research, as Australia begins to invest in manufacturing facilities in Vietnam.

Vietnam is also a strong export market for Australia, with the highest rate of solar uptake in Southeast Asia. Australia wants to export more solar panels to Vietnam and therefore compete with China for this export revenue.

Tackling emissions across borders

Australian companies will soon need to account not only for their own direct greenhouse emissions and indirect emissions from electricity, but also indirect emissions from upstream and downstream activities (“scope 3 emissions”). These may come from materials sourced overseas or investments outside Australia.

This is part of Treasury’s proposed bill introduced to parliament in March. It will encourage large companies to invest in green technology and renewables, rather than polluting projects or products manufactured using fossil fuels.

Australia’s $2 billion investment includes plans to support companies to invest overseas, through regional “landing pads”.

The landing pads act as regional hubs to drive Australian technology exports and investment into the region. This is intended to help businesses scale up their technology and break into new markets. Ideally these companies will be able to use these opportunities to reduce their scope 3 emissions.

Lowering the cost of capital by reducing the perception of risks

So far, Australian companies have had limited involvement in clean energy projects in Vietnam. The most notable exception was Macquarie’s green investment group Corio Generation’s partnership with FECON, a Vietnamese company, to develop an offshore wind farm in the Bà Rịa-Vũng Tàu province.

The existing pool of investors in Vietnam’s renewable market is concentrated among Southeast Asian and East Asian companies, particularly from Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore and Japan.

It is unlikely this pool of investors will be sufficient to facilitate the significant volume of generation, transmission and storage infrastructure required to achieve Vietnam’s climate targets. This will provide opportunities for Australian investors.

Unfortunately many Australian investors are not yet familiar with overseas markets. This leads to higher costs of capital for renewables projects in many emerging markets.

The increase in cost due to perceived risks can stem from things such as:

• a mismatch between clean energy project return profiles and investors return expectation
• underdeveloped climate information architecture and market transparency measures
• a lack of information or unclear policy signals related to renewable energy targets.

Increasing business-to-business connection and helping Australian investors understand this opportunity will help reduce perceived risks. This will in turn lower the cost of capital and help ignite green economy collaboration and investment into the future.

Governments play an important role

Having the right policy settings in place can help foster trade and investment around new technology. There is an opportunity here to nurture the emerging green economy in Southeast Asia.

The Australia-Vietnam Comprehensive Strategic Partnership announced in March, along with existing multilateral trade pacts, is most welcome.

Bringing businesses in green economy sectors together for the summit will provide a stronger case for both countries to decarbonise faster. This is crucial given Australia’s economy is still dependent on fossil fuel exports. Vietnam’s industrialised economy is grappling with growing energy demands.

As the world races towards net zero emissions, it’s clear Vietnam is poised to play a significant role in the region’s decarbonisation. Now is the time for Australia to strengthen its strategic relationship with Vietnam and the broader Southeast Asia region.

Read more:
Could spending a billion dollars actually bring solar manufacturing back to Australia? It’s worth a shot

The article refers to research findings and activities that are part of the Australia Vietnam Green Economy Program, a joint initiative between Asialink and Climateworks Centre. The program is funded and supported by the Australian Government. Trang is the Southeast Asia Lead for Climateworks Centre, which receives funding from philanthropy and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities including federal, state and local government and private sector organisations and international and local non-profit organisations. Climateworks Centre works within Monash University’s Sustainable Development Institute. Trang is also an independent Board Member for Asian Australian for Climate Solutions.

Anna Skarbek is on the board of the Centre for New Energy Technologies, the Green Building Council of Australia, and the Asia-Pacific Advisory Board of the Glasgow Financial Alliance on Net Zero. She is a member of the Net Zero Economy Agency Advisory Board, the Grattan Institute’s energy program reference panel and the Blueprint Institute’s strategic advisory council. Anna Skarbek is CEO of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from philanthropy and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities including federal, state and local government and private sector organisations and international and local non-profit organisations. Climateworks Centre works within Monash University’s Sustainable Development Institute.

– ref. Green economy summit: how can Australia get more from its relationship with Vietnam? – https://theconversation.com/green-economy-summit-how-can-australia-get-more-from-its-relationship-with-vietnam-226822

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neil G Sipe, Honorary Professor of Planning, The University of Queensland

Infill development is an increasingly hot topic in Australian cities. It involves building on unused or underutilised land within existing urban areas.

City planners see infill development as essential. It’s a way to end urban sprawl and improve service delivery to a growing population at lower cost. Infill development has increased in popularity over several decades because it uses existing physical and social infrastructure, is close to amenities and enhances local economies.

Governments and planners have set infill development targets. However, these targets are not being met. Greenfield projects on undeveloped land continue to outpace infill development.

Perth, for example, has an infill target of 47%. The rate of higher-density infill actually fell recently to 29% of all new development.

However, most states and territories already have the means to deliver more infill development, in the form of land development authorities.

Read more:
To cut urban sprawl, we need quality infill housing displays to win over the public

What are the obstacles?

Infill targets aren’t being met for various reasons. These include:

• opposition from some (but not all) local residents, because of increased noise and traffic disruptions
• difficulty in assembling enough land to make the project feasibile
• higher development costs due to land prices and higher densities
• stronger market demand for greenfield housing
• need to upgrade infrastructure for infill locations
• complex and time-consuming planning approvals.

Greenfield development is popular with developers and consumers because it costs less up-front. However, such development may cost society more. These added costs include transport – both public transport and roads – as well as social, health and other government support services.

Read more:
Outer suburbs’ housing cost advantage vanishes when you add in transport – it needs to be part of the affordability debate

Ad-hoc, small-scale infill that typically covers only a few lots is happening. Unfortunately, these projects are not enough to achieve infill targets.

And they are creating other problems. They often convert backyards into housing. This reduces open space and adds to urban heat island impacts.

Read more:
Why city policy to ‘protect the Brisbane backyard’ is failing

What have governments done about it?

Governments have worked on increasing infill development for decades. One of the earliest attempts involved land development authorities. The idea originated with the Whitlam government in the early 1970s.

The Commonwealth Department of Urban and Regional Development encouraged states to establish these authorities in response to the “shortages of residential land and the accompanying rapid price rises that occurred in Sydney, as in the other major cities in Australia in the late 1960s and early 1970s”. Their purpose was “to acquire land for present and future urban development and other public uses to help moderate the housing market, stabilise land supply and support the development industry with homesite sales to be made at the lowest practicable price”.

Many states and territories have land development authorities or their equivalents. These bodies have undertaken a significant number of projects, but it’s small when considering population growth.

For example, LandCom in NSW has been involved with 220 projects and provided housing for 100,000 since it was set up. Sydney’s population has grown by more than 2 million people in this time.

As well as NSW’s Landcom, other authorities of this kind include Development Victoria, Renewal SA, DevelopmentWA and the Australian Capital Territory’s Suburban Land Agency. Queensland had the Urban Land Development Authority, which became part of Economic Development Queensland. (The above links include lists of projects.)

Read more:
Greening the greyfields: how to renew our suburbs for more liveable, net-zero cities

We need to build on this work

While land development authorities have been around for almost 50 years they have not been as successful as hoped. One reason is that they have not focused solely on infill development. They also have tended to use land already owned by the government.

There are other issues too. Population growth has outpaced the authorities’ capacity to deliver housing. There are political sensitivities about the government taking away development opportunities from the private sector.

One reason for Australia’s housing problem is the length of time it takes to get a project approved. This is particularly true for infill development.

One attempt to overcome this obstacle was Queensland’s Priority Development Areas (PDAs), which took effect in 2012. According to Economic Development Queensland, “when a PDA is declared, Economic Development Queensland works closely with local government and other stakeholders to plan, assess and guide development within a PDA. This includes the preparation of a development scheme.” Many PDAs are urban infill projects.

Read more:
How do we get urban density ‘just right’? The Goldilocks quest for the ‘missing middle’

Another Queensland initiative announced last February is the A$350 million Incentivising Infill Fund. Its focus is to provide relief from infrastructure charges for “market-ready” private infill developments.

Governments at all levels are looking for ways to make more housing available and affordable. Infill development is a viable option, but it can be improved by making more use of mechanisms like land development authorities. They can provide co-ordinated planning and development at a scale that will improve our cities.

So, rather than looking for new solutions, we should make better use of existing ones that have proven effective.

Neil G Sipe has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. City planners love infill development. So why are cities struggling with it, and how can they do better? – https://theconversation.com/city-planners-love-infill-development-so-why-are-cities-struggling-with-it-and-how-can-they-do-better-223189

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melanie Brand, Lecturer in Intelligence Studies, Macquarie University

This year marks 70 years since Soviet diplomat Vladimir Petrov sensationally defected to Australia shortly before the 1954 election, beginning what came to be known as the “Petrov affair”. The defection itself is interesting – but what’s equally fascinating is how the Australian media covered the Petrov affair.

The story dominated press coverage for months. With little experience of international spying beyond the narratives of popular culture, the Australian media told the story of the Petrov affair using the familiar formulas of spy fiction and film. This coverage transformed Australia’s unsettling involvement in the world of international espionage into thrilling and sensational entertainment.

This framing – as an exciting but familiar drama – may have helped Australians manage their anxiety about the threat posed by Soviet espionage.

