Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Curran, Associate Professor of Ecology, Lincoln University, New Zealand

In the latest move to reform environmental laws in New Zealand, the coalition government has introduced a bill to fast-track consenting processes for projects deemed to be of national or regional significance.

The Fast-track Approvals Bill, introduced under urgency on March 7, would take precedence over several current environmental laws and give ministers the power to skirt existing approval processes.

Leaders of ten scientific societies that conduct biodiversity research in Aotearoa New Zealand, representing thousands of members (ourselves included), have called on the government to slow down the pace of reform.

They warn that decision-making criteria are weighted towards
development, not environmental protection or sustainable resource use, and undermine New Zealand’s obligations to protect the country’s unique and threatened biodiversity.

New Zealand’s economy relies on the environment in many ways. One study estimated New Zealand’s land-based ecosystem services contributed NZ$57 billion to human welfare in 2012 (27% of the country’s GDP). This includes services such as crop pollination by insects, erosion control by plants and flood regulation by wetlands.

The fast-track bill requires expert panels to provide recommendations to the relevant ministers within six months of a project being referred to them. This time frame is wholly unsuitable to making proper assessments of environmental impacts, including those on plants and animals, as surveys will likely be conducted at inappropriate times of the year.

No time for on-site ecological assessments

A key requirement of assessing impacts on biodiversity is to undertake new ecological surveys of the project site and surrounds. Such surveys identify the threatened species and ecosystems found on the site, catalogue where they are found and estimate their population numbers.

This information is then used to determine how those species and ecosystems could be affected, and whether the project could be modified to avoid or mitigate these impacts.

There are currently no directions in the bill for the expert panel to commission new ecological surveys. However, even if panels could do this, the six-month time frame precludes robust ecological surveys.

Read more:
Without a better plan, New Zealand risks sleepwalking into a biodiversity extinction crisis

Thorough ecological assessments involve conducting surveys at multiple times throughout the year because certain species will only be present during particular seasons.

For instance, reptiles, frogs, invertebrates and migratory species of birds are usually only detectable during warmer times of the year. Surveys for them during winter are unlikely to find these species.

Even certain plants, such as orchids that can lie dormant underground as a tuber, have life cycles that make them difficult to detect. Many grasses are best identified when they are in flower.

In many cases, restricting consenting to just six months means expert panels would have to make their assessments based only on existing ecological information. This is known as a “desktop assessment”.

While a useful first step, these are not a replacement for on-the-ground surveys. This is particularly the case in New Zealand, where we have limited data on many species and for many parts of the country. For example, we don’t have sufficient data on most of New Zealand’s reptiles.

Evidence-based decisions are critical

Apart from the proposed fast-tracking of resource consents, the government has already repealed the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act. Both were enacted only last year as part of a new resource management regime.

The government also plans to replace the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which provides direction to local authorities on how to manage activities that affect the health of lakes and rivers.

None of the recent and proposed changes to environmental legislation are responsive to the dual biodiversity and climate crises. They are also inconsistent with the government’s own stated goal of evidence-based decision making.

Read more:
Restoring ecosystems to boost biodiversity is an urgent priority – our ‘Eco-index’ can guide the way

New Zealand’s plants, animals, fungi and ecosystems are globally unique. They underpin key economic sectors, especially primary production and tourism. But they are also threatened with extinction.

More than 75% of New Zealand’s native species of reptile, bird, bat and freshwater fish are either threatened with extinction or at risk of becoming threatened.

New Zealand has international obligations to conserve biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was signed in 1993. In 2022, New Zealand joined almost 200 member nations in adopting the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which commits countries to protect 30% of land and ocean globally by 2030.

Read more:
Despite its green image, NZ has world’s highest proportion of species at risk

Much of New Zealand’s most at-risk indigenous biodiversity is found on private land and may be subject to detrimental impacts from land use and development pressures.

The fast-tracking agenda threatens to undermine New Zealand’s progress on biodiversity protection and other key environmental issues. It erodes rather than sustains the natural capital on which the economy depends.

New Zealand’s scientific societies are urging the coalition government to allow adequate time for appropriate parliamentary select committee processes and thorough public consultation on the bill.

They call for a comprehensive legislative and policy framework, centred on the protection of environmental values and sustainable resource management, to ensure development occurs in ways that don’t further degrade natural capital.

The authors thank Dr Fleur Maseyk for her comments and discussions on this piece.

Tim Curran receives funding from the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the Hellaby Grasslands Trust, Marlborough District Council, Brian Mason Scientific and Technical Trust, and the Lincoln University Argyle Trust. Tim is the Submissions Coordinator and a past President of the New Zealand Ecological Society, and coordinated and helped draft the open letter to the government referred to in this article.

Jo Monks receives funding from the New Zealand Department of Conservation and Auckland Zoological Park. She is Vice President of the New Zealand Ecological Society and a council member of the Society for Research on Amphibians and Reptiles in New Zealand. Jo is a previous employee of the New Zealand Department of Conservation. Jo signed the open letter to government referred to in this article on behalf of the New Zealand Ecological Society.

– ref. The government wants to fast-track approvals of large infrastructure projects – that’s bad news for NZ’s biodiversity – https://theconversation.com/the-government-wants-to-fast-track-approvals-of-large-infrastructure-projects-thats-bad-news-for-nzs-biodiversity-225790

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Hughes, Lecturer, Research School of Management, Australian National University

After months of debate and intrigue, the AFL’s 19th and newest team, the Tasmania Devils, finally launched its jumper, logo and colours in Devonport this week.

The Devils will wear green, yellow and red, and their guernsey will feature a map of Tasmania with a central red “T”. The club’s logo features a profile of a Tasmanian devil, which chair Grant O’Brien said represented the state’s “proud, tough, determined” characters.

Were there any surprises in the branding? None. Perfectly on brand and what has largely been seen already from Tasmania’s junior state teams.

The difference though was this was the official AFL launch. No turning back. And it had cleared some fairly big hurdles such as reaching an agreement with global entertainment giant Warner Bros over the use of the name, colours and logo.

But why was this day so important?

Read more:
The case for a Tasmanian AFL team, from an economist’s point of view

Building the (sports) brand

Sport has always been the original crowd funding model. Without fans, there is no team, really. So it was great to see the Devils have been saintly with their marketing to their base – namely the $10 foundation membership.

Within two hours of the launch, the Devils had sold more than 40,000 foundation memberships at $10 a pop. For comparison, the AFL’s most recent expansion clubs, Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney, totalled 23,359 and 33,036 members respectively at the end of 2023.

Selling cheap foundation memberships several years ahead of the team’s first game was smart, as it gets some nice hard cash rolling in until match-day revenue and sponsorships arrive.

Next, they gain access to a large database, so critical in breaking down members into different segments, and then tailoring an offering to each.

And of course there is the engagement aspect, which for the Devils is particularly important as both the stadium and team are several years away from AFL action – the club is set to enter the national competition in 2028.

They need to keep these foundation members, these key supporters, engaged to keep word of mouth high. And these members aren’t just in Tasmania – they are going to be found everywhere. The team will only play half its games at home, so it is going to need supporters at games played outside the state. The AFL needs this as well.

It helps that these supporters can call themselves foundation members forever. Powerful word of mouth and nice branding. And 50,000+ in a few short hours says the market agrees.

The Devils though must focus on retaining those initial members during what will be a long journey before they play their first game at Macquarie Point.

Why is branding so crucial for sports teams?

Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are the benchmarks in world sport for why details matter in sports marketing. Think “CR7” and you think of only one person. And what kid would say no to a Messi number 10 jersey?

Both bring in tens of millions per year for their franchise in merchandise and ticket sales.

The biggest sporting brands on earth, such as Barcelona FC, manage every single detail of their brand image down to the actual colour shade on all brand offerings.

It’s the same for the Devils, not least because of Warner Bros, but also to avoid the Port Adelaide v Collingwood jersey issue.

The Devils offering had to be unique to every other brand in the AFL, but also use colours in the logo and character which would deepen resonance between team, supporters, and community.

The colours of myrtle green, primrose yellow, and rose red do exactly that. That mix and variations are all theirs. They are representative of the colours of Tasmania, and have been used extensively by many other sporting teams from the state. Consistency is so important in sports marketing and this was great to see.

These colours will help drive deeper emotional responses to the brand, and keep supporters engaged at the highest level, thereby helping to attract sponsors.

As for the brand logo, there was no other choice than the Tasmanian devil, and it’s a great one. Nearly every other AFL team builds much of their branding around their character and this is something the Devils need to do sooner and not later.

The initial public reaction was almost overwhelmingly positive, and allows the Devils to build that core base of supporters who will fill 23,000 seats every home game.

Read more:
Job creation isn’t always a good thing. Hobart’s new stadium can only make Tasmania’s housing crisis worse

Challenges and next steps for ‘brand Tasmania’

There will be challenges the brand can’t control, such as the rising concern over concussion and the growth of competitors such as basketball, e-sports and soccer. These may impact the brand but overall will be handled by the AFL itself.

Locally, the brand has to focus on providing as many touch-point experiences as possible, such as meet and greets or merchandise days. Tangibility adds value to sports brands in ways most other brands envy.

And this will help keep the brand community active and vocal, which will help deflect any political challenges to the covered stadium, but also attract other supporters, sponsors and community to the team the closer the start date gets.

With the Devil out of the bag, the challenge for the club will now be to ensure it doesn’t veer too much out of its territory and lose sight of just how hard and long it is going to take before its real prey: that one day in September at the MCG.

Andrew Hughes 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. Devil in the details: breaking down the branding of the AFL’s newest team – https://theconversation.com/devil-in-the-details-breaking-down-the-branding-of-the-afls-newest-team-226010

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Gaunson, Associate Professor in Cinema Studies, RMIT University

“If you don’t know who your mob are, you don’t know who you are,” Detective Andrea “Andie” Whitford (played by Leah Purcell) is told early into the new crime series High Country.

Andie has recently arrived in the lush remote Victorian High Country with her partner Helen Hartley (Sara Wiseman), both trying to put traumas behind them as they start afresh.

Driving along a snaking winding road, Andie finds an isolated Mercedes Benz car. The driver’s door is wide open and the owner has left valuables behind, including keys and wallet.

Doctor Haber (Francis Greenslade) is another in a line of missing persons who have disappeared mysteriously into the rural mountain wilderness.

New in town and without the experience of other local police, Andie – to the decry of her colleagues – is assigned the case of solving a murder and disappearance of two locals that has the agitated town wanting answers.

Seasoned hands

From the opening of this new eight-part series on Binge, High Country feels in steady hands helped by the well-seasoned cast of familiar Australian crime genre actors. Purcell (previously seen in Wentworth Prision) is joined by Aaron Pedersen (Mystery Road), Nicholas Bell (Scrublands), Henry Nixon (The Kettering Incident), Geoff Morrell (Deep Water) and the versatile Northern Irish actor Ian McElhinney.

High Country was created and written by Marcia Gardner and John Ridley whose background includes scripting Australian network crime shows Wentworth Prison and Stingers. They are joined by Wentworth Prision director Kevin Carlin, who directs five of the eight episodes.

With this experience, Gardner, Ridley and Carlin have created a well-plotted and suspenseful procedural crime series that never loses pace or focus. An effective cliff hanger ends each episode making this a very binge-worthy show.

High Country sits within the tradition of uniformed middle-aged female police officers, most notably Jodie Foster in the recent series of True Detective: Night Country and Sarah Lancashire in Happy Valley.

Similar to these series, Andie’s own past comes back to haunt her, forcing her to confront the very thing that she was trying to flee. High Country equally deals with the issues and frustrations of women having to navigate themselves through the gender politics of a male-dominated workforce.

Read more:
True Detective: Night Country’s indigenous representation offers hope for decolonising television

Space for contemplation

Despite High Country arriving in a packed market of quality crime television and the show always playing within the tropes of the crime genre (dirty cops, historical town secrets, wrongly accused victims) there is enough nuance for it never to feel predictable or cliched.

An important reason for this is Purcell’s captivating performance, equally convincing in the sensitive domestic scenes with her partner and wayward teenager daughter, contrasted against dealing with the white, male, toxic thugs who think they run the town.

High Country possesses a vastness that allows ample opportunity for contemplation. The viewer is invited to delve into the intricacies of the setting and its characters. The writing and cinematography are multi-dimensional, offering depth and complexity that encourages reflection and engagement at each turn.

Australian rural noir

The line “if you don’t know who your mob are, you don’t know who you are” is repeated across the series. It also becomes the very thing that Andie must investigate in order to solve the crime.

In the rich tapestry of Australian crime fiction – and as its title would suggest – High Country adds to the rise of what has been dubbed “outback” or “rural” noir, sharing similarity with other recent Australian series such as Scrublands and Mystery Road.

A localised theme emerging through Australian rural noir is the Indigenous detective at the centre of the narrative. This is true of TV shows Mystery Road and High Country and also present in literary rural crime noir such as Julie Janson’s Madukka: The River Serpent (2022), an outback crime novel told from the perspective of a Aboriginal sleuth in her 50s.

Taking place in the Victorian Alps, High Country was filmed in the region that served as the backdrop for Robert Connelly’s latest feature film, Force of Nature: The Dry 2, which also deals with people missing in the Victorian wilderness.

Set in the close-knit community, the narrative tackles climate change, domestic violence, and Indigenous identity and land possession. Garner and Ridley paint a vivid picture of the ethical and societal ramifications of these challenges on rural populations.

High Country presents a poignant and impactful exploration of environmental crises and domestic turmoil that has every potential to resonate with a broad mainstream streaming audience.

High Country is on Binge from today.

Read more:
‘You rarely see abuse directed at men’: a look at the sexist abuse women police officers face online

Stephen Gaunson 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. Led by Leah Purcell’s captivating performance, High Country delivers fresh take on Australian rural noir – https://theconversation.com/led-by-leah-purcells-captivating-performance-high-country-delivers-fresh-take-on-australian-rural-noir-225890

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Vivienne Bentley, Research Scientist, Responsible Innovation, Data61, CSIRO

Today, almost a quarter of Australians are digitally excluded. This means they miss out on the social, educational and economic benefits online connectivity provides.

In the face of this ongoing “digital divide”, countries are now talking about a future of inclusive artificial intelligence (AI).

However, if we don’t learn from current problems with digital exclusion, it will likely spill over into people’s future experiences with AI. That’s the conclusion from our new research published in the journal AI and Ethics.

What is the digital divide?

The digital divide is a well-documented social schism. People on the wrong side of it face difficulties when it comes to accessing, affording, or using digital services. These disadvantages significantly reduce their quality of life.

