Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Alexandra, Senior research fellow, Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University

The national cabinet has announced plans to build an extra 1.2 million homes by July 1 2029. The construction, operation and maintenance of buildings accounts for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. If these new homes are built in a business-as-usual fashion, they will significantly increase national greenhouse gas emissions.

What if we committed to building homes that produced net negative emissions?
Put simply, such buildings remove more carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere than are emitted during their lifecycle. This includes emissions from producing building materials and construction through to the end of building life and demolition.

Building net-negative-emissions homes can be done. Examples have already been built overseas.

Building these homes in Australia would do much more than reduce national emissions. It would be a tangible symbol of our commitment to integrated problem-solving, in this case involving both housing and a climate-friendly future. We could produce houses that are part of the climate solution, not a big part of the problem.

Read more:
National Cabinet’s new housing plan could fix our rental crisis and save renters billions

So how do we build these homes?

Building homes that reduce rather than add to CO₂ emissions will require different planning, design, materials and construction methods.

For a start, the orientation of the buildings will have to be improved. In southern Australia, for example, ensuring living areas face north will reduce the need for heating by achieving greater sun exposure in winter. In summer, shade from the eaves of rooftops or awnings will help keep the home cool.

The design would use passive house principles. These require much better insulation to keep heat in during winter, and out during summer. Building airtight homes – known as a tight building envelope – avoids unwelcome heat gain or loss.

A house built like this massively reduces energy use in both winter and summer. Better thermal comfort is good for the occupants’ health too.

Read more:
Feeling frozen? 4 out of 5 homes in southern Australia are colder than is healthy

Better planning includes providing tree cover and green space to moderate increasingly extreme temperatures and flooding. Tree cover and green space also encourage active travel such as walking and cycling, which has many benefits.

Using materials such as low-emission concrete and negative-emission plasterboard, which absorbs CO₂ from the air, can reduce the emissions associated with construction. Homes with solar panels or solar tiles, integrated with batteries and all-electric appliances, can produce more energy than they use during their operation. They’re budget-friendly too.

At the end of the building’s life, recycling the materials in a circular economy will reduce waste. Currently, building activity accounts for 40% of our landfill waste.

Read more:
Turning the housing crisis around: how a circular economy can give us affordable, sustainable homes

Have we the capacity to do most of this right now? Yes. Examples of buildings with low, zero or negative net emissions already exist in the United Kingdom and the European Union.

And more options are coming online every day. There are so many opportunities to demonstrate best practice and produce houses of the future efficiently.

Even now, sustainable buildings cost little more upfront. The premium for sustainability ranges from -0.4% to 21% compared to a conventional building. And they save from 24% to 28% on running costs over their lifetime.

And what is the role of government?

The benefits of aiming for net-negative-emissions housing are many. It would reskill the building sector, generate new industries, build confidence in public policy, boost national pride and show that governments can solve problems in ways that tackle social equity, health and environmental concerns.

However, realising such ambitions requires action on several fronts.

First, it requires political will to take ambitious action on climate change. Implementation calls for skilful execution and sharing of risks between government and industry. This can be done by, for example, subsidising training and certification in the use of new building materials and approaches and supporting the industry to make these changes.

Climate-friendly building technology is now demonstrated in buildings across Australia. Building 1.2 million homes that use such technology would scale it up, driving down costs. Building this many climate-friendly homes would be good for developing future-ready trade and professional skills and the capacity of the local building industry supply chain.

Second, the Commonwealth would need to adopt clear targets and criteria. The states, territories and building industry should then be left to work out how best to meet them in different local circumstances.

Third, any national housing programs should be a catalyst for good design and innovation in construction. This includes mandating emission and energy targets for the promised new housing stock. For example, New Zealand mandates that new buildings are constructed to provide thermal resistance.

New housing programs should also promote innovative designs. This could include sponsoring prizes for excellence in sustainable housing.

Read more:
How ‘net-zero’ and ‘passive’ houses can cut carbon emissions — and energy bills

Fourth, new housing programs should deliver system-wide solutions integrated with energy and water networks. Progress has begun on updating urban systems in line with climate-friendly design principles for water and energy.

