There are times when medical care can’t wait until 9am or first thing Monday. Perhaps your COVID has worsened and you’re becoming short of breath. Or your baby has a fever that’s worrying you. Or your elderly parent’s pain can’t be relieved with over-the-counter medications.
When last asked in 2020, two-thirds of Australians had accessed after-hours health services in the previous five years. But how do you access health care on weekends and after 5pm in 2022?
Many GP Super Clinics continue to operate beyond business hours, accept walk-ins and provide access to onsite pharmacy services. You can find their locations here, though opening hours and costs vary between clinics.
Search engines such as HotDoc and Healthdirect can help you find local health services such as GPs, COVID testing clinics, emergency departments, and allied health services. You can filter search results by “open now”, bulk-billing and accessibility requirements such as building access ramps.
The COVID pandemic accelerated investment in virtual care for non-life-threatening emergencies, which can be less stressful for patients and families than attending an emergency department.
Here are some options for in-person and virtual after-hours care.
Nurse helplines
If you’re not sure whether you need medical care, or if you need basic information or advice, a useful starting point is to call a free nursing helpline such as Nurse-on-Call in Victoria, 13HEALTH in Queensland, or Healthdirect in other states.
In some cases, nurses may offer a call-back from a GP using phone or video consultation.
The National Home Doctor service, which can be booked using telephone (13 74 25) or its mobile app, provides bulk-billed doctor home visits.
Telehealth consultations can also be booked through this service, though they may incur a fee.
Video consultation with a GP
A range of companies offer GP telehealth consultation after hours, for a fee. It doesn’t have to be an emergency, and can be used for things like last-minute repeat prescriptions.
Search engines HotDoc and Healthdirect can direct you to these services through the “accepts telehealth” or “telehealth capable” options.
Virtual emergency departments
Virtual emergency departments in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia allow people in these states to virtually connect with emergency doctors and nurse practitioners for treatment and advice on non-life-threatening emergencies.
In Victoria, the establishment of the virtual ED program has decreased wait times, with an easy-to-use platform, triage and waiting room. After the consultation, instructions can be emailed, or e-scripts sent to your local pharmacy. This service is currently covered by Medicare with no out-of-pocket costs, though that may change in the future.
My Emergency Doctor is a private service with a hotline and web-based consultations with expert emergency doctors, for patients across Australia. Typically consultations cost A$250-$280, however people living in certain Primary Health Networks can receive free after-hours telehealth consultations through this platform.
Children’s health services
In South Australia, free paediatric emergency services are available through the Women’s and Children’s Hospital’s Child and Adolescent Virtual Urgent Care Service, though similar services aren’t available across the country.
However, on-demand services such as KidsDocOnCall and Cub Care provide telehealth paediatric services after-hours to people in all states and territories, for a fee.
Paediatric telehealth is available after-hours for a fee. Baby Abbas/Unsplash
In Victoria, Supercare Pharmacies are also open 24/7, with nurses available from 6pm to 10pm.
Under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Continued Dispensing Arrangements, approved pharmacists may supply eligible medicines to a person in time of immediate need, when the prescribing doctor can not be contacted, once in a 12-month period.
Medical chests in remote areas
The Royal Flying Doctor service runs a Medical Chest program, to provide emergency and non-emergency, pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatments for people in remote areas, such as antibiotics, pain relief and first-aid.
Medical chests are provided for communities which are located more than 80 kilometres from professional medical services and maintained by a designated local medical chest custodian.
Hospital emergency departments can be hectic places. Shutterstock
Indigenous health and wellbeing
Yarning SafeNStrong is a free, confidential, culturally suitable counselling service for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This service offers support with social and emotional wellbeing, financial wellbeing, medical support including COVID testing, drug and alcohol counselling and rehabilitation services.
Access to after-hours care is often dependent on people’s ability to communicate over a phone.
The National Relay Service can assist hearing- or speech-impaired people with changing voice to text or English to AUSLAN.
Non-English speaking people can access interpreter assistance for telehealth via the National Translating and Interpreting Service. This service is typically free of charge, covers 150 languages, and can be accessed after-hours.
Life-threatening emergencies
Of course, none of the options above should replace the Triple Zero (000) service for life-threatening emergencies such as difficulty breathing, unconsciousness and severe bleeding.
This handy infographic shows some of your options for after-hours care. Click on the hand icon on top right to activate interactive elements. Then press the + button to learn more:
We would like to acknowledge the following people for their input to this article: Dr Loren Sher (Director of Victorian Virtual ED at the Northern Hospital), A/Prof Michael Ben-Meir (Director of Emergency Department, Austin Health), Ms Karen Bryant (Senior Aboriginal Liaison Officer, Northern Health) and Dr Kim Hansen (Director of Emergency, St Andrew’s War Memorial Hospital).
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Almost three years into the COVID pandemic, it clearly isn’t over.
New offshoots of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 continue to proliferate worldwide. The virus is mutating extensively and convergently (meaning the same mutations are popping up along different family trees) and, as a result, we now have what is increasingly being called a “variant soup”.
The current range of immunity-evading descendants of the Omicron variant is unprecedented in its diversity, which makes it harder to predict coming waves.
Although some may feel infection has now become inevitable, we must not forget that vaccination substantially lowers the risk of infection (including Omicron), hospitalisation and death, and staying free of infection means not having to face the risk of long COVID.
Vaccine protection is even better after receiving at least one booster, compared with just having the primary series. This is why Aotearoa New Zealand needs to embark on another round of boosters to better protect the population.
At present, just over 90% of the population aged 12 years or older have completed the primary course. More than 70% aged 18 or older have received the first booster, but only just over 40% of those over 50 have received the second booster. We look like an increasingly vulnerable population.
What we also need now, but do not yet have, is a sterilising vaccine of the sort we have for measles. This kind of vaccine eliminates the pathogen before it can replicate. The vaccinated person does not get ill, nor can they pass it on to others. Research is underway, including in New Zealand, but we are not there yet.
The variant soup and waning immunity
The growing prevalence of the variant soup in the US is clear from the latest data.
We don’t yet have a clear idea of the differences in transmissibility and severity among the new variants, although there are hints from France that the dominant new variant, BQ.1.1, and its sub-variants do not cause as much severe disease as we have seen earlier.
Author provided
We do know that immune responsiveness and vaccine effectiveness against Omicron sub-variants fade rapidly. The later variants have been better able to evade immunity than earlier ones.
The new variants have the same collection of mutations, which shows they are being selected for by the host (human) immune response, which in turn is influenced by our collective vaccination and infection history. The most immunity-evasive variants are BQ.1.1 (the most rapidly increasing variant in the US), XBB and BA.2.75.2.
As immunity wanes and as the virus mutates, we should take our guidance from how we handle these issues with other infectious diseases. Because tetanus immunity wanes, we get a booster every ten years. Because influenza viruses both mutate and re-emerge regularly as different variants, we get a yearly influenza vaccination as our best, albeit imperfect, protection against severe illness.
However, one study, which used a more appropriate way of assaying (live virus rather than pseudo-virus), showed robustly higher neutralising antibody responses to recent variants, compared to monovalent boosters.
The fact that boosters raise protection overall, and that the bivalent version may do so even against recent variants, means making them available is crucial to us as individuals and as a community.
The strongest immunity seems to arise as a result of vaccination and a breakthrough infection. This finding has resulted in a tendency towards advising that the best strategy is to be vaccinated and to become infected.
Such a hope-based strategy might obviate – after some ill-defined number of vaccinations and an ill-defined passage of time – the need for a further booster. Eventually, if we follow this line of reasoning, vaccination and other public-health measures might no longer be needed.
This is a strategy that fits our desperate need to no longer have to deal with this pandemic: many of us are in deep denial about the pandemic’s ongoing threat.
Even more, we are in denial about the pandemic eventually morphing into a new influenza-like endemic disease with recurring waves, probably with a higher risk of long COVID.
We’ll probably see a permanent new entity in our biological environment. But given our multi-generational experience of specific infectious diseases disappearing entirely or largely from our environment, definitely in the developed world and in some cases in the whole world, our denial means we are really not ready to “welcome” a new one in.
This denial is futile. The virus is neither sentient nor capable of responding to our wishes. Even if we were all willing to pursue the vaccination-plus-infection strategy, there is a price to pay for individuals and whānau – and for the healthcare system. That price is a growing burden of long COVID syndromes, which we don’t yet understand well – and certainly don’t manage well.
As the proportion of reinfections is going up (currently at 17% of daily cases) and the variant soup looms, we need to provide another round of boosters supported by clear reasons: to protect the most vulnerable; to reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalisation, intensive care and death; to reduce the likelihood of long COVID; and to ensure our already stressed healthcare system is not overwhelmed.
We also need to strengthen our commitment to public-health measures: masks, distance and better ventilation. These have, to date, protected us quite well in Aotearoa and even better in countries like Japan that learned these lessons a century ago and have embedded them deeply in the social structure.
John Donne 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.
A water war is brewing in the Northern Territory – and the battle centres around a line on a map.
Where the line is drawn determines how much groundwater is available for irrigation, mining and gas extraction. The line currently runs through the middle of the resource-rich Beetaloo Basin.
There are recent indications that the NT government will effectively move the line, potentially allowing for substantially more water to be extracted by gas and other industries.
This could cause long-term and irreversible damage to springs, wetlands and rivers upon which people and ecosystems depend.
The battle centres around a line on a map separating two climatic zones: arid and top end.
A region rich in nature – and gas
The Beetaloo Basin lies around 500 kilometres southeast of Darwin. It’s in a region home to the abundant plant and animal life of the Roper River, Elsey National Park, Mataranka Springs and Red Lily Lagoon, among other culturally and ecologically significant sites.
These ecosystems are fed by water stored beneath the surface in large aquifers, which are recharged by rainfall and seepage from rivers and lakes. Below these aquifers lie vast reserves of gas.
Under NT law, “water allocation plans” must calculate how much water can be extracted sustainably. However, such plans are only in place for 5% of the NT.
Elsewhere – where there is often great uncertainty about the impacts of groundwater extraction – water is licensed according to “contingent rules”. These rules divide the NT into two zones: the top end and the arid zone.
The top end zone allows groundwater extraction of up to 20% of the water that replenishes the aquifer each year. The northern part of the Beetaloo Basin is in this zone.
The arid zone permits much higher rates of extraction: 80% of the aquifer’s total groundwater storage capacity can be extracted over a century, as long as dependent ecosystems are not harmed. The southern part of the Beetaloo Basin sits in this zone.
In arid zones, not much water flows into aquifers due to limited rainfall and high evaporation rates. Extracting a large proportion of water from these aquifers will inevitably reduce outflows to rivers and springs. Arid zones therefore need a much more cautious approach to water licensing.
There are now strong indications that the NT government intends to use arid zone rules in the top end zone – effectively moving the line between the two zones. Alarmingly, this would increase the amount of water that industry could extract from aquifers, including those sitting on top of Beetaloo gas reserves.
Above-ground ecosystems are fed by water stored beneath the surface in large aquifers. Shutterstock
Enlarging the arid zone
A company called Territory Sands plans to mine 110 million tonnes of sand near the small NT town of Larrimah. The sand would be sold to gas companies operating in the Beetaloo Basin, for use in the fracking process.
The sand would have to be washed. To do this, Territory Sands wants to take up to 1.2 billion litres of water each year from the Mataranka Tindall Limestone Aquifer.
The aquifer is currently classified as being in the top end zone. But the NT Department of Environment, Parks and Water Security says the aquifer could be considered as being in the arid zone.
Asked by The Conversation’s editorial team why this was the case, the department said extraction rules were “based on the behaviour and characteristics of the aquifer [a project] is drawing from” in accordance with a technical classification report.
Territory Sands has used the arid zone rule to calculate how much water it should be allowed to take. The Conversation attempted to contact the company for comment, but had not received a response at the time of publication.
Official documents show the NT government is considering using the arid zone rule for future water extraction in the same area.
Fracking in the NT is controversial among First Nations communities. Dean Lewins/AAP
One of the NT’s most popular tourist attractions, the Mataranka thermal pools, depends on the Mataranka Tindall Limestone Aquifer. It also provides water for the Roper River, along which are many sites significant to Traditional Owners.
The NT government has in the past tried to apply arid zone rules in the top end zone. In 2020, it used the same rule to grant a licence to extract 10 billion litres of groundwater from the same aquifer.
This is despite a senior NT water bureaucrat warning it would threaten permanent flows to the Roper River.
The NT government withdrew the licence after an independent panel found using aquifer storage as a basis for assessing licences was not precautionary or sustainable.
In a statement provided to The Conversation’s editorial team, the department said there were a number of aquifers and management zones in the Mataranka and Larrimah area – some arid and most top end.
“The specific characteristics of these resources as well as the required environmental and cultural protections, determine how they are managed under a plan,” the statement said.
The department said springs, rivers and wetlands were features of a top end system, so arid zone rules would not apply to them.
The arid zone rule would threaten the Roper River during dry times. Shutterstock
Shifting the burden of harm
The arid zone rules are deeply problematic. In recognition of this, the 2017-18 Pepper Scientific Inquiry into Fracking cautioned against using the rules in the Beetaloo, finding it would be “ecologically unsustainable”.
Using water storage volumes to calculate sustainable yield is out of step with sustainable management practices in other Australian jurisdictions and many parts of the world.
In arid zones, it’s not possible to avoid harm to groundwater-dependent ecosystems if most water stored in an aquifer is extracted. Doing so inevitably reduces, or stops entirely, groundwater flows to the surface environment.
And aquifers take time to adjust to changes. So the 100-year time frame that applies under the arid zone rule shifts the burden of harm into the future. If new permits are issues to projects that deplete the aquifer, long-term damage is locked in.
Water extraction in the Northern Territory must be scientifically defensible. Otherwise, future generations and the ecosystems that depend on the water will suffer – and the damage may be irreversible.
Sue Jackson receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and from consultancies conducted for the Murray Darling Basin Authority, the Northern Land Council, and the Environment Centre NT.
Matthew Currell is currently being engaged by the Environment Centre NT for a consultancy to examine the hydrogeology of NT aquifers and make recommendations regarding sustainable groundwater management.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Penelope Crossley, Associate Professor of Law, The University of Sydney Law School, University of Sydney
Prudence Upton/Sydney Theatre Company
Review: RBG: Of Many, One, directed by Priscilla Jackman, Sydney Theatre Company
Writing a play about the life and legacy of American Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was always going to be an ambitious task for playwright Suzie Miller.
Ginsberg (or “RBG” to her many fans) was only the second female judge to be appointed onto the bench of the court in its more than 200-year history, when elevated to the court in 1993, aged 60.
Throughout her life, she was much admired for her trailblazing legal career, her work advocating for gender equality and her considered dissenting judgements against the often-conservative majority decision.
At the same time, both during her life and after her death, RBG was attacked for openly criticising former US president Donald Trump during the presidential race and for not resigning from the court during Obama’s presidency, despite her advanced age and cancer diagnosis.
When RBG ultimately died during the Trump presidency, she was not able to be replaced by another Democratic appointee, leading to the court becoming even more conservative.
Miller’s new play is beautifully crafted, written from the perspective of RBG. She discusses her most famous cases throughout her life and her conversations with three of the presidents who served during her 27-year term on the bench. Over this journey, the play takes the audience through a roller-coaster of emotions.
RBG: Of Many, One, follows RBG’s time as one of the few women at Harvard Law School, along with her work challenging gender-based discrimination including the ability of women to serve on juries and the cancer that repeatedly afflicted her family.
Miller seamlessly weaves quotes from RBG’s most famous cases and judgements into the script, so we hear her authentic voice. The play demonstrates a complex understanding of the legal cases, but Miller doesn’t assume familiarity with RBG: this play is equally accessible for the non-lawyer who knows little of RBG’s history.
Heather Mitchell gives a virtuosic performance. Prudence Upton/Sydney Theatre Company
Miller doesn’t skate over the criticisms of RBG. She humanises the decisions she made and her later reflections on those decisions. In particular, the audience gets to see, upon reflection, how deeply troubled RBG was by her decision to criticise Donald Trump during the Trump/Clinton presidential election.
RBG: Of Many, One’s ultimate success or failure turns on the strength of the acting. Heather Mitchell is a virtuoso, giving the performance of her life.
She shows us Bader Ginsberg from a young girl through to her physical frailty in old age, poignantly characterising the emotional depth of her character.
The inner strength, the anxieties, the love, and the fears are all expertly conveyed to the audience. At times I have to remind myself that she is indeed playing RBG.
The play takes us from RBG’s childhood to her old age. Prudence Upton/Sydney Theatre Company
David Fleischer’s set design is stripped back to a beautiful simplicity. For most of the play the main prop is a solitary armchair, sitting isolated on the big stage.
David Fleischer’s set gives room for Heather Mitchell to shine. Prudence Upton/Sydney Theatre Company
Paul Charlier’s composition and sound design is another strength. He juxtaposes some of the operas that RBG so loved with the music of the rapper the Notorious B.I.G. (from whom the nickname the Notorious RBG is derived). This deftly highlights the complexity of RBG’s character.
These simple design choices allow Mitchell to shine. This play will long be one that Miller and Mitchell will be remembered for.
RBG: Of Many, One is at Wharf 1 Theatre until December 23.
Penelope Crossley received complimentary tickets for the purpose of reviewing this performance.
Hashtags #TwitterMigration and #TwitterExodus are gaining popularity, and the most common name found in conjunction with it is Mastodon – the new home for fleeing tweeters.
Now, it’s on the upswing again – more than 70,000 users joined the network the day after Musk’s Twitter deal was announced. At the time of writing, Mastodon has reached more than a million active users, with almost half a million new users since October 27.
Meanwhile, Twitter was losing its most active users from its 238-million-strong user base even before Musk acquired the platform.
Registering on the network takes a few minutes, just like any other social media app. However, Mastodon is not a Twitter clone – you need to choose a server to join.
Screenshot of the Mastodon server selection page. Mastodon
Servers are grouped by topic and location, and are supposed to bring users together by common interest. The server is also where your account lives, so your account name will be nickname@server-name (more on this later).
There are currently just over 4,000 servers to choose from. Some are closed for registration as they have reached capacity or simply prefer to keep their communities smaller. For example, Mastodon’s flagship server mastodon.social is not currently accepting new members.
After you register by joining your chosen server, the interface looks somewhat similar to Twitter, with short posts (up to 500 characters by default) called “toots” instead of “tweets”. Given the recent spike in popularity, the app can be slow to respond, as some servers are experiencing heavy loads.
For those looking for a relatively seamless transition without losing their online community, there is a Twitter migration toolkit for finding your followers and follows on Mastodon.
There is also a tool that allows you to cross-post between the two.
Okay, so why does Mastodon have servers?
Mastodon isn’t a platform, but a decentralised network of servers. This means no central authority owns and governs the entire communications platform (that is, the opposite of Musk owning Twitter and changing his mind about how the platform operates at any moment).
When you join a server, what you post is visible within that particular server. To an extent, your content can also be seen across the Mastodon network, depending on other servers’ policies being compatible with the one you joined.
This is in stark contrast to Twitter, where everything you tweet is available to all Twitter users, unless your account is protected for followers only.
The point of selecting a server on Mastodon is to let you communicate in an environment with policies you prefer and a community you like. Each server can have its own code of conduct and moderation policies. Individual server admins can also ban users and other servers from accessing their content and posting.
Furthermore, all servers form part of an interconnected network called the fediverse. The fediverse can comprise any social media app that uses the same decentralised principles as Mastodon. That means users within the fediverse could potentially follow each other across servers.
Is Mastodon safe? What about moderation?
In principle, decentralisation can ensure greater freedom of speech, one of the main concerns users have about Twitter’s future.
Twitter provides content through opaque AI-based algorithms that select what you see on your feed. Mastodon shows posts in chronological order without curation.
You might be worried that if there is no central authority, it will be complete chaos, with people posting dangerous and offensive content.
However, thanks to community moderation, most servers hold users to a high standard, and can easily ban or filter hate speech, illegal content, racism, discrimination against marginalised groups, and more. In 2017, Vice journalist Sarah Jeong even called it “Twitter without Nazis”.
Community moderation has shown its force in practice: when the far-right platform Gab moved to Mastodon in 2019, many servers across the network banned it without any central direction. While it might still be using Mastodon code, Gab doesn’t appear to be part of the fediverse any more.
Is Mastodon the new Twitter?
All in all, Mastodon is neither a replacement for Twitter nor a decentralised replica of it – the presence of individual servers makes it fundamentally different to any social media platform.
As an open-source, decentralised network, Mastodon appeals to young, tech-savvy users, and it will not come as a surprise if many of them find Mastodon to be a welcome upgrade to Twitter.
Additionally, freedom-of-speech seekers worried about central authority censorship could be another group finding a new home there. For now, it’s too soon to tell which user groups will become the most active, and how large Mastodon will become.
Nataliya Ilyushina receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence.
There’s a lot at stake over the next fortnight as nations gather at the COP27 climate conference in Egypt. But the stakes are perhaps highest for the Pacific islands and their people.
A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year said global warming above 1.5℃ would be “catastrophic” for Pacific island nations. Sea-level rise could lead to the loss of entire Pacific countries this century.
Such damage is a fundamental threat to the human rights of Pacific populations who, as one research paper reminds us, are not merely “victims” of climate change, but “real people with dignity and dreams for the future”.
We have been conducting research for the Vanuatu government into how climate change is affecting the human rights of the nation’s highly exposed population. We’ve heard stories of loss and resilience from those whose lives and traditions are being ripped apart by this global catastrophe.
