Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pep Canadell, Chief Research Scientist, Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere; Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, CSIRO

It was a rare bit of good news on climate. The International Energy Agency this week released its latest net zero roadmap, showing it was still just possible to hold global heating to 1.5℃.

In the last two years, we’ve seen major global investment in clean energy, spurred on by energy independence concerns raised by the war in Ukraine, as well as intensifying extreme weather.

Even so, it’s unlikely to actually keep us under 1.5℃, the globally agreed target to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Why? Because emissions are still rising – even as many countries make their energy grids greener.

Why is it so hard?

In part, because we’ve left our run very late. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its first assessment in 1990. Since then, the world has emitted one trillion tons of carbon dioxide, which is two-thirds of the carbon budget. That is, the amount of permissible emissions that would feasibly allow us to limit global warming to 1.5℃ above the pre-industrial temperature.

At the beginning of this year, the world had just 380 billion tons of carbon dioxide left in the carbon budget. Global emissions have been about 40 billion tonnes a year over the past few years with no sign of decline. At that rate, we’ll hit 1.5℃ in about nine years, and 2℃ in 30 years.

Read more:
Renewables are cheaper than ever yet fossil fuel use is still growing – here’s why

We are not moving fast enough, on enough fronts, to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

For instance, even though the use of electric vehicles is growing fast, it’s off a low base. The world still has an estimated 1.4 billion internal combustion engine cars, which run on petrol, diesel or gas.

Emissions from all forms of transport are increasing. Fossil gas use is surging. Coal use was thought to have peaked in 2013. But it’s back at even higher levels over the past two years, as nations scramble to shore up energy supplies due to the war in Ukraine.

Clean alternatives haven’t yet replaced fossil fuels at sufficient scale. It doesn’t matter how many solar panels are installed unless they also substitute the power that fossil fuels provide. And on a global scale, that’s not happening quickly enough to prevent us hitting 1.5℃.

But the good news is we’re finally seeing something that seemed all but impossible just 10 years ago – nation after nation finally getting serious on climate change.

Renewables are so cheap they’re getting built because they make money – at the expense of old fossil fuel plants. Electric vehicles are here, and will make life better, from cutting running costs to radically improving air quality in our cities. Many nations will achieve energy independence.

We are doing rapid progress in greening the electric grid, with China building even more renewables than its goverment targets. On the streets of Shanghai and Oslo, electric vehicles are a common sight.

These trends need to spread worldwide, and fast.

Read more:
We just blew past 1.5 degrees. Game over on climate? Not yet

Economic sectors that produce large volumes of emissions, such as concrete and steel making, are difficult to decarbonise and will take longer. Likewise for the aviation and food system sectors, where emissions keep rising.

Renewables, after all, are a means to an end. The goal is to rapidly reduce the use of fossil fuels, with any unavoidable emissions captured and permanently sequestered.

Until now, the very best we’ve done is to meet the growth in global demand for energy with non-fossil fuel sources – not to actually cut emissions. To actually slash emissions means transformational change.

Why the positive forecast?

Our best climate projections, the rate we’re using our remaining carbon budget, and current climate policies in place all consistently lead us to temperatures well past 1.5℃ by the end of the century.

So why is the International Energy Agency still floating the possibility of stabilising the climate at 1.5℃?

If you read the report, it becomes clear. Achieving net zero at this late stage will mean overshooting 1.5℃ – and then using trees and negative emissions technologies at a very large scale to bring us back to that level.

This will take the creation of a whole new industry of atmospheric greenhouse gas removal and decades of effort.

So even as the world accelerates climate action, the claim that we can avoid climate change from reaching and passing 1.5℃ is out of reach.

Read more:
Global carbon emissions at record levels with no signs of shrinking, new data shows. Humanity has a monumental task ahead

What does this mean?

If humanity blows past the target of 1.5℃ and keeps warming the planet, it doesn’t mean we just give up. Every decimal of a degree avoided matters a lot.

We’re only at 1.2℃ now, and extreme weather, fire activity and other damage from climate change is coming thick and fast.

But there are clear risks in relying too much on the potential of removing large quantities of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere while also bringing down emissions as close to zero as possible.

Overshooting 1.5℃ has another important implication. For years, climate action – cutting emissions – has been at the forefront of global efforts. But we have been too slow. Now we have to adapt to the rapidly evolving climate, with new policies, investment and preparedness.

This is not a story of unavoidable catastrophe. Climate scientists, on the whole, are optimists. All the work being done means we’re finally seeing positive change. But the numbers don’t lie. We must get those emissions down.

Read more:
EV sales growth points to oil demand peaking by 2030 − so why is the oil industry doubling down on production?

Pep Canadell receives funding from the Australian National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Climate Systems Hub.

– ref. The green energy surge still isn’t enough for 1.5 degrees. We’ll have to overshoot, adapt and soak up carbon dioxide – https://theconversation.com/the-green-energy-surge-still-isnt-enough-for-1-5-degrees-well-have-to-overshoot-adapt-and-soak-up-carbon-dioxide-214463

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Russell Fewster, Lecturer in Performing Arts, University of South Australia

The Dictionary of Lost Words follows Esme as she navigates the patriarchal world of Victorian England. While her father and colleagues construct the Oxford English Dictionary, Esme begins to form her own dictionary – particularly the words spoken by women and the working class who have been excluded.

Along the way she is buffeted by the seismic events of the early 20th century in the suffrage movement and the first world war.

Verity Laughton’s stage adaptation of Pip Williams’ best-selling book is a wonderful work.

We are introduced to a crusty world of dedicated male lexicologists who are gathered together in the shed, or “scriptorium”, of Sir James Murray, played with erudite Scottish enunciation by Chris Pitman. They valiantly set out to construct volumes of meaning for words from the letters of the alphabet – with a hint of empire-building about the enterprise.

Read more:
Book review: The Dictionary of Lost Words by Pip Williams

A brilliant innovation

Tilda Cobham-Hervey makes a standout return to the stage carrying the central character of Esme.

We first see her as an ingénue child hiding under the large desk of the eminent lexicologists. Her direct address to the audience draws us into her perspective of what is occurring around her.

As she grows, her curiosity about the world deepens while her determination to be her own person strengthens, in spite of the limited opportunities for women. Cobham-Hervey navigates this journey of discovery and identity formation with a surety of purpose and endows Esme with a passion for words and their meaning.

In a brilliant innovation from designer Jonathon Oxlade we see words handwritten and projected from a camera hidden within a lamp above the central desk. This also enables the cast to indicate the location and the passing of time at the beginning of each scene – always a challenge when moving across the many scenes a novel brings. Postcards from locations are projected on a curved back-screen that echoes the diorama and magic lantern popular at the time.

Below the screen are immense rows of pigeonholes where the slips of paper containing word meanings are filed. In a neat twist, these pigeonholes become letterboxes as Esme distributes pamphlets for the women’s movement when she is converted to the cause by the suffragette Tilda, given appropriate boldness by Angela Mahlatjie.

Lighting designer Trent Suidgeest sweeps diverse colours across the pigeonholes, also lit within, with the various hues accompanying the emotional arc of the play.

Composer Max Lyandvert adds fine and sensitive nuances to his score, which heightens the total theatre nature of the experience. A stylised version of Auld Lang Syne becomes a motif for the passing of those close to Esme, notably her father Harry, given dignity and depth by Brett Archer.

A beautiful realisation

Director Jessica Arthur handles the cast and use of video well. An inspired touch is having the ensemble move slowly behind key monologues and duologues, adding intricate detail. When Esme gives birth we see her mouth magnified by the live camera, in a close-up that amplifies the intensity of the birth.

Cobham-Hervey is supported by a fine ensemble who succinctly double up as required in Laughton’s economy of writing. Rachel Burke brings dynamism to Lizzie Lester, Esme’s “bondmaid”. Ksenja Logos doubles well between Esme’s supportive aunt and the rowdy and endearing market stallholder Mabel.

The market scene is one of the triumphs for the ensemble as it bustles with liveliness. The audience explodes with laughter as Esme discovers swear words though the indomitable Mabel.

In the quieter second half, Raj Labade brings a warmth to Gareth, Esme’s suitor. Esme must first confess her dalliance with a former lover, Bill Taylor, played by Anthony Yangoyan with rakish charm. This is brilliantly shown by the ensemble as a flashback, where Esme has to make the agonising choice between keeping her illegitimate child, with the social consequences of the time, or giving her child away, with the accompanying grief that would follow.

As with Williams’ book, the play ends with an abrupt shift to 1989 and to Esme’s long-lost daughter who begins a speech with the Kaurna welcome “Niina marni”.

Williams’ intention is to highlight that the struggle for inclusivity continues, in particular for Indigenous languages. However, having spent so long with Esme, this feels like a rupture within the narrative – which indeed may be the purpose.

“Realised” might be defined as to give shape to an artform. This is a very clever realisation of Williams’ novel for the stage and gives great power to key moments of this epic story.

The Dictionary of Lost Words is at the State Theatre Company of South Australia until October 14, then at the Sydney Theatre Company from October 26 to December 16.

Read more:
Pip Williams shows how World War I transformed women’s lives, in a new novel that captures the ‘poetic materiality’ of books

Russell Fewster has worked with State Theatre Company of South Australia in co-ordinating the second year course State Theatre Masterclass at the University of South Australia.

– ref. A journey of discovery and identity formation: The Dictionary of Lost Words makes its wonderful stage debut – https://theconversation.com/a-journey-of-discovery-and-identity-formation-the-dictionary-of-lost-words-makes-its-wonderful-stage-debut-214552

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carl Rhodes, Professor of Organization Studies, University of Technology Sydney

Accounting and consulting group PwC has been front page news ever since its chief executive Tim Seymour stepped down “effectively immediately” in May, when the firm said it had “betrayed the trust” of Australians and promised an independent review of its governance, accountability and culture.

That review, conducted by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, was published on Wednesday, along with an assurance from the firm that it would implement the recommendations.

Released with the review was a separate Statement of Facts prepared by PwC. This set out how it had provided advice to clients based on confidential government information about tax policy, which had been provided to one of its partners on the condition it be kept confidential.

‘Untouchables’ and ‘troublesome practice matters’

Switkowski found PwC Australia’s culture and governance practices were so weak they led to “integrity failures”.

It was an organisation that prized revenues and growth over ethics, values and purpose, with a “whatever it takes” culture that made “heroes” out of partners who raked in the most money.

If you were at the top, you were called a “rainmaker”. The biggest rainmakers who brought in the most money were referred to as “untouchables”, to whom “the rules
don’t always apply”.

Switkowski found the culture was “collegial” in the sense that dissent wasn’t welcome.

While good news was shared among partners, difficult news was kept quiet and referred to internally as “troublesome practice matters”, or TPMs. Legal updates about TPMs were “generally verbal”.

Read more:
More than reputation at stake: PwC faces penalties, including jail time

The chief executive, elected by partners in a “presidential-style campaign”, was “not perceived to be accountable to the board”.

Among Switkowski’s most important recommendations were that PwC Australia be run like a public company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange – with a board that included independent directors and had the power to hire and fire the chief executive.

PwC Australia has agreed to this, and all 23 recommendations.

Problems far from over

As damning as the report is, Labor Senator Deborah O’Neill – who is chairing the Senate inquiry into the management and integrity of consulting services – says it “merely scratched the surface” of what was going on both at PwC.

Her committee has until November to report.

Back in May, the Australian Treasury asked the Australian Federal Police to consider commencing a criminal investigation into PwC’s improper use of confidential Commonwealth information.

And in July, Greens Senator Barbara Pocock formally referred PwC’s conduct to the new National Anti-Corruption Commission.

This all spells more trouble ahead for PwC, and perhaps for the Australian consulting industry more generally.

More than one bad apple?

Although sparked by the revelations about PwC Australia, Senator O’Neil’s committee is inquiring into the behaviour of all of Australia’s consultancy groups.

It has taken evidence from Deloitte, EY, KPMG, McKinsey and The Boston Consulting Group.

New research by Roy Morgan suggests the bad image of corporations spreads beyond the consultants.

Asked about distrust or distrust of any brand in Australia in June, the result was an all-time high for distrust.

Roy Morgan identified the PwC tax scandal and the data breaches at Optus and Medibank among recent events accelerating distrust.

It also identified:

the Harvey Norman JobKeeper scandal, Rio Tinto’s destruction of the Juukan Gorge, Qantas’ refusal to pay back any of the $2.7 billion in COVID government handouts and the class action by hundreds of thousands of customers fuelled by the airline’s unwillingness to refund $2 billion in cancelled flights

A record number of those surveyed identified “too motivated by profit” as a reason for their distrust.

This makes it reasonable to ask whether a culture of ruthless profiteering has infiltrated Australian corporate cultures across the board.

After the consultants have been dealt with, there is a case for royal commission into whether Australia’s entire corporate sector is meeting its responsibilities.

PwC has helped open the door.

Read more:
My 3-point plan to untangle the public service from consultants such as PwC

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

– ref. Beyond the PwC scandal, there’s a growing case for a royal commission into Australia’s ruthless corporate greed – https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-pwc-scandal-theres-a-growing-case-for-a-royal-commission-into-australias-ruthless-corporate-greed-214474

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nikki-Anne Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), UNSW Sydney

Our ability to adapt our behaviour to changes in temperature takes a significant amount of thought and decision making. For example, we need to identify suitable clothing, increase our fluid intake, and understand how to best keep the house cool.

A person with dementia may find some or all these things challenging. These and other factors mean, for someone with dementia, extreme heat can be deadly.

But as the temperature rises, friends, relatives and carers can help.

Read more:
5 reasons to check on your elderly neighbour during a heatwave

El Niño means there are challenges ahead

The recent declaration of another El Niño means we need to think about how we can best support those more vulnerable to be safe during the warmer months.

Extreme heat and bushfires bring unique challenges for someone with dementia.

Bushfires have a significant impact on older people’s mental health. But they generally bounce back quickly.

However, for someone with dementia, extreme heat can lead to a significant deterioration in their overall health and they may not recover.

Emergency evacuations can also be confusing and distressing for a person with dementia, so it is important to think ahead.

Read more:
Worried about heat and fire this summer? Here’s how to prepare

Why are people with dementia more at risk?

Dementia can affect the parts of the brain that help regulate our body temperature. Some medications can also increase someone’s sensitivity to heat.

Problems with memory and thinking associated with dementia means remembering to drink or communicating you are thirsty can be challenging.

Heat can affect everyone’s mood. But if someone with dementia becomes dehydrated this can increase confusion and agitation, making it harder for them to know how to cool down.

A person with dementia can also wander and become lost, which can be dangerous in extreme heat.