For example, Hornsby Shire Council has been applying water-sensitive urban design principles since the 1990s through the use of rainwater tanks, biofilters and raingardens, stormwater harvesting and wastewater recycling and reuse. The ACT government has adopted these principles in its Territory Plan.

The knowledge exists to create suburbs that generate and store their own electricity. Community batteries are operating in North Fitzroy and in suburbs across Western Australia. The ACT has plans for a community battery serving the whole territory.

As anyone with a mortgage knows, houses are long-term commitments. Building all of the promised 1.2 million homes in a future-friendly way would show our governments recognise both the long-term imperative of climate action and this immediate opportunity.

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. Better than net zero? Making the promised 1.2 million homes climate-friendly would transform construction in Australia – https://theconversation.com/better-than-net-zero-making-the-promised-1-2-million-homes-climate-friendly-would-transform-construction-in-australia-211825

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brian Moore, Lecturer, Educational Psychology & Child Development, School of Education, Charles Sturt University

As the school term stretches on, many parents might be tempted to take their children out of school. Perhaps they want to beat the crowds at the snow or enjoy off-season prices at the coast. Maybe they just need a break.

As parents, we have certainly experienced this dilemma.

But what are the rules around taking your child out of school in term time? And is it a good idea?

You do need to send your child to school

The precise rules around school attendance differ slightly from state to state. But by law you are required to send your child to school every day.

For example, in New South Wales, the state Education Act says

all students who are enrolled at school, regardless of their age, are expected to attend that school whenever instruction is provided.

The act also says parents are responsible for ensuring their children attend school and must explain absences within seven days. It’s an offence not to send your child to school and parents can be prosecuted.

Habitual school absences can be considered a form of neglect. This is defined as “a minimum of 30 days absence within the past 100 school days”. However, this should only be taken as a guide, because “a range of contextual factors may impact the level of risk”.

Obviously if a child is sick and cannot attend school, it will not be counted. There are some other exemptions, such as if a student is employed in the entertainment industry or participating in elite arts or sports events.

But exemptions around travel are less clear cut.

The NSW Department of Education and NSW Association of Independent Schools both say travel does not qualify as an exemption. However, principals can approve leave on a case-by-case basis. In the public system, if students are away for more than 100 days, a senior education department employee needs to provide approval.

The Catholic Education Office says “extended absence in relation to children of travelling families” may be a “reasonable excuse”.

For longer trips, such as taking students out of school for a term or a year, families can consider home schooling or distance education.

Why a trip can be a good idea

There can be educational benefits around taking your child out of school in term time. There is potential for learning that cannot be easily replicated in schools.

Education psychologists Jerome Bruner and Jean Piaget developed “discovery learning”, believing it is best for learners to discover facts and relationships for themselves. For example, visiting Uluru and taking a tour with local First Nations groups is arguably a better way to learn about Indigenous cultures and history than by reading about them in a book.

This approach can see children develop deeper conceptual understanding, stronger interest in particular topics and an increased sense of responsibility for their own learning.

School excursions are an example of experiential learning, and depending on what trip you’re planning, you might be able to provide your child with invaluable experiences.

Of course, it’s important to note teachers still have a role in this type of learning. They know how to ask the right questions, guide, support, and make connections between real-world and theoretical learning.

So it is not necessarily “educational” to simply present an experience and leave it at that.

Read more:
‘I spoke about Dreamtime, I ticked a box’: teachers say they lack confidence to teach Indigenous perspectives

Potential negatives

It’s also important to be aware of potential negatives when planning to take your child out of school in term time.

When students miss school, they miss lessons and fall behind. There is a wide body of research on the relationship between school attendance and academic achievement, with some studies suggesting school attendance is the best predictor of academic achievement. While there isn’t a specific threshold here, more absences are associated with higher failure rates.

In some instances, taking your child out of school could exacerbate any school refusal tendencies when they return to school. If your child already has a fear of separation, tests, or just being at school, taking them out for an unscheduled break could unintentionally reinforce this pattern of behaviour.

It may also impact the development of social skills. School refusal in early schooling is correlated with more negative social behaviours such as a lack of cooperation and self-control and increased aggressive behaviours.