Read more:
Chinese ‘spy’ case may be the greatest challenge to Australian security since Petrov – but caution is needed

Hollywood spy drama come to life

The key plot points of the Petrov affair are straightforward. After a carefully planned Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) operation, Vladimir Petrov – a KGB officer based in the Soviet embassy in Canberra – was convinced to defect to Australia in 1954, providing information in exchange for political asylum.

From the beginning, the Australian press portrayed the events of the Petrov affair as entertainment for their eager readers.

As the Bulletin put it at the time, Australians had long read of espionage in Europe and

felt a vicarious thrill of horror as they have read of hairbreadth escapes across borders and of spy rings.

Now their own country was a world in which Hollywood spy drama had come to life.

In media reports Australians were promised the Petrov affair contained

all the elements of a spy thriller – undercover agents, secret service men, a spy ring, secret hiding places and bribery.

And it featured an all-star cast. As one report put it:

the actors of the moment seem larger than life; their actions wilder than in any of the most lurid spy thrillers.

Mrs Petrov defects

The undoubted “star of our biggest real life spy story”, as one report called her, was Evdokia Petrova, Vladimir’s glamorous wife.

From her first interview, given the day after her husband’s defection, Evdokia looked the part of a classic Hollywood damsel in distress.

This effect was only increased days later, when Evdokia appeared to be forcibly dragged on to a plane to the Soviet Union by two armed guards.

Pictures of Evdokia’s distressed face as she was led toward the plane, one shoe lost in the scuffle, were plastered across every newspaper in the country.

When Evdokia herself decided to defect a few hours later, Australia rejoiced.

Evdokia, according to Woman’s Day, was

the star of a thriller more tense and terrible than anything Alfred Hitchcock ever brought to the screen.

Indeed, journalists seemed in agreement that for

sheer breathtaking drama, no thriller writer has beaten the true story of how Mrs Petrov escaped the grim clutches of Moscow’s goon squad.

The show begins

Petrov’s claims of a Soviet spy ring in Australia prompted a royal commission soon after his defection.

The first hearings of this inquiry were as heavily anticipated as the opening of a Hollywood blockbuster.

Journalists spoke of the “the blood-chilling revelations” on offer, and of “the shadow of Moscow” that seemed to linger over the inquiry.

Journalist Hal Richardson set the scene for readers of the Melbourne Argus:

There were figures so shadowy in Albert Hall this week that when you walked out into the open they seemed to disintegrate in the fragile reality of Canberra’s winter sunshine. But they were real […] And you wondered whether it was the cold outside or the shadows inside that sent shivers through you.

The leading man

Although Vladimir Petrov was undeniably a main character in the drama, his appearance at the Royal Commission was something of a let-down.

Rather than the dashing and handsome secret agent the Australian public had expected, “the leading man, Petrov himself” was instead “no matinee idol”.

Those who attended the inquiry “expecting a chapter, or anyway a page or two, out of an Eric Ambler spy novel,” came away disappointed.

“Petrov looked nothing like a spy to me,” admitted one journalist.

Instead, one reporter opined, Petrov was “just a podgy man in a dark-blue suit”.

Others observed “Petrov would not fit any fictional portrayal of an international spy”.

That these writers felt they knew what a spy should look like highlights the strong influence of popular culture on public perceptions of the Petrov affair.

The familiarity of formula fiction eases anxiety

The Australian media coverage of these events transformed the country’s brush with the clandestine events of the Cold War into something closer to entertainment.

The Petrov affair was “the spy thriller [that] outdoes fiction” and the Australian public was its audience.

As my research outlines, the Australian press and public leveraged their knowledge of popular culture to interpret events, using the common formulas of espionage fiction to understand the startling revelations stemming from Petrov’s defection.

To some extent, this dynamic continues today and many Australians still view the work of intelligence agencies and their staff through the lens of popular culture.

The secrecy that surrounds intelligence means the representations of intelligence found in popular culture are often the only way that hidden activities can be known and understood.

Read more:
ASIO history: chasing Russian spies and local communists

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

– ref. The Petrov affair: how a real-life Cold War defection became a soothing spy story for anxious Australians – https://theconversation.com/the-petrov-affair-how-a-real-life-cold-war-defection-became-a-soothing-spy-story-for-anxious-australians-226494

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Baker, Associate Professor in Human Geography, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

The appointment of former Labour finance minister Grant Robertson as vice-chancellor is a first for Otago University, which has never had a non-academic in the role. But it’s not hard to see why the university’s governing body made the decision.

Universities are navigating a difficult funding environment. The current government has commissioned a sector-wide review, but its instincts for thrift mean the challenges will likely continue for some time.

Combine this national predicament with Otago’s own specific financial problems, and the choice of new vice-chancellor makes strategic sense. Robertson’s public profile and political networks may be useful assets at this critical moment. Cometh the hour, cometh the former finance minister.

However, the appointment also raises a larger question, barely mentioned in the ensuing public coverage: should former politicians lead universities at all?

Read more:
Starved of funds and vision, struggling universities put NZ’s entire research strategy at risk

Wider debate needed

For a sector that trades in independent opinion, analysis and debate, it’s surprising the announcement of a senior politician to lead New Zealand’s oldest university produced so little public discussion.

Was this akin to a collective sigh of relief? After all, Robertson has a sympathetic stance towards his old university and towards the potential of public institutions in general.

Let’s consider a parallel universe, though, where a politician of a different stripe was appointed to lead a university after their parliamentary career. Were a former National or ACT Party minister to be hired, for example, would there be so little debate?

This hypothetical suggests we need principles that transcend individual cases in order to better assess appointments to executive roles within universities.

Competence and corporatisation

The first area of principle is competence. Universities were traditionally led by academics. This was a product of their historical guild-like training and collegial governance.

While vice-chancellors are still mostly academics, in recent decades the appointment of business and public sector leaders has eroded that tradition internationally.

This openness to appointing non-academics to executive roles has proceeded in step with New Zealand’s “corporatisation” of universities and their governing bodies.

For example, in 2015, legislative provisions were changed to reduce staff representation and give ministerial appointees greater weight on the governing bodies of New Zealand universities.

In 2021, the University of Sydney hired Mark Scott as its first non-academic vice-chancellor. Scott is a former director-general of the New South Wales Department of Education and former managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Many universities around the world are breaking similar ground.

This is familiar territory in New Zealand. John Hood, for example, was a director of Fonterra and Fletcher Chellenge before starting his university leadership career in 1999. He served as vice-chancellor at the University of Auckland and later the University of Oxford.

Read more:
Bailout, Band-Aid or back to basics? 3 questions NZ’s university funding review must ask

Critic and conscience

Critics of non-academic appointments have pointed to a variety of potential problems, including a lack of knowledge about academic pursuits, academic work and the particularities of the university.

They also point to a growing separation between the careers of those “at the coalface” and those “in leadership”, and to a narrowing of the university’s civic mission by corporate and managerial mindsets.

History tells us, however, that non-academics can be at least as capable of leading universities as those trained as academics.

An academic vice-chancellor draws on deep experience within universities. They ought to know how these unusual institutions are run – and how they “tick” in a less formal sense.

Read more:
NZ universities are not normal Crown institutions – they shouldn’t be ‘Tiriti-led’

But many of the skills required of a vice-chancellor — strategic thinking, diplomacy, stringent governance — have much in common with the role of a commercial CEO or director-general.

When it comes to competence, Grant Robertson clearly satisfied the University of Otago’s governing council. This might not be the case for every politician.

But the discussion should not be limited to issues of competence alone. It should also consider how the appointment of politicians to university leadership roles affects perceived and actual independence.

Universities began as elite institutions with a degree of separation from society. Shielded from commercial temptation, academics were able to pursue knowledge for its own sake. And shielded from political loyalties, they could ask questions of our social, political and economic systems, and those who create and benefit from them.

The university’s role as “critic and conscience of society” became seen as central to democracy. New Zealand went one step further than most countries by enshrining this in legislation.

Perceived independence

Robertson, of course, is not the first to move from politics to academic leadership. Former Labour education and social development minister Steve Maharey was vice-chancellor at Massey University from 2008 to 2016.

While that appointment was also met with little discussion at the time, Maharey had some claim to experience within universities, having previously taught at Massey.

Internationally, universities are increasingly hiring politicians and other non-academics for non-executive staff roles. There are legitimate concerns about these appointments, too.

Read more:
Are New Zealand’s universities doing enough to define the limits of academic freedom?

But they are less acute than those associated with having politicians lead universities. Being seen as another state sector agency, or aligned to certain political parties, would seriously compromise the democratic function of the university.

In the United States, the university sector is extremely varied and there is a strong tradition of movement between careers in universities, business and government. Yet even there the appointment of politicians to lead universities is fairly rare.

Elsewhere, it’s rarer still. There is a recognition, at least implicitly, that the potential risk to the independence and distinctive societal role of universities requires frank discussion.

Tom Baker has received public research funding from the Marsden Fund.

– ref. Grant Robertson is swapping cabinet for academia – but should ex-politicians lead universities? – https://theconversation.com/grant-robertson-is-swapping-cabinet-for-academia-but-should-ex-politicians-lead-universities-227549

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, The University of Melbourne

Australia’s weather bureau copped harsh criticism after El Niño failed to deliver a much-vaunted dry summer in eastern Australia. Parts of northern Queensland in the path of Tropical Cyclone Jasper had a record wet December and areas of central Victoria had a record wet January. Overall, the summer was 19% wetter than average for Australia as a whole.