Decades of research have provided us with a rich understanding of who is most at risk. In Australia, older people, those living in remote areas, people on lower incomes and First Nations peoples are most likely to find themselves digitally excluded.

Zooming out, reports show that one-third of the world’s population – representing the poorest countries – remains offline. Globally, the digital gender divide also still exists: women, particularly in low and middle-income countries, face substantially more barriers to digital connectivity.

During the COVID pandemic, the impacts of digital inequity became much more obvious. As large swathes of the world’s population had to “shelter in place” – unable to go outside, visit shops, or seek face-to-face contact – anyone without digital access was severely at risk.

Consequences ranged from social isolation to reduced employment opportunities, as well as a lack of access to vital health information. The UN Secretary-General stated in 2020 that “the digital divide is now a matter of life and death”.

Read more:
‘Digital inclusion’ and closing the gap: how First Nations leadership is key to getting remote communities online

Not just a question of access

As with most forms of exclusion, the digital divide functions in multiple ways. It was originally defined as a gap between those who have access to computers and the internet and those who do not. But research now shows it’s not just an issue of access.

Having little or no access leads to reduced familiarity with digital technology, which then erodes confidence, fuels disengagement, and ultimately sets in motion an intrinsic sense of not being “digitally capable”.

As AI tools increasingly reshape our workplaces, classrooms and everyday lives, there is a risk AI could deepen, rather than narrow, the digital divide.

Read more:
Artificial intelligence holds great potential for both students and teachers – but only if used wisely

The role of digital confidence

To assess the impact of digital exclusion on people’s experiences with AI, in late 2023 we surveyed a representative selection of hundreds of Australian adults. We began by asking them to rate their confidence with digital technology.

We found digital confidence was lower for women, older people, those with reduced salaries, and those with less digital access.

We then asked these same people to comment on their hopes, fears and expectations of AI. Across the board, the data showed that people’s perceptions, attitudes and experiences with AI were linked to how they felt about digital technology in general.

In other words, the more digitally confident people felt, the more positive they were about AI.

Read more:
Giving AI direct control over anything is a bad idea – here’s how it could do us real harm

To build truly inclusive AI, these findings are important to consider for several reasons. First, they confirm that digital confidence is not a privilege shared by all.

Second, they show us digital inclusion is about more than just access, or even someone’s digital skills. How confident a person feels in their ability to interact with technology is important too.

Third, they show that if we don’t contend with existing forms of digital exclusion, they are likely to spill over into perceptions, attitudes and experiences with AI.

Currently, many countries are making headway in their efforts to reduce the digital divide. So we must make sure the rise of AI doesn’t slow these efforts, or worse still, exacerbate the divide.

What should we hope for AI?

While there is a slew of associated risks, when deployed responsibly, AI can make significant positive impacts on society. Some of these can directly target issues of inclusivity.

For example, computer vision can track the trajectory of a tennis ball during a match, making it audible for blind or low-vision spectators.

AI has been used to analyse online job postings to help boost employment outcomes in under-represented populations such as First Nations peoples. And, while they’re still in the early stages of development, AI-powered chatbots could increase accessibility and affordability of medical services.

Read more:
To boost Indigenous employment, we need to map job opportunities to skills and qualifications. Our new project does just that

But this responsible AI future can only be delivered if we also address what keeps us digitally divided. To develop and use truly inclusive AI tools, we first have to ensure the feelings of digital exclusion don’t spill over.

This means not only tackling pragmatic issues of access and infrastructure, but also the knock-on effects on people’s levels of engagement, aptitude and confidence with technology.

Sarah Bentley works for CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government.

Claire Naughtin works for CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government.

– ref. The ‘digital divide’ is already hurting people’s quality of life. Will AI make it better or worse? – https://theconversation.com/the-digital-divide-is-already-hurting-peoples-quality-of-life-will-ai-make-it-better-or-worse-222987

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Klein, Associate professor, Australian National University

It’s commonly accepted that women do the vast majority of caregiving in Australian society. But less appreciated is that Indigenous women do larger amounts of unpaid care than any other group.

Working with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner’s office, we worked with more than 100 Indigenous women across Australia to talk about their interpretations and experiences of care.

“Mainstream” definitions and measures of care do not include the vast and complex ways care is defined by First Nations women. This includes care not only for people, but for communities, Country and culture.

It means important work goes unrecognised, uncompensated or misunderstood, leading to the marginalisation of this crucial work and the women who do it.

Read more:
‘Definitions are often very western. This excludes us.’ Our research shows how to boost Indigenous participation in STEM

Redefining the concept

The Australian Human Rights Commission’s Wiyi Yani U Thangani report illuminates the crucial importance of the care provided by First Nations women. Our work follows and builds on this report.

An Indigenous woman from the East Kimberley told us:

Well, care for me, as an Indigenous person, is not just caring for your family, it’s caring for your Country.

Another woman from the ACT told us care is a disposition, and a means of respecting culture and heritage:

[Care is] enveloped in everything we do and everything we are and everything about where we are going and paying homage again to our ancestors and who’s come before us. That’s what care is.

This notion of care as a strength is an important insight from the women in this study. However, unpaid care is often unrecognised and undervalued in Australian policy, which while prioritising getting women into employment, has neglected funding and supporting the existing unpaid care work that women do.

What is evident from our study is that Indigenous women want more support for the care work they do, as well as better care services largely within Aboriginal community-controlled organisations to assist them in doing it.

Care has consequences

Women frequently linked their demanding care loads to ongoing colonisation, which continues to create damage to the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. A woman from greater Sydney said:

It’s colonial […] It’s just not being able to do things in the way we should be doing them […] because of the colonial structure and things like that.

This includes the impacts of colonisation on gender roles, child removals, incarceration rates, poor health, poverty, racism and more.

It also includes the impacts of state institutions set up to “care”, but which are often uncaring and may be violent and harmful.

Ultimately, this requires Indigenous people’s care to heal, adding extra demands on existing care loads.

Read more:
First Nations women don’t always access health care after head injuries from family violence. Here’s why

Many of the women interviewed in this study were also tired, and often carers needed care too. Some were in, or had been through, periods of utter exhaustion and illness due to trying to carry their stressful care load. A Central Australian woman told us:

It’s hard. It’s draining. Every day just exhausted. Sometimes there’s days when I just can’t keep up with it. And I don’t want to listen, just go away. But those are days when they really need help. So yeah, it’s very exhausting.

Time is money, but no one gets paid

Our research also included a time-use survey, which showed that all unpaid care activities accounted for, on average, 62% of our participant women’s time on a usual weekday (about 14.8 hours per day on average), with 48% of their time (around 11.5 hours) spent caring for others and/or caring for Country and culture specifically.

Because (lost) remuneration for this work was raised as a crucial point by Indigenous women during our interviews, we also calculated the approximate market value of this unpaid care work through using hourly award rates for corresponding care activities (sometimes called the replacement method, which understands the cost of this work in the paid market).

The estimated economic value of this work ranged between $223.01 and $457.39 per day (representing an estimated annual salary of between $81,175.64 and $118,921.40). This estimation is conservative as it does not include the multitasking of more than one care activity at the one time.

The estimation raises important questions as to what is owed to Indigenous women, not just because the economy free-rides on unpaid care, but also because much of this care work mops up the mess of colonisation.

Many of the women we spoke to also talked about how unpaid care and paid employment interact.

In addition to their unpaid care roles, most women in paid employment in this study had roles in the community sector which put them at the frontline of caring for community. They saw this work as part of their broader commitment to supporting their families, communities and advancing Indigenous peoples. It is therefore hard to draw a line for these women between paid and unpaid work, meaning it is rare to be able to “switch off”.

Often, employers didn’t realise the amount of unpaid care of this type women do in their paid work roles, even though this actually makes their paid employment successful. Women are also not paid adequately for these valuable skills.

A new approach is needed

Our research follows generations of Indigenous women who have long shown the strength of care, but also looks at how settler society makes this work harder.

This research underlines the importance of a new approach to supporting Indigenous women, in which their voices, ideas and needs are central, and where care is placed at the heart. This is different to just “fitting” Indigenous care into various settler models, policies and measures already in circulation.

Elise Klein receives funding from the Gender Institute at the Australian National University. She is a member of the Anti-Poverty Centre, the Accountable Income Management Network and a Co-Director of the Australian Basic Income Lab.

Chay Brown receives funding from the Office of Gender Equity and Diversity at the Northern Territory Government. She is affiliated with ANU, Tangentyere Council, and Her Story Mparntwe.

Kayla Glynn-Braun is a First Nation Wiradjuri Women whom is a project coordinator at The Equality Institute and Co-Foundered Her Story Consulting and lead on U Right Sis? project, Indigenous Knowledge

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

– ref. ‘Care is in everything we do and everything we are’: the work of Indigenous women needs to be valued – https://theconversation.com/care-is-in-everything-we-do-and-everything-we-are-the-work-of-indigenous-women-needs-to-be-valued-225780

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Balogh, Adjunct Lecturer, University of New England

How do you manage your emails? Are you an “inbox zero” kind of person, or do you just leave thousands of them unread?

Our new study, published today in the journal Information Research, suggests that leaving all your emails in the inbox is likely to leave you dissatisfied with your personal records management.

In an exploratory survey, we asked participants how they dealt with their personal records such as bills, online subscriptions and similar items. Many of these arrive by email.

We found that most respondents left their electronic records in their email. Only half saved items such as bills and other documents to other locations, like their computer or the cloud. But having a disorganised inbox also led to problems, including missing bills and losing track of important correspondence.

The risk of losing track of your emails

Receiving bills, insurance renewals and other household documents by email saves time and money, and reduces unnecessary paper use.

However, there are risks involved if you don’t stay on top of your electronic records. Respondents in our research reported issues such as lapsed vehicle registration, failing to cancel unwanted subscriptions, and overlooking tax deductions because it was too much trouble finding the receipts.

This suggests late fines and other email oversights could be costing people hundreds of dollars each year.

In addition to the financial costs, research suggests that not sorting and managing electronic records makes it more difficult to put together the information needed at tax time, or for other high-stakes situations, such as loan applications.

Read more:
Why do I get so much spam and unwanted email in my inbox? And how can I get rid of it?

What did we find?

We surveyed over 300 diverse respondents on their personal electronic records management. Most of them were from Australia, but we also received responses from other countries, such as the United Kingdom, United States, Switzerland, Portugal and elsewhere.

Two-thirds of the respondents used their email to manage personal records, such as bills, receipts, subscriptions and more. Of those, we found that once respondents had dealt with their email, about half of them would sort the emails into folders, while the other half would leave everything in the inbox.

While most sorted their workplace email into folders, they were much less likely to sort their personal email in the same way.

The results also showed that only half (52%) of respondents who left all their email in the inbox were satisfied with their records management, compared to 71% of respondents who sorted their email into folders.

Of the respondents who saved their paperwork in the cloud (Google Drive, iCloud, Dropbox and similar), 83% reported being satisfied with their home records management.

The study was exploratory, so further research will be needed to see if our findings apply more universally. However, our statistical analysis did reveal practices associated with more satisfactory outcomes, and ones that might be better to avoid.

What can go wrong with an inbox-only approach?

Based on the responses, we have identified three main problems with leaving all your email in the inbox.

First, users can lose track of the tasks that need to be done. For example, a bill that needs to be paid could slip down the line unnoticed, drowned by other emails.

Second, relying on search to re-find emails means you need to know exactly what you’re looking for. For example, at tax time searching for charity donation receipts depends on remembering what to search for, as well as the exact wording in the email containing the receipt.

Third, many bills and statements are not sent as attachments to emails, but rather as hyperlinks. If you change your bank or another service provider, those hyperlinks may not be accessible at a later date. Not being able to access missing payslips from a former employer can also cause issues, as shown by the Robodebt scandal or the recent case of the Australian Tax Office reviving old debts.

4 tips for better records management

When we asked respondents to nominate a preferred location for keeping their personal records, they tended to choose a more organised format than their current behaviour. Ideally, only 8% of the respondents would leave everything in their email inbox, unsorted.

Our findings suggest a set of practices that can help you get on top of your electronic records and prevent stress or financial losses:

• sort your email into category folders, or save records in folders in the cloud or on a computer

• download documents that are not attached to emails or sent to you – such as utility bills and all your payslips

• put important renewals in your calendar as reminders, and

• delete junk mail and unsubscribe, so that your inbox can be turned into a to-do list.

Read more:
Do you answer emails outside work hours? Do you send them? New research shows how dangerous this can be

Matt Balogh previously received funding from an Australian Government Research Training Stipend Scholarship.

– ref. Do you have 7,513 unread emails in your inbox? Research suggests that’s unwise – https://theconversation.com/do-you-have-7-513-unread-emails-in-your-inbox-research-suggests-thats-unwise-225181

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

Australia’s political donations rules are woefully inadequate, but donations reform is finally on the agenda. The federal government has signalled its interest in reform and will soon begin briefing MPs on its plan. Greater transparency on who is donating, caps on donations, and limits on campaign expenditure are all on the table. Here’s what the government should – and shouldn’t – do.

Rules around political donations at the federal level have long lagged the states. Under the federal rules, only donations of more than $16,300 need to be on the public record. Before the last federal election, Labor promised to lower this threshold to $1,000, in line with NSW, Victoria, and Queensland, and it is now seeking to fulfil this promise.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Special Minister of State Don Farrell wants donation and spending caps for next election

Donations from the same donor should also be aggregated by political parties to prevent “donations splitting”.

Quicker reporting of political donations is long overdue. Under the current system, it takes at least seven months and sometimes up to 19 months for a large donation to be made public. Introducing “real time” disclosure requirements would mean that Australians know who’s donating while policy issues – and elections – are still “live”.

These three changes – reducing the donations disclosure threshold, aggregating donations from the same donor, and publishing the data in real time – are all quite simple reforms that could be implemented quickly. And there is likely to be widespread support across parliament for these sorts of transparency measures, so this would be a good place to start.

Where things get trickier is around caps – on both political donations and campaign spending. Both types of caps were supported by a recent parliamentary committee inquiry into the 2022 election, and Labor has signalled its interest in these bigger reforms.

A cap on political donations aims to reduce the influence of any one donor. Clive Palmer’s record-breaking donations in the lead-up to the 2019 and 2022 federal elections have highlighted the potential for wealthy individuals to have substantial influence in Australian elections.