Read more:
You can’t fix school refusal with ‘tough love’ but these steps might help

But is a cheeky long weekend OK?

Taking a mini break or even a longer holiday can provide opportunities for family rest, relaxation and bonding (even though at times, we may question our sanity for choosing to do so).

There is no clear answer around taking your child out of school during term time. It will of course depend on what you are planning to do and for how long. And on your family circumstances.

But it is important to remember the value of setting positive attendance habits early. If children are missing school frequently or for long periods, there is likely to be an impact on your child’s learning. Make sure you contact your school beforehand, so any leave or exemptions can be discussed and approved.

You might be tempted to ask your child’s teacher to provide work to complete while travelling. While COVID school closures may have normalised teachers providing detailed lessons for home use, we’d suggest this now goes beyond the scope of a teacher’s job description.

You might also be tempted to fulfil this role yourself (and all the power to you), but as was also observed during lockdowns, the role of teaching is easier said than done.

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. Can I take my child out of school to go on a holiday? – https://theconversation.com/can-i-take-my-child-out-of-school-to-go-on-a-holiday-211103

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Phillips, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), Australian National University

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

Cost of living pressures are acute for some, but in different ways for different types of household.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics consumer price index has climbed by 6% per year for each of the past two years.

In the decade before that, it only climbed by an average of 1.8% per year.

So, on the figures, cost of living pressures suddenly became acute, but if you had been paying attention to the media for those previous ten years you would have thought Australia had been in a cost of living crisis the entire time.

Some people have been under financial pressure the entire time, but it’s instructive to look at whose living costs have increased the most.

The best guide is a different set of indexes to the consumer price index, also produced by the bureau.

Called selected living cost indexes, they are better because they include mortgage costs, which the consumer price index does not, measuring the cost of home ownership by the cost of purchasing a home instead of the upfront cost of building a new home.

The bureau presents living cost indexes based on the spending patterns of:

• employees

• beneficiaries on pension-like payments

• beneficiaries on other payments including JobSeeker

• age pensioners

• self-funded retirees.

But it turns out the main factor that differentiates the new price pressures facing households is whether or not they have a mortgage, and in particular how recently they bought their first home.

At the Australian National University, my team has used the Bureau of Statistics’ methodology and data to calculate cost indexes based on the spending patterns of different types of households including those headed by:

• first homebuyers and recent buyers who’ve bought in the past three years

• all homeowners with a mortgage

• outright owners

• renters.

Homeowners with a mortgage turn out to have experienced a very large cost increase over the past two years of 17.5% – much more than renters who have had an average increase of “just” 10.8%, and outright owners who’ve had 11.7%.

First homebuyers who bought within the past three years faced the biggest living cost increase, of 20.5%. Those who bought within the past three years but were “changeover” buyers had an increase of 18.4%.

Younger Australians (under 35) are more likely to rent than have a mortgage. As a result, their costs increased by “only” 13.1% over the past two years, whereas the living costs of older Australians (aged 50–64) increased by 15.1%.

Perhaps for the same reason, the living costs of group households increased by “only” 13.1%, while the living costs of couples with children increased 15.2%.

Those on benefits are best protected

We found very little difference in the percentage cost of living increase based on income level alone, and also very little difference based on gender. But the source of income mattered.

Households whose main income was wages suffered cost increases of 14.6%, whereas households whose main income was government benefits had a lesser increase of 12.7%.

Read more:
Rent crisis? Average rents are increasing less than you might think

Each of these increases was far more than the average increase in incomes of 4.7%, but Australians on benefits got much bigger increases in incomes because their payments were linked to the consumer price index, meaning their incomes increased roughly in line with their costs.

Longer term, renters, homeowners treated the same

Although in the past two years costs have turned against mortgage holders more than renters and outright owners, this isn’t the case in the longer term.

The first years of COVID, 2020 and 2021, were especially good for mortgage holders (and renters), with mortgage rates (and rents) cut to long-term lows after years of very little growth.

The chart below shows that over the longer term, the living costs associated with all three types of housing have climbed more or less together, and have climbed by less than household income.