This led to debate in the media and during senate estimates around the Bureau of Meteorology’s ability to make accurate predictions as the climate changes. The value of seasonal forecasting in particular has been called into question.

Weather prediction has actually improved in recent years. And there are exciting developments on the horizon involving artificial intelligence. But the effect of future climate change on weather and seasonal prediction is not yet well understood.

As climate scientists, we know 7–14-day forecasts and seasonal predictions stack up pretty well when it comes to the crunch. That’s because agencies such as the Bureau check the success of their forecasts against reality and make this information public. While it’s possible climate change may pose challenges to weather and seasonal prediction in some regions, we believe improvements in forecasting far exceed any losses in accuracy.

Read more:
Did the BOM get it wrong on the hot, dry summer? No – predicting chaotic systems is probability, not certainty

Advances in prediction

Ever since the UK physicist Lewis Fry Richardson first envisaged the possibility in a 1922 book, weather forecasting has been growing more accurate and powerful.

The science of meteorology took a great leap forward with the boom in computing capability.

Now, highly detailed satellite data and weather observations feed into multiple computer simulations. This makes 7-day forecasts pretty accurate across the globe, although less so in poorer areas of the world.

As we can never know the state of the atmosphere perfectly at any given time, it is beneficial to run many simulations with slightly different starting conditions. This gives an idea of how the weather may change and how much confidence we have in those changes.

The same principles that govern weather forecasting also support seasonal climate forecasting. Models representing the atmosphere and ocean are cast forward in time to give a three-month outlook.

Beyond about ten days we’re not able to say with certainty what the weather will be like for a precise location at a specific time. But we can give an indication of the chances the weather will be significantly hotter, cooler, drier or wetter than the seasonal average.

Our ability to predict conditions over the coming season has greatly advanced in just the past 20 years. We now better understand how the various climate drivers influence our weather, and we have more computational power to run models.

However model-based seasonal forecasting – providing location-specific guidance on likely rainfall and temperature compared to the long-term average for months at a time – is still relatively new. It has further to go to provide reliable, usable information to decision-makers.

How do we measure how good a forecast is?

Meteorologists know whether their forecasts were right or wrong after the fact, because agencies such as the Bureau of Meteorology have entire teams dedicated to comparing their forecasts with what actually happened.

The table above shows a simple example of how scientists calculate how good a forecast is. From the number of hits, misses, false alarms and correct negatives we can calculate a range of scores.

This becomes more complex when we want to know not just whether the forecast correctly predicted it would rain, but also how much rain, and whether the quoted probability of rainfall was actually right.

Read more:
Did the BOM get it wrong on the hot, dry summer? No – predicting chaotic systems is probability, not certainty

Additionally, as models become more sophisticated and higher-resolution than they used to be, they can simulate more realistic-looking weather systems such as lines of thunderstorms. It’s like watching TV in high definition instead of grainy black and white. Assessing forecast capability gets more challenging at high resolutions because flaws we wouldn’t previously have seen are magnified too.

Overall, when we look at weather forecast skill over time, we see major improvements. These improvements are particularly large in the Southern Hemisphere, where there is less land for weather stations. In these remote areas, satellite data has vastly improved our knowledge of the state of the atmosphere – providing a better starting point for forecast simulations.

Seasonal forecasting capability is also improving, but there is less study of these changes. Skill of seasonal outlooks varies depending on the time of year and on whether major climate influences such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (the year-to-year swing between El Niño, neutral and La Niña phases) are active.

Seasonal forecasts are the best in spring when the El Niño-Southern Oscillation is at its peak and El Niño or La Niña is often providing a strong and predictable push to seasonal rainfall and temperatures. In contrast, seasonal forecasts are typically worse in autumn when the El Niño-Southern Oscillation transitions between phases and the drivers of wet or dry conditions are less predictable.

Read more:
What does El Niño do to the weather in your state?

So is climate change affecting our ability to predict the weather?

Climate change is certainly changing our weather. But it’s not clear if that’s making weather harder to predict. There hasn’t been much research into this yet.

Some changes could affect predictability, particularly if more rain falls from isolated thunderstorms and less from larger-scale weather systems. This is the general expectation with climate change and already appears to be happening in parts of Australia. Such a change is not well understood but would likely make local rainfall totals harder to predict.

We already see lower seasonal prediction skill in summer when more rain falls in small-scale systems not strongly tied to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Changes in the strength of the relationship between climate influences, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and Australian climate could also make seasonal prediction easier or harder.

Given the rate of improvement in weather prediction has been so high, it’s unlikely anyone would notice any effect of climate change on weather forecast skill any time soon. As weather forecasting and seasonal prediction continue to improve due to scientific and technological advances this will likely drown out any climate change effect on prediction.

Read more:
Here’s why climate change isn’t always to blame for extreme rainfall

Andrew King receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program and the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather.

Kimberley Reid receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes.

Michael Barnes receives funding from ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes.

Nick Earl-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. Despite what you might hear, weather prediction is getting better, not worse – https://theconversation.com/despite-what-you-might-hear-weather-prediction-is-getting-better-not-worse-225904

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

The Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun carried an exclusive story on Sunday headed “Half a million extra on welfare”. It was subheaded: NDIS blowing the budget.

The story said the number of Australians on welfare had leapt by 425,000 since 2018, with much of the increase coming from the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

It quoted the Institute of Public Affairs, which published its data on Monday.

Those data are incomplete. Only four of Australia’s income support payments are included: the Disability Support Pension, JobSeeker, Youth Allowance (Other) and Youth Allowance (Student and Apprentice), as well as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is not an income support payment.

This means the quoted data cover only about three-quarters of the working-age Australians receiving income support payments and none of the older Australians receiving the age pension.

40,500 more on benefits, not 425,000 more

Department of Social Services figures show the total count of people receiving the four payments in mid-2018 was 1.765 million, climbing to 1.805 million by mid-2023. That’s an increase of around 40,500, or just over 2% in a period in which Australia’s population grew by more than 5%.

The institute presents only a grand total for its (incomplete) list of the number of Australians receiving welfare, rather than a figure for each payment, but it is apparent that all but 40,500 of the claimed increase of 425,000 on welfare must have been in the one extra scheme – the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

But the NDIS isn’t welfare. While it is a very significant spending program, it doesn’t pay cash to its participants or help with their ordinary living costs. It provides services related to their disability.

Including the NDIS leads to double counting

Many NDIS participants most certainly are on welfare. About 70% get the Disability Support Pension. Others may get payments like JobSeeker.

This means the Institute of Public Affairs has counted these people twice.

Rather than being “welfare”, many NDIS programs are specifically designed to get people off welfare and into jobs. The share of NDIS participants on the Disability Support Pension fell from 77% to around 70% between 2018 and 2022.

The NDIS is also able get carers of people with disabilities into employment.

Also, many of the NDIS participants are children. More than 278,000 NDIS participants are aged 14 and below, and another 58,000 are aged 15 to 18. It is simply not correct to add children to the number of adults on benefits.

And the growth in the NDIS doesn’t tell us much about growth in the provision of disability services.

When the scheme was rolled out nationally in 2017, about 70% of the recipients were moved from services previously provided by state governments or the Commonwealth government.

What’s really happening

The table below sets out the Department of Social Services count for the four payments identified by the institute alongside what the institute says is the total including participants in the NDIS.

The institute’s totals are less than the department’s figures in the years leading up to 2018, and much more than the department’s figures from 2019 on.

While much of this is due to the national rollout of the NDIS from 2017, an oddity is that the institute’s totals suggest the NDIS had negative 69,100 participants in 2018, which it obviously didn’t.

As mentioned earlier, if we simply look at the number of people receiving the payments the institute deems important and don’t double-count NDIS participants, the increase since 2018 is about 40,500 rather than 425,000.

But much of even this increase is an artefact.

JobSeeker messed with the figures

In March 2020 the Newstart unemployment payment was renamed JobSeeker and broadened to replace seven more-minor payments that ceased to exist.

In 2018, about 30,000 people received these minor payments. By excluding them from its count before 2020 and including them (as part of JobSeeker) afterward, the institute might have helped create about three-quarters of the apparent increase of 40,100 in the number of Australians “on welfare”.

More importantly, the Age Pension age climbed from 65 to 67 from 2017.

Read more:
Australia’s ‘retirement age’ just became 67. So why are the French so upset about working until 64?

The age increase means recipients now continue to receive the Disability Support Pension and JobSeeker until they are 67.

My calculations suggest that had it not been for the increase in the age pension age, the number of Australians on the benefits the institute includes in its numbers would have fallen by more than 50,000 rather than increased by 40,500.

This means the institute’s decisions about what to count and what not to count have masked a decline in the number of Australians on payments.

Excluding the age pension (which the institute wants to do), the share of the population aged 16 to 64 on all other payments slipped from 15.2% to 14.4%.

Including all income support payments, the share of the total population on payments fell from 24.6% to 23.4% between 2018 and 2023.

Including the age pension and all payments, around five million Australians receive some sort of income support. It’s a substantial proportion of the population, but it isn’t increasing.