Read more:
Is my medicine making me feel hotter this summer? 5 reasons why

4 ways to support someone with dementia

1. Avoid dehydration and heatstroke

Try to avoid dehydration by encouraging someone to drink throughout the day. It’s better to have small amounts of liquid regularly instead of a large amount all at once. Little and often will help maximise hydration while avoiding sudden trips to the bathroom.

Try to offer different types of drinks, or ice blocks. Placing drinks in sight can help as a reminder to drink. Choose foods with a high liquid content, such as fruit, salads, cool broths and yoghurt.

Look out for signs of heatstroke, such as increased confusion beyond what the person would usually experience. Heatstroke may be more difficult to spot in someone living with dementia so it is important to check in when possible and to help them cool down if needed.

Read more:
Health Check: how do I tell if I’m dehydrated?

2. Cool the home

Try to modify their home to make it easier to stay cool. Some air-conditioners have complex settings so make sure the temperature is set appropriately and the person with dementia knows how to use the controls.

It is important to keep blinds and curtains shut where possible to reduce heat. However, ensure the lighting is adequate to avoid falls.

Try to support the person to make suitable clothing choices for the season by having cool, lightweight options easily available.

Read more:
What is delirium?

3. Think about communications early

If someone with dementia lives alone, consider how you will maintain contact in an emergency.

Some people may not realise many landlines don’t work in a power outage, and of course, mobile phones can’t be recharged. Ensure the person with dementia has access to an uninterruptable power supply. This can help maintain communication for a few hours in a blackout.

Read more:
Why people with dementia don’t all behave the same

4. Have an evacuation plan

In case of fire, flash flooding or severe storm, have an evacuation plan. If the person with dementia attends a day or respite centre, know their plan too.

The situation can change quickly in an emergency, and this can be particularly overwhelming for people with cognitive issues.

Understand that someone with dementia may become distressed when their routine is disrupted. So be prepared with some simple activities or comfort items, current medications, and any specific medical information.

Stay up-to-date with current warnings and act early whenever possible.

Read more:
Floods and other emergencies can be extra tough for people with dementia and their carers. Here’s how to help

We can all help

It’s not just carers of people with dementia who can help. We can all ensure people with dementia stay safe and cool this spring and summer.

So remember to check in on your relatives, friends and neighbours or arrange for someone to do so on your behalf.

Nikki-Anne Wilson receives funding from the Australian Association of Gerontology and the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute.

– ref. 4 ways to support someone with dementia during extreme heat – https://theconversation.com/4-ways-to-support-someone-with-dementia-during-extreme-heat-213987

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Karoly, Professor emeritus, The University of Melbourne

From Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef in the North, to the Snowy Mountains in the Southeast, and jarrah and marri forests in the Southwest, Australia is home to incredibly diverse ecosystems. Many of our plants, animals, birds and fish are found nowhere else in the world.

Our First Nations people protected these living wonders through their holistic approach to managing the land and caring for Country for more than 65,000 years. But the European settlers took a different approach and the land suffered.

Federal laws made in 1999 to better protect the environment are failing. Climate change is not explicitly mentioned in the legislation. These shortcomings have prompted a volunteer environment group to mount a legal challenge against federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek “to protect our living wonders from coal and gas”. The matter is currently before the courts.

This week’s new report from the Climate Council Australia (which I was an expert reviewer on) explains the problem with our environment law and charts a way forward.

The fundamental flaw in our national environmental law must be urgently addressed if we are to have any hope of protecting our wildlife and habitat into the future.

Read more:
Times have changed: why the environment minister is being forced to reconsider climate-related impacts of pending fossil fuel approvals

Australia’s national environmental law

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) should be designed to keep our living wonders safe from harm.

The primary objective of the EPBC Act is to:

provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance.

But it’s clear the environment is deteriorating. The EPBC Act requires a comprehensive assessment of Australia’s environment every five years. The latest assessment, published in 2022, found the state of Australia’s environment is poor and getting worse.

Read more:
This is Australia’s most important report on the environment’s deteriorating health. We present its grim findings

Climate change was identified in that assessment as one of the greatest threats to all aspects of the Australian natural environment. Climate change is a compounding factor that increases the impacts of other pressures on our environment, such as land clearing, invasive species, pollution and resource extraction.

However, climate change is not considered directly in the EPBC Act as one of the factors affecting matters of national environmental significance.

According to the Climate Council report, since 1999, 740 new projects to extract coal, oil and gas have been approved or passed, with 555 of them not having undergone detailed environmental assessment. Burning these fossil fuels increases greenhouse gas emissions and makes climate change worse.

In 2020, a scathing independent review of the EPBC Act led by former competition watchdog chair Graeme Samuel found the act is ineffective, outdated and needs comprehensive reform.

Read more:
Our laws fail nature. The government’s plan to overhaul them looks good, but crucial detail is yet to come

Climate risks to Australia

In 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the most recent comprehensive global assessment of climate change risks.

The special fact sheet about climate impacts on natural and human systems in Australia and New Zealand provides a helpful summary of that assessment.

It lists nine key risks in Australia associated with climate change. Of these, the top five risks for our living wonders are:

• “loss and degradation of coral reefs and associated biodiversity and ecosystem service values [what they are worth] in Australia due to ocean warming and marine heatwaves

• loss of alpine biodiversity in Australia due to less snow

• loss of natural and human systems in low-lying coastal areas due to sea level rise

• increase in heat-related mortality and morbidity for people and wildlife in Australia due to heatwaves

• inability of institutions and governance systems to manage climate risk”.

That last one is particularly relevant to the EPBC Act.

A legal challenge is underway

To test the climate blindspot in the EPBC Act, the Environment Council of Central Queensland submitted 19 reconsideration requests to Plibersek in July 2022.

The minister was asked to reconsider the previous evaluation of 19 coal and fossil gas extraction projects under the former government, because they did not take into account potential harms on Australia’s living wonders.

Read more:
Times have changed: why the environment minister is being forced to reconsider climate-related impacts of pending fossil fuel approvals

The environment council provided the minister with thousands of state and federal government reports listing the impacts of climate change on several thousand matters of environmental significance.

In November 2022, the minister accepted 18 reconsideration requests as valid. However, in May 2023, the minister decided not to change the climate risk assessments by the previous government for three of the projects she was asked to reconsider. In Plibersek’s official responses she determined that based on the new information provided to her in the reconsideration requests, it wasn’t possible to say the proposals would be a “substantial cause of the stated physical effects of climate change” on a matter of national environmental significance.

The matter is now in the Federal Court. Last week, the environment council challenged Plibersek’s rejection to reconsider two of the three coal mine expansion projects, both in New South Wales. A decision from the judge on this case is pending and should be provided in the next few months. A spokesperson for the minister has advised the media they would not comment “as this is a legal matter”.

Protecting our living wonders means fixing Australia’s environment law

We need to fix Australia’s national environment law, making sure it contains an explicit objective to prevent actions that accelerate climate change. We need a national environment law that genuinely protects our environment by stopping highly polluting projects and enabling ones that can help us rapidly switch to a clean economy instead.

Every fraction of a degree of avoided warming matters for preserving our environment. Every decision made under our national environment law can either help or hinder the urgent task to drive down greenhouse gas emissions.

Read more:
Australia’s environment law doesn’t protect the environment – an alarming message from the recent duty-quashing climate case

David Karoly is a Councillor on the Climate Council Australia.
He provided an expert report in support of the initial reconsideration request made by the Environment Council of Central Queensland to the Minister for the Environment.
David is also a Member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

– ref. We should use Australia’s environment laws to protect our ‘living wonders’ from new coal and gas projects – https://theconversation.com/we-should-use-australias-environment-laws-to-protect-our-living-wonders-from-new-coal-and-gas-projects-214211

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

Yesterday’s 1News-Verian poll, and the Newshub-Reid Research poll reported earlier in the week, both show flattening trend lines – but they are still moving to the right of the political spectrum.

For the purposes of this analysis, the National and ACT parties are counted as the right coalition; Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori/the Māori party are the left coalition. I am not counting NZ First towards either coalition, as they have supported both left and right in the past.

Since my previous analysis two weeks ago, there have been three more polls released. The two weekly 1News-Verian polls have given the right coalition two 7.1-point leads, after an 8.4-point lead in mid-September.

The most recent Verian poll was taken between September 23 and 26 from a sample of 1,002 people. The Reid Research poll was taken just before that, between September 17 and 23. More dramatically, it saw the right dip to a 5-point lead, down from 8.8 points in the previous poll in early September.

NZ First on the rise

The graph below shows the right coalition’s lead or deficit against the left coalition in all polls conducted since March. While the left regained some ground in the latest polls, the trend to the right remains evident.

Significantly, NZ First has moved over the 5% threshold required to enter parliament without winning a single-member seat, with the latest Verian poll giving the party 6% and Reid Research 5.2%.

The Māori Party is expected to win single-member Māori-roll seats, giving it parliamentary representation with a vote share well under 5%.

If NZ First makes the 5% threshold, it may be in the “kingmaker” role. Reid Research gives all parties’ support to one decimal place, so the 5.2% for NZ First is greater than the right’s 5-point lead over the left in that poll.

Verian only gives decimal figures for parties below 5%. The right’s lead of 7.1 points implies it could do without NZ First’s 6%.

However, the pollster’s seat totals use the decimals. Using the decimal figures to project seats in parliament, the right would win 60 of the 120 seats, the left 52, and New Zealand First eight. In this case, the right would be one seat short of a majority.

Read more:
NZ’s Green Party is ‘filling the void on the left’ as voters grow frustrated with Labour’s centrist shift

Shift to the right

Although New Zealand First supported the left from 2017 to 2020, it is unlikely to do so again. So it’s only a question of whether National and ACT can govern alone, or will need NZ First as well.

If there has been movement against the right recently, a plausible reason is voter anxiety over ACT having a larger voice in government. In the past, ACT has been a minnow party, with National dominating the conservative vote.

This election, however, has seen more voters signalling support for parties other than Labour or National. At the 2020 election, ACT won 7.6% of the party vote, up from just 0.5% in 2017, and is now mostly polling in the double digits. So is the Green Party, well up from 7.9% at the previous election.

Labour, meanwhile, has crashed from 50% in 2020 to the high 20s in recent polls, with National up from 25.6% to the high 30s. If National and ACT are able to form a two-party coalition government, ACT could drive New Zealand to the right.

What role NZ First and its leader Winston Peters might play remains (not for the first time) the great imponderable as the October 14 election draws near.

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

– ref. NZ Election 2023: latest poll trends show the left regaining some ground and NZ First as possible kingmaker – https://theconversation.com/nz-election-2023-latest-poll-trends-show-the-left-regaining-some-ground-and-nz-first-as-possible-kingmaker-214460

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Shackell, Sessional Academic and Visitor, School of Information Systems, Queensland University of Technology

There’s no doubt generative AI’s ability to rapidly produce new texts, images and audio is shaking up creative jobs.

In the long-running Writers Guild of America strike, a central sticking point has been the guild’s demand that AI be used only as a research tool and not a replacement for its members. For many creative types, it seems harder to earn a living with AI around.

At the same time, however, AI tools are often seen as a springboard to next-level human creativity. Technologies such as Anthropic’s chatbot Claude and OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Dall-E 3 offer a seductive creative experience.

Will these tools help us survive and thrive as a creative species? Or are they the death knell of creativity as we know it?

Read more:
3 ways AI is transforming music

What is creativity?

In her book The Creative Mind, cognitive science expert Margaret Boden distinguishes between two types of human creativity.

Psychological or personal (p-type) creativity happens when an individual thinks something for the first time – even if others have thought it separately before. One example is a child realising water can take any shape.

Essentially, p-type creativity is learning something useful and, in the process, synchronising our thoughts with others.

Historical creativity (h-type), on the other hand, happens when an individual thinks something that has never been thought before. One example would be Archimedes’s “eureka” moment in the bath, which supposedly led to him discovering the law of buoyancy.

The more someone’s creativity subsequently affects other people’s thinking, the more momentous and enduring we consider their legacy.

This is why Wandjina rock art in the Kimberley, Homer’s Iliad, Pablo Picasso’s Guernica, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater house and Albert Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis papers are all considered exceptional works left behind by exceptional humans. They are important because they continue to shape our thinking.

Generative AI doesn’t belong in either category

AI obviously has the potential to promote both p-type and h-type creativity. It can lead us to insights about biology, history and mathematics, and help us create texts and images that may be useful or thought-provoking.

But there is one key difference between human creativity and AI-driven creativity: the latter doesn’t stem from the evolutionary clash of mind and world.

AI models don’t contain reality. They rely on the complex statistical abstraction of digital data. This limits their real-world creative significance and their capacity to produce “eureka” moments.

To differentiate AI-driven creativity from old-fashioned creativity, I have proposed a new term: generic, or g-type, creativity. It formalises the fact that while AI models are capable of provoking new thought, they are limited by the underlying data they have been trained on.

Read more:
AI art is everywhere right now. Even experts don’t know what it will mean

The big risk: a generic spiral

We can expect an explosion in g-type creativity in our future. The danger here is that our increasing use of AI could make us think too much alike, leading to a decrease in cognitive diversity and an increase in cultural tightness.

In this scenario, societies would become more rigid in the norms they enforce, and less tolerant of deviations from the status quo. At a population level this would be a creativity killer.

The threat isn’t just AI-generated movies, TV, books and art. In the future, the homes we live in, the cars we drive (or won’t have to drive) and our shared public spaces will all be shaped by AI. We may see our thinking become homogenised under the pressure of increasingly similar environments and experiences.

This sameness further put us at risk of a generic spiral. AI models are trained on content we create. So the more we use AI for g-type creativity, the more generic our content will become – and since this will be used to further train AI, the more generic AI outputs will become.

While this might be useful for certain specialist tasks – such as consistently interpreting law – it’s worrying to contemplate the kind of Orwellian political economy a generic spiral might give rise to.

Can we enjoy AI and also preserve creativity?

Balancing and reconciling human creativity with AI isn’t as simple as going for regular walks in nature – although that will probably help.

Generative AI may well be a transformative technology to rival the printing press or steam engine. Such juggernauts are difficult to resist; we collectively get swept up in the change, uncertainty and alienation they foment.

Some of the best minds of our generation are already abandoning other pursuits to try their luck at building and using advanced AI models.

Our best chance to remain truly creative is to protect and privilege the human over the artificial. Intellectual property law is key. Any further moves towards legal personhood for AI – such as allowing AI a “fair use” right to train itself on copyrighted material, or have copyright applied to AI outputs – will erode our creative system and risk a generic spiral in human creativity.