This isn’t to say those households whose living costs have climbed sharply over the past two years (mortgaged households) are suffering. Many have built up significant financial buffers in the years when interest rates were ultra-low, and many have high incomes and substantial wealth.

Nor is it to say that those households whose living costs have increased less sharply (renters) are not suffering.

Lower-income households, single parents and welfare recipients’ households were in the greatest financial stress five years ago, 10 years ago and 20 years ago, and remain in the greatest financial stress today.

Ben Phillips 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. Higher prices have hit most people but homeowners have felt it harder than renters – https://theconversation.com/higher-prices-have-hit-most-people-but-homeowners-have-felt-it-harder-than-renters-211200

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garritt C Van Dyk, Lecturer, University of Newcastle

In 1889, the Syndicat du Commerce des Vins de Champagne produced a pamphlet promoting champagne at the Exposition Universelle in Paris, claiming that Dom Pérignon, procurator of the Benedictine Abbey of Hautvillers from 1668, was the “inventor”, “creator” or discoverer” of sparkling champagne.

“Come, Brothers! I drink stars!” is the famous quote often attributed to him.

The story of a blind monk having an epiphany, accidentally happening upon the secret to effervescence, was seductive. It combined divine revelation and French winemaking expertise to produce a national symbol deeply rooted in the French landscape.

However, the truth is slightly different. Dom Pérignon did contribute to improving the still wines of the Champagne region, but he did not discover effervescence – he was trying to get rid of the bubbles.

The champagne myth

The expo where the champagne myth was propagated marked the 100-year anniversary of Bastille Day and is best known for the debut of another icon of French culture, the Eiffel Tower. The Pérignon story gained traction at the same moment these other symbols of nation-building reinforced the uniqueness of French culture and history.

The basis for the myth can be traced to a letter from Dom Grossard of Hautvillers Abbey to the mayor of Aÿ, in the heart of the Champagne region. Grossard claimed that Pérignon had perfected the method for making perfectly white wine from pinot noir grapes (blanc de noirs), pioneered the technique for effervescence, and championed the use of bottles and corks.

Only the first of these claims is true. At the abbey, wooden stoppers and canvas soaked in grease were used to seal bottles, and French glass was too weak to contain the pressure from effervescence. A bigger problem was that French winemakers – and consumers – considered bubbles a fault, a trick to distract the drinker from bad wine.

Prominent French wine merchant Bertin de Rocheret advised a client who inquired about sparkling wine:

effervescence obscures the best characteristics of good wines, in the same way that it improves wines of lesser quality.

Read more:
No, putting a spoon in an open bottle of champagne doesn’t keep it bubbly – but there is a better way

Bubbles, bottles and corks

The method for effervescence, strong glass bottles and the use of corks all came from England in the 17th century. English consumers imported wine in barrels from France because bottles were taxed at a higher rate than wine imported in bulk.

The wines often deteriorated during the journey across the channel and once opened, they oxidised quickly, developing an unpleasant flavour. To improve the taste, consumers added honey, syrup made from raisins or sugar. The additional sugar content caused a secondary fermentation – and effervescence.

In 1662, Christopher Merrett, a founder of the Royal Society, published a paper titled “Some Observations Concerning the Ordering of Wines”, in which he described the method for effervescence:

Our winecoopers of latter times use vast quantities of sugar and molasses to all sorts of wines, to make them drink brisk and sparkling, and to give them spirits, as also to mend their bad tastes.

To produce sparkling wine and retain the effervescence, three things are necessary: bubbles, strong glass bottles and corks.

Merrett’s method provided the fizz, and corks were already used in England for bottling cider and perry. Strong glass in England was a by-product of a prohibition on using wood in industrial furnaces, decreed by King James I in 1615.

Timber was too valuable to be burned for glassmaking, reserved for building ships for the merchant fleet. Using sea coal, English glass furnaces reached higher temperatures and produced stronger glass. These bottles could withstand pressure (as much as a car tyre) without bursting.

The paradox?

The only ingredient the English lacked was wine, prompting French wine historians to refer to their contribution as “The English Paradox”. How could a country with no winemaking tradition pioneer the technique for effervescence? The “paradox” label, however, only makes sense if the traditions and standards of French winemaking are presumed to be superior.