Peter Whiteford receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He was an independent member of the Sustainability Committee of the Board of the National Disability Insurance Agency between 2014 and 2016. He is a member of the Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. The views expressed are his own.

– ref. Half a million more Australians on welfare? Not unless you double-count – https://theconversation.com/half-a-million-more-australians-on-welfare-not-unless-you-double-count-227342

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lorinda Cramer, Lecturer, Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies, Deakin University

How do you describe the feel of wool against your skin? For some that feel is snuggly soft. Others remember a prickly sensation.

But would you call wool “healthy”, “comfortable” or “pure”?

This is how wool was marketed a century ago in mail-order catalogues from Foy & Gibson, an Australian department store and manufacturer.

I’ve been leafing through the catalogues from the first four decades of the 20th century (though Foy & Gibson printed catalogues for longer and plenty of other department stores distributed catalogues, too) to try to understand what attracted Australian customers to wearing wool – with goods so popular that Foy & Gibson spun an astonishing 8,100,000 miles of yarn by the end of the 1920s.

Foy & Gibson

Humans wore wool for thousands of years, driving a thriving wool trade before marketing emerged to help sell even more of the natural fibre.

As a major manufacturer of woollen cloths and clothes in Australia, Foy & Gibson’s “two miles of mills” dominated the inner-Melbourne suburb of Collingwood in the 20th century.

The wool spun in these mills was made into cloth and clothing for sale in Foy & Gibson’s flagship Smith Street store. Other stores opened in Melbourne’s city and suburbs, and further afield, including Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide.

Country customers used Foy & Gibson’s mail-order catalogues to help make their selections. Clothing dominated the pages, although dinner sets and dolls, hair lotions and horse harnesses, medicines and manchester, perambulators, pumps and plenty more appeared.

Women’s coats, with descriptions ranging from “practical” to “fashionable”, could be purchased in tweeds, velours and more. “Handsome” frocks were fashioned on the “smartest styles from abroad”.

Men’s ready-made or made-to-measure suits – the second accessible at a distance through the careful completion of a self-measurement form – were readily available. So were boys’ knickerbocker suits.

These and many more of Foy & Gibson’s clothes were made of wool, though other natural fibres – cotton, linen and silk – appeared in the catalogues. Rayon, the first “man-made” fibre, did too.

Foy & Gibson proudly promoted Australian made, with some goods called “Australian throughout – from greasy wool to finished article”. This wool, Foy & Gibson assured, was the “purest and best” available. It was the “finest Australian wool”.

Purity and quality were important when many wore wool directly against their skin.

Read more:
Curious Kids: how is fabric made?

Healthy in wool

In the later decades of the 19th century, dress reformer Gustav Jaeger had introduced his sanitary woollen system.

Wool drew perspiration away from the body, he emphasised, while other cloths clung wetly – and unhealthily – to the body. Jaeger believed wearing wool from underwear through to outer layers allowed “noxious exhalations” from the skin to pass through.

Jaeger’s system stemmed from a longer history of pure, natural fibres linked to good health. Linen underwear had been worn for hygiene reasons for centuries, as people grappled with cleanliness and how often to wash the body.

Pure fibres and health remained tightly entangled in the 20th century. Foy & Gibson leapt on this trend and assured its customers of “better health” in wool. It kept the body “at a natural comfortable warmth”, transmitted fresh air, absorbed perspiration and prevented chills.

Some donned wool as combinations: underwear joined at the waist that extended from neck to ankle. Others preferred to wear wool “singlets” with long or half sleeves and a single row of buttons at the neck or made with a double-breasted front. Foy & Gibson sold singlets in fine, medium, heavy or extra heavy weights for different seasons.

Comfortable in wool

This experience of wool against the skin – and its healthy qualities – extended to costumes worn to the beach.

A growing interest in physical culture in the 20th century’s first decades saw ideas around fitness, vitality and beauty intersect. Exercising programs gained momentum and beach bathing grew in popularity.

Bathing costumes dramatically transformed. Australia’s beaches provided fresh sea air, invigorating water and warm sun rays that encouraged stripped-down, woollen-clad beachgoers to bare their bodies.

Foy & Gibson made swimsuits in any club colourway for lifesavers, just as they became a national icon.

These woollen swimsuits might have sagged when wet, or clung uncomfortably and unflatteringly, but makers like Foy & Gibson sought to improve fit, elasticity and comfort each year.

New swimsuits were styled for leisure or for active use. Foy & Gibson’s streamlined “Siren” swimsuit, launched in 1930, could be bought in a “speed” or “suntan” cut. Both, customers were told, gave “the close-fitting effect so desirable” while “allowing perfect freedom of movement”.

These costumes were comfortable in and out of the water.

Read more:
Wool swimsuits used to be standard beachwear – is it time to bring them back?

Wearing wool today

As we seek sustainable clothing options, mindful of the consequences of fast fashion, waste and synthetic fibre pollution, wool fashioned into underwear and swimwear is again making a resurgence.

And not just that. As the Foy & Gibson catalogues remind us, wool can be made into cloths and clothes of different weights and textures: some thin and light, and others making the warmest winter woollies.

From wedding gowns and wool-denim jeans to activewear and athleisure, wool now – like then – can be worn in diverse ways. Australia’s superfine merino ensures its softness on the skin.

Lorinda Cramer receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

This work is an outcome of the Redmond Barry Fellowship, supported by the University of Melbourne and State Library of Victoria.

– ref. Foy & Gibson’s 8,100,000 miles of yarn: how Australians were sold ‘fashionable’ (and ‘healthy’) wool 100 years ago – https://theconversation.com/foy-and-gibsons-8-100-000-miles-of-yarn-how-australians-were-sold-fashionable-and-healthy-wool-100-years-ago-212602

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

Many Australians with disability feel on the edge of a precipice right now. Recommendations from the disability royal commission and the NDIS review were released late last year. Now a draft NDIS reform bill has been tabled. In this series, experts examine what new proposals could mean for people with disability.

The government’s recently introduced bill aims to get the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) “back on track”. Against a backdrop of concerns over the scheme’s cost, it sets out changes that should substantially reform the NDIS over the next few years.

There is a promised transformation in terms of how NDIS support packages are calculated. The new approach will prioritise evidence-based supports and hopefully allow more flexibility to participants in how they spend their budgets.

But the bill also introduces a definition of what constitutes an NDIS support. Holidays, groceries, payment of utility bills, online gambling, perfume, cosmetics, standard household appliances and whitegoods will not be funded, the bill’s explanatory notes specify.

Such exclusions could prove shortsighted, creating more inefficiencies within the scheme and mean disabled people lose opportunities for independence.

Read more:
Draft NDIS bill is the first step to reform – but some details have disability advocates worried

Changes to assessment and spending

The changes outlined in the bill will move the NDIS towards a needs-based assessment.

This will be supported by the use of functional assessment tools, removing some need for people to collect evidence from medical professionals.

“Your needs assessment will look at your support needs as a whole,” NDIS minister Bill Shorten said on the day the bill was tabled. “And we won’t distinguish between primary and secondary disabilities any longer.”

At the moment plans are made up of a number of categories of funding and line items that set out how plans should be spent. The NDIS review noted this process is often confusing for people and limits how they can spend funds. So the changes offer more spending flexibility.

But the bill’s new definition of NDIS support, aims to:

narrow the scope of […] constitutionally valid supports to those that are appropriately funded by the NDIS.

Whitegoods are one of the exclusions listed to clarify guidance on what supports people with disability can access through the NDIS.

At the moment, what an NDIS support is isn’t defined. Provided something is deemed reasonable and necessary and related to disability, it can be funded.

At first glance, whitegoods might not seem like important disability supports – and therefore a category ripe for constraining costs. But banning these NDIS supports will likely increase costs and could reduce independence for NDIS participants.

Read more:
From glasses to mobility scooters, ‘assistive technology’ isn’t always high-tech. A WHO roadmap could help 2 million Australians get theirs

Whitegoods are not just appliances

People with disability have long been at the cutting edge of technology, seeking to use different products and applications to support them in everyday tasks that many of us take for granted.

In modern terms, an example could be a person with a physical impairment that means they find it difficult to lift heavy items. This may mean they struggle to lift wet washing out of a machine or to hang it on a washing line.

So, a combination washer-dryer appliance could mean they are able to independently do their laundry. The alternative option would be to have a support worker to take clothes from the washing machine, hang them on a line and bring them in again once dry.

Having such an appliance allows a person to independently achieve household tasks their disability could prevent or make more difficult or dangerous.

It is also likely to be more cost-effective over the long term. The hourly rate for a support worker employed on weekdays is typically between A$40–$50 per hour. It doesn’t take many hours of support-worker time before purchasing a whitegood becomes more cost-effective.

For some people who struggle to navigate a kitchen and cook safely, a device like a Thermomix multicooker (that can chop, mix and cook) can mean they are able to independently prepare meals.

These are expensive at around $2,000. But again, this expense can be justified when compared with the cost of hiring a support worker to prepare meals. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has previously overturned decisions by the National Disability Insurance Agency (which administers the NDIS) not to fund technologies like this on the basis these are disability related expenses.

Read more:
States agreed to share foundational support costs. So why the backlash against NDIS reforms now?

The importance of early investment for independence

The NDIS was introduced in response to the deficiencies of the previous system. It is is meant to take a lifelong view of disability funding.