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

– ref. Will AI kill our creativity? It could – if we don’t start to value and protect the traits that make us human – https://theconversation.com/will-ai-kill-our-creativity-it-could-if-we-dont-start-to-value-and-protect-the-traits-that-make-us-human-214149

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Juliette McIntyre, Lecturer in Law, University of South Australia

In the days immediately following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Ukrainian government filed a case against Moscow in the UN’s highest court, the International Court of Justice.

Ukraine accuses Russia of violating the Genocide Convention by falsely claiming its invasion was required because Ukraine’s government and military were committing genocide against Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine argues Russia has abused the convention by using these claims to justify its invasion.

Over the past fortnight, both sides finally had their day in court. The ICJ heard from Ukraine, Russia and 32 other countries in hearings that will determine if the case moves forward. Even though the court has little power to enforce its judgments, the results of this case will still have huge symbolic importance.

Read more:
Putin’s claims that Ukraine is committing genocide are baseless, but not unprecedented

Why does Russia object to the case proceeding?

Ukraine is arguing that the court should have jurisdiction because Article IX of the Genocide Convention – to which both Russia and Ukraine are parties – permits it to hear cases relating to the “interpretation, application or fulfilment” of the convention.

Russia is arguing the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to proceed with the case. It says the court can only hear a case when states have consented to its jurisdiction ahead of time, and where the dispute relates to the subject matter covered by the Genocide Convention.

Russia contends its war in Ukraine has nothing to do with genocide, but rather is justified under the UN Charter and customary international law that governs the use of force between states.

As such, there is no dispute between it and Ukraine regarding the “interpretation, application or fulfilment” of the Genocide Convention. Russia says Ukraine is instead attempting to “shoehorn” a claim about the legality of the 2022 invasion into an argument about the interpretation of the Genocide Convention.

What happened at the hearings?

The oral statements were replete with barbs directed at each side. Russia’s representative, Gennady Kuzmin, referred to Ukraine’s “Western handlers” and alleged Ukrainian Nazi associations no less than 37 times.

Ukraine’s representative, Anton Korynevych, boldly declared that “every missile that Russia fires at our cities, it fires in defiance of this court”.

A casual listener may not have realised the parties were talking about the same case, so far apart were their presentations on the facts and the law.

Ukraine presented significant evidence that Russia did refer to genocide before the invasion – rather a lot. As a result, it argued the case falls within the confines of the Genocide Convention.

Ukraine also argued that if a state believes another state is committing genocide, it cannot act unlawfully (in this case, using military force) to prevent that genocide. This would be in breach of Article 1 of the convention.

Russia denies outright that it ever based its invasion on the Genocide Convention.

Russia also argues that by adopting Ukraine’s interpretation of the Genocide Convention, the court will then be empowered to rule on the overall legality of the invasion – a question that is not governed by the convention.

Dozens of other countries also appeared before the court, largely European states, but also Australia, New Zealand and Canada. This was an unprecedented event; never before in the court’s history have so many countries intervened in a case.

As such, the court had to organise the proceedings carefully. With all of these countries coming, rather explicitly, in support of Ukraine, the court was faced with a situation that could have called into question its impartiality: one side would have a much longer time to argue its case than the other.

The court therefore limited the 32 countries to time slots of 10-15 minutes to present their submissions, which were restricted to offering their views on whether the court has jurisdiction. And it gave Russia twice as much time to reply.

This was an important step to ensure the equality of the parties before the court. The ICJ has taken great pains to ensure its proceedings in this case are impartial and legitimate.

What happens next?

The court will now retire to decide whether it has jurisdiction. The case is not open and shut. The fact that 32 countries considered it necessary to intervene at this stage attests to that.

If the court accepts one of Russia’s arguments, the case may end here. But if it rejects all of Russia’s objections, the case will proceed to a hearing on the merits. This is when the court would decide whether or not Russia has contravened the Genocide Convention and made false allegations of genocide against Ukraine.

Ukraine has also requested the court order Russia to pay compensation for the damage caused by the war.

If this is what international justice looks like, is it useful?

Given recent history suggests it’s unlikely Russia will comply with any judgment the court issues, one may be tempted to conclude the proceedings are, for want of a better word, pointless.

But any order from the court – including one ordering compensation – would remain binding on Russia and could feasibly be implemented by a new Russian government at some point in the future.

However, this is the limit of the court’s power. It cannot enforce its judgment using an international police force, for no such thing exists. It cannot – in contrast to the International Criminal Court – issue a warrant for Putin’s arrest. (The ICC did this in March in a separate case.)

Read more:
Ukraine war: ICC’s Putin arrest warrant may be symbolic but must be the beginning of holding the Russian leader accountable

Despite the court’s limitations, the importance of these hearings lies predominantly in symbolism and politics.

Russia used the court’s platform to rail against NATO and Ukraine’s “32 partisans” despite the fact this had nothing to do with the case; it scores points at home and with Russia’s allies.

For Ukraine, there is now an opportunity to secure a “win” in a protracted war. The battle for hearts and minds is just as important as the one on the ground – and it is one in which Ukraine presently has the ascendancy.

Juliette McIntyre has been personally sanctioned by the Russian government for her previous publications in respect of the war in Ukraine.

– ref. Ukraine and Russia traded barbs in the UN’s top court over the legality of the invasion. What could happen next in the case? – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-and-russia-traded-barbs-in-the-uns-top-court-over-the-legality-of-the-invasion-what-could-happen-next-in-the-case-213986

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sally Robinson, Professor, Disability and Community Inclusion, Flinders University

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability will hand its final report and recommendations to the Australian governor general today.

Many people are waiting keenly to hear how the recommendations can make a difference to the lives of people with disability. Others are unsure how the royal commission could improve people’s safety and wellbeing.

Since it was established in mid-2019, the disability royal commission has held 32 public hearings with evidence from 837 witnesses and received 7,944 submissions – 55% from people with disability and 29% from family members.

While we wait for the report to be made public, we can learn from how government action from the previous child abuse royal commission helped improve people’s lives.

What was involved

The disability royal commission was a big and long investigation. Over four and half years, it held hearings, heard stories from witnesses, received submissions and conducted research. All the evidence shared by people about their experiences and the poor quality of our current policies means many now have high expectations that the commission must generate change.

High rates of violence and harm against people with disability have not improved very much over many decades. The impact of this ongoing history of violence was evident in the grief and trauma expressed by the thousands of people at the commission’s public and private hearings.

Research about violence, harm prevention and personal safety shows change needs be in two parts.

Making changes to specialist systems such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) – currently under review – will help those involved. Bigger change is also needed to address the social problems and criminal acts that compromise the safety and wellbeing of people with disability. This fundamental change is urgently needed.

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

Ableism and ‘othering’

Violence can happen when people with disability are seen as less valuable, or even less than human – a perspective called “othering”.

People with disability are often treated in ways that are not acceptable for any member of society. When people without disability are prioritised, it is called “ableism”. When people with disability are viewed or treated as inferior, it is called “disablism”.

An example of these types of discrimination is when a waiter asks a carer what a person with disability wants, instead of asking the person themselves. Or when a person with disability is expected to live with strangers who hit them, because that is the only housing available.

Read more:
Ableism and disablism – how to spot them and how we can all do better

You might think excluding people in these ways does not happen anymore or does not matter. But our current social structures make it depressingly common.

Children with disability report high rates of loneliness and bullying at school. People using disability services are grouped together and called “clients” or “participants” instead of by their names. People cannot reliably find a usable, accessible toilet when they are out and this can stop them from leaving their home at all.

These daily problems set a norm where violence is usual and less likely to be checked or punished.

Read more:
‘I want to get bogged at a beach in my wheelchair and know people will help’. Micheline Lee on the way forward for the NDIS

What we hope the commission will recommend

The disability royal commission listened to people with disability, family members and organisations about what they want to happen. A consistent view is that it is not enough to focus on stopping violent acts where they are happening now. We need strong government responses that address the root causes of segregation, discrimination and exclusion.

Law and policy must prioritise people with disability and their allies in the way solutions are found and implemented.

We know from the government responses to the previous child abuse commission that four factors made an immediate difference to the safety and wellbeing of children:

• bringing child sexual abuse into public discussion
• prioritising the voices of children and survivors in policy and practice about them
• compulsory compliance for any organisation in contact with children to meet safety standards
• requiring any organisation with a history of child abuse to participate in a redress scheme, with sanctions if they refuse or delay.

The disability royal commission recommendations and government responses should follow the example set by the child abuse commission. The need for a voice, compliance and quality standards remains relevant to people affected by disability policy.

And the responsibility for real change stretches beyond government. Change happens when the responsibility to listen and act is taken up by all organisations, communities and members of the public.

What happens next

The disability royal commission recommendations to the government will be important not only for preventing and responding to violence, but also for how people with disability are treated fairly by every person, every day.

Equally, how the government responds to the recommendations is vital. Immediate action, as we saw in the child abuse commission, will demonstrate priority for the rights of people with disability.

Everyone’s contribution to changing attitudes, building belonging and recognising people’s shared humanity is needed to defeat exclusion and prevent violence.

Poet Andy Jackson recited his work Listen at the disability royal commission’s ceremonial closing sitting two weeks ago. His words were a powerful call to action, including the lines:

Here in this awkward, sacred stillness open your mouth, ears, hands

The air is full of seeds

This time let your discomfort mean something

This cannot be the end of listening but its beginning[.]

Sally Robinson receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and Australian Federal and State governments.

Karen R Fisher receives funding from Australian Research Council, state and federal governments and nongovernment organisations.

– ref. The disability royal commission delivers its findings today. We must all listen to end violence, abuse and neglect – https://theconversation.com/the-disability-royal-commission-delivers-its-findings-today-we-must-all-listen-to-end-violence-abuse-and-neglect-213253

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mel Marquis, Deputy Associate Dean and Senior Lecturer in Law, Monash University

As Qantas faces up to tough questioning from a Senate committee and a claim from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for as much as A$600 million for allegedly selling tickets on more than 8,000 “ghost flights” it had already cancelled, its customers might be thinking things are about to get better.

But there are reasons to think they won’t. At the heart of both the ACCC’s lawsuit, and the airline’s separate refusal to quickly refund hundreds of millions of dollars worth of credits for flights cancelled during COVID, lies the indifference to customers typical of a duopolistic market.

Qantas does face competition on international routes, although the government’s action in denying Qatar Airways extra landing rights has constrained that competition.

But, with only one exception – Virgin – it faces very little competition within Australia, given the limited offerings by airlines such as Rex and Bonza.

On Wednesday former ACCC Chair Rod Sims told the Senate inquiry into air service agreements Qantas was able to use its leading market position to charge higher prices than it would otherwise have been able to.

One could put it more generally: Qantas had the power to treat customers worse than it would otherwise have been able to.

What the ACCC alleges

The ACCC alleges Qantas engaged in false, misleading or deceptive conduct in breach of the Australian Consumer Law in 2022 by selling tickets for flights that had already been cancelled, and by falsely representing to consumers who already had tickets that their flights had not been cancelled.

Under the law, where liability for “misleading or deceptive conduct” is concerned, the reasons for the conduct don’t matter, meaning all that is likely to matter is whether the commission’s claims about Qantas’s conduct are true.

Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law simply says:

a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

For online bookings, the commission is suggesting Qantas may have made several misleading representations, including indicating flights were available when they were not, confirming bookings for flights that were not available, and displaying unavailable flights on customers’ “manage booking” pages.

While the ticket contracts may have included disclaimers, these would be unlikely to have force in the face of Section 18. The law does not permit contractual language to exclude liability for contraventions of this provision.

A disclaimer can be relevant to the factual question of whether a party was misled but, given 98% of online consumer contracts are unread, it’s unlikely Qantas would be able to rely on disclaimers to claim customers weren’t misled.

Read more:
Booking customers on cancelled flights – how could Qantas do that?

Even if the commission is successful in getting the Federal Court to award a penalty amounting to hundreds of millions, such a fine is likely to be manageable for Qantas given its $1.7 billion 2022-23 profit.

Qantas ill-prepared for questions

At Wednesday’s Senate hearing Qantas chief executive Vanessa Hudson and Chairman Richard Goyder were not prepared to answer several questions, asking for them to be put on notice.

They also passed up the opportunity to provide the committee with a written statement addressing the formal topic of its inquiry which was the impact of government decisions about landing rights on competition in the aviation industry and the cost of living pressures on Australian families and businesses.

Pressed on whether Qantas would publish a redacted version of its representations to the government about foreign airlines’ bids for landing rights, Hudson declined, although she said Qantas would provide them in confidence.

Goyder told the hearing Qantas had “genuine contrition for where we are at” but had “sound commercial reasons” for many of the decisions it took during the years since the outbreak of COVID, including what the High Court subsequently found was an illegal decision to sack 1,700 ground staff.

Read more:
High Court ruling vindicates sacked Qantas workers but doesn’t stop the outsourcing of jobs in the future

What matters to Qantas is slots

While there is little that can be done to make Qantas more responsive to its customers while it dominates the domestic aviation market, freeing up landing slots at airports would help loosen that dominance.

The current rules allow incumbent airlines such as Qantas to apply for more slots at airports such as Sydney than they will require, so long as they use them 80% of the time.

In a report to the government in 2021 former Productivity Commission chief Peter Harris recommended overhauling the system at Sydney Airport to make it easier for new entrants to get slots.

Among the recommendations was an independent audit of cancellations by a “reputable, unconflicted auditor”.

The government has yet to respond to the report, although when releasing the government’s aviation green paper earlier this month, Transport Minister Catherine King indicated she soon would.

Implementing needed reforms to free up slots at key airports would help to promote better consumer outcomes. However, profound change in Australian air travel seems unlikely for the foreseeable future.

Mel Marquis has in the past collaborated with the ACCC on unrelated matters. He has no involvment or interest in the pending litigation discussed in this article.

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

– ref. Even if Qantas is fined hundreds of millions it is likely to continue to take us for granted – https://theconversation.com/even-if-qantas-is-fined-hundreds-of-millions-it-is-likely-to-continue-to-take-us-for-granted-213754

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hanna Wilberg, Associate professor – Law, University of Auckland

The National Party’s pledge to apply sanctions to unemployed people receiving a welfare payment, if they are “persistently” failing to meet the criteria for receiving the benefit, has attracted plenty of comment and criticism.

Less talked about has been the party’s promise to index benefits to inflation to keep pace with the cost of living. This might at least provide some relief to those struggling to make ends meet on welfare, though is not clear how much difference it would make to the current system of indexing benefits to wages.

In any case, this alone it is unlikely to break the cycle of poverty many find themselves in.