Climate change is a fundamental threat to the human rights of people in Vanuatu. Shutterstock
Facing climate change on an island nation
Vanuatu has a population of about 315,000 people, who live across 13 principal and many smaller islands.
Like other Pacific island nations, Vanuatu is highly exposed to climate change effects such as sea-level rise, coral bleaching and extreme tropical cyclones. In fact, the sea level around Vanuatu has risen by around 6mm per year since 1993, a rate nearly twice the global average
Vanuatu is seeking an “advisory opinion” from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to clarify the rights and obligations of states under international law in relation to harms from climate change. A majority of UN member states must agree to this opinion being provided. If Vanuatu succeeds, it could have extensive legal implications at a global, regional and national level.
We undertook research for the Vanuatu government as part of this legal push. It involved a nation-wide survey to explore how locals in Vanuatu experience climate change and how it impinges on their human rights.
A boy and his dog survey the chaos after Cyclone Pam hit Vanuatu in 2015. The island nation is in line for more extreme weather under climate change. World Animal Protection/NICKY KAUATONGA
‘This is a cultural right’
The study involved an online survey administered in Vanuatu’s national language, Bislama, as well as English and French. Some 118 people completed the survey between June and October this year. The results have been finalised and submitted to the Vanuatu government for use at COP27.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 76. They told of witnessing general climate change impacts such as intense cyclones, droughts, flooding and coastal inundation.
They also told of decimation and loss of Indigenous knowledge around weather, seasons and medicines, as well as physical damage to traditional crops.
Many Vanuatu traditions centre around the yam harvest. Shutterstock
One crop of particular concern was the yam – a starchy, edible root central to the identity of many people native to Vanuatu.
Locals mark the yam harvest with rituals and ceremonies. However, climate change is disrupting these cultural rhythms. As one participant told us, altered weather patterns had led to failed germination, a higher prevalence of disease and root rot, and lower yields:
The cultural ways of planting are not adaptive to these fast changes caused by the climate which is now leading to a loss of cultural practices and knowledge. This is a cultural right that can never be recovered and re-built if we lose it due to climate change.
No financial means can recover those non-economic losses, which are our heritage and dignity. And climate change is taking these rights away from us.
Traditional medicines are similarly being lost at an alarming rate and are impinging on the health and wellbeing of local people.
One participant told how children learnt from an early age to be self-sufficient – growing their own food, fishing on the reef and collecting crabs after school. The participant went on:
Nowadays because the coral reefs are dying, the fish have gone […] Our crops are producing less yield because of weather changes. Root crops are rotting before they become ready to harvest because of the unusually large amounts of rain that we experience.
We have had to spend more money on food now than we ever did in the past. In the future I do not expect for there to be anything left in the waters or in the bush.
The participant expressed fears that knowledge passed on by grandparents to younger generations about natural resource management would “die with my generation”:
I am concerned about the impacts of climate change on our environment and on our culture.
[…] the love and respect we had towards nature will fade away into nothing and the deep cultural ties to our waters will be lost when we will have to start teaching our children their heritage from books and not from taking them out to sea on a canoe and pointing out fish like it was done for us.
Traditional knowledge in Vanuatu is handed down between generations. Margaret Scheikowski/AAP
What this means for COP27
The stories we gathered during our research make one thing clear: climate change is real, it’s impinging on the human rights of people in Vanuatu, and will continue to do so in future.
Among the big issues to be discussed at this year’s COP27 conference is “loss and damage” compensation. This refers to the money that richer nations should pay to developing nations for the economic, socio-cultural, environmental and physical costs brought by climate change.
As our research shows, those costs are already being borne. Developed nations have a moral obligation to make sure people in developing countries, who’ve contributed so little to climate change, do not continue to suffer in a warming world. That includes providing access to appropriate remedies and ways to adapt.
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Stephanie Stephens, George Koran and Willy Missack from the Vanuatu Climate Action Network for their support and collaboration on this research.
Karen E McNamara receives funding from the Australian Research Council. The research upon which this article was based was funded by the Vanuatu government.
Rachel works for the ‘International Centre for Environmental Management’.
Ross is affiliated with the Greens Party. Ross Westoby is in a relationship with Karen E McNamara.
Australia’s mainstream media has long viewed refugees, migrants and Indigenous communities through a “deficit lens”. That’s where these populations – in all their glorious complexity – are framed simply as a “problem” that needs to be “fixed”. Never achieving enough. Never grateful enough. Just never quite deserving enough to be seen as legitimate Australians.
This deficit discourse is created, in part, by a mainstream media and screen culture that is overwhelmingly white and doesn’t reflect the cultural diversity of its population. Media Diversity Australia reports that 75% of presenters, commentators and reporters have an Anglo-Celtic background, while only 6% have an Indigenous or non-European background. This is despite Census data indicating nearly half of all Australians had at least one parent born overseas.
Fixing this under-representation in the media workforce is only a starting point. As I describe in my new book, second-generation migrant content-creators are taking matters into their own hands.
Moving beyond the deficit lens is essential for racialised peoples to claim belonging, and have agency in their own stories. Here are some examples of how they’re doing it.
When I see writer Hani Abdile perform her poetry, I also witness my research participants – many of whom are migrants or their children – nod their heads in collective validation.
Abdile is a Somali-Australian civil war refugee who credits poetry as having saved her.
My book chapter looks at how Abdile’s work avoids the lens of “precarity” usually applied to the work of refugees. “Precarity” is part of deficit discourse. It’s where a refugee is framed as having to be in real need or distress to be accepted here; to have a refugee story “good enough” to justify their presence in Australia.
Abdile’s poem “I will live, survive and be asked” recounts the story of leaving her country of birth and boarding a boat. She wrote it while in a refugee detention centre.
This poem is peppered with questions you can imagine Abdile has faced again and again. Being asked to recount the details of her escape story and perform for us the “right” emotions. To prove she has a “good enough” plan for her future. This poem analyses questions mainstream Australia and its legal system ask of refugees to justify their presence and account for future plans.
On the surface, this poem might sound like any other precarious story expected of a refugee or ex-refugee subject. On closer examination, a subtext of defiance is revealed.
When asked, “what do you want to be in the future?” she replies she wants to be a journalist, thereby defying the expectations of a grateful refugee who does not question the establishment.
This is a poet critiquing and moving beyond the deficit lens and firmly in control of her own story.
Change is underway
My previous research has looked at the lack of representation in TV and film of Australians who aren’t white and middle class.
And it’s not just my research participants saying this. Ayesha Madon, a young Australian actor of South Asian origin who plays the feisty Amerie Wadia on Netflix’s Heartbreak High, has also noted she never saw people like her on Australian media when she was growing up.
Heartbreak High | Official Trailer | Netflix.
But change is underway. The arrival of online streaming platforms, the popularity of “ethnic” comedy, and the relatability of social media accounts of young politicians of colour means the tide is slowly shifting.
Second and further-generation migrants like Que Minh-Luu (Netflix head of content for Australia and New Zealand) are now in decision-making roles. That helps.
Change is also occurring because people of colour are finding platforms to self-represent.
Take for example, Indian-American Hasan Minhaj. In his Netflix series, Patriot Act, Minhaj uses political satire to draw in an international audience of racialised millennial youth.
Newsy bits are interspersed with ethnic and generational in-jokes, covering everything from US-Saudi relations, the role of Amazon, social media content moderation and free speech, to Asian Americans in politics.
For many brown Americans […] he’s the kid from the block that people within our communities take a look at and think: “I could do that, too.”
In other words, Minhaj appeals to both ethnic and mainstream cultural spheres – and he does so by laying claim to both cultures. When South Asian-Americans are critiqued, such as in relation to attitudes to racial justice issues in the US, the approach is educative rather than one of otherness or deficit.
Telling your own story
There’s also a lesson to be learned in the social media profiles of young politicians of colour, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) in the US and Jagmeet Singh in Canada. They’re using social media to build digital intimacy and collective aspiration for their followers.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, uses Instagram and Twitter strategically and creatively to build an engaging, personalised, and professional persona. On Instagram, she is talking policy details one minute and cooking an Instant Pot mac and cheese the next. She is in firm control of the way her story, in all its nuance, is told.
Over on Canadian politician Jagmeet Singh’s Instagram, serious policy discussion is mixed in with family Halloween pics as well as mentions of Diwali and the Sikh celebration Bandi Chhor Divas.
More to be done
We can celebrate the strides made by the children of migrants and refugees who have access to education and the mobility it enables. But it’s also important to underscore that many newly-arrived refugees have to strive harder to feel a sense of belonging.
For these communities, it is vital the mainstream media disavow the deficit lens, take ethical obligations seriously, and create space for racialised peoples to tell their own stories.
Sukhmani Khorana has received funding from the Australia Research Council as well as several internal grants from the University of Wollongong and Western Sydney University for the research cited in this article. This article is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.
New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Politics Daily is a collation of the most prominent issues being discussed in New Zealand. It is edited by Dr Bryce Edwards of The Democracy Project.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol, and Honorary Professor of Psychology, The University of Western Australia
Here are two common ways of thinking about democracy in the online era. First, the internet is a liberation technology and will usher in an era of global democracy. Second, you can have social media or democracy, but not both.
Which is more correct? There is no doubt democracy is in retreat around the globe. Even supposedly stable democracies have recently seen events incompatible with democracy and the rule of law, such as the violent assault on the US Capitol in 2021.
To understand the role of social media in this process, we carried out a systematic review of the evidence linking social media to ten indicators of democratic wellbeing: political participation, knowledge, trust, news exposure, political expression, hate, polarisation, populism, network structure, and misinformation.
We reviewed almost 500 studies across different platforms in countries around the globe, and saw some broad patterns emerge. Social media use is linked to an increase in political engagement, but also increases in polarisation, populism, and distrust in institutions.
Different kinds of evidence
In our review, we put greater weight on research establishing causal links between social media and indicators of democratic wellbeing, rather than just correlations.
Correlations can be interesting, but they cannot prove any outcome is caused by social media use. For example, suppose we find a link between social media use and hate speech. It might arise because people who produce hate speech use social media more, rather than because using social media triggers hate speech.
Causal links can be established in a number of ways, for example through large-scale field experiments. Participants may be asked to reduce Facebook usage to 20 minutes per day or turn off Facebook altogether for a month. (Both interventions led to an increase in wellbeing, and abstaining from Facebook altogether also significantly reduced political polarisation.)
More engagement, more polarisation
Across the 496 articles we considered, most correlational rather than causal, we found a mix of positive and negative effects. As often happens in science, the pattern is complicated but can still be interpreted.
On the positive side, we found digital media use relates to higher political engagement and greater diversity of news exposure. For example, a study in Taiwan found information-oriented social media use increased political participation. However, this was only true if the user believed an individual can influence politics through online actions.
On the negative side, we found considerable evidence for effects such as fostering polarisation and populism, and reducing trust in institutions. The effects on trust in institutions and media were particularly pronounced. During the pandemic, digital media use has been shown to be associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.
Another negative outcome of social media use, in a range of political contexts and on various platforms, appears to be increased political polarisation.
We found increased polarisation was also linked to exposure to opposing viewpoints in one’s social media feeds. In other words, being exposed to the words of political opponents did not bridge the political divide. Rather it seemed to amplify it.
Links to violence
We also found a strong and pervasive association between social media use and populism. More social media use translates into a greater vote share for populist parties.
Studies in Austria, Sweden and Australia have found evidence for an association between increased social media use and online right-wing radicalisation. Studies in Germany and Russia have provided causal evidence that digital media can increase the incidence of ethnic hate crimes.
For example, the German study found local outages of Facebook (due to technical faults or internet interruptions, for example) decreased violence in those locations. The authors of the study estimated that 50% less anti-refugee sentiment on social media would reduce violent incidents by 12.6%.
The distribution of effects around the world was also striking. Positive effects on political participation and information consumption were most pronounced in emerging democracies in South America, Africa and Asia. Negative effects were more evident in established democracies in Europe and the United States.
No simple answers
So, to return to where we began: is the internet a liberation technology? Or are social media incompatible with democracy?
There are no simple yes or no answers. There is, however, evidence that digital media impact political behaviour globally. This evidence warrants concern about the adverse impacts of social media on democracy.
Facebook, Twitter and other social media are not per se incompatible with democracy. Democratic welfare, however, requires that scientists carefully study the social effects of social media. Those effects must be evaluated and regulated by voters and elected policymakers, not a small clique of super-rich individuals.
Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from financial support from the European Research Council
(ERC Advanced Grant 101020961 PRODEMINFO), the Humboldt Foundation through a research award, the
Volkswagen Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation (through the Honesty program awarded to Wake Forest University),
and the European Commission (Horizon 2020 grant 964728 JITSUVAX). He also receives funding from Jigsaw (a technology incubator created by Google) and from UK Research and Innovation (through the Centre of Excellence, REPHRAIN). He frequently collaborates with researchers in the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
Lisa Oswald receives funding from the German Academic Scholarship Foundation.
Philipp Lorenz-Spreen receives funding from the Volkswagen Foundation. He is a member of the board of the non-profit Prosocial Design Network. He has collaborated with researchers in the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
Ralph Hertwig receives funding from the Volkswagen Foundation and the European Commission (HORIZON 2022 grant GA 101094752). He has collaborated with researchers in the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
The recent sudden end to the Bruce Lehrmann trial last month raises again whether the jury is fit for purpose in a 21st century hyper-connected world.
That jury’s service in the Lehrmann case ended peremptorily after it was revealed to the judge that material downloaded from the internet (which was highly relevant to the case and not introduced as evidence) had been found in the jury room. A retrial has been set for late February. Lehrmann had been accused of raping former Liberal Party staffer Brittany Higgins, to which he pleaded not guilty.
The costs so far (to both parties and the court) could well exceed a million dollars.
With easy access to the internet available to any juror who owns a mobile phone, is it conceivable that all jurors will abide by the strict instructions of a judge admonishing them to pay attention only to the evidence adduced in the trial?
Are instructions to jurors to avoid media sources meaningless given the accessibility of the internet?
These aren’t new questions. In 2005, a report prepared for the NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service observed:
Prominent cases in recent years […] have illustrated the legal problems that can occur when jurors, despite judicial instructions to confine their deliberations to the evidence before them, undertake their own research, discuss the case with non-jurors, or visit a place connected with the offence. The increasing amount of legal information available on the internet is a cause for particular concern. The Jury Amendment Act 2004 […] prohibits jurors from making inquiries about the accused or issues in the trial, except in the proper exercise of juror functions.
But for all the warnings and threats of consequences, a juror may still stray down the path of private sleuth. It’s easy to do and Australians have a voracious appetite for social media. In 2018 a survey reported 62% of Australian adults use social media sites every day, and 34% use them more than five times a day.
This becomes particularly problematic when the eyes of the world are fixed on cases such as these.
The sudden and unexpected end to the Lehrmann trial prompts a more fundamental question: should we continue to persist with juries at all?
Two sides
There are two sides to the argument regarding retention of the jury.
On the one hand, juries have stood the test of time. The idea of being tried by one’s peers was entrenched by the Magna Carta of 1215. Even though the jury as we know it didn’t crystallise until about 350 years ago and has been through a number of permutations since then, there would be few people who could argue against its symbolic legitimacy given its staying power.
On the other hand, there are doubts about their efficiency. Juries took a hit after the High Court decision in the George Pell appeal where the judges, in allowing the appeal, ruled that no jury, properly instructed, could have reached a guilty verdict in his trial.
What’s more, it’s overstated to say that trial by jury is a fundamental bulwark of fairness in the criminal justice system. Indeed, 92% of criminal matters in Australia are dealt with in the magistrates courts, where there are no juries. Of the remaining 8% referred to the “superior” criminal courts (Supreme, District and County), more and more defendants are choosing “judge alone” trials (in jurisdictions where that option is available). For example, in NSW, up to a quarter of accused persons are now electing to be tried without a jury.
Other studies have highlighted how jurors overrate DNA evidence despite judicial directions, which may lead to far more jury convictions than are warranted, and how jurors’ perceptions of guilt and innocence can be affected by the positioning of defendants in the courtroom. Another study found that although jurors report they understand directions, they often don’t appear to use those directions in arriving at a decision.
And finally, as the Lehrmann trial has illustrated, it’s not unusual for jurors to ignore or misunderstand the instructions that have been given to them.
But, what about the ability of juries to apply some of their own “commonsense” justice? True, there are examples of juries wielding their own commonsense stick. For example, a verdict that occurred in 1981 when a South Australian jury returned a verdict of not guilty for a woman who had been charged with the murder of her husband. The jury decided that the defence of provocation (only available to reduce murder to manslaughter) exonerated her, figuring that, in the time before the victim’s death, his severe and persistent abuse of his family had pushed his wife to breaking point.
There is, however, a contrary argument. Research has revealed that “commonsense” comes with coded biases, such that telling jurors to use their commonsense is futile, given it’s difficult (if not impossible) to erode such biases.
One alternative to the jury is mixed judiciaries used in some European countries, where one may find a panel of judges or a combination of judges and lay people. But the common law world has never looked like following that lead.
Another alternative in use in Australia is a judge alone trial, although that option isn’t always available, and by virtue of Section 80 of the Constitution isn’t available in a trial of a serious federal offence. Indeed, there’s no guarantee that judges themselves are immune from social media influences. While there’s a widespread belief that judges are more capable than juries of putting to one side their own prejudices, the rules regarding sub judice contempt (discussing publicly a matter that is before a court in a manner that may influence the outcome) applies equally to judge alone and jury trials.
Adding to the policy confusion, there’s some evidence trials by judge alone do make a difference to the outcome. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics examined NSW trials between 1993 and 2011 and found defendants were acquitted 55.4% of the time in a judge alone trial, compared to 29% in a jury trial.
Another reform idea is to allow jurors to raise questions with the judge during breaks in the trial, including asking about things they may have “accidentally” come across on social media. A judge could send the jury out while the lawyers present to the judge how they think the questions should be handled and answered. However, this idea has yet to excite policymakers.
In the end, we must accept there are flaws in jury process. But finding acceptable alternatives has proved difficult, hence the reluctance of governments to abandon the status quo. Judges will continue to warn against private sleuthing, but one suspects that it will, from time to time, continue regardless.
One can only hope the disaster that befell the Lehrmann trial sends a salutary lesson to prospective jurors henceforth: listen to what the judge tells you, and during the course of the trial leave your favourite search engine alone.
For the one in 13 people who suffer from phobias, the mere mention of spiders, heights, enclosed spaces or other triggers can cause distress.
Fortunately, phobias are highly treatable with a psychological therapy called “exposure therapy”. This type of treatment involves interacting with the phobic triggers in a safe environment.
Our recent review showed a single, longer session of exposure therapy is the most time-efficient treatment format for phobias, leading to large reductions in symptoms in as little as a few hours. Unfortunately, an arbitrary rule in the Medicare rebate scheme financially discourages treatment delivered this way.
We all fear certain objects or situations. For some people it is snakes or spiders, for others it’s public speaking, driving over bridges or crowds. Fear becomes problematic, and may warrant a diagnosis of specific phobia, when it is excessive in relation to the actual threat posed, persistent and causes significant impairment or disruption to daily life.
Phobias are among the most common mental health conditions worldwide. People with phobias go to great lengths to avoid the things that trigger their fear, often with negative consequences. For example, people with blood-injection-injury phobia may refuse routine medical care, or vaccines, endangering their health.
The good news is exposure therapy is a highly effective treatment for phobias. Exposure therapy helps people gradually confront their fears without escaping them. This could involve handling nonvenomous spiders (in the case of spider phobia), or entering an enclosed space (in the case of claustrophobia).
Exposure therapy changes beliefs about how dangerous a feared object or situation actually is, which makes the person less anxious the next time they encounter it.
Exposure therapy can be delivered in a single, long session lasting several hours. Alternatively, it can be delivered in lots of shorter sessions. But which treatment format should a psychologist – or person with a phobia – choose?
A longer single session may be more attractive to the client because it’s easier and cheaper to arrange work or school absences, childcare and transport.
To make an informed choice, we need to compare the effectiveness of the two treatment formats – in other words, how well and how quickly they work.
Our meta-analysis, to be published in the December edition of Behaviour Research and Therapy, combined the outcomes of 67 separate studies examining 1,758 adults and children treated for phobia using single-session or multi-session exposure therapy.
We found both treatment formats brought about large reductions in fear and avoidance. However, single-session exposure therapy took an average of 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete. Multi-session exposure therapy took an average of 5 hours to complete – almost double the time.
Our results show that while both treatment formats are highly effective, single-session is the more time-efficient option. Psychologists could embrace this new evidence as one means of tackling rising patient waitlists. However, in Australia, single-session treatments have a hidden cost – and this is due to how Medicare rebates are structured.
The Better Access initiative was launched in 2006 to improve access to mental health care in Australia. Medicare rebates are available for ten separate sessions of psychological treatment per year by an eligible health provider (extended to 20 sessions until December 2022 due to COVID).
The maximum rebate is currently A$131.65 for a session of 50 minutes or longer with a clinical psychologist.
But rebates must be distributed over 10 separate sessions. If people seeking treatment for a phobia were to opt to receive several hours of exposure therapy in a single session, their maximum rebate will be $131.65. Yet psychologists typically charge by the time spent. That means the treatment is more expensive on a per hour basis, and the upfront cost of single-session treatment is substantially greater than for multi-session treatment.
Imagine Mary and Sally, two people with spider phobia, receive exposure therapy from Helen, a clinical psychologist. Helen charges an hourly rate of $280, as recommended by the Australian Psychological Society.