Bound by tradition, French winemakers were unwilling to contemplate a fault as a desirable innovation. Driven by necessity, and without any winemaking rules, English consumers were free to experiment.

But necessity was only part of the equation – English culture did play a part in the success of effervesce. Reserving timber for the English fleet made for stronger glass, and cider and perry production provided corks to seal the bottles.

The French champagne industry now claims effervescence was not invented, but is a natural product of the soil and climate in a strictly defined region.

Natural fermentation does produce some fizz, but rarely enough to pop a cork without the intervention of a winemaker. The emphasis on nature reinforces the exclusivity and unique geographic attributes to distinguish champagne from all other sparkling wines.

A more complex history of the origin of effervescence challenges preconceptions about national identity, even in matters of taste. This does not diminish champagne’s luxury status, but it does reveal the influence of cultural traditions on innovation, and the many influences that pave the way to novelty.

Garritt C Van Dyk works for the University of Newcastle.

– ref. Champagne is deeply French – but the English invented the bubbles – https://theconversation.com/champagne-is-deeply-french-but-the-english-invented-the-bubbles-208569

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip Laird, Honorary Principal Fellow, University of Wollongong

Both the Labour government and the opposition National Party have now released major transport polices that put the emphasis on maintaining and expanding roads.

The cost and priority of various projects will clearly be an election issue. But at the heart of the debate lies an inconvenient truth about climate change: encouraging road transport while needing to reduce carbon emissions simply does not add up.

We can see this tension in transport agency Waka Kotahi’s own policy statements: road safety and better travel options on the one hand, addressing sustainability on the other. But transport is responsible for 17% of New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, road vehicle use has been increasing, as has the popularity of larger cars and SUVs that create more emissions per kilometre. Road congestion has become worse, with the popular response being to expand road capacity.

Hence the present government’s recently announced plans for a second harbour crossing in Auckland involving two road tunnels. And the main thrust of National’s Transport for the Future policy is on more urban and intercity roads. Both Labour and National favour a second Mount Victoria tunnel in Wellington.

In the background sits the government’s Rail Plan, which sets out the “vision and priorities for rail over the next decade and beyond”. But given the clear need for New Zealand’s transport policies to change, the planned improvements need to be on a fast track.

Light rail right next door

Cars and planes are convenient, but both have low energy efficiency compared to rail.

A car’s carbon emissions per passenger kilometre can be around four times that of domestic rail (as shown by the graph above, based on UK data).

The government’s transport plans for Auckland do include light rail, but National has promised to scrap the scheme if elected. Looking across the Tasman, however, there is good evidence that light rail should not be this contentious.

Few might have predicted that Queensland’s Gold Coast light rail network – G:link, which opened in July 2014 – would see six million riders in its first 12 months of operation. Work started on a second stage within 24 months, with construction of a third stage now under way.

Read more:
70 years of road-based policies created today’s problems – does National’s transport plan add up?

The system has now seen more than 73 million paid passenger trips since it opened, with upwards of ten million trips likely in the 2022-23 year.

In 2019, three other new light rail systems opened in Australia: a short section in Newcastle, another in Canberra (where post-COVID patronage is recovering), and Sydney’s CBD and south-east line (where patronage is also bouncing back). Adelaide’s single line was also extended during the 2010s.

However, the combined patronage of all of these new light rail systems is far exceeded by Melbourne’s trams, now building back to pre-COVID levels of 205 million rides in 2018-19.

This is all part of a remarkable renaissance of light rail around the world. New Zealand could be part of this – if the will was there.

The freight factor

New Zealand’s historical shift from rail to road as the primary mode of freight transport has seen an ever-increasing dependence on trucks. While road freight grew steadily in the first two decades of this century, rail freight in 2021-2022 was the same as it was in 1999-2000.

Road freight does have some advantages, including point-to-point delivery and flexibility. But for many freight movements, using trucks rather than rail increases emissions by a factor of three. If reducing freight emissions is the goal, shifting some from road to rail is a logical solution.

Read more:
New Zealand must get over its obsession with big cars and go smaller or electric to cut emissions

Rail will therefore have to increase its own energy efficiency, including through more electrification of rail routes such as the Auckland-Hamilton-Tauranga and Palmerston North-Waikanae links.