One of the major drivers of this is the way the welfare system pushes some of the most vulnerable people into debt with loans for things such as school uniforms, power bills and car repairs.

The government provides one-off grants to cover benefit shortfalls. But most of these grants are essentially loans.

People receiving benefits are required to repay the government through weekly deductions from their normal benefits – which leaves them with even less money to survive on each week.

With rising costs, the situation is only getting worse for many of the 351,756 New Zealanders accessing one of the main benefits.

Our whittled down welfare state

Broadly, there are three levels of government benefits in our current system.

The main benefits (such as jobseeker, sole parent and supported living payment) pay a fixed weekly amount. The jobseeker benefit rate is set at NZ$337.74 and sole parents receive $472.79 a week.

À lire aussi :
The Labour-National consensus on family support means the election won’t change much for NZ’s poorest households

Those on benefits have access to a second level of benefits – weekly supplementary benefits such as an accommodation supplement and other allowances or tax credits.

The third level of support is one-off discretionary payments for specific essential needs.

Those on benefits cannot realistically make ends meet without repeated use of these one-off payments, unless they use assistance from elsewhere – such as family, charity or borrowing from loan sharks.

This problem has been building for decades.

Benefits have been too low for too long

In the 1970s, the Royal Commission on Social Security declared the system should provide “a standard of living consistent with human dignity and approaching that enjoyed by the majority”.

But Ruth Richardson’s “mother of all budgets” in 1991 slashed benefits. Rates never recovered and today’s benefits are not enough to live on.

In 2018, the Welfare Expert Advisory Group looked at how much money households need in two lifestyle scenarios: bare essentials and a minimum level of participation in the community, such as playing a sport and taking public transport.

The main benefits plus supplementary allowances did not meet the cost of the bare essentials, let alone minimal participation.

The Labour government has since increased benefit rates, meaning they are now slightly above those recommended by the advisory group. But those recommendations were made in 2019 and don’t take into account the sharp rise in inflation since then.

Advocacy group Fairer Future published an updated assessment in 2022 – nine out of 13 types of households still can’t meet their core costs with the current benefit rates.

How ‘advances’ create debt traps

When they don’t have money for an essential need, people on benefits can receive a “special needs grant”, which doesn’t have to be repaid. But in practice, Work and Income virtually never makes this type of grant for anything except food and some other specific items, such as some health travel costs or emergency dental treatment.

For all other essential needs – such as school uniforms, car repairs, replacing essential appliances, overdue rent, power bills and tenancy bonds – a one-off payment called an “advance” is used. Advances are loans and have to be paid back.

There are several issues with these types of loans.

First, people on benefits are racking up thousands of dollars worth of debts to cover their essential needs. It serves to trap them in financial difficulties for the foreseeable future.

À lire aussi :
Why New Zealand’s government cannot ignore major welfare reform report

As long as they remain on benefits or low incomes, it’s difficult to repay these debts. And the Social Security Act 2018 doesn’t allow the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to waive debts.

Contradictory policies

Another problem is that people on benefits have to start repaying their debt straight away, with weekly deductions coming out of their already limited benefit.

Each new advance results in a further weekly deduction. Often these add up to $50 a week or more. MSD policy says repayments should not add up to more than $40 a week, but that is often ignored.

This happens because the law stipulates that each individual debt should be repaid in no more than two years, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Paying this debt off in two years often requires total deductions to be much higher than $40.

À lire aussi :
Kindness doesn’t begin at home: Jacinda Ardern’s support for beneficiaries lags well behind Australia’s

The third issue is that one-off payments can be refused regardless of the need. That is because there are two provisions pulling in opposite directions.

On the one hand the law says a payment should be made if not making it would cause serious hardship. But on the other hand, the law also says payments should not be made if the person already has too much debt.

People receiving benefits and their case managers face the choice between more debt and higher repayments, or failing to meet an essential need.

Ways to start easing the burden

So what is the fix? A great deal could be achieved by just changing the policies and practices followed by Work and Income.

Case managers have the discretion to make non-recoverable grants for non-food essential needs. These could and should be used when someone has an essential need, particularly when they already have significant debt.

Weekly deductions for debts could also be automatically made very low.

When it comes to changing the law, the best solution would be to make weekly benefit rates adequate to live on.

The government could also make these benefit debts similar to student loans, with no repayments required until the person is off the benefit and their income is above a certain threshold.

However we do it, surely it must be time to do something to fix this poverty trap.

Hanna Wilberg has collaborated with advocacy organisations such as Auckland Action Against Poverty to help people on benefits.

– ref. Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that? – https://theconversation.com/forcing-people-to-repay-welfare-loans-traps-them-in-a-poverty-cycle-where-is-the-policy-debate-about-that-212528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zareh Ghazarian, Senior Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

With the sudden announcement that Daniel Andrews will be stepping down as premier of Victoria at 5pm today, the Labor Party has been working to find the best replacement.

Deputy Premier Jacinta Allan, from the Socialist Left faction, was widely tipped to become the next premier, especially as she had Andrews’ endorsement. But some late challenges from the Right made it more complicated, with Transport Minister Ben Carroll also throwing his hat in the ring.

In the end, the party room voted for Allan as premier and Carroll as deputy.

But who is Jacinta Allan and what challenges await her as premier?

From Bendigo East to premier

Allan, 50, is a highly experienced political operator. She became the youngest female elected to the Victorian parliament when she first won the seat of Bendigo East at age 25 in 1999. That was the election in which Steve Bracks led Labor to an unexpected victory over the Jeff Kennett-led Coalition.

After holding several ministerial positions, Allan was selected as the deputy leader of the Labor Party, and therefore deputy premier of Victoria, in 2022.

This was interpreted as a clear indication that Premier Daniel Andrews had anointed her to take over if he was to retire before the next election.

Allan comes from the Socialist Left – the same faction as Andrews. There have been some major shifts in the factions of Victorian Labor in recent months, with the Socialist Left strengthening its influence.

Following the 2022 election, for example, several MPs aligned with the Right faction moved to the Left. Within this context, Allan should enjoy strong support from parliamentary colleagues to become leader.

Read more:
Dan Andrews leaves office as a titan of Victorian politics – who drove conservatives to distraction

Public profile

Andrews has dominated the Victorian Labor Party since he won his first election in 2014. Such was his dominance, and the media’s interest in him, that other ministers have often struggled to increase their public profile.

Allan has arguably developed a stronger public profile than other potential challengers. However, this has also come at a difficult time for Labor in Victoria. The past few months presented the Andrews government with some major policy challenges.

The decision to back out of hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games, for instance, attracted some strong criticism. As the minister responsible for the games, Allan was the target of the opposition’s attacks on the government. Some Labor MPs were also reportedly critical of Allan’s performance in the infrastructure portfolio, when projects such as the Airport Rail project were delayed.

Victoria’s second female premier

The late Joan Kirner made history in 1990 when she became the first woman to be premier of Victoria. Kirner replaced John Cain junior but was left with a range of major economic problems, which the onset of a national recession at the time made even more difficult.

Kirner was also left with a divided Labor Party that had been in power since Cain first led the party to victory in 1982. By 1992, voters in Victoria had turned against Labor. They handed the Kennett-led Coalition a comfortable victory in the election that year.

The circumstances of Allan’s rise share some similarities with those of Kirner. Rather than a recession, it has been COVID-19 that has had major social and economic impacts. The new premier must now work through the fallout from the pandemic.

These conditions remind us of a phenomenon called the “glass cliff”, where organisations often turn to women to take on leadership roles in less-than-ideal circumstances – and they must bear the consequences.

Indeed, Allan will have much work ahead to lead the state in the post-COVID period. She will also have to make what is near to being a ten-year government appear to have new and fresh ideas. By the time of the next election in 2026, it will be a 12-year government, which is hard to sell no matter its record.

At the same time, uniting the Labor Party and its fraught factional system will be high on the agenda.

Moreover, the new premier will have to face an opposition that may get greater visibility and resonate with more voters in the post-Andrews period, assuming the Liberal Party can present as a more united and cohesive force than it has managed to date.

With three years to go until the next election, Victorian politics will look very different with Daniel Andrews out of the picture.

Read more:
Is 5 senior ministers quitting Victoria’s Andrews government a sign of renewal – or decline?

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

– ref. Who is Jacinta Allan, Victoria’s new premier? – https://theconversation.com/who-is-jacinta-allan-victorias-new-premier-214457

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

A beauty trend gaining popularity on TikTok, dubbed the “carrot tan”, claims eating three carrots a day will give you a natural tan.

But can this really give you a natural glow? And is it healthy?

Read more:
Explainer: why are carrots orange?

Why would carrots affect your skin tone?

Carotenoids are natural pigments that give red, orange and yellow colours to fruits and vegetables. Think of them as nature’s paint.

There are many carotenoids including lutein, lycopene, alpha-carotene and beta-carotene. Beta-carotene is the carotenoid responsible for a carrot’s vibrant orange colour.

Once a beta-carotene containing food is digested, special cells in the gut break it into two molecules of retinol (also known as vitamin A). This vitamin A is then used in various critical bodily functions such as vision, reproduction, immunity and growth.

The body controls the conversion of beta-carotene into vitamin A based on what it needs. So, when the body has enough vitamin A, it slows down or stops converting beta-carotene into vitamin A.

Any extra beta-carotene is then either stored in the liver and fat tissue, excreted through poo, or removed via sweat glands in the outer layer of the skin. This is when the orange skin “tan” can happen. In medicine, this is called carotenoderma.

Carotenoderma gives your skin a yellow/orange pigment that is not the same colour you’d turn from a sun tan. It is concentrated in the palms of the hands, the soles of the feet and smile lines near the nose.

Carrots are not the only food that contains beta-carotene. Dark-green leafy vegetables, some (not all) other yellow- and orange-coloured vegetables and fruits also contain high amounts. Beta-carotene is also found in parsley, basil, chives, chilli powder, sun-dried tomatoes and some dietary supplements.

How many carrots are we talking?

A few days of high carrot intake will unlikely result in a change in skin colour.

No high quality trials have been conducted to test the relationship between number of carrots eaten per day and skin colour changes or other outcomes. However, there is evidence that carotenoderma appears when blood levels get higher than 250-500 µg/dL.

One published case report (where researchers talk about one patient’s case) found eating around 3 kilograms of carrots per week (about seven large carrots a day) induced skin colour changes.

Other experts suggest you would need to eat at least ten carrots per day, for at least a few weeks, for colour changes to occur. Most people would find this carrot intake challenging.

The amount of carrots needed to change skin colour will also depend on the variety of carrot, its size and ripeness, the way the carrot is prepared (raw or cooked) and whether or not the carrot is eaten with a source of fat. A person’s weight and gastrointestinal health will also impact the amount of beta-carotene absorbed.

Is it dangerous to eat too much beta-carotene?

Vitamin A comes in two main forms, preformed vitamin A and provitamin A.

Preformed vitamin A is the active form of vitamin A found in animal-based foods including liver, fish liver oil, egg yolks and dairy products. When you eat these foods the preformed vitamin A is already ready to be used by the body.

Provitamin A compounds (including beta-carotene) are the precursors to vitamin A. Provitamin A compounds need to be converted into active vitamin A once inside the body.

Preformed vitamin A can be toxic if consumed in large amounts.
However, provitamin A compounds don’t cause vitamin A toxicity in humans because the body tightly regulates the conversion of provitamin A compounds to vitamin A. For this reason, there are no recommended limits on how much beta-carotene a person can safely consume each day.

There is, however, some evidence that taking high-dose beta-carotene supplements (20 mg per day or more) increases lung cancer risk in people who smoke cigarettes or used to smoke. This may be due to changes to chemical signalling pathways.

The Cancer Council therefore recommends avoiding high doses of beta-carotene supplements (more than 20 mg per day), especially if you smoke. This does not relate to wholefoods though, so people who smoke should still consume fruits and vegetables that have beta-carotene.

Read more:
Carrots and pumpkin might reduce your risk of cancer, but beware taking them in pill form

Why you should aim for a variety of vegetables

You can still use food to look great without focusing on eating carrots. Incorporating various colourful vegetables, particularly those high in carotenoids, into your diet may promote a natural radiance and a gentle enhancement in skin tone.

Rather than processed foods, a high variety of fresh vegetables provide various nutrients, and some may have what others lack. So it’s important to have a balanced diet that doesn’t depend on a single type of vegetable.

No matter how many carrots you eat in a day, it’s important to protect your skin with sunscreen when going outside.

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

Emily Burch works for Southern Cross University.

– ref. Is TikTok right – will eating three carrots a day really give me a natural tan? – https://theconversation.com/is-tiktok-right-will-eating-three-carrots-a-day-really-give-me-a-natural-tan-214270

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marina Yue Zhang, Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

Earlier this year, China updated its anti-espionage law amid an intensifying rivalry with the US and growing distrust of the Western-led international order.

The law broadens the scope beyond what it originally sought to prohibit – leaks of state secrets and intelligence – to include any “documents, data, materials, or items related to national security and interests.”

The law also empowers authorities with new surveillance powers. These include the ability to access people’s emails or social media accounts on electronic devices.

The Chinese government is clearly using the new catch-all provision to cast a wider net to identify “spies”. It is targeting not only Westerners working in China, but also Chinese nationals who work for foreign companies or organisations or interact with foreigners in any way.

The law is more than just theoretical – it has teeth. Last month, a new national campaign was launched with rewards of up to 500,000 renminbi (just over A$100,000) for anyone reporting suspicious individuals or suspected espionage activities.

Red banners have started appearing on Chinese streets, proclaiming

Implement the new anti-espionage law, mobilise collective efforts to safeguard national security.

Posters with a hotline number for reporting suspicious individuals can now be found on public transport, as well.

These visible signs serve as reminders that spies could be anywhere, potentially feeding sensitive information to foreign entities that pose threats to China’s national security and interests.

Implications of the new law

The new law has sent a chill through multinational corporations, Chinese companies and other organisations.

State-owned companies or those affiliated with the government are distancing themselves from
multinationals offering legal, investment and consultancy services, fearful of being associated with foreign entities.

Multinationals themselves were once welcomed with open arms to help accelerate China’s economic and technological development. Now, they find themselves entangled in a complex web of regulations governing the cross-border transfer of data and other information. Many are considering decoupling their data and IT systems from China.

From an individual standpoint, anyone with foreign affiliations, including those who have returned from overseas, feel as if they are on a kind of community “watch list” upon arrival in China.

Some Chinese firms indicate in recruitment drives for new employees they will not consider applicants who have returned from certain overseas regions. The perception is they may have been exposed to foreign forces who use money, friendship or even romance to coerce them into becoming an undercover agent or informant.