Sally’s total cost for one three-hour session would be $840 with a rebate of $131.65 ($708.35 out-of-pocket, to be paid immediately). Mary’s total cost for five hour-long sessions would be $1,400 with a rebate of $658.25 ($741.75 out-of-pocket, to be paid over five weeks or more).
So the out-of-pocket costs are similar under the current rules. However, Mary receives almost twice the amount of treatment time and payments are spread out over many weeks. Having to pay out more for one long session, makes the upfront cost more prohibitive for Sally.
If rebates were calculated by the hour, then Sally’s out-of-pocket costs could be reduced to $445.05. And she would have fewer sessions to arrange or miss work for.
Medicare rebates for mental health services are paid by the session not by the hour. Pexels, CC BY
Removing barriers to accessing evidence-based psychological treatments is a major priority. A simple change to the Better Access policy would remove the financial barrier to single-session exposure therapy, at no additional cost to the government. This could be achieved by granting a rebate based on time, not the number of exposure therapy sessions. Ten rebates could be made available in a calendar year, irrespective of whether they are used in a single session or spaced out over different sessions.
Other studies have investigated the feasibility of intensive treatment formats for other mental health conditions beyond phobias, panic disorder, with promising results.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.
The authors wish to acknowledge the research contribution of Katarzyna Odgers who is lead author on the meta-analysis cited.
Bronwyn Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Sophie H Li 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.
Chauffeur mums are a well-known Australian phenomenon. A lack of convenient transport options coupled with gendered roles has made many suburban women (and their children) car-dependent, whether they like it or not. And, more often than not, the demands of household chores and child rearing fall more heavily on women.
The car is the default option because public transport services are a poor fit for the complex travel patterns of working mothers. Schools and childcare are often not conveniently located close to either home or the workplace. Managing drop-offs in peak hour while trying to get to work on time can be a nightmare.
So many of the issues women face are a result of urban planning that hasn’t properly considered their needs. As one planner explained to researchers:
“The way that we learn and do planning in Australia is a derived Victorian model. The reasons why development is regulated and the way that planning is regulated and the language we use is hugely around those very white male concepts.”
These gendered impacts need to be placed at the heart of all stages of urban planning, an approach known as gender mainstreaming. Until this happens, our cities won’t be woman-friendly.
The federal government’s recent Women’s Budget Statement recognises that “gender inequality is holding Australia back”. It commits the government to “advancing gender equality as a national priority and closing the gender gaps in our community”.
The government promises significant investments to support structural changes in favour of women. Key topics include women’s economic equality, safety, health and wellbeing. Better financial access – to housing, child care, health care and so on – is a recurring theme of the statement.
This is all highly desirable. What the federal budget fails to explicitly recognise is that poor urban planning causes, or makes worse, so many of the difficulties facing Australian women.
How is urban planning to blame?
The budget statement highlights, for example, the housing affordability crisis and a lack of shelters for homeless, battered women. But these issues are also part and parcel of urban planning.
Physical access to work is mentioned in relation to disability, but it affects able-bodied women as well. Part of the problem lies with the layout of our cities and the design of our public transport systems.
Inflexible trunk lines link suburbs to central business districts and run on rigid schedules. They do not cater well for trips that are not a simple commute, but which instead might involve various destinations across the suburbs.
On-demand services, such as those provided by ride-hailing companies, may better suit many women. So may micromobility services, such as bike-sharing, provided that dedicated, safe infrastructure is in place. Yet, unlike conventional public transport, those services are not subsidised in Australia.
Women generally drive less than men. But mothers who choose to shun cars can be stigmatised as immature or irresponsible. One study of car-free lifestyles notes:
“Here, parents are expected to ensure that their children have access to a range of after-school activities, even where these are located quite far apart. The onus is on the parents to drive their children any distance lest they miss out on opportunities for enrichment.”
These gendered practices are costly – and environmentally unfriendly – but the way we plan our cities forces women to adopt them.
The budget report contains a section on “climate change and gender” but does not elaborate on how the two may be related.
Another issue is physical access to childcare. The budget talks about “cheaper childcare”, which is obviously crucial. But where it’s located matters too.
If kindergartens are not integrated with people’s workplaces or placed near people’s homes, the extra travel to get to them lengthens and complicates women’s work days. A helpful intervention would be to require all large employers to provide childcare on site.
Finally, the budget statement treats gender-based violence as something that only occurs behind closed doors. But women lack safety in many public spaces too, even on public transport, leading to inequitable use.
According to an OECD report, only 61% of Australian women feel safe when walking alone at night in their suburb, compared to 77% of men. As a professional planner observed:
“I don’t think men realise that women travel through the city differently. […] I had the experience of walking along the bike path the other evening and a jogger came up behind me, and instinctively I thought, ‘Is this OK? Is it a safe situation?’ But men don’t have those moments, even if they’re fleeting moments. I understand that statistically young men are much more likely to be victims of violent street crime than women. But women are more fearful, and that perception changes behaviour.”
In future, the women’s budget might benefit from being structured around the concept of gender mainstreaming. In urban planning, it means gender issues are considered in all stages and aspects of the process: research, advocacy, dialogue, legislation, resourcing, implementation and evaluation.
In Australia, city planning rarely applies comprehensive gender mainstreaming techniques. Yet a number of generic toolkits and guidelines are available.
The United Kingdom’s Royal Town Planning Institute produced one of the first of these resources in 2003. This year, the global consultancy Arup, together with the United Nations Development Programme and the University of Liverpool, released a gender mainstreaming guide, which contains a wealth of best practice examples from around the world.
It is time for Australia to follow suit, based on the premise that women-friendly cities work better for all. But a note of caution: generic gender-mainstreaming solutions will need to be tailored to work in the Australian context. Cookie-cutter policies and targets are not the way to go.
Dorina Pojani has received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN)
My research highlights how some parents are not necessarily choosing to homeschool for religious reasons or because they want to hothouse their kids. Nor are they doing it as their first choice.
Rather some are doing it because their children are being bullied and going to school is no longer a safe option.
How many Australians homeschool?
As of 2021, there were about 26,000 young people in home education in Australia – this includes both homeschooling and those who do distance education.
We saw numbers increase due to COVID disruptions and know they have grown since then.
There are more than 26,000 young people who are educated at home in Australia. Annie Spratt/Unsplash
These include the “religious fanatics” who don’t want their child learning about evolution, or being exposed to liberal attitudes on sex and gender.
There are also “off-grid hippies” who feel they want to keep institutions out of their lives. This group are also likely to be anti-vaxxers.
Some homeschoolers are also thought of as “hot-housers” who believe their child is too gifted and special to be in a mainstream classroom.
People also associate homeschooling with socially isolated children who refuse to leave their room and play with other kids.
My research: the impact of bullying
In new research colleagues and I examined how bullying had affected families who had chosen to homeschool their children.
We interviewed six parents all of whom identified bullying as their number one reason for homeschooling. All participants were from New South Wales and Queensland.
In our forthcoming paper, these families identified a number of serious incidents. One mother talked about how son (who is allergic to nuts) was tormented by a group of children with a peanut butter sandwich. They reportedly wanted to see if he would die from exposure to the allergen.
The last thing before I pulled him out [school] was being chased through the school by kids who’d bought a peanut butter sandwich. And [my son] was in fear, he was in fear of his life.
Another mother told of her child who was constantly beaten up in the toilets because of his issues with bladder control. She said his teacher had not helped, even belittling him in front of other children, saying “babies need help to go the toilet”.
Another interviewee’s daughter, who was on the autism spectrum, was spending every day hiding behind the classroom door to protect herself from classroom bullies. She said her daughter would grab the day’s work and spend the rest of the time behind the door.
She had actually decorated the door, she was there so often she […] put up a sign that said, ‘I am here because I need help’.
It is clear from these stories, and those in other studies, that bullying is a significant factor in some parents choosing to homeschool.
Significantly, the relationship between bullying and homeschooling has also been seen in other countries, including the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.
Yes, this is complex, but the consequences are severe
We also know some of these young people have complex needs, such as physical issues with bladder control, serious nut allergies and autism.
These needs were not being met or managed by their schools and made the child more vulnerable. As one of our participant parents noted, by being different, they were a target.
All our participants reported they had tried to work with the school. But the issues had either continued or the child had been so traumatised by their experience, they refused to go to back to school. Some participants had tried multiple schools.
The parents all noted how much schools were struggling, because they have to manage everyone’s needs and can’t be everywhere. But when schools do fail to manage the bullying, it can push families into homeschooling.
The families in our study told us they now had to carefully plan their journeys passing the school or their child would have panic attacks and meltdowns.
Some days if we drive the wrong way to the supermarket […] and it’s not even the same school that he was at […] there’s that real negative association with schools and classrooms.
What happens now?
Growth in homeschooling numbers suggests families who keep their children at home are going to be an increasingly significant educational force.
Until serious steps are undertaken to work with parents, and understand their decision to keep their children at home, it’s likely the numbers will continue to rise.
There is also a risk governments will lose contact with these families if they continue to choose not to register as homeschoolers with authorities.
Rebecca English 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.
Australia’s top economists have overwhelmingly endorsed intervention to restrain gas and electricity prices, with only three of the 47 leading economists surveyed believing the best thing the government can do is to leave things to the market.
The 47 economists surveyed are members of a panel selected by a committee of the Economic Society of Australia for its expertise in fields including public policy and economic modelling. Among its members are former Reserve Bank, Treasury and OECD officials, and a former member of the Reserve Bank board.
Previously unpalatable options
Told that Treasurer Jim Chalmers is examining options that until recently would have “not have seemed palatable” in the wake of forecast retail electricity and gas price increases of 56% and 44% over the next two years, the panel was presented with a list of options and asked to choose the most valuable.
Only two ticked the option titled “government should not intervene”.
Two-thirds of those surveyed picked options that would cap domestic gas prices, use an extra tax on the profits of gas exporters to subsidise energy prices, or reserve gas that would otherwise be exported for domestic use.
Gas prices feed into electricity prices because gas generators are usually the last to be turned on after cheaper options have been exhausted, meaning they determine the price for which extra wholesale electricity is sold.
Tax excess profits
The measure that attracted the most support (13 out of the 47 economists) was increasing the tax of the “resource rents” enjoyed by gas producers, and using proceeds to cut electricity and gas prices.
Resource rents are the excess profits earned from the sale of resources that flow from the sellers’ exclusive access to the resource.
Australian gas producers already face a special resource rent tax, but weaknesses in its design mean that, even at the present unprecedentedly-high gas prices, it is expected to bring in just A$2.6 billion in 2022-23, falling to $2 billion by 2025-26.
Innovation expert Beth Webster from Swinburne said the windfall gains to gas exporters flowing from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should not go to shareholders, many of whom were foreign, but to national priorities such as price relief for Australians on low incomes.
Independent economist Rana Roy said while energy prices had traditionally been too low to cover the society-wide costs of producing the energy, at the moment prices were, in many instances, “well above” the social cost.
Help low earners first
Six of the 13 economists who backed an increased resource rent tax wanted the proceeds directed to assisting lower-income energy consumers before others.
Another six wanted targeted subsidies for low-income consumers even if they weren’t funded by increased resource rent taxes.
Offered the option of picking a measure not on the list, two of the 47 picked “unrestricted cash transfers”. They made the point that lower retail prices would have the unhelpful side effect of encouraging the continued use of gas, whereas cash payments would enable consumers to cut their use of gas while banking the cash.
Reserve gas for locals
Eleven of those surveyed wanted the government to reserve gas equivalent to 15% of each eastern state liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project for use in Australia, as happens in Western Australia.
Former senior Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development official Adrian Blundell-Wignall said the requirement seemed to be “tried and tested” and was the best of a list of uncomfortable choices.
Curtin University economist Harry Bloch said while reserving 15% of the output of LNG projects would change the conditions under which they were licensed, the operators applied for the licences at a time when expected prices were lower.
Ken Clements of the University of Western Australia strongly disagreed, saying Western Australia’s 15% reservation policy should be scrapped. It operated as an export tax and shielded West Australians from the high prices needed to encourage conservation and look after the environment.
Curtin University’s Margaret Nowak said it was “too late” to hit the the eastern state exporters with licence restrictions after the licences had been granted.
The best that could be done was to ask the eastern state exporters to supply more gas to Australians, as the government has done, and to impose a price cap on those sales that was closer to the pre-invasion price than to the present international price.
Cap prices for agreed supply
Six of the 47 economists supported a cap on the price at which producers can sell what they have already agreed to supply domestically, even though several would normally “be hesitant to promote this type of intervention”.
Grattan Institute chief executive Danielle Wood said the magnitude of the internationally-driven price hikes constituted an exceptional circumstance that justified a time-limited fix.
So long as regulators picked a reasonable benchmark for the price cap, such as the pre-invasion price, producers would continue to earn healthy returns.
Boost supply longer term
Two of the economists surveyed nominated an item not on the list – encouraging the development of gas fields to boost supply – that would be unlikely to have an immediate impact on prices.
Of the three who picked “government should not intervene” one (Gigi Foster) said measures to restrain prices would get in the way of “basic economics”, which required consumers to cut back on their use of energy as prices rose.
Another (John Freebairn) said he nevertheless supported a higher resource rent tax to increase the government’s share of the above-normal profits generated by corporations granted licences to mine Australian-owned deposits.
Treasurer Chalmers said on Thursday he expected to produce a costed plan for restraining energy prices by Christmas.
Detailed responses:
Peter Martin 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.
Following Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter on October 27, the world’s richest man proposed a range of controversial changes to the platform. With mounting evidence that he is making it up as he goes along, these proposals are tweeted out in a stream-of-consciousness manner from Musk’s Twitter account.
Primarily to raise revenue, one of the ideas was to charge US$8 a month to obtain a verified status – that is, the coveted blue tick badge next to the account handle.
Within the space of a few days, the paid verification change has already been rolled out in several countries, including Australia, under the Twitter Blue subscription service.
More than just verification
According to Twitter, the blue tick lets people know an account of interest is authentic. Currently, there are seven categories of “public interest accounts”, such as government office accounts, news organisations and journalists, and influencers.
Yet this seemingly innocuous little blue icon is far from a simple verification tool in Twitter’s fight against impersonation and fraud.
In the public view, a verified status signifies social importance. It is a coveted status symbol to which users aspire, in large part because Twitter’s approval process has made it difficult to obtain.
There’s a fundamental mismatch between what Twitter wants the blue tick to mean versus how the public perceives it, something the Twitter Safety team itself acknowledged in 2017.
But they didn’t resolve it. When Twitter resumed verifying accounts systematically in 2021, it wasn’t long until the process began to fail again, with blue ticks being handed out to bots and fake accounts.
Moreover, the public is still confused about what the blue tick signifies, and views it as a status symbol.
Lords and peasants
Musk’s stream-of-consciousness policy proposals may reflect his own preference for interacting with verified accounts. Despite his repeated claims of “power to the people” and breaking the “lords and peasants” system of verified versus non-verified accounts, I ran a data analysis of 1,493 of Musk’s tweets during 2022, and found that more than half (57%) of his interactions were with verified accounts.
Evidently, having a verified status makes one worthy of his attention. Thus, Musk himself arguably views the blue tick as a status symbol, like everyone else (except Twitter).
However, Musk’s US$8 blue tick proposal is not only misguided but, ironically, likely to produce even more inauthenticity and harm on the platform.
A fatal flaw stems from the fact that “payment verification” is not, in fact, verification.
Fact from fraud
Although Twitter’s verification system is by no means perfect and is far from transparent, it did at least aspire to the kinds of verification practices journalists and researchers use to distinguish fact from fiction, and authenticity from fraud. It takes time and effort. You can’t just buy it.
Despite its flaws, the verification process largely succeeded in rooting out a sizable chunk of illegitimate activity on the platform, and highlighted notable accounts in the public interest. In contrast, Musk’s payment verification only verifies that a person has US$8.
Payment verification can’t guarantee the system won’t be exploited for social harm. For example, we already saw that conspiracy theory influencers such as “QAnon John” are at risk of becoming legitimised through the purchase of a blue tick.
Opening the floodgates for bots
The problem is even worse at larger scales. It is hard enough to detect and prevent bot and troll networks from poisoning the information landscape with disinformation and spam.
Now, for the low cost of US$800, foreign adversaries can launch a network of 100 verified bot accounts. The more you can pay, the more legitimacy you can purchase in the public sphere.
To make matters worse, Musk publicly stated that verified accounts who pay US$8 will be granted more visibility on the platform, while non-verified accounts will be suppressed algorithmically.
He believes this will solve hate speech and fake accounts by prioritising verified accounts in search, replies and mentions. If anything, it will have the opposite effect: those with enough money will dominate the public sphere. Think Russian bots and cryptocurrency spammers.
Worse yet, connecting social media profiles to payment verification could cause real harm if a person’s account is compromised and the attacker learns their identity through their payment records.
A cascade of consequences
Musk’s ideas are already causing a cascading series of unintended consequences on the platform. Accounts with blue ticks began changing their profile handle to “Elon Musk” and profile picture to parody him. In response, Musk tweeted a new policy proposal that Twitter handles engaging in impersonation would be suspended unless they specify being a “parody”.
Musk’s vision for user verification does not square up with that of Twitter or the internet research community.
While the existing system is flawed, at least it was systematic, somewhat transparent, and with the trappings of accountability. It was also revisable in the face of public criticism.
On the other hand, Musk’s policy approach is tyrannical and opaque. Having abolished the board of directors, the “Chief Twit” has all the power and almost no accountability.
We are left with a harrowing vision of a fragile and flawed online public square: in a world where everyone is verified, no one is verified.
Timothy Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council for his Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE220101435), ‘Combatting Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Social Media’. He also receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Defence.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Analysis by Keith Rankin.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
In the last three months, Elizabeth (Liz) Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng performed an amazing political boom and bust routine. They captured the British Conservative Party at a time that such a capture meant a direct route to power in the United Kingdom. (More commonly, at least in New Zealand, political party leaders change when their parties are not leading the government.) A few weeks later, their fall – first Kwarteng, the Truss – was even quicker, as their mantra was politically discredited. But what about the economic rationale for their tone-deaf programme; a self-serving agenda which captured the hearts of a few privileged Englishmen, while appearing foolish to everyone else.
There was a clear-cut economic rationale, which was not properly explained in the media; the British and other media were generally looking for political angles to their stories.
Truss and Kwarteng, in reality, were supplying a dose of 1980s-style ‘supply-side economics’; commonly called ‘trickle-down’, though the concept of ‘trickle-down’ has been politicised to the point of becoming academically meaningless and politically vacuous.
Supply-side economics formed the ideological basis for ‘Reaganomics’ in the early 1980s, and was linked in particular to the economic analysis of Arthur Laffer and the advocacy of economist Robert Mundell. So, formal ‘supply-side economics’ may be called the ‘Laffer/Mundell theory of economic growth’.
The policy is one of ‘unfunded tax cuts’ which reduce the tax liability mainly of those in the top income decile. Technically, ‘unfunded’ means that they are financed by borrowed money. However, the critical component of the supply-side theory is that tax reductions would in themselves cause the economy – real gross domestic product (GDP), ‘the taxable pie’ – to grow sufficiently more than it otherwise would; so that the tax cuts would be funded, albeit with a lag, not by borrowing but instead by increased revenue arising from that presumed increase in the size of the GDP pie.
The Truss/Kwarteng project was particularly tone-deaf because of its advocacy of accelerated economic growth in a time that traditional growth is destroying the planet as we know it. And it was tone-deaf because it was advocating more inequality in a nation, indeed in the world, in which there was clearly too much inequality.
But what were the assumptions which led Truss and Kwarteng to believe that Laffer/Mundell supply-side economics was good economic or good political policy? First, I’ll note the political assumptions. To get into power, Truss and Kwarteng had to play to a privileged minority who liked the sound of policies; a political audience with ‘low political intelligence’ who liked the sound of policies that would augment their own entrenched privilege.
That political marketing then became a liability, as Truss and Kwarteng then had to perform for very different and much larger audiences; audiences with more political nous, though not necessarily with the intellectual tools to debunk supply-side economics.
‘Unfunded’ fiscal policy
Unfunded fiscal policy – whether increased government spending or subsidies unmatched by tax increases, or decreased revenue unmatched by spending cuts – is appropriate in many situations. This is despite the widespread belief, pushed in New Zealand by both big political parties, that economic health for a country depends on ‘balanced budgets’ for its government sector.
The most obvious of these contexts is that, as formally described by Keynes in the 1930s, increased government or consumer spending becomes necessary to spark a recovery from economic depression. This was an argument for a temporary deviation from balanced budget fiscal policy; and, as with supply-side economics, it looked to higher future GDP as the means to restore fiscal balance. But this was ‘demand-side economics’, with the emphasis on a mix of government projects and belated consumer spending as drivers of growth.
Keynesian economics almost always succeeded in this aim when pursued in this context, although there were international constraints; balance of payments difficulties would emerge in those countries which pursued the ‘get-out-of-depression’ policy most vigorously. And, in today’s world of floating exchange rates, currency depreciation would likely lead to higher inflation in such countries. (Though, today, Japan has lower inflation with a falling currency, and the United States has higher inflation with a rising currency!)
The world economy since the 1990s has faced additional structural issues, which may make sluggish economies more resistant to Keynesian-style demand stimulus. The most important of these issues relate to the physical environment, with carbon-dioxide-led global warming being pre-eminent among these issues. In today’s world, growth is increasingly seen as the problem, not the solution.