While this was hinted at in the government’s 2023 budget, it doesn’t appear in the recently released draft government statement on land transport.

Increasing the allowable axle loading for freight wagons across the rail network would also allow trains to carry heavier loads, improve efficiency and reduce emissions.

Finally, the North Island main trunk needs upgrading to make the track straighter and allow trains to go faster. In turn this will make rail more attractive and help reduce emissions.

Read more:
To get New Zealanders out of their cars we’ll need to start charging the true cost of driving

When’s the next train?

Clearly, roads need to be maintained, and New Zealand’s road network has to be made more resilient to adverse weather impacts. But expanding road capacity at the expense of a more efficient rail system and improved public transport is a recipe for increasing emissions.

While road congestion in major cities is a problem, overseas experience tells us that more road capacity only increases vehicle use. The net result is more, not fewer, transport emissions.

Read more:
Why restoring long-distance passenger rail makes sense in New Zealand – for people and the climate

It would make more sense to upgrade the rail network to move more freight and transport more urban and intercity passengers. In fact, the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee has recently recommended that the Ministry of Transport investigate how the Rail Plan could better incorporate inter-regional passenger rail.

But New Zealand needs to move beyond recommendations. As the International Energy Agency has noted: “Rail transport is the most energy-efficient and least carbon-intensive way to move people and second only to shipping for carrying goods.”

Whichever parties form the next government have an opportunity to put New Zealand transport on the right track. On the evidence so far, however, it could be a slow train coming.

Philip Laird owns shares in some transport companies. He is affiliated with the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, the Railway Technical Society of Australasia, and the Rail Futures Institute. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

– ref. Slow train coming: only a genuine shift to rail will put NZ on track to reduce emissions – https://theconversation.com/slow-train-coming-only-a-genuine-shift-to-rail-will-put-nz-on-track-to-reduce-emissions-211662

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

Australia’s comprehensive superannuation system means spending on the age pension will decline by 2062-63 despite a doubling of Australians aged 65 and over, according to the government’s Intergenerational Report to be released on Thursday.

Expenditure on age and service pensions is projected to fall from about 2.3% of GDP in 2022–23 to 2% in the early 2060s.

On the other hand, superannuation tax concessions are projected to rise substantially as a proportion of GDP – from about 1.9% in 2022–23 to 2.4% in 2062–63.

These tax concessions are projected to overtake spending on the age pension in the 2040s. The increase is driven primarily by earnings tax concessions rising from about 1% of GDP in 2022–23 to 1.5% in 2062–63.

The figures will refocus attention on the generous tax breaks for superannuation, although attempting change is politically fraught. Both the former Coalition government and the current government faced sharp backlashes when they tightened concessions.

The intergenerational report puts the number of people 65 and over at about nine million by the early 2060s – up from nearly 4.4 million in the 2021 census.

But a smaller share of them will receive the pension or another income support, falling by about 15 percentage points by 2062–63.

The age pension is among the federal government’s largest spending programs, so the decline will significantly help the budget’s sustainability, the report says.

It says the superannuation system is “maturing”. About 17 million people own a total of about $3.5 trillion in superannuation assets. By the mid-2040s most people retiring will have received the Superannuation Guarantee at 9% or more all their working lives.

Australia’s compulsory superannuation system was introduced in the early 1990s by the Labor government. It provided for regular rises in the rate although the Coalition paused the rises for some time. The rate increased from 10.5% to 11% from July 1.

“Australia currently has the fourth largest pool of retirement assets in the world, with total superannuation balances projected to grow from 116% of GDP in 2022–23 to around 218% of GDP by 2062–63,” the report says.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the fact spending on the age pension would fall while the population aged was “the intergenerational genius of super”.

“Super is delivering on its promise – providing a better retirement for more Australians and a better outcome for the budget over the next 40 years. Labor built the super system and we’ve always worked to protect it and make it stronger,” Chalmers said.

Chalmers has been anxious to encourage superannuation funds to invest in areas such as affordable housing, but there is some reluctance by them,

Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones said the report “shows that our super system is improving the lives of Australians.