The trick will be in setting the right level for the cap: low enough to be meaningful, yet high enough to enable new entrants to raise the funds necessary to compete with existing players. Some people show their political support with time, others with money, so donations caps need to allow for different forms of democratic participation too.

Caps on campaign spending would be the real game-changer though. Parties and candidates can currently spend as much money as they can raise, so big money means greater capacity to sell your message to voters.

Capping expenditure in the lead-up to elections would limit the “arms race” to raise more and more funds, and ultimately reduce parties’ dependency on major donors. It is this dependency that “buys” donors substantial access to politicians – and access means opportunities to sway public decisions in the donor’s favour.

Caps on campaign spending would be a big reform to reduce the influence of money in politics. But there are several design issues that still need to be resolved.

Given that other groups, such as unions and industry peak bodies, may campaign on political issues, their political expenditure would also need to be capped. A higher cap should apply for political parties – the primary players in an election – than for third parties.

Independents have warned that spending caps could create barriers for new entrants. A “one-size-fits-all” model would favour the major parties because they are already well known and usually contest every seat. At a minimum, caps are needed both for total spend and per electorate, to prevent major parties pooling their resources to fight just a few seats.

Read more:
A full ban on political donations would level the playing field – but is it the best approach?

These challenges are not insurmountable. NSW has long had expenditure caps in place for state elections and offers a model the federal government could follow.

Another way to resolve many of the concerns would be for the cap to apply to political advertising expenditure only. The idea would be to limit political-party and third-party advertising during election campaigns, but not restrict political expression through more grass-roots channels, or at other times.

The government should take the time to get this right. Campaign spending caps would be a bold reform that would strongly benefit from agreement across the parliament. Even if a quick consensus could be reached, the Australian Electoral Commission would still need time to implement the changes, so this reform would not be ready for the next federal election.

The government should take a consultative approach on caps to land a model that has broad support and trust. But there is no need to delay the transparency reforms. If the government moves quickly, Australians could have much better information on who funds political parties when we head to the polls in 2025.

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

– ref. Political donations rules are finally in the spotlight – here’s what the government should do – https://theconversation.com/political-donations-rules-are-finally-in-the-spotlight-heres-what-the-government-should-do-225901

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

A recent study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has linked microplastics with risk to human health.

The study involved patients in Italy who had a condition called carotid artery plaque, where plaque builds up in arteries, potentially blocking blood flow. The researchers analysed plaque specimens from these patients.

They found those with carotid artery plaque who had microplastics and nanoplastics in their plaque had a higher risk of heart attack, stroke, or death (compared with carotid artery plaque patients who didn’t have any micro- or nanoplastics detected in their plaque specimens).

Importantly, the researchers didn’t find the micro- and nanoplastics caused the higher risk, only that it was correlated with it.

So, what are we to make of the new findings? And how does it fit with the broader evidence about microplastics in our environment and our bodies?

What are microplastics?

Microplastics are plastic particles less than five millimetres across. Nanoplastics are less than one micron in size (1,000 microns is equal to one millimetre). The precise size classifications are still a matter of debate.

Microplastics and nanoplastics are created when everyday products – including clothes, food and beverage packaging, home furnishings, plastic bags, toys and toiletries – degrade. Many personal care products contain microsplastics in the form of microbeads.

Plastic is also used widely in agriculture, and can degrade over time into microplastics and nanoplastics.

These particles are made up of common polymers such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride. The constituent chemical of polyvinyl chloride, vinyl chloride, is considered carcinogenic by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Of course, the actual risk of harm depends on your level of exposure. As toxicologists are fond of saying, it’s the dose that makes the poison, so we need to be careful to not over-interpret emerging research.

Read more:
Australians are washing microplastics down the drain and it’s ending up on our farms

A closer look at the study

This new study in the New England Journal of Medicine was a small cohort, initially comprising 304 patients. But only 257 completed the follow-up part of the study 34 months later.

The study had a number of limitations. The first is the findings related only to asymptomatic patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (a procedure to remove carotid artery plaque). This means the findings might not be applicable to the wider population.

The authors also point out that while exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics has been likely increasing in recent decades, heart disease rates have been falling.

That said, the fact so many people in the study had detectable levels of microplastics in their body is notable. The researchers found detectable levels of polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride (two types of plastic) in excised carotid plaque from 58% and 12% of patients, respectively.

These patients were more likely to be younger men with diabetes or heart disease and a history of smoking. There was no substantive difference in where the patients lived.

Inflammation markers in plaque samples were more elevated in patients with detectable levels of microplastics and nanoplastics versus those without.

And, then there’s the headline finding: patients with microplastics and nanoplastics in their plaque had a higher risk of having what doctors call “a primary end point event” (non-fatal heart attack, non-fatal stroke, or death from any cause) than those who did not present with microplastics and nanoplastics in their plaque.

The authors of the study note their results “do not prove causality”.

However, it would be remiss not to be cautious. The history of environmental health is replete with examples of what were initially considered suspect chemicals that avoided proper regulation because of what the US National Research Council refers to as the “untested-chemical assumption”. This assumption arises where there is an absence of research demonstrating adverse effects, which obviates the requirement for regulatory action.

In general, more research is required to find out whether or not microplastics cause harm to human health. Until this evidence exists, we should adopt the precautionary principle; absence of evidence should not be taken as evidence of absence.

Read more:
We’re all ingesting microplastics at home, and these might be toxic for our health. Here are some tips to reduce your risk

Global and local action

Exposure to microplastics in our home, work and outdoor environments is inevitable. Governments across the globe have started to acknowledge we must intervene.

The Global Plastics Treaty will be enacted by 175 nations from 2025. The treaty is designed, among other things, to limit microplastic exposure globally. Burdens are greatest especially in children and especially those in low-middle income nations.

In Australia, legislation ending single use plastics will help. So too will the increased rollout of container deposit schemes that include plastic bottles.

Microplastics pollution is an area that requires a collaborative approach between researchers, civil societies, industry and government. We believe the formation of a “microplastics national council” would help formulate and co-ordinate strategies to tackle this issue.

Read more:
The problem with Oodies: hooded blankets are cosy but they are not great for oceans or our health

Little things matter. Small actions by individuals can also translate to significant overall environmental and human health benefits.

Choosing natural materials, fabrics, and utensils not made of plastic and disposing of waste thoughtfully and appropriately – including recycling wherever possible – is helpful.

Mark Patrick Taylor is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the statutory role of Chief Environmental Scientist.
He previously received funding via an Australian Government Citizen Science Grant (2017-2020), CSG55984 ‘Citizen insights to the composition and risks of household dust’ (the DustSafe project). Outputs from this project included published work on microplastics with Drs Neda Sharifi Soltani and Scott Wilson who were at Macquarie University at that time.

Scott P. Wilson works for the Australian Microplastic Assessment Project run by the not for profit organisation the Total Environment Centre. He has previously received funding from the NSW EPA for research into microplastic source tracking in Deewhy Lagoon and for developing a Microlitter Reduction Framework.

– ref. Study links microplastics with human health problems – but there’s still a lot we don’t know – https://theconversation.com/study-links-microplastics-with-human-health-problems-but-theres-still-a-lot-we-dont-know-225354

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

Global climate records were shattered in 2023, from air and sea temperatures to sea-level rise and sea-ice extent. Scores of countries recorded their hottest year and numerous weather disasters occurred as climate change reared its head.

How did Australia’s environment fare against this onslaught? In short, 2023 was a year of opposites.

For the past nine years, we have trawled through huge volumes of data collected by satellites, measurement stations and surveys by individuals and agencies. We include data on global change, oceans, people, weather, water, soils, vegetation, fire and biodiversity.

Each year, we analyse those data, summarising them in an annual report that includes an overall Environmental Condition Score and regional scorecards. These scores provide a relative measure of conditions for agriculture and ecosystems. Scores declined across the country, except in the Northern Territory, but were still relatively good.

However, the updated Threatened Species Index shows the abundance of listed bird, mammal and plant species has continued to decline at a rate of about 3% a year since the turn of the century.

Read more:
How 2023’s record heat worsened droughts, floods and bushfires around the world

Riding a climate rollercoaster in 2023

Worldwide, 77 countries broke temperature records. Australia was not one of them. Our annual average temperature was 0.53°C below the horror year 2019. Temperatures in the seas around us were below the records of 2022.

Even so, 2023 was among Australia’s eight warmest years in both cases. All eight came after 2005.

However, those numbers are averaged over the year. Dig a bit deeper and it becomes clear 2023 was a climate rollercoaster.

The year started as wet as the previous year ended, but dry and unseasonably warm weather set in from May to October. Soils and wetlands across much of the country started drying rapidly. In the eastern states, the fire season started as early as August.

Nonetheless, there was generally still enough water to support good vegetation growth throughout the unusually warm and sunny winter months.

Fears of a severe fire season were not realised as El Niño’s influence waned in November and rainfall returned, in part due to the warm oceans. Combined with relatively high temperatures, it made for a hot and humid summer. A tropical cyclone and several severe storms caused flooding in Queensland and Victoria in December.

As always, there were regional differences. Northern Australia experienced the best rainfall and growth conditions in several years. This contributed to more grass fires than average during the dry season. On the other hand, the rain did not return to Western Australia and Tasmania, which ended the year dry.

So how did scores change?

Every year we calculate an Environmental Condition Score that combines weather, water and vegetation data.

The national score was 7.5 (out of 10). That was 1.2 points lower than for 2022, but still the second-highest score since 2011.

Scores declined across the country except for the Northern Territory, which chalked up a score of 8.8 thanks to a strong monsoon season. With signs of drought developing in parts of Western Australia, it had the lowest score of 5.5.

The Environmental Condition Score reflects environmental conditions, but does not measure the long-term health of natural ecosystems and biodiversity.

Firstly, it relates only to the land and not our oceans. Marine heatwaves damaged ecosystems along the eastern coast. Surveys in the first half of 2023 suggested the recovery of the Great Barrier Reef plateaued.

However, a cyclone and rising ocean temperatures occurred later in the year. In early 2024, another mass coral bleaching event developed.

Secondly, the score does not capture important processes affecting our many threatened species. Among the greatest dangers are invasive pests and diseases, habitat destruction and damage from severe weather events such as heatwaves and megafires.

Read more:
New ecosystems, unprecedented climates: more Australian species than ever are struggling to survive

Threatened species’ declines continued

The Threatened Species Index captures data from long-term threatened species monitoring. The index is updated annually with a three-year lag, largely due to delays in data processing and sharing. This means the 2023 index includes data up to 2020.

The index showed an unrelenting decline of about 3% in the abundance of Australia’s threatened bird, mammal and plant species each year. This amounts to an overall decline of 61% from 2000 to 2020.

The index for birds in 2023 revealed declines were most severe for terrestrial birds (62%), followed by migratory shorebirds (47%) and marine birds (24%).

A record 130 species were added to Australia’s threatened species lists in 2023. That’s many more than the annual average of 29 species over previous years. The 2019–2020 Black Summer bushfires had direct impacts on half the newly listed species.

Population boom adds to pressures

Australia’s population passed 27 million in 2023, a stunning increase of 8 million, or 41%, since 2000. Those extra people all needed living space, food, electricity and transport.

Read more:
Our population is expected to double in 80 years. We asked Australians where they want all these people to live

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 18% since 2000. Despite small declines in the previous four years, emissions increased again in 2023, mostly due to air travel rebounding after COVID-19.

Our emissions per person are the tenth-highest in the world and more than three times those of the average global citizen. The main reasons are our coal-fired power stations, inefficient road vehicles and large cattle herd.

Nonetheless, there are reasons to be optimistic. Many other countries have dramatically reduced emissions without compromising economic growth or quality of life. All we have to do is to finally follow their lead.

Our governments have an obvious role to play, but we can do a lot as individuals. We can even save money, by switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles and by eating less beef.

Changing our behaviour will not stop climate change in its tracks, but will slow it down over the next decades and ultimately reverse it. We cannot reverse or even stop all damage to our environment, but we can certainly do much better.

Read more:
As Australia’s net zero transition threatens to stall, rooftop solar could help provide the power we need

Australia’s Environment is produced by the ANU Fenner School for Environment & Society and the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), an NCRIS-enabled National Research Infrastructure. Albert Van Dijk receives or has previously received funding from several government-funded agencies, grant schemes and programmes.

Tayla Lawrie is a current employee of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), funded by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.

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

– ref. On a climate rollercoaster: how Australia’s environment fared in the world’s hottest year – https://theconversation.com/on-a-climate-rollercoaster-how-australias-environment-fared-in-the-worlds-hottest-year-225268

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Bendall, Senior Lecturer, Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University

Mary & George, the new British television drama series, depicts the real-life story of Mary Villiers and her son George, and their social climbing at the early 17th century English royal court.

George Villiers rose from humble beginnings to cup-bearer in 1614, Gentleman of the Bedchamber in 1615, and ultimately to the royal favourite of King James VI & I, amassing many titles and court appointments. In 1623 he was made Duke of Buckingham, the only duke who was not a member of the royal family.

In Mary & George, Mary moulds George to be James’ lover, where he would become the second-most powerful man in England. But from dizzying heights can come a great fall.

Much of the show is embellished for dramatic effect – it’s unclear if James actually did have sexual relationships with his male favourites, and Sir Francis Bacon did not die of syphilis.

However, other aspects of the show are fact. The Earl and Countess of Somerset were tried and found guilty of murder through poisoning (though they weren’t executed) and Frances Coke really was abducted and forced to marry John Villiers (witnesses noted her crying in the ceremony just like depicted).

Although George’s relationship with James is a central focus of the series, the Villiers women – George’s mother, sister and wife – all strategically bolstered the power and influence of their male relatives and ensured their family remained in royal favour.

Here’s what you should know about the real women behind the characters.

Read more:
How to make friends and influence people (as a 17th-century woman)

The mother: Mary Villiers

While the fictional Mary Villiers’ origins are depicted as low-born, the real Mary was from a gentry family with a good name but little money.

Mary’s four children with her first husband, George Villiers, were Susan, John, George and Christopher (“Kit”), who all feature in the show.

She married again to Sir William Rayner, and finally Sir Thomas Compton. She was created Countess of Buckingham in her own right (not tied to a husband) in 1618.

Like many women at this time who could not own property or assets due to the laws of coverture, Mary strategically married and used the other avenues available to her – such as social networking – to rise through the ranks of Jacobean society until her death in 1632.

History has not been kind to Mary. Her ambition for her family marked her as greedy, calculating and ruthless, which the show extends to lesbianism and murder despite the absence of any historical evidence.

