Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olympia Nelson, PhD Candidate in Modern Greek & Byzantine Studies specialising in Byzantine art and literature, University of Sydney

Mary of Egypt, a fourth-century saint with a large medieval following, had a thriving and active sex life. But we only find out about Mary’s past from her repudiation of it.

She lived in poverty, earning a living by begging and spinning flax. For over 17 years, she enjoyed erotic liaisons with as many men as she liked: according to her male biographer, Sophronios, her life was all about libidinous pleasure.

Sophronios takes over her voice in an outpouring of shame. In his account, Mary says she is “ashamed even to think about how I corrupted my virginity” and reflects on “how recklessly and immodestly I lived with my passion for sexual intercourse”.

She admits to having had “an insatiable and unrestrained desire for passionate love”. She “was drawn to wallow in filth”.

Even today, Mary’s salacious past is understood by the church as reprehensible, something to atone for and repent over.

Why should we talk about Mary of Egypt today? I was drawn to her multifaceted identity as a woman desert saint, an ascetic, a highly sexual individual navigating her own redemption. Is there something edifying about Mary’s story – or does it go into the feminist shame file?

Read more:
‘A promiscuous she-pope with a dilated cervix’: the legend of Pope Joan, who gave birth on a horse

The antithesis of seductress

Mary’s rejection of her previous life came when she was unable to enter a church.

One day, she encountered a group of young sailors bound for a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to venerate the Holy Cross. She went along for the ride, seducing the young men entirely for the fun and excitement of it.

Upon attempting to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, an invisible barrier prevented her from crossing the threshold. In that moment she experienced an epiphany. Her life of pleasure was redefined as a life of sin. She looked up and saw an icon of the Virgin Mary above her. She vowed to forsake all her worldly desires and follow wherever the Virgin would guide her.

In Sophronios’ biography, Mary then embraced the life of solitude and asceticism in the desert that would make her famous – and a saint.

Physically and psychologically, she became the antithesis of seductress. She endured harsh conditions without clothing, becoming sunburnt and only eating meagre portions of bread for over 40 years.

In Byzantine frescoes, Mary is depicted as old and gaunt, emaciated and with unkempt grey hair. You’ll never see Mary enjoying her own beauty and sexuality as a young woman; rather, she embodies virtue as a wraith who forswears her former happiness.

When she was canonised as a saint, it was because she fulfilled the Christian ideal of repentance to an extreme degree.

Over the centuries, Mary’s narrative has been preserved and shared through various mediums, including literature, art and at least one hammed-up film.

Repentance and redemption

Sophronius indicates her promiscuity had a corrupting influence on men. But her past is understood as reprehensible within Mary herself: the relish she obtained from sexual pleasure is described as wantonness (ἀσελγεία) and debauchery (πορνεία).

Because these qualities are within you and your joy, they are the opposite of devotion and sacrifice expected by God. They therefore must be spurned.

But with the focus on repentance and redemption in Mary’s story, two strange qualities emerge.

First, Mary’s repentance is proportional to her suffering in the desert. The more abject her physical condition, the greater her new devotion.

Second – and this is the lurid paradox – Mary’s repentance is proportional to the extent of her previous lust. The lustier she was, the greater is her holiness now, because she has rejected it.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, contrition is especially meaningful when someone has done something especially wayward in the past. To understand the holiness of our repentant saint, we have to have a live picture of their previous transgressions.

This tells us a lot about society. For a woman, the saint can never altogether transcend her past. It stays with her, haunting her right down to the symbolic nakedness: once a vehicle for her pleasure; now a monument to her shame.

Read more:
Madonna or whore; frigid or a slut: why women are still bearing the brunt of sexual slurs

Purity and piety

Since the sixth century, Mary’s story has served as a means of control over women’s behaviour and sexuality.

Shame over erotic behaviour is not unique to Mary. Other women saints, such as Pelagia of Antioch, who was a reformed harlot, and St Thaïs of Egypt, who underwent a profound conversion, similarly had their narratives framed in terms of wrongfulness atoned for.

Thanks to contemporary feminist discourse, we can start to approach Mary’s story through a new lens: is the way we talk about Mary simply a form of slut-shaming?

Mary’s story reflects the belief a woman’s worth and virtue were intrinsically tied to an ideal of sexual purity. It reinforces long-held expectations of women as chaste, obedient and pious individuals. Women were either seen as temptresses, associated with sin and debauchery, or as virtuous saints, embodying purity and piety.

Paradoxically, to go from one to the other can make you a saint.

Mary’s story no longer holds the sway in the church it once did. The desert saints have not travelled well because it is harder to see what they should be ashamed of.

Yet it is possible to find Mary’s story touching in its own terms: the pathetic frail figure of the saint in Byzantine art captures the pathos of a person wrestling with the burden of piety.

Read more:
Standards for sainthood: what defines a ‘miracle’?

Olympia Nelson 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. ‘An insatiable and unrestrained desire for passionate love’: the holy slut-shaming of Mary of Egypt – https://theconversation.com/an-insatiable-and-unrestrained-desire-for-passionate-love-the-holy-slut-shaming-of-mary-of-egypt-210805

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

The government will commit $41 million for technical and further education and “higher apprenticeships” when it releases its white paper on employment on Monday.

Of this, $31 million will be for new TAFE “centres of excellence” and $10 million will be to develop higher and degree apprenticeships in the priority areas of care, net zero emissions, and digitisation.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said on Sunday the white paper will sketch out 31 future reform directions and contain nine new policies. Its emphasis would be on action.

The extra funding will fast track up to six new centres of excellence under the five-year national skills agreement presently being negotiated. The new centres will be upgrades of existing TAFEs and will establish a co-ordinated national network of institutions that help address the economic challenges facing Australia in the transformation to cleaner energy, the care economy and digitisation.

“The intention is to create new degree apprenticeship qualifications and enable TAFEs to deliver new bachelor equivalent higher apprenticeships independent of universities, giving them capacity to provide students with opportunities to gain the advanced skills needed by industries,” Chalmers and education and skills ministers Jason Clare and Brendan O’Connor said in a statement.

“The government is aiming to double higher apprenticeship commencements in the priority areas identified in the white paper over five years.

“These reforms will mean that apprentices can get degree-level qualifications and university students can more easily get practical training and skills.”

Chalmers said the expansion of TAFE offerings would produce

more graduates with more of the skills they’ll need to make the most of the big shifts that are shaping our economy into the future – whether it’s the net zero transformation, growth in the care economy or adapting and adopting new technology.

The white paper, prepared by Treasury, will set out five objectives:

• delivering sustained and inclusive full employment

• promoting job security and strong, sustainable wage growth

• reigniting productivity growth

• filling skills needs and building the future workforce

• overcoming barriers to employment and broadening opportunities.

Its initiatives will cover ten areas: strengthening economic foundations; modernising industry and regional policy; planning for the future workforce; broadening access to foundation skills; investing in skills, tertiary education and lifelong learning; reforming the migration system; building capabilities through employment services; reducing barriers to work; partnering with communities; and promoting inclusive, dynamic workplaces.

Centrally, the paper will outline the government’s definition of full employment. It has avoided putting a number on it, instead saying it will be achieved when “everyone who wants a job should be able to find one without searching for too long”.

The paper will say discussions of full employment have often too narrowly centred around statistical estimates of the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment or NAIRU

which do not capture the full extent of spare capacity in our economy or the full potential of our workforce. The NAIRU should not be confused with, nor constrain, longer-term policy objectives.

The government has “broader and bolder aspirations for full employment, aimed at increasing the maximum level of employment we can sustain over time, by reducing structural underutilisation”.

Chalmers on Sunday played down suggested differences between the white paper’s definition of full employment and the Reserve Bank’s calculation of NAIRU, saying it was important not to try to find differences where they did not exist.

The targets in the white paper should be seen as complementary to, but “not in conflict with” the Reserve Bank’s targets.

The paper will say there are at present 2.8 million people wanting work they don’t have or hours they don’t have – equivalent to one fifth of the current workforce.

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

– ref. Employment white paper to deliver more highly qualified workers in net zero, care and digitisation – https://theconversation.com/employment-white-paper-to-deliver-more-highly-qualified-workers-in-net-zero-care-and-digitisation-214229

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

The government will commit $41 million for technical and further education and “higher apprenticeships” when it releases its white paper on employment on Monday.

Of this, $31 million will be for new TAFE “centres of excellence” and $10 million will be to develop higher and degree apprenticeships in the priority areas of care, net zero emissions, and digitisation.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said on Sunday the white paper will sketch out 31 future reform directions and contain nine new policies. Its emphasis would be on action.

The extra funding will fast track up to six new centres of excellence under the five-year national skills agreement presently being negotiated. The new centres will be upgrades of existing TAFEs and will establish a co-ordinated national network of institutions that help address the economic challenges facing Australia in the transformation to cleaner energy, the care economy and digitisation.

“The intention is to create new degree apprenticeship qualifications and enable TAFEs to deliver new bachelor equivalent higher apprenticeships independent of universities, giving them capacity to provide students with opportunities to gain the advanced skills needed by industries,” Chalmers and education and skills ministers Jason Clare and Brendan O’Connor said in a statement.

“The government is aiming to double higher apprenticeship commencements in the priority areas identified in the white paper over five years.

“These reforms will mean that apprentices can get degree-level qualifications and university students can more easily get practical training and skills.”

Chalmers said the expansion of TAFE offerings would produce

more graduates with more of the skills they’ll need to make the most of the big shifts that are shaping our economy into the future – whether it’s the net zero transformation, growth in the care economy or adapting and adopting new technology.

The white paper, prepared by Treasury, will set out five objectives:

• delivering sustained and inclusive full employment

• promoting job security and strong, sustainable wage growth

• reigniting productivity growth

• filling skills needs and building the future workforce

• overcoming barriers to employment and broadening opportunities.

Its initiatives will cover ten areas: strengthening economic foundations; modernising industry and regional policy; planning for the future workforce; broadening access to foundation skills; investing in skills, tertiary education and lifelong learning; reforming the migration system; building capabilities through employment services; reducing barriers to work; partnering with communities; and promoting inclusive, dynamic workplaces.

Centrally, the paper will outline the government’s definition of full employment. It has avoided putting a number on it, instead saying it will be achieved when “everyone who wants a job should be able to find one without searching for too long”.

The paper will say discussions of full employment have often too narrowly centred around statistical estimates of the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment or NAIRU

which do not capture the full extent of spare capacity in our economy or the full potential of our workforce. The NAIRU should not be confused with, nor constrain, longer-term policy objectives.

The government has “broader and bolder aspirations for full employment, aimed at increasing the maximum level of employment we can sustain over time, by reducing structural underutilisation”.

Chalmers on Sunday played down suggested differences between the white paper’s definition of full employment and the Reserve Bank’s calculation of NAIRU, saying it was important not to try to find differences where they did not exist.

The targets in the white paper should be seen as complementary to, but “not in conflict with” the Reserve Bank’s targets.

The paper will say there are at present 2.8 million people wanting work they don’t have or hours they don’t have – equivalent to one fifth of the current workforce.

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

– ref. Employment white paper to deliver more highly qualified graduates in net zero, care and digitisation – https://theconversation.com/employment-white-paper-to-deliver-more-highly-qualified-graduates-in-net-zero-care-and-digitisation-214229

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

arly a year ago, a privately financed inquiry, led by Peter Shergold, a former head of the prime minister’s department, undertook an inquiry into Australia’s handling of the COVID pandemic.

The report, Fault Lines, was a solid piece of work, delving into the commendable and poor aspects of the response to what was such a massive health and economic crisis.

Among its findings were that lockdowns and border closures should have been used less and schools in the main should have been kept open. Both internal borders and schools were state responsibilities.

Australia always needed a federal government-commissioned inquiry into the management of the pandemic. Anthony Albanese recognised this and before the election he indicated Labor would have one. But he was vague about its form.

Now we have seen that form, and it’s clearly inadequate.

The terms of reference, issued on Thursday, say the inquiry will take a “whole-of-government” view. A whole of Commonwealth government, that is.

They are very detailed. But Albanese and Health Minister Mark Butler summed up the inquiry’s remit when they said in a statement it would consider Commonwealth responses, including “the provision of vaccinations, treatments and key medical supplies to Australians, mental health support for those impacted by COVID-19 and lockdowns, financial support for individuals and business, and assistance for Australians abroad”.

While looking at these areas will inevitably lead the inquiry into the various interfaces with the states, the terms of reference specifically say it will not extend to “actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments”.

The inquiry will be done by a three-member panel, comprising Robyn Kruk, who has formerly headed departments at state and federal level; Catherine Bennett, an eminent epidemiologist, and Angela Jackson, a health economist.

There was immediate criticism that the inquiry is not a royal commission. Albanese dismissed this line of attack, suggesting royal commissions took a long time, and judges weren’t necessarily the best people for this job. These arguments sounded somewhat strange, however the fact it isn’t a royal commission is not the central problem here.

That problem is its failure to include the decisions of the states and territories – and notably that line emphasising their specific exclusion.

The COVID response was as much at state as federal level – in fact, on many aspects the states were the drivers. For example the Morrison government did not favour schools being closed, but state governments took a different view and did it.

So why exclude the states’ decisions? There is no logic about that, but it looked like some obvious politics was at play.

Facing criticism that he was protecting Labor states, Albanese pointed to the political mix of these governments at the time, when half them were non-Labor. He also said there had been some changes of government and leadership in some states.

One, more credible, reason for excluding state decisions is to avoid giving ammunition for a possible future change of government. The Palaszczuk government goes to an election in late October next year. That government came under much criticism over its uncompromising border closure during COVID, with damaging publicity about a lack of compassionate. It is already facing an uphill fight to hang onto power. The last thing it would want would be an inquiry – which reports by September 30 next year – revisiting earlier decisions.

(Victoria’s Dan Andrews, who ran the harshest lockdowns, has his election behind him, but likely wouldn’t appreciate any potentially tough findings either.)

After what the government must have found an unexpectedly fierce attack over its inquiry, Butler on Friday argued it could get into state matters.

It would examine the health response – which included the public health and social measures. And they covered “distancing, contact tracing, border closures, lockdowns, all of those things are in scope. They’re utterly in scope of the inquiry. It would be extraordinary for them not to be,” he told the ABC.

That leaves the whole thing as clear as mud. On Butler’s words, it would seem up to the panel how far it wants to push the probing of state areas.

But broadly, it appears the Morrison government will have the blow torch applied, while the state administrations of the time will at most only get some indirect heat.

Albanese says the inquiry is aimed at looking forward to how we can be better prepared for the future.

But without a forensic eye on what was good and bad in the decisions taken by all governments, we will only receive advice on how to put Australia in the best position to deal with another such crisis. And by limiting the inquiry, the government has invited a cynical response from the public, who got to know quite a lot about how various governments performed in those hard times.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: We can’t prepare for a future pandemic without fully looking at state governments’ decisions in the last one – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-we-cant-prepare-for-a-future-pandemic-without-fully-looking-at-state-governments-decisions-in-the-last-one-214152

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Phibbs, Emeritus Professor, University of Sydney

The Victorian government, like many governments around the world, has announced new regulations on short-stay accommodation. The government says Victoria has more than 36,000 short-stay places, which are reducing the number of homes available for long-term rental.

Other states have capped the number of nights a dwelling can be used for short-stay accommodation. The Victorian response has been to introduce a levy set at 7.5% of the short-stay platform’s revenue.

The rationale appears simple – adding a charge to discourage landlords from converting properties from long-term rentals to tourist accommodation.

The government estimates the levy will raise about A$70 million a year. State agency Homes Victoria will use this money to provide social and affordable housing, potentially compensating for losses to the short-stay sector.

Read more:
Victoria’s housing plan is bold and packed with initiatives. But can it be delivered?

How will the levy be applied?

Details of how the levy will be collected are not yet available. However, it appears the government will charge the platforms – such as Airbnb, Stayz and Booking.com – 7.5% of their total revenue. The platforms will bill the hosts.

The levy will begin in 2025. The state government says its levy will replace any local government charges on short-stay accommodation such as the one Bass Coast collects.

The platforms have voiced concern at the size of the levy and at hotels escaping the charge. The government’s response is that hotels are not removing long-term rental housing from the market.