Nevertheless, the Japan model, which arose after its crisis in the early 1990s, has shown that unfunded government spending need not be the mistake that most bureaucrats and commentators assume such policy to be. This successful approach by Japan became known as Abenomics; although, when under the auspices of Shinzo Abe, it should probably have been called Japanomics 2.0. Abenomics actually preceded Abe.
Now, this month, we have seen the effective commencement of Japanomics 2.1. (Refer ‘Counting the Cost’ – Al Jazeera, 5 Nov 2022 – for the relaunch of Japan’s successful heterodox approach; a stimulus rather than a depressant.) Abenomics is about running structural fiscal deficits as a way of offsetting both a domestic resistance to higher taxes and a domestic predilection for investment in public infrastructure. It shows. Japan has arguably the highest living standard in the world, low inequality, and easily the world’s highest public debt as a percent of GDP. High Japanese public debt is not perceived as a constraint on government investment.
Today, Japan has the world’s lowest interest rates and just about the world’s lowest inflation. Further, it is not pushing for economic growth as such, as the way forward. Rather, Japan seeks to counter the negative growth that both its demographics and its consumer conservatism would otherwise bring about. An important and exportable variation of Japannomics would be to stimulate ‘sustainability’ rather than overt ‘growth’.
In 2022, Japan is to macroeconomics what Sweden is to covid. Successful, so ignored lest the word gets out that there are alternative policies to deal with the West’s apparently intractable public health, labour, and cost of living problems.
The supply-side version of unfunded fiscal policy is quite different to either Keynesonomics or Abenomics, in that Laffer and Mundell emphasised tax cuts over increased government outlays, and that they looked to business and entrepreneurs – rather than consumers or bureaucrats – to lead the growth charge.
An appraisal of the Laffer/Mundell theory
First, we note the present questioning of the belief that perpetual economic growth is not only good but also necessary. Concern about the ‘economic growth is always good’ assumption was already starting to be questioned in the early 1970s. (The questioning in the late-1960s of the sustainability of rapid population growth came from a different but overlapping political constituency. In the 1960s the concern emerged that population growth, as was occurring then, would erode the otherwise beneficial increases in material living standards.) In the 1980s, however, economic growth – understood as the imperative to ‘make money’, the more the better – was back in vogue.
Second, an underlying assumption of supply-side economics is that people – especially people who already have high incomes – are somewhat lazy, unmotivated to ‘produce more’ in the absence of ‘sweeteners’. The particular sweeteners emphasised here are the ‘marginal tax rate’ and the company tax rate. (A key part of the ideology here is the liberal idea that ‘tax is theft’; and, per se, a discouragement to produce [especially a discouragement to capitalists]. Also is the mercantilist idea of growth as the accumulation of capital/money; where value to society lies in the money made, not necessarily in the mass-consumption of consumables.) The flipside to the view that capitalists need sweeteners is the view that labourers need discipline. If after-tax wages become too high, then labourers would respond by working less, not more. (Hence, increased national incomes should only trickle down to workers, giving them time to raise their material aspirations.)
In essence, the Laffer/Mundell assumptions are that growth is the essence of goodness. And that national economies have substantial spare capacity; we may call this the postulate of ‘latent surge capacity’. Laffer and Mundell emphasised entrepreneurial surge as the central benefit of supply-side economics.
We are now just coming to appreciate that the capacities of our economies are indeed critically important; contrast that with our former (pre-covid) general assumption that it was money – rather than labour and the environment – which constrained our capacity to progress.
A particular ‘technical’ feature of the supply-side theory was called the ‘Laffer Curve’. This was an inverted u-shape graph which pointed out that tax revenue is zero if the tax rate is 0%, and also zero if the tax rate is 100%. (If the tax rate was 100%, in a free economy nobody would work at all; no money made would mean no tax could be collected.) Therefore, Laffer argued, some tax rate between 0% and 100% maximises tax revenue. While finding what that ‘optimal’ tax rate is might be difficult, Laffer’s emphasis suggested that a ‘marginal rate’ of around 30% might be the magic number. Supply-siders favoured a flat rate – or flattish-rate – tax structure, so that moving onto a higher marginal tax rate would not be available as a disincentive to the undertaking of additional production. Keynesian economists rubbished the idea that switching from a top marginal rate of 45% to one of say 33% could ever actually increase the tax take.
The central concept, little discussed in economics’ education, is called ‘supply elasticity’. It’s essentially ‘surge capacity’. Jacinda Ardern had a good understanding of the concept, when discussing the difficulties faced by the New Zealand economy in meeting the challenges of the Covid19 pandemic.
The principal economic lesson we should have been learning from the pandemic is that economies with surge capacity are healthier than economies which are ‘maxed out’. Supply-elastic economies do not necessarily grow more slowly than maxed-out economies, though at any point in time a supply-elastic economy has a lower GDP than an economy with the same resources that is maxed out. While supply-elastic economies have ‘work-life balance’ in normal times, they have the capacity to surge during emergencies (ie to strike a different balance); such surges represent temporary changes to normal work-life balance. Even if, post-emergency, a new normal is established, any normal (by definition) should have work-life balance with ample spare capacity. It is work-life balance in normal times that gives an economy that reserve capacity to respond to the special needs associated with special circumstances.
Supply-side economics represents a particular – and peculiar – take on the reasons why humans might not produce as much as they could be producing; that is, on why human productivity is less than it could be. From their perspective, having disabled capacity is the central problem; and their ‘growth’ solution is really to ‘max out’ the economy, to use the spare capacity of economies in normal times, and therefore to create a ‘normal’ with no spare capacity to respond in the event of an emergency.
Supply-side economists argue – possibly correctly – that in total more money is made over a century under their policy prescription than under other policy settings, essentially because they believe that a well-functioning economy is permanently maxed-out. (That doesn’t mean they favour an unemployment target of zero percent. Supply-siders believe that an unemployment rate of at least four percent is necessary to have a disciplined workforce, and that a disciplined workforce always produces more than a workforce with workers who have options to work less.)
We should also note that the huge ‘success’ of supply-side economics in the late twentieth century – ie success in the terms of its advocates – was fulfilled through the much greater exploitation of female labour in 2000 compared to 1975. In World Wars One and Two, much of the surge capacities of our economies was made possible through the ‘manpowering’ (as it was called) of women. Economies grew through the utilisation of more labour; this contrasts with the 1950s, the 1920s, and with the later nineteenth century, when economies grew despite a substantial and disproportionate expansion of the non-workforce.
The situation in Aotearoa New Zealand
The Labour Party in New Zealand is very actively trying to connect the Luxon/Willis National Party with the British Conservatives under Truss and Kwarteng. It doesn’t really work. National in New Zealand – while probably stuck in 1990s’ orthodoxy – is essentially pragmatic in intent. Luxon does not seek ‘growth’ in the way that Liz Truss did.
In wanting to price-index income tax thresholds, National are actually seeking to maintain the status quo. This contrasts with Labour (Ardern/Robertson) who are using the retention of nominal income tax thresholds as a means to increase tax revenue relative to GDP, and as a means to suppress working-class demand for goods and services.
We should also note that Truss and Kwarteng wanted to remove a long-standing top income-tax rate set at 45%. That would have left 40% as the top marginal rate (although Truss and Kwarteng also wanted to lower the ‘basic’ tax rate – equivalent to New Zealand’s 17½% rate – from 20% to 19%.) In New Zealand in 2017, the top income tax rate was 33%. The following year an additional tax step was introduced, recreating (from the 2000 to 2009) a 39% tax rate which few people pay (in part because many high-income-recipients are able to avoid it). The 39% rate has minimal economic significance in New Zealand, but was set in 2017 by Grant Robertson as a political trip-wire. Thus, in 2023, National will be forever accused of pursuing ‘Trussonomics’, meaning to grant tax cuts to the wealthy.
Conclusion
Beware the ‘forward to the 1980s’ political designs of those who seek to flatten their country’s income tax scale without also introducing a benefit in the form of a genuinely universal income. While such a project was the intent of the ‘come and gone’ leaders of the United Kingdom Conservative Party government, it is not the intent of His Majesty’s New Zealand Opposition (aka the National Party).
‘Supply-side economics’ is a trope whose time has passed. However, we do need a ‘new supply-side economics’ which emphasises both work-life balance in normal times – a balance which incentivises more sustainable ways of living – and stresses the need for economies to have space capacity to meet the special needs of unusual times. Spare capacity should not be taken to mean spare money! It means having workers and employers who are capable of becoming more productive – and differently productive – over short periods of time. (People who can ‘pivot’! Temporarily.)
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
You may have seen the news: in its attempts to tackle inflation, the Reserve Bank is going to increase unemployment. The idea can even seem to come right from the mouths of experts, including the bank’s governor, Adrian Orr. Speaking recently to an industry conference, he said:
Returning to low inflation will, in the near term, constrain employment growth and lead to a rise in unemployment.
But is it as simple as it might appear? What is the relationship between inflation and unemployment, and is it inevitable that reducing one will lead to an increase in the other?
Historic highs and lows
Like other developed countries, New Zealand has been going through a period of historically high inflation. The latest figures, for the September quarter of 2022, show an annual rise of 7.2%, only slightly lower than the 7.3% recorded for the June quarter.
Inflation is the highest it has been since 1990. The story is similar across the OECD, where inflation averages 10.3%, including 8.8% in the UK and 8.2% in the US.
At the same time, New Zealand is experiencing a period of very low unemployment, with a rate of just 3.3% for September 2022, following 3.2% in the June quarter. These are near-record lows, and the rate has not been below 4% since mid-2008.
So, right now New Zealand is in a period of historically low unemployment and historically high inflation. At first glance, that might suggest that in order to return to low inflation, we may inevitably experience higher unemployment.
The Phillips Curve
The idea that inflation and unemployment have a negative relationship (when one increases, the other decreases, and vice versa) dates back to work by New Zealand’s most celebrated economist, A.W. (Bill) Phillips.
While working at the London School of Economics in the 1950s, Phillips wrote a famous paper that used UK data from 1861 to 1957 and showed a negative relationship between unemployment and wage increases.
Subsequent work by economics Nobel Prize winners Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow extended Phillips’ work to show a negative relationship between price inflation and unemployment. We now refer to this relationship as the “Phillips Curve”.
However, even though this relationship between inflation and unemployment has been demonstrated with various data sources, and for various time periods for different countries, it is not a causal relationship.
Lower inflation doesn’t by itself cause higher unemployment, even though they are related. To see why, it’s worth thinking about the mechanism that leads to the observed relationship.
Collateral damage
If the Reserve Bank raises the official cash rate, commercial banks follow by raising their interest rates. That makes borrowing more expensive. Higher interest rates mean banks will lend less money. With less money chasing goods and services in the economy, inflation will start to fall.
Of course, this is what the Reserve Bank wants when it raises the cash rate. Its Policy Targets Agreement with the government states that inflation must be kept between 1% and 3%. So when inflation is predicted to be higher, the bank acts to lower it.
At the same time, higher interest rates increase mortgage payments, leaving households and consumers with less discretionary income, and so consumer spending falls. Along with reduced business spending, this reduces the amount of economic activity. Businesses therefore need fewer workers, and so employment falls.
So, while the Reserve Bank raises interest rates to combat inflation, those higher interest rates also slow down the economy and increase unemployment. Higher unemployment is essentially collateral damage arising from reducing inflation.
Great expectations
That’s not the end of the story, though. After its 1960s heyday, the Phillips Curve was criticised by economists on theoretical grounds, and for its inability to explain the “stagflation” (high unemployment and high inflation) experienced in the 1970s.
For example, Milton Friedman argued there is actually no trade-off between inflation and unemployment, because workers and businesses take inflation into account when negotiating employment contracts.
Workers’ and employers’ expectations about future inflation is key. Friedman argued that, because inflation is expected, workers will have already built it into their wage demands, and businesses won’t change the amount of workers they employ.
Friedman’s argument would suggest that, aside from some short-term deviations, the economy will typically snap back to a “natural” rate of unemployment, with an inflation rate that only reflects workers’ and businesses’ expectations.
Can we rely on this mechanism to avoid higher unemployment as the Reserve Bank increases interest rates to combat inflation?
It seems unlikely. Workers would first have to expect the Reserve Bank’s actions will lower inflation, and respond by asking for smaller wage increases. Right now, however, consumer inflation expectations remain high and wage growth is at record levels.
So, we can probably expect unemployment to move upwards as the Reserve Bank’s inflation battle continues. Not because lower inflation causes higher unemployment, but because worker and consumer expectations take time to reflect the likelihood of lower future inflation due to the Reserve Bank’s actions.
And since workers negotiate only infrequently with employers, there is an inevitable lag between inflation expectations changing and this being reflected in wages. Alas, for ordinary households, there is no quick and easy way out of this situation.
Michael P. Cameron 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Habib, Lecturer in International Relations, Department of Politics and Philosophy, La Trobe University
Ahn Young-joon/AP/AAP
The sustained frequency and intensity of North Korea’s missile launches in recent weeks has refocused attention on the Korean Peninsula at a time when the danger of great power war seems more immediate.
Yet the basic strategic balance on the Korean Peninsula remains as it has for decades: mutual deterrence based on overwhelming US military superiority and its nuclear umbrella on the one hand; North Korea’s ability to inflict unacceptably significant damage to Seoul on the other. Even in the context of North Korea’s nuclear weapons proliferation, this strategic balance has remained remarkably stable since the Korean War.
There are several possible reasons North Korea is testing a range of ballistic missiles at this time. If we step back from the immediate detail of the tit-for-tat escalations and rhetorical machismo, there are familiar patterns in its behaviour and in the reactions of the US and South Korea.
Demonstration of deterrence
Missile launches are a demonstration of North Korea’s deterrent capability. They show enemy states the country has the ability to strike the enemy targets it claims. Testing also helps North Korea ascertain how its adversaries might respond to those capabilities in the event of hot conflict.
North Korea’s diverse range of missile systems are the backbone of its deterrence posture and its nuclear weapons capability. Its missile systems need to be able to attack a variety of different targets at different distances, defeat the missile defence systems of its adversaries, and have mobile launch capabilities so an enemy attack cannot destroy them all at once.
For this deterrent to be credible, North Korea needs to demonstrate to its enemies that these systems work. Hence the tests.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un inspects a missile test at an undisclosed location in North Korea. AP/AAP/Photo released by North Korean government
Technological development and training
Missile launches test the technology itself. Once the technical aspects of each missile system are mastered, further testing helps personnel train command and control and launch protocols.
In January 2021, Kim Jong-Un announced a five-year weapons development plan to bolster and modernise the weapons inventory of the Korean People’s Army. This plan included a number of new missile systems such as submarine-launched missiles, intermediate-range missiles for targeting South Korea and Japan, and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of targeting the continental United States.
An argument can be made that some of the recent missile activity is related to technological mastery and command and control training.
North Korea has used missile tests for strategic signalling. This might include communicating displeasure to its adversaries, testing the resolve of an incoming president in Washington or Seoul, or as a pinprick escalation for coercive diplomatic bargaining.
In this context, North Korea’s behaviour through the past month represents a pendular swing back toward escalation, with an incoming conservative government in Seoul.
Newly elected South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol came to office promising a more muscular North Korea policy in response to the breakdown of Moon Jae-in’s summit engagement with the DPRK. Yoon’s “audacious” plan for massive economic assistance to North Korea is conditional on its denuclearisation.
Yoon has also promised more assertive responses to North Korean provocations, essentially repackaging the policies of his right-leaning predecessors Park Geun Hye and Lee Myung Bak. As it did during these previous periods of conservative rule in Seoul, North Korea in 2022 has responded to this retreat from engagement with escalation.
New South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol has promised a more muscular approach to North Korea, which may explain some of the North’s missile activity. Yonhap/EPA/AAP
North Korea’s reaction to joint US-South Korea military exercises has also been predictable. This month’s Vigilant Storm airforce exercises were the largest mobilisation ever for this event. It comes on the back of South Korea’s Hoguk military exercises and the large-scale joint US-South Korea Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises, the first joint field training in nearly five years.
While usually held annually, the Moon Jae-in administration wound back joint US-South Korea military exercises as a confidence-building measure in its inter-Korean summit diplomacy. The exercises were then further curtailed due to the COVID pandemic. After a five-year hiatus, this year’s resumption of joint exercises rekindles what was an annual source of tension.
Internal signalling
North Korea has used missile tests for internal signalling to domestic audiences, as a nod to important constituencies in the military establishment, as a demonstration of strength and technological prowess to its public, and as a distraction during times of internal crisis.
Such a demonstration makes sense in the context of the even greater hardship experienced by the North Korean people over the past three years. The convergence of the COVID pandemic with successive disaster impacts from typhoons, floods and drought has presented the nation with its most significant systemic challenge since the Arduous March period of the 1990s.
The sustained pace of missile launches may serve as a distraction to focus the North Korean people’s gaze on the external enemy rather than their own distress and the government’s role in it.
In North Korea’s current flurry of missile launches we see the repetition of old patterns of escalation and response. While there is still risk associated with any escalation of tension on the Korean Peninsula, this is far from uncharted territory.
Benjamin Habib does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Induction of labour for women having their first baby has risen in Australia from 26% in 2010 to 46% in 2020, according to the latest data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). This compares to a rise from 21% to 34% over roughly the same period in the UK (for all births, not just first-time mothers).
South Australia was the highest state with 48.8% induction rates for first time mothers, and Queensland the lowest with 40.5%.
Why are rates so high in Australia, and why are they increasing?
First, why do we induce labours?
Doctors or midwives might recommend induction when they believe allowing the pregnancy to continue could pose a risk to the mother or baby.
This can be for multiple reasons, including prolonged pregnancy (being overdue), diabetes, bleeding, medical complications, ruptured membranes, high blood pressure, twin pregnancy, infection, large babies or foetal death.
There are many reasons labour might be induced, including being overdue. jimmy conover/unsplash, CC BY
If the woman or birthing parent decides to proceed with induction, this can occur in several ways. A popular method for inducing labour involves the midwife or doctor inserting a small catheter through the woman’s cervix (the neck of the womb) and inflating a balloon on the other side, or sometimes on both sides.
This mechanical pressure can stimulate the production of prostaglandin (a natural hormone that helps prepare for labour) and encourage a slight opening of the woman’s cervix. This allows the doctor or midwife to break the membranes (releasing the amniotic fluid) around the baby with a special plastic hook. At this point, a hormone called oxytocin can be used to stimulate contractions and labour.
Other methods for inducing labour include applying hormones directly to the cervix, or rupturing the membranes of the amniotic sac.
Australian women are giving birth at the average age of 30.8 years, which has been slowly increasing over the past decade. Pregnancy risks and medical complications increase with advanced age or with very young women. Many of these complications can increase the likelihood of a recommendation of induction.
Obesity adds another layer of complexity when considering pregnancy and birth. The AIHW 2018 report found 47% of women giving birth in Australia were either obese or overweight at their first antenatal visit. We know women who are overweight or obese have significant increased risks in pregnancy and birth and these risks extend to their babies.
The UK’s Care of Women with Obesity in Pregnancy Guideline and Best Practice Statement from the Royal College of Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists highlights the risks for overweight pregnant women and these include hypertension, pre-eclampsia, haemorrhage, depression, diabetes, venous thromboembolism, infection, failed induction and death.
They also highlight additional risks for the baby if the mother is overweight or obese in pregnancy and these can include stillbirth, large baby, shoulder dystocia (where the baby gets stuck during birth), prematurity, admission to the nursery and undiagnosed congenital abnormalities.
Some inductions occur at the request of the woman and in the absence of risks that might necessitate induction. It is these cases where a reduction in rates should be targeted. Women can mistakenly believe induction is a risk-free procedure when we know it is better for mother and child a woman establishes in labour without interventions where possible. This is because each intervention in the birthing process is more likely to lead to further interventions.
Does it matter rates are increasing?
A recent review of studies found in places where labour is induced once a woman reaches 40 weeks or shortly thereafter, there are fewer stillbirths and perinatal deaths (deaths shortly after birth).
However when labour is induced the baby must be monitored, which involves strapping equipment to the woman’s abdomen or directly to the baby’s head. This can restrict movement for some women, and women frequently use movement to help them manage contractions.
Moving around helps women manage contractions, and foetal monitoring equipment makes that difficult. alexander grey/unsplash, CC BY
Sometimes despite using the methods described above the induction may not be successful. In these cases, a different method may be attempted, or the doctor or midwife may try again in a few days. Sometimes a caesarean may be recommended.
Another potential side effect is from the hormone used to stimulate contractions – occasionally these hormones cause over-stimulation of the uterus, and this can stress the baby. The hormone can be stopped but sometimes because of the impact on the baby’s wellbeing a caesarean might be recommended.
Induction rates are higher in Australia than like countries and without detailed data about all reasons for induction it is difficult to comment on the cause of these increases. The demographics as described above may be one factor.
Ultimately women should talk with their midwife or doctor about any concerns they may have, and make the best decision that is informed by their individual pregnancy.
Angela Brown 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.
The United States Capitol building west wing seen in August 6th 2021. WikiCommons.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
Shutterstock
The United States midterm elections will be held Tuesday. Owing to time differences, polls will not start closing until late Wednesday morning AEDT.
All 435 House of Representatives seats are up for election, as well as 35 of the 100 senators. Democrats won the House by 222-213 in 2020, and hold the Senate on a 50-50 tie with Vice President Kamala Harris’ casting vote.