An invisible net has been cast over every stratum of Chinese society. Many Chinese people will no doubt become more hesitant in their interactions, cautious in their communication and sceptical in their collaborations. This will only further encourage people to retreat into silence or resort to coded language in both face-to-face conversations and social media.

And those perceived as having divergent political or ideological views will especially be under scrutiny. This includes private businesspeople, entrepreneurs and those working in non-government sectors who openly voice political or ideological values that go against the Communist Party.

The expansive nature of the law evokes memories of the Cultural Revolution, an era in which little trust existed in society and even among family members.

An unsettling divide is emerging today between those in governmental circles and everyone else. Having a foreign diploma or other affiliation was once seen as a positive, offering one a different perspective and international experience. Now, however, it could be seen as a liability or even a crime.

Read more:
The US and China may be ending an agreement on science and technology cooperation − a policy expert explains what this means for research

Ambiguity has risks

The first iteration of the anti-espionage law was enacted in 2015 and was aimed at bolstering national security and generally protecting against espionage activities detrimental to the country’s interests.

The updated law comes in a changed world. The rivalry between the US and China has escalated in recent years in trade, technology, defence and influence over global institutions. Both nations are actively engaging in intelligence operations to understand each other’s capabilities, intentions and vulnerabilities.

Read more:
‘No indication of aliens’: spy balloon saga continues to surprise amid rising US–China tension

Because the new law is so expansive and ambiguous, however, the implementation and enforcement could be difficult. And it could diverge significantly from the initial objectives of lawmakers.

When laws are ambiguous, it leaves ample room for interpretation and potential exploitation. The lack of clarity with the revised anti-espionage law could give rise to witch hunts, leaving people vulnerable to accusations that lack substantial evidence. The ripple effect could extend beyond China’s borders, affecting academic exchanges, technological cooperation and diplomatic relations.

If collaboration with the outside world becomes secondary to perceived threats, it could also deter both foreign investment and domestic private enterprises in China, stifling economic growth.

At a time when the Chinese economy is grappling with domestic challenges and an increasingly hostile global environment, this could hasten the “decoupling” from China that many in the West are advocating for.

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

– ref. China’s new anti-espionage law is sending a chill through foreign corporations and citizens alike – https://theconversation.com/chinas-new-anti-espionage-law-is-sending-a-chill-through-foreign-corporations-and-citizens-alike-212010

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Bayne, Professor of Philosophy, Monash University

Science is hard. The science of consciousness is particularly hard, beset with philosophical difficulties and a scarcity of experimental data.

So in June, when the results of a head-to-head experimental contest between two rival theories were announced at the 26th annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness in New York City, they were met with some fanfare.

The results were inconclusive, with some favouring “integrated information theory” and others lending weight to the “global workspace theory”. The outcome was covered in both Science and Nature, as well as larger outlets including the New York Times and The Economist.

And that might have been that, with researchers continuing to investigate these and other theories of how our brains generate experience. But on September 16, apparently driven by media coverage of the June results, a group of 124 consciousness scientists and philosophers – many of them leading figures in the field – published an open letter attacking integrated information theory as “pseudoscience”.

The letter has generated an uproar. The science of consciousness has its factions and quarrels but this development is unprecedented, and threatens to do lasting damage.

What is integrated information theory?

Italian neuroscientist Giulio Tononi first proposed integrated information theory in 2004, and it is now on “version 4.0”. It is not easily summarised.

At its core is the idea that consciousness is identical to the amount of “integrated information” a system contains. Roughly, this means the information the system as a whole has over and above the information had by its parts.

Read more:
What makes us conscious?

Many theories start by looking for correlations between events in our minds and events in our brains. Instead, integrated information theory begins with “phenomenological axioms”, supposedly self-evident claims about the nature of consciousness.

Notoriously, the theory implies consciousness is extremely widespread in nature, and that even very simple systems, such as an inactive grid of computer circuitry, have some degree of consciousness.

Three criticisms

This open letter makes three main claims against integrated information theory.

First, it argues this is not a “leading theory of consciousness” and has received more media attention than it deserves.

Second, it expresses concerns about its implications:

If [integrated information theory] is either proven or perceived by the public as such, it will not only have a direct impact on clinical practice concerning coma patients, but also a wide array of ethical issues ranging from current debates on AI sentience and its regulation, to stem cell research, animal and organoid testing, and abortion.

The third claim has provoked the most outcry: integrated information theory is “pseudoscience”.

Is integrated information theory a leading theory?

Whether you agree with integrated information theory or not – and I myself have criticised it – there is little doubt it is a “leading theory of consciousness”.

A survey of consciousness scientists conducted in 2018 and 2019 found almost 50% of respondents said the theory was either probably or definitely “promising”. It was one of four theories featured in a keynote debate at the 2022 meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, and was one of four theories featured in a review of the state of consciousness science that Anil Seth and I published last year.

By one account, integrated information theory is the third-most discussed theory of consciousness in the scientific literature, out-stripped only by global workspace theory and recurrent processing theory. Like it or not, integrated information theory has significant support in the scientific community.

Is it more problematic than other theories?

What about the potential implications of integrated information theory – its impact on clinical practice, the regulation of AI, and attitudes to stem cell research, animal and organoid testing, and abortion?

Consider the question of fetal consciousness. According to the letter, integrated information theory says “human fetuses at very early stages of development” are likely conscious.

The details matter here. I was the co-author of the paper cited in support of this claim, which in fact argues that no major theory of consciousness – integrated information theory included – posits the emergence of consciousness before 26 weeks gestation.

And while we should be mindful of the legal and ethical implications of integrated information theory, we should also be mindful of the implications of all theories of consciousness.

Are the implications of integrated information theory more problematic than those of other leading theories? That’s far from obvious, and there are certainly versions of other theories whose implications would be every bit as radical as those of integrated information theory.

Is it pseudoscience?

And so, finally, to the charge of pseudoscience. The letter provides no definition of “pseudoscience”, but suggests the theory is pseudoscientific because “the theory as a whole” is not empirically testable. It also claims integrated information theory wasn’t “meaningfully tested” by the head-to-head contest earlier this year.

It’s true the theory’s core tenets are very difficult to test, but so too are the core tenets of any theory of consciousness. To put a theory to the test one needs to assume a host of bridging principles, and the status of those principles will often be disputed.

Read more:
Where is the proof in pseudoscience?

But none of this justifies treating integrated information theory – or indeed any other theory of consciousness – as pseudoscience. All it takes for a theory to be genuinely scientific is that it generates testable predictions. And whatever its faults, the theory has certainly done that.

The charge of pseudoscience is not only inaccurate, it is also pernicious. In effect, it’s an attempt to “deplatform” or silence integrated information theory – to deny it deserves serious attention.

That’s not only unfair to integrated information theory and the scientific community at large, it also manifests a fundamental lack of faith in science. If the theory is indeed bankrupt, then the ordinary mechanisms of science will demonstrate as much.

Tim Bayne is affiliated with the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR).

– ref. Nobody knows how consciousness works – but top researchers are fighting over which theories are really science – https://theconversation.com/nobody-knows-how-consciousness-works-but-top-researchers-are-fighting-over-which-theories-are-really-science-214074

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Roger, Sector Lead, CSIRO

Citizen science isn’t new anymore. For decades, keen amateur naturalists have been gathering data about nature and the environment around them – and sharing it.

But what is new is the rate at which citizen scientists are collecting and sharing useful data. Last year, 10 million observations of species were collected. Our new research shows 9.6 million of those came from citizen scientists. It makes intuitive sense. There are only so many professional researchers. But nearly everyone now has a smartphone.

But if anyone can contribute data, how do you know it’s reliable? Was it really an antechinus, or was it a black rat? Despite the growing success in collecting data, there has long been scepticism over how reliable the data are when used to, say, estimate how abundant a threatened species is.

It turns out, citizen science is extremely useful – especially when paired with professionally collected data.

How did we test it?

It’s now much simpler and quicker to be a citizen scientist than it used to be. You might take a photo of an unusual mammal you spot at a campground, record your observations, and upload it to an app or website. This, in turn, has helped standardise the data and make it even more useful. Around Australia, thousands of people contribute regularly through platforms like iNaturalist, DigiVol, 1 Million Turtles, FrogID and Butterflies Australia.

When you upload your observation, it’s recorded in the database of the individual app. But data from all major citizen science apps is also shared with the Atlas of Living Australia, Australia’s largest open-source open-access biodiversity data repository.

That’s important, because it means we can aggregate sightings across every app to get a better sense of what’s happening to a species or ecosystem.

To tackle the question of data reliability, we looked at what proportion of total records added to the data repository came from citizen scientists.

Then we chose three common species – shingleback lizards, Peron’s tree frog, and the red-browed firetail finch – and compared citizen science observations with professionally recorded data across their distribution.

For the shingleback lizard (Tiliqua rugosa), the majority of locations where it was sighted came from professional projects such as government programs and museums, with only 18.5% of locations drawn largely from citizen science.

Peron’s tree-frog (Litoria peronii) had 33.5% of its locations mainly contributed by citizen scientists.

But for the red-browed firetail (Neochmia temporalis), citizen science was the main contributor in over 86.5% of its locations.

Why the difference? We believe it’s due to the impact of long-running citizen science projects driven by enthusiasts. Birders are a large enthusiast community, while people who go herping (looking for reptiles) are a smaller group.

As a reflection of community enthusiasm, birds make up nearly 50% of all species observation records in the Atlas of Living Australia, with the Australian magpie the most commonly recorded species.

Read more:
From counting birds to speaking out: how citizen science leads us to ask crucial questions

What about rarely recorded species?

Next, we looked at several species with fewer than 1,000 records to find out whether citizen science contributes less data when species are less conspicuous.

In fact, the reverse was often true. For some rare species, citizen science is proving invaluable in ongoing monitoring.

Take the threatened black rockcod (Epinephelus daemelii), a large, territorial fish which been decimated by spearfishing and other pressures.

Here, citizen science proved its worth, adding 63% of observations. Most data came from a few high profile projects, such as annual reef and fish surveys.

Citizen science is coming of age

For decades, citizen science has struggled to feed data into professional monitoring and conservation efforts.

But this is increasingly unfair. By combining citizen science data with professionally collected data, we can get the best of both worlds – a much richer picture of species’ distributions.

It’s only going to get better, as observation and citizen scientist numbers grow each year. There’s a large spectrum of projects, many with excellent data quality controls in place.

Citizen science has come a long way. The data created by keen amateurs is now of better quality, aided by new technologies and support from researchers.

Apps which add automatic time stamps, dates and locations make it much easier to validate observations.

This suggests there’s untapped potential for citizen science to contribute consistent data over significant parts of many species’ ranges, though the strength of this contribution will vary by species.

There’s still more to do to help citizen scientists contribute as usefully as they’d like to. For instance, observations tend to cluster in the regions around cities, because that’s where citizen scientists live. Citizen scientists can also favour larger, charismatic and brightly coloured species.

One method of improving collection could be to focus the interest of citizen scientists on a wider range of species.

For citizen scientists themselves, a big part of the appeal is the ability to create useful data to help the environment. Citizen scientist Jonathon Dashper, for instance, spends his spare time looking for frogs and recording fish. Why? He told us:

My drive to contribute to citizen science is to further my understanding of the natural world and contribute to decision making on environmental matters. Using citizen science platforms, I have been able to learn so much about harder-to-identify organisms.

Read more:
Scientists need help to save nature. With a smartphone and these 8 tips, we can get our kids on the case

Erin Roger works for the Atlas of Living Australia and CSIRO

Cameron Slatyer works for the Atlas of Living Australia.

Dax Kellie works for the Atlas of Living Australia and CSIRO.

– ref. Citizen scientists collect more nature data than ever, showing us where common and threatened species live – https://theconversation.com/citizen-scientists-collect-more-nature-data-than-ever-showing-us-where-common-and-threatened-species-live-212372

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Thorpe, Professor in Sociology of Sport and Gender, University of Waikato

As a former competitive snowboarder and instructor, and later a researcher of snow sports, I’ve been lucky to enjoy ski resorts around the world. But nothing compares to Mount Ruapehu on a good day.

Holidaying with my family last week, we fell in love with the natural terrain of both the Whakapapa and Tūroa fields – the latter enjoying the biggest snow base in the world at the time.

We were not alone. A strong winter season has seen many thousands making the most of the great conditions: 5,614 guests on Whakapapa’s busiest day of July 15, and 3,500 at Tūroa on July 28.

But this apparently positive picture makes it easy to overlook the fact that both ski fields on the North Island volcano have faced huge economic uncertainty over the past year. And one great season does not necessarily mean long-term recovery.

Sustainability amid uncertainty

After difficult pandemic years and a poor 2022 snow season, Ruapehu Alpine Lifts (RAL), which operates both Tūroa and Whakapapa, went into receivership. Ski resorts everywhere are facing an uncertain future, with climate change making seasons hard to predict.

After months of uncertainty and debate about its future, the government eventually offered a NZ$5 million lifeline for the 2023 winter season.

Read more:
Ruapehu’s slippery slopes: the uncertain future of snow sports in a climate emergency

Despite various longer-term rescue proposals, including a (now dropped) buyout bid by Ngāti Tūwharetoa (one of several iwi shareholders), the future of skiing and snowboarding on Mt Ruapehu remains uncertain.

Understandably, this is causing anxiety among those whose livelihoods – and favourite sporting and leisure pursuits – are at risk. Beyond those immediate concerns, however, lies the place of the maunga (mountain) itself in the historical and cultural fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Cultural and geological significance

Ruapehu is much more than a place for leisure tourism. Located in the heart of the 80,000-hectare Tongariro National Park, one of three world heritage sites in New Zealand, it is a unique and special place.

In fact, Tongariro has dual world heritage status for its important Māori cultural and spiritual associations, as well as its distinctive volcanic features.

Read more:
New research detects pre-eruption warning signals at Whakaari White Island and other active volcanoes

Ruapehu is particularly significant to Māori, being part of the origin story of te Ika-a-Māui (the North Island). And the ski fields are bound up in the unresolved Treaty of Waitangi claim to Tongariro National Park.

The scale of that claim, which involves cultural redress more than the return of land, puts the future of the ski fields in a much wider perspective. Added to that is the question of environmental sustainability, with ski resorts increasingly reliant on snow-making for their survival.

Behind the human activity, of course, sits Ruapehu’s great geological significance. As my nine-year-old son proudly explained upon arrival, it is a stratovolcano (also called a composite cone volcano), built up by successive layers of andesite lava and ash deposits.

Rising impressively from the ancient native forest on one side and the beautiful tussock on the other, the maunga is a striking presence in the landscape. Light and clouds constantly change its appearance as they dance off its jagged peaks.