The sister: Susan Villiers

Mary’s only daughter Susan is portrayed in the show as a quiet, timid and boring teenager. In reality Susan, who went by Sue, learned a great deal from her mother and used strategic connections to improve the social standing of her family.

In 1607, before the rise of the Villiers family at court, she married a country gentleman named William Fielding. Sue and William used George’s favour with the king to obtain many offices and titles; they were made the Countess and Earl of Denbigh in 1622.

After Charles I ascended the throne and married French princess Henrietta Maria, Sue was appointed as the most senior Lady of the Bedchamber.

Read more:
Beheaded and exiled: the two previous King Charleses bookended the abolition of the monarchy

These positions gave her vast influence at court. Surviving papers describe how she was frequently paid for “secret service” for the queen.

Over time, Sue developed a close relationship with Charles and Henrietta Maria, godparents to some of her grandchildren. Her letters show she was concerned with the social position of her own son, his education and his advancement at court.

When the queen fled for France during the English civil wars, Sue went with her and remained until her death in 1652.

The wife: Katherine Manners

In the show, George is forced into a partnership with “Katie” Manners when his mother and sister conspire to lock them in a room overnight, risking their reputations.

Young, “fertile” and wealthy, Katie describes herself as the perfect aristocratic wife.

They married in 1620 in a private ceremony witnessed only by James and her father, the Earl of Rutland. Katie became Katherine Villiers, Marchioness and then Duchess of Buckingham. She and George had four children, Mary, Charles, George and Francis.

James was Mary’s doting godfather. In his letters, he called her his grandchild, while Kate and George became his “children” and he their “dear dad”.

As the show depicts, George and the Villiers women became like a new family to James. This intimacy explains the libels which claimed Mary and George killed the king, a rumour the show brings to life.

Katherine, like Mary and Sue, became a Lady of the Bedchamber to Henrietta Maria. Katherine was pregnant when George was assassinated in 1628 and witnessed his death at the Greyhound Inn (where you can still stay) in Portsmouth.

She went into mourning, commissioning portraits and the Buckingham monument at Westminster Abbey in a chapel usually reserved for royalty. She continued to live at York House in London, marked today by its Watergate near Embankment Station.

Although she and her children remained favourites of Charles, her reconversion to Catholicism in 1628 and marriage to the Irish Catholic Randall MacDonnell in 1635 caused a strain. Katherine spent much of the civil wars in relative poverty in Ghent and Ireland, with her husband often imprisoned for his role in the Irish Confederacy.

She died in 1649, shortly after Cromwell’s conquest of Ireland, her life and the rule of Charles I both coming to an end.

But the influence of the Villers women in the royal court continued throughout the 17th century. George and Katherine’s daughter Mary married a Stewart, making their royal connections official.

Later generations of Viliers women, including Sue’s daughter Barbara also served in the households of Henrietta Maria and later, Catherine of Braganza, continuing the tradition of royal service and influence that began under Mary and George.

Read more:
Mary & George: homosexual relationships in the time of King James I were forbidden – but not uncommon

Sarah Bendall receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council UK and Parold Research Fund.

Megan Shaw 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. Intimacy, ‘secret service’ and social climbing: meet the real Villiers women behind Mary & George – https://theconversation.com/intimacy-secret-service-and-social-climbing-meet-the-real-villiers-women-behind-mary-and-george-225356

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Nassios, Associate Professor, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University

This article is part of The Conversation’s series examining the housing crisis. Read the other articles in the series here.

Australian state and federal governments spend money in many ways to ease rental stress and get more Australians into home ownership. Four of the most prominent are:

• first homeowner grants

• shared equity schemes

• first homeowner stamp duty exemptions

• rent assistance.

Our team at Victoria University’s Centre of Policy Studies has modelled the economic impact of each of them in a way that allows their outcomes to be compared.

The bad news is that we’ve found none of the four can simultaneously lift affordability for renters, lift affordability for owners, get more Australians into home ownership, and boost economic efficiency.

The good news is we’ve found a mix that could work well.

We used Victoria University’s regional economic model to compare the effect of spending an extra A$500 million on the variant of each of the programs presently available in Victoria.

To better assess the economic impact, we assumed the extra $500 million was paid for by an increase in taxation.

Grants and shared equity

We found first homeowner grants improve affordability for owners, slightly improve affordability for renters, and slightly increase home ownership rates, but come with a heavy economic cost.

The cost to economic efficiency amounts to about 20 cents for every dollar spent. Economic efficiency measures the extent to which inputs such as labour, land and capital are allocated to their most valuable uses.

Importantly, that 20 cents in the dollar cost is the economic cost of the spending, not the cost of raising the revenue to fund it.

With the average economic cost of state government taxation in the vicinity of 30 cents per dollar raised, that means every extra dollar raised to be spent on a first home buyer grant has an economic cost of about 50 cents, making it an economically expensive way to get people into homes.

Shared equity schemes in which the government part-owns a home with a buyer have similar costs, but are better at getting people into their own homes.

Stamp duty discounts

Our modelling finds that stamp duty discounts for first home buyers have an economic benefit. This is because stamp duty is an extraordinarily inefficient tax that makes it harder for people to move.

Unfortunately, the model also finds stamp duty discounts will make home ownership even less affordable by pushing up property prices, and make it only slightly easier for the first home owners able to get the discounts.

Rent assistance

Rent assistance is delivered by the Commonwealth rather than states to Australians in receipt of Commonwealth benefits.

Our study finds its economic costs are low, just 5 cents for every dollar spent, meaning that raising extra tax and spending it on rent assistance should have a total economic cost of about 35 cents for each dollar raised and spent.

We find it has a significant effect in making rent more affordable, but causes home ownership rates to fall, because it tips the balance for financially strained households in favour of renting rather than buying.

What works best

If making shelter more affordable for low-income earners is the number one priority, by far the best way to do it is to boost rent assistance.

While the benefits come at the expense of home ownership, for the renters receiving them, they are worth having.

But rent assistance is federally administered. For a state government, the best way to help both owners and renters at the lowest economic cost appears to be a mix of two thirds first home buyer grants and one third stamp duty discounts.

Our modelling suggests such a blend would have a negligible impact on economic efficiency and home affordability, while allowing more owners to rent and, as a result, make renting more affordable.

However, it would be costly. From a national perspective, the same improvement in rental affordability could be achieved for less than one-tenth the financial cost if the Commonwealth were to fund additional rent assistance.

If nothing else, our modelling proves these decisions are difficult.

No single tool is perfect, but using the right mix of them can help – all the more so if the states and Commonwealth can work together. Our estimates can help.

Read more:
The Help to Buy scheme will help but won’t solve the housing crisis

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

– ref. What’s the best way to ease rents and improve housing affordability? We modelled 4 of the government’s biggest programs – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-way-to-ease-rents-and-improve-housing-affordability-we-modelled-4-of-the-governments-biggest-programs-225446

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emerald L King, Lecturer in Humanities, University of Tasmania

Between Netflix’s 2023 live-action version of One Piece, and its latest take on Avatar: The Last Airbender, fans are once again asking: why are live-action anime adaptations so tricky to get right?

Despite the ongoing debate about whether Avatar (2005–08) is indeed an “anime” (since it’s made by US creators), the series has nonetheless gone down as a favourite among Western anime fans.

Netflix’s new rendition has been rated highly by fans and critics alike. Viewers have flocked online to share their opinions on everything from the casting choices, to the sets and costumes, to changes in the story.

But while this is being praised, that makes it an outlier in live-action anime adaptations. What is it about such adaptations that leads to them being so closely scrutinised? And why are they so often met with disappointment?

‘Anime’ is evolving

Before the original Avatar came out, defining “anime” or “Japanimation” was straightforward. Anime were cartoons made in Japan, often based on manga or Japanese comics.

However, Japanese studios are outsourcing more and more of their background and scenery animation to studios in South Korea and South-East Asia, creating only the main character animation in house. As such, anime purists – who often seem to be Western viewers – may argue the above definition is no longer sufficient. (It’s also helpful to remember that in Japanese, “anime” refers to all animated material, regardless of country of origin.)

Avatar has been noted for its anime-inspired themes and action, and for laying the path for other US-made series such as Voltron (2016–18) and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power (2018–20). Both of these shows mix 1980s nostalgia with 2010s storytelling and a hybrid animation style. While they may not technically be considered anime, depending on whom you ask, the overlap can’t be ignored.

Successful cases

One successful anime live-action adaptation is the 2008 film Speed Racer, adapted from the 1967–68 anime of the same name. Directed by the Wachowskis, the film has become a camp classic. It uses the same comic book-style special effects developed for The Matrix franchise, which itself was inspired by anime and manga, and particularly Mamoru Oshii’s 1995 film Ghost in the Shell.

A more recent success was Netflix’s adaptation of One Piece. This show has arguably rewritten the rules of live-action anime adaptations by blending original anime and manga story lines with a diverse cast of talented young actors.

Through a mix of expert writing, costuming, characterisation and visual effects, the essence of the long-running manga and anime series is retained for a new audience. The story of a boy who dreams of becoming king of the pirates – published over some 25 years – is distilled into a fast-paced series portrayed through childhood flashbacks and wacky hijinks.

Upon seeing the cast, original One Piece author and creator Oda Eiichiro said they were perfect:

It’s like you’re watching the Straw Hats in real life.

Notable failures

So, does the opinion of the original creator determine the success of an adaptation?

Certainly it may if we consider 2009’s infamous film Dragon Ball: Evolution. This US remake, rated 2.5/10 on IMDB, was widely criticised for its lacklustre production and “whitewashing”.

It was such a failure it inspired Dragon Ball creator Toriyama Akira, who passed away on March 1, to return to the franchise after a 15-year hiatus. Toriyama felt the film didn’t capture the “world” or the “characteristics” of the series.

Similarly, the 2017 live-action Ghost in the Shell was heavily criticised for its casting of Scarlett Johansson as the Major, with fans saying she should have been played by a Japanese actor.

In the various Ghost in the Shell anime, films and manga, the Major is an augmented cyborg whose original identity is never revealed. Indeed, the search for some kind of connection or identity forms part of her character. Johansson’s casting should therefore technically not be an issue. Mamoru Oshii himself said there was “no basis” for an “Asian actress” to play the role.

That said, the 2017 film was ultimately too clever for its own good as the final twist reveals the Major is a … Japanese woman in a white woman’s body.

An adaptation problem, or a fan problem?

Besides issues of whitewashing, what makes anime adaptations so different to other adaptations that miss the mark?

For instance, the Marvel films – adapted from the original superhero comics – have delivered hits alongside horrible flops. Yet, one could argue the flops didn’t attract quite as much fan fury as many botched anime adaptations do.

It may be anime live-action adaptations actually aren’t that bad when judged independently, but that the change in medium and language, and the impossible task of casting humans as anime characters, is what sets fans’ collective teeth on edge.

So much of anime’s magic lies in the creativity and imagination of the animators who, given how flexible their medium is, build massive fantasy worlds brimming with the impossible. Currently, no amount of CGI can perfectly replicate anime world-building.

There’s also the issue of condensing anime narratives for live action. Whereas anime made for Japanese audiences can have hundreds or even thousands of episodes, US-made live-action versions tend to have much shorter seasons due to time and budget constraints.

This means creators have to scrap and condense much of the original content. But while these scrapped scenes might be considered “filler” to them, they likely hold a lot of value in fans’ eyes, and contribute to making the original anime so compelling.

Japanese versus Western audiences

There have been a number of incredibly successful Japanese-language anime and manga live-action adaptations. Some of these have been faithful to the original series, such as Ruroni Kenshin (2012-21). Others such as Nana (2005) play with the source material to create new stories.

Anime fans in Japan arguably aren’t as offended by slightly off-kilter adaptations as Western anime audiences often are. Perhaps this is because they’ve been raised on franchises where the same characters appear over and over in different shows, with a different backstory each time.

One example is manga artist Tezuka Osamu’s “star system”. Throughout his career, Tezuka has reused the same character designs and names across different series. The character of Shunsaku Ban, for instance, appears as a detective in Metropolis and as Astro Boy’s teacher in Astro Boy.

These disparate versions exist simultaneously, and fans are free to pick their favourites and ignore the others. It’ll be interesting to see whether this approach is eventually embraced in adaptations made for Western audiences.

Emerald L King 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. Anime live-action adaptations are often hated by (Western) fans. But are they being too harsh? – https://theconversation.com/anime-live-action-adaptations-are-often-hated-by-western-fans-but-are-they-being-too-harsh-225569

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dr Rachael Potter, Research Associate and Lecturer in Work and Organisational Psychology, University of South Australia

Pregnant women and workers with children are often unfairly treated by their bosses and colleagues, despite laws to protect against workplace discrimination in Australia, according to a new study.

The prevalence of mistreatment has been revealed in the first national review of work-related discrimination, disadvantage and bias among pregnant and parent workers in a decade, undertaken by researchers from the University of South Australia.

More than 1,200 pregnant and parent workers responded to the survey, and despite being an intentionally gender-inclusive study, almost 95% of the respondents identified as female.

Disturbingly, the analysis revealed 91.8% of respondents experienced discrimination during their return-to-work phase, 84.7% during parental leave and 89% while pregnant at work.

One respondent reported:

I was told I wouldn’t want to return to work as I would be “clucky”. My career was severely impacted by my pregnancy, and I was forced to give up my team leader role.

Being overlooked while still in the workplace

A third of pregnant respondents (32.7%) said they did not receive any information about their upcoming leave entitlements such as whether leave could be extended if there were complications, or if anyone would be checking in with them while they were away.

Many said they missed out on training opportunities they were in line for (21.2%) had they not been pregnant while others said they were ignored or excluded (39%) from work-related activities and decisions as they were about to go on leave.

Just over a quarter (25.4%) felt they needed to hide their pregnant belly while 45.7% were ordered to do work below their competence level in the lead up to their parental leave starting.

One said:

I was denied permission to wear tights and a belly support while pregnant, despite the fact I was on my feet and had hip pain while working.

Some colleagues gave unsolicited advice and made unwelcome comments about how a pregnant woman looked, prompting a respondent to say:

We have poor systems for pregnancy in the workplace. Often companies have breastfeeding policies, but nothing for pregnancy. This leaves people open to project their opinion or experience on pregnant people, impacting their experience and often leading to discrimination.

Feeling forgotten and excluded

During parental leave, respondents stated being excluded from communications about work-related or social events.

Many said they would have liked to use “keep in touch” days which might include attending a planning meeting or doing some training before returning to the office, but were not offered this option.