Some commentators from the Victorian tourism sector predict the levy will lead to sharp reductions in tourism. This will depend on how many owners of second homes in tourism destinations opt to shift their properties into the long-term rental market.

Marginal operators might decide this extra cost makes the hassle of running a short-term rental business too high. Some might move to long-term rentals.

The levy might also encourage some potential short-term rental investors to focus their activities in other states that don’t charge a levy. However, it’s possible other states whose budgets are under pressure will copy the Victorian model, reducing this effect.

Indeed, the size of the Victoria government’s levy and its own budget projections imply the intention is more to raise revenue than to eliminate the state’s short-stay sector.

Read more:
Drop the talk about ‘mum and dad’ landlords. It lets property investors off the hook

Short stays have boomed under a ‘light touch’ approach

We have previously described Australian approaches to regulating the short-term rental sector as very light touch.

Under this regime, the Australian short-term rental market has been growing strongly. The sector has increased by about 23% over the past year, according to a new report by the Real Estate Institute of Australia.

Platforms often claim short-term rentals have no impact on rental markets.

COVID-19 provided an excellent natural experiment to test this view. As state and national borders closed, short-term rentals returned to the long-term market. In many Australian housing markets where this happened, rents fell sharply.

Read more:
What did COVID do to rental markets? Rents fell as owners switched from Airbnb

In contrast to the relative lack of state government action, local governments across Australia have long sought to manage impacts of short-term rental accommodation in their municipalities.

These local responses include permit and registration systems, which allow local councils to monitor any problems. Some have imposed higher rates. This can deter conversion of long-term rental stock to short-stay accommodation but also provides important local revenue for localities with many seasonal visitors.

Ironically, the introduction of state frameworks can override local responses. Byron Council in NSW has been trying to reduce the number of nights hosts can let their properties from the default NSW total of 180 nights. Ultimately, the state’s Independent Planning Commission supported a 60-day cap. The council must now navigate a complex process to get this limit in place.

Regulations are tougher overseas

The Victorian government move mirrors an international trend of increasing regulation of short-term accommodation. These rules seek to prevent loss of permanent rental supply and to manage the amenity impacts of short-term tourism on neighours and local communities.

In Scotland, Airbnb hosts now have to register with the government. Those listing whole properties must apply for planning permission.

Cities such as New Orleans have created special zones where holiday homes can be rented. It’s another way to balance the demand for visitor accommodation with the need to preserve homes for local residents.

Many European and North American cities have blanket restrictions on short-term rentals, including caps of 30 to 90 days for unhosted properties. These time periods allow local residents to gain income by renting out their homes when they are themselves on holiday.

However, enforcing these rules can be tricky. New York City recently introduced regulations that require hosts to be present while accommodating guests – effectively banning the short-term rental of whole homes.

Read more:
Australia has taken a ‘light touch’ with Airbnb. Could stronger regulations ease the housing crisis?

It will take more than a levy to fix the rental crisis

Across Australia, people have called for increased housing supply to improve rental markets. However, given the long lead times in financing and building apartment buildings, new rental supply will take a long time to deliver for tenants.

In contrast, policy changes that redirected short-term rental stock to the long-term market would have an immediate benefit. This is vital in central city locations, where new apartment supply is at risk of diversion to the short-term sector, and in regional markets, where increased population growth has coincided with increased short-term stay activity.

More widely, protecting tenants from unfair eviction and sudden excessive rental increases can help limit the impacts of short-stay platforms. Adequately subsidising low-income renters so they can afford decent housing would also help.

Generating extra revenue for Homes Victoria is a positive step, but a tourist tax won’t go far. Renters would gain more in the short term from other regulations that do more to reduce the short-stay sector’s size and growth.

Peter Phibbs receives funding from Shelter Tasmania to undertake research on short-term rentals in Tasmania. He also receives funding from AHURI. He is a pro bono board member of a not-for-profit housing data company, the Housing Justice Data Lab.

Nicole Gurran receives funding from the Australian Coastal Councils Association, the Australian Housing & Urban Research Institute and the Australian Research Council, and has provided advice to non-profit Inside Airbnb.com.

– ref. Will taxing short stays boost long-term rental supply? Other policies would achieve more – https://theconversation.com/will-taxing-short-stays-boost-long-term-rental-supply-other-policies-would-achieve-more-213989

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Harris, Senior Research Fellow, Acting Director, CHETRE, UNSW Sydney

The housing crisis is firmly on the Australian policy agenda. Governments see a rapid increase in supply as the main solution.

The importance of supply is not disputed. But more housing alone isn’t enough: new housing must be provided in ways that do not widen the gap between the “haves and the have-nots”.

Our recent research in Sydney, for instance, shows how the planning system already overlooks what is needed to make the city equitable and liveable. Planning decisions contradict or ignore guidelines and checklists that are meant to help ensure communities are healthy and sustainable.

The rush to build new housing risks creating even more inequitable cities.

Poorly regulated housing development often means services and infrastructure such as public transport or schools are added later. This ends up costing both governments and households. And it costs us more than dollars to fix the long-term problems that come with inequity.

Only housing “done well” – quality, affordable and accessible housing – will truly solve the housing crisis.

Read more:
The housing and homelessness crisis in NSW explained in 9 charts

Beware the wrong kinds of planning reform

The federal government’s new housing plan aims to put A$3 billion on the table for states and territories to build more housing.

State governments like those in New South Wales and Victoria have now taken steps to speed up the supply of more homes.

While that sounds like good policy, this approach extends decades of short-sightedness that overlooks what matters most for cities: its people.

The NSW government wants to “loosen the screws” on planning regulations so developers can build more housing. Worryingly, it admits wrongdoers may take advantage. The Victorian government unveiled plans on Wednesday to fast-track big housing developments.

Read more:
Victoria’s housing plan is bold and packed with initiatives. But can it be delivered?

Such short-sighted policies risk poorly planned neighbourhoods and poorly built housing.

There’s plenty of evidence for the need to reform the NSW land-use planning system. Simply freeing up housing supply is not enough. Planning systems need to do the job of ensuring new housing supports the city and the wellbeing of all residents.

How land-use planning fails Sydney’s people

We reviewed NSW’s two main land-use planning mechanisms: State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Local Environmental Plans (LEPs). We assessed the ways they help promote the building of safe, liveable neighbourhoods.

We compared these policies against the NSW government’s own Healthy Built Environment Checklist on how to do it well. We found this checklist to be one of the best guides in the world for how cities can enhance human health and wellbeing.

The checklist sets out 11 principles covering topics that the planning system should use to guide development. We added a 12th best-practice theme to highlight the growing importance of safeguarding mental health.

We counted the number of clauses within each policy and plan that corresponded to each of the 12 themes. We used a traffic-light system (shown below) to highlight whether and how these clauses considered, mentioned and/or addressed issues relating to equity.

Because SEPPs are (generally) applicable to the whole state, we found their focus was more thematic and focused on broader issues such as “resilience”. Most only corresponded to a small number of the best-practice themes as show below.

The proposed but-never-adopted Design and Place SEPP was the most likely to have provided any equity guidance.

In contrast, LEPs are by design more focused on specific local government areas and need to more comprehensively guide local land use. Most included clauses that aligned with the healthy planning themes.

Nevertheless, as the mostly red coding shows, few of these land-use planning mechanisms considered the known ways to promote equity in any notable ways.

At the local level, only two of the eight LEPs we looked at really paid equity any attention.

Read more:
What’s equity got to do with health in a higher-density city?

Quick fixes risk making things worse

Short-term fixes for the housing crisis create a big risk of even worse outcomes for communities.

“Unleashing” housing supply in cities like Sydney and Melbourne, without reforming narrowly focused planning mechanisms, will increase inequities between the haves and have-nots. The result is likely to be more spending in future — by governments and affected households — to deal with the consequences.

We know how to create great suburbs and cities. Indeed, the NSW government should heed its own policy advice when changing the planning system if cities like Sydney are to remain quality places to live.

Read more:
Governments are pouring money into housing but materials, land and labour are still in short supply

Planning must have a local focus

We need to refocus planning strategies on who they are meant to serve — the people and their communities. Thinking locally must be part of the package.

Councils in south-western Sydney, for instance, are partnering local health districts to develop innovative health-focused planning and urban design. Similarly, the Western Sydney Health Alliance is supporting innovation, including our research, to place public health at the centre of delivering infrastructure for the region.

Boosting housing supply by targeting local councils’ roles and responsibilities, as both NSW and Victoria are doing, risks worse, not better, outcomes.

Planning systems need to regulate and be responsive locally for housing to be “done well” and avoid the costs of inequity that come with a blinkered focus on housing supply.

Patrick Harris receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council. The research discussed in this article was funded by the Western Sydney Health Alliance, a collective working to create healthy communities across the Western Parkland City.

Edgar Liu receives funding from the Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Ltd, the social housing sector, the ACT and NSW governments, and the City of Sydney. He previously received funding from the Australian Research Council, the South Australian government, the Australian Council of Social Service, Shelter NSW and the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living. The research discussed in this article was funded by the Western Sydney Health Alliance, a collective working to create healthy communities across the Western Parkland City.

– ref. Planning laws protect people. A poorly regulated rush to boost housing supply will cost us all – https://theconversation.com/planning-laws-protect-people-a-poorly-regulated-rush-to-boost-housing-supply-will-cost-us-all-213068

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Harris, Senior Research Fellow, Acting Director, CHETRE, UNSW Sydney

The housing crisis is firmly on the Australian policy agenda. Governments see a rapid increase in supply as the main solution.

The importance of supply is not disputed. But more housing alone isn’t enough: new housing must be provided in ways that do not widen the gap between the “haves and the have-nots”.

Our recent research in Sydney, for instance, shows how the planning system already overlooks what is needed to make the city equitable and liveable. Planning decisions contradict or ignore guidelines and checklists that are meant to help ensure communities are healthy and sustainable.

The rush to build new housing risks creating even more inequitable cities.

Poorly regulated housing development often means services and infrastructure such as public transport or schools are added later. This ends up costing both governments and households. And it costs us more than dollars to fix the long-term problems that come with inequity.

Only housing “done well” – quality, affordable and accessible housing – will truly solve the housing crisis.

Read more:
The housing and homelessness crisis in NSW explained in 9 charts

Beware the wrong kinds of planning reform

The federal government’s new housing plan aims to put A$3 billion on the table for states and territories to build more housing.

State governments like those in New South Wales and Victoria have now taken steps to speed up the supply of more homes.

While that sounds like good policy, this approach extends decades of short-sightedness that overlooks what matters most for cities: its people.

The NSW government wants to “loosen the screws” on planning regulations so developers can build more housing. Worryingly, it admits wrongdoers may take advantage. The Victorian government unveiled plans on Wednesday to fast-track big housing developments.

Read more:
Victoria’s housing plan is bold and packed with initiatives. But can it be delivered?

Such short-sighted policies risk poorly planned neighbourhoods and poorly built housing.

There’s plenty of evidence for the need to reform the NSW land-use planning system. Simply freeing up housing supply is not enough. Planning systems need to do the job of ensuring new housing supports the city and the wellbeing of all residents.

How land-use planning fails Sydney’s people

We reviewed NSW’s two main land-use planning mechanisms: State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Local Environmental Plans (LEPs). We assessed the ways they help promote the building of safe, liveable neighbourhoods.

We compared these policies against the NSW government’s own Healthy Built Environment Checklist on how to do it well. We found this checklist to be one of the best guides in the world for how cities can enhance human health and wellbeing.

The checklist sets out 11 principles covering topics that the planning system should use to guide development. We added a 12th best-practice theme to highlight the growing importance of safeguarding mental health.

We counted the number of clauses within each policy and plan that corresponded to each of the 12 themes. We used a traffic-light system (shown below) to highlight whether and how these clauses considered, mentioned and/or addressed issues relating to equity.

Because SEPPs are (generally) applicable to the whole state, we found their focus was more thematic and focused on broader issues such as “resilience”. Most only corresponded to a small number of the best-practice themes as show below.

The proposed but-never-adopted Design and Place SEPP was the most likely to have provided any equity guidance.

In contrast, LEPs are by design more focused on specific local government areas and need to more comprehensively guide local land use. Most included clauses that aligned with the healthy planning themes.

Nevertheless, as the mostly red coding shows, few of these land-use planning mechanisms considered the known ways to promote equity in any notable ways.

At the local level, only two of the eight LEPs we looked at really paid equity any attention.

Read more:
What’s equity got to do with health in a higher-density city?

Quick fixes risk making things worse

Short-term fixes for the housing crisis create a big risk of even worse outcomes for communities.

“Unleashing” housing supply in cities like Sydney and Melbourne, without reforming narrowly focused planning mechanisms, will increase inequities between the haves and have-nots. The result is likely to be more spending in future — by governments and affected households — to deal with the consequences.

We know how to create great suburbs and cities. Indeed, the NSW government should heed its own policy advice when changing the planning system if cities like Sydney are to remain quality places to live.

Read more:
Governments are pouring money into housing but materials, land and labour are still in short supply

Planning must have a local focus

We need to refocus planning strategies on who they are meant to serve — the people and their communities. Thinking locally must be part of the package.

Councils in south-western Sydney, for instance, are partnering local health districts to develop innovative health-focused planning and urban design. Similarly, the Western Sydney Health Alliance is supporting innovation, including our research, to place public health at the centre of delivering infrastructure for the region.

Boosting housing supply by targeting local councils’ roles and responsibilities, as both NSW and Victoria are doing, risks worse, not better, outcomes.

Planning systems need to regulate and be responsive locally for housing to be “done well” and avoid the costs of inequity that come with a blinkered focus on housing supply.

Patrick Harris receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council. The research discussed in this article was funded by the Western Sydney Health Alliance, a collective working to create healthy communities across the Western Parkland City.

Edgar Liu receives funding from the Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Ltd, the social housing sector, the ACT and NSW governments, and the City of Sydney. He previously received funding from the Australian Research Council, the South Australian government, the Australian Council of Social Service, Shelter NSW and the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living. The research discussed in this article was funded by the Western Sydney Health Alliance, a collective working to create healthy communities across the Western Parkland City.

– ref. Planning laws protect people, who’ll pay for an unregulated rush to boost housing supply – https://theconversation.com/planning-laws-protect-people-wholl-pay-for-an-unregulated-rush-to-boost-housing-supply-213068

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamal Abarashi, Lecturer, International Business, Strategy and Entrepreneurship Department, Auckland University of Technology

Maintaining a tidy home is a never-ending challenge. And tidiness goes beyond aesthetics – it contributes to a person’s mental wellbeing.

So what are the best strategies for creating and maintaining order?

A growing body of research into tidiness and decluttering, including our own, might offer helpful insights.

As part of our ongoing research project, we analysed popular cleaning and decluttering videos on YouTube as well thousands of the comments below them. We also conducted 18 in-depth interviews. The goal is to better understand how people create order in their homes – and how they keep it that way.

As our research shows, sustaining tidiness is about being both systematic and adaptable.

Life can be the enemy of tidiness

From an early age, people are primed to shop.

But this culture of shopping clashes with the desire for tidy and clutter-free homes.

Family members with different tidiness standards and life stages can also disrupt efforts to create order.

Read more:
Swedish death cleaning: how to declutter your home and life

As one young couple said:

We’ve always wanted that really amazing organised home but we could just never really get it that way and we would feel really discouraged when we tried and then just a few days later it would just go right back to messy.

Some interviewees described feeling like prisoners of their possessions.

Another young couple with two kids explained:

As more children arrived and our income increased, more stuff made its way into our home. We have never been hoarders, but at some point I looked around and realised that we were spending our time and resources on acquiring stuff, cleaning and maintaining stuff, storing stuff, moving stuff out of the way to get to other stuff.

And the very organisation systems used to maintain tidy and clutter-free homes can contribute to disorganisation.

One professional woman we spoke with described establishing a system where every piece of clothing had a designated spot in their wardrobe based on colour, type and season. Ultimately, this became too difficult to maintain, undermining the whole approach.

So what can be done to maintain a tidy home?

4 strategies for keeping your home tidy

Our research so far has helped us identify four key strategies to achieve long-term tidiness.

1: Simplify

To achieve lasting tidiness, you need to simplify the way you organise your home.

This can be done by eliminating spaces or areas in your home that encourage further organisation and classification of possessions – like extra dressers or storage units.

Read more:
Clean your way to happiness: unpacking the decluttering craze

One retired couple we spoke with did just that.