Ruapehu is also New Zealand’s largest active volcano. There are frequent minor eruptions and more significant events every 20 to 30 years. This makes it an unusual skiing experience, to say the least, with a lahar alarm and warning system in place, and signs everywhere reminding skiers and snowboarders of the lively nature of this powerful mountain.

Read more:
Rising costs of climate change threaten to make skiing a less diverse, even more exclusive sport

The people’s mountain

Over my many years researching snow sport cultures around the world, I’ve witnessed their unique social dynamics. Unlike many sports that separate people based on gender, ability and age, the slopes offer a space for shared experiences. And they can be a wonderful place for families.

But skiing and snowboarding have long been highly privileged activities. Often they are available only to those with the free time and disposable income. Travel, accommodation, lift tickets and equipment are expensive.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the clientele of ski resorts in New Zealand and around the world have been described as “white as the snow”.

And yet I am struck by the diversity on Ruapehu. At $84 for an adult mid-week day pass, and $54 for a child day pass, it’s much more accessible than the more expensive South Island experience ($160 for an adult day pass at the Remarkables or Cardrona).

RAL also offers heavily discounted or free season passes and day passes to local iwi, schools, defence force staff and emergency services, among other groups.
In contrast to the often international staff of most ski resorts, RAL workers are predominantly local, with 53% identifying as New Zealand European and 16% Māori.

Reimagining Ruapehu

While more can be done to ensure ski resorts are more inclusive and accessible for all, the various innovations by RAL to respond to the pandemic, seasonal disruption and ongoing economic uncertainty are a good start.

But its great cultural, social and geological significance makes Ruapehu a taonga (treasure) for all New Zealanders. Personally, I hope to enjoy riding with my family on Ruapehu for many years to come, but the issue is bigger than that.

With or without skiing, Ruapehu offers New Zealanders an opportunity to know mountain places as culturally significant landscapes, to learn about their histories and to reimagine their collective futures.

There is untapped potential in using the existing resort facilities as educational spaces for future generations to learn about the cultural and geographical significance of this special place.

And while relationships with the mountain (and views on its future) will vary based on people’s different cultural, social and economic perspectives, acknowledging Ruapehu’s place in the Māori experience of colonisation and dispossession must be central too.

As the economic modelling continues, and various parties seek financial sustainability for the ski fields, it’s important we don’t lose sight of this bigger picture of a remarkable maunga in the heart of te Ika-a-Māui.

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

– ref. Ruapehu has had a great ski season – but we need to reimagine the future of NZ’s iconic volcano – https://theconversation.com/ruapehu-has-had-a-great-ski-season-but-we-need-to-reimagine-the-future-of-nzs-iconic-volcano-214248

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Labas, Lecturer in Management, Federation University Australia

Food waste is a global problem with approximately 1.3 billion tonnes of food wasted each year throughout the food lifecycle – from the farm to food manufacturers and households.

Across the food supply chain, Australians waste around 7.6 million tonnes of food each year. This costs our economy approximately A$36.6 billion annually.

In a recent study published in Bioresource Technology Reports, we have found a way to use food waste for making a versatile material known as nanocellulose. In particular, we used acid whey – a significant dairy production waste material that it usually difficult to dispose of.

Mixing waste with bacteria

Nanocellulose is a biopolymer, which means it’s a naturally produced long chain of sugars. It has remarkable properties – bacterial nanocellulose is strong, chemically stable and biocompatible, meaning it’s not harmful to human cells. This makes it a highly marketable product with applications in packaging, wound treatments, drug delivery or food production.

The traditional approach for making nanocellulose can be expensive, uses large amounts of energy and takes a long time. Some types of nanocellulose production also use a chemical process that produces unwanted waste byproducts.

By contrast, our new approach uses just food waste and a symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeasts (SCOBY) – something you may be familiar with as a kombucha starter. Our process is low cost, consumes little energy and produces no waste.

Read more:
What is kombucha and how do the health claims stack up?

We used a runny waste liquid known as acid whey from a local cheese manufacturer in Melbourne, Australia. In the dairy industry, acid whey is often disposed of as wastewater in large amounts (more than 100 million litres of acid whey are produced annually in Australia alone), despite it being rich in carbohydrates and proteins. This is because it’s hard to process into other products due to a high lactic acid content.

We heat-treated the liquid and supplemented it with sugar and yeast extract before adding the key ingredient, SCOBY (obtained commercially from a Melbourne-based kombucha company).

Over four days as our mixture fermented, the bacteria worked to create nanocellulose material which floated to the top. Lovers of home-brewed kombucha may actually be familiar with the raw nanocellulose material – it forms as a floating off-white structure called a pellicle. Some people already use this kombucha by-product as vegan leather.) A similar pellicle formed on our acid whey mixture.

A growing market

Demand for nanocellulose is growing worldwide. The global market was valued at US$0.4 billion in 2022 (A$0.6bn) and is expected to grow to US$2 billion by 2030 (A$3.1bn). Bacterial nanocellulose produced from food waste can help to satisfy this demand.

This growth is in part due to how we can use nanocellulose instead of petroleum-based and other non-renewable materials in things like packaging. Among its desirable properties, nanocellulose is also fully biodegradable.

Manufacturers around the globe are seeking sustainable sources of raw material for producing composite materials with various properties. Nanocellulose is easily customised in this way. For example, infusing nanocellulose with a compound called glycerol enhances its flexibility and makes it more pliant. As a food-safe material, we are now investigating nanocellulose as “smart” packaging by infusing nanocellulose with indicators that signal when food is no longer safe to eat.

Additionally, using a single source of food waste (such as acid whey in our example) means we can produce highly pure nanocellulose – ideal for biomedical applications, such as wound dressings, pharmaceutical compounding and cell cultures.

Efficient circular economy

A circular economy attempts to minimise waste and extend the lifecycle of products for as long as possible. Our study demonstrates an efficient circular economy approach for upcycling a dairy industry waste product into sustainable nanocellulose.

Additionally, the sediment residue we produced has a high nutrient value and potentially has commercial value as a fertiliser or animal feed, while the liquid culture can be reused for the next batch.

Our study was limited to a single source of food waste within a laboratory environment. A future challenge will be taking this approach out of the lab and scaling it up for commercial use. This will involve a series of steps throughout the value chain from waste collection and transport through to commercial production.

We also hope to explore alternative mediums such as mixed food waste. More research also needs to be done on how nanocellulose can be most effectively customised for various applications, such as different types of food packaging.

Overall, our proof-of-concept study demonstrates potential for producing nanocellulose in a sustainable, environmentally sound manner – from food waste to significant value.

Read more:
Explainer: What is a circular economy?

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

– ref. New study shows we can create value from food waste by turning it into a highly desirable material – nanocellulose – https://theconversation.com/new-study-shows-we-can-create-value-from-food-waste-by-turning-it-into-a-highly-desirable-material-nanocellulose-214153

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacob Prehn, Associate Dean Indigenous College of Arts, Law, and Education; Senior Lecturer – Indigenous Fellow, Social Work, University of Tasmania

The lead-up to the Voice referendum is already affecting the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These impacts will likely worsen during and after the vote.

A quick search of any social media platform about the Voice referendum reveals a range of strong perspectives on voting “yes” or “no”. But in the loosely regulated world of social and news media, many conversations are becoming toxic and racist, and turning into hate speech.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are already disproportionately affected by mental ill health, including hospitalisations and troubling rates of suicide. This is why we must take extra care and adopt strategies to support Indigenous Australians and each other.

The issues hate speech bring

Research following the marriage equality postal survey in 2017 found the intense public debates and media messaging had negatively affected the mental health of LGBTIQ+ communities. As we approach the Voice referendum it’s imperative we learn from this.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience worse health and wellbeing outcomes than non-Indigenous people in Australia. A government health performance summary report, released in July, revealed about one-third of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience elevated levels of psychological distress.

Read more:
How we can avoid political misinformation in the lead-up to the Voice referendum

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to achieve equity with non-Indigenous Australians on measures such as life expectancy, education and income, there needs to be systemic change. This type of change would likely include constitutional amendments, legislative revisions, the establishment of treaties, embracing truth-telling and other significant measures.

Undoubtedly, such transformative steps would spark national discussion and debate. Discussion is important to fostering understanding and driving progress in society. The problem lies in the politicisation of debate about marginalised people and the amplifying effect on their psychological distress and mental health. This should be a pressing concern for all Australians.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership in mental health during the Voice referendum is crucial. Dr Clinton Schultz, a Gamilaroi man, for example, is leading work with the Black Dog Institute
to encourage respectful conversations and protect the wellbeing of Indigenous people.

The federal government has also contributed through the “Take care of yourself and your mob” initiative.

Seven strategies for self and collective care

As social work academics with expertise in the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, we propose seven strategies of self-care for Indigenous Australians as the referendum draws nearer.

We also invite non-Indigenous people to provide support for First Nations people during this time, and always.

1) Set boundaries when discussing the Voice referendum

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have the right to choose whether they wish to engage in conversations about the Voice referendum, or answer questions. If you are non-Indigenous, be mindful unsolicited questions about the referendum, particularly from acquaintances or strangers, could inadvertently make someone feel burdened, uncomfortable or unsafe.

2) Disconnect and spend less time looking at social media and news

We have witnessed a surge in offensive, harmful and racist content online. For everyone, limiting exposure to social media and the news can be essential for mental wellbeing. Disconnecting and restricting how much energy we put into such content is something we can control.

If you are non-Indigenous and encounter such comments online, please report them. We can all play a part in fostering a safe and respectful community.

3) Stay connected with others and avoid isolation

Social isolation can take a toll on health and wellbeing.
Prioritise quality time with friends, family and community, exploring conversations beyond the referendum. Embrace opportunities to stay connected with others through meaningful physical, social and cultural interactions.

4) Personal and community-care practices

Self-care is often viewed as an individual activity. Find ways to create, maintain and enhance personal and community-based care practices. Consider opportunities for including others in activities such as exercise, time outside or crafting cultural items. Organisations can lead and facilitate these collective care initiatives.

5) Make time for your body, mind and spirit

Set aside regular time for physical activity, stimulate your mind with enjoyable pursuits and nurture your spiritual dimensions if they hold significance for you. This could include connecting with country, attending church or practising yoga.

6) Spend time on Country and practice Indigenous culture

Spend time on Country in your favourite place, undertake cultural practices and invite others to join you. If you are non-Indigenous, seek out opportunities to deepen cross-cultural connection, understanding and appreciation by participating in Indigenous cultural practices.

7) Know the signs and seek help

Emotional distress and triggers can arise unexpectedly. Recognise the signs within yourself and among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around you. If you or anyone else is feeling unwell, we suggest moving away from the cause, spending time with people and places that bring you peace, and if needed seeking help.

Read more:
How hate speech during the Voice campaign can harm personal wellbeing, as well as democracy

The enduring resilience shown by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is deep, but not inexhaustible. All Australians should make caring for each other a focus in these complex and challenging times.

If you are experiencing distress, there are First Nations-led resources available:

• Wellmob

• 13YARN

• Yarn Safe

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

– ref. 7 ways to look after yourself and your community before and after the Voice referendum – https://theconversation.com/7-ways-to-look-after-yourself-and-your-community-before-and-after-the-voice-referendum-213372

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

As former Labor minister Barry Jones has wisely noted, the Voice referendum feels like 2016 all over again.

The shock from the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom in June of that year set the stage for what came next: the off-the-charts upheaval of the Donald Trump earthquake in the US presidential election. The only consolation was that Trump did not win a majority of votes in the United States. He won the presidency through the arcane, undemocratic workings of the Electoral College.

Maybe the Voice will prevail, as Senator Pat Dodson says:

I believe Australians are better than this. I believe Australians will look at this on the day and say, ‘Well this is a decent, honourable, good thing for us to do’.

But given current projections, the best outcome on the referendum may well be a majority vote for “yes” nationally, but constitutional recognition of First Nations peoples and establishment of the Voice denied by the requirement that the measure be approved by a majority of the states. That can be a moral victory – that Australia’s heart did not go cold on its Indigenous peoples.

But we may not even get there. As with the Trump shock, it is hard to process how support for a benign, straightforward measure that opens the Constitution to Indigenous Australians and establishes an advisory committee on issues and policies crucial to their welfare could dissipate from 65% a year ago to just 43% today.

And how a proposal that enjoys unprecedented backing from the most powerful and influential institutions in the country, including those in business, labour, sport and culture, could be devoid of uplift and land with a thud.

A campaign defined by fear-mongering

US President Franklin D Roosevelt famously said when he first took office 90 years ago, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”. Which is exactly how the prime minister has framed the Voice. Anthony Albanese has said there is “nothing scary, nothing to be fearful of here”.

You can’t change a country for the better through fear. You can only change it for the better through hope and optimism and being positive.

But it is fear that is prevailing at this moment. The Advance Australia and Fair Australia telephone banks and their TikTok algorithms are infused with it. Fair Australia callers are telling undecided voters they have “heard” the Voice will mean monetary compensation to Aboriginal people, that the Voice will lead to the abolition of Australia Day, and that Voice proponents will push for a treaty.

The poison is spreading across the political landscape. Liberal Party politicians have been warned that those who support the Voice will lose their pre-selection for seats in parliament. Former ACT Chief Minister Kate Carnell has said

This has been politicised to the point that people aren’t comfortable to campaign for what they believe in because of the politics.

Perhaps this is baked in for the Liberal Party from its opposition to the Voice from the last three prime ministers: Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison. (Turnbull has since fully converted.) They never presented a referendum even on just constitutional recognition.

Read more:
To shut down far-right extremism in Australia, we must confront the ecosystem of hate

How Trump’s messages seep into Australia

In “Trump’s Australia”, my study of what could happen to Australia’s democracy and society if Trump returns to the presidency in 2024, I argue that approval of the Voice would help insulate Australia’s political culture from the corrosive effects of Trumpist messages from the news and social media.

Trump was the most divisive president America has ever had. In addition to his core values of “America First” nationalism, protectionism and isolationism, he also promoted nativism – fear of “the other.”

Australia, with its historically pervasive atmosphere of fear around Indigenous aspirations, is fertile territory for Trump and his rhetoric on race.

Trump knows how to push the fear buttons on race. He does not dog whistle. Take, for instance, his public demand in 1989 that New York reinstate the death penalty to punish the “Central Park Five” – the Black and Latino youths wrongly convicted of raping a woman in Central Park. Trump shouts his views from the podium. And we hear it here.

What could Australia’s democracy and society look like if Trump wins? What we are already hearing today from those leading the “no” campaign is an echo chamber of Trumpist sentiments for his supporters and acolytes here.