The FiveThirtyEight forecasts now give Republicans an 83% chance to win the House and a 54% chance to win the Senate. There’s a 53% chance of Republicans winning both chambers, a 30% chance of Democrats holding the Senate while Republicans win the House, and a 16% chance of Democrats holding both chambers.
Since my October 20 article on the US midterm elections, Republicans have taken the lead in the Senate forecast after Democrats had a 61% chance to hold previously; this is Republicans’ first lead since July. Republican chances are also up in the House, from 75% to 83%.
Of the 35 Senate seats up for election, 21 are held by Republicans and 14 by Democrats. As Republicans are defending more seats, forecasts give Democrats a better chance to hold the Senate than the House.
The closest Senate races in the FiveThirtyEight averages are currently Georgia (tied), Pennsylvania (tied) and Nevada (Republicans up one). If Republicans won all three and there were no other upsets, they would win the Senate by 52-48. If Democrats won all three, they would win by 51-49.
Other Senate races within five points are Arizona (Democrats up two), New Hampshire (D+2), Wisconsin (R+3), North Carolina (R+4) and Ohio (R+4).
Polling of the national House popular vote now favours Republicans by 1.1% (46.6-45.5) after Democrats led by 0.3% in my October 20 article. Republicans recently regained the lead on this measure for the first time since early August.
President Joe Biden’s ratings have been steady since my last article; he’s currently at 53.1% disapprove, 42.3% approve (net -10.8). In polls of likely or registered voters, his ratings improve slightly to 53.1% disapprove, 43.5% approve (net -9.6).
In my last article on the US midterms, Democrats were already dropping in the FiveThirtyEight forecasts and poll aggregates, and this drop has continued. Republicans have made gains across the board, with Senate races that once looked safe for Democrats now close. Worries about inflation are a key reason for Republican gains.
In a Quinnipiac University national poll, conducted October 26-30 from a sample of 2,203, 36% of voters said inflation was the most urgent issue (up nine since August), with abortion well behind on 10%. By 61-34, voters disapproved of Biden’s handling of the economy, worse than his overall 53-36 disapproval rating in this poll.
At both the 2016 and 2020 elections, polls understated Donald Trump’s support. If polls are understating Republicans at these midterms, the results will be ugly for Democrats.
Poll closing times
I will focus here on the close Senate races that are within five points in the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregates. All times are Wednesday AEDT. The first US polls close at 10am in the eastern time zones of Kentucky and Indiana; Republicans will win both states easily.
Georgia will be the first state with a close Senate race to close its polls at 11am, then North Carolina and Ohio both close at 11:30am. New Hampshire and Pennsylvania will both close at 12pm. Polls in Wisconsin and Arizona will close at 1pm, with Nevada closing at 2pm. Polls in the Pacific coast states close at 3pm, with the final polls closing at 5pm in Alaska’s western time zone.
Poll closing times are derived from The Green Papers’ list, with 11 hours added to UTC/GMT.
Counting will usually take at least several hours after polls close, and in close contests we may have to wait days or even weeks for an outcome. Exit polls will be released once all polls in a state are closed, but are unreliable.
In Georgia’s Senate contest, there will be a December 6 runoff if neither major party candidate clears 50% on Tuesday. There is a third party Libertarian candidate who could prevent this.
In some states, early counting is likely to skew Republican, as Election Day votes are counted first. In other states, Democratic-leaning mail will be counted first, so their early counts will skew to Democrats.
Economic data: GDP and jobs
US GDP increased at a 2.6% annualised pace in the September quarter, after contracting in both the March and June quarters, according to the October 27 report. In Australia’s quarter on quarter terms, that’s a 0.65% increase in GDP.
The US jobs report for October was released Friday. There were 261,000 jobs created, but the unemployment rate rose 0.2% to 3.7%. The employment population ratio – the percentage of eligible Americans that are employed – dropped 0.1% to 60.0%, and is 1.2% below where it was in February 2020, before the COVID pandemic began.
Overall, this late economic data is good news for the economy, and should assist Democrats. But voters are more concerned with high inflation.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tanya Hill, Honorary Fellow of the University of Melbourne and Senior Curator (Astronomy), The University of Melbourne
Shutterstock
Tomorrow evening people across Australia and New Zealand will be treated to a total lunar eclipse, weather permitting. It’s an opportunity to not be missed, as the next one won’t be visible from our region until 2025.
A lunar eclipse happens when the Moon travels through Earth’s shadow. If the Moon only partly makes it into the shadow, that’s a partial eclipse. In a total eclipse, the Moon becomes fully immersed and takes on a reddish/orange glow.
In tomorrow’s eclipse the period of totality – when the Moon is fully immersed in shadow – will last a leisurely 85 minutes.
A total lunar eclipse happens when the shadow cast by Earth completely covers the Moon. The deepest part of the shadow is called the ‘umbra’. Shutterstock
The only light reaching the Moon’s surface will first pass through Earth’s atmosphere, which is why the Moon will take on a red hue. Just how red it appears will depend on how dusty Earth’s atmosphere is at the time.
It will be a wonderful experience to share with family and friends, especially as you won’t need any equipment to see it. It’s also safe to look at – unlike solar eclipses, where special care must be taken when viewing the Sun.
Everyone on the night side of the Earth will experience the lunar eclipse simultaneously. But what time that is for you will depend on your timezone.
In New Zealand the eclipse will happen late in the evening, and the eclipse maximum will be just before midnight. The Moon will be high in the northern sky.
Across Australia, the eclipse will happen around moonrise. So the Moon will be much lower in the sky and battling against the twilight glow during the eclipse’s early stages.
Eastern Australia will see the eclipse shortly after the full Moon rises. The further north you are, the longer you’ll need to wait before the eclipse begins. For Brisbane it will start more than an hour after moonrise, so the Moon will be higher in the sky. In Hobart the eclipse begins just 15 minutes after moonrise.
For the rest of Australia, the eclipse will begin before the Moon rises. Throughout central Australia it will start only a few minutes before moonrise, while in Western Australia it will be well and truly under way by moonrise.
Those up north will see some of the partial eclipse before totality sets in, but Perth can expect to see a fully eclipsed Moon deep in shadow at moonrise.
Big Moon rising
If you see the eclipse soon after Moon rises, expect it to look amazing. That’s because something called the “Moon illusion” will come into play. This is where your brain is tricked and the Moon looks much bigger when it’s low on the horizon, compared to when it’s high up in the sky.
The Moon will rise in the east-northeast for all of Australia, so a high location or a clear view of the horizon will help with seeing the early parts of the eclipse. As the Moon gets higher, and the sky darker, the later part of the eclipse should be easy to see for everyone.
But it’s not just the Moon you should be looking out for. On the night of the eclipse, the ice giant Uranus will appear near the Moon as seen from Earth. So if you have a pair of binoculars, you can try spotting Uranus during totality, when the Moon’s light won’t interfere.
Binoculars will provide enough magnification and a wide field of view so the Moon can be used to locate planet Uranus. Museums Victoria/Stellarium
Uranus will reach opposition the day after the eclipse, on November 9, which means it will be – like the full Moon – in the opposite part of the sky to the Sun. This is when the planet is at its closest and brightest.
However, at a distance of 2.8 billion kilometres, Uranus is so far away that even through binoculars it will appear star-like. Only a large telescope will reveal it as a small blue-green dot.
One among the planets
But even without binoculars there are some lovely stars and planets to see. Bright Jupiter and Saturn will be easy to spot high overhead, above the eclipsed Moon.
Later in the evening, all viewers will be able to spot the constellation of Taurus rising in the north-east – with the lovely star cluster Pleiades and the red giant star Aldebaran – along with Orion and its red supergiant Betelgeuse.
The eclipse occurs in a rich part of the sky, with the constellations of Taurus and Orion visible. Museums Victoria/Stellarium
The red planet Mars will also make an appearance. People in New Zealand and Queensland will be well-placed to see four red objects in the sky together: the eclipsed Moon, Aldebaran, Betelgeuse and Mars low to the horizon.
Lunar eclipses are reminder that we live on a planet that’s moving through space. When I stare up at the Moon in shadow, I like to imagine what it would be like to stand on it, and see the Sun blocked out by the Earth.
Perhaps you’ll have your own moment of wonder and awe – of how astronomy can sometimes leave us feeling a little small, yet also connected to something much grander.
Tanya Hill 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.
The glutes are the large, powerful muscles in your bum that help support the pelvis, stabilise the hip joint and allow the hip to move.
Countless social media posts extol the virtues of building strong glutes through exercises such as squats. However, most of what you hear from such “gymfluencers” is about how the bum muscles look.
Forget about how they look; what about what they do? Why is having big, strong glutes important for your body to function well?
In fact, having strong bum muscles is crucial to good musculoskeletal health.
Strong glutes are important for overall health. Shutterstock
Bum muscles hold your body up and protect the hip joint
The gluteal muscles are a group of three separate muscles, each with unique anatomical structure and function.
The deepest and smallest muscle is called the gluteus minimus, which is very close to the hip joint itself.
Overlaying gluteus minimus is the gluteus medius. This one is relatively large and spans the whole outer surface of the pelvis.
The gluteus maximus is the largest of the three gluteal muscles and overlays both gluteus medius and minimus. This muscle is what gives the the bum its distinctive bum-like shape, but it plays a very important role in the way your body functions.
The gluteal muscles are a group of separate muscles that work together. Shutterstock
In combination, the gluteus maximus, medius and minimus gives rise to many hip movements, and provide shock absorption when you’re walking or running.
These muscles work together with your brain to generate a lot of power to hold your body up as gravity tries to pull it down. They also protect the hip joint from impact and from shearing forces that might cause long term damage.
Some of ourwork has identified some people with hip pain also have impairments in the gluteal muscles.
These impairments could reduce the bum muscles’ ability to protect the joint against long term damage and potentially affect a person’s ability to bear weight (for example, when standing on one leg or climbing stairs).
Don’t skip the glutes. Shutterstock
A reduction in muscle size and an increase in non-active tissue such as fat has been reported in hip conditions such as greater trochanteric pain syndrome (a common type of hip pain, also known as gluteal tendinopathy).
The same is also true for hip osteoarthritis, which affects the whole joint.
The rates of osteoarthritis in Australia are increasing, with one in every seven hip joint replacements conducted in people under the age of 55. However, it’s worth noting just because you have signs of arthritis on hip x-ray or MRI, it doesn’t mean you will have pain or developpain.
Research suggests the way a person moves may contribute to the risk of hip osteoarthritis in young people.
If you do have hip pain, bum muscle strengthening is recommended as the first line treatment.
But strong glutes have also been shown to improve your day-to-day function, especially in those with hip osteoarthritis.
In particular, people with hip osteoarthritis who have stronger glutes walk faster and longer distances and climb stairs faster than those with weaker glutes.
Should I do my bum exercises?
Ultimately, better bum muscle function is likely to be helpful and is often recommended by doctors, physiotherapists and other health-care practitioners.
They may prescribe certain exercises to strengthen your glutes and target problems around the hip area.
greater trochanteric pain syndrome (the common type of hip pain we mentioned earlier, also known as gluteal tendinopathy).
Your physio might prescribe glute exercises. Shutterstock
Glute strength may even have a role to play in keeping your pelvic floor in good shape (although further research is required).
That’s not to say doing your bum exercises will automatically cure all these ailments; each case is unique and involves a range of factors. But having strong glutes is, in general, very important for hip and pelvis stability and function.
No matter if you are a gymfluencer, a professional sports person, or just a regular bum-owner, having strong glutes will keep you in good stride.
Charlotte Ganderton receives funding from Arthritis Australia, Physiotherapy Research Foundation, Swinburne University of Technology, National Institute of Circus Arts and La Trobe University.
Charlotte Ganderton is a member of the Australian Physiotherapy Association and Sports Medicine Australia.
Adam Semciw is affiliated with Northern Health.
Matthew King receives funding from the Physiotherapy Research Foundation, Australian Physiotherapy Association, La Trobe University and the Transport Accident Commission . He is affiliated with the Australian Physiotherapy Association, Sports Medicine Australia and the International Hip-related Pain Research Network..
As world leaders assemble for the United Nations climate change conference (COP27) in Egypt, it’s hard to be optimistic the talks will generate any radical departure from the inexorable rise in global carbon emissions over the past two centuries.
After all, before last year’s Glasgow talks, experts warned the summit was the world’s last chance to limit global warming to 1.5℃ this century. And yet, a UN report last week found even if all nations meet their climate goals this decade, the planet would still heat to a catastrophic 2.5℃.
There were hopes the global pandemic might have shifted the world’s economies from their fossil fuel dependence as lockdowns reduced energy consumption, and progressive politicians proposed alternative policy agendas.
But after borders reopened, our fossil fuel addiction returned with a vengeance. In fact, the International Energy Agency projects net income for oil and gas producers will double in 2022 to an alarming US$4 trillion.
As social scientists, this is both horrifying and fascinating to observe. How is it that a technologically advanced society could choose to destroy itself by failing to act to avert a climate catastrophe?
Our inaction is condemning today’s children to life on a hostile planet. David Cliff/AP
We’ve had decades to act
Like watching a slow-motion train crash, the world’s leading climate scientists have for decades warned of the dangers of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Political and corporate leaders knew of the threat more than a decade before it was key public knowledge. Back in 1977, United States President Jimmy Carter was briefed on the possibility of catastrophic climate change. That same year, internal memos at one of the world’s largest oil companies made it clear that continued burning of fossil fuels would dramatically heat the planet.
So why, in the 45 years since, has there been so little action in response? Why do we condemn today’s children and future generations to live on a dangerous and hostile planet?
We’ve have sought to answer this question in our research into business and climate change over the years, including our latest book.
The answer, we argue, rests on a prevailing assumption organised by corporate and political elites: that endless economic growth fuelled by fossil energy is so fundamental and commonsensical it cannot be questioned.
We term this all-consuming ideology the “fossil fuel hegemony”. It asserts that corporate capitalism based on fossil energy is a natural state of being, one that’s beyond challenge.
The concept of “hegemony” was developed by the Italian intellectual Antonio Gramsci. In the 1920s, Gramsci sought to explain how dominant classes maintained their power beyond the use of force and coercion.
He argued hegemony involved a continuous process of winning the consent of key actors in society such as industrialists, the media, and religious and educational institutions, to form a ruling bloc. Civil society would thus accept the prevailing order, dampening any threat of revolution.
Gramsci’s ideas help us understand the lack of action in response to the climate crisis. In particular, it helps explain the business sector’s inordinate influence on climate policy across the world.
Fossil fuel hegemony asserts that corporate capitalism based on fossil energy is a natural state of being. Shutterstock
For instance, a range of recent studies have explored the “fossil fuel hegemony” in countries such as Australia, Canada and the US. These studies argue such hegemony comprises a coalition of corporate and political actors with interests aligned around carbon-dependent economic growth. This leads to limited progress on legislation to reduce carbon emissions.
The hegemony has also extended to corporate-political activity seeding doubt about climate science, lobbying against emissions reduction and renewable energy, and the capture of political parties by interests aligned with fossil fuels.
This helps explain why environmentalists advocating to keep fossil fuels in the ground are attacked by conservative politicians and right-wing media.
They are presented not only as a threat to “our way of life”, but as deluded and dangerous radicals, or even terrorists.
There is another way
Of course, there are alternatives to the fossil fuel hegemony. It involves immediate and dramatic decarbonisation of the global economy, as COP27 in Egypt aspires to achieve.
But it also requires alternative economic models of “degrowth”. Degrowth involves a planned and equitable contraction of rich economies, until it operates steadily and within the capacity of the planet’s resources.
How long can fossil fuel hegemony continue as weather events become more extreme? Marcus Kauffman/Unsplash, CC BY
This includes carbon trading systems with a rapidly lowering cap, fossil fuel extraction limits, worker autonomy and shorter working hours, and job guarantees with living wages.
These types of policies rest on tax reforms to limit resource use and reduce carbon emissions, while promoting work sharing and limiting production and consumption.
This also requires far more democratic politics than the current hegemony allows – one that challenges the illusion that economic growth can continue even as Earth’s life-support systems begin to fail.
But the true test of the fossil fuel hegemony will be how long this image can persist as the weather becomes more extreme and climate activism grows.
Because as more people acknowledge the reality of the climate crisis, those seeking to maintain the fossil fuel hegemony will need to work harder to maintain their grip on climate politics.
Christopher Wright receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Daniel Nyberg receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Vanessa Bowden receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
The global 30×30 target aims to protect 30% of the planet by 2030 to secure its biodiversity. This involves legal protection for land and sea areas designated as national parks and nature reserves. Australia has joined more than 100 countries in this bold initiative.
However, if we are to adequately protect all species, we must acknowledge we never start with a blank slate. As a major academic review of fragmented ecosystems observed:
“Conservation managers must work with the remnants and virtually never have the opportunity to design a reserve network before an area is fragmented.”
The areas we choose to protect must include ecosystems where biodiversity is under pressure from human land uses. Australia’s urban areas still have a surprisingly high level of biodiversity.
These urban areas also include threatened ecological communities such as the banksia woodlands of the Swan coastal plain in Perth and blue gum high forest of the Sydney region.
So, what does the 30×30 target mean for our cities and how we protect their biodiversity?
The distinctive red-crowned toadlet is found only in the Sydney Basin bioregion. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
The latest data suggest that simply achieving 30% protection for all these areas will be difficult.
As the maps below show (dark green areas have 30% or more protection), Australia meets this target in only 29 of its 89 bioregions, and 96 of 421 subregions. Is this is an improvement from a decade ago when a modest target of 10% protected area had been achieved in only 57 of 89 ecoregions?
Even the 30% target may not be adequate. And yet achieving it will be difficult in the face of worldwide challenges such as climate change, invasive species and the issues of resourcing and managing an ever-expanding network.
Adequately protecting biodiversity in the cities and towns where most Australians live will be especially difficult.
For example, a cursory look at protected area data for Sydney, situated across one bioregion, Sydney Basin, suggests good progress, with 40.99% of its area protected.
However, at the level of its subregions, the picture is different. Pittwater (31.62%), Yengo (58.55%) and Woollemi (71.81%) have high levels of protection. But look at how little land is protected in the subregions that sit entirely within Sydney proper – only 3.13% for Cumberland.
The most urbanised subregions of the Sydney Basin bioregion have minimal protected areas. Map by Simon Kilbane using Commonwealth data
The picture is similar across all of Australia’s urban areas. To achieve comprehensive, adequate and representative protection of our biodiversity, we are going to have to think differently. How can we better plan our urban landscapes, or perhaps retrofit these areas, to provide habitat for our imperilled species?
Here are five approaches drawn from practice around Australia and the world that could help.
1. A philosophical reframing
Biodiversity protection should not just occur in remote regions. It’s an issue closer to home. Urban and commercial development directly threatens 56 of Australia’s 255 flora and fauna species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
2. Green infrastructure
Green infrastructure can create a network of urban forest, foreshores and creek lines, parks and open spaces. In this way, we can reconnect fragmented habitat patches. This interconnected network has both ecological and human-related benefits.
Bolstered by a healthy groundswell of public and policy support – who wouldn’t want more green space? – there’s a growing momentum to reshape our cities. Notable initiatives include the Perth Biodiversity Project, the Sydney Green Grid and Melbourne’s Urban Forest Strategy.
Finding conservation candidates in urban areas requires imagination and creativity. Why not consider disused industrial lands, cemeteries, poorly frequented golf courses, our roof tops and the ubiquitous suburban nature strips?
If we radically reconfigured or “rewilded” our streets and gardens we could create more urban habitat. More diverse and local plantings and “backyards for wildlife”-type schemes seem a safe bet.
The above options are the lowest-hanging fruit. What would happen if we radically rethought our profit-driven development model of suburbanisation? We could create a better balance between the habitats of humans and all the other species we share our cities with – as a matter of ecological justice.
We might need to use collaborative tools and scenario planning to visualise possible impacts and benefits. This will help us better combine thinking about people, place and ecology.
5. Fostering ecological literacy
Starting with learning from how Australia’s lands have been managed through traditional ecological knowledge, we need to foster a deeper appreciation of the nature that exists under our noses. Incorporating ecological knowledge into education from as early as possible will build ecological literacy
This might then temper our desire for exotic plantings. We might even have
second thoughts about cat or dog ownership given their impacts: Australia’s 3.8 million pet cats kill up to 390 million animals every year.
It will take a monumental effort to rethink our country and our cities to preserve their biodiversity. Australia has just begun a worthwhile but difficult journey.
Simon Kilbane is a member of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and the Government Architect of New South Wale’s NSW State Design Review Panel
State Liberal leader Matthew Guy has promised a trial to provide free lunches in Victorian public schools if elected on November 26.
The A$300 million election policy is aimed at helping families with cost-of-living pressures, through an opt-in system sourcing meals from local business and cafes.
This idea is part of a small but growing trend in Australia to provide meals at schools. There are lots of good reasons to move away from kids bringing their own food to school.
But before we ditch the lunchbox, we need to think carefully about how we replace it.
Most Australian kids bring their lunch
In theory, about 90% of Australian children bring their own food to school, with 10% of children eating food bought from a school canteen or tuckshop, or via food relief programs.
We know the current system is failing to support children’s growth, health and development.
The vast majority of Australian students bring their own lunch to school. Shutterstock
More than one-third of the food students eat at school is unhealthy (such as sweet and savoury biscuits, sugary muesli bars and chips), with most lunchboxes not having any vegetables.
We also know 15% of children arrive at school without lunch or money to spend at the canteen, when families have limited budgets.
This is not just a question of children going hungry or eating too many meat pies. Good nutrition during school years supports health, growth, concentration, brain development and academic achievement.