We had this dresser […] that was basically always inviting more and more stuff to be put in it. So, it was always pretty hard to have the space we always wanted. Well then we got rid of the dresser […] and once we did that we really saw the space open up and it became really nice and clear.

Fewer dedicated spaces mean fewer opportunities for clutter to accumulate, ultimately making it easier to maintain a tidy living environment.

2: Create groups

Another effective strategy for long-term tidiness is to simplify how you categorise and group things in your home.

Replacing several small decor items with one larger one creates fewer distinct categories of things around the house, for example.

Read more:
So you’ve KonMari’ed your life: here’s how to throw your stuff out

One mother of two kids we spoke with switched out several small teddy bears in her lounge for one big one.

A married couple we interviewed grouped smaller knickknacks onto a tray, making it easier to keep track of things and to maintain order. Having all of their knickknacks in one place also made it easier to clean.

3: Manage numbers

To sustain long-term tidiness, it’s also essential to control the total number of possessions in your home.

This can be achieved through various methods, such as encouraging sharing among family members and friends or following the “one in, one out” rule – for every new item you bring into the house, you get rid of an old item.

Instead of buying rarely used items, like a camping tent, you could rent it when needed.

Another married couple we spoke with described a cluttered kitchen with multiple pots for different cooking jobs. Looking to reduce the clutter, they switched to using a multipurpose cast iron skillet – one item that can do many jobs.

A family with two kids spoke about sharing hair products to reduce the clutter in the bathroom.

We used to buy a bunch of different things but now we use the same thing for our hair so the product [my husband] uses, I use. We use the same shampoo. We actually used to buy different shampoo. So basically, we just simplified our product […] this brought the products down to half and now we have so much more peace of mind and the bathroom is so much easier to maintain.

4: Adapt and evolve

Maintaining a tidy home requires flexibility and a willingness to re-evaluate and adjust your routines in response to the ever-changing circumstances of your life.

A retired couple we interviewed spoke about the process of moving to a smaller place. This required getting rid of a lot of things and changing the way they lived to maximise the use of what remained.

In the end, tidiness and decluttering are ongoing processes that require dedication and flexibility.

By embracing these strategies for long-term tidiness, a person can create and maintain organised spaces that enhance their lives, fostering not only physical order but also mental clarity and peace.

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. Feeling controlled by the chaos in your home? 4 ways to rein in clutter and stay tidy – https://theconversation.com/feeling-controlled-by-the-chaos-in-your-home-4-ways-to-rein-in-clutter-and-stay-tidy-212689

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Mitchell, Geriatrician working in clinical practice. PhD Candidate at The University of Melbourne studying ethics and ageism in health care. Affiliate lecturer, Deakin University

A child once approached me, hunched over, carrying a vacuum cleaner like a walking stick. In a wobbly voice, he asked:

Do you want to play grannies?

The idea came from the children’s TV show Bluey, which has episodes, a book, magazine editions and an image filter about dressing up as “grannies”.

Children are also dressing up as 100-year-olds to mark their first “100 days of school”, an idea gaining popularity in Australia.

Is this all just harmless fun?

How stereotypes take hold

When I look at the older people in my life, or the patients I see as a geriatrician, I cannot imagine how to suck out the individual to formulate a “look”.

But Google “older person dress-ups” and you will find Pinterests and Wikihow pages doing just that.

Waistcoats, walking sticks, glasses and hunched backs are the key. If you’re a “granny”, don’t forget a shawl and tinned beans. You can buy “old lady” wigs or an “old man” moustache and bushy eyebrows.

This depiction of how older people look and behave is a stereotype. And if dressing up as an older person is an example, such stereotypes are all around us.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why don’t grown-ups play like kids?

What’s the harm?

There is some debate about whether stereotyping is intrinsically wrong, and if it is, why. But there is plenty of research about the harms of age stereotypes or ageism. That’s harm to current older people and harm to future older people.

The World Health Organization defines ageism as:

the stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel) and discrimination (how we act) towards others or ourselves based on age.

Ageism contributes to social isolation, reduced health and life expectancy and costs economies billions of dollars globally.

When it comes to health, the impact of negative stereotypes and beliefs about ageing may be even more harmful than the discrimination itself.

In laboratory studies, older people perform worse than expected on tasks such as memory or thinking after being shown negative stereotypes about ageing. This may be due to a “stereotype threat”. This is when a person’s performance is impaired because they are worried about confirming a negative stereotype about the group they belong to. In other words, they perform less well because they’re worried about acting “old”.

Another theory is “stereotype embodiment”. This is where people absorb negative stereotypes throughout their life and come to believe decline is an inevitable consequence of ageing. This leads to biological, psychological and physiological changes that create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I have seen this in my clinic with people who do well, until they realise they’re an older person – a birthday, a fall, a revelation when they look in the mirror. Then, they stop going out, stop exercising, stop seeing their friends.

Evidence for “stereotype embodiment” comes from studies that show people with more negative views about ageing are more likely to have higher levels of stress hormones (such as cortisol and C-reactive protein) and are less likely to engage in health behaviours, such as exercising and eating healthy foods.

Younger adults with negative views about ageing are more likely to have a heart attack up to about 40 years later. People with the most negative attitudes towards ageing have a lower life expectancy by as much as 7.5 years.

Children are particularly susceptible to absorbing stereotypes, a process that starts in early childhood.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why do people get old?

Ageism is all around us

One in two people have ageist views, so tackling ageism is complicated given it is socially acceptable and normalised.

Think of all the birthday cards and jokes about ageing or phrases like “geezer” and “old duck”. Assuming a person (including yourself) is “too old” for something. Older people say it is harder to find work and they face discrimination in health care.

Read more:
Giving out flowers on TikTok: is this a ‘random act of kindness’ or just benevolent ageism?

How can we reduce ageism?

We can reduce ageism through laws, policies and education. But we can also reduce it via intergenerational contact, where older people and younger people come together. This helps break down the segregation that allows stereotypes to fester. Think of the TV series Old People’s Home for 4 Year Olds or the follow-up Old People’s Home for Teenagers. More simply, children can hang out with their older relatives, neighbours and friends.

We can also challenge a negative view of ageing. What if we allowed kids to imagine their lives as grandparents and 100-year-olds as freely as they view their current selves? What would be the harm in that?

Lisa Mitchell is affiliated with the Australian Labor Party.
Opinions are my own and do not represent the views of my affilitated universities or health care employer.

– ref. Kids dressing up as frail older people is harmless fun, right? No, it’s ageist, whatever Bluey says – https://theconversation.com/kids-dressing-up-as-frail-older-people-is-harmless-fun-right-no-its-ageist-whatever-bluey-says-212607

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

Misinformation is circulating about recommendations concerning the Reserve Bank board made by the RBA Review, of which I was a member.

Among the claims are that the new monetary policy board we have proposed would “weaken” incoming governor Michele Bullock’s power over interest rates, and that giving part-time appointees majority control over important decisions would be a “dangerous mistake”.

The claims need to be corrected.

The Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia, conducted between July 2022 and March 2023, made 51 recommendations, which Treasurer Jim Chalmers is now considering.

The review consulted 137 people, including 27 current or past board members, conducted 224 meetings, surveyed 1,100 people, received 117 submissions, and met with 31 community, labour, business and industry groups and 14 former and current politicians.

We recommended that interest rate and other monetary policy decisions by the Reserve Bank be undertaken by an expert board with diverse perspectives and knowledge.

This board would be responsible only for monetary policy decisions and oversight of the bank’s contribution to financial system stability. Governance would be taken care of by a separate corporate governance board.

Our recommendations would not involve handing power to outsiders, as some commentators have claimed. In fact, the changes don’t deviate too much from what is already in the legislation. Here’s why.

Board composition

The Reserve Bank board consists of nine members: the Reserve Bank governor, deputy governor, secretary to the Treasury, and six external members who serve part-time.

Our recommended monetary policy board would have exactly the same composition.

Read more:
RBA revolution: how Chalmers will recraft the bank for the 21st century

Board responsibilities

Former Reserve Bank governor Ian Macfarlane told the Australian Financial Review the existing board has traditionally acted more like an “advisory” committee and less like a voting board, allowing the governor and bank insiders to retain control of monetary policy.

Yet just-departed governor Philip Lowe said earlier this month that the proposed model is “exactly” the same as the model the Reserve Bank has had for 60 years.

As Lowe put it:

it has never been the case that the governor just comes with a recommendation and just forces it through, the decisions are genuinely taken by nine people together, and we discuss issues from every angle.

Both views were what we heard in our consultations.

Voting is specified by the Reserve Bank Act. It requires that questions arising at board meetings be “decided by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting”.

Our recommendations don’t change that. What they do is better enable the external members to deliver responsible monetary policy, by ensuring they have expertise in things such as macroeconomics, the financial system and labour markets.

We believe this mix of skills will be necessary amid the challenges and uncertainty Australia is likely to face in the future.

We expect more economic disruption from events such as the war in Ukraine, pandemics and climate events. Meanwhile, the rise of factors such as gig work and artificial intelligence will bring changes in the labour market.

We recommended that each external member of the monetary policy board be given direct access to Reserve Bank staff. These staff could provide extra analysis or briefings on the costs, benefits and risks of various possible strategies.

Board appointments

Currently, the treasurer appoints Reserve Bank board members from a “register of eminent candidates of the highest integrity” maintained by the treasury secretary and Reserve Bank governor.

The existing members are doubtless outstanding leaders in their fields. But our review could not identify the criteria used to determine who is added to the register.

We recommended a transparent and strategic appointment process.

Advertisements would be posted asking for expressions of interest, pointing to a set of required skills and experience. A panel comprising the treasury secretary, the governor and a third party would then prepare a shortlist for the treasurer.

We recommended the external members be appointed for a term of five years with a potential one-year extension. End dates would be staggered, ensuring the entire board could not be replaced within a single term of government.

A board of academics?

Despite claims that our review “envisages a committee of academic economists”, the review defined expertise broadly. It said that although the change would “very likely mean more academic expertise” on the board, other experts were likely to include business leaders and professional economists.

Governor outnumbered?

Macfarlane expressed concern that our recommendations would leave the governor “outnumbered” by six part-timers, meaning she would have to defend decisions she disagreed with.

Notwithstanding the fact the board’s composition wouldn’t change from its current makeup, we don’t have to worry about the governor.

I am confident Michele Bullock has what it takes to navigate a tough board and the associated public commentary, as does any strong leader.

Australians need to be sure the very best decisions are being made. Our future depends on it.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Michele Bullock’s appointment as Reserve Bank Governor

Renee Fry-McKibbin has received funding from the Australian Research Council for research on the Australian macroeconomy and a per diem for her work on the Review.

– ref. No, the RBA review won’t mean handing the bank’s decisions to part-time outsiders – https://theconversation.com/no-the-rba-review-wont-mean-handing-the-banks-decisions-to-part-time-outsiders-214030

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamal Abarashi, Lecturer, International Business, Strategy and Entrepreneurship Department, Auckland University of Technology

Maintaining a tidy home is a never-ending challenge. And tidiness goes beyond aesthetics – it contributes to a person’s mental wellbeing.

So what are the best strategies for creating and maintaining order?

A growing body of research into tidiness and decluttering, including our own, might offer helpful insights.

As part of our ongoing research project, we analysed popular cleaning and decluttering videos on YouTube as well thousands of the comments below them. We also conducted 18 in-depth interviews. The goal is to better understand how people create order in their homes – and how they keep it that way.

As our research shows, sustaining tidiness is about being both systematic and adaptable.

Life can be the enemy of tidiness

From an early age, people are primed to shop.

But this culture of shopping clashes with the desire for tidy and clutter-free homes.

Family members with different tidiness standards and life stages can also disrupt efforts to create order.

Read more:
Swedish death cleaning: how to declutter your home and life

As one young couple said:

We’ve always wanted that really amazing organised home but we could just never really get it that way and we would feel really discouraged when we tried and then just a few days later it would just go right back to messy.

Some interviewees described feeling like prisoners of their possessions.

Another young couple with two kids explained:

As more children arrived and our income increased, more stuff made its way into our home. We have never been hoarders, but at some point I looked around and realised that we were spending our time and resources on acquiring stuff, cleaning and maintaining stuff, storing stuff, moving stuff out of the way to get to other stuff.

And the very organisation systems used to maintain tidy and clutter-free homes can contribute to disorganisation.

One professional woman we spoke with described establishing a system where every piece of clothing had a designated spot in their wardrobe based on colour, type and season. Ultimately, this became too difficult to maintain, undermining the whole approach.

So what can be done to maintain a tidy home?

4 strategies for keeping your home tidy

Our research so far has helped us identify four key strategies to achieve long-term tidiness.

1: Simplify

To achieve lasting tidiness, you need to simplify the way you organise your home.

This can be done by eliminating spaces or areas in your home that encourage further organisation and classification of possessions – like extra dressers or storage units.

Read more:
Clean your way to happiness: unpacking the decluttering craze

One retired couple we spoke with did just that.

We had this dresser […] that was basically always inviting more and more stuff to be put in it. So, it was always pretty hard to have the space we always wanted. Well then we got rid of the dresser […] and once we did that we really saw the space open up and it became really nice and clear.

Fewer dedicated spaces mean fewer opportunities for clutter to accumulate, ultimately making it easier to maintain a tidy living environment.

2: Create groups

Another effective strategy for long-term tidiness is to simplify how you categorise and group things in your home.

Replacing several small decor items with one larger one creates fewer distinct categories of things around the house, for example.

Read more:
So you’ve KonMari’ed your life: here’s how to throw your stuff out

One mother of two kids we spoke with switched out several small teddy bears in her lounge for one big one.

A married couple we interviewed grouped smaller knickknacks onto a tray, making it easier to keep track of things and to maintain order. Having all of their knickknacks in one place also made it easier to clean.

3: Manage numbers

To sustain long-term tidiness, it’s also essential to control the total number of possessions in your home.

This can be achieved through various methods, such as encouraging sharing among family members and friends or following the “one in, one out” rule – for every new item you bring into the house, you get rid of an old item.

Instead of buying rarely used items, like a camping tent, you could rent it when needed.

Another married couple we spoke with described a cluttered kitchen with multiple pots for different cooking jobs. Looking to reduce the clutter, they switched to using a multipurpose cast iron skillet – one item that can do many jobs.

A family with two kids spoke about sharing hair products to reduce the clutter in the bathroom.

We used to buy a bunch of different things but now we use the same thing for our hair so the product [my husband] uses, I use. We use the same shampoo. We actually used to buy different shampoo. So basically, we just simplified our product […] this brought the products down to half and now we have so much more peace of mind and the bathroom is so much easier to maintain.

4: Adapt and evolve

Maintaining a tidy home requires flexibility and a willingness to re-evaluate and adjust your routines in response to the ever-changing circumstances of your life.

A retired couple we interviewed spoke about the process of moving to a smaller place. This required getting rid of a lot of things and changing the way they lived to maximise the use of what remained.

In the end, tidiness and decluttering are ongoing processes that require dedication and flexibility.

By embracing these strategies for long-term tidiness, a person can create and maintain organised spaces that enhance their lives, fostering not only physical order but also mental clarity and peace.

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. Feeling controlled by the chaos in your home? 4 strategies to rein in clutter and maintain tidiness long-term – https://theconversation.com/feeling-controlled-by-the-chaos-in-your-home-4-strategies-to-rein-in-clutter-and-maintain-tidiness-long-term-212689

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kieran Hegarty, Research Fellow (Automated Decision-Making Systems), RMIT University

The internet is growing old. While the roots of the internet date back to the 1960s, the popular internet – the one that 99% of Australians now use – is a child of the 1990s.

In the space of a decade, the internet moved from a tool used by a handful of researchers to something most Australians used – to talk to friends and family, find out tomorrow’s weather, follow a game, organise a protest, or read the news.

The popular internet grows up

This year marks 30 years since the release of Mosaic, the first browser that integrated text and graphics, helping to popularise the web: the global information network we know today.

Google is now 25, Wikipedia turned 21 last year, and Facebook will soon be 20. These anniversaries were marked with events, feature articles and birthday cakes.

But a local milestone passed with little fanfare: 30 years ago, the first Australian websites started to appear.

The web made the internet intelligible to people without specialist technical knowledge. Hyperlinks made it easy to navigate from page to page and site to site, while the underlying HTML code was relatively easy for newcomers to learn.