If he returns to power, Australia will undoubtedly see a steady flood of these messages via his social media posts and pronouncements from the Oval Office. His racially tinged views will only further harden the divisive sentiments on issues of racial equity here.

Trump is especially vocal in siding with police when acts of brutality have occured and when violent crime has broken out in major cities. “Law and order” will be a recurrent theme in the 2024 presidential election, should Trump be the Republican candidate again. Trump supporters in Australia, including some who hold or aspire to public office, will pick up those messages and propagate them here.

We have already seen a dry run of these themes by his Australian allies at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Sydney in August – an offshoot of Trump’s CPAC base in the US.

The core message from the Sydney event: the Voice is racially divisive and is being foisted on the country by “the elites”.

Right on cue, neo-Nazis then marched in the streets of Melbourne last weekend under a banner that read “Voice = Anti White.” It had the same look and feel as the infamous white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, which Trump said included some “very fine people”.

Read more:
‘Alt-right white extremism’ or conservative mobilising: what are CPAC’s aims in Australia?

Why the Voice could insulate Australia from Trumpism

These messages are designed to kill the hope and buttress the fear expressed by Professor Marcia Langton, co-chair of the senior design group on the Voice:

A ‘yes’ vote delivers recognition through a voice and all the hope and healing it represents […] or a ‘no’ vote which binds us all closely – all of us – to a broken status quo.

If the Voice is approved, it will be able to call out policies that are not truly responsive to the needs of Indigenous Australians, including programs that do not get to the heart of, or try to resolve, the disparity between First Nations people and their fellow Australians. This can help shape more effective responses to issues where no progress has been made for decades.

The existence of the Voice will mean that Trumpism is unlikely to derail what the body is intended to achieve. If the Voice is defeated, however, change for the better is severely compromised.

If most Australians vote “no” the country will be reeling. The victorious opponents of the Voice, with their echoes of Trumpism, will be poised to keep advancing their agenda. The default position of the political culture on race, reconciliation and equity will have gone backwards, making it harder to redress historical issues of racial disparities.

The world is watching. As George Megalogenis recently concluded, “A ‘no’ vote would revive both the colonial ghost of dispossession and the federation ghost of the White Australia policy.”

That would be a victory for Trumpism in Australia, even before Trump’s fate is decided next year by voters in America.

Bruce Wolpe is a non resident Senior Fellow at the United States Studes Centre at the University of Sydney. He has worked with the Democrats in the US Congress and served on the staff of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He is not a member of any political party.

– ref. Why the Voice could be a bulwark against Trumpism gaining a stronger foothold in Australia – https://theconversation.com/why-the-voice-could-be-a-bulwark-against-trumpism-gaining-a-stronger-foothold-in-australia-213856

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shidan Tosif, Honorary Clinical Associate Professor, The University of Melbourne

While COVID in children has generally been milder than in adults, there are concerns long COVID may be a major consequence for children and young people arising from the pandemic.

Long COVID, also known as “post-COVID condition” is an umbrella term for a range of symptoms that can persist for months after the initial acute phase of COVID. Long COVID may include fatigue, post-exertional malaise, disordered sleep, cognitive difficulties, pain, anxiety and depression. These symptoms can impact people of any age, including children.

Recognition and support from health-care professionals is important in recovering from long COVID. Identifying it early and implementing management strategies can prevent symptoms becoming entrenched, and prevent more significant problems in the future.

Read more:
COVID-19 in babies – here’s what to expect

What does long COVID in kids look like?

Defining long COVID has been difficult due to varied symptoms and time frames that make it difficult to consistently characterise and compare the condition.

A review of long COVID research in children found mood symptoms, fatigue and sleep disorders were the symptoms most commonly reported. In total, more than 40 symptoms were included, ranging from mental health, gastrointestinal, cardiac and respiratory symptoms.

However many studies on long COVID have lacked a control group (meaning comparisons with children who didn’t have COVID), making it difficult to separate the symptoms of long COVID from the indirect impacts of the pandemic on children.

For example, high rates of depression and anxiety have been observed in children, likely related to the effects of lockdowns, school closures and social isolation. These conditions share many features with long COVID and complicate the interpretation of research into the condition.

More recent studies that have included a control group identified only a very small increase in long-COVID symptoms following mild COVID infection, compared with those who tested negative for COVID. This potentially means long COVID in kids is quite rare.

What we see in our COVID clinic for kids

Our COVID follow-up clinic at The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne was running from mid-2020 to mid-2023. We saw more than 600 children throughout that time.

In our experience, most children recover fully after COVID in a similar way to other viruses.

A small proportion experience prolonged symptoms including fatigue, post-exertional malaise, concentration difficulties and pain. These symptoms are similar to other post-viral syndromes such as chronic fatigue syndrome (also known as myalgic encephalitis), for which viruses are a common precursor. Some patients we saw fulfilled the criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome following their COVID infection.

Another group of children in our clinic developed physical complaints, such as headache and chest pain. But most of these children had normal test results, which is reassuring. However the symptoms can still have an impact on day-to-day functioning such as participation in school and other activities.

Read more:
More than 100 Australian kids have had multisystem inflammatory syndrome after COVID. What should parents watch for?

How long does it last?

Recognition and support of children with long COVID symptoms is often delayed. Children and families report that they don’t feel heard or are misunderstood by others, including health-care providers.

It’s hard to live with the uncertainty of not knowing how long symptoms will last.

In our experience with long COVID, most children experience complete recovery or significant improvement from three to six months after infection.

There has typically been minimal impact on functioning. However there have been rare severe cases, with more debilitating fatigue impacting attendance at school and activities. These patients generally receive a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome and are managed accordingly.

How is long COVID in kids managed?

Children and families feel frustrated because there is no specific treatment or cure.

While there are trials underway in adults, there is no medication or cure available for long COVID.

The Australian government has announced $50 million for research into long COVID, which will provide further avenues of support and treatment.

The current recommended approach for managing long COVID in children is based on the recognised management of chronic fatigue syndrome.

This approach may involve a range of health professionals including GPs, paediatricians, physiotherapists, exercise physiologists and psychologists, according to the needs of the child. They support the patient to build up to managing daily tasks such as going to school, exercising, or participating in activities, taking into consideration how much energy they have at each stage to prevent burnouts.

Symptoms such as trouble sleeping, dizziness and cognitive difficulties may be managed through lifestyle modifications such as sleep hygiene practices (going to bed at the same time, no screens before bedtime), or medication.

It’s important activities continue, at a level that’s appropriate for the patient’s stage of recovery. This includes school and social outings.

While a cure for long COVID is not yet available, self-management and attempting to minimise secondary impacts such as missed school are crucial to preventing mental health issues and physical deconditioning (the body becoming accustomed to doing less).

Read more:
Curious Kids: how does a virus stop?

I think my child has long COVID, what should I do?

It’s important to seek medical attention if COVID-related symptoms such as fatigue persist for more than four weeks. A review with your GP or paediatrician is a good place to start if you have concerns for your child.

This article was co-authored by Colette Reveley and Eva Sudbury, paediatricians in the Department of Adolescent Medicine and General Medicine at the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne.

Shidan Tosif is supported by a Murdoch Childrens’ Research Institute Clinician Scientist Fellowship.

– ref. What do we know about long COVID in kids? And what do I do if I think my child has it? – https://theconversation.com/what-do-we-know-about-long-covid-in-kids-and-what-do-i-do-if-i-think-my-child-has-it-205027

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olaf Meynecke, Research Fellow in Marine Science, Griffith University

If you’re a whale, there’s often not too much to see out in deeper water. Perhaps that’s why so many whales get playful with kelp and other seaweed.

Once might have been chance. But we’ve collected over 100 examples on social media of whales playing with seaweed, known as “kelping”. It’s not just one species –  gray whales, southern and northern right whales, and humpback whales all do it.

To date, there’s far more social media and news reports on whale play with seaweed than scientific literature. A 2011 study in New South Wales described these interactions as playful behaviour. Other researchers have documented instances of whales moving logs through the water in Colombia or interacting with jellyfish on the United States east coast.

Our new research compiles data from over 100 kelping events captured on social media. From this, we deduced two things. First, it is playful. And second, it’s likely to have a useful component, such as using the seaweed to scratch an itch (hard without hands), brush off baby barnacles, or flick away whale lice – parasites that drive the whales mad.

How do whales find kelp – and what do they do with it?

Sightings of this behaviour tend to occur in regions where kelp is abundant. That’s no surprise. Kelp is a very strong seaweed and can take the punishment a whale can dish out.

Most videos and photos capturing this behaviour are of humpback whales as they migrate. That’s also not surprising. Humpback whales are one of the most common species. They tend to migrate closer to shore. And they do more activities at the surface compared to other baleen whales, which is why beach goers and whale-watching boats most often see humpback whales.

Until now, kelp play has been documented in Australia, the United States and Canada. But this is likely due to the fact these regions have a larger number of people who do whale-watching and who use social media platforms to share their observations.

Drones have given us a new way of studying this behaviour. In several drone videos, we can see humpback whales actively seeking out seaweed. These interactions aren’t just fleeting – whales can play with it or use it for up to an hour.

Read more:
Whale of a tale? The stories about whales helping tackle climate change are overblown

During kelping, whales tend to lift the seaweed up and balance it on their rostrum, their flat upper head.

They also seem willing to share their kelp patches with other whales, engaging in cooperative behaviours such as rolling, lifting and balancing the seaweed together.

So is it play? In part, yes. When animal researchers look at a behaviour, it has to meet three criteria to be play. First, it seems voluntary and enjoyable. Second, it’s different to more serious behaviours. It can be exaggerated or deliberately incomplete. And third, the animals don’t seem stressed or hungry, suggesting they’re in good health. Kelping meets all three of these.

For animals, play has long-term benefits such as boosting their coordination and movement skills. Balancing seaweed may also be stimulating for the whales, as their rostrums have fine hair follicles. It could even be ticklish.

Kelping might be more than just play

Toying with seaweed might have benefits other than just being fun. Some of us enjoy seaweed wraps at a spa or as a facial mask.

It might be the same for whales. Some seaweed species have been found to reduce bacterial growth, which could be useful for whales, as their skin hosts a range of viruses and bacteria. Whales have to constantly shed their skin to keep on top of bacterial growth.

There are other possibilities. Pushing through seaweed again and again could also help whales rid themselves of unwanted guests, such as the early life stages of barnacles and sea lice. Because whales are so large, many species of invertebrates hitch a lift or spend their lives on these creatures – and often to the whale’s annoyance. Grey whales off the coast of Mexico have repeatedly approached humans for help in keeping down numbers of itchy whale lice, which are actually more closely related to a shrimp or small crab than to lice.

Similar self-medication behaviour has been reported in other marine mammals, such as when Red Sea dolphins rub over sponges and soft corals to, scientists believe, help skin conditions. Even green sea turtles use corals and rocks to clean their carapace.

As more of us use drones and better cameras, we’re likely to see more whale kelping caught on camera and shared in the coming years.

Kelping shows us how much we still have to learn even about well-studied whale species such as the humpback whale. The gentle and inquisitive nature of these whales shines through when we see them play or use seaweed. Even now, there are many mysteries yet to be uncovered in nature.

Read more:
Humpback whales have been spotted ‘bubble-net feeding’ for the first time in Australia (and we have it on camera)

Olaf Meynecke receives funding from a private charitable trust as part of the Whales & Climate Research Program and is the CEO of Humpbacks & High-rises Inc

– ref. Playful whales can use seaweed as a hat – or exfoliant. This “kelping” behaviour is more common than we realised – https://theconversation.com/playful-whales-can-use-seaweed-as-a-hat-or-exfoliant-this-kelping-behaviour-is-more-common-than-we-realised-214269

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Priya Kurian, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, University of Waikato

The Green Party has run a strong campaign. With a 14.2% share in the latest Newshub-Reid Research poll, up by 1.9 percentage points since the previous poll, that is more than half the Labour Party’s 26.5%.

The gain seems to have come from voters unimpressed by Labour’s centrist shift under leader Chris Hipkins, which leaves the Greens to fill a wider void on the left.

The party can claim policy success in several areas – environment and climate, housing quality, family and sexual violence prevention. But has it achieved the social and economic changes required for the climate resilient society it campaigns for? The answer has to be a categorical no.

One reason is that the party continues to battle internal tensions between idealism and pragmatism.

The Greens have been a continuous presence in parliament since the start of the MMP era in 1996. But the party’s policies appear too radical for some members, and not radical enough for those who want to see fewer compromises on issues such as climate action and social justice.

Distinctive party rules

These internal tensions spilled over last year when James Shaw initially failed to get the required 75% support to be reelected as co-leader before being reinstated.

Changes to the party constitution in May last year scrapped the requirement for a male co-leader. Instead, there is now a requirement to have a Māori co-leader of any gender, along with a woman co-leader.

The Greens’ 2023 party list reflects both new talent and greater ethnic diversity than in the past.

Far more than any other political party (save Te Pāti Māori), the distinctive leadership structure and decision-making rules allow the Greens to give effect to their commitments to te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi, gender equity and grassroots democracy.

Their processes may look messy to those looking in from the outside, but it works. They keep leaders accountable and ensure they stay connected, with a driven and committed membership.

Read more:
From ‘pebble in the shoe’ to future power broker – the rise and rise of te Pāti Māori

Policy success

If getting the policy architecture in place to facilitate implementation is one measure of political success, then the Greens have achieved credible action on many fronts.

Getting the 2019 Zero Carbon Act across the line with cross-party support, with the subsequent setting up of the Climate Change Commission, was certainly a success. So were the ban on new oil and gas exploration and the establishment of Ara Ake, the “future energy centre” in New Plymouth.

Read more:
The end of offshore oil and gas exploration in NZ was hard won – but it remains politically fragile

These and many other initiatives, reflect much required movement. But despite ambition, implementation has fallen short.

For some party insiders, the Greens’ climate agenda has been hamstrung by the ministerial responsibilities they have had under a Labour government. As critics pointed out after the 2021 UN climate summit in Glasgow, the climate change ministerial portfolio headed by a Green MP failed to reform the emissions-heavy agribusiness sector, instead focusing on reducing carbon emissions through offshore carbon credits.

Ultimately, the Greens’ policy positions on a range of issues are more radical than the outcomes that have been achieved under the Labour government.

Even many of the gains made by the Greens in forging cross-party consensus on climate action are showing signs of shrivelling away during this election campaign, with a National-ACT coalition promising to reverse most climate policy measures.

Ending poverty and tax reform

Working within the market-led political system has been a disappointment for some party supporters loyal to core Green principles. However, there is no question the Greens have shifted the terms of the debate on poverty in Aotearoa.