The US and UK are among the countries that feed children during the school day. Jonathan Borba/Unsplash
Most high-income countries offer school-provided meals, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden, France and Japan. New Zealand is moving from a “lunchbox system” to school meals, and Canada is also looking at the idea.
Apart from some breakfast programs – which target children from disadvantaged backgrounds – Australia hasn’t had a tradition of offering food at school. This is largely because we have had a lunchbox system for so long, it is simply the norm that parents are responsible for feeding their children.
But this is starting to change. There are now are several pilot projects aimed at providing food at the individual school level, exploring options within schools or with local businesses.
There are also pockets of schools trialling food programs around Australia, including in the Nothern Territory, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania. This is either to address food access in remote areas or improve nutritious food at school.
A three-school pilot in Tasmania has recently been expanded to 30 schools in 2022-23. Schools in the pilot provide students with a cooked meal, based on a set menu, certain days of the week. Where meals are prepared and served varies depending on the school. School staff are noticing increased attendance on school lunch days and a boost to social skills and school connection.
Why are school lunches a good idea?
Providing food at school has many benefits. Not only does it save time-poor families time and energy (no more morning meal prep), but it makes sure all students have access to good food.
It can also create jobs and other opportunities to teach students about food production and healthy eating.
From an environmental perspective, it can cut down on packaging waste.
We know there is support
In our research, we asked teachers, parents, canteen managers, food relief workers, and health promotion officers to come up with ideas for how school food could be done differently in Australia.
This group said a school-provided lunch prepared onsite was likely to be most achievable and have an impact. By repurposing existing canteen facilities, schools could provide a nutritious, sit-down meal.
But while we know there is a good level of support at the community level, swapping from from a predominantly lunchbox model to a school-provided meals system will take some work.
Eating together provides an opportunity for students to develop their social skills. Shutterstock
There are several things we need to consider – it’s not just a question of handing out cheese and ham sandwiches. If meals are going to be provided at school, they will need to accommodate different cultures, dietary needs and geographic areas.
It also needs to be sustainable. Funding needs to be ongoing, and food supply chains and waste need to be taken into account. Importantly, those who access the meals need to be able to do so without stigma.
This leads to questions of who is responsible for running this? If school-provided meals are going to be successful and embraced by school communities, they need support from families, governments, health and education experts, as well as primary industries.
Schools will also need the appropriate infrastructure, so there is a place for food to be prepared and eaten. Together with the produce and staffing, this leads to inevitable questions about costs and funding.
Finally, we also need to think about whether this is a universal or opt-in system. While many families will welcome food at school, some others may feel disempowered, and as though their choices are being removed.
What next?
School meals could provide so many benefits, from creating jobs to addressing food insecurity, supporting local food production, reducing the burden on parents, and supporting student wellbeing, attendance and school performance.
With pockets of enthusiasm and innovation occurring across Australia, it is time for a national conversation to help get universal school-provided lunches on the menu at schools across Australia.
Brittany Johnson receives grant funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Alexandra Manson receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and the King and Amy O’Malley Trust Postgraduate Research Scholarship.
Danielle Gallegos receives funding from the Queensland Children’s Hospital Foundation via a philanthropic donation from Woolworths. She has also received funding from the ARC and Foodbank Qld. The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not reflect those of the Children’s Hospital Foundations, Woolworths or Foodbank Qld.
Rebecca Golley receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council, Hort Innovation Ltd.
The Albanese government has made concessions to employers on its planned extension of multi-employer bargaining, as it hopes to fast track its industrial relations legislation through parliament before Christmas.
Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke said on Sunday there would be a change in the proposed way voting would work for these agreements.
He also flagged the government was sympathic to a “grace” period of six months to allow continued negotiations after a single-enterprise agreement ran out before employees were able to seek a multi-employer agreement.
Employers had expressed the “reasonable concern” that a large workplace could overwhelm the vote of a smaller one, in a general vote, Burke said.
Under the amendment, votes by workers – to be part of an agreement, to take industrial action, or to accept an agreement – would be at the individual business level.
“This puts an end to the argument that you’ll end up with workplaces that didn’t want to be part of an agreement but somehow got roped in anyway, or didn’t want to be part of industrial action,” Burke told Sky.
“If you vote against any of the stages at that business level, then you’re not part of it.”
The government says it wants the legislation through this year so it can get wage increases happening as soon as possible.
It believes the extension of multi-employer bargaining, which exists in only very limited form currently, will secure larger pay rises particularly in low paid feminised industries. On Friday the Fair Work Commission handed down its long-awaited decision for aged care workers, awarding a 15% pay rise.
The legislation will be debated in the House of Representatives this week, with a vote on Thursday. The government has the numbers to push it through the house, without any crossbenchers.
But in the Senate it needs on extra vote on top of the Greens. Key crossbencher David Pocock, who met Burke on Friday, on Sunday continued to complain about the rush.
“The bill was introduced just over a week ago, and already we’ve seen a number of significant changes flagged by the government. That says to me that we need more time. That’s why I’ve suggested splitting the bill.”
Apart from multi-employer bargaining, the bill includes the scrapping of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and various measures to address the gender pay gap.
One issue that has come up is the threshold number of workers (15 in the current bill) for businesses to fall under the multi-employer bargaining provision. Burke said the Senate crossbench had been raising with him how the number was counted – for example, whether it would be a headcount of employees or full-time equivalents. Burke said he would have discussions about this when the bill reached the Senate.
Business has pressed for the number to be raised to 100.
Jennifer Westacott, Business Council chief executive, welcomed the concessions but said more were needed.
“We’re pleased that we have brought the government back to the table to reduce some of the most harmful unintended consequence of this legislation but big problems remain,” Westacott said. Business argues the changes increase the complexity of an already complex system.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Sane people trying to fathom the Herald Sun’s bizarre coverage of Victorian Premier Dan Andrews over the past few days might be helped by some insights from the founding of News Limited, the company on which Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation empire has been built and of which the Herald Sun is part.
The main insight is that journalism is not, and never has been, the purpose of News Corporation. Its purpose, its reason for existence, is to provide the means by which three generations of the Murdoch family accumulate wealth and exert power.
In her magisterial history of Australian newspaper empires, Paper Emperors, Sally Young tells what she calls the real story of the birth of News Limited.
The company’s own creation myth is that its first newspaper, the Adelaide News, was the work of a couple of rugged individuals, a “miner” called Gerald Mussen, who was in fact an industrial consultant to Broken Hill Associated Smelters, and a former editor of the Melbourne Herald, J. E. Davidson.
As Young makes clear, these two had long worked as collaborating propagandists for the Herald and Weekly Times, of which Keith Murdoch was managing director, and its associated mining interests in Broken Hill and Port Pirie. The evidence indicates that Mussen and Davidson were financed into the newspaper start-up by these interests for the purpose of continuing the propagandising.
Keith Murdoch later acquired the paper in his own right and bequeathed it to Rupert.
Propagandising was News’s original sin, and it has never been redeemed. Instead it has broadened out to beat-ups, misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories.
Of course, along the way it has done plenty of journalism, some of it very high quality. In 1959, the Adelaide News, under the editorship of Rohan Rivett, played a large role in securing a judicial review of the Rupert Max Stuart case. Stuart had been sentenced to hang for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl, after a trial that caused much public disquiet. His conviction was never conclusively overturned but he was released after 14 years in prison.
More recently, Hedley Thomas’s exposés of the wrong done to Dr Mohamed Haneef and the inadequacies of the police investigation into the murder of Lynette Dawson, for which her husband Chris was recently convicted, have been instances of public-interest journalism at its best.
However, this function of doing journalism – the “what” – is to be distinguished from the “why”. The journalism is done in pursuit of the organisation’s primary purpose, the empowerment and enrichment of the Murdochs, while every now and again also serving the public interest.
The coverage of Daniel Andrews needs to be seen in this light.
The starting point is that the Murdochs – Lachlan or Rupert or both – clearly prefer a non-Labor government, and the continuance in office of a Labor administration in Victoria is an offence against their wishes.
So we saw in the 2018 election campaign a racist scare campaign against so-called African gangs, pushed along by Peter Dutton, now leader of the Liberal-National opposition in federal parliament, and turbo-charged by the Herald Sun.
It backfired spectacularly, and Andrews won in a landslide. That simply aggravated the offence.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the Herald Sun promoted increasingly shrill criticisms of the Andrews lockdowns, particularly by the former Liberal federal treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, who subsequently lost his Melbourne seat of Kooyong in the May federal election. More aggravation.
Most recently, on November 4, 22 days before the 2022 Victorian state election, there was yet further offence. Newspoll showed the Liberal Party trailing Labor 46-54% in two-party-preferred terms. Landslide territory again.
This succession of rebuffs shows that the capacity of the Murdoch media to influence electoral outcomes is weaker than it once was, adding insult to injury.
Time for some mud-chucking in the hope that enough will stick.
First, the Herald Sun resurrects a nine-year-old motor accident involving not Andrews himself but his wife. It publishes online a video-taped interview with the cyclist involved in the collision, and his father.
The interview is long on innuendo and short on facts. It is insinuated that in some undefined way, Andrews improperly used his power to deny the young man justice and that the legal system let him down.
Time, too, to resurrect a conspiracy theory.
On March 9 2021, Andrews slipped on some outside stairs at a holiday house he and his family had rented on the Mornington Peninsula, injuring his back and ribs.
As The Guardian has reported, an anonymous post about what had allegedly “really” happened appeared first on an encrypted messaging app favoured by far-right activists and conspiracy theorists, then moved to a fringe website promoting QAnon and Port Arthur massacre misinformation.
The conspiracy theory asserted that Andrews’ injuries had been sustained in dark circumstances.
For reasons best known to herself, the Liberals’ then Shadow Treasurer Louise Staley, decided this was a fire worth throwing fuel on, so she published a list of 12 questions she said Andrews needed to answer about the incident.
The list was predicated on so much misinformation and disinformation that Ambulance Victoria, whose crew had taken Andrews to hospital, and the chief commissioner of police both felt it necessary to issue statements setting out the facts.
This had the effect of killing off the conspiracy theory, and when Matthew Guy took over as leader of the Liberal Party a few months later, he demoted Staley to shadow minister for scrutiny of government.
Herald Sun front page, November 6 2022.
Yet on November 6, the Sunday Herald Sun devoted many hundreds of words to a rehash of the conspiracy theory. This time it included a photograph of the steps, noting that the house had been repainted since the incident. What might have been covered up by a fresh coat of paint, the reader is implicitly invited to ask.
News Corporation is cradled in conflict of interest, overt and covert influence-peddling and propaganda, all for the purpose of advancing the Murdoch family’s interests. Abuse of media power is baked into its culture.
This does not excuse what the Herald Sun is doing, but helps explain it.
Denis Muller 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
Diego Fidele/Joel Carrett/AAP
The Victorian election will be held in three weeks, on November 26. A Newspoll, conducted October 31 to November 3 from a sample of 1,007, gave Labor a 54-46 lead, a two-point gain for the Coalition since the last Victorian Newspoll in late August.
Primary votes were 37% Labor (down four), 37% Coalition (up one), 13% Greens (steady) and 13% for all Others (up three). Newspoll figures are from The Poll Bludger.
51% were satisfied with Labor Premier Daniel Andrews (down three) and 44% were dissatisfied (up three), for a net approval of +7, down six points. Liberal leader Matthew Guy had a net approval of -20, down three points. Andrews led Guy as better premier by 52-33 (51-34 in August).
A question on whether Labor deserved to be re-elected, or it was time to give someone else a go had the latter leading by 47-45, a reversal of a 47-46 lead for deserved to be re-elected in November 2021.
Analyst Kevin Bonham said this is the first public Victorian poll from any pollster since June 2021 that has had Labor’s lead inside 55-45, and that has not had Labor ahead on primary votes.
If this poll result were replicated on Election Day in three weeks, Labor would still win easily. But they will be worried that the polls continue to narrow in the final three weeks. A Resolve poll conducted about two weeks ago had given Labor a 59-41 lead.
A federal Labor government would be expected to assist state Coalition parties. While federal Labor had been in honeymoon poll territory, the last federal Newspoll had their lead sliding to 55-45. I believe inflation and cost of living issues will negatively impact governments at all levels.
This poll had Labor’s primary vote down 6% in the lower house from the 2018 election. If Labor suffered a similar swing against it in the upper house, they would be likely to lose more seats than they would had the upper house electoral system been reformed from the current group voting ticket system.
NSW Resolve poll: Labor’s lead falls, but would still win election
The New South Wales state election will be held in March 2023. A Resolve poll for The Sydney Morning Herald gave Labor 38% of the primary vote (down five since September), the Coalition 35% (up five), the Greens 11% (up one), the Shooters 1% (down one), independents 10% (steady) and others 5% (steady).
Two-party estimates are not provided by Resolve until close to elections, but Bonham estimated this poll would be 54.5-45.5 to Labor, a 5.5-point gain for the Coalition since September.
Liberal Premier Dominic Perrottet led Labor’s Chris Minns by 30-29 as preferred premier (a 28-28 tie in September). This poll was presumably conducted with the federal Resolve polls in early and late October from a sample of 1,150.
It is likely the last NSW Resolve poll was a massive Labor-favouring outlier, and hence the big swing back to the Coalition in this poll. Nevertheless, Labor retains a solid lead, and is the favourite to win the election next March. Other recent NSW polls have also had Labor ahead.
WA poll: Mark McGowan remains very popular
The Poll Bludger reported on Friday that a Painted Dog Research poll for The West Australian, conducted October 19-21 from a sample of 637, gave WA Labor Premier Mark McGowan a 70% approval rating (up two since March) and an 18% disapproval (down seven). Liberal leader David Honey was at 31% disapproval, 9% approval.
Federal Morgan poll: 55.5-44.5 to Labor
This week’s federal Morgan poll gave Labor a 55.5-44.5 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since the previous week. The Morgan weekly video update included primary votes, with Labor on 38% (up 1.5), the Coalition 37% (down 0.5), the Greens 12% (up one), One Nation 3% (down 1.5), independents 6% (down two) and others 4% (up 1.5).
This is Labor’s highest lead in a Morgan poll so far this term. Polling was conducted October 24-30, so the first two days were before the October 25 budget was delivered.
Federal Resolve poll on sport sponsorship
I covered the previous federal Resolve poll after the budget that gave Labor about a 58.5-41.5 lead. There were additional questions on which companies should be allowed to sponsor sports teams. By 62-25, voters would support a ban on gambling and betting companies.
However, bans were not supported for any other companies. By 45-38, voters would allow beer and spirit companies to sponsor. Voters supported allowing coal, oil and gas companies by 51-27 and fast food chains by 60-24.
By 43-38, voters agreed that sport players should have the right to tell their team or league to ban certain companies from sponsoring them.
Netanyahu’s bloc wins outright majority in Israeli election
At Tuesday’s Israeli election, former PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc of four right-wing and religious parties – his own Likud, the Religious Zionists, Shas and UTJ – won a combined 64 of the 120 Knesset seats, exceeding the 61 needed for a majority. I covered this for The Poll Bludger.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Ishmael Kalsakau was elected today unopposed as the 13th Prime Minister of the republic of Vanuatu by secret ballot.
Kalsakau was elected by the 52 members of the country’s Parliament.
“Thank you, thank you for the election,” Kalsakau said after the vote.
The former prime minister and president of the Vanua’aku Party, Bob Loughman, stood up at the session and said his group had no candidate to put forward for prime minister but would vote for Kalsakau.
Under the national constitution, a prime minister must be elected by a secret ballot even if standing unopposed.
Kalsakau was elected by 50 votes, with two invalid votes.
At the time of his election the new coalition government led by Prime Minister Kalsakau was composed of eight political parties and no independents.
About the new PM This is Ishmael Kalsakau’s first time as prime minister of Vanuatu.
He was deputy prime minister in the last government.
Kalsakau is a lawyer by profession. Before his involvement in politics, he served as the Attorney-General of Vanuatu.
He originates from a small island in Port Vila Harbor, Ifira, and went to Malapoa College.
Kalsakau is the younger brother of the Paramount Chief of Ifira, Matoi Kalsakau.
He is not the first prime minister from Ifira.
This honour is held by Barak Sope who was prime minister from 1999 to 2001.
Kalsakau and his soon to be formed cabinet step into their roles at a crucial time for Vanuatu as the heavily tourism dependent country emerges from the pandemic.
His priorities will be spelt out when the government is fully formed, he said in an interview following the first session of Parliament.
First session of Parliament Elected representatives from both camps emerged from coalition talks to take their oaths at the first parliamentary session.
It follows last month’s snap election which was triggered by the dissolution of Parliament on August 18 on the eve of a vote of no confidence in the former prime minister Bob Loughman led by former opposition leader Ralph Regenvanu.
In the lead up to today’s sitting, Regenvanu’s camp had strong numbers — with 30 MPs on his side.
But before stepping foot in Parliament the consensus was that Ishmael Kalsakau be put up to lead the government, said Vanuatu Broadcasting Corporation senior journalist Simo Warijo.
On the floor, empty seats were noticeable on Bob Loughman’s side.
Despite Kalsakau’s landslide victory, Loughman walked into Parliament with 22 people in his camp.
Numbers do not lie Prime Minister Ishmael Kalaskau is the leader of the Union of Moderate Parties and secured seven seats in the snap election, equal highest with former prime minister Bob Loughman’s Vanua’aku Pati.
In comparison, Ralph Regenvanu’s Graon mo Jastis Pati only managed to secure four seats.
Vanuatu’s Gloria Julia King being sworn in . . . she is Vanuatu’s first woman MP in more than 14 years. Image: VBTC/Ralph Regenvanu
MP Gloria King takes first oath Rapturous applause filled the house this morning as Gloria Julia King, the only woman MP to be elected to Vanuatu’s Parliament since 2008, stepped up to take the first oath:
“I King Gloria Julia, having been elected member of Parliament, I do swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the republic of Vanuatu…”
King has also been appointed third Deputy Speaker, a significant role for a first-time MP.
Simeon returned as Speaker The former Speaker, Seoule Simeon, has been reelected by the new MPs.
He is the MP for Epi constituency and was nominated by former prime minister Bob Loughman’s coalition.
His contender for the job was MP for Port Vila constituency Ulrick Sumpton, who was nominated by former opposition leader Ralph Regenvanu’s camp.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
“On the ground, there is a sense of disquiet and distrust of the organisers’ motivations for the hui, as some Muslim participants directly connected to the Christchurch tragedy were not invited.”
— Khairiah A. Rahman
The two-day Aotearoa New Zealand government He Whenua Taurikura Hui on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism this week saw participation of state agencies, NGOs, civil rights groups and minority representations from across the country.
Yet media reportage of deeply concerning issues that have marginalised and targeted minorities was severely limited on the grounds of media’s potential “inability to protect sensitive information”.
Lest we forget, the purpose of the Hui is a direct outcome of the Royal Commission recommendations following the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks.
The first hui last year had a media panel where Islamophobia in New Zealand and global media was addressed, and local legacy media reiterated their pact to report from a responsible perspective.
A year later, it would be good to hear what local media have done to ask the hard questions — where are we now in terms of healing for the Muslim communities? What is the situation with crime against Muslims across the country? What projects are ongoing to build social cohesion for a peaceful Aotearoa?
This year, the organisers decided to have the Hui address “all-of-society approaches” to countering violent extremism. This means removing the focus on issues faced by Muslims and extending this to concerns of other minorities subjected to abuse and hate-motivated attacks.
While Muslim participants embraced sharing the space with disenfranchised communities, many reflected that this should not detract from a follow-up to issues discussed at the last hui.
A media panel should address the role of media in representing the voiceless communities. In addition to media following up on Islamophobia, how has media represented minority groups based on their ethnicity, faith or sexual orientation? How can media play a direct role in truth-telling that would inspire social cohesion?
A participant of the LGBTQ+ community shared how bisexual members were threatened on social media as a result of local and international media’s reportage of the Amber Heard misogyny case in the US and the negative representation of bisexual people.
As a social conduit for communal voices and public opinion, the media have a significant role in countering terrorism and violent extremism and should not be excluded from the difficult conversations. Legacy, ethnic and diversity media must be included in all future hui, regardless of topics.
Confidential information can be struck from the record if necessary, but often this is hardly shared in a public forum.
There is little point having a Hui where critical national issues of safety and security are discussed across affected communities, if they are just noise in an echo chamber for those affected while people that care outside of this room are unaware.
Six takeaways from the Hui Discussions centred on what community groups have been doing on the ground and what the larger society and government must do to counter radicalisation and terrorism.
Victims’ families call for a Unity Week
Hamimah Ahmat, widow of Zekeriya Tuyan who was killed in the terror attack, and who is chair of the Sakinah Trust, called on the government to observe an official Unity Week for the country to remember the 51 lives lost in Christchurch.
“More than funds — we need to make sure that the nation ring fences their time for reflection and their commitment to that [social cohesion].”
Sakinah Trust, formed by women relatives of the victims, organised Unity Week where Cantabrians participated in social activities and shared social media messages on “unity” to commemorate the lives lost and build a sense of togetherness across diverse communities.
This bonding exercise connected more than 310,000 New Zealanders and initiated 25,000 social media engagements. Hamimah emphasised the importance of this as during the pandemic Chinese migrants had suffered racism and hate rhetoric.
“We need a National Unity Week not just because of March 15 but because it is an essential element for our existence and the survival of our next generation — a generation who feels they belong and are empowered to advocate for each other,” she said.