Australia gets connected

In late 1992, the first Australian web server was installed. The Bioinformatics Hypermedia Server was set up by David Green at the Australian National University in Canberra, who launched his LIFE website that October. LIFE later claimed to be “Australia’s first information service on the World Wide Web”.

Not that many Australians would have seen it at the time. In the early 1990s, the Australian internet was a university-led research network.

The Australian Academic and Research Network (AARNet) connected to the rest of the world in 1989, through a connection between the University of Hawaii and the University of Melbourne. Within a year, most Australian universities and many research facilities were connected.

Read more:
How Australia connected to the internet 25 years ago

The World Wide Web was invented by English computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee and launched in 1991. At the time, it was just one of many communication protocols for creating, sharing and accessing information.

Researchers connected to AARNet were experimenting with tools like Gopher and Internet Relay Chat alongside the web.

Even as a research network, the internet was deeply social. Robert Elz, one of the computer scientists who connected Australia to the internet in 1989, became well-known for his online commentaries on cricket matches. Science fiction fans set up mailing lists.

These uses hinted at what was to come, as everyday Australians got online.

The birth of the public internet

Throughout 1994, AARNet enabled private companies to buy network capacity and connect users outside research contexts. Ownership of the Australian internet was transferred to Telstra in 1995, as private consumers and small businesses began to move online.

With the release of web browsers like Mosaic and Netscape, and the increase in dial-up connections, the number of Australian websites grew rapidly.

At the start of 1995, there were a couple of hundred. When the Australian internet went public just six months later, they numbered in the thousands. By the end of the decade there were hundreds of thousands.

Everyday Australians get connected

As everyday Australians went online, students, activists, artists and fans began to create a diverse array of sites that took advantage of the web’s possibilities.

The “cyberfeminist zine” geekgirl, created by Rosie X. Cross from her home in inner-west Sydney, combined a “Do It Yourself” punk ethos with the global distribution the web made possible. It was part of a diverse and flourishing feminist culture online.

Australia was home to the first fully online doctorate, Simon Pockley’s 1995 PhD thesis Flight of Ducks.

Art students presented poetry as animated gifs, labelling them “cyberpoetry”. Aspiring science fiction writers published multimedia stories on the web.

The Australian internet goes mainstream

Political parties, government and media also moved online.

The Age Online was the first major newspaper website in Australia. Launched in February 1995, the site beat Australia’s own national broadcaster by six months and the New York Times by a year.

Though The Age was first, ABC Online and ninemsn – linked to the Hotmail email service – were the most popular.

During the 1998 federal election, ABC Online saw over two million hits per week. Political parties, candidates and interest groups were quick to establish a web presence, kicking off the era of online political campaigning.

The web also became big business. By the end of the decade, Australia had its own internet entrepreneurs, including a future prime minister. Established media companies dominated web traffic.

“Internet fever” was sweeping Australian businesses, leading to an “internet stocks frenzy”. The internet had gone mainstream and the “dot com bubble” was rapidly inflating.

Looking back on the decade the popular internet was born

The public, open, commercial internet is now a few decades old. Given current concerns about the state of the internet – from the power of large digital platforms to the proliferation of disinformation – it might be tempting to look at the 1990s as a “golden age” for the internet.

However, we must resist looking back with rose-coloured glasses. What is needed is critical scrutiny of the conditions that underpinned internet use and attention to how a diversity of people incorporated technology in their lives and helped transformed it in the process. This will help us understand how we got the internet we have and how we might achieve the internet we want.

Understanding online history can be particularly difficult because many sites have long-since disappeared. However, archiving efforts like those of the Internet Archive and the National Library of Australia make it possible to look back and see how much things have changed, what concerns are familiar, and remember the everyday people who helped transform the internet from a niche academic network to a mass medium.

Read more:
How the Internet was born: from the ARPANET to the Internet

Kieran Hegarty receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology through a Digital Humanism Junior Visiting Fellowship at the Institute for Human Sciences.

– ref. 30 years of the web down under: how Australians made the early internet their own – https://theconversation.com/30-years-of-the-web-down-under-how-australians-made-the-early-internet-their-own-212542

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

At age 92, media mogul Rupert Murdoch is stepping down as chairman of Fox Corporation and News Corp but will stay on in the role of chairman emeritus, presumably to help guide his eldest son Lachlan as the new head of the firm.

In many ways, the news was inevitable. The company is clearly planning its succession and how it manages Rupert’s decline. It has one eye on the market and one on ensuring the company maintains its direction.

But why now, and where to from here for the company? And what will Rupert Murdoch be remembered for?

Read more:
The first biography of Lachlan Murdoch provides some insights, but leaves important questions unanswered

Why now?

Rupert’s departure was always going to come in one of two ways: either Rupert dropping off the perch or him leaving on this own terms. He has opted for the latter.

This means the company has chosen to manage the transition in a market-favourable way.

The transition to Lachlan looks, for the moment, to be well and truly secure. This gives him the chance under the leadership of Rupert to guide the company in the direction he – or Rupert – wants.

Rupert says he is in robust health but he was keen to hang on as long as possible. So, perhaps today’s news suggests his health is declining. We can only speculate but the man is, after all, 92.

Would the recent lawsuits have played a role?

Fox has been subject to several very expensive lawsuits in recent years, which caused a lot of turmoil internally. At the cost of US$787.5 million, Fox settled a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems over baseless claims made about its voting machines in the 2020 US presidential election. A different voting technology company, Smartmatic, is also suing.

But I doubt this played a huge role in Rupert stepping down because, in the end, a billion in lawsuits is nothing to a company that a few years ago made $70 billion by selling just some of its assets to Disney.

This is the price the company pays for its take-no-prisoners approach. It is proud of its uncompromising editorial stance, which is designed to pander to its right-wing audience. And there is no indication Lachlan will take it in a different direction.

What next for Lachlan, with Rupert as chairman emeritus?

In a sense, Rupert is not really stepping down. His new papal-like title of chairman emeritus recognises he will struggle to let go. But the new role is also about calming the market and saying, “Don’t worry, I haven’t gone away; I am still here and I have my hand on Lachlan’s shoulder.”

The best indication of Lachlan’s future stewardship of News Corp is his recent behaviour. He was at the helm of Fox News during Donald Trump’s presidential years and the immediate aftermath, when Fox News did enormous damage in its reporting on the 2020 election result. He was at the helm when Fox was making those baseless claims about Dominion Voting Systems. He had ample opportunity to guide the company in a different direction, but he didn’t.

So I think we can expect News Corp will continue to be the zealous right-wing media company it currently is.

How might this affect the 2024 US election?

News Corp has finally seen what millions of US voters saw at the 2020 election, which was that Trump was ultimately destructive as a leader. Now, outlets like Fox News are umming and ahhing about whether to back him. Some at Fox are clearly reluctant to let go of their adoration of Trump while others are disappointed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis isn’t emerging as a viable challenger.

If Trump continues to be the most popular Republican candidate, Fox will probably fall into line and support him, albeit with less enthusiasm than last time.

There is a sense of confusion within Fox about whom to back and where to stand, which reflects the chaos in US politics more broadly.

Read more:
From the earliest years of his career, the young Rupert Murdoch ruthlessly pursued his interests

So what’s Rupert’s legacy?

It comes down to a ledger. Has this man done more harm or good in his life in the media?

On the good side, he has been a champion of newspapers. He has employed thousands of journalists and his outlets have often practised good public-interest journalism.

But I am afraid I believe the good is outweighed by all the harm done on Rupert’s watch.

His news media empire is fundamentally antisocial in the way it operates. I believe it’s caused so much harm to so many people along the way, and that cannot go unacknowledged. From the UK phone hacking scandal and beat ups to climate denial and the demonisation of minorities, News Corp can be counted on to dumb down complexity, make issues binary and turn one side against the other.

He has damaged democracy and civil discourse and journalism itself. The behaviour of News Corp has on occasions been reprehensible, for which I think Rupert must take the blame.

Read more:
Rupert Murdoch: how a 22-year-old ‘zealous Laborite’ turned into a tabloid tsar

Andrew Dodd is on the Public Interest Journalism Initiative’s academic research advisory group. He is also a former media writer for The Australian, Crikey and the ABC.

– ref. Why is Rupert Murdoch stepping aside now and what does it mean for the company? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-rupert-murdoch-stepping-aside-now-and-what-does-it-mean-for-the-company-214141

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Mitchell, Geriatrician working in clinical practice. PhD Candidate at The University of Melbourne studying ethics and ageism in health care. Affiliate lecturer, Deakin University

A child once approached me, hunched over, carrying a vacuum cleaner like a walking stick. In a wobbly voice, he asked:

Do you want to play grannies?

The idea came from the children’s TV show Bluey, which has episodes, a book, magazine editions and an image filter about dressing up as “grannies”.

Children are also dressing up as 100-year-olds to mark their first “100 days of school”, an idea gaining popularity in Australia.

Is this all just harmless fun?

How stereotypes take hold

When I look at the older people in my life, or the patients I see as a geriatrician, I cannot imagine how to suck out the individual to formulate a “look”.

But Google “older person dress-ups” and you will find Pinterests and Wikihow pages doing just that.

Waistcoats, walking sticks, glasses and hunched backs are the key. If you’re a “granny”, don’t forget a shawl and tinned beans. You can buy “old lady” wigs or an “old man” moustache and bushy eyebrows.

This depiction of how older people look and behave is a stereotype. And if dressing up as an older person is an example, such stereotypes are all around us.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why don’t grown-ups play like kids?

What’s the harm?

There is some debate about whether stereotyping is intrinsically wrong, and if it is, why. But there is plenty of research about the harms of age stereotypes or ageism. That’s harm to current older people and harm to future older people.

The World Health Organization defines ageism as:

the stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel) and discrimination (how we act) towards others or ourselves based on age.

Ageism contributes to social isolation, reduced health and life expectancy and costs economies billions of dollars globally.

When it comes to health, the impact of negative stereotypes and beliefs about ageing may be even more harmful than the discrimination itself.

In laboratory studies, older people perform worse than expected on tasks such as memory or thinking after being shown negative stereotypes about ageing. This may be due to a “stereotype threat”. This is when a person’s performance is impaired because they are worried about confirming a negative stereotype about the group they belong to. In other words, they perform less well because they’re worried about acting “old”.

Another theory is “stereotype embodiment”. This is where people absorb negative stereotypes throughout their life and come to believe decline is an inevitable consequence of ageing. This leads to biological, psychological and physiological changes that create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I have seen this in my clinic with people who do well, until they realise they’re an older person – a birthday, a fall, a revelation when they look in the mirror. Then, they stop going out, stop exercising, stop seeing their friends.

Evidence for “stereotype embodiment” comes from studies that show people with more negative views about ageing are more likely to have higher levels of stress hormones (such as cortisol and C-reactive protein) and are less likely to engage in health behaviours, such as exercising and eating healthy foods.

Younger adults with negative views about ageing are more likely to have a heart attack up to about 40 years later. People with the most negative attitudes towards ageing have a lower life expectancy by as much as 7.5 years.

Children are particularly susceptible to absorbing stereotypes, a process that starts in early childhood.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why do people get old?

Ageism is all around us

One in two people have ageist views, so tackling ageism is complicated given it is socially acceptable and normalised.

Think of all the birthday cards and jokes about ageing or phrases like “geezer” and “old duck”. Assuming a person (including yourself) is “too old” for something. Older people say it is harder to find work and they face discrimination in health care.

Read more:
Giving out flowers on TikTok: is this a ‘random act of kindness’ or just benevolent ageism?

How can we reduce ageism?

We can reduce ageism through laws, policies and education. But we can also reduce it via intergenerational contact, where older people and younger people come together. This helps break down the segregation that allows stereotypes to fester. Think of the TV series Old People’s Home for 4 Year Olds or the follow-up Old People’s Home for Teenagers. More simply, children can hang out with their older relatives, neighbours and friends.

We can also challenge a negative view of ageing. What if we allowed kids to imagine their lives as grandparents and 100-year-olds as freely as they view their current selves? What would be the harm in that?

Lisa Mitchell is affiliated with the Australian Labor Party.
Opinions are my own and do not represent the views of my affilitated universities or health care employer.

– ref. Kids dressing up as older people is harmless fun, right? No, it’s ageist, whatever Bluey says – https://theconversation.com/kids-dressing-up-as-older-people-is-harmless-fun-right-no-its-ageist-whatever-bluey-says-212607

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Turney, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research, University of Technology Sydney

2023 is proving to be a year of climate and weather extremes. Record-busting global air and ocean temperatures, unprecedented low levels of Antarctic sea ice, and devastating fires and floods have been reported across the world.

Less discussed by the world media is the continuing rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases driving these changes. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is at a level not seen since the hothouse world of the Pliocene, 3 million years ago. On top of that, an El Niño event is now likely, so widespread extreme events may intensify in coming months.

Despite the changes we are seeing, global efforts to cut emissions fall well short of what’s needed to keep heating to less than 2℃, let alone the more ambitious Paris Agreement target of 1.5℃. This creates an urgent need for the purposeful removal of atmospheric CO₂ as well as cuts in emissions.

In a recent article in Nature, we argue for a different approach to pricing carbon. It should take into account how it is removed from the atmosphere, for how long, and with what confidence. This will help fund the most promising technologies for reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

À lire aussi :
Devastatingly low Antarctic sea ice may be the ‘new abnormal’, study warns

Carbon removal is on the agenda

The United Nations hosted a “no-nonsense” Climate Ambition Summit in New York this week with the aim of accelerating the global transition away from carbon. This must be done to avoid breaching 2℃ of global heating relative to the pre-industrial era.

Two strategies are being pursued:

1. carbon emission reductions
2. carbon dioxide removal (CDR), also called “negative emissions”.

At COP26 in 2021, global resolutions on cutting emissions drove the push for “net zero” across nations, cities and sectors. However, some worldwide activities, including aviation and heavy industry, face challenges eliminating emissions. Carbon credits have become the main way to offset their remaining emissions.

The dilemma lies in the nature of carbon credits. Most are allocated for so-called “avoidance” measures. A prime example is not clearing forest, which has come under intense scrutiny.

And these measures do nothing about the existing excess carbon dioxide.

À lire aussi :
‘Worthless’ forest carbon offsets risk exacerbating climate change

A big change in our thinking is needed. The emphasis must shift from emission “avoidance” to “removal” offsets that actively pull carbon from the atmosphere. So how do we tackle the monumental challenge of reducing atmospheric CO₂?

What’s needed is a shift from avoidance to verifiable carbon dioxide removal. Almost all current removal efforts come from traditional land management. Less than 1% comes from innovative removal technologies.

Removal technologies include:

• biochar – where carbon from plant material is sequestered as charcoal and stored in soil
• direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) – which directly removes CO₂ from the air and stores it in geological formations.

A major advance at COP26 was to work out the projected demand and market trajectory for carbon offsets. Offset credits play a vital role in advancing CO₂ removal technologies and developing carbon markets.

Another key goal was to formulate a carbon trading rulebook. The resulting Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets predicts demand for carbon offsets will grow tenfold by 2030 and 50-fold by 2050.

À lire aussi :
Stripping carbon from the atmosphere might be needed to avoid dangerous warming – but it remains a deeply uncertain prospect

So what are the obstacles?

We identify a potential bottleneck. Developing, testing and scaling up CO₂ removal technologies takes time. This means a lag in supply could stymie the rapidly growing demand for carbon dioxide removal.

Another problem is that the current carbon offset market offers a flat rate, no matter the quality or effectiveness of the CO₂ removal method. There is an urgent need for a tiered market that values high-quality, proven CO₂ removal methods. This will provide an incentive to fast-track their use.

The carbon offset market’s pricing mechanism is a stumbling block. The price for offsetting a tonne of CO₂ is in the range US$10–100. Cheaper avoidance strategies, such as not clearing forests, heavily influence this price.

The existing pricing falls short when we consider the costs of CO₂ removal technologies, which can exceed US$200 per tonne removed.

The prevailing metric, simplifying everything to “one tonne of carbon”, doesn’t consider the complexities of CO₂ removal. Each method has its own specifics about how long it can store carbon, how reliably it can be verified and the potential risks or side effects. Shoehorning such a varied field into a single metric stifles innovation in CO₂ removal.