Unlike the previous crisis-driven system, the idea of the NDIS is to invest money in the short term to save money in the longer term. Investment in disability care improves social and economic participation and independence.

Narrowly defining disability supports could serve to reduce innovation within the scheme and result in poorer care outcomes. That would only add to cost pressures over the longer term.

Read more:
There is overwhelming gender bias in the NDIS – and the review doesn’t address it

Helen Dickinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council and Children and Young People with Disability Australia.

– ref. Choice and control: are whitegoods disability supports? Here’s what proposed NDIS reforms say – https://theconversation.com/choice-and-control-are-whitegoods-disability-supports-heres-what-proposed-ndis-reforms-say-227502

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elena Prieto-Rodriguez, Professor, University of Newcastle

It is very common in Australian schools to “stream” students for subjects such as English, science and maths. This means students are grouped into different classes based on their previous academic attainment, or in some cases, just a perception of their level of ability.

Students can also be streamed as early as primary school. Yet there are no national or state policies on this. This means school principals are free to decide what will happen in their schools.

Why are students streamed in Australians schools? And is this a good idea? Our research on streaming maths classes shows we need to think much more carefully about this very common practice.

Why do schools stream?

At a maths teacher conference in Sydney in late 2023, I did a live survey about school approaches to streaming.

This survey was done via interactive software while I was giving a presentation. There were 338 responses from head teachers in maths in either high schools or schools that go all the way from Kindergarten to Year 12. Most of the teachers were from public schools.

In a sign of how widespread streaming is, 95% of head teachers said they streamed maths classes in their schools.

Respondents said one of the main reasons is to help high-achieving students and make sure they are appropriately challenged. As one teacher said:

[We stream] to push the better students forward.

But almost half the respondents said they believed all students were benefiting from this system.

We also heard how streaming is seen as a way to cope with the teacher shortage and specific lack of qualified maths teachers. These qualifications include skills in both maths and maths teaching.

More than half (65%) of respondents said streaming can “aid differentiation [and] support targeted student learning interventions”. In other words, streaming is a way to cope with different levels of ability in the classrooms and make the job of teaching a class more straightforward. One respondent said:

[we stream because] it’s easier to differentiate with a class of students that have similar perceived ability.

Read more:
How do we solve the maths teacher shortage? We can start by training more existing teachers to teach maths

The ‘glass ceiling effect’

But while many schools and teachers assume streaming is good for students, this is not what the research says.

Our 2020 study, on streaming was based on interviews with 85 students and 22 teachers from 11 government schools.

This found streaming creates a “glass ceiling effect” – in other words, students cannot progress out of the stream they are initially assigned to without significant remedial work to catch them up.

As one teacher told us, students in lower-ability classes were then placed at a “massive disadvantage”. This is because they can miss out on segments of the curriculum because the class may progress more slowly or is deliberately not taught certain sections deemed too complex.

Often students in our study were unaware of this missed content until Year 10 and thinking about their options for the final years of school and beyond. They may not be able to do higher-level maths in Year 11 and 12 because they are too far behind. As one teacher explained:

they didn’t have enough of that advanced background for them to be able to study it. It was too difficult for them to begin with.

This comes as fewer students are completing advanced (calculus-based) maths.

If students do not study senior maths, they do not have the background for studying for engineering and other STEM careers, which we know are in very high demand.

On top of this, students may also be stigmatised as “low ability” in maths. While classes are not labelled as such, students are well aware of who is in the top classes and who is not. This can have an impact on students’ confidence about maths.

Read more:
‘Maths anxiety’ is a real thing. Here are 3 ways to help your child cope

What does other research say?

International research has also found streaming students is inequitable.

As a 2018 UK study showed, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be put in lower streamed classes.

A 2009 review of research studies found that not streaming students was better for low-ability student achievement and had no effect on average and high-ability student achievement.

Read more:
‘Is this really fair?’ How high school students feel about being streamed into different classes based on ‘ability’

What should we do instead?

Amid concerns about Australian students’ maths performance in national and international tests, schools need to stop assuming streaming is the best approach for students.

The research indicates it would be better if students were taught in mixed-ability classes – as long as teachers are supported and class sizes are small enough.

This means all students have the opportunity to be taught all of the curriculum, giving them the option of doing senior maths if they want to in Year 11 and Year 12.

It also means students are not stigmatised as “poor at maths” from a young age.

But to do so, teachers and schools must be given more teaching resources and support. And some of this support needs to begin in primary school, rather than waiting until high school to try and catch students up.

Students also need adequate career advice, so they are aware of how maths could help future careers and what they need to do to get there.

Elena Prieto-Rodriguez receives funding from the NSW Department of Education to work with out-of-field teachers in mathematics.

– ref. It’s common to ‘stream’ maths classes. But grouping students by ability can lead to ‘massive disadvantage’ – https://theconversation.com/its-common-to-stream-maths-classes-but-grouping-students-by-ability-can-lead-to-massive-disadvantage-226723

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

Commentators used to complain the Albanese government was being too cautious. That charge can’t easily be levelled now.

Take two totally different issues on which the government in recent days has defined itself by its robust stances.

One is the Israel-Hamas conflict. The other is the swing to a highly interventionist industry policy, spelled out by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in a major address on Thursday. Let’s look at each.

The government has steadily ramped up its criticisms of Israel’s conduct in Gaza over the months, as civilian casualties have mounted into the tens of thousands, international opinion demanded proportionality, and Labor felt the pressure of pro-Palestinian opinion in some key seats.

But the April 1 killing of Australian Zomi Frankcom and other aid workers by an Israeli strike was a trigger point that has taken reaction to a new level.

This week the government named a former chief of the Australian Defence Force, Mark Binskin, as its adviser to examine the adequacy of the Israeli investigation of the attack.

Regardless of whether it was a good or bad move, that was an extraordinary action. It sent a clear message – Australia was not satisfied Israel’s account could be trusted without being checked.

It remains to be seen whether Binskin will get full access to all the data he needs. While he is probing the Israeli inquiry, rather than doing an inquiry of his own, for proper scrutiny he’ll presumably have to see quite sensitive military information. It’s difficult to believe the Israelis will be happy to hand over such material during a war.

The government’s move is likely to be well received domestically, however, given the appalling circumstances in which Frankcom and her colleagues died.

Meanwhile, this week Foreign Minister Penny Wong toughened, albeit cautiously, Australian policy. She floated the possibility of recognising a Palestinian state ahead of agreement on a two-state solution.

This course is being canvassed internationally, and could coincide with a vote on Palestinian membership at the United Nations before long. But Wong’s comments were denounced by sections of the Australian Jewish community and the opposition. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton accused Wong of “irreparably” damaging Australia’s relations with Israel “for a crass domestic political win”.

Wong justified raising Palestinian recognition by pointing to the fact other countries, including Britain, are discussing it. Albanese also invoked the wider world, when he said Australia has to “break with old orthodoxies” and embrace a more interventionist approach to industry policy.

Albanese argued that in a changed international situation, we need “sharper elbows” to follow our national interest. “We have to think differently about what government can – and must – do to work alongside the private sector to grow the economy, boost productivity, improve competition and secure our future prosperity”.

He highlighted a range of countries, from the United States to South Korea, pursuing activist government intervention. Most notably, the Biden administration, under its Inflation Reduction Act, has huge subsidies to attract investment for re-industralisation, with an emphasis on green energy.

Albanese insists the reburnished interventionism was “not old-fashioned protectionism”. We had to recognise “there is a new and widespread willingness to make economic interventions on the basis of national interest and national sovereignty.” To an extent, this a reaction to the pandemic, which spurred fears of blocked supply chains.

Albanese is extremely comfortable with the interventionist pivot. After all, it takes him back to his political roots, when as a young left-winger he was critical of Labor’s embrace of the free market. It also taps into a broad Labor pro-manufacturing strand, partly but not only based in the union movement. Remember Kevin Rudd saying “I never want to be prime minister of a country that doesn’t make things anymore”?

To a degree Albanese’s interventionism is driven by the acute needs of the energy transition – that requires a massive capital injection only realisable by tangible government encouragement (like its underwriting scheme and other incentives to come). Australia can’t compete with the US incentives but it will be trying a mini-me approach.

Albanese’s interventionism will be reflected in the May 14 budget but it will also stretch right up to the election, gathering together a wide range of current and future initiatives under a “Future Made in Australia Act”.

The obvious question is: what does Treasurer Jim Chalmers think of this? Treasury has traditionally been a manufacturer of free-market Kool-Aid, selling it to its political bosses where it can. So you’d expect Chalmers might be sceptical.

But the treasurer, while he might not be the interventionist zealot Albanese is, walks a separate path towards a similar destination.

More than a year ago, Chalmers set out his views in a major essay about “values-based capitalism”. This revolved around public-private co-investment and collaboration and renovating economic institutions and markets. He has been busy with the latter task: changes have been made to the Reserve Bank and reforms are under way to aspects of competition policy, including announcing a new merger regime this week.

Chalmers has also pointed approvingly to a speech delivered last year by Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor in the Biden administration, in which Sullivan set out the US approach.

“A modern American industrial strategy identifies specific sectors that are foundational to economic growth, strategic from a national security perspective, and where private industry on its own isn’t poised to make the investments needed to secure our national ambitions,” Sullivan said.