“And this is how you honour all those beautiful souls and beautiful lives that we have lost through racism, extremism and everything that is evil.”
2. Issues and disappointment
Members of the IWCNZ (Islamic Council of Women in New Zealand) and other ethnic minority groups have repeatedly shared their disappointment that some speakers appeared to equate the terrorist mass murder in the two Christchurch mosques to the LynnMall attack in Auckland. Yet, the difference is stark.
One terrorist was killed and the other was apprehended unharmed. One had a history of trauma and mental instability, and police knew of this but failed to intervene.
The other was a white supremacist radical who had easy access to a semi-automatic weapon. While both could have been prevented, the LynnMall violent extremism was within the authority’s immediate control.
Aliya Danzeisen, a founding member of Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand (IWCNZ), said it was offensive that there was an inappropriate focus on the Muslim community in discourse on the LynnMall attack as there was failed deradicalization by the government corrections department.
“We find it offensive as a community because it was a failed government action, not getting in front, again, that someone was shot and killed and seven people were stabbed.”
Danzeisen also reported that despite sitting in the corrections forum for community, she was unaware of any change since the Royal Commission in terms of addressing radicalisation.
On the ground, there is a sense of disquiet and distrust of the organisers’ motivations for the hui, as some Muslim participants directly connected to the Christchurch tragedy were not invited.
Murray Stirling, treasurer of An Noor Mosque, and Anthony Green, a spokesperson for the Christchurch victims, were present at last year’s Hui but did not receive invitations this year.
3. Academic input from Te Tiriti perspectives
The opening of the conference was led by research from a Te Tiriti perspective. The Muslim community had called for a Te Tiriti involvement in the Hui to acknowledge the first marginalised people of the land.
One shared feature of all the discussions related to colonialism. Tina Ngata, environmental, indigenous and human rights activist, called out those in power who passively protect and maintain colonial privilege, allowing extreme and racist ideas to persist.
Ngata cited racialised myth-making in media and schools, state-sanctioned police violence, hyper-surveillance and the incarceration of non-white people.
She argued that a critical mass of harmful ideas was growing and that it is the “responsibility of accountable power to engage humbly in discussion; not just about participants as victims or solution-bearers but also about structural power as part of the problem”.
The Hui . . . Bill Hamilton from the Iwi Chairs forum paid tribute to the work of the late Moana Jackson in the area of Te Tiriti, reminding people that Te Tiriti belonged to everyone. Image: Khairiah A. Rahman/APR
Bill Hamilton from the Iwi Chairs forum paid tribute to the work of the late Moana Jackson in the area of Te Tiriti, reminding people that Te Tiriti belonged to everyone.
Hamilton recounted that despite Te Tiriti’s promise of protection and non-discrimination, Māori suffered terrorist acts.
“We had invasions at Parihaka . . . our leaders were demonised . . . our grandparents were beaten as small kids by the state for speaking their language [Māori].”
Hamilton reflected on the values of rangatiratanga and said that perhaps, instead of forming a relationship with “the crown”, Māori was better off forming relationships with minority communities based on shared values.
He explained that rangatiratanga is a right to self-determination; the right to maintain and strengthen institutions and representations. It is a right enjoyed by everyone.
Hamilton called for a state apology and acknowledgement of the terrorism inflicted on whānau in Aotearoa. He proposed a revitalisation of rangatiratanga, the removal of inequalities and discrimination, and the strengthening of relationships.
Rawiri Taonui, an independent researcher, presented a Te Tiriti framework for national security.
There was a marked difference between the Crown’s sovereign view of the Te Tiriti relationship with Māori and Māori’s view of an equal and reciprocal Te Tiriti relationship with the Crown.
Taonui highlighted that while Te Tiriti was identified as important for social cohesion in the Royal Commission Report, Te Tiriti was absent in the 15 recommendations for social cohesion.
He explained the tendency in policy documents to separate Māori from new cultural communities.
“That is a very unhelpful disconnect because if we are trying to improve social cohesion, one of the things we need to do is bring Māori and many of our new cultural communities together. Because we share similar histories — colonisation, racism, violence.”
Taonui proposed a “whole of New Zealand approach” towards countering terrorism, emphasising social cohesion to prevent extremism as “we all belong here”.
4. On countering radicalism
In a panel session on “Responding to the changing threat environment in Aotearoa”, Paul Spoonley, co-director of He Whenua Taurikura National Centre of Research Excellence, said that he was confused about how communities should be engaged as “often the affected communities are not the ones that provided the activists or the extremists. How do we reach out to those communities who might often be Pākehā?
“By the time we get to know about these groups, they have progressed down quite a long path towards radicalisation.
“So if we are going to provide tools to communities, we must understand that the context in which people get recruited are often very intimate; we are talking about whānau and peer groups. We are talking about micro settings.”
Sara Salman, from Victoria University in Wellington, spoke on radicalism and the thought processes and emotional attraction to notoriety and camaraderie that encourage destructive behaviours.
For radicals, there is a feeling of deprivation, “a resentment and hostility towards changes in the social world”, whether these are women in the workspace, migrants in society, or co-governance in the political system.
In the context of March 15, the radical is typically a white supremacist male. Such males join extremist groups because they feel a sense of loss and are motivated by power and social status.
According to Salman, there is now a real threat to our governance and democracy by radical groups through subtle ways like entering into politics.
“Radical individuals who ascribe to supremacy ideas are engaging in disruptions that are considered legitimate by entering into local politics to disrupt governance.”
Salman warned that although the government might prefer disengagement, which is intervention before a person commits violence, deradicalisation is critical as it aims to change destructive thinking.
Research showed that children as young as 11 have been recruited and influenced by radical ideas. Without being repressive, the government needs to deradicalise vulnerable groups.
5. Vulnerable communities and post-colonial Te Tiriti human rights
Several speakers on the “countering messages of hate” panel discussed horrific stories of physical, verbal and sexual attacks based on their identities including, ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation.
Many spoke about the lack of fair representations in media and professional roles and one participant emphasised that members of a group are diverse and not defined by stereotypes.
In an earlier session, chair of the Rainbow New Zealand Charitable Trust, called on society, including the ethnic and religious communities, to find ways of helping this group feel supported and loved in their communities.
Lexie Matheson, representing the trans community, spoke on the importance of being included in discussions about her people. She echoed my point at last year’s media panel about fair representations: “Nothing about us, without us”.
In the closing session, Paul Hunt, chair of the Human Rights Commission argued that the wide spectrum of human rights is normative as it defined the ethical and legal codes for conduct of states and constituted humanity’s response to countering terrorism.
Hunt offered a post-colonial human rights perspective and called for a process of truth-telling and peaceful reconciliation which respects the universal declaration of human rights and Te Tiriti.
“My point is in today’s Aotearoa, violent extremism includes racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia and white supremacy. And it is dangerous for all communities and for all of us.
“And if we are to address with integrity today’s violence, racism and white supremacy, we have to acknowledge yesterday’s violence, racism and white supremacy which was part of the social fabric of the imperial project in Aotearoa.”
6. What the Hui got right and wrong
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s presence and participation on the final day was timely, inspired confidence and implied a seriousness to address issues. Ardern covered developments that impact on national security, from technology, covid-19 and the war in Ukraine to climate change.
She addressed the radicalisation prevention framework and announced its release at year end, with an approved budget funding for $3.8 million to counter terrorism and violent extremism.
The Hui must have cost a pretty penny. Participants appreciated the food and comfort of the venue, but was there really a need for illustrators to capture the meetings on noticeboards?
The Hui . . . Participants appreciated the food and comfort of the venue, but was there really a need for illustrators to capture the meetings on noticeboards? Image: Khairiah A Rahman/APR
If the organisers meant to enthuse participants with the novelties of artwork, stylish pens, and a supportive environment of aroha and healing, they have done a decent job.
But repeated feedback from Muslim representatives on the lack of action by government departments must be taken seriously and addressed promptly. All the good intentions without action achieve nothing.
Until those directly involved in the horrendous Christchurch massacres witness concrete sustainable actions that can support social cohesion, counter radicalism and violent extremism, the great expenses and show of love at this Hui would be wasted.
Khairiah A Rahman was a speaker at the media panel at the He Whenua Taurikura Hui in 2021. She is a senior lecturer at AUT’s School of Communication Studies, a member of FIANZ Think Tank, secretary of media education for Asian Congress of Media and Communication (ACMC), secretary of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), assistant editor ofPacific Journalism Reviewand a member of AUT’s Diversity Caucus.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samina Yasmeen, Director of Centre for Muslim States and Societies, The University of Western Australia
The attempted assassination of Imran Khan on November 3 has ushered Pakistan into another stage of political instability, with increased likelihood of further political violence.
Imran has accused Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, Interior Minister Sanaullah Khan and Major General Faisal of masterminding the attack. He has demanded these three be removed from their positions immediately. Failure to act, he communicated through Asad Umer, a senior member of his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), would result in demonstrations across the whole country, and “things would not continue as they have been”.
The PTI’s Asad Umer said that two days ago, he had contacted Imran regarding threats to his safety. But Imran had stated: “We are engaged in jihad and we only need to trust Allah at this stage.” Building on this equivalence of the so-called “long march” with “jihad”, the PTI issued a call for demonstrations to start after Friday prayers on November 4.
The Pakistan government has responded by condemning the assassination attempt. But Minister Rana Sanaullah also told the PTI: “It is [a] law of nature: those who ignite fire may also burn in it.” The national government has also demanded “the Punjab government constitute a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to investigate the attack”.
Others have raised questions about the security extended to the former prime minister in the province of Punjab, where a PTI government is in power.
Conspiracy theories about the shooting also abound, including claims on social media that the attack was orchestrated by PTI to boost support for Imran. Only a few days ago, the former international cricketer turned politician had launched a second march within five months for haqiqi azadi (real freedom). Others accuse “external powers” of fomenting instability in the wake of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to China, where he met President Xi Jinping and revived the momentum for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Then there is the reported admission by the alleged assassin that he was motivated by religious fervour, as Imran’s march would not cease playing music even during the calls to prayer. Reminiscent of the grounds on which Mumtaz Qadri assassinated the then governor of Punjab Salman Taseer, this explanation, with all its inconsistencies, locates the attempt outside the scope of political machinations.
The reaction among Imran’s supporters has been swift. There have been demonstrations in all provinces of the country, with people chanting the attack had “crossed the red line” and they would lay their lives for Imran. This outpouring of support for Imran and anger towards the government has catapulted the country into increased instability, with the future now very uncertain.
Imran Khan’s supporters have responded to his shooting with rallies across Pakistan. Shahzaib Akber/EPA/AAP
In the past, the instability might have been reined in by the Pakistan military, which has traditionally acted as custodian of law and order in the country. During the 75 years of Pakistan’s existence, the military has intervened directly or indirectly in politics when the country experienced instability. Even if its intervention was not approved of, politicians and society generally remained complacent and managed to work withing the framework outlined by the military.
But in contemporary Pakistan, given the extent of political and social polarisation that has descended to a level not witnessed in the country’s history, the military may not be able to play this role. Already, Chief of Army Staff Qamar Javed Bajwa has claimed the military would remain neutral.
Even if instability persists and the military decided to intervene, the reaction of Imran’s supporters would be very different from how people reacted to previous military interventions. The assassination attempt on Imran has removed a lot of self-imposed censorship by people.
While people demonstrated outside the office of the Corps Commander of Peshawar, others have been recorded chanting that the uniform is behind acts of terrorism and hooliganism. In the past, such comments were only openly made by Pashtoon Tahhafuz Movement (movement for the protection of Pashtoons).
But now, such comments also allude to the recent killing in Kenya of Pakistani journalist Ashraf Sharif, who had been a vocal critic of the military’s involvement in politics. It has been claimed the killing was orchestrated with the direct involvement of the military — a claim that prompted the director-general of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to give a press conference refuting these claims.
Such expressions of anger and open opposition to the military leadership would suggest the military would avoid direct interference. One possible avenue could be of imposing governor rule in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but even that is unlikely to tamper the anger being felt by Imran’s supporters.
Pakistan is fast moving into uncharted political terrain.
Samina Yasmeen 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.
A platform has been dedicated to bolster the Pacific leadership at the 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference of Parties — COP27.
Known as the Moana Blue Pacific Pavilion, the Fono or council aims to faciliate talanoa, or conversation, and knowledge-sharing on issues important to the Pacific, especially advocacy for ambitious climate action and the need for financing.
More than 70 side events will be hosted at the Pavilion, providing a platform for Pacific people to tell their stories.
Another space, the Pacific Delegation Office, has been set up for hosting meetings with partners and strategising negotiation approaches.
New Zealand Climate Change Ambassador Kay Harrison said the platforms were a key part of ensuring the Pacific’s voice was heard and considered.
The two platforms are part of a Pacific partnership with New Zealand managed by the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).
Meanwhile, Tonga Meteorological Services Deputy Director Laitia Fifita said his department was attending the conference to share data on Tonga’s climate, which had seen the appearance of four devastating cyclones over the last decade.
“Not only is our director attending this meeting but also the head of government, and the King and Queen are also attending.
“So it’s a nationwide approach, taking relevant issues about the impacts of climate change on small island developing states including Tonga.”
COP27 kicks off this weekend in Sham El Sheikh, Egypt, with an estimated 45,000 people expected to attend.
In one of the most iconic images relating to COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, Tuvalu Foreign Minister Simon Kofe spoke in knee-deep water to show rising seawater levels. Image: RNZ Pacific/EyePress News/EyePress/AFP/TVBC
Climate activists and delegates protesting at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021. Image: RNZ Pacific/AFP
It’s been a week since Elon Musk strode into the Twitter headquarters with a kitchen sink, signalling his official takeover of the company.
Having had some time to let the news of his US$44 billion (about A$70 billion) purchase “sink in”, Twitter users are now wondering what he’ll do with the platform.
What’s Musk going to do with Twitter?
After months of trying to walk away from his commitment to buy the platform, and just before entering what was looking to be a long, potentially embarrassing and costly court battle to enforce his original agreement, Twitter is now privately owned.
If we wade through some of the early reactionary media punditry, we see Musk has paid far too much for a platform that has not yet fulfilled its business potential to investors, nor its social potential to users.
This probably explains some of his first moves since taking over, such as planning to charge users US$8 (adjusted by country) for a blue tick, and threatening to fire half of Twitter’s staff.
He has already fired previous CEO Parag Agrawal, chief financial officer Ned Segal, head of legal Vijaya Gadde and general counsel Sean Edgett.
Will Twitter turn into (more of) a bin fire?
Musk’s intentions were perhaps best signalled with his first tweet after he bought the platform: “the bird is freed”.
Before the purchase, one of his oft-tweeted criticisms of Twitter was that there were too many limits on “free speech”, and moderation would need to be reframed to unlock Twitter’s potential as a “de facto public town square”.
There’s no doubt Musk is quite good at performative social media statements, but we’re yet to see any actual changes made to content moderation – let alone Musk’s utopian vision of a digital town square.
The “chief twit” has suggested the future appointment of “a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints” that would be charged with making decisions about moderation and account reinstatements.
This isn’t a new idea. Meta has convened such an oversight board since 2018, made up of former political leaders, human rights activists, academics and journalists. The board oversees content decisions and has been known to oppose CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decisions, in particular his “indefinite” Facebook suspension of former US president Donald Trump after the US Capitol building riots.
It’s unclear whether a council would convene to discuss Musk’s suggestion to “reverse the permanent ban” Twitter imposed on Trump, or if Musk would allow a board to override his decisions.
Nonetheless, Musk’s suggestion of a moderation board is a step back from his previously self-described “free speech absolutist” views on content moderation.
Many have been concerned his approach to moderation may fuel more hate speech on Twitter.
In the past week, co-ordinated troll accounts have tried to test the limits of a Musk-run Twitter by flooding the platform with racial slurs. According to the US-based National Contagion Research Institute, the use of the N-word skyrocketed by more than 500% on October 28. However, the head of safety and integrity at Twitter, Yoel Roth, said many of the offending tweets came from a small number of accounts.
Another study by Montclair State University researchers found a massive spike in hateful terms in the lead-up to Musk’s acquisition.
Both Roth and Musk have confirmed “Twitter’s policies haven’t changed”. Rules on “hateful conduct” remain the same.
Musk remains a loose cannon
Perhaps more concerning than troll reactions is Musk’s decision to tweet and then delete a conspiracy theory about US house speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi. We could dismiss this as Musk’s love of sh-tposting, but if the right to post disinformation and personal attacks is the kind of speech he wants to protect, it’s worth questioning what kind of public square he envisions.
Musk takes a technocratic approach to the social issues that emerge from our use of online communication tools. It implies free access to technology absolves “free speech” of its cultural and social context, and makes it easily and readily available to everyone.
This is often not the case. That’s why we need content moderation and protections for the vulnerable and marginalised.
The other question is whether we want billionaires to have a direct influence on our public squares. If so, how do we ensure transparency, and that users’ interests are being upheld?
In less bombastic reportage of the takeover, Musk this week directed Twitter to find more than US$1 billion in annual infrastructure cost savings, which will allegedly occur through cuts to cloud services and server space. These cuts could put Twitter at risk of going down during high-traffic periods, such as around election times.
This might be where Musk’s digital town square vision fails. If Twitter is to resemble such a space, the infrastructure that supports it must hold up at the most crucial moments.
Where to go if you’re sick of Twitter?
While there’s so far no indication of a mass Twitter exodus, a number of users are flocking elsewhere. Shortly after Musk acquired Twitter, #TwitterMigration began trending. In the week since, micro-blogging platform Mastodon has reportedly gained tens of thousands of followers.
Mastodon is made up of independent, user-managed servers. Each server is owned, operated and moderated by its community and can also be made private. The downside is servers cost money to run and if a server is no longer running, all the content may be lost.
Twitter defectors have also moved to sites such as Reddit, Tumblr, CounterSocial, LinkedIn and Discord.
Of course, many will be waiting to see what Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey comes up with. While Dorsey retains a stake in Twitter, he has launched a decentralised social media network, Bluesky Social, which is now in beta testing.
Bluesky aims to provide an open social network protocol. This means it would allow for multiple social media networks to interact with one another through an open standard.
If this experiment is successful, it would be more than a competitor for Twitter. It would mean users could easily switch services and take their content with them to other providers.
It would be a totally new user-focused model for social networking. And it might force traditional platforms to rethink their current data harvesting and targeted advertising practices. That might just be a platform takeover worth waiting for.
Diana Bossio 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University
Shutterstock
From next March, the “gamble responsibly” slogan will be discontinued on wagering advertisements. In its place, the federal government has announced a selection of alternatives, which it says will minimise problem gambling.
These new, stronger “taglines” – such as “chances are you’re about to lose” – are certainly an improvement on their largely meaningless predecessor. However, the likelihood of their preventing or reducing harm is low.
The government says the new lines have been researched and are evidence-based. Yet, the evidence from public health is that such messages, in isolation, have very limited effects. Other areas of public health success tell us changes to the way harmful products are advertised and consumed have much more impact.
For example, one of the early, and important steps in reducing tobacco consumption was restrictions on sport sponsorship and advertising. Messaging on tobacco products played a part, but by itself had, at best, modest effects.
Similarly, road safety achievements relied on changes to driver training, enforcement of road rules (such as drink driving and speeding laws), and improvements in roads and cars. Dramatic advertising and slogans arguably reinforced these, rather than acting independently to reduce road trauma.
Gambling advertising is indeed at alarming levels. The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation estimates there are an average of 948 gambling ads on free-to-air TV daily.
Free-to-air TV is awash with gambling ads. Shutterstock
The changes to taglines are elements of the Consumer Protection Framework for online gambling. This was negotiated between all Australian governments in the wake of the inquiry by former NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell into “illegal offshore wagering sites”.
The O’Farrell inquiry was initiated in 2015 because of fears of the impacts of offshore gambling sites. However, it was clear that the behaviour of wagering operators licensed in Australia was also inflicting great harm. The inquiry’s recommendations reflected this.
Measures so far implemented include improved verification of customer ID, prohibition of lines of credit being offered, restrictions on offering inducements to gamble or open a wagering account, and a voluntary opt-out pre-commitment scheme.
Online wagering is Australia’s second largest gambling sector, measured by losses. It grew rapidly during the pandemic restrictions, and is now estimated at between $7 to $8 billion annually. Poker machine gambling in clubs, pubs and casinos remains the largest sector, with about $15 billion in losses each year.
So, will the new taglines work?
“Gamble responsibly” certainly does little to dissuade gamblers. It downloads responsibility for gambling harm on to those experiencing it. It also allows gambling operators to avoid responsibility, while appearing concerned. Increased realisation of this has lead to recent calls from many quarters for a system of precommitment. This would allow people to set spending limits, which will stop them losing more than they plan. It would also help curb Australia’s runaway problem of gambling-based money laundering.
As far as advertising is concerned, there would almost certainly be widespread support for gambling advertising to be scrapped altogether. A recent poll showed over 60% of people support a ban on sports sponsorship by gambling companies. It’s no stretch to imagine a ban on gambling advertising would be similarly supported.
Standing in the way of this are the commercial interests not just of the bookies, but broadcasters and some sporting codes. The TV rights for popular sports such as AFL, NRL, and cricket sell for billions. This is largely because the broadcasters know they can sell advertising for these at premium prices. The bookies spent over $287 million on ads in 2021, making them among Australia’s leading advertisers. There would be serious and powerful opposition to such a step.