À lire aussi :
Net zero by 2050? Too late. Australia must aim for 2035

What are the solutions?

Understanding the market’s resistance to intricate metrics, we propose a more nuanced yet approachable two-step solution:

1. Shift in metrics: change the standard from a “carbon tonne” to a “carbon tonne year”. This recognises the longevity of CO₂ removal methods and rewards those that store carbon longer. Such a metric connects directly with efforts to cut emissions.

2. A mandatory warranty: each “carbon tonne year” requires a warranty from the seller to vouch for the method’s reliability (verification) and its overall safety (assessing risks and side effects).

These changes will foster a system that appropriately values CO₂ removal methods that are long-lasting, reliable and safe. It creates an incentive to develop and use these methods.

In our Nature article, we advocate a structured ten-year plan. This timeframe is crucial for maturing the markets, establishing effective regulatory frameworks and fine-tuning verification.

It’s essential to prepare for the evolution and scaling up of carbon dioxide removal. A decade provides a realistic window to develop the processes needed to reach net zero.

À lire aussi :
Net-zero, carbon-neutral, carbon-negative … confused by all the carbon jargon? Then read this

The magnitude of this task cannot be overstated. In just a few decades, CO₂ removal must operate on a colossal scale, comparable to global food production.

The New York summit has set the stage for the COP28 meeting in Dubai later this year. An ambitious long-term global strategy can still provide a sustainable future within the heating limits set in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

It’s time to get real about carbon.

Chris Turney receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a scientific adviser and holds shares in cleantech biographite company, CarbonScape (https://www.carbonscape.com). Chris is affiliated with the virtual Climate Recovery Institute (https://climaterecoveryinstitute.com.au).

Lennart Bach receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Carbon to Sea Initiative. He is a scientific adviser of Submarine (https://www.submarine.earth/), which develops tools for monitoring, reporting and verification of marine CO₂ removal. Lennart is affiliated with the virtual Climate Recovery Institute (https://climaterecoveryinstitute.com.au).

Philip Boyd receives funding from the Australian Research Council and he is affiliated with the virtual Climate Recovery Institute.

– ref. Carbon removal: why ambitious ‘no nonsense’ plans are vital to limit global heating to 2℃ – https://theconversation.com/carbon-removal-why-ambitious-no-nonsense-plans-are-vital-to-limit-global-heating-to-2-212462

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dianne Rodger, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, University of Adelaide

On September 22 2003, Adelaide hip-hop group the Hilltop Hoods released The Calling.

They had been making music for over ten years, but this, their third full-length album, would be their first to have mainstream success.

They hoped to sell 3,000 records. Those expectations were quickly eclipsed.

The album was launched with a sold-out show at Planet nightclub. Two tracks (The Nosebleed Section and Dumb Enough) gained significant radio play. The Hoods used this publicity to grow their fanbase through touring.

They became the first Australian hip-hop artists to reach gold status, selling 35,000 copies. By 2006, it was platinum: 70,000 copies sold. Since 2003, all of the Hoods’ albums have reached platinum or higher.

Twenty years since its release, The Calling is still a mainstay on “best of” Australian hip-hop lists.

Rapper Briggs describes the album as “the icebreaker”:

This opened the door for the possibilities. It wasn’t a piss-take, it wasn’t anything but real hip-hop music.

Read more:
Hip-hop at 50: 7 essential listens to celebrate rap’s widespread influence

Bringing hip-hop to Australia

Today, the Hoods are one of the most successful music acts in Australia.

In 2022, they were the third-most-streamed Australian artist on Spotify behind The Kid Laroi and the Wiggles. This year, they have toured Australia, the UK and Europe with many shows selling out – as have all their upcoming shows in Aotearoa New Zealand. In January, they had their 23rd entry into the Triple J Hottest 100 – taking the mantle for most entries ever from Powderfinger and the Foo Fighters.

Rewind to the 1990s. The Hoods were performing at parties and small venues as part of Adelaide’s underground hip-hop scene. Hip-hop was decidedly unpopular. Australians (especially white Australians) who produced or consumed it were often the target of jokes both from peers and in the media.

Hip-Hop was created by people of colour in New York in the 1970s. The genre had a short boom in Australia in the early 1980s, when young people learnt about it through American media, travel and migration.

Australians were introduced to hip-hop culture as a package made up of the “four elements”: MCing (or rapping), DJing, breaking and graffiti. Breaking and graffiti were immediately taken up in Australia, but it took more time for young people to start recording music.

Still, the culture was often defined by the media as a novelty and dismissed as “too American”.

Def Wish Cast from western Sydney was established in 1989. They were one of Australia’s first major hip-hop groups and their pioneering music inspired others – including the Hilltop Hoods when they formed in suburban Adelaide in 1996.

Forging a path

By the early 2000s, there were signs the cultural cringe connected to Australian hip-hop was lessening. The first ARIA awards for hip-hop music went to 1200 Techniques’ Karma in 2002, two years before the ceremony had a category for Best Urban Album.

But hip-hop music still struggled for support from major record companies, radio producers and the general public. Artists had to hustle to promote themselves. Hip-hop practitioners took on roles as managers, journalists and record label owners to create their own opportunities.

The Calling was the Hoods’ first release through independent label Obese Records. It ranges from politically conscious to party anthems. The title track compares hip-hop to a religious vocation: the lyrics suggest the Hoods have been called to be hip-hop artists in the same way that other people are called by their faith.

Other tracks on the album are more light-hearted. The battle-rap-inspired Dumb Enough calls out anyone “stupid” enough to challenge the Hoods; The Certificate is a rowdy posse track involving the Hoods and other members of Adelaide collective Certified Wise.

The Hoods’ breakout song was The Nosebleed Section, which came ninth in Triple J’s Hottest 100 in 2003 and 17th in the Hottest 100 of All Time in 2009.

Producer and DJ Rob Shaker said the song “changed the landscape of hip-hop in this country”. Mark Pollard, founder of Australian hip-hop magazine Stealth, told me the Hoods were “national icons” who “helped turn an amateur industry into a cottage industry into a professional industry”.

As well as paving the way for future artists, the song and the album were an entry point for new fans, who then learnt about other local artists, such as Muph & Plutonic, Bliss n Eso, Layla, Drapht and Downsyde.

Following the calling

The success of The Calling meant the Hoods could quit their day jobs and concentrate on music full-time. In turn, other artists were able to imagine a future where hip-hop was their career.

But the band wasn’t without controversy. For some commentators, their success signalled how hip-hop was being connected to a white patriotic Aussie identity. Radio host and record producer Hau Latukefu says this new wave of hip-hop fans did not “understand – and respect – that hip-hop is a Black art form”.

Australia’s hip-hop industry has also been called out for racism within the scene. It is only now that hip-hop artists from diverse backgrounds – who have always played a key role in Australia’s hip-hop community – are achieving more mainstream success.

The industry is changing in other ways. Journalists and artists themselves are now having open conversations about the historical marginalisation of women, non-binary and trans artists.

In the past few years, new podcasts, autobiographies, graffiti books and documentaries have emerged telling hip-hop stories from different perspectives.

Members of the scene are looking back on the past and thinking about what the future of hip-hop in Australia might be. The Hoods themselves continue to release new music, including songs like Show Business that reflect on their experiences in the industry. Hip-Hop culture in Australia continues to thrive as new generations are answering the calling.

Read more:
How hip-hop learned to call out homophobia – or at least apologize for it

Dianne Rodger is the author of the book The Calling (Bloomsbury 33 1/3).

– ref. For the people in the nosebleed section: the Hilltop Hoods’ The Calling at 20 – https://theconversation.com/for-the-people-in-the-nosebleed-section-the-hilltop-hoods-the-calling-at-20-212266

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Leach, Professor, Politics & International Relations, Swinburne University of Technology

One of the claims advanced by the “no” campaign in the upcoming referendum on the Voice to Parliament is that “there is no comparable constitutional body like this anywhere in the world”.

Yet across the globe there are many political institutions that seek to guarantee Indigenous peoples are heard.

Broadly speaking, they fall into four different categories:

• reserved parliamentary seats

• devolved self-governance

• traditional authority councils and

• Indigenous advisory bodies (the proposed Voice fits in this category).

Surprisingly, the current debate on the Voice to Parliament seems to have to missed the fact Torres Strait Islanders have effectively had an elected voice to both federal and state governments for almost 30 years.

Besides being a form of devolved self-governance, the Torres Strait Regional Authority is empowered to “advise the federal minister for Indigenous affairs on matters relating to Torres Strait Islanders”.

In fact, the proposed Voice to Parliament is one of the more modest proposals for Indigenous governance systems around the world.

Read more:
Australians will vote in a referendum on October 14. What do you need to know?

Reserved seats

Several countries have reserved seats for Indigenous peoples, as a voice within the parliament itself. This is different to the Voice, which proposes an external advisory body to the Australian parliament.

In New Zealand, Māori currently have seven reserved seats in their parliament of 120. Māori voters can choose to enrol to vote for reserved seats, or the general roll. Māori MPs can also be elected on the general roll.

The Treaty of Waitangi is considered a key part of New Zealand’s unwritten constitution.

Because of this, Māori representation is guaranteed – although the questions of whether reserved seats are politically or constitutionally guaranteed is a vexed and technical one.

In Asia, Taiwan provides a clear example of constitutionally enshrined Indigenous representation. Taiwan is a settler colonial society, with a Han Chinese majority, and numerous Austronesian language-speaking First Nations people, with a similar population proportion to Australia, at 3%. Taiwan has had reserved seats for Indigenous peoples since the 1970s. The current allocation of six seats was entrenched in the most recent round of constitutional amendments in 2005.

In Latin America, Bolivia has reserved seven of its 130 parliamentary seats for Indigenous peoples. The US state of Maine has had First Nations representation of two members since the 19th century. These members are able to contribute to debates, albeit without voting rights.

Read more:
The Voice to Parliament explained

Indigenous self-governance

Devolved self-governance involves the delegation of certain government powers to Indigenous communities themselves.

Notably, Australia’s own Torres Start Regional Authority falls in this category. Its 20 representatives, elected every four years, are tasked to “formulate, coordinate and implement programs for Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal people living within the region”.

Established in 1994, this authority survived the abolition of ATSIC in the Howard era in 2005. It has produced a regional economic development strategy, fisheries and environmental management policies, and advocated for better regional infrastructure.

Another key example of delegated self-government is Canada’s Nunavut Parliament of the Inuit people. This parliament has powers covering the administration of justice, education and local taxation. A number of First Nations in Canada have some transferred powers of self-governance.

The Sámi parliaments in Scandinavia are often cited as examples of Indigenous self-governance. These are the arguably the closest to Australia’s proposed Voice, as they have largely consultative roles. They advise national governments on issues of cultural maintenance, language and native land title. For example, the Sámi parliament of Norway is the “prime dialogue partner” for the Norwegian government in relation to Indigenous policy.

Both the reserved seats model and Indigenous self-governance model offer more substantial powers than those proposed for Australia’s Voice to Parliament.

The proposed Voice would not create a devolved decision-making body, nor a voice directly inside parliament. It would simply be an advisory body to the Australian parliament and key departments.

The model of devolved self-governance is more practicable where there are concentrated regional majorities of Indigenous peoples. Creating Indigenous representation is more challenging when minority populations geographically spread out.

This helps explain why the particular model of the Voice was proposed by the Uluru statement.

Read more:
No, the Voice proposal will not be ‘legally risky’. This misunderstands how constitutions work

Traditional authority councils

The third model is exemplified by several Pacific nations. Since independence, several Melanesian states have created Voice-style institutions to give traditional or customary authorities a voice to the government.

Examples include the Great Council of Chiefs in Fiji, which was temporarily abolished under former Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, but has now been restored. This institution appointed the president of Fiji, and several senators.

Vanuatu’s Malvatumauri is a body without formal powers in the parliamentary system, but which must be consulted about issues that affect traditional governance, including land title issues.

In New Caledonia, which has a large European settler population, the Customary Senate must be consulted on any bill concerning Indigenous Kanak identity or customary lands.

All these traditional authority councils advise the modern state on traditional affairs, but do not represent a particularly strong parallel with the Voice, and were developed for majority Indigenous societies.

Read more:
Explainer: what is executive government and what does it have to do with the Voice to Parliament?

Indigenous advisory bodies

Closer parallels to the Voice lie in other First Nations institutions in Canada and Taiwan. Taiwan’s Council of Indigenous Peoples has existed since 1996, and has its own minister in the government, effectively institutionalising a voice within the executive. It has played a key role in attempts to revitalise Indigenous languages.

Canada also has an Indigenous Advisory Committee to advise government on policy, with representatives from the three Indigenous groupings: First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

The Waitangi tribunal is also parallel, representing a “permanent commission of inquiry” on issues relating to potential breaches of the treaty, though without a veto power. The proposed Voice would strongly parallel these international examples.

One question that follows, is why Aboriginal people from the mainland should not enjoy the same rights as Torres Strait Islander people, who have had a form of voice to government via elected representatives for nearly 30 years. The Torres Start Regional Authority itself strongly supports the current Voice proposal, not least because of the large number of Torres Strait islanders who live on the mainland.

How, then, should we evaluate the “no” campaign’s claim there are no other constitutional bodies like this anywhere in the world? The statement lacks the clarity of information that would inform Australians in voting.

If the claim is that there is no institution exactly like the proposed Voice, then this is technically true. But this is primarily because the Voice is a modest proposal compared with most international examples. Even so, similar institutions can be found in our region and beyond, including those established through constitutional amendment.

If the claim is that there is no comparable form of Indigenous representation anywhere else in the world, the “no” campaign’s claim is clearly inaccurate.

The key point is that all these countries have bodies to ensure Indigenous voices are heard, and Australia currently does not.

The Voice has parallels in many countries with Indigenous populations, and Australia’s proposal is a very modest one by comparison.

Michael Leach has previously received funding from the Australia Research Council.

– ref. The Voice: how do other countries represent Indigenous voices in government? – https://theconversation.com/the-voice-how-do-other-countries-represent-indigenous-voices-in-government-212875

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martine Maron, Professor of Environmental Management, The University of Queensland

Have you heard the phrase “nature positive”? It’s suddenly everywhere.

The idea is simple: rather than continually erode the natural world, nature positive envisions a future with more nature than we have now.

Created by an environmental alliance, the nature positive concept has been embraced by industry, world leaders and conservationists.

Sudden popularity can be reason for caution. After all, we’ve seen well-intended ideas become cover for greenwashing before. And without strong guardrails, we risk nature positive being used as a distraction from continued failures.

Our new research points to three ways to make sure nature positive is truly positive for nature.

What’s the big idea?

According to the Nature Positive Initiative, “nature positive” aims to

halt and reverse nature loss measured from a baseline of 2020, through increasing the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations and ecosystems so that by 2030 nature is visibly and measurably on the path of recovery

So, nature positive means seriously scaling back negative impacts on nature – through tackling land clearing, invasive species, and climate change – while also investing in positive impacts like ecosystem restoration and rewilding.

The goal is hugely ambitious. But it’s also essential.

The natural world is humanity’s life-support system. But we have now seriously compromised the biosphere’s ability to support us.

Australia’s environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has backed the idea, announcing plans for a nature positive summit next year. The goal: “drive private sector investment to protect and repair our environment”.

You can also see the influence of nature positive in Plibersek’s plans for a nature repair market. And just this month, the New South Wales review of biodiversity laws recommended nature positive become “mandatory.”

Read more:
Biodiversity treaty: UN deal fails to address the root causes of nature’s destruction

We must be wary of greenwashing

The risk of big-picture plans is that they can be used for PR purposes – serving to make companies or governments look good on the environment rather than actually improving nature’s lot.

Already, the term nature positive is being used too freely to refer to any vaguely green action.

This new focus on nature positive mustn’t distract from the need to fully address ongoing negative impacts.

Take the Australian government’s Nature Positive Plan – its official response to the scathing 2020 review of Australia’s national environment law.

Under the plan, ‘conservation payments’ could be made by developers when destruction of threatened biodiversity is permitted, but suitable environmental offsets cannot be found.

These conservation payments would then be invested by government into conservation projects – but they would not necessarily benefit the same biodiversity destroyed by the development.