“Our government wants to make it even stronger by boosting performance, improving access to retirement advice and improving the service members receive from their super funds.”

Jones has repeatedly been blunt about superannuation funds needing to lift their game.

He said in a speech in July: “Service standards in the superannuation system need to improve. Funds have to do better. And now.” Five million Australians were retired or nearing retirement, with the average Australian now retiring with more than $200,000 in super.

“When the time comes to retire, there are huge decisions to be made about how to manage that money and get the most out of it. Australians expect that their super fund will be ready to help them navigate it.”

But a report into complaints handling had found nearly 20% of funds failed to consistently respond to complaints within the mandatory 45-day deadline, and 80% of funds were poorly set up to deal with systemic issues, Jones said.

Chalmers is releasing the Intergenerational Report in stages, before its formal unveiling on Thursday, and wants to use it to kick start as much discussion as possible about Australia’s long term economic directions and issues, as well as its budgetary challenges.

THE SHORT TERM CHALLENGES

In the short term, the government still remains firmly focused on inflation – which has moderated encouragingly – while facing an economy which is set to slow substantially over coming months, after the multiple interest rate rises.

Growth in the coming three or four quarters is expected to be flat: the government hopes a recession can be avoided although a “technical recession” (two quarters of negative growth) is not out of the question.

Consumption, which is 60% of the economy and a “lagging” indicator, is coming off. Consumption in Australia is weakening faster than in some European countries where people are on fixed interest rates. The current high level of net migration, with students and tourists returning faster than anticipated, is preventing an even greater fall in consumption.

Unemployment has started to rise and is expected to increase further, although the government doesn’t expect it to spike.

Externally, eyes are particularly on the Chinese economy, which is now softer than was earlier anticipated.

Looking to the longer term, the government this year will release its employment white paper, a migration review, and an economic strategy for engaging with south east Asia, looking for opportunities for investment to flow in both directions.

Work is being done to encourage investment generally – particularly important in the Australia’s transition to cleaner energy – which will include streamlining processes under the Foreign Investment Review Board.

Beyond the Stage 3 tax cuts, which Anthony Albanese has said repeatedly will go ahead, the government is not contemplating other income tax changes this term. And despite the Business Council of Australia’s call for comprehensive tax reform, the government favours any longer term tax reform to be in bite size increments.

While much talk is around the need to boost productivity, the government stresses that while vital, this is a complicated challenge, with productivity in the care economy hard to measure, and slow productivity growth a feature internationally.

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. Age pension cost to ease by 2060s but super tax breaks to swell: Intergenerational report – https://theconversation.com/age-pension-cost-to-ease-by-2060s-but-super-tax-breaks-to-swell-intergenerational-report-212012

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamie Pittock, Professor, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

Federal Minister for Water Tanya Plibersek today announced a new agreement to restore Australia’s largest and most important river basin. It comes just months before the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan was to be completed.

This was a plan to benefit people and nature, to protect river communities, industries and the environment against future droughts. It was forged in response to the gruelling Millennium Drought, when the Murray River stopped flowing to the sea.

It was clear too much water was being taken out of the system and everyone would suffer if Basin states could not find a better way to share. But it has been much harder to strike the right balance than first hoped.

When it became clear in July it was no longer possible to deliver the plan in full and on time, the federal government started hatching a new plan.

Now Plibersek is offering “more time, more money, more options, and more accountability”, acutely aware that “the next drought is just around the corner”. But she faces an uphill battle, with Victoria still holding out. Further, the legislation is yet to go before parliament and needs to be passed before Christmas.

Read more:
With less than a year to go, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is in a dreadful mess. These 5 steps are needed to fix it

How did we get here?

Management of the Basin rivers today is a far cry from the hope engendered in 2007 when Prime Minister John Howard announced the National Plan for Water Security, at the peak of the Millenium Drought.

He proposed reforms to Basin water governance, saying “nothing can change the basic facts of our continent” and calling for action to end “the tyranny of incrementalism and the lowest common denominator” governance. These “once and for all” reforms were intended to prevent “economic and environmental decline”.