“It deploys targeted public investments in these areas that unlock the power and ingenuity of private markets, capitalism, and competition to lay a foundation for long-term growth.”

While what the Australian Treasury bureaucrats (who are at the centre of the work) privately think of the Albanese interventionism is unclear, some of those working on free trade agreements in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be finding the approach challenging.

Many economists will welcome the plan. But some, like independent economist Saul Eslake, will be harsh critics.

Eslake says terms like “national sovereignty” and “national security” are “covers for bad policy” and a way of stifling questioning or criticism (“we can’t let grubby concepts of cost and benefit get in the way of ‘security’”). He recalls such talk when the Morrison government did not make enough efforts to get COVID vaccines from abroad because it had its eyes on local production, leading to delays.

Eslake also derides the “manufacturing fetish” that is one driver of interventionism. In Australia (unlike some other countries) manufacturing is an area of below-average labour productivity, he says – so shifting resources there lowers rather than increases productivity.

As for following other countries’ example, “as my mother used to say, just because your sister puts her head down the toilet doesn’t mean you should too”.

Wherever the economic wisdom lies, the focus groups are telling Labor it is likely to be on a winner with the new interventionism. People will warm to the sound of it, accompanied by the mantra of extra jobs. There are a lot of manufacturing fetishists about.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Albanese government can’t be accused of excessive caution any longer – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-albanese-government-cant-be-accused-of-excessive-caution-any-longer-227674

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

The death of Australian Zomi Frankcom and other World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza in an Israeli strike has led to yet more intense and critical scrutiny over how Israel is prosecuting the war against Hamas.

This week Foreign Minister Penny Wong has floated the possibility of recognition of a Palestinian state ahead of a two-state solution. Her comments were condemned by Peter Dutton as “irreparably” damaging Australia’s relations with Israel.

To discuss the government’s position on this and the Middle East crisis, we’re joined by Labor MP Josh Burns, who represents the inner Melbourne seat of Macnamara, which has a significant Jewish community.

Josh Burns’ family history goes back to the early post-world war two days of Israel, when his grandfather settled there.

There was an incident that happened where there was some conflict between Israelis and local Palestinians, and it was really distressing to my grandfather. And he hated it. He hated the fact that there was conflict around him, he’d just lived through world war two, and he didn’t want to raise his family in a place where there was conflict. And he said he made one of the hardest decisions of his life to leave Israel and to go and start a new life in another country.

Burns reiterates his support for a two-state solution.

I desperately want to see a peace agreement signed between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I really, really went to see that in my lifetime; it will be a magnificent day for humanity where we can we can properly see this conflict that has been devastating for decades end.

As a person who is a part of the Jewish community, Burns explains why the recent months have been profoundly difficult.

I think this has been probably the most difficult period that I can think of in my lifetime to be a Jewish person in Australia. And I think that the Jewish community feels under immense pressure. It saddens me greatly that this has been such a difficult time for the Jewish community in Australia.

He stresses the importance of respectful communication with all sides of the issue, on which Muslim ministers Ed Husic and Anne Aly have been outspoken in bringing the intense Palestinian suffering to the fore.

I’ve been friends with Ed Husic for a long time, and Anne Aly is a dear friend of mine and Fatima Payman, the three Islamic members of our caucus I speak to regularly, and I admire them all very much. And I think it’s very important that we have a space where we can have these respectful dialogues and disagreement, which is okay.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Josh Burns on being a Jewish MP during a terrible conflict – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-josh-burns-on-being-a-jewish-mp-during-a-terrible-conflict-227673

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

The ’70s-throwback found-footage horror comedy, Late Night with the Devil, joins a long list of recent Australian horror success stories.

Framed as a tabloid-style retrospective, the film invites us to watch the newly discovered footage of an episode from a late-night talk show, Night Owls, broadcast live on Halloween 1977. On this night it all went wrong, and evil was beamed into America’s homes.

While the film has encountered controversy over the authenticity of some of its elements, this debate actually illuminates the most playful aspects of found-footage horror. Such films ask us to pretend what we’re watching is authentic, even as we take pleasure in all the ways it’s being faked.

Read more:
‘An exceptionally queasy atmosphere’: the unsettling new Aussie horror You’ll Never Find Me

A highly entertaining plot

It’s sweeps week and ambitious TV show host Jack Delroy, played with impeccable charm and subtlety by David Dastmalchian, is desperate to finally take out the #1 spot.

In a bid to boost ratings, Delroy hosts a range of occult guests. They include a psychic, a magician-turned-sceptic and a parapsychologist. But the most important guest is a sweet young woman named Lilly (Ingrid Torelli). She was rescued from a cult that worshipped the demon Abraxas, and is apparently possessed.

The film riffs on a range of targets, such as the satanic panic that started in 1970s, grimy Hollywood lore, the flattened aesthetic of live television, and the tonal absurdity of the late-night format.

The subplot suggests Jack made a deal with a sinister entity to boost his career. As the live broadcast goes from ordinary to odd to completely unhinged, we realise this is the night Jack’s infernal debts, and wishes, will come due.

Criticism over AI use

The film has encountered controversy after a review criticising its use of AI-generated imagery went viral. The directors have since confirmed they “experimented” with the technology for three title cards used during Night Owls’ commercial breaks.

Notably, this experimentation was done well before generative AI became a key issue in the guild strikes that ground Hollywood to a halt last year. Yet the backlash, which included negative review bombing and calls for a boycott, generated far more heat than light.

It’s unclear what good might come to filmmakers, distributors and audiences from punishing a low-budget Australian indie horror for its perceived transgressions. But an unexpectedly strong US box-office reception indicates this may have made little difference.

Questioning is part of the fun

Interestingly, the furore over AI speaks directly to some of the questions posed by found-footage and “haunted media” films.

They prompt us to ask: can we believe what we see? Where did the footage come from? How might we be affected (or even harmed) by it? And what counts as an “authentic” image anyway – especially in a film that uses contemporary technology to painstakingly recreate a 50-year-old entertainment form?

Found-footage films ask us to become knowing participants in the film’s fiction, which means engaging with these questions is part of the fun.

Late Night With the Devil places us as a willing audience who might question the veracity of what we’re seeing, but who might also be as hypnotised (perhaps literally) by the events taking place in front of the studio audience.

The film speaks to historic fears about the place of technology in the home, including moral panic over the alleged harm television might bring to viewers. It also references the medium’s ability to bring actual horrors, such as images of war, into domestic living rooms.

Limits in marrying form and function

Like many films of the genre, Late Night with the Devil can’t always fulfil the significant constraints of the found-footage mode alongside the need to construct a compelling story arc.

This is especially obvious as we switch between the flat, impressively constructed multi-camera studio footage and additional verité-style black-and-white footage from behind the scenes. The latter charts the backstage panic and conflict very effectively, but there would be little reason for such archival footage to actually exist in the world of the film.

That said, the film maintains a sense of sly self-awareness, especially as the show descends into chaos. Delroy’s carefully calibrated “aw-shucks” Midwestern persona and his slick control of the show’s trajectory are hilariously destabilised as events unfold. His various offsiders can’t tell if the bizarre occurrences are real or a ratings stunt.

Subtle forms of visual manipulation give way to gleefully abject body horror. Some sequences even recall the practical horror effects boom of the late 1970s and early ’80s, and seem perfectly geared to the dark comic sensibilities of a midnight madness-style film audience.

The AI issue aside, the film’s thorough craftsmanship rewards multiple viewings. Its parodic take on American television and pop culture and its in-on-the-joke manipulation of material authenticity are enormous fun.

Perhaps Jack Delroy will finally be a ratings smash and we’ll witness the television event of the century. As we’re told in the film – with the possessed Lilly grinning down the barrel of the camera – the devil does love an audience, and we do love to watch.

Read more:
Friday essay: in praise of the ‘horror master’ Stephen King

Erin Harrington 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. Late Night with the Devil is a sly, gleefully horrifying Aussie hit that invites you to be hypnotised – https://theconversation.com/late-night-with-the-devil-is-a-sly-gleefully-horrifying-aussie-hit-that-invites-you-to-be-hypnotised-227226

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Undergraduate Faculty (Japan Campus), Temple University

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s state visit to the White House has already resulted in one of the most ambitious boosts to the United States-Japan alliance. This alliance is now at the core of American strategy to strengthen a regional coalition to counter China’s geopolitical rise.

in a joint press conference following a welcoming ceremony yesterday, US President Joe Biden announced a range of measures to intensify the already close defence and security co-operation between the US and Japan. This “new era” will also include the AUKUS partners and the Philippines.

Around 70 new defence co-operation agreements have now been made between Japan and the US, some of which will involve third-country partners. Prominent among these will be a networked missile defence system involving the US, Japan and Australia. This is expected to require Japan’s involvement in Pillar II of the AUKUS security alliance, particularly in development of AI and autonomous weapons.

Read more:
Is Japan joining AUKUS? Not formally – its cooperation will remain limited for now

The Japanese Self-Defence Force (SDF) plans to introduce a new joint command and control centre next year. This will further deepen interoperability with the US forces in Japan.

Plans are also proceeding to service and repair US navy vessels in Japanese civilian ports. This would form part of a joint council to encourage co-production of defence systems, including missiles and jet fighter training aircraft. The council would be part of a broadening of Japanese economic investment and collaboration with the US across a range of industries and technologies.