The plan states this approach will deliver “better overall environmental outcomes”. In reality it could make it possible to destroy habitat of our most threatened species and replace it with other, easier-to-replace biodiversity – as long as there is more “nature” overall.

Positive for nature: the fundamentals

For “nature positive” to actually be positive for nature, it must do what it says on the tin. We cannot let this vitally important movement be used to justify further loss of valuable ecosystems or species, or to exaggerate the benefits of action.

Our research suggests three ways to make sure claims about nature positive are not misleading.

First, we have to make sure any proposal that might damage nature follows the “mitigation hierarchy”. In short: can biodiversity losses be avoided entirely? If not, can they be kept to a bare minimum? Any remaining impacts must be fully compensated with gains of the same type and amount elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this is rarely achieved. In practice, developers often do poorly on avoiding or minimising damage. Instead, they rely heavily on the final, most risky step – offsets.

Yes, offsets can work – in very limited situations. They cannot replace the irreplaceable. And much of nature is irreplaceable.

Old-growth forests cannot be replaced. The same goes for tree hollows – these take hundreds of years to form, and artificial nesting boxes often don’t work.

So, the move towards nature positive must not replace rigorous adherence to the mitigation hierarchy with more general environmental action which doesn’t fully address damage.

Second, organisations must consider not just their direct impact on biodiversity, but the footprint of their whole operation and its resource use.

Achieving nature positive will mean tackling entire supply chains.

It’s not easy to account for, reduce and compensate for your company or organisation’s unavoidable impacts on nature. But it can be done. It will require improvements in knowledge and traceability of supply chains, reducing consumption, and investing in nature restoration to make up for the leftover harms unable to be eliminated.

And third, organisations signing up to nature positive must contribute to active ecological restoration. That’s on top of any compensation for their own direct and indirect impacts. The huge scale of historical damage to the environment means that even if organisations completely address all of their current and future biodiversity impacts, nature positive will still not be achieved.

Here, so-called voluntary biodiversity credits may play a useful role.

But wherever there are credits, there’s risk. It’s entirely possible companies could simply buy these credits without avoiding and minimising biodiversity losses in the first place – the exact same problem plaguing carbon offsets.

Nature positive is welcome – now let’s see it in action

For decades, conservationists have tried to protect what’s left of the natural world through lobbying for protected areas and better environmental laws. But nature’s decline has only accelerated. Economic growth and profit have always taken precedence.

Moving to a truly nature positive world, one fit to provide future generations with all that we enjoy from nature, means a serious societal shift. For this reason, nature positive is welcome.

It’s not enough to slow the decline – it’s time to reverse it.

But we must not underestimate the task ahead.

Only if nature positive commitments are translated into action with rigour can they help reduce the damage we do, alongside spurring on ecological restoration and rewilding. But if nature positive is used as a tactic for positive publicity, it won’t change a thing.

Read more:
Can a ‘nature repair market’ really save Australia’s environment? It’s not perfect, but it’s worth a shot

Martine Maron has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, Bush Heritage Australia, and the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program. She is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, a councillor with the Biodiversity Council, a member of the board of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy and BirdLife Australia, and a governor of WWF-Australia, and chairs the IUCN’s Impact Mitigation and Ecological Compensation Thematic Group.

Megan C Evans has received funding from various sources, including the Australian Research Council through a Discovery Early Career Research Award (2020-2023), the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, WWF Australia, and the National Environmental Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub.

Sophus zu Ermgassen 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. ‘Nature positive’ isn’t just planting a few trees – it’s actually stopping the damage we do – https://theconversation.com/nature-positive-isnt-just-planting-a-few-trees-its-actually-stopping-the-damage-we-do-213075

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Goff, Associate Professor, Deputy Chair Department of Education, Swinburne University of Technology

Parents can often find themselves staring in bewilderment at the little human they helped to create.

Sometimes this bewilderment is centred around awe and amazement. Sometimes it is firmly entrenched in shock and embarrassment about a specific behaviour they have just witnessed.

When a child swears it can be the latter that engulfs us.

Children learn to swear early

There is little evidence to suggest children’s swearing, or swearing in general, has become more frequent. But in 2013 a US study found by the time children start school “they have the rudiments of adult swearing” (about 42 taboo words).

Parental reactions to children’s swearing are generally cultural, embedded in context, and dependent on who else witnesses the behaviour and how the swearing makes them feel at that moment.

Sometimes parents might look at children’s swearing as a “bad” behaviour that needs to be dealt with. At other times they might perceive swearing as no big deal. In some situations they may even see it as funny.

These reactions are also entangled in emotion and mood and are not typically consistent. This can be confusing for children.

Unspoken rules

In English-speaking cultures there are unspoken social rules on who can say what to whom and in what situation. Research suggests men are more likely to swear in public than women and are less likely to be judged negatively if they do so.

Stand-up comedians swear a lot in their performances – and this is seen as funny and acceptable. But if an MP swore in parliament there would likely be a national outcry.

Similarly, while many adults swear, it is not seen as appropriate for children. This is tied to historical perceptions of the child as “innocent” and “good”. As well as the idea childhood is a special time in human development and parents are responsible for shaping and protecting their offspring.

Swear words are a way to communicate

But swear words are part of our language. Just like other words, they are expressions of our feelings, thoughts and intentions.

In this sense, when we think about children swearing, it is a developmental learning process that involves experimenting with different ways to express themselves and communicate.

When younger children swear, it is likely to come from overhearing the world and experimenting with their own language learning.

When older children swear, it is more likely to be related to their social and emotional development as they learn to manage their emotions and develop their identity.

Children tend to model adults. so if they are exposed to swearing in the home there is a good chance they will imitate the language they hear.

But if they haven’t picked it up from their parents (or older siblings), by the time they go to school they will hear these words from other children in the playground. Children are also increasingly surrounded by screens and different types of media. So exposure to swearing is almost impossible for parents to monitor and control.

Read more:
Should we swear in front of our kids?

What’s the difference between a reaction and a response?

What parents can do is minimise the impact of this exposure on children’s behaviour. They can do this by responding rather than reacting to their children’s swearing.

Human reactions are instantaneous and impulsive. They are about a need for immediate action, rather than a long-term goal or plan.

On the other hand, human responses are slower and provide a more considered and controlled approach to a situation.

In relation to children’s swearing, it is important to try and respond so there is consistent messaging and they can learn about what is appropriate (and what is not).

How to respond

Responding starts by understanding children will be exposed to swearing and parents cannot control every aspect of their kids’ lives.

Responding also recognises swearing is a developmental process for children and parents’ role is to help them understand what they are saying and how it may be received. For example, you could say something like this:

Why did you choose that word? Is there a better word to use in that sentence?

Or this:

I think you might be angry or upset. If I was trying to tell someone about my feelings I would say ‘I am really frustrated right now’.

Responses eliminate the need to ignore children’s swearing, which can also send mixed messages. When adults respond they are taking control of their own behaviour and as a result, the situation.

You can also work on prevention

Responding also means putting some preventative strategies in place.

For example, parents might have conversations with their children around the language used in movies, TV shows and in music. This could involve reminding children how these often create imaginary worlds and “things are different in real life.”

Parents might talk about how language has different functions and purposes. For example:

Swearing at someone can hurt them so it is never OK to do this.

They might also talk about how the situation or context matters. Such as:

Singing a swear word in a song might be OK at home but you wouldn’t sing that word at school.

Ultimately, we are all human (and many of us swear from time to time). But we can teach children to be critical users of language, so they learn where, when and how to use different words.

Read more:
‘It’s not fair!’ Kids grumble and complain for a reason, here’s how to handle it

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

– ref. What the *#@%?! How to respond when your child swears – https://theconversation.com/what-the-how-to-respond-when-your-child-swears-213648

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sander De Groote, Lecturer, School of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, UNSW Sydney

For most things we buy, the price we are quoted is the price we pay.

That’s supposed to be the case even where taxes and fees are involved. Australian law requires anyone selling anything to display a total price that includes all “taxes, duties and all unavoidable or pre-selected extra fees”.

But our investigations, which compare the interest rate quoted on our mortgages with the fine print in our own mortgage documents, shows this is hardly ever the case for home loans.

Even though we are both trained as accountants, until recently we hadn’t bothered to check – even as interest rates climbed. We assumed the rates we were being told we were being charged (say 5% per year) were the rates we were actually paying.

This would be easy enough, and in our view the right thing, for banks to do.

The price quoted usually isn’t the price paid

Mortgage interest is usually charged monthly, but the rates are yearly. This means that each time interest is charged, the outstanding amount compounds as interest is applied to interest.

That sounds bad enough. But this isn’t our main complaint.

It’s that there are two possible ways to calculate the amount of interest. Banks calcualte interest on a daily basis.

The most reasonable would be to calculate the daily amount in a way that adds up to an annual amount that matches what was quoted. That way, a 5% rate would really be 5%.

Although there’s a bit of calculation involved, it’s easy enough for banks to do.

How banks calculate mortgage interest

The other, arguably less reasonable, way is what’s called the “simple” method. Our investigations show that this technique is used by all the big four banks, and probably many others too.

It’s called the simple method because it involves simply dividing the annual rate (say 5%) by 365 to determine the daily rate.

This seems to not be important, but because of compounding it means the amount charged over a year is more than the rate quoted.

Say you borrow $100,000 for one year at an annual rate of 5%, repaying the whole amount at the end of the year.

You might expect to pay back $105,000. Instead, the banks’ method of calculating interest results in a total repayment of $105,116.

This is because the daily interest rate (5% divided by 365) is applied to the outstanding balance each day and added to your balance once a month. These regular increases mean your interest compounds costing you more.

Read more:
Fixed or variable? The choice of mortgage isn’t as simple as it seems

Over decades, the difference matters

In July 2023, the average size of a new mortgage in New South Wales was about A$750,000, with an average interest rate of about 5.95%.

The method of calculation used by the banks and in the fine print of their mortgage contracts requires a monthly payment of $4,473 including the repayment of the amount originally borrowed over the life of a 30-year loan.

But if 5.95% were actually charged each year, the monthly payment would be $4,398 – a difference of $900 per year.

In this typical example, the difference over the life of the loan amounts to about $27,000. It means these borrowers will end up paying an effective interest rate of 6.11%.

We had to read the fine print

We checked the terms and conditions of each of the big four banks – Westpac, the Commonwealth, the National Australia Bank and the ANZ – as well as their biggest subsidiaries which include St George, The Bank of Melbourne, Bank SA and Bankwest.

They all charge interest using the “simple” method.

Mutual banks – the old credit unions and building societies owned by their members – have different reporting requirements, and we were unable to check the terms and conditions used by each one. But where we could, we found they used the same method as the big four.

You can find this small print yourself, usually in the middle of your mortgage document. It’s a formula, accompanied by a paragraph of explanation.

But you have to look carefully. Or you could call customer service, as we did, and ask the bank to explain the calculation.

You shouldn’t have to.

The price quoted ought to be the price paid

We think the price quoted for a product should be the price that’s actually charged, as the law generally requires for products other than mortgages.

This means if you are told you’ll be charged 5.95% interest per year, you should pay 5.95% per year – not 6.11% because of a quirk in the formula.

Mortgages are a larger financial commitment than most purchases. This means that honesty and clear communication are even more important.

It’s worth knowing what you are letting yourself in for when signing up for a mortgage. That way, when the bank or broker explains it to you and it’s not what was advertised, you can ask for a discount.

I currently have a mortgage that is impacted by the elements covered in this story (as do all mortgage holders in Australia).

– ref. Why you’re probably paying more interest on your mortgage than you think – https://theconversation.com/why-youre-probably-paying-more-interest-on-your-mortgage-than-you-think-213862

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

Fire fear is gripping many Australians, with extremely high temperatures for September.

One day this week some 20 schools on the New South Wales south coast were closed, amid rising weather risk. Sydney national parks were shut. Multiple fires broke out in the eastern states.

The nation is bracing. The memory of that horrendous 2019-20 summer is embedded in our psyche.

The Bureau of Meteorology this week formally declared an El Niño event, looking to a hot dry summer. That will put pressure on ageing coal-fired power stations and thus the power system.

Apart from for a small minority, the argument about global warming is over. But the debate still rages about dealing with climate change and, close to home, Australia’s energy transition, which is under way but accompanied by increasing pain and problems.

Labor scored well politically when it issued its pre-election plan for the transition to renewables. It came with an election promise of an average $275 saving on household electricity bills by 2025. The promise will be unattainable, and in the meantime households face sky-high power bills, with only some benefiting from the government’s relief package.

Most people accept our energy system must move from fossil fuels, especially coal, to renewables as soon as practicable. But there are serious obstacles on the ground – literally.

The government uses the “not in my backyard” scare when the opposition proposes nuclear should be added to the energy mix. Now it is confronted by “not in our backyard” resistance from farmers and local communities to the big transmission cables needed to carry the renewable power. As well, there’s a backlash in some areas to wind turbines.

In 2014, then-Treasurer Joe Hockey was ridiculed when he described wind turbines around Lake George (near Canberra) as “a blight on the landscape”. The then opposition environment spokesman, Mark Butler, said Hockey was making “an utterly ridiculous contribution”. Labor can’t afford to laugh anymore.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen was in the NSW Hunter region this week to try to calm anger about the government’s declaration of a zone off the coast for future wind projects. Among their objections, locals have raised the harm to birds, sea life and the view.

The South Australian government has argued the proposed Southern Ocean zone for wind farms, off the coast of Victoria and SA, should stop at the Victorian border.

The rows breaking out over power cables and wind turbines are classic examples of major developments clashing with other priorities, whether commercial (tourism, fishing, agriculture), environmental or aesthetic. We’ve seen these battles for decades with mining projects. They’ve now moved into the age of renewables.

Australia is not alone on this issue, which is rearing its head in Britain and elsewhere. The Albanese government’s difficulty is there will be so many breakouts. It remains to be seen whether citizen discontent will translate into voter backlash in particular seats.

Infrastructure Minister Catherine King has felt the heat in her electorate of Ballarat. In a submission earlier this year, made as the local MP, to an Australian Energy Market Operator’s report on the proposed Victoria-New South Wales Interconnector (VNI) West transmission link, she repeated her long-held concerns about the consultative process.

“As Australia continues its transition to net zero, there will be increasing need for new projects,” she wrote. “In rolling out these projects, it will be important to engage thoroughly and honestly with impacted communities all throughout the process – from project conception, to construction and beyond.”

In July, Bowen announced a “community engagement review” to improve engagement on renewable energy infrastructure upgrades and new developments, to report
by year’s end.

The process is tortuous and often fractious. And, as the Grattan Institute’s energy expert, Tony Wood, has pointed out, investment in renewables is stalled because of the slowness in getting the transmission grid in place.

The implications are substantial. The government is committed to having renewables generating 82% of our electricity by 2030. The present level is 35%. Wood says: “We are nowhere near where we need to be. We are way behind in time and way over in cost.”

The transition problems are making the opposition bolder in pushing its case to have nuclear power on the agenda. It argues if nuclear could replace some of the retiring coal-fired power stations, the existing grid could be used, reducing the disruption by new cables. But it has produced nothing specific on how nuclear will feature in its policy. Nor is it clear how politically risky raising the nuclear option is for the Coalition.

In an attempted political hit, Bowen this week issued an estimate that replacing coal-fired stations with nuclear would cost $387 billion. Given all the uncertainties, numbers mean little, although most experts maintain the nuclear path would not be economically viable any time soon. Even so, the government suddenly sounds defensive when rejecting even lifting the present ban on nuclear.

Pushed on Monday on the ABC’s Q+A about the ban, Bowen said that would be “a massive distraction. It would take a lot of our public debate”. This seems an odd argument. Whether nuclear power should be considered surely rests on two basic questions: whether the the conversation
market believes it viable and whether the public considers it acceptable.

At least the government this week had some good news on the gas front: the latest estimates by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission indicate the country will go into early next year with an adequate supply for the domestic market. Treasurer Jim Chalmers was quick to declare the opposition’s “fearmongering” about the government’s imposition of pricing caps had been unjustified.

On the other hand, gas is coming under mounting attack from climate activists, as the government defends it as a transition fuel.

In political terms, the energy transition will put pressure on Labor on several fronts between now and the next election.

The first, and most obvious, is high power bills, feeding into the cost-of-living crisis.

Second, the localised arguments about the infrastructure will continue.

Third, investors will need more reassurance.