However, banning sporting sponsorship, along with broadcast and other advertising, was a huge step forward in reducing harm from tobacco. It greatly limited the capacity of tobacco companies to recruit new smokers. The glamour and excitement of sport and sporting heroes was a hugely attractive association for tobacco. It is currently a hugely attractive association for bookies.
The target market for online wagering is young men, but inevitably, children are subjected to this as well. Bombarding children with positive associations between sport and gambling means wagering is normalised. It becomes closely associated with an activity many young people greatly enjoy and admire.
When tobacco sponsorship and advertising revenue was threatened, the tobacco industry argued sport would suffer. Those dire predictions did not eventuate.
Phasing out advertising and sponsorship over a reasonable period of time would allow existing arrangements to be honoured, and give sporting codes and others time to adjust to a new reality.
It would also mean new generations of young people would no longer come to associate sport with a product that causes enormous harm to those who use it and those around them.
Gambling should be legal, and regulated. But it doesn’t follow that those who promote it should be able to exploit the excitement of sport or digital media as vehicles to market, and normalise, their wares.
Australia’s parents would undoubtedly breathe a collective sigh of relief if watching sport was no longer accompanied by endless ads for bookies. It would also mean those struggling to end a harmful gambling habit could again relax and simply enjoy the game.
Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, the Turkish Red Crescent Society, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government’s Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Lancet Public Health Commission into gambling, and of the World Health Organisation expert group on gambling and gambling harm.
An enormous neutrino observatory buried deep in the Antarctic ice has discovered only the second extra-galactic source of the elusive particles ever found.
In results published today in Science, the IceCube collaboration reports the detection of neutrinos from an “active galaxy” called NGC 1068, which lies some 47 million light-years from Earth.
How to spot a neutrino
Neutrinos are very shy fundamental particles that don’t often interact with anything else. When they were first detected in the 1950s, physicists soon realised they would in some ways be ideal for astronomy.
Because neutrinos so rarely have anything to do with other particles, they can travel unimpeded across the Universe. However, their shyness also makes them difficult to detect. To catch enough to be useful, you need a very big detector.
That’s where IceCube comes in. Over the course of seven summers from 2005 to 2011, scientists at America’s Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station bored 86 holes in the ice with a hot-water drill. Each hole is almost 2.5 kilometres deep, about 60 centimetres wide, and contains 60 basketball-sized light detectors attached to a long stretch of cable.
The IceCube neutrino observatory has more than 5,000 detectors buried deep in the Antarctic ice. NSF/IceCube
How does this help us detect neutrinos? Occasionally, a neutrino will bump into a proton or neutron in the ice near a detector. The collision produces a much heavier particle called a muon, travelling so fast it emits a blue glow, which the light detectors can pick up.
By measuring when this light arrives at different detectors, the direction the muon (and neutrino) came from can be calculated. Looking at the particle energies, it turns out most of the neutrinos IceCube detects are created in Earth’s atmosphere.
However, a small fraction of the neutrinos do come from outer space. As of 2022, thousands of neutrinos from somewhere in the distant Universe have been identified.
Where do neutrinos come from?
They appear to come fairly uniformly from all directions, without any obvious bright spots showing up. This means there must be a lot of sources of neutrinos out there.
But what are these sources? There are plenty of candidates, exotic-sounding objects like active galaxies, quasars, blazars and gamma-ray bursts.
In 2018, IceCube announced the discovery of the first identified high-energy neutrino emitter – a blazar, which is a particular kind of galaxy that happens to be firing a jet of high-energy particles in Earth’s direction.
Known as TXS 0506+056, the blazar was identified after IceCube saw a single high-energy neutrino and sent out an urgent astronomer’s telegram. Other telescopes scrambled to take a look at TXS 0506+056, and discovered it was also emitting a lot of gamma rays at the same time.
This makes sense, because we think blazars work by boosting protons to extreme speeds – and these high-energy protons then interact with other gas and radiation to produce both gamma rays and neutrinos.
An active galaxy
The blazar was the first extra-galactic source ever discovered. In this new study, IceCube identified the second.
The IceCube scientists re-examined the first decade of data they had collected, applying fancy new methods to pull out sharper measurements of neutrino directions and energy.
As a result, an already interesting bright spot in the background neutrino glow came into sharper focus. About 80 neutrinos had come from a fairly nearby, well-studied galaxy called NGC 1068 (also known as M77, as it is the 77th entry in the famous 18th-century catalogue of interesting astronomical objects created by the French astronomer Charles Messier).
The neutrinos offer a glimpse into the heart of the active galaxy NGC 1068.
Located about 47 million light-years from Earth, NGC 1068 is a known “active galaxy” – a galaxy with an extremely bright core. It is about 100 times closer than the blazar TXS 0506+056, and its angle relative to us means gamma rays from its core are obscured from our view by dust. However, neutrinos happily zoom straight through the dust and into space.
This new discovery will provide a wealth of information to astrophysicists and astronomers about what exactly is going on inside NGC 1068. There are already hundreds of papers attempting to explaining how the galaxy’s inner core works, and the new IceCube data add some information about neutrinos that will help to refine these models.
Gary Hill is a member of the IceCube collaboration. His IceCube research at the University of Adelaide is funded by the Australian Research Council.
It’s 11 pm on a weeknight and your teenager still has their bedroom light on. You want them to get enough sleep for school the next day, but it’s a struggle.
Our new research shows what happens to the brains and behaviour of young teenagers, years after they’ve become “night owls”.
We found this shift in sleep pattern increased the risk of having behavioural problems and delayed brain development in later adolescence.
People’s sleep patterns shift during their teenage years. Teens can stay awake longer, fall asleep later, and have a lie in the next day.
Many teens also shift from being a morning lark to a night owl. They feel more productive and alert later in the evening, preferring to go to sleep later, and waking up later the next day.
This shift towards “eveningness” can clash with teens’ school and work. A chronic lack of sleep, due to these mis-matched sleep schedules, can explain why teens who are night owls are at greater risk for emotional and behavioural problems than ones who are morning larks.
Emerging research also indicates morning larks and night owls have a different brain structure. This includes differences in both the grey and white matter, which have been linked to differences in memory, emotional wellbeing, attention and empathy.
Despite these links, it’s unclear how this relationship might emerge. Does being a night owl increase the risk for later emotional and behavioural problems? Or do emotional and behavioural problems lead to someone becoming more of a night owl?
In our study, we tried to answer these questions, following teenagers for many years.
What we did
We asked over 200 teens and their parents to complete a series of questionnaires about the teens’ sleep preferences, and emotional and behavioural wellbeing. Participants repeated these questionnaires several times over the next seven years.
The teens also had two brain scans, several years apart, to examine their brain development. We focused on mapping changes in the structure of white matter – the brain’s connective tissue that allows our brains to process information and function effectively.
Earlier research shows the structure of white matter of morning larks and night owls differ. However, our study is the first to examine how changes in sleep preferences might affect how white matter grows over time.
Teens who shifted to becoming a night owl in early adolescence (around the age of 12-13) were more likely to have behavioural problems several years later. This included greater aggression, rule breaking, and antisocial behaviours.
But they weren’t at increased risk of emotional problems, such as anxiety or low mood.
Importantly, this relationship did not occur in the reverse direction. In other words, we found that earlier emotional and behavioural problems didn’t influence whether a teenager became more of a morning lark or night owl in late adolescence.
Our research also showed that teens who shifted to becoming a night owl had a different rate of brain development than teens who remained morning larks.
We found the white matter of night owls didn’t increase to the same degree as teens who were morning larks.
We know growth of white matter is important in the teenage years to support cognitive, emotional and behavioural development.
What are the implications?
These findings build on previous research showing differences in brain structure between morning larks and night owls. It also builds on earlier research that indicates these changes might emerge in the teenage years.
Importantly, we show that becoming a night owl increases the risk of experiencing behavioural problems and delayed brain development in later adolescence, rather than the other way round.
These findings highlight the importance of focusing on teens’ sleep-wake habits early in adolescence to support their later emotional and behavioural health. We know getting enough sleep is extremely important for both mental and brain health.
It’s not all bad news for night owls. As our research shows, morning lark and night owl preferences aren’t set in stone. Research indicates we can modify our sleep preferences and habits.
For example, exposure to light (even artificial light) alters our circadian rhythms, which can influence our sleep preferences. So minimising late-night exposure to bright lights and screens can be one way to modify our preferences and drive for sleep.
Exposure to light first thing in the morning can also help shift our internal clocks to a more morning-oriented rhythm. You could encourage your teen to have their breakfast outside, or go onto a balcony or into the garden before heading to school or work.
Rebecca Cooper receives funding from The Ubiversity of Melbourne Fay Marles Scholarship.
Maria Di Biase receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council
Vanessa Cropley receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.
The Albanese government is unequivocal in its support for the NDIS, but has also warned more needs to be done to bring down costs.
As part of this effort, it has brought forward an independent review of the NDIS to be co-chaired by former senior public servant Lisa Paul and former chair of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) Bruce Bonyhady. It will hand down findings and recommendations by October 2023.
The next year will be crucial for setting out the future path of the NDIS and participants in the scheme. Our new survey shows Australians with disability are keen to see real change.
The Summer Foundation – supported by People with Disability Australia – recently conducted a national survey of NDIS participants. We asked people with disability or their families what works well with the scheme and what needs to be changed.
The 477 survey respondents included those with a wide range of disabilities, ages and locations around Australia.
Previous research drew on in-depth interviews and found that despite gratitude for the NDIS, participants have lost trust and confidence in the NDIA, which administers the scheme.
The new survey provides hundreds of examples of how the NDIS has enabled a wide range of participants to achieve important and transformative outcomes. The survey also provides rich data that illustrates the stress and unpredictability of navigating the NDIS. There are insights into how the scheme could be much more efficient and simpler for users to navigate. As one told us:
The concept of NDIS is great. The implementation and delivery needs to be improved.
Jumping through hoops
Survey responses indicate the range of issues participants want addressed.
Participants take issue with the reports and assessments they are asked to obtain as part of funding plan reviews. The NDIA asks participants to submit evidence from health professionals about their disability and needs. But participants believe NDIA staff often do not read, understand or factor in this evidence. This feels like a waste of time, effort and money.
The recommendations of long-term experts involved with a person [shouldn’t be] second-guessed or discarded by an inexperienced and unfamiliar NDIA officer (no matter their good intentions).
The national survey asked three main questions.
Not everyone can be an advocate
Participants report NDIA staff lack expertise and experience in disability issues.
This puts a burden on the participant or their family to educate the agency.
Those with the skills, knowledge, time and ability to self-advocate may eventually succeed in getting a suitable funding plan, but others with less capacity give up.
Participants say NDIA staff should receive more training, or have their expertise better matched to who they are working with; hiring more people with disability experience was also suggested. Here are some of things participants shared:
Planners, interviewers [should] know and understand the disabilities they are writing about fully – no one understands deaf. They keep trying to ring me – ughhh I am deaf.
I am very grateful for the NDIS and what it does. Although it is working well for me personally, I am appalled at how complex, time-consuming and sophisticated I had to be to get what I have.
The funding has been difficult to continue to fight for each year, having to prove lifelong disability that will never improve. However the funds received and the flexibility of using the funds has been so important.
Participants say the NDIA lacks the fundamental elements of contemporary customer service, let alone an agency designed to engage with people who may have severe cognitive and communication limitations.
Participants’ frustration with the NDIS stems in part from knowing how well the scheme can work, and that it does work well for some people some of the time.
The current design of the NDIS is unnecessarily bureaucratic in a way that demonstrates a lack of trust in the competency of participants to make decisions about their lives.
NDIS minister Bill Shorten reads the survey with researchers. Summer Foundation, Author provided
Participants described many ways in which the NDIS allows them to participate socially and economically and make the most of life despite their disability.
When it does work, it’s the people who listen, the people who treat people with disability as humans, not as a burden. The people who recognise they are handling a person’s life, rather than managing an account.
My NDIS supports allow me to work for the first time in full-time ongoing employment in the open employment market. Prior to the NDIS supports that I receive, this would not have been possible.
Our daughter volunteers at three local organisations with the help of support workers. She is supported to go shopping for herself. She attends a centre-based program for socialising and fun. She is receiving regular overnight support to help increase her independence from us, her parents.
Getting to work
Many NDIS participants have untapped potential to work and make other valuable contributions to society. A new NDIS 2.0 needs to see the agency working in partnership with people with disability to enable economic and social participation and deliver real jobs for people with disability. Better connecting NDIS participants to job opportunities and reforming disability employment services may be part of the solution to increasing work participation.
The government’s pilot scheme announced this week has this focus. However, our survey suggests many participants cannot even begin to explore employment because their basic daily supports and housing are not secure in today’s NDIS.
Redesigning the NDIA to be an efficient and cost-effective administrator that consistently delivers great outcomes for NDIS participants will be a major challenge.
Giving a voice to a broad range of participants and their families – who have a wealth of expert knowledge on what works well and what needs to be changed – is crucial to transforming the scheme. The NDIS review is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the scheme right, stem the current waste of public resources, and transform the lives of half a million Australians.
The past can inform the present in more ways than one.
Take the case of the 23-million-year-old whale fossil recently excavated by a private collector on the West Coast of the South Island. It has angered Karamea locals and Ngāti Waewae, who viewed the fossil as a treasured local attraction, and has led to a police investigation.
Despite the upset it caused, the actual legal situation remains unclear. But the incident has generated significant local and international media attention, and raised questions about the role and ethics of private fossil collecting and trading.
In the process, it has reminded us of the way palaeontology provides a unique window into the history of life on Earth, revealing how plants and animals have adapted to our dynamic geological, climatic and human history.
Nearly all species that ever existed are now extinct. Yet their remains are sparse and often destroyed by natural processes or human activity before they can be appreciated or studied. The world is simply too vast, and palaeontologists too few in number, to keep track.
The importance of private collectors
This is where private collectors come in. Driven by a passion for fossils and a desire to protect these fragile echoes of our past, they search land at a scale no professional institution ever could. Their discoveries have enriched both scientific knowledge and public collections across the world.
Local communities benefit from their findings through sharing knowledge, mounting and contributing to exhibitions, or simply from the awe in which fossils are often held.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, perhaps the best known example is Joan Wiffen, who discovered our first dinosaurs and became internationally recognised for her achievements.
But sometimes things go wrong, and privately collected fossils become bones of contention.
New Zealand’s ‘dinosaur woman’, Joan Wiffen, whose fossil discoveries shed light on a prehistoric world. Wendy St George/GNS Science
The legality and ethics of fossil collecting
The excavation of archaeological sites (those associated with human activity) requires an appropriate authority and must involve trained archaeologists. Fossils, however, cannot be managed this way because they occur almost anywhere and in a bewildering variety of forms.
At present, rules guiding fossil collecting are mostly tied to the legal status of the land. Excavations on private property require landowner permission, whereas collecting on conservation land generally needs a permit.
In non-protected public areas, including much of the coast, fossils can usually be collected at will if they are easy to remove. In some cases, this means they must already be lying loose on the ground. In others, limited digging with hand tools may also be allowed.
Larger or mechanical excavations often require resource consent. The exact rules depend on the local council, which means collecting should be planned on a case-by-case basis.
Irrespective of the legal status, any major collecting should be done in consultation with iwi and (where appropriate) local communities as kaitiaki (guardians) of the land. As the Karamea whale suggests, some fossils are more powerful in their original setting than in any museum.
Ethical fossil collecting: volunteers at the 16-19 million-year-old St Bathans deposits in Central Otago. Nic Rawlence/University of Otago
Trading in fossils
While fossil trading can be a murky world, it often helps bring scientifically important discoveries to light. Paying for fossils may seem odd, but has a long precedent. Take Archaeopteryx, the “missing link” between dinosaurs and birds: many of the famous specimens now in museums were bought from private owners.
Putting a price on fossils often reflects the time, effort and experience required to collect them. It can also reflect their rarity, scientific interest, exhibition value and quality of preservation. In many ways, it is comparable to acquiring other cultural, historical and natural treasures.
It’s legal to collect, own and trade fossils without a permit in New Zealand, so long as they stay in the country. Fossil exports are regulated by the Protected Objects Act, which prevents scientifically important specimens from being sent abroad permanently.
As a result, the market for New Zealand fossils is relatively small and largely comprised of local collectors and museums. Eventually, many of these specimens do make their way into public ownership.
Several Archaeopteryx specimens, which helped scientists show dinosaurs evolved into birds, were sold to museums by private collectors. Getty Images
The future of the past
Incidents like the one near Karamea raise the question of whether New Zealand is doing enough to protect its fossil heritage. Similar concerns are currently driving a public campaign to save Foulden Maar, a nationally significant fossil site in Central Otago.
Protections can apply to particular places or to particular kinds of fossils. Both have some drawbacks, however. Red tape can severely hinder research within protected sites. And sweeping protections applied to whole classes of objects can be difficult to enforce and might drive fossil traders underground.
A partnership between archaeologist Matt Schmidt, palaeontologists and local iwi was critical for the excavation of a moa fossil on Rakiura Stewart Island. Alex Verry/University of Otago
Applied correctly, however, the current legal and ethical guidelines work well, despite recent exceptions. Given their colonial origins and public facing role, museums should also be raising awareness about ethical fossil collecting. Knowledgeable private collectors have, and always will, play an important role in New Zealand palaeontology.
Rather than pursuing law changes that create extra bureaucracy, we encourage stakeholders to join forces in protecting the interests of iwi and communities, save important fossils from being lost, and keep telling the story of ancient Aotearoa.
Nic Rawlence receives funding from the Royal Society Te Apārangi Marsden Fund.
New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Politics Daily is a collation of the most prominent issues being discussed in New Zealand. It is edited by Dr Bryce Edwards of The Democracy Project.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Loughran, Director Radiation Research and Advice (ARPANSA), and Adjunct Associate Professor (UOW), University of Wollongong
Allexxandar/Shutterstock
The simple mention of the word “radiation” often evokes fear in people. For others, it’s fun to think a little exposure to radiation could turn you into the next superhero, just like the Hulk.
But is it true basically everything around us is radioactive, even the food we eat? You may have heard bananas are mildly radioactive, but what does that actually mean? And despite us not being superheroes, are human bodies also radioactive?
What is radiation?
Radiation is energy that travels from one point to another, either as waves or particles. We are exposed to radiation from various natural and artificial sources every day.
Cosmic radiation from the Sun and outer space, radiation from rocks and soil, as well as radioactivity in the air we breathe and in our food and water, are all sources of natural radiation.
Bananas are a common example of a natural radiation source. They contain high levels of potassium, and a small amount of this is radioactive. But there’s no need to give up your banana smoothie – the amount of radiation is extremely small, and far less than the natural “background radiation” we are exposed to every day.
Artificial sources of radiation include medical treatments and X-rays, mobile phones and power lines. There is a common misconception that artificial sources of radiation are more dangerous than naturally occurring radiation. However, this just isn’t true.
There are no physical properties that make artificial radiation different or more damaging than natural radiation. The harmful effects are related to dose, and not where the exposure comes from.
What is the difference between radiation and radioactivity?
The words “radiation” and “radioactivity” are often used interchangeably. Although the two are related, they are not quite the same thing.
Radioactivity refers to an unstable atom undergoing radioactive decay. Energy is released in the form of radiation as the atom tries to reach stability, or become non-radioactive.
The radioactivity of a material describes the rate at which it decays, and the process(es) by which it decays. So radioactivity can be thought of as the process by which elements and materials try to become stable, and radiation as the energy released as a result of this process.
Depending on the level of energy, radiation can be classified into two types.
Ionising radiation has enough energy to remove an electron from an atom, which can change the chemical composition of a material. Examples of ionising radiation include X-rays and radon (a radioactive gas found in rocks and soil).
Non-ionising radiation has less energy but can still excite molecules and atoms, which causes them to vibrate faster. Common sources of non-ionising radiation include mobile phones, power lines, and ultraviolet rays (UV) from the Sun.
The electromagnetic spectrum includes all types of electromagnetic radiation. brgfx/Shutterstock
Radiation is not always dangerous – it depends on the type, the strength, and how long you are exposed to it.
As a general rule, the higher the energy level of the radiation, the more likely it is to cause harm. For example, we know that overexposure to ionising radiation – say, from naturally occurring radon gas – can damage human tissues and DNA.
Importantly, because these dangers are well known and understood, they can be protected against. International and national expert bodies provide guidelines to ensure the safety and radiation protection of people and the environment.
For ionising radiation, this means keeping doses above the natural background radiation as low as reasonably achievable – for example, only using medical imaging on the part of the body required, keeping the dose low, and retaining copies of images to avoid repeat exams.
Additionally, in the case of UV radiation from the Sun, we know to protect against exposure using sunscreen and clothing when levels reach 3 and above on the UV index.
While there are clear risks involved when it comes to radiation exposure, it’s also important to recognise the benefits. One common example of this is the use of radiation in modern medicine.
Medical imaging uses ionising radiation techniques, such as X-rays and CT scans, as well as non-ionising radiation techniques, such as ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
These types of medical imaging techniques allow doctors to see what’s happening inside the body and often lead to earlier and less invasive diagnoses. Medical imaging can also help to rule out serious illness.
So are our bodies also radioactive? The answer is yes, like everything around us, we are also a little bit radioactive. But this is not something we need to be worried about.
Our bodies were built to handle small amounts of radiation – that’s why there is no danger from the amounts we are exposed to in our normal daily lives. Just don’t expect this radiation to turn you into a superhero any time soon, because that definitely is science fiction.
Sarah Loughran receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC). She is the Director of Radiation Research and Advice at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). She is is also currently a member of the Scientific Expert Group at the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