Reminiscent of the Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen’s powerful argument that famines were caused not by natural disasters but by the absence of a functioning democracy, the Greens have positioned poverty as a political choice that no country needs to make.

The party’s Ending Poverty Together policy proposes an income guarantee that would ensure everyone, including students, receives at least NZ$385 a week after tax. Its reconfigured tax structure claims to benefit an estimated 95% of all tax payers, a much broader group than National’s proposed tax cuts would affect.

To pay for these changes, the Greens want to introduce a wealth tax of 2.5% a year on assets above $2 million per individual.

While the details of the Greens’ tax policy would undoubtedly need refining, the potential to eliminate poverty and ensure free dental care for all offers a glimpse of what truly transformational policy can look like.

The reluctance of New Zealand (the only wealthy country without any form of wealth tax) to impose fairer taxes has led to deep inequality, with devastating consequences for the poorest. As social commentator Max Rashbrooke points out in his latest book Too Much Money:

The wealthiest tenth own one quarter of the country’s assets, while the poorest half of the country has just 2%.

This situation did not just happen; it is the direct consequence of political decisions. Just as government policies previously kept inequality in check through taxes, regulations and a shared commitment to a well-funded welfare state, policy changes allowed the inequality we see now. And it is policy reform that can remedy it.

Future direction

The Green Party’s core voter base appears to be solid, ensuring it will continue its presence in parliament.

At 14.2% in the polls, the party is closing in on its highest ever level of 15%, reached in 2017 in a TVNZ poll. This was taken before then co-leader Metiria Turei’s revelations of misleading WINZ as a solo parent, though, and the party only achieved 6.3% in that year’s election.

If current polling holds up and translates into a significantly expanded caucus, it may allow the Greens to more actively pursue their ideals.

Even if they end up on the opposition benches, they can still remain the loudest voices on climate change and social justice. They can get issues on the parliamentary agenda, ask questions of ministers and introduce members’ bills.

They can also effectively shape public debate on unchecked economic growth – the default position of the major parties – and its resulting environmental degradation and social inequality.

The beating heart of the Green Party is their Green Charter, with its four principles of ecological wisdom, social responsibility, appropriate decision making and non-violence. This underpins the moral voice the Greens bring to a wide range of issues.

Currently, both centrist parties are showing signs of moving towards the right – away from social justice and environmental issues, for example – although in varying degrees. This leaves a void on the left for the Greens to fill, while further eroding Labour’s base.

Priya Kurian has received funding from The Deep South National Science Challenge for research on climate adaptation, The Rockefeller Foundation for research on climate justice, and the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Marsden Grant.

– ref. NZ’s Green Party is ‘filling the void on the left’ as voters grow frustrated with Labour’s centrist shift – https://theconversation.com/nzs-green-party-is-filling-the-void-on-the-left-as-voters-grow-frustrated-with-labours-centrist-shift-213061

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Strangio, Professor of Politics, Monash University

Daniel Andrews, who has announced he will step down after nearly nine years as premier, leaves office as a titan of Victorian politics. An activist premier, a gifted political communicator and a hard man of politics, he has been an enormously consequential leader and one of national significance. He is the fourth-longest serving premier in Victorian history, and the longest-serving Labor premier.

While his government has had more than its share of controversies, such as the so called “red shirts” scandal and, more recently, the debacle of the cancelled 2026 Commonwealth Games, Andrews will nonetheless be remembered as a progressive premier whose social reforms and massive infrastructure program have transformed the state.

And he was enormously successful with it, winning three elections, most recently another landslide victory in November 2022. Over that time, he has dominated his party and the state. And even after nine years in office, recent opinion polls have still shown his government enjoying a commanding lead over the opposition.

Read more:
Dan Andrews quits after nine years as premier of Victoria

The hard man rises

From the time he entered office, Andrews was an activist and was assertive with power. There were at least two aspects at play here. The first that it’s his natural style – Andrews is a classic strong leader, command and control is his modus operandi. When he encounters an obstacle his instinct is to barge through it, and when he is criticised he doubles down, denying there is any case to answer.

The second aspect is that during his time as opposition leader between 2010 and 2014 he witnessed a becalmed Victorian government, led by Liberals Ted Baillieu and Denis Napthine. By 2014 when Andrews won power, it was evident the public was yearning for activity. Victoria’s infrastructure was run down and no longer fit for purpose, unable to cope with its booming population.

During his first term, Andrews unleashed a gargantuan infrastructure program, including railway level crossing removals, the metro rail link, the suburban rail loop and an array of road extensions and upgrades.

But his government wasn’t solely focussed on changing the physicality of the state. Andrews understood that in Victoria, perhaps more than anywhere else in Australia, there was leeway to pursue a progressive social agenda. He did this successfully, too, despite the inevitable controversy the reforms engendered, leading the way on the Safe Schools program, Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation, and a Treaty with Indigenous Victorians, among other issues.

In doing so, he made Victoria an incubator for social reform, providing a catalyst for other states to follow its lead on these issues.

Read more:
‘A political force of nature’: despite scandals and a polarising style, can ‘Dan’ do it again in Victoria?

A democratic deficit

However, Andrews was not progressive on every issue. On law and order, for example, his instincts were conservative. For example, on his watch discriminatory bail laws contributed to Indigenous Australians being incarcerated in disproportionate numbers.

He has also chafed at being accountable, leading to a democratic deficit on his watch. His approach when under pressure – most recently demonstrated in the Commonwealth Games cancellation – is to double down and refuse to budge, taking a “nothing to see here” approach.

Under Andrews, power has become highly centralised in his private office, and there have been troubling signs of the politicisation of the public service.

His dominance has been reinforced by the dysfunction of the Liberal Party. Indeed, so supreme has Labor been that Victoria has effectively turned into a one-party state, an unhealthy state of affairs that should be of concern to all Victorians.

#IstandwithDan v #DictatorDan

It was during the COVID pandemic that Andrews became a leader of national prominence. His daily press conferences during the darkest days of the crisis were eagerly watched across the nation.

With the harshest and longest lockdowns in the country, social media gave the impression of a deeply polarised state: those who said #IstandwithDan and those who were enraged by #DictatorDan.

In truth, the polarisation was mostly a myth. Certainly, there were partisans at both ends of the spectrum, but the “Dictator Dan” group was only ever a noisy rump, egged on by the strident opposition to Andrews by conservative commentators at the Herald Sun and Sky News.

Indeed, one of the notable aspects of Andrews as a public figure is that his combination of progressive boldness, political effectiveness and forceful leadership has driven conservatives to distraction. They are hyperbolic about him – they characterised him as something akin to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, a supreme leader grown democratically untouchable.

Why? Because he was so effective – here was a socialist left premier leading one of the largest states in the country, and bucking political shibboleths such as that governments ought not go into substantial debt and deficit.

And he kept winning elections, and handsomely, making his conservative critics look foolish.

Read more:
Strong political leaders are electoral gold – but the trick is in them knowing when to stand down

The Dan vacuum

Andrews kept winning because he was an activist, assertive, and got things done. Victorians didn’t necessarily love him, but they respected him. In more recent times his forcefulness had morphed into something darker. As I have written, his leadership had grown oppressive. He rarely smiled; he looked and sounded tired. His going in that sense is a healthy thing: it will disturb the power relations that have centred on him.

So what now? Deputy Premier Jacinta Allan has effectively been the heir apparent since Andrews anointed her as his successor last year during a major exit of ministers.

He will leave an enormous vacuum, both in the party he has led for 13 years and the government he’s led for nine. It was once said that another political titan, Robert Menzies, was the banyan tree under which nothing would grow, and there is an element of that about Andrews.

Whoever becomes premier will have to tackle some significant economic challenges, including ballooning infrastructure spending, and the fallout from massive COVID spending. Moreover, by the time of the next state election in 2026, Labor will have been in power for 12 years, and no matter how dominant and activist a government might be, an “it’s time” factor will inevitably kick in.

“Glass cliff” is a term used in political science for situations in which women inherit a leadership position when things are falling apart. Will this be Allan’s lot?

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

– ref. Dan Andrews leaves office as a titan of Victorian politics – who drove conservatives to distraction – https://theconversation.com/dan-andrews-leaves-office-as-a-titan-of-victorian-politics-who-drove-conservatives-to-distraction-214373

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

Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the federal government’s employment white paper is “ambitious”. I’m not convinced.

A clearly ambitious statement would have specified a target for unemployment, ideally one that was a bit of a stretch.

The Keating Labor government’s Working Nation statement did that in 1994. Released at a time when unemployment was almost 10%, it specified a target unemployment rate of 5% – an ambition that served as a beacon for decades.

That target certainly needs to be updated. Unemployment is now well below 5%, meaning “full employment” is now much less than 5%. Yet the Albanese government has passed up a historic opportunity to say how much less, which it could have done by setting its own target.

Setting our sights below 5%

The white paper released on Monday defines full employment as a state in which “everyone who wants a job should be able to find one without searching for too long”. That means our unemployment target ought to be somewhere between zero and 5%.

Of course, the unemployment rate can never be zero.

There will always be people out of work while they are moving between jobs, what the white paper calls “frictional” unemployment. That will also be true when Australia’s mix of employers changes – what the paper calls “structural” unemployment, as new industries requiring one sort of training replace old industries that required another.

The white paper says what matters in addition to unemployment (539,700 Australians) is “underemployment” in which people work fewer hours than they want (1 million) and “potential workers” who would like work but aren’t actively looking and so aren’t counted as unemployed (1.3 million).

I get that these things matter. I get that we need, in the words of the white paper, “a higher level of ambition than is implied by statistical measures”.

What gets measured gets done

But that higher level of ambition ought not replace targets.

If a target isn’t specific, it isn’t a target at all (or at best it’s a fuzzy target). That means it’s less likely to be aimed at and less likely to be hit.

That’s how it’s been with full employment itself. In 1996 Treasurer Peter Costello and the man he appointed Reserve Bank governor, Ian Macfarlane, signed what became the first Statement on the Conduct of Monetary Policy, an agreement that’s been updated six times.

As with all of the agreements since, that first statement set out an inflation target (“between 2% and 3%, on average, over the cycle”) but not an employment target – even though both are meant to be objectives under the Reserve Bank Act.

As a result, Governor Macfarlane was able to step down ten years later, secure in the knowledge that on average he had hit the middle of the target band: 2.5% inflation. His successor Glenn Stevens stepped down ten years further on, quietly boasting the same thing.

But neither could make any boast about hitting the employment target – because there wasn’t one.

How failing to set a target costs jobs

The governor who has just retired, Philip Lowe, looks like he’ll hit an inflation average of 2.8%, which is pretty low given how high inflation has been lately.

But an estimate by former Reserve Bank staffer Isaac Gross, prepared using the Reserve Bank’s own economic model, suggests that in doing so he kept unemployment a good deal higher than it needed to be between 2016 and 2019 – the equivalent of 270,000 people being out of work for one year.

Read more:
The RBA’s failure to cut rates faster may have cost 270,000 jobs

Lowe wasn’t held to account for the extra unemployed in the same way as he is being held to account for his performance on inflation. Why? Because he was never actually given an unemployment target.

I am quite prepared to acknowledge that other measures of employment matter, underemployment among them. But here’s the thing: they move in line with unemployment.

When Australia’s unemployment rate falls, Australia’s underemployment rate falls, almost in tandem.

It’s easy to see why. As employers find it hard to hire new workers, they get existing workers to put in more hours. And retirees and others who haven’t been looking for work begin putting themselves out there.

Australia’s participation rate measures the proportion of the population making itself available for work. As unemployment has fallen, it has climbed to an all-time high.

Our unemployment rate is a proxy for what matters

This makes the unemployment rate just about the perfect proxy for everything else about the labour market that matters, and just about the perfect number to target.

The Albanese government could have recognised that this week – setting a stretch target of 3% (or even 4%) as an aspiration. Even that would have been less “ambitious” than Keating choosing 5%, when the rate was twice as high.

Treasurer Chalmers says the government didn’t set a target because apparently the unemployment rate doesn’t capture “the full extent of spare capacity in our economy or the full potential of our workforce”.

The saving grace is this government has a second chance at this. Chalmers is about to update the Reserve Bank’s statement of expectations, the one that until now hasn’t included a target for unemployment.

It would be open to him to put a specific target in there – making the RBA as accountable as it is now on inflation.

At the moment, it looks more likely Chalmers will adopt a recommendation of the independent review of the bank, which reported in March.

That review recommended the bank be required to produce its own “best assessment of full employment at any point time”, including its estimate of the lowest rate of unemployment that can be sustained without accelerating inflation.

It would be a small step forward. That full employment estimate would become a number to watch, in the same way as the bank’s performance on inflation is at the moment.

But it still won’t be an official government target. The Albanese government had an opportunity to live up to its ambitious rhetoric – and it passed.

Read more:
1 in 5 Australian workers is either underemployed or out of work: white paper

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

– ref. The Albanese government blew its shot at setting a historic new unemployment target – https://theconversation.com/the-albanese-government-blew-its-shot-at-setting-a-historic-new-unemployment-target-214357

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

Dan Andrews has announced he is quitting, after nine years as premier and three election wins.

Andrews’ surprise announcement came early Tuesday afternoon. He said his resignation would take effect at 5pm Wednesday.

He told a news conference it was not an easy decision “because as much as we have achieved together, there’s so much more to do. But when it’s time, it’s time”.

He said recently, in talking to his family, “thoughts of what life will be like after this job has started to creep in.

“I have always known that the moment that happens it is time to go and to give this privilege, this amazing responsibility, to someone else.”

Andrews, 51, who became premier in December 2014, has been a highly controversial state leader, instigating the toughest lockdowns in the country during COVID. But despite criticisms of that, he won the November 2022 election handsomely. Andrews said he had never been focused on being “100 per cent popular”.

He said he came to his decision fairly recently. But it was right to “go when they are asking you to stay”.

“I am worse than a workaholic,” he said, with every waking moment consumed with the work. He did not know what he would do next. He wouldn’t do much for a while.

Andrews said when he had previously declared he would stay for the duration of this parliamentary term, “it was true then”. He had since changed his mind.

The state caucus will meet on Wednesday to anoint a new premier, with Deputy Premier Jacinta Allen widely favoured. Andrews said if there was a ballot he would be voting.

He had spoken to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who was “a bit shocked”. “I thanked him for the partnership.”

Earlier this year another longstanding Labor premier, Mark McGowan in Western Australia, resigned unexpectedly.

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

– ref. Dan Andrews quits after nine years as premier of Victoria – https://theconversation.com/dan-andrews-quits-after-nine-years-as-premier-of-victoria-214372