Fourth, the efficiency of the energy system must be maintained through difficult times.

And fifth, the government will need to hold the line against the Greens and the more militant parts of the climate movement that will attack it for not going fast enough to meet the climate challenge.

Those are the knowns. One unknown is whether we’ll get a really bad fire season and the implications that would have.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Albanese government faces an uphill road and angry locals as it drives change to renewables – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-albanese-government-faces-an-uphill-road-and-angry-locals-as-it-drives-change-to-renewables-214067

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

Former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s decision to put a business future before an attempted political revival is a blow for the Liberal Party, but a relief for the teal member for Kooyong, Monique Ryan.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton might regard his former colleague’s decision with mixed feelings. Frydenberg would probably have increased the chance of the Liberals regaining Kooyong in 2025.

But if elected, Frydenberg would have become an obvious choice for party leader (on the very reasonable assumption the Coalition was still in opposition). More immediately, speculation about that prospect would have dogged Dutton in the run-up to the next election.

For Frydenberg, this must be a bittersweet moment. As he said in a note to Kooyong branch members, telling them he wouldn’t be seeking preselection, “It is a difficult decision and one I have been weighing up for some time”.

His aspiration to be prime minister has been long-standing, strong and obvious. He was indefatigable as treasurer, a quality shared by his successor Jim Chalmers, who also aspires to the top job. But business gives him a bright, lucrative, family-friendly future, without the pressures and uncertainties that politics bring.

Anyway, winning back Kooyong (which Frydenberg held from 2010-22) would have been no shoo-in. Ryan is regarded as more vulnerable than some of the other teals, but the demographics of the seat have been changing and there is a boundary redistribution to come.

After joining Goldman Sachs following his defeat, Frydenberg will now become chairman of the investment bank in Australia and New Zealand.

The firm said:

In this role, Josh will focus on further deepening and strengthening client coverage across the A/NZ region. He will continue to offer advice on economic and geopolitical issues as the firm’s senior regional advisor for Asia Pacific.

While it’s possible Frydenberg, 52, might consider running in the election after next – and he hasn’t closed off that option – it would seem unlikely.

The 2025 election was the logical time to try for a comeback. A term on and much water will have gone under the bridge – in his own life and in politics. The Liberal line-up would be different, the road to leadership potentially harder. Perhaps the fight in Kooyong would be more difficult.

Frydenberg became of a victim of the teal wave. He had stuck very close to former Prime Minister Scott Morrison: loyalty is an admirable character trait but not always a political advantage.

If he, rather than Morrison, had led into the last election, the Coalition might have done better; on the other hand, a leadership change carries its own costs. In any case, it was never on the cards.

Frydenberg, a conservative who became more centrist as time went on, was treasurer in extraordinary circumstances, confronting the economic challenges and demands imposed by the pandemic. He oversaw the wage subsidy JobKeeper program that, while it had its flaws which have seemed more significant in retrospect, was critical to keeping many businesses and workers afloat.

Independent economist Chris Richardson says JobKeeper “wasn’t perfect but it was bloody beautiful”. He praises Frydenberg’s COVID performance, saying,

The key thing was to make the wheels of government move faster than they had ever moved before. I give him high marks for that.

Another independent economist, Saul Eslake, agrees Frydenberg did a good job during COVID, with the only serious mistake being in some of the detail of JobKeeper.

He was right to throw overboard all the Coalition rhetoric about debt and deficit. He was honest, thoughtful and consultative.

Morrison, Eslake says, was a “huge handicap” because he was not an effective communicator of economic ideas, “in contrast to the prime ministers who backed Paul Keating and Peter Costello, the two most successful treasurers of recent history”.

But for the pandemic, Frydenberg would have seen the budget back in black. That achievement now belongs to Chalmers, who is savouring the moment.

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. View from The Hill: Josh Frydenberg puts political ambition aside to remain in business – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-josh-frydenberg-puts-political-ambition-aside-to-remain-in-business-214068

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Pattison, PhD Candidate, RMIT University

Last week, USA Today/Gannett posted a job ad for a Taylor Swift reporter, seeking an experienced journalist and content creator to “capture the music and cultural impact of Taylor Swift”.

It’s not the first time Swift has been the focus of professional and academic work. In 2022, New York University’s Clive Davis Institute announced a course focused on Swift, taught by Rolling Stone’s Brittany Spanos. They also gave Swift an honorary doctorate in fine arts, as “one of the most prolific and celebrated artists of her generation”.

Other universities around the world followed with their own dedicated courses, including “The Psychology of Taylor Swift”, “The Taylor Swift Songbook” and “Literature: Taylor’s Version”.

While musicians and celebrities have been the subject of our fascinations for decades, it’s not often they receive such individualised attention. Swift’s impressive career can be studied from multiple perspectives, including marketing, fandom, business and songwriting, to name a few.

So why Taylor Swift?

From a music perspective, Swift has broken a lot of records. Last month, she became the first female artist in Spotify history to reach 100 million monthly listeners.

Swift has achieved 12 number one albums on Billboard, the most by a woman artist, overtaking Barbra Streisand earlier this year.

She’s the first and only woman solo artist to win the Album Of The Year Grammy three times, for Fearless (2009), 1989 (2015) and Folklore (2020) – each in a different musical genre. It’s a credit to Swift’s masterful songwriting, and demonstrates her ability to adapt her craft for different audiences.

There is an expectation for female artists to constantly re-invent themselves, something Swift reflected on in her Netflix documentary Miss Americana:

The female artists I know of have to remake themselves like 20 times more than the male artists, or you’re out of a job.

Over the course of her career, Swift has evolved from an award-winning country music singer to one of the biggest pop stars in the world. Each of her ten original studio albums has a distinct theme and aesthetic, which have been celebrated on Swift’s juggernaut Eras Tour.

The tour, which has just wrapped up its first US leg, is set to be the highest-grossing of all time, boosting local travel and tourism revenue along the way. A recent report estimates the tour could help add a monumental US$5 billion (A$7.8 billion) to the worldwide economy.

‘All I do is try, try, try’

But to measure Swift’s impact by her music alone would be limiting.

Swift has been instrumental in changing the business game for musicians. She’s taken on record labels and streaming services, advocating for better deals for artists.

In 2015, Apple Music changed its payment policies after Swift wrote an open letter campaigning for better compensation.

Most notably, she took a stand against her former record label, Big Machine Records, after it wouldn’t give her an opportunity to buy back her original master recordings. Her back catalogue was eventually sold to music executive Scooter Braun, kicking off a very public feud.

While she’s not the first artist to go after her masters, she’s generated an enormous amount of attention to an issue that’s often overlooked. Of course, Swift is in a position of privilege – she can take risks many other artists can’t afford to. But with this power she’s driving conversations around contracts and the value of music, paving the way for emerging artists.

In an effort to regain control of her earlier work, Swift announced she would be re-recording her first six albums. Each re-recorded album has included additional vault tracks, previously unreleased songs left off the original recordings.

These releases have each been accompanied by a robust promotional campaign, including new merchandise and multiple, limited-edition versions of each record for fans to collect.

The release of Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) marked the halfway point of this process, which has paid off big time. Fearless (Taylor’s Version), Red (Taylor’s Version) and Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) have all performed better than the originals.

This is largely due to the unwavering support from her fans, known as “Swifties”. They’ve embraced the new recordings, shaming anyone who plays the original “stolen” versions.

The power of Swifties

Swift’s loyal fandom are known for their high levels of participation and creativity. Fans have spent an extensive amount of time hand-making outfits for concerts, and discussing elaborate theories online.

Swift has a reputation for leaving clues, known as Easter eggs, in her lyrics, music videos, social media posts and interviews. There are fan accounts dedicated to analysing these Easter eggs, studying specific number patterns and phrases to uncover hints for what Swift might do next.

Swift and Taylor Nation, a branch of her management team, encourage these behaviours by rewarding fans for their participation.

Read more:
How does a Taylor Swift fan prove their love? Money

For the upcoming release of 1989 (Taylor’s Version), Swift has unveiled a series of puzzles on Google, which fans must solve together in order to reveal the names of the upcoming vault tracks.

Swifties collectively solved the 33 million (yes, that’s million) puzzles in less than 24 hours. The games played a dual role – not only did Swift announce the vault track titles, but she’s reclaimed her Google searches in the process.

Swift’s fandom crosses generations. She’s a quintessential millennial, and many fans have grown up with Swift over the past two decades. Some have even started to bring their children along to the concerts, posting videos of them set to the bridge to Long Live.

She’s also found a younger audience on TikTok, a platform predominantly used by Gen Z. Affectionately dubbed “SwiftTok” by fans (and now Swift herself), users post videos to engage with other Swifties and participate in the community.

Swift’s songs are often used in popular trends. The release of Midnights last year had many dancing to Bejeweled and Karma, but Swift’s older catalogue has also gotten a good run. A remix of Love Story went viral in 2020, which helped a new generation discover her older music. Most recently, her song August has been used for running on the beach and spinning around with your pets.

She’s also closely aligned with young adult shows like The Summer I Turned Pretty, which has featured 13 of her songs throughout the show’s first two seasons. Swift’s music is so central to the story that author Jenny Han nearly dedicated the second book to her.

Swift continues to dominate the cultural conversation through her music, business decisions and legions of devoted fans.

Right now, Swift’s popularity is at an all time high, and it could be easy to dismiss this hype as a passing trend. But if these first 17 years are anything to go by, Swift’s proven she’s in it for the long haul, and worthy of our time.

Kate Pattison 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. How did Taylor Swift get so popular? She never goes out of style – https://theconversation.com/how-did-taylor-swift-get-so-popular-she-never-goes-out-of-style-213871

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael Sharman, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

A recent Beyond Blue survey of more than 2,000 teachers identified mental ill-health and excessive screen time as the biggest problems facing their students.

Comments from teachers revealed a perceived lack of social skill development in children and teens. As one wellbeing specialist said, young people:

are not learning social awareness. They’re not learning how to read emotions. They’re not learning body language.

There’s no definitive measure of what constitutes “excessive” screen-time, although research is beginning to suggest four hours per day or more is potentially risky.

Although COVID lockdowns played a role in disrupting normal social learning processes, concerns about social and emotional development in our teens has been bubbling away for some time across cultures that have easy access to screen-based technologies and social media. COVID may have thrown petrol on the flames, but it did not light this fire.

So what is going on? Does overexposure to screens lead to social impairments, and if so, how?

Displacing children’s development

The developing brain wires itself to the environment in which it finds itself. The skills you use most often will become almost automatic, such as driving a car. But skills you use infrequently need more concentration and effort, especially if you didn’t practice them much when your brain was still developing.

Important social experiences such as emotion recognition, reciprocal play and perspective-taking are potentially being sidelined by screen-time. In other words: when children are preoccupied with their screens, what are they not learning?

“Theory of Mind” is a brain function that allows people to understand the mental states of others. Theory of Mind starts with the realisation that everyone has different perspectives, mental states and understandings of our own.

Read more:
Understanding others’ feelings: what is empathy and why do we need it?

Developmentally, Theory of Mind explains quite a lot about child and adolescent behaviours.

Most parents recall, with some horror, their toddlers’ “terrible twos” stage. One of the reasons for these tantrums is a lack of Theory of Mind, which doesn’t kick in until the age of three or four. Toddlers just can’t understand why their carers don’t have the same perspective as them. “I feel thirsty – why is mum not getting me a drink?” Cue tantrum.

This intense frustration is one factor that drives the development of language, as the toddler finally realises other people don’t intuit their every thought or feeling and they need to learn to communicate.

As children grow and develop, Theory of Mind underpins the development of all sorts of social skills, such as recognising others’ emotional state and developing empathy. This is crucial to developing friendships, romantic partnerships and other kinds of social relationships as we move through life.

By adolescence, Theory of Mind gets really sophisticated. Teenagers are good at understanding socially complex processes such as lying, masking or amplifying true emotions, socially appropriate behaviours such as when not to take a joke too far, and nuanced language expression.

How does this affect mental health?

A child or teenager without age-appropriate social skills will have difficulty developing and maintaining friendships. Given human beings are, by their nature, social creatures, this may lead to isolation, loneliness and mental health issues.

Social media further inhibits perspective-taking by operating as an echo chamber, where a teen’s beliefs, interests and ideas are assessed via algorithms and parroted back to them. Rarely is an alternative idea or perspective presented, and, when it is, a teen with already impaired social-communication skills may react with anxiety instead of interest and curiosity.

Read more:
Teens with at least one close friend can better cope with stress than those without

The time young people spend on screens has been linked with an array of mental health issues. Longitudinal research is beginning to demonstrate higher screen time is associated with a raft of social-skill impairments at increasingly early ages.

Brain-imaging research shows higher screen use is associated with lower white matter tracts (the information superhighways of the brain) that underpin language and cognitive skills. In contrast, spending a great deal of time in the outdoors is associated with higher grey matter in regions associated with working memory and attention.

So what can parents and teachers do to help?

In the early years, parents and educators can focus on reciprocal play with lots of turn-taking and emotional engagement. When reading books or discussing everyday social interactions, talk about what you or another person was thinking or feeling and how that was expressed.

Delay any form of social media engagement for as long as possible. Encourage your child to critically think about people’s agendas when posting online: what are they really trying to get across, what is their motivation, what are they selling? Focus on building in-real-life friendships at school, your local community or sporting club, and within families.

Overall, limiting screen time and encouraging in-real-life play and an array of social engagement opportunities is the best way to improve a child’s prospects of developing good social-emotional skills.

Rachael Sharman and Michael Nagel have written a book covering these issues.

Michael Nagel 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. Excessive screen time can affect young people’s emotional development – https://theconversation.com/excessive-screen-time-can-affect-young-peoples-emotional-development-213869

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Toole, Associate Principal Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

Today’s announcement of an independent inquiry into Australia’s COVID response will examine how we’ve handled the pandemic and how we could better prepare for the next one.

But the pandemic is not just a once-in-a-lifetime event that’s over and needs to be analysed. It’s still with us.

The Omicron variant continues to mutate and new sub-variants emerge. For instance, the highly-mutated BA.2.86 (known as Pirola) has just been detected in Australia.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID, then becomes more adept at evading immunity from infections and vaccines.

COVID is not yet predictably seasonal and we expect waves every three to six months. The United States has seen a threefold increase in hospitalisations since mid-July due to waning immunity and the EG.5 sub-variant (known as Eris).

Read more:
The WHO has declared Eris a ‘variant of interest’. How is it different from other Omicron variants?

The United Kingdom has also seen a significant increase in adult and child hospitalisations due to COVID in the past month.

In Australia, more than 5,000 people have died due to COVID so far this year. Excess deaths from any cause are 13% higher than expected. We expect many of these are related to COVID.

The median age of COVID deaths is around 85 years old in Australia. But there were 267 reported deaths in people under 50 until the end of July 2023; some may have had weaker immune systems.

The impacts of long COVID and re-infections are significant, which one study shows mainly affects people of working age and most commonly women.

Read more:
Long COVID symptoms can improve, but their resolution is slow and imperfect

I’ve had a booster. Does that still protect me?

We know immunity from COVID vaccines wanes over time. In a paper published in May, a systematic review of 40 studies showed by how much. Protection by the first two doses of the vaccine (known as the primary series) against symptomatic infection from Omicron waned from almost 53% one month after the second dose to just over 14% after six months.

The same review found a booster (third or fourth dose) increased protective immunity to the same levels as the primary series. However, that immunity waned to just 30% nine months later.

A number of studies have shown protection against severe disease and death from the Omicron variant also wanes over time. For example, a UK study found a primary series plus a bivalent booster (targets two strains) provided 53% protection against hospitalisation four weeks after the booster among people aged 50 or over. Protection dropped to 36% at ten weeks.

An Australian study, yet to be independently verified by other researchers, suggests protection against death from COVID also wanes. Of 3.8 million adults over 65 years, protection of a third dose booster against death from COVID waned from an estimated 93% within three months to 56% after six months.

So we believe a reasonable interpetation of the above data is to recommend a booster every six months in people aged 75 and older, and younger people with impaired immune systems.

But in Australia, just over 50% of people aged 75 or older have received a booster in the past six months; only about 38% of people aged 65-74 and about 9% in those aged 18-64 years.