My employer (and many others) find it hard to figure out the “keep in touch” days which are available through the government paid parental leave. It would have been nice to be able to easily access these and attend a day here and there.

And more than half (50.8%) were not told about workplace restructures or other changes in their absence that could affect them on their return.

Also, 21.3% of workers on parental leave were pressured by their manager to begin or finish their leave earlier or later than they wanted to fit in with the workplace’s or management’s needs.

Three quarters of respondents said they would have liked to have extended their time away to care for their child because their partners (in 35.1% of cases) did not get parental leave.

When returning to work, parents said they encountered the most discrimination, such as receiving negative comments from managers or co-workers about working part-time or needing flexible work hours (43.9%).

Many had their role dramatically redesigned without any consultation and felt they were being denied opportunities due to working less days.

I feel I am overlooked and not shortlisted to interview for roles because I work part time. I am highly qualified for these roles.

Just over 45% said they were given fewer opportunities for career advancement and promotions because they were “just a mum” and faced the assumption that they “might get pregnant again” and were therefore unlikely to stay around.

Almost 27% did not have access to appropriate breastfeeding or expressing facilities and, as such, were often forced to express in a locked toilet cubicle or standing up in a cluttered cupboard.

Attitudes need to change

Pregnant and parent workers represent a substantial proportion of the Australian workforce. More than 20% of all Australian households have young children.

The 2023 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported
the number of children has increased over the last 50 years, with the number estimated to grow to 6.4 million by the year 2048.

Without intervening action, pregnancy and parental work-related discrimination will remain common and socially tolerated, adversely affecting more of the population.

Having a designated Fair Work Ombudsman who focuses especially on pregnant and parent workers would help change attitudes and bring about change.

Read more:
Mothers are more likely to work worse jobs – while fathers thrive in careers

Employers need to ensure pregnant and parent workers receive the same opportunities and recognition as other employees. Providing breastfeeding areas and relevant facilities should be mandatory.

Managers have a duty of care and should engage in consultation and discussion with workers at each stage – pregnancy, parental leave and return to work – to establish clear mutual expectations.

There are already anti-discrimination laws in place in Australia that are clearly not being enforced. There needs to be mandatory regulation of employers to ensure they are providing pregnant and parent workers with the professional and personal support needed.

Dr Rachael Potter 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. ‘Just a mum’: pregnant women and working parents feel overlooked and undervalued in the workplace – https://theconversation.com/just-a-mum-pregnant-women-and-working-parents-feel-overlooked-and-undervalued-in-the-workplace-225676

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne

Aged-care workers will receive a significant pay increase after the Fair Work Commission ruled they deserved substantial wage rises of up to 28%. The federal government has committed to the increases, but is yet to announce when they will start.

But while wage rises for aged-care workers are welcome, this measure alone will not fix all workforce problems in the sector. The number of people over 80 is expected to triple over the next 40 years, driving an increase in the number of aged care workers needed.

How did we get here?

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which delivered its final report in March 2021, identified a litany of tragic failures in the regulation and delivery of aged care.

The former Liberal government was dragged reluctantly to accept that a total revamp of the aged-care system was needed. But its weak response left the heavy lifting to the incoming Labor government.

The current government’s response started well, with a significant injection of funding and a promising regulatory response. But it too has failed to pursue a visionary response to the problems identified by the Royal Commission.

Action was needed on four fronts:

• ensuring enough staff to provide care
• building a functioning regulatory system to encourage good care and weed out bad providers
• designing and introducing a fair payment system to distribute funds to providers and
• implementing a financing system to pay for it all and achieve intergenerational equity.

A government taskforce which proposed a timid response to the fourth challenge – an equitable financing system – was released at the start of last week.

Read more:
What will aged care look like for the next generation? More of the same but higher out-of-pocket costs

Consultation closed on a very poorly designed new regulatory regime the week before.

But the big news came at end of the week when the Fair Work Commission handed down a further determination on what aged-care workers should be paid, confirming and going beyond a previous interim determination.

What did the Fair Work Commission find?

Essentially, the commission determined that work in industries with a high proportion of women workers has been traditionally undervalued in wage-setting. This had consequences for both care workers in the aged-care industry (nurses and Certificate III-qualified personal-care workers) and indirect care workers (cleaners, food services assistants).

Aged-care staff will now get significant pay increases – 18–28% increase for personal care workers employed under the Aged Care Award, inclusive of the increase awarded in the interim decision.

Indirect care workers were awarded a general increase of 3%. Laundry hands, cleaners and food services assistants will receive a further 3.96% on the grounds they “interact with residents significantly more regularly than other indirect care employees”.

The final increases for registered and enrolled nurses will be determined in the next few months.

How has the sector responded?

There has been no push-back from employer groups or conservative politicians. This suggests the uplift is accepted as fair by all concerned.

The interim increases of up to 15% probably facilitated this acceptance, with the recognition of the community that care workers should be paid more than fast food workers.

Read more:
It’ll take more than 15% to beat the stigmas turning people off aged care

There was no criticism from aged-care providers either. This is probably because they are facing difficulty in recruiting staff at current wage rates. And because government payments to providers reflect the actual cost of aged care, increased payments will automatically flow to providers.

When the increases will flow has yet to be determined. The government is due to give its recommendations for staging implementation by mid-April.

Is the workforce problem fixed?

An increase in wages is necessary, but alone is not sufficient to solve workforce shortages.

The health- and social-care workforce is predicted to grow faster than any other sector over the next decade. The “care economy” will grow from around 8% to around 15% of GDP over the next 40 years.

This means a greater proportion of school-leavers will need to be attracted to the aged-care sector. Aged care will also need to attract and retrain workers displaced from industries in decline and attract suitably skilled migrants and refugees with appropriate language skills.

The caps on university and college enrolments imposed by the previous government, coupled with weak student demand for places in key professions (such as nursing), has meant workforce shortages will continue for a few more years, despite the allure of increased wages.

A significant increase in intakes into university and vocational education college courses preparing students for health and social care is still required. Better pay will help to increase student demand, but funding to expand place numbers will ensure there are enough qualified staff for the aged-care system of the future.

Read more:
Changes are coming for Australia’s aged care system. Here’s what we know so far

Stephen Duckett is Deputy Chancellor of RMIT University which i.a. provides education for the aged care sector.

– ref. Who will look after us in our final years? A pay rise alone won’t solve aged-care workforce shortages – https://theconversation.com/who-will-look-after-us-in-our-final-years-a-pay-rise-alone-wont-solve-aged-care-workforce-shortages-225898

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

A year ago, the AUKUS agreement was formally announced between Australian and UK Prime Ministers Anthony Albanese and Rishi Sunak and US President Joe Biden. The agreement mapped out the “optimal pathway” for Australia, over the next two decades, to acquire between six and eight sub-surface nuclear propulsion boats, or more simply put, nuclear submarines.

The plan to acquire and build them has been the subject of ongoing debate. That’s largely because there’s limited understanding of the need for Australia to acquire submarines of this kind.

Concerns are also emerging over how committed the US really is to the deal, given doubts about whether it has the industrial capability to manufacture enough subs to meet its own needs. All this has fuelled speculation over the project’s viability.

So what is the US obliged to provide Australia with, in terms of submarines, under AUKUS? When will Australia likely get submarines under this deal? And how much can the domestic political and naval challenges facing the US affect how it meets its AUKUS requirements, particularly if Donald Trump is elected president?

Read more:
Why AUKUS is here to stay, despite looming roadblocks

The state of play

Australia is now heavily invested in making AUKUS work, avoiding further policy U-turns.

Aided by some deft Australian diplomacy, in December 2023 the US Congress passed the National Defence Authorisation Act which authorised the transfer of three Virginia class submarines to Australia in the 2030s. Given the almost gridlocked US political system, this was once considered inconceivable.

The act also confirmed arrangements for training Australians in US and UK shipyards and, in turn, the maintenance of their submarines in Australia by Australians.

That does not mean, though, that everything is now set on autopilot. Understandably, the US reserves the right to fulfil its own domestic naval needs first.

But fears of the plans being derailed are misplaced, and suggestions Australia reverse course are problematic. Critics referring to the “profound impact” of any production slowdown have an important political point to make, drawing attention to the need for urgency and acceleration of the program, not cancellation.

Reports that the rate of production of these Virginia class submarines will dip to 1.3 per year has generated some alarm. This belies the fact the dip in production was anticipated and plans are underway to rectify the shortfall. The two US manufacturing companies that make submarines of this type, Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries, are taking measures to accelerate the rate of manufacture to 2.3 boats per year.

Read more:
The AUKUS deal will be hotly debated at the ALP national conference, but its real vulnerabilities lie in America

Australia’s financial and personnel contributions are helping. Plans are still in place that will enable Australia to purchase its first second-hand, but refurbished, Virginia class submarine in the mid-2030s.

That seems a long way off. To cover the gap, Australia’s existing diesel-electric Collins class submarines will be retained, supplemented by a Submarine Rotational Force-West, which will include UK and US submarines rotating through the Garden Island Naval Facility in Cockburn Sound, south of Fremantle.

While it doesn’t have the recognition of Pearl Harbor, Cockburn Sound is just as significant. In the Pacific war, about 170 allied submarines were based at Cockburn Sound from 1942 to 1945. From there, they protected Allied shipping and interdicted enemy sea lines of communication across the Indian Ocean, as well as the Malacca, Lombok and Sunda straits (in modern-day Indonesia), and across the South China Sea and around Formosa (now Taiwan).

Already, US Navy Virginia class subs have started making routine port calls there. The deterrent effect is already kicking in – and vociferous criticism of AUKUS suggests that some doth protest too much.

What if Trump comes to power?

In the meantime, some worry about what effect Trump’s prospective return to office might have on these plans.

AUKUS is understood to be a game-changer, and political leaders in Washington DC, both Democrat and Republican, understand this. It reflects an enduring overlap of Australian and US interests, not just sentimental attachments.

Australia benefits from US technology in bolstering its military and intelligence capabilities, reducing its “fear of abandonment”.

In turn, the US retains access to facilities in the East Asian hemisphere to monitor security trends and bolster deterrence in ways that suit their economic and security interests. This is appreciated by US security partners in Asia.

Moreover, while Trump has been critical of NATO and other allies, he has broadly avoided criticising Australia.

The overwhelmingly bipartisan December vote in Congress suggests that fears of the agreement losing support in the US are misplaced. There are no indications Trump is set to change that stance, and there are some compelling reasons for the next US administration to stay the course.

Why do we need new submarines anyway?

Back home, though, the Australian government’s message on these submarines has been clouded.

Eager to avoid drawing undue attention to the limitations of the current fleet, it has avoided talking up how potent and useful the replacement subs will be.

This is in spite of the fact that no matter how well maintained and updated the Collins are, such submarines are no longer viable for long-distance transits required for Australian submarine operations. This is not because of some intrinsic fault with the Australian submarines, but due to their ability to be detected from above.

The surveillance web of persistent and almost saturation satellite coverage, coupled with drones and artificial intelligence, makes the wake of the submarine funnels are detectable when they raise their snorkel to recharge batteries.

Much of this surveillance is believed to be operating from Chinese facilities in Antarctica, southern Africa and South America.

With stealth of submarines the only real advantage over surface warships, the usefulness of the current fleet on long transits sinks quickly. This leaves nuclear propulsion as the only viable path for countries that must traverse vast ocean distances even to cover their own waters.

For Australia, a transit from any capital city across to Fremantle cannot happen without exposure to detection. In wartime, that presents a catastrophic risk only surmounted by remaining underwater for the duration.

Read more:
The AUKUS deal will be hotly debated at the ALP national conference, but its real vulnerabilities lie in America

Beyond recouping stealth, the benefits of the new nuclear submarines are considerable. Australian submarines are intended to help manage vital shipping lanes.

The new vessels can travel faster than the current fleet (about 20 knots on average instead of six-and-a-half knots) and stay on station for longer, bolstering the deterrent effect.

The main constraint is food for the crew. A fleet of up to eight nuclear subs should generate three times the effective deployable time compared with the current Australian fleet because it can deploy faster, loiter longer and remain undetected, without needing to recharge batteries.

John Blaxland is Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies and Director of the Australian National University’s (ANU) North America Liaison Office in Washington DC. He is author of a number of works, including Revealing Secrets: An Unofficial History of Australian Signals Intelligence and the Advent of Cyber (UNSWP, 2023, with Clare Birgin).

– ref. Will the AUKUS deal survive in the event of a Trump presidency? All signs point to yes – https://theconversation.com/will-the-aukus-deal-survive-in-the-event-of-a-trump-presidency-all-signs-point-to-yes-225661

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andreas Helwig, Associate Professor, Electro-Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern Queensland

Steam locomotives clattering along railway tracks. Paddle steamers churning down the Murray. Dreadnought battleships powered by steam engines.

Many of us think the age of steam has ended. But while the steam engine has been superseded by internal combustion engines and now electric motors, the modern world still relies on steam. All thermal power plants, from coal to nuclear, must have steam to function.

But why? It’s because of something we discovered millennia ago. In the first century CE, the ancient Greeks invented the aeolipile – a steam turbine. Heat turned water into steam, and steam has a very useful property: it’s an easy-to-make gas that can push.

This simple fact means that even as the dream of fusion power creeps closer, we will still be in the Steam Age. The first commercial fusion plant will rely on cutting-edge technology able to contain plasma far hotter than the sun’s core – but it will still be wedded to a humble steam turbine converting heat to movement to electricity.

Why are we still reliant on steam?

Boiling water takes a significant amount of energy, the highest by far of the common liquids we’re familiar with. Water takes about 2.5 times more energy to evaporate than ethanol does, and 60% more than ammonia liquids.

Why do we use steam rather than other gases? Water is cheap, nontoxic and easy to transform from liquid to energetic gas before condensing back to liquid for use again and again.

Steam has lasted this long because we have an abundance of water, covering 71% of Earth’s surface, and water is a useful way to convert thermal energy (heat) to mechanical energy (movement) to electrical energy (electricity). We seek electricity because it can be easily transmitted and can be used to do work for us in many areas.

When water is turned to steam inside a closed container, it expands hugely and increases the pressure. High pressure steam can store huge amounts of heat, as can any gas. If given an outlet, the steam will surge through it with high flow rates. Put a turbine in its exit path and the force of the escaping steam will spin the turbine’s blades. Electromagnets convert this mechanical movement to electricity. The steam condenses back to water and the process starts again.