Trilateral military training exercises with the United Kingdom are also planned. Tomorrow’s first trilateral summit between the US, Japan and the Philippines adds to the trend of overlapping minilateralism. It follows a summit held at Camp David between the US, Japan and South Korea during Kishida’s visit last year.

Read more:
Camp David summit turns attention to North Korea, as well as China

Even before his current US visit, a joint naval exercise was held in the South China Sea for the first time involving warships from the US, Japan, Australia and the Philippines.

Tomorrow, a trilateral summit with Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos junior is expected to produce an agreement to maintain security and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. This in turn will see such multilateral naval manoeuvres continue, challenging China’s territorial claims to the maritime area.

Diplomatic negotiations for a reciprocal access agreement between the Philippines and Japan will also proceed. This will allow Japanese forces to be hosted at Philippine military bases.

As Kishida began his trip, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese played down the prospects of “JAUKUS”. He said Japan is likely to participate in Pillar II only on a “project by project” basis. There were no plans to have Japan formally join the AUKUS military alliance.

Kishida added at yesterday’s press conference that “nothing has been decided” regarding Japan’s direct co-operation with AUKUS. However, he reiterated that
the US foreign policy establishment has encouraged Japan to contribute to Pillar II, especially in undersea warfare, hypersonic missile development, and quantum and cyber technology.

Kishida will also make a rare joint address to Congress during this state visit. This echoes his predecessor Abe Shinzo, who used his 2015 address to Congress to promote his policy of reinterpreting Japan’s constitution to allow the SDF to engage in collective self-defence with its US ally.

Kishida’s state visit continues the diplomatic purpose of promoting bipartisan support for the US-Japan alliance. In doing so, it aims to pre-empt any diplomatic ructions that might emerge if Donald Trump were to win the November 2024 presidential election.

Read more:
Japan has abandoned decades of pacifism in response to Ukraine invasion and increased Chinese pressure on Taiwan

This major diplomatic achievement by Kishida may well be among his last as prime minister. His ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been rocked by scandals in recent years. One of those was the revelation of the Unification Church’s influence on many party members, which came to light in the wake of Abe’s assassination in 2022.

But the scandals have not stopped there. In November 2023 came revelations that senior LDP politicians had failed to report the income from fundraising parties, instead channelling it to favoured Diet members. This was in violation of Japan’s campaign financing laws.

Kishida attempted to extinguish the scandal by punishing some LDP members and completely overturning the LDP’s faction system. This led to his own faction formally dissolving, along with the largest faction formerly led by Abe. However, this has done little to endear him to the long-disillusioned voting public.

Read more:
Who is Fumio Kishida, Japan’s new prime minister?

However, voters remain similarly unimpressed with the divided opposition parties. Despite some recent successes in byelections, the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party is still unlikely to defeat the LDP-Komeito ruling coalition in the next lower house election, due to be held by October next year.

Even if the unpopular Kishida is replaced as LDP leader in an upcoming party leadership vote due in September, Japan’s potential participation in AUKUS Pillar II is likely to continue. It is now strategically placed at the fulcrum of a US-led regional coalition to deter China, as well as North Korea and Russia, in this more adversarial geopolitical environment.

Craig Mark 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. Once enemies, Japan and US strengthen their alliance – and it goes beyond AUKUS – https://theconversation.com/once-enemies-japan-and-us-strengthen-their-alliance-and-it-goes-beyond-aukus-227663

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natasha Karner, PhD Candidate, International Studies, RMIT University

The Israeli army used a new artificial intelligence (AI) system to generate lists of tens of thousands of human targets for potential airstrikes in Gaza, according to a report published last week. The report comes from the nonprofit outlet +972 Magazine, which is run by Israeli and Palestinian journalists.

The report cites interviews with six unnamed sources in Israeli intelligence. The sources claim the system, known as Lavender, was used with other AI systems to target and assassinate suspected militants – many in their own homes – causing large numbers of civilian casualties.

According to another report in the Guardian, based on the same sources as the +972 report, one intelligence officer said the system “made it easier” to carry out large numbers of strikes, because “the machine did it coldly”.

As militaries around the world race to use AI, these reports show us what it may look like: machine-speed warfare with limited accuracy and little human oversight, with a high cost for civilians.

Military AI in Gaza is not new

The Israeli Defence Force denies many of the claims in these reports. In a statement to the Guardian, it said it “does not use an artificial intelligence system that identifies terrorist operatives”. It said Lavender is not an AI system but “simply a database whose purpose is to cross-reference intelligence sources”.

But in 2021, the Jerusalem Post reported an intelligence official saying Israel had just won its first “AI war” – an earlier conflict with Hamas – using a number of machine learning systems to sift through data and produce targets. In the same year a book called The Human–Machine Team, which outlined a vision of AI-powered warfare, was published under a pseudonym by an author recently revealed to be the head of a key Israeli clandestine intelligence unit.

Last year, another +972 report said Israel also uses an AI system called Habsora to identify potential militant buildings and facilities to bomb. According the report, Habsora generates targets “almost automatically”, and one former intelligence officer described it as “a mass assassination factory”.

Read more:
Israel’s AI can produce 100 bombing targets a day in Gaza. Is this the future of war?

The recent +972 report also claims a third system, called Where’s Daddy?, monitors targets identified by Lavender and alerts the military when they return home, often to their family.

Death by algorithm

Several countries are turning to algorithms in search of a military edge. The US military’s Project Maven supplies AI targeting that has been used in the Middle East and Ukraine. China too is rushing to develop AI systems to analyse data, select targets, and aid in decision-making.

Proponents of military AI argue it will enable faster decision-making, greater accuracy and reduced casualties in warfare.

Yet last year, Middle East Eye reported an Israeli intelligence office said having a human review every AI-generated target in Gaza was “not feasible at all”. Another source told +972 they personally “would invest 20 seconds for each target” being merely a “rubber stamp” of approval.

The Israeli Defence Force response to the most recent report says “analysts must conduct independent examinations, in which they verify that the identified targets meet the relevant definitions in accordance with international law”.

As for accuracy, the latest +972 report claims Lavender automates the process of identification and cross-checking to ensure a potential target is a senior Hamas military figure. According to the report, Lavender loosened the targeting criteria to include lower-ranking personnel and weaker standards of evidence, and made errors in “approximately 10% of cases”.

The report also claims one Israeli intelligence officer said that due to the Where’s Daddy? system, targets would be bombed in their homes “without hesitation, as a first option”, leading to civilian casualties. The Israeli army says it “outright rejects the claim regarding any policy to kill tens of thousands of people in their homes”.

Rules for military AI?

As military use of AI becomes more common, ethical, moral and legal concerns have largely been an afterthought. There are so far no clear, universally accepted or legally binding rules about military AI.

The United Nations has been discussing “lethal autonomous weapons systems” for more than ten years. These are devices that can make targeting and firing decisions without human input, sometimes known as “killer robots”. Last year saw some progress.

Read more:
US military plans to unleash thousands of autonomous war robots over next two years

The UN General Assembly voted in favour of a new draft resolution to ensure algorithms “must not be in full control of decisions involving killing”. Last October, the US also released a declaration on the responsible military use of AI and autonomy, which has since been endorsed by 50 other states. The first summit on the responsible use of military AI was held last year, too, co-hosted by the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea.

Overall, international rules over the use of military AI are struggling to keep pace with the fervour of states and arms companies for high-tech, AI-enabled warfare.

Facing the ‘unknown’

Some Israeli startups that make AI-enabled products are reportedly making a selling point of their use in Gaza. Yet reporting on the use of AI systems in Gaza suggests how far short AI falls of the dream of precision warfare, instead creating serious humanitarian harms.

The industrial scale at which AI systems like Lavender can generate targets also effectively “displaces humans by default” in decision-making.

The willingness to accept AI suggestions with barely any human scrutiny also widens the scope of potential targets, inflicting greater harm.

Setting a precedent

The reports on Lavender and Habsora show us what current military AI is already capable of doing. Future risks of military AI may increase even further.

Chinese military analyst Chen Hanghui has envisioned a future “battlefield singularity”, for example, in which machines make decisions and take actions at a pace too fast for a human to follow. In this scenario, we are left as little more than spectators or casualties.

A study published earlier this year sounded another warning note. US researchers carried out an experiment in which large language models such as GPT-4 played the role of nations in a wargaming exercise. The models almost inevitably became trapped in arms races and escalated conflict in unpredictable ways, including using nuclear weapons.

The way the world reacts to current uses of military AI – like we are seeing in Gaza – is likely to set a precedent for the future development and use of the technology.

Read more:
The defence review fails to address the third revolution in warfare: artificial intelligence

Natasha Karner has previously collaborated with the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots Australia.

– ref. Israel accused of using AI to target thousands in Gaza, as killer algorithms outpace international law – https://theconversation.com/israel-accused-of-using-ai-to-target-thousands-in-gaza-as-killer-algorithms-outpace-international-law-227453

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Fitzsimons, Adjunct Professor in Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

Protected areas have been the cornerstone of efforts to conserve nature for more than a century. Most countries have some form of protected areas, national parks being the best-known examples. A key element of protected areas is that they are dedicated, through legal or other effective means, to long-term conservation of nature.