Read more:
Over half of eligible aged care residents are yet to receive their COVID booster. And winter is coming

I’ve had COVID recently. Surely that’s enough

There is a widespread perception that if you’ve been infected with COVID and have had the primary series of the vaccine then you’re immune and, therefore, don’t need to get a booster. This is commonly described as having “hybrid immunity”.

However, a very large study across 19 countries found infection conferred different levels of immunity, depending on the variant. While infection with COVID effectively protected against reinfection by the original, Alpha, Beta and Delta variants, this was much less effective against the Omicron BA.1 variant. Since BA.1, there have been many new sub-variants that are even more adept at evading immunity.

Who can get a booster?

Earlier this month, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) recommended all adults aged 75 or older “should receive” an additional dose of the bivalent vaccine if six months have passed since their last dose. Additionally, people aged 65-74 and immunocompromised younger adults should “consider” an additional dose.

ATAGI argues that the baseline risk of severe illness in people under 65 is low if they have already been vaccinated, and particularly if they have also been infected. So, a further 2023 dose for this group would offer little additional benefit, even if it has been more than six months since their last dose.

The US has taken a different approach. Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended all people over six months who have not received a COVID vaccine in the previous two months should get a dose of the newly approved monovalent (single strain) vaccines. These have been developed by Pfizer and Moderna to specifically target the XBB.1.5 sub-variant of Omicron. Health Canada has adopted similar recommendations.

These new monovalent vaccines are expected to be effective in preventing infection by recently emerging Omicron sub-variants, such as EG.5 and FL.1.51 derived from the XBB.1.5 sub-variant, and the newer highly mutated BA.2.86, which arose from an earlier sub-variant and is a significant evolutionary leap.

While Canada and the US move into the northern hemisphere winter, Australians should not believe they are at lower risk during the summer. After all, two large COVID waves in Australia were in the summers of 2021/22 and 2022/23.

Monovalent XBB.1.5 vaccines are not yet available in Australia, but are being evaluated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. So, in the future, Australia’s advice about who’s eligible for a booster, and which type of booster, may change.

Read more:
CDC greenlights two updated COVID-19 vaccines, but how will they fare against the latest variants? 5 questions answered

So, how do I decide if I need a booster now?

There is evidence in Australia of growth of the newer subvariants, including the detection of BA.2.86. So all Australians aged 75 and over who have not had a booster in the past six months should immediately have the currently available bivalent vaccine.

Younger age groups may wait until further ATAGI advice about the new monovalent vaccines.

COVID is not over

While there is no need for alarm, Australians need to be aware of the ongoing significant impacts of COVID. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is still a formidable foe as it continues to mutate.

COVID vaccines will be among the topics the newly announced inquiry will investigate.

But we cannot rely on vaccines alone. Avoiding (re)infection is also vital. Breathe clean indoor air, wear high quality masks and get tested so you can access antivirals if eligible.

Michael Toole receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Heidi Drummer has acted as a consultant for Moderna. Heidi Drummer receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and mRNA Victoria and is President of the Australasian Virology Society.

Suman Majumdar, through the Burnet Institute receives grant funding from the Australian governemnt via the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund and DFAT’s Centre for Health Security.

– ref. A COVID inquiry has been announced. But is COVID still a thing? Do I need a booster? – https://theconversation.com/a-covid-inquiry-has-been-announced-but-is-covid-still-a-thing-do-i-need-a-booster-213469

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

Australia’s higher education sector is under heavy scrutiny. Still recovering from the impact of COVID and criticised for its treatment of staff, it faces strong pressures to step up its performance.

The government launched a broad review of the sector in late 2022 to inform a Universities Accord. The interim report was released in July, with the full report coming in December. Professor Brian Schmidt, is one of Australia’s most eminent academics, an astrophysicist who shared a Nobel Prize in 2011. Schmidt has been Vice-Chancellor at the Australian National University since 2016, a role he leaves at the end of the year.

The Universities Accord interim report suggests 55% of jobs by 2050 will require a higher education qualification. At the moment, the share sits at 36%. To reach that target, Schmidt says institutions, secondary educators and governments will need to work together:

The single most important thing, is our students when they finish high school have to be university ready. Universities are trying to fix the problems and shortcomings of our [Kindergarten to Year 12] system or even pre-K-12 system. We are the last line of defence.

Once students have graduated and they are university ready, then certainly here at ANU, we find that the access to university is not level. Why? Because studying full time at university is full time. And the notion that they’re going to go work a full-time job and study full-time seems possible and is done by many of the students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, but it puts them at a huge disadvantage. It’s just really difficult to do that.

So we really need to focus on adequate support for students, especially in that first year or two when they come to university so that they can study alongside everyone else on equal basis.

Schmidt believes universities are facing their “Uber moment” – where big tech companies like LinkedIn, Meta, and Microsoft “take out the middle man” (higher education) and team up with leading institutions like Harvard or Oxford to offer a streamlined, recognised course at a fraction of the cost.

I guess the question is, do I want to be at the ANU competing with that? The answer is no, because I’m going to lose. Their cost structures are cheaper than mine, but what they’re offering is not what I’m trying to offer. I’m trying to provide people the ability to do more than just the homogenised offering and get to talk to the people who write the textbooks [and] get to live on campus with a bunch of people not just doing the IT degree you are doing.

With not enough academic jobs available to employ the PhD graduates who want them, are we turning out too many?

This will be controversial. But the answer I think right now, given the state of the economy, probably yes.

It’s not just academic jobs, we don’t expect all of our PhDs to go get academic jobs. It’s never been that way and it shouldn’t be that way. What we do expect is those PhD students to go get jobs where their skills of research and knowledge add a lot of value to their job. And that’s the part where the Australian economy isn’t very developed.

The accord’s interim report also highlights the rate of sexual harassment and assault experienced by students on campuses. A parliamentary inquiry has recommended an independent taskforce to oversee universities’ performance in dealing with this problem. Schmidt agrees the situation is unnacceptable, but believes institutions should have the final say in how and what action is taken.

Sexual violence is, I am sad to say, rife across Australia […] I truly believe that universities have stood up in a way that no other part of society ever has. We have not ducked. We have actually stood up. But of course, when you stand up and take ownership, the ugly state of reality comes to light.

The proposed committee to oversight at some level I think is not a bad idea. I want to have an expert committee to respond to and to demonstrate the work I am doing. I want to be held accountable, but I want to be held accountable by people who understand the area and can make sensible judgements of what I am doing – being adequate, outstanding or inadequate.

I want to be held accountable by a body, but I do not want that body disembodied from my own governance to command me what to do – because I am confident I am going to do a better job than it can. And so that is an important bit. I want to demonstrate to it that I am doing an outstanding job. I do not want to be dictated what to do because that will be a lowest common denominator.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: ANU Vice-Chancellor Brian Schmidt on the challenges universities face – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-anu-vice-chancellor-brian-schmidt-on-the-challenges-universities-face-213994

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cooper Schouten, Project Manager – Bees for Sustainable Livelihoods, Southern Cross University

The federal government body in charge of pest control has announced Australia will abandon efforts on eradicating the Varroa mite.

This parasitic mite (Varroa destructor) lives in honey bee colonies, feeding on pupae and adult bees. The mites spread viruses, impair the bees’ ability to fly and communicate, and makes them more susceptible to pesticides, eventually causing a colony collapse if left unmanaged.

Until recently, Australia remained free of Varroa thanks to stringent biosecurity measures. But in June 2022, the mite was detected in the New South Wales coastal area near Newcastle and has continued to spread.

A recent increase in detections over a greater area has now made eradication technically unfeasible. As a result, Australia is transitioning from eradication to management of the Varroa mite.

Can we fight the mite?

It has been a tough time for beekeepers, the broader beekeeping community and the growers of crops relying on honey bees for pollination.

Varroa mite is already causing significant economic damage to livelihoods, due to restrictions on hive movements and the euthanasia of around 30,000 bee colonies.

To manage it, we will need to learn from overseas, where people have lived with Varroa for decades. However, Australia also has to develop its own solutions because of our unique climate, biodiversity and agricultural systems.

As seen in other countries, honey production and hive numbers may remain relatively stable. But beekeepers will need to invest significant time and resources to monitor, manage and replace hives due to Varroa losses.

There are effective chemical control options, but these cannot eliminate the mites completely. They also have impacts on bees and can leave residues in hive products. Over-reliance on synthetic chemicals will rapidly lead to resistance in Varroa populations, as seen in almost every country Varroa exists.

Effective organic and non-chemical treatments exist, but they are comparatively labour intensive – an additional burden on certified organic beekeepers.

To keep Varroa mite numbers below economically damaging thresholds, beekeepers will need to use integrated pest management solutions – a combination of approaches to reduce mite populaitons, while following up to ensure these appraoches have been effective.

Read more:
Australia is in a unique position to eliminate the bee-killing Varroa mite. Here’s what happens if we don’t

Beekeeping will become more complex and expensive

Costs for the average-sized Australian bee business could increase by as much as 30%. Experience in other countries suggests there will be significant declines (up to 50%) of hobbyist and semi-commercial operators. Currently, recreational beekeeping is worth A$173 million in Australia annually.

We also know Varroa will progressively kill around 95% of Australia’s feral honey bees within approximately three years. Therefore, we will likely need more bee colonies per hectare to pollinate some crops effectively.

Cumulatively, increased costs of production, a decrease in the numbers of beekeepers and fewer feral bees will likely result in higher demand for bee hives to service 35 pollination dependent industries across the country. As seen in Aotearoa New Zealand, where the Varroa mite established in 2000, prices for bee hives rented to growers increased by 30–100% per hive within five years..

What should Australia do to minimise the impact?

We need a national program in Australia that monitors colony losses so we can quantify the impacts across the sector. This also holds true for Australian native bees which play an important role in pollination of tropical crops – we do not have the monitoring and baseline data needed to evaluate the changes about to occur.

Read more:
Move over, honeybees: Aussie native bees steal the show with unique social and foraging behaviours

As an industry that contributes more than $14.2 billion to the economy, we now have a critical need for national capacity building for beekeeping, Varroa and pollination research, development and training.

Western Australia and Tasmania have significant opportunities to remain free from Varroa for as long as possible because the mite is currently only in NSW on the eastern boarder. Restricted movements of honey bees across the Bass Strait and the Nullarbor offer an additional biosecurity buffer.

Australia also remains free from virulent bee viruses, such as the deformed wing virus. Hopefully, the Varroa incursion will lead to strengthened biosecurity for honey bee pests and diseases we do not have in the country yet, like Tropilaelaps mites.

We also need to strengthen compliance with the honey bee biosecurity code of practice and improve monitoring of bee losses, bee viruses and native bees. In the long term, we will need to establish breeding programs for bees with Varroa tolerance, as seen in other countries such as the United States, New Zealand and Hawaii.

Cooper Schouten receives funding from The Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research and is a Member of the NSW Apiarists Association and QLD Beekeepers Association.

– ref. Australia has officially given up on eradicating the Varroa mite. Now what? – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-officially-given-up-on-eradicating-the-varroa-mite-now-what-214002

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Annie Te One, Lecturer in Māori Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

In his maiden speech to parliament in 2020, te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi told his fellow MPs:

You know what it feels like to have a pebble in your shoe? That will be my job here. A constant, annoying to those holding onto the colonial ways, a reminder and change agent for the recognition of our kahu Māori.

Three years later, most would agree that he and fellow co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer have been just that – visible, critical, combative, prepared to be controversial.

The question in 2023, however, is how does the party build on its current platform, grow its base, and become more than a pebble in the shoe of mainstream politics?

Recent polls suggest te Pāti Māori could win four seats in parliament in October. But its future doesn’t necessarily lie in formally joining either a government coalition or opposition bloc, even if this were an option.

The National Party has already ruled out working with the party in government. And te Pāti Māori has indicated partnership with either major party is not a priority.

Such are the challenges for a political party based on kaupapa Māori (incorporating the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of Māori society) in a Westminster-style parliamentary system.

Focusing on Māori values

These tensions have existed since 2004, when then-Labour MP Tariana Turia and co-leader Pita Sharples established te Pāti Māori in protest against Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Under that law, overturned in 2011, the Crown was made owner of much of New Zealand’s coastline. Turia and others argued the government was confiscating land and ignoring Māori customary ownership rights.

Leer más:
Putting te Tiriti at the centre of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public policy can strengthen democracy – here’s how

As a kaupapa Māori party, te Pāti Māori bases its policies and constitution on tikanga (Māori values), while advocating for mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga. That is, Māori self-determination and sovereignty, as defined by the Māori version of te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi.

A tikanga-based constitution has helped shape policies advocating for Māori rights. But it has also, at times, sat at odds with the rules of parliament. Waititi, for example, called pledging allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II “distasteful”. He also refused to wear a tie, breaching parliamentary dress codes.

Between left and right

Over the years, the party’s Māori-centred policies have enabled its leaders to move between left and right wing alliances.

Under the original leadership of Turia and Sharples, te Pāti Māori joined with the centre-right National Party to form governments in 2008, 2011 and 2014. This was a change from traditional Māori voting patterns that had long favoured Labour.

During it’s time in coalition with National, te Pāti Māori helped influence a number of important decisions. This included finally signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the development of Whanau Ora (a Māori health initiative emphasising family and community as decision makers), and repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Leer más:
History and myth: why the Treaty of Waitangi remains such a ‘bloody difficult subject’

However, internal fighting over the decision to align with National led to the resignation of the Te Tai Tokerau MP at the time, Hone Harawira. Harawira later formed the Mana Party.

The relationship with National proved unsustainable when Labour won back all the Māori electorates at the 2017 election. Notably, Labour’s Tāmati Coffey beat te Pāti Māori co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell in the Waiariki electorate.

Rebuilding te Pāti Māori

Waiariki was front and centre again in the 2020 election, where despite Labour’s general dominance across the Māori electorates, new te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi reclaimed the seat. The party also managed to win enough of the party vote to bring co-leader Ngarewa-Packer into parliament with him.

Sitting in opposition this time, the current party leaders have been vocal across a range of issues. The party has called for the banning of seabed mining, removing taxes for low-income earners, higher taxes on wealth, and lowering the superannuation age for Māori.

It hasn’t all been smooth sailing. Some policies, such as 2020’s “Whānau Build” have caused discomfort. Aimed largely at addressing the housing crisis, Whānau Build identified immigration as the root of Māori homelessness.

It was a sentiment more often associated with the extreme right, and the party has since apologised for that part of the policy.

Contesting more seats in 2023

Those bumps and missteps notwithstanding, recent polls show just how competitive te Pāti Māori has become in the Māori electorates.

Ex-Labour MP Meka Whaitiri – an experienced politician who has held the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti electorate since 2013 but left to join te Pāti Māori this year – is in a tight race to regain her seat against new Labour candidate Cushla Tangaere-Manuel.

Co-leader Ngarewa-Packer is also running a close race against Labour candidate Soraya Peke-Mason for the Te Tai Hauāuru electorate – a Labour stronghold.

But te Pāti Māori has also shifted from its previous focus on the Māori electorates, with Merepeka Raukawa-Tait standing in the Rotorua general electorate.

The Māori Electoral Option legislation, which came into effect this year, now allows Māori voters to change more easily between electoral rolls. In future, te Pāti Māori may find it can best to serve Māori by standing candidates in general electorates.

Leer más:
The tie that binds: unravelling the knotty issue of political sideshows and Māori cultural identity

Broader social change across Aotearoa New Zealand has also likely been an important contributor to the success of te Pāti Māori, with greater understanding of te Tiriti o Waitangi, tikanga and te reo Māori among voters.

Indeed, the current party vision of an “Aotearoa Hou” (New Aotearoa), includes reference to tangata tiriti, a phrase being popularised to refer to non-Māori who seek to honour partnerships based on te Tiriti o Waitangi.

According to the most recent polling, te Pāti Māori may not be the deciding factor in who gets to form the next government come October.

But the party’s resilience and growth after it’s electoral disappointments in 2017 and 2020 show an ability to rebuild. In doing so, it is carving out it’s place in New Zealand’s political landscape.

And if te Pāti Māori is not the kingmaker in 2023, it is still on the path to influence – and potentially decide – elections in the not-too-distant future.

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

– ref. From ‘pebble in the shoe’ to future power broker – the rise and rise of te Pāti Māori – https://theconversation.com/from-pebble-in-the-shoe-to-future-power-broker-the-rise-and-rise-of-te-pati-maori-212089