Steam engines used coal to heat water to create steam to drive the engine. Nuclear fission splits atoms to make heat to boil water. Nuclear fusion will force heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) to fuse into helium-3 atoms and create even more heat – to boil water to make steam to drive turbines to make electricity.

If you looked only at the end process in any thermal power plant – coal, gas, diesel, nuclear fission or even nuclear fusion – you would see the old technology of steam taken as far as it can be taken.

Read more:
Nuclear fusion breakthrough: Decades of research are still needed before fusion can be used as clean energy

The steam turbines driving the large electrical alternators which produce 60% of the world’s electricity are things of beauty. Hundreds of years of metallurgical technology, design and intricate manufacturing has all but perfected the steam turbine.

Will we keep using steam? New technologies produce electricity without using steam at all. Solar panels rely on incoming photons hitting electrons in silicon and creating a charge, while wind turbines operate like steam turbines except with wind blowing the turbine, not steam. Some forms of energy storage, such as pumped hydro, use turbines but for liquid water, not steam, while batteries use no steam at all.

These technologies are rapidly becoming important sources of energy and storage. But steam isn’t going away. If we use thermal power plants in any form, we’ll still be using steam.

Why can’t we just convert heat to electricity?

You might wonder why we need so many steps. Why can’t we convert heat directly to electricity?

It is possible. Thermo-electric devices are already in use in satellites and space probes.

Built from special alloys such as lead-tellurium, these devices rely on a temperature gap between hot and cold junctions between these materials. The greater the temperature difference, the greater voltage they can generate.

The reason these devices aren’t everywhere is they only produce direct current (DC) at low voltages and are between 16–22% efficient at converting heat to electricity. By contrast, state of the art thermal power plants are up to 46% efficient.

If we wanted to run a society on these heat-conversion engines, we’d need large arrays of these devices to produce high enough DC current and then use inverters and transformers to convert it to the alternating current we’re used to. So while you might avoid steam, you end up having to add new conversions to make the electricity useful.

There are other ways to turn heat into electricity. High temperature solid-oxide fuel cells have been under development for decades. These run hot, at between 500–1,000°C, and can burn hydrogen or methanol (without an actual flame) to produce DC electricity.

These fuel cells are up to 60% efficient and potentially even higher. While promising, these fuel cells are not yet ready for prime time. They have expensive catalysts and short lifespans due to the intense heat. But progress is being made.

Until technologies like these mature, we’re stuck with steam as a way to convert heat to electricity. That’s not so bad – steam works.

When you see a steam locomotive rattle past, you might think it’s a quaint technology of the past. But our civilisation still relies very heavily on steam. If fusion power arrives, steam will help power the future too. The Steam Age never really ended.

Read more:
What will power the future: Elon Musk’s battery packs or Twiggy Forrest’s green hydrogen? Truth is, we’ll need both

Andreas Helwig receives funding from Federal Government Department of Education SURF and RRC research grants.

– ref. Even as the fusion era dawns, we’re still in the Steam Age – https://theconversation.com/even-as-the-fusion-era-dawns-were-still-in-the-steam-age-217273

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carrie Leonetti, Associate Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Victims who experience family violence in Aotearoa New Zealand are treated differently, depending on which part of the justice system they turn to for help. But a new member’s bill before parliament could change all that.

Currently, our law guarantees special protections for victims in the criminal justice system but not those in the Family Court.

Victims who testify in criminal proceedings are entitled to give evidence by alternate means, typically some combination of prerecording their evidence and testifying remotely.

While the Family Court can apply these protections to victims who testify in child protection or family law cases, they are not required to do so. In practice, it’s rare to allow victims to testify via these alternate means in Family Court proceedings.

This means people who have experienced family and sexual violence may be required to testify in person in the Family Court. Victims are often face-to-face and with little physical distancing between themselves and their alleged perpetrators.

Extending protections

Labour MP Tracey McLellan recently introduced the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill to extend some of the special protections in criminal proceedings involving family and sexual violence to Family Court proceedings.

This is an important first step to implementing the “no wrong door” principle outlined in the Ministry of Justice’s Family Violence and Risk Assessment Management Framework. The principle is victims should receive a consistent and safe response regardless of which door they knock on for help.

Read more:
Taking the Treaty out of child protection law risks making NZ a global outlier

If anything, protection for victims is more important in the Family Court than in the criminal courts. This is because family proceedings are private, civil proceedings that the parties initiate and prosecute themselves.

Victims in the criminal courts have police, prosecutors, and support workers from Victim Support to assist them. But victims in the Family Court are often left alone to navigate a complex, hostile system.

Meanwhile, some perpetrators initiate or prolong these proceedings as a form of “systems abuse” – weaponising the judicial system to prevent their victims from escaping their control and abuse. This approach inflicts additional harm on victims.

More support is needed

The member’s bill is a good step towards improving the system. But more needs to be done to improve the process for victims of violence or abuse.

This includes requiring police to seek protection orders on behalf of victims. In criminal cases, police can seek non-contact restrictions so victims don’t have to pay legal fees to do so for themselves.

In Massachusetts in the United States, a victim witness advocate from the prosecutor’s office helps victims complete the paperwork for protection orders and offers them the option of filing criminal charges against their abusers, and a court advocate helps them through the proceedings.

Meanwhile, in Tasmania, the police can issue final family violence orders on the spot without requiring victims to undergo lengthy and burdensome court processes.

In Aotearoa New Zealand several improvements could be made to make the system less dangerous for victims.

This includes providing victims with free legal representatives (the equivalent of prosecutors) in child custody cases involving family violence or protection order cases. This would mean victims don’t have to spend their life savings (or get into debt) trying to get protection.

Read more:
Why it’s so hard to prosecute cases of coercive or controlling behaviour

The Family Court could also be staffed with forensic investigators (the equivalent of police) to investigate claims of abuse and gather supporting evidence so that victims don’t have to struggle to do this themselves.

Children who have experienced family violence could also be given the right to participate safely and directly in proceedings that affect them – as they do when they are complainants in criminal proceedings.

The Victims’ Rights Act and the services of Victim Support could be extended to include child-protection and family law proceedings. Victims would then receive the same support and practical assistance in the Family Court they currently receive in criminal proceedings.

Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) coverage could also be extended for sexual abuse and assault to cover all family violence reports and not just criminal assaults.

Family violence isn’t a family matter. It’s a public health problem and a human rights violation.

When a family violence perpetrator inflicts abuse on other members of their family, we have an obligation as a society to protect their victims from further abuse and help them heal from past trauma.

We must keep working to improve the process for victims who have taken the brave first step of seeking help and find themselves in the Family Court.

Carrie Leonetti is a member of the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children.

– ref. Victims need to be protected – regardless of whether they are testifying in family court or criminal court – https://theconversation.com/victims-need-to-be-protected-regardless-of-whether-they-are-testifying-in-family-court-or-criminal-court-225886

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Tesch, Visiting Fellow at the ANU Centre for European Studies, Australian National University

In perhaps the least surprising news of the year, Vladimir Putin has triumphed at the Russian ballot box and been enthroned for the fifth time as president. He will serve for six more years.

He will be 77 years old in 2030. According to the constitution, which he re-wrote to his benefit in 2020, he then could stand again for a further six-year term.

To put that in perspective, Putin already has ruled Russia as president or prime minister for 24 years, or the equivalent of eight Australian parliamentary terms. In that period, Australia has had eight prime ministers and changed governing party three times. The United States has had five different presidents; the United Kingdom seven different prime ministers.

In contrast to elections in the West, where the outcomes are genuinely in the hands of the voters and adjudicated by independent electoral commissions, Russia is different. As the former UK ambassador to Moscow, Laurie Bristow, wrote:

In Russia, the purpose of elections is to validate the decisions of its rulers, not to discover the will of the people.

Putin’s jaded view of the West

Putin now will appoint a new government. His picks will be intensely scrutinised for clues to a succession plan and future policies. Although he is a master of surprise, we should not count on Putin leaving any time soon. Only four leaders of modern Russia and the USSR have left the top job alive; the rest have died in office of natural or other causes.

Moreover, Putin’s actions over the past two years have been directed at moving Russia from authoritarianism to semi-totalitarianism. The Carnegie Endowment’s Andrei Kolesnikov has written persuasively of these tectonic shifts that recall the darkest years of Soviet Stalinism.

Putin has explicitly presented his war of choice in Ukraine as a proxy for a wider, long-term conflict with the West. He believes the West is irresolute, in decline, and easily distracted and deflected.

Former US President Donald Trump’s “have at them” attitude towards US allies and partners, and the woeful Western vacillation over further military aid to Ukraine, will only embolden Putin further. Buoyed by his ritual success in this weekend’s election, he will embark on further risky and provocative adventurism.

Read more:
What can we expect from six more years of Vladimir Putin? An increasingly weak and dysfunctional Russia

Consequently, Putin – and the ideology of “Putinism” – pose a serious challenge for Western governments and policymakers who are genuinely accountable to their electorates, the party room, the parliamentary opposition, a vocal and inquisitorial media and an independent judiciary.

As exiled Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar has argued, part of Putin’s statecraft is directed at making common cause with ultra-conservative Western political elements to contest global “wokeness”, demobilise support for Ukraine, and dull resistance to Russian territorial ambitions in its neighbourhood.

How democratic governments need to respond

Putin is well aware that the inherent fractiousness of democracy and the need to court the fickle voters hobbles democratic governments’ long-term planning.

Moreover, our political culture is predisposed to wanting to “solve” issues. Sometimes, though, problems of the scale posed by Russia or the Middle East can only be managed, not solved – and then only through joint efforts with like-minded allies and partners. That requires persistence and resilience to rise above short-term politicking and the twitches of our “instant expert” social media culture.

It also demands constant investment in building and sustaining public understanding of what really is at stake, beyond the borders of Europe that were drawn in the bloodshed and misery of the second world war.

This is difficult anywhere, not least in the West, where we have had it comparatively easy for most of the post-second world war era. We need stalwart and principled leadership now more than at any other point in the last 50 years. Most of all, we need ongoing serious and informed public conversations about what we value in and wish for in democratic societies, and the price we are willing to pay to attain and preserve that.

Read more:
Why the US and its partners cannot afford to go soft on support for Ukraine now

That sort of discourse can be hard to generate in our politically rather apathetic society. However, it is vital when the institutions of our democracy are barraged by foreign information manipulation and interference designed to sow doubt and distrust and corrode popular faith in the integrity of our form of government.

Especially in Australia, we have allowed our already limited pool of Russia expertise to atrophy to near-extinction. It is well past time to re-invest, modestly but purposefully, in Russian language and associated studies at our universities. We need to boost “Russia literacy” and comprehension of a country that will remain a significant and disruptive player in the world. This matters to countries that matter to us.

We should also honestly and critically assess the mistaken assumptions and indifference that at times have undermined effective Western policies towards post-Soviet Russia. However, we should not succumb to the propaganda peddled by Putin and his proteges abroad that Moscow is a blameless victim of Western perfidy and deception aimed at destroying the Russian state.

Rather, as Australian professor Mark Edele writes in his recent book, Russia’s War Against Ukraine:

Russia never came to terms – either as a society or as a polity – with its transformation from a continental empire with global reach into a nation-state and a regional power.

The Kremlin is marketing Russia as an ally of “the Global South” in resisting resurgent neo-colonialism and championing “multipolarity”.

The Putin thesis is that Ukraine is a patsy of London and Washington, while Moscow is on the side of the formerly colonised. That argument is finding some ready ears, evident in the patchy support for sanctions on Russia. We cannot assume our own Indo-Pacific region is persuaded of the wrongness of the Kremlin’s claims.

The reality confronting us is that of a sullen and resentful Russia, convinced that history, morality and even divinity is on its side in a de facto existential war with the West.

Moreover, as Bristow, my former colleague in Moscow, has written:

we would be unwise to assume that a rising generation of Russians will embrace a more democratic and pro-Western outlook.

Yet, we must not turn away from those Russians – far from an irrelevant minority – who do not share Putin’s view that the future of their country lies in the perceived glories of its past. The challenge is to articulate what a better future would look like for Russia, beyond confrontation, and to keep that alternative clearly in view.

Peter Tesch is the former Australian ambassador to the Russian Federation (2016–19).

– ref. The West can’t ‘solve’ its Russia problem. Here’s how it should handle 6 more years of Vladimir Putin – https://theconversation.com/the-west-cant-solve-its-russia-problem-heres-how-it-should-handle-6-more-years-of-vladimir-putin-225999

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Cliff, Professor of Occupational Health and Safety in Mining, The University of Queensland

On Sunday August 7 1994, an explosion at the Moura No 2 underground coal mine in Queensland led to the deaths of 11 miners. This tragedy was the catalyst for a major shakeup in the approach to safety in all kinds of mines around Australia over the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Since that time, we have seen major improvements in safety performance. In 2003, there were 12.4 fatalities per 100,000 workers; a decade later the figure was down to 3.4.

However, since then progress has slowed if not stalled. Despite the industry’s adoption of risk management systems, competency training, and a shift away from prescriptive regulation in the years following Moura, the rate of deaths and serious injuries has barely changed over the past decade.

Given the huge size and variety of Australia’s mining industry, and the inherent dangers of the work, we may never reach a time when there are no deaths. But zero fatalities must still be the goal.

A rise in ‘one-off’ incidents

In the past, most deaths were due to what are called “principal hazards”. These are major incidents such as fires, explosions and mine flooding that can kill or injure many people.

Most safety work has, for good reason, focused on these hazards, and by my count they are today involved in fewer than 20% of deaths. What this means is that today’s tragedy landscape is more diffuse, with fatalities scattered across a range of different scenarios.

Now, most deaths are the result of “one-off” events such as being struck by objects, caught in machinery, falling from heights, or vehicle collisions. Addressing all these possibilities is more complex.

Mental health, fatigue, staff turnover

Human factors also loom large. Despite a huge increase in mine automation and remote operation technologies that reduce workers’ exposure to hazards, there are indications of worsening mental health, rising fatigue and high staff turnover, which can erode corporate knowledge.

Read more:
Mine workers and their families suffer the toll of shift work

Psychological and social problems such as these affect an estimated 20% of the modern mining workforce. Although there are fewer workers on site, they are often under huge production pressures and the rosters can be very tough on family life.

Poor mental health can compromise decision-making and reduce vigilance, leading to safety problems.

Slow, steady improvement

There are some promising developments. The “critical control management” approach already adopted by Rio Tinto and Newmont, among others, has been highly effective. This is a method that identifies a relatively small number of vital controls that can prevent serious incidents, and directs resources towards rigorously designing, implementing and maintaining them.