Australia has taken an innovative and diverse approach to growing its protected area estate. It includes Indigenous Protected Areas and privately protected areas in the form of conservation covenants and land bought by land trusts. As a result, the country’s protected area estate has grown from 7% in the mid-1990s to 22% of the continent today.

Despite this progress, the Australian government has released new draft guidelines for other forms of area-based conservation, with potentially troubling implications. It suggests 25 years of “intention” to deliver biodiversity outcomes is enough for that land to count for the 30% protected area target.

Our newly published research has looked at what types of land use might qualify in line with international guidelines. We found two problems with the proposal to include 25-year plans for biodiversity outcomes.

First, such plans are non-binding, so protection can lapse at any time. Second, they do not satisfy international and Australian principles of long-term protection. Proceeding with this proposal would undermine the goal of long-term conservation in this country.

The new kid in town

In 2010, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity added a new, slightly unwieldy term, “other effective area-based conservation measures”. These conservation areas (OECMs for short) complement protected areas in achieving global conservation targets. An OECM is a geographically defined area that is not already a protected area, “which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity”.

In 2022, the world lifted ambitions for protection and conservation to 30% of land and water areas by 2030 as part of the convention’s Global Biodiversity Framework. There’s been a surge of interest in OECMs to help meet that target.

International guidance on OECMs has been developed only relatively recently. This creates an urgent need for country-specific analysis.

In our peer-reviewed paper in the journal Conservation, we explore policy issues related to OECMs in Australia. We looked at what types of land use might qualify, with a focus on longevity.

What’s the Australian response?

The Australian government has released a draft set of principles to guide OECM development in Australia. The consultation period closes on April 17.

These principles are largely in line with global guidance. However, a couple of significant deviations could compromise Australia’s leadership in area-based conservation.

The most notable deviation relates to the definition of “long-term”. It’s fundamental to whether a site meets the criteria for contributing to global targets. The proposed principles suggest 25 years of “intention” to deliver biodiversity outcomes is enough.

This is a problem for two reasons. First, “intention” does little for biodiversity if the landholder chooses to sell their property a few years after being recognised as an OECM and the new owner has no such conservation interest.

In contrast, conservation covenants are a tool that all states already use to counter against this very scenario. The covenants are attached to the land title and bind future landholders forever. For this reason, these are considered privately protected areas.

Second, a 25-year timeframe is at odds with long-established Australian policy for defining “long-term” for protected areas. A minimum timeframe of 99 years is required if permanent protection is not possible.

The proposal is also inconsistent with the 2023 Nature Repair Act. This law added provision for a 100-year agreement (in addition to its original 25-year agreement) during consultations. This change was based on feedback that 25-year agreements did not equate to long-term.

So where did the 25-year proposal come from? It seems to misinterpret global guidance for privately protected areas. Regardless, adoption of a 25-year “intention” would be a significant backslide for conservation policy in Australia.

So what other areas might count?

Defence land and protected water catchments on public land are often suggested as good candidates in Australia and overseas. Many contain large and significant ecosystem values. The primary use is often compatible with those values.

These areas are also usually permanent fixtures of the landscape, meeting a long-term public need. Thus they would likely qualify as OECMs.

Many local government reserves protect important areas of bushland and manage it for that purpose. Typically, they have not been classified as protected areas. Many are likely to qualify as OECMs.

On private land, it’s a little more challenging. Long-term carbon agreements and biodiversity offset agreements are likely to qualify – despite controversy at times over their primary use.

Land for Wildlife is a successful, high-profile program for engaging landholders with wildlife habitat on their property. Their distinctive blue-diamond-shaped signs adorn over 14,000 properties around the country.

However, these agreements are non-binding. A landholder could remove them at any time. This means they cannot be considered long-term or qualify as an OECM.

Regardless of the assessments above, each site would need to undergo an individual assessment to ensure it meets the criteria.

The importance of longevity

Ultimately, more land managed for conservation is good and all forms of area-based conservation should be encouraged. However, not all forms of area-based conservation qualify for inclusion in global biodiversity targets. Long-term outcomes are fundamental.

Australia has a proud history of innovative protected area policy and approaches. The development of OECM policy in Australia needs to complement and advance that, not erode the standards for long-agreed definitions of long-term.

James Fitzsimons is Senior Advisor, Global Protection Strategies with The Nature Conservancy, is a Councillor of the Biodiversity Council and a member of the Australian Land Conservation Alliance’s policy and government relations committee.

– ref. Why an intention to conserve an area for only 25 years should not count for Australia’s target of protecting 30% of land – https://theconversation.com/why-an-intention-to-conserve-an-area-for-only-25-years-should-not-count-for-australias-target-of-protecting-30-of-land-227558

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Lin, Professor, University of Sydney

This week’s ABC Four Corners episode Pain Factory highlighted that our health system is failing Australians with chronic pain. Patients are receiving costly, ineffective and risky care instead of effective, low-risk treatments for chronic pain.

The challenge is considering how we might reimagine health-care delivery so the effective and safe treatments for chronic pain are available to millions of Australians who suffer from chronic pain.

One in five Australians aged 45 and over have chronic pain (pain lasting three or more months). This costs an estimated A$139 billion a year, including $12 billion in direct health-care costs.

The most common complaint among people with chronic pain is low back pain. So what treatments do – and don’t – work?

Read more:
Evidence doesn’t support spinal cord stimulators for chronic back pain – and they could cause harm

Opioids and invasive procedures

Treatments offered to people with chronic pain include strong pain medicines such as opioids and invasive procedures such as spinal cord stimulators or spinal fusion surgery. Unfortunately, these treatments have little if any benefit and are associated with a risk of significant harm.

Spinal fusion surgery and spinal cord stimulators are also extremely costly procedures, costing tens of thousands of dollars each to the health system as well as incurring costs to the individual.

Addressing the contributors to pain

Recommendations from the latest Australian and World Health Organization clinical guidelines for low back pain focus on alternatives to drug and surgical treatments such as:

• education
• advice
• structured exercise programs
• physical, psychological or multidisciplinary interventions that address the physical or psychological contributors to ongoing pain.

Two recent Australian trials support these recommendations and have found that interventions that address each person’s physical and psychological contributors to pain produce large and sustained improvements in pain and function in people with chronic low back pain.

The interventions have minimal side effects and are cost-effective.

In the RESOLVE trial, the intervention consists of pain education and graded sensory and movement “retraining” aimed to help people understand that it’s safe to move.

In the RESTORE trial, the intervention (cognitive functional therapy) involves assisting the person to understand the range of physical and psychological contributing factors related to their condition. It guides patients to relearn how to move and to build confidence in their back, without over-protecting it.

Why isn’t everyone with chronic pain getting this care?

While these trials provide new hope for people with chronic low back pain, and effective alternatives to spinal surgery and opioids, a barrier for implementation is the out-of-pocket costs. The interventions take up to 12 sessions, lasting up to 26 weeks. One physiotherapy session can cost $90–$150.

In contrast, Medicare provides rebates for just five allied health visits (such as physiotherapists or exercise physiologists) for eligible patients per year, to be used for all chronic conditions.

Private health insurers also limit access to reimbursement for these services by typically only covering a proportion of the cost and providing a cap on annual benefits. So even those with private health insurance would usually have substantial out-of-pocket costs.

Access to trained clinicians is another barrier. This problem is particularly evident in regional and rural Australia, where access to allied health services, pain specialists and multidisciplinary pain clinics is limited.

Higher costs and lack of access are associated with the increased use of available and subsidised treatments, such as pain medicines, even if they are ineffective and harmful. The rate of opioid use, for example, is higher in regional Australia and in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage than metropolitan centres and affluent areas.

Read more:
Opioids don’t relieve acute low back or neck pain – and can result in worse pain, new study finds

So what can we do about it?

We need to reform Australia’s health system, private and public, to improve access to effective treatments for chronic pain, while removing access to ineffective, costly and high-risk treatments.

Better training of the clinical workforce, and using technology such as telehealth and artificial intelligence to train clinicians or deliver treatment may also improve access to effective treatments. A recent Australian trial, for example, found telehealth delivered via video conferencing was as effective as in-person physiotherapy consultations for improving pain and function in people with chronic knee pain.

Advocacy and improving the public’s understanding of effective treatments for chronic pain may also be helpful. Our hope is that coordinated efforts will promote the uptake of effective treatments and improve the care of patients with chronic pain.

Read more:
How long does back pain last? And how can learning about pain increase the chance of recovery?

Christine Lin receives funding from various organisations including the National Health and Medial Research Council. She is a registered physiotherapist, a member of the Australian Physiotherapy Association, and a board member on the Journal of Physiotherapy.

Christopher Maher receives research funding from various government agencies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund. He is a registered physiotherapist and member of the Australian Physiotherapy Association.

Fiona Blyth receives research funding from various government agencies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund. She is a registered medical practitioner and Fellow of the Australasian Faculty of Public Health Medicine. She is currently a Council Member of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

James Mcauley receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Medical Research Future Fund

Mark Hancock receives funding from various organisations including the National Health and Medial Research Council. He is a registered physiotherapist, a member of the Australian Physiotherapy Association, and a board member on the Journal of Physiotherapy.

– ref. Surgery won’t fix my chronic back pain, so what will? – https://theconversation.com/surgery-wont-fix-my-chronic-back-pain-so-what-will-227450