We are also likely to see future safety gains from better equipment design, further advances in automation and remote operation, and mental health initiatives, such as Western Australia’s Mental Awareness, Respect and Safety program.

But in an industry that has still averaged eight fatalities per year over the past decade, more safety reform is overdue. While new technologies and initiatives may be helpful, none will be a “silver bullet”.

Queensland alone has staged three “safety resets” in the past five years, with little result. Real safety improvement will be slow and steady, and will come from diligently and consistently applying proven safety management techniques.

David Cliff has received funding from many different sources including various major mining companies and government regulatory agencies such as Resources Safety And Health Queensland, research funding from various independent and industry funded agencies such as the Australian Coal Association Research Program. He is a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, the Mine Managers Association of Australia and various professional bodies such as the Australian Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, and the Royal Australian Chemical Institute.

– ref. How safe are Australia’s mines? New analysis shows reform has been stalled for a decade – https://theconversation.com/how-safe-are-australias-mines-new-analysis-shows-reform-has-been-stalled-for-a-decade-225789

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Gibson, Senior Lecturer in Health Psychology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

All levels of research are being changed by the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). Don’t have time to read that journal article? AI-powered tools such as TLDRthis will summarise it for you.

Struggling to find relevant sources for your review? Inciteful will list suitable articles with just the click of a button. Are your human research participants too expensive or complicated to manage? Not a problem – try synthetic participants instead.

Each of these tools suggests AI could be superior to humans in outlining and explaining concepts or ideas. But can humans be replaced when it comes to qualitative research?

This is something we recently had to grapple with while carrying out unrelated research into mobile dating during the COVID-19 pandemic. And what we found should temper enthusiasm for artificial responses over the words of human participants.

Encountering AI in our research

Our research is looking at how people might navigate mobile dating during the pandemic in Aotearoa New Zealand. Our aim was to explore broader social responses to mobile dating as the pandemic progressed and as public health mandates changed over time.

As part of this ongoing research, we prompt participants to develop stories in response to hypothetical scenarios.

Read more:
What happens when we outsource boring but important work to AI? Research shows we forget how to do it ourselves

In 2021 and 2022 we received a wide range of intriguing and quirky responses from 110 New Zealanders recruited through Facebook. Each participant received a gift voucher for their time.

Participants described characters navigating the challenges of “Zoom dates” and clashing over vaccination statuses or wearing masks. Others wrote passionate love stories with eyebrow-raising details. Some even broke the fourth wall and wrote directly to us, complaining about the mandatory word length of their stories or the quality of our prompts.

These responses captured the highs and lows of online dating, the boredom and loneliness of lockdown, and the thrills and despair of finding love during the time of COVID-19.

But, perhaps most of all, these responses reminded us of the idiosyncratic and irreverent aspects of human participation in research – the unexpected directions participants go in, or even the unsolicited feedback you can receive when doing research.

But in the latest round of our study in late 2023, something had clearly changed across the 60 stories we received.

This time many of the stories felt “off”. Word choices were quite stilted or overly formal. And each story was quite moralistic in terms of what one “should” do in a situation.

Using AI detection tools, such as ZeroGPT, we concluded participants – or even bots – were using AI to generate story answers for them, possibly to receive the gift voucher for minimal effort.

Contrary to claims that AI can sufficiently replicate human participants in research, we found AI-generated stories to be woeful.

We were reminded that an essential ingredient of any social research is for the data to be based on lived experience.

Is AI the problem?

Perhap the biggest threat to human research is not AI, but rather the philosophy that underscores it.

It is worth noting the majority of claims about AI’s capabilities to replace humans come from computer scientists or quantitative social scientists. In these types of studies, human reasoning or behaviour is often measured through scorecards or yes/no statements.

This approach necessarily fits human experience into a framework that can be more easily analysed through computational or artificial interpretation.

In contrast, we are qualitative researchers who are interested in the messy, emotional, lived experience of people’s perspectives on dating. We were drawn to the thrills and disappointments participants originally pointed to with online dating, the frustrations and challenges of trying to use dating apps, as well as the opportunities they might create for intimacy during a time of lockdowns and evolving health mandates.

Read more:
AI is in danger of becoming too male – new research

In general, we found AI poorly simulated these experiences.

Some might accept generative AI is here to stay, or that AI should be viewed as offering various tools to researchers. Other researchers might retreat to forms of data collection, such as surveys, that might minimise the interference of unwanted AI participation.

But, based on our recent research experience, we believe theoretically-driven, qualitative social research is best equipped to detect and protect against AI interference.

There are additional implications for research. The threat of AI as an unwanted participant means researchers will have to work longer or harder to spot imposter participants.

Academic institutions need to start developing policies and practices to reduce the burden on individual researchers trying to carry out research in the changing AI environment.

Regardless of researchers’ theoretical orientation, how we work to limit the involvement of AI is a question for anyone interested in understanding human perspectives or experiences. If anything, the limitations of AI reemphasise the importance of being human in social research.

Alexandra Gibson receives funding from Te Apārangi – Royal Society of New Zealand.

Alex Beattie 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. Something felt ‘off’ – how AI messed with our human research, and what we learned – https://theconversation.com/something-felt-off-how-ai-messed-with-our-human-research-and-what-we-learned-225555

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Hall, Professor of International Relations, Griffith University

India will soon hold the biggest election ever conducted, starting on April 19 and running through early June. Almost 950 million registered voters will be able to cast ballots to elect the 543 members of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of parliament.

The result is not a foregone conclusion, but most analysts expect Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to win another five years in office. After a decade in power, the opinion polls suggest Modi is still well regarded by many Indians and the main opposition parties do not command wide support.

Slow growth, too few jobs

This situation might strike some as odd. The Modi government’s record is mixed – especially in managing the economy – and has disappointed many voters.

To be sure, as the prime minister frequently reminds voters, India has grown faster than many competitors in recent years. But the BJP came to office ten years ago promising double-digit growth rates and it has never achieved that goal.

Worse still, it has struggled to generate jobs for the millions of young people who need them.

Critics point to errors in BJP economic policy they think have stifled growth and job creation. These include:

• the shock inflicted in 2016 by the sudden withdrawal of 85% of India’s paper money, ostensibly to combat corruption

• the bungled introduction of much-needed reforms to the agricultural sector

• and the ongoing protection of India’s big industrial conglomerates from domestic and foreign competition.

Taken together, critics charge, these mistakes have left too many people in precarious work and held back investment in manufacturing, which could offer more people more jobs.

Shoring up a Hindu nationalist base

Why, then, do so many Indians still support the Modi government?

Part of the answer lies in the BJP’s ability to appeal to multiple constituencies with targeted messages.

Ruling India effectively depends on constructing and maintaining coalitions – either coalitions of parties or coalitions of voters. Modi’s BJP does both. It is supported by several smaller parties in parliament, but more important in terms of winning elections, is the patchwork quilt of different groups of voters it can marshal.

At the centre of this quilt sits a group of convinced Hindu nationalists, motivated by an ideology known as “Hindutva”. They argue that India’s society and government should reflect what they believe is the will of the Hindu majority, numbering about 80% of the population.

For decades, they have campaigned to end what they perceive as unreasonable special protections given to religious minorities, including for places of worship and faith-based divorce and child custody laws, as well as the autonomous status of the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Step by step, over the past decade, the Modi government has met many of these demands, locking in the Hindu nationalist base for the BJP.

In 2019, it revoked the constitutional amendments that limited New Delhi’s rights to determine how Kashmir is governed.

Earlier this year, the prime minister also presided over the opening ceremony of a new Hindu temple at Ayodhya, on the site of mosque demolished by Hindu nationalist activists in 1992.

Read more:
Why a controversial Hindu temple in India could prove pivotal to Narendra Modi’s party in upcoming elections

Soon after, the government announced a controversial new law will come into effect that will allow Hindus, Sikhs and others fleeing neighbouring Muslim-majority countries to gain Indian citizenship, but may permit the deportation of Muslims deemed to be illegal immigrants.

And many believe a “uniform civil code” will be next, imposing common marriage, alimony and custody arrangements on all Indian citizens, regardless of religion.

Courting women and urban, middle-class voters

The Hindu nationalist core is powerful, but it is not large enough to give the BJP all the seats it needs to govern.

For that reason, the party has also tried to win over the growing urban middle class. This group is less interested in cultural issues and more concerned with good governance, as well as India’s standing in the world.

In the last two elections, the BJP won their support by promising to crack down on corruption, improve the country’s business environment, build better infrastructure and restore national pride. It is promising to push on with this program so it can hold on to this bloc of voters, and it likely will, in the absence of convincing alternatives.

At the same time, the BJP will continue to seek the support of the rural poor and women, who might back left-wing parties or not vote at all.

To appeal to these groups in recent years, the Modi government has doubled the funding for a rural income guarantee scheme, and launched other programs, including one to provide midday meals to schoolchildren.

It has facilitated the opening of bank accounts for tens of millions, including women. This allows them – in principle, at least – to circumvent corrupt officials and feckless husbands when it comes to receiving welfare payments.

The government has also provided millions of rural homes with toilets and cooking gas bottles, arguing both make women safer.

These measures have paid off so far, with more of the rural poor and more women voting for the BJP in recent elections.

This time around, the party is looking to consolidate support among women, in particular. It has shepherded a new gender quota bill through parliament, which will require one third of Lok Sabha seats to be reserved for women from 2029, among other measures.

A divided and weak opposition

The Modi government’s success in winning over these groups is impressive, but it must be noted the BJP has never gained more than 40% of the popular vote in a national election. If it faced a united and effective opposition, it might struggle to win office.

Happily for the BJP, India’s opposition parties are divided and weak. If they could join forces and put their support behind a single, strong candidate to challenge the BJP in individual districts, they might win more seats. However, negotiations to do this have proved tortuous.

Worse still, the fragile opposition alliance has not yet named a credible alternative candidate for the prime ministership.

Congress Party leader Rahul Gandhi, the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family that led India after independence, is an obvious choice, but is widely seen as an ineffectual dilettante. Successful regional politicians like West Bengal’s Mamata Banerjee have limited reach beyond their own states.

Meanwhile, Modi’s personal popularity is high. His modest background and personal charisma still appeal to the young and the aspirational, especially in caste groups historically excluded from power and wealth.

Defeating such a dominant figure will be hard, if not impossible.

Ian Hall is affiliated with the Australia India Institute.

– ref. Narendra Modi’s economy isn’t booming for India’s unemployed youth. So, why is his party favoured to win another election? – https://theconversation.com/narendra-modis-economy-isnt-booming-for-indias-unemployed-youth-so-why-is-his-party-favoured-to-win-another-election-224868

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer McCann, Lecturer Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University

Toddler milk is popular and becoming more so. Just over a third of Australian toddlers drink it. Parents spend hundreds of millions of dollars on it globally. Around the world, toddler milk makes up nearly half of total formula milk sales, with a 200% growth since 2005. Growth is expected to continue.

We’re concerned about the growing popularity of toddler milk – about its nutritional content, cost, how it’s marketed, and about the impact on the health and feeding of young children. Some of us voiced our concerns on the ABC’s 7.30 program recently.

But what’s in toddler milk? How does it compare to cow’s milk? How did it become so popular?

Read more:
Misleading food labels contribute to babies and toddlers eating too much sugar. 3 things parents can do

What is toddler milk? Is it healthy?

Toddler milk is marketed as appropriate for children aged one to three years. This ultra-processed food contains:

• skim milk powder (cow, soy or goat)

• vegetable oil

• sugars (including added sugars)

• emulsifiers (to help bind the ingredients and improve the texture)

• added vitamins and minerals.

Toddler milk is usually lower in calcium and protein, and higher in sugar and calories than regular cow’s milk. Depending on the brand, a serve of toddler milk can contain as much sugar as a soft drink.

Even though toddler milks have added vitamins and minerals, these are found in and better absorbed from regular foods and breastmilk. Toddlers do not need the level of nutrients found in these products if they are eating a varied diet.

Global health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO), and Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, do not recommend toddler milk for healthy toddlers.

Some children with specific metabolic or dietary medical problems might need tailored alternatives to cow’s milk. However, these products generally are not toddler milks and would be a specific product prescribed by a health-care provider.

Toddler milk is also up to four to five times more expensive than regular cow’s milk. “Premium” toddler milk (the same product, with higher levels of vitamins and minerals) is more expensive.

With the cost-of-living crisis, this means families might choose to go without other essentials to afford toddler milk.

Read more:
8 everyday foods you might not realise are ultra processed – and how to spot them

How toddler milk was invented

Toddler milk was created so infant formula companies could get around rules preventing them from advertising their infant formula.

When manufacturers claim benefits of their toddler milk, many parents assume these claimed benefits apply to infant formula (known as cross-promotion). In other words, marketing toddler milks also boosts interest in their infant formula.

Manufacturers also create brand loyalty and recognition by making the labels of their toddler milk look similar to their infant formula. For parents who used infant formula, toddler milk is positioned as the next stage in feeding.

Read more:
If you’re feeding with formula, here’s what you can do to promote your baby’s healthy growth

How toddler milk became so popular

Toddler milk is heavily marketed. Parents are told toddler milk is healthy and provides extra nutrition. Marketing tells parents it will benefit their child’s growth and development, their brain function and their immune system.

Toddler milk is also presented as a solution to fussy eating, which is common in toddlers.

However, regularly drinking toddler milk could increase the risk of fussiness as it reduces opportunities for toddlers to try new foods. It’s also sweet, needs no chewing, and essentially displaces energy and nutrients that whole foods provide.

Read more:
How to tell if your kid’s ‘fussy eating’ phase is normal

Growing concern

The WHO, along with public health academics, has been raising concerns about the marketing of toddler milk for years.

In Australia, moves to curb how toddler milk is promoted have gone nowhere. Toddler milk is in a category of foods that are allowed to be fortified (to have vitamins and minerals added), with no marketing restrictions. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission also has concerns about the rise of toddler milk marketing. Despite this, there is no change in how it’s regulated.

This is in contrast to voluntary marketing restrictions in Australia for infant formula.

What needs to happen?

There is enough evidence to show the marketing of commercial milk formula, including toddler milk, influences parents and undermines child health.

So governments need to act to protect parents from this marketing, and to put child health over profits.

Public health authorities and advocates, including us, are calling for the restriction of marketing (not selling) of all formula products for infants and toddlers from birth through to age three years.

Ideally, this would be mandatory, government-enforced marketing restrictions as opposed to industry self-regulation in place currently for infant formulas.

Read more:
Essays on health: how food companies can sneak bias into scientific research

We musn’t blame parents

Toddlers are eating more processed foods (including toddler milk) than ever because time-poor parents are seeking a convenient option to ensure their child is getting adequate nutrition.

Formula manufacturers have used this information, and created a demand for an unnecessary product.

Parents want to do the best for their toddlers, but they need to know the marketing behind toddler milks is misleading.

Toddler milk is an unnecessary, unhealthy, expensive product. Toddlers just need whole foods and breastmilk, and/or cow’s milk or a non-dairy, milk alternative.

If parents are worried about their child’s eating, they should see a health-care professional.

Anthea Rhodes, a paediatrician from Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne and a lecturer at the University of Melbourne, co-authored this article.

Jennifer McCann is a researcher with the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), a co-chair of the Infant and Toddler Foods Alliance, and a member of the Public Health Association of Australia.

Karleen Gribble is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia, the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative, the Australian Breastfeeding Association, the Infant and Toddler Food Research Alliance and the Infant and Young Child Feeding in Emergencies Core Group.

Naomi Hull is a member of, and volunteers for, the Australian Breastfeeding Association and is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia. She is also an executive on the Infant and Toddler Food Research Alliance. Naomi is the National Coordinator for the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative Australia.

– ref. Why is toddler milk so popular? Follow the money – https://theconversation.com/why-is-toddler-milk-so-popular-follow-the-money-225668

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Pourmousavi Kani, Senior Lecturer of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, University of Adelaide

Billions of dollars are being spent worldwide to modernise electricity grids with smart meters. These meters promise to save households money by making it easier for us to understand and manage our energy use. However, our new research suggests these promises might not be fully delivered due to a lack of access to high-resolution, real-time energy data.

Smart meters are the enabling technology of modern smart electricity grids. Smart grids can use digital technology to fine-tune the management of electricity supply and demand. This ensures the grid can deliver low-cost and reliable power.

Countries like Australia are racing to install smart meters extensively. Last year the Australian Energy Market Commission recommended a goal of 100% uptake among small customers by 2030. In response, an Australian Energy Council article suggested these meters aren’t living up to their potential.

This isn’t just an Australian problem – it’s a global challenge. Our research offers a solution to unleash the promised benefits of smart meters at least cost. From improving data transmission to protecting our privacy, there’s a lot we can do to make our energy systems smarter and fairer for everyone.

Why do we need a truly smart grid?

Our demand for electricity is set to soar as the push to electrify everything gains momentum. The Victorian government, for instance, has banned gas in new homes from 2024.

The International Energy Agency forecasts a 3.4% annual rise in electricity consumption from 2024 to 2026. As transportation electrifies, electricity’s share could increase from 1% in 2018 to 49% by 2050.

Read more:
Cooking (and heating) without gas: what are the impacts of shifting to all-electric homes?

To meet this growing demand while cutting carbon emissions, we must ramp up renewable energy production. However, the unpredictable nature of wind and solar power presents challenges for the grid.

To manage highly variable supply and demand, we need to digitise our grid. Advanced technologies such as sensors, machine-learning algorithms and cloud computing will enable us to optimise electricity generation, distribution and consumption.

Smart meters are the cornerstone of such a system. They can provide the detailed, real-time data needed for smart grid applications.

Smart meter deployment has surged globally. The smart meter market is forecast to grow from US$17.5 billion ($A26.6 billion) in 2024 to US$31.8 billion by 2028.

Our research sheds light on this global deployment and its significant challenges.

Read more:
A successful energy transition depends on managing when people use power. So how do we make demand more flexible?

What will better data allow us to do?

Grid modernisation and smart meters came with big promises of saving money for consumers. This hasn’t happened. The reason is that many direct benefits to consumers require high-resolution data – and the required level of fine detail in real time isn’t being provided.

For example, as a direct benefit to consumers, some machine-learning techniques can help households optimise their energy use by providing insights into exactly how much electricity each appliance is using and when. This information could enable them to lower their electricity bill. These tools can also detect abnormal usage patterns, allowing timely intervention and maintenance of faulty appliances.

However, these applications and other smart grid benefits for consumers all require high-resolution data.

Read more:
The National Electricity Market wasn’t made for a renewable energy future. Here’s how to fix it

What obstacles must be overcome?

We found three major reasons for the current limitations of smart-metering infrastructure.

Data transmission is the first big challenge. High-resolution and more frequent data means a higher volume of numbers, which leads to more delays or disruptions to data transmission.

The second challenge is the data warehousing needed for huge volumes of data. It’s expensive too.

Building and running a data warehouse costs US$19,000–$25,000 per terabyte each year. Upgrading from hourly data to every two seconds requires 1,800 times the storage, at an extra cost of US$36 million! And that’s not counting maintenance, backups, or sharing the data.

The third major issue is data privacy. The data can also be exploited by attackers. They could figure out what appliances you have, your home setup, or even your habits.

This can lead to criminal activities or serious invasion of privacy. For example, people could be tracked based on their vehicle-charging patterns.

Even law enforcement uses electricity data in court cases. One case involved the detection of indoor marijuana growing.

A way forward at the cheapest cost

Ideally, we need a solution that tackles all the issues using the smart meters we already have. Our solution is based on discovering repeated patterns within electricity usage data, then dividing these data into two parts.

It’s like a book divided into piles of papers and page numbers, with each then handed to different parties. Neither the page alone nor the page numbers make sense until they are combined.

Similarly, we suggest dividing detailed data into smaller patterns called codewords and their daily representations. We’d send only representations to the data centre, letting users keep their codewords to ensure their privacy.

Patterns of energy use often repeat. By using a single codeword to represent multiple days of similar consumption, we can greatly reduce the amount of data that needs to be transmitted. This would cut data communication and warehousing costs.

Continuous research on software, hardware and regulations is needed to refine the proposed framework for the stages of data collection, transmission, storage and analysis.

It’s important for modern energy consumers to be aware that as well as consuming and generating energy (from rooftop solar systems), they also generate data through their smart meters. This data asset is becoming increasingly valuable in the transition to the net-zero era.

Ali Pourmousavi Kani receives funding from Future Battery Industry Cooperative Research Centre (FBICRC) and Watts AS (from Denmark) for his research. He also has done and is currently involved with consulting jobs that are available in his resume. None are related to the topic of this article.

Rui Yuan receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program and Watts AS (Denmark) for his PhD research. He currently affiliates with Watts AS.

– ref. Smart meters haven’t delivered the promised benefits to electricity users. Here’s a way to fix the problems – https://theconversation.com/smart-meters-havent-delivered-the-promised-benefits-to-electricity-users-heres-a-way-to-fix-the-problems-225346

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Garvin, Adjunct Fellow, Department of Economics, Macquarie University

This article is part of The Conversation’s series examining the housing crisis. Read the other articles in the series here.

If just one state of Australia, New South Wales, scrapped its stamp duty on real-estate transactions, about 100,000 more Australians would move homes each year, according to our best estimates.

Stamp duty is an unquestioned part of buying a home in Australia – you put your details in an online mortgage calculator, and stamp duty is automatically deducted from the amount you have to contribute.

It’s easy to overlook how much more affordable a home would be without it.

That means it’s also easy to overlook how much more Australians would buy and move if stamp duty wasn’t there.

The 2010 Henry Tax Review found stamp duty was inequitable. It taxes most the people who most need to or want to move.

The review reported:

Ideally, there would be no role for any stamp duties, including conveyancing stamp duties, in a modern Australian tax system. Recognising the revenue needs of the States, the removal of stamp duty should be achieved through a switch to more efficient taxes, such as those levied on broad consumption or land bases.

But does stamp duty actually stop anyone moving? It’s a claim more often made than assessed, which is what our team at the e61 Institute set out to do.

We used real-estate transaction data and a natural experiment.

What happened when Queensland hiked stamp duty

In 2011, Queensland hiked stamp duty for most buyers by removing some concessions for owner-occupiers at short notice.

For owner-occupiers it increased stamp duty by about one percentage point, lifting the average rate from 1.26% of the purchase price to 2.27%.

What we found gives us the best estimate to date of what stamp duty does to home purchases.

A one percentage point increase in stamp duty causes the number of home purchases to decline by 7.2%.

The number of moves (changes of address) falls by about as much.

The effect appears to be indiscriminate. Purchases of houses fell about as much as purchases of apartments, and purchases in cities fell about as much as purchases in regions.

Moves between suburbs and moves interstate dropped by similar rates.

With NSW stamp duty currently averaging about 3.5% of the purchase price, our estimates suggest there would be about 25% more purchases and moves by home owners if it were scrapped completely. That’s 100,000 moves.

Victoria’s higher rate of stamp duty, about 4.2%, means if it was scrapped there would be about 30% more purchases. That’s another 90,000 moves.

Even low headline rates have big effects

The big effect from small-looking headline rates ought not to be surprising.

When someone buys a home, they typically front up much less cash than the purchase price. While stamp duty seems low as a percentage of the purchase price, it is high as a percentage of the cash the buyer needs to find.

Here’s an example. If stamp duty is 4% of the purchase price, and a purchaser pays $800,000 for a property with a mortgage deposit of $160,000, the $32,000 stamp duty adds 20%, not 4%, to what’s needed.

If the deposit takes five years to save, stamp duty makes it six.

A similar thing happens when an owner-occupier changes address. If the buyer sells a fully owned home for $700,000 and buys a new home for $800,000, the upgrade ought to cost them $100,000. A 4% stamp duty lifts that to $132,000.

Averaged across all Australian cities, stamp duty costs about five months of after-tax earnings. In Sydney and Melbourne, it’s six.

Read more:
Stamp duty isn’t going anywhere until we agree on what will replace it

Stamp duty has bracket creep

This cost has steadily climbed from around six weeks of total earnings in the 1990s. It has happened because home prices have climbed faster than incomes and because stamp duty has brackets, meaning more buyers have been pushed into higher ones.

Replacing the stamp duty revenue that states have come to rely on would not be easy, but a switch would almost certainly help the economy function better.

The more that people are able to move, the more they will move to jobs to which they are better suited, boosting productivity.

The more that people downsize when they want to, the more housing will be made available for others.

Our findings suggest the costs are far from trivial, making a switch away from stamp duty worthwhile, even if it is disruptive and takes time.

Nick Garvin is affiliated with e61 Institute.

– ref. Stamp duty is holding us back from moving homes – we’ve worked out how much – https://theconversation.com/stamp-duty-is-holding-us-back-from-moving-homes-weve-worked-out-how-much-225773

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

Australia’s top economists are pressing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese not to ape US President Joe Biden’s “think big” approach to clean energy.

Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act – dubbed the largest climate investment in US history – directs nearly US$400 billion (A$605 billion) in federal funding to support clean energy through tax breaks, grants and loan guarantees. Its goal is to halve US emissions by 2035.

Among the biggest beneficiaries will be US firms producing hydrogen, wind turbines, solar cells and batteries.

In the lead-up to this year’s May budget, Albanese said that, like in the US, he wanted Australia’s government to be a partner in the energy transformation, not just an observer.

He wanted to “think big”.

While Australia need not go “dollar-for-dollar” against the US and other nations in the scale of its spending, it could go “toe-to-toe” on the impact of its programs.

Not dollar-for-dollar, not toe-to-toe

Today, in a survey commissioned by the Economic Society of Australia and The Conversation, an overwhelming majority of Australia’s pre-eminent economists cautioned against special support for projects that will drive the energy transition. Instead, most backed grants to innovative firms across the entire economy.

The 44 leading economists who took part have been recognised by their peers as Australia’s leaders in fields including economic modelling and budget policy.

Asked whether Australia should ape the US Inflation Reduction Act by subsidising firms in the same industries, provide access to credit for firms that would supply the US, or merely provide more grants to innovative firms across the entire economy, two-thirds voted for supporting innovation across the economy.

Only four wanted Australia to copy the US.

Two of the experts surveyed declined to pick an option. Economic modeller Warwick McKibbin said labour market and tax reforms were the best ways to encourage new firms. Energy specialist Frank Jotzo said government support needed to deliver returns to the nation, not just prop up company profits.

McKibbin said any support for particular Australian businesses should be in the form of contingent loans, ensuring successful recipients with high cash flows paid back a proportion of their profits.

Mark Cully, a former chief economist with the federal Department of Industry, said there was no point in going head-to-head or toe-to-toe with the United States, the European Union or South Korea in doing things such as making batteries.

Supply the US revolution, don’t copy it

Cully said Australia was well placed to supply the resources those countries will need to develop green industries as well as to benefit from what they produce.

But Australian investment in research and development has been falling as a share of GDP for a decade, endangering productivity. The public component of this investment is now just 0.5% of GDP, the least on record.

Funding should be directed to research and development across the economy through institutions such as the CSIRO and business-university linkages, steering clear of “picking winners”.

Speaking before last week’s announcement of A$840 million in government loans to support a rare earths mine backed by Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart, economic modeller Janine Dixon said Australia should do all it could to ensure the benefits of public investments stayed with the public rather than private companies.

Economist Saul Eslake said corporate rent-seeking (businesses getting special favours) helped Australia slide from being one of the richest countries in the world at federation to being about 26th by the early 1990s, when governments became less supportive.

John Quiggin supported advancing loans to firms that supplied US projects. He said while it was less than optimal, the government was almost certain to support manufacturing, and this was better than building AUKUS submarines.

Consultant Rana Roy, who voted for no government support, said Australia was experiencing the biggest dive in living standards in half a century. He said the government would be

better advised to spend the remaining months until the next election concentrating for once on the modest task of preventing a further collapse in Australian living standards.

The United States would shortly elect its next president and Congress. They might be much less well disposed to the Inflation Reduction Act, leaving Australia with little to respond to.

Impose conditions

Many of those surveyed reiterated their support for a carbon tax as the best way of cutting emissions. Many more bemoaned what they said was the futility of “picking winners”. Economist Stefanie Schurer said it had never been a good policy in the past, and would not be in the future, adding:

this remains true even if other countries do it.

While eschewing picking winners, economists Adrian Blundell-Wignall, David Byrne, Nicki Hutley and Lisa Magnani said a well-designed grants scheme could encourage investment if it ensured the recipients provided value for money.

Support should be temporary and come with conditions, as in the United States.

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. Economists say Australia shouldn’t try to transition to net zero by aping the mammoth US Inflation Reduction Act – https://theconversation.com/economists-say-australia-shouldnt-try-to-transition-to-net-zero-by-aping-the-mammoth-us-inflation-reduction-act-225568