But the Basin states were loathe to hand their powers over to the Commonwealth. Victoria and New South Wales resisted reallocating water from agriculture. Amid navigating the complex science and trade offs, it was another five years before the controversial Basin Plan was adopted in 2012.

Unfortunately, the plan then languished over the past decade as the federal, New South Wales and Victorian governments frustrated measures originally agreed to return water from agricultural use to the environment.

This week’s announcement represents the federal government taking firm steps to implement the first part of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s five-point election commitment for the Basin.

Now the federal government has reached agreements with most states who share management of the river system – Queensland, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia – but not Victoria. The Victorian government appears to be rivalling the National Party in its opposition to buying more water entitlements from irrigators (water buybacks).

The federal government is looking to purchase water entitlements from willing sellers. This is because past investments in water efficiency projects have proven to be too slow, very expensive and have had unexpected outcomes for agricultural industries and the rivers.

Victoria continues to argue its irrigation-based industries would be harmed by more water buybacks, and that the state has borne an unfair share of the burden compared to New South Wales. The Victorian government has knowledgeable staff and is well resourced, and resistance could be fierce.

Read more:
Water buybacks are back on the table in the Murray-Darling Basin. Here’s a refresher on how they work

Plibersek appears to be counting on her alliance with other states enabling required amendments to the Water Act and Basin Plan to be passed before Christmas. Given almost certain rejection by the Opposition of more water reallocation, she will require the support of cross bench Senators who may demand stronger environmental measures. The Greens have already criticised the minister’s announcement as a move that “kicks the can down the road”, but buying such a large volume of water will take years.

If the legislation is not amended, and existing deadlines remain, the federal government may be forced into recovering even more water. In particular, they would need to respond to the states’ failure to deliver on projects that are supposed to conserve wetland with less water by building water supply infrastructure.

A welcome development

The new agreement is welcome in doubling down on the original plan to recover 3,200 billion litres a year of additional water essential to maintain the health of the rivers and the people who rely on them. The federal government has focused on recovering 450 billion litres a year of water within this target that was agreed with the former South Australian premier. Premier Jay Weatherill drew on scientific advice to insist the minimum volume of water was recovered that is needed to keep the lower River Murray floodplain, lower lakes and Coorong healthy.

Unfortunately, the past decade of stalling by the federal, NSW and Victorian governments means the 2023-24 Basin Plan deadlines must be extended by two to three years if key projects are to be completed.

Much greater public assurance with transparency and accountability measures is needed if the new targets are to be met. The federal government needs to find more effective carrots and sticks to engender state compliance. This time it would be wise to withhold payments to the states until they deliver the promised action.

The federal government’s intention to redouble efforts to “relax constraints” and enable more water to flow to where it’s most needed to conserve flora and fauna is crucial. This is essential to get the most benefits for freshwater ecosystems by allowing environmental water to spill out of river channels onto floodplain wetlands. Despite a recent flurry of activity, NSW and Victoria have not delivered promised agreements with river side land owners to enable this watering.

The one disappointing aspect of the agreement is the proposal to allow more water offset projects (under the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Mechanism). These ecologically dubious projects have been problematic, with at least one being abandoned and many delayed. It is inconceivable that new projects could be identified and delivered by 2026.

But the new agreement only deals with the most immediate problems in implementing the Basin Plan. The Plan is due to be revised in 2026. The current measures do not deal with two major issues. First, ways need to be found to restore the rights of Indigenous nations to own and manage water. Currently they hold only 0.2% of issued entitlements. Second, a new Plan is needed to manage the project loss of a lot of water to climate and other environmental change.

The federal government’s agreement with most states (but not Victoria) is a really welcome initiative to get Basin Plan implementation back on track. However, even harder decisions await.

Read more:
Victoria’s plans for engineered wetlands on the Murray are environmentally dubious. Here’s a better option

Jamie Pittock is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. Jamie holds roles in a number of non-government environmental organisations. He is also the independent Chair of the ACT Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee.

– ref. Murray-Darling Basin Plan to be extended under a new agreement, without Victoria – but an uphill battle lies ahead – https://theconversation.com/murray-darling-basin-plan-to-be-extended-under-a-new-agreement-without-victoria-but-an-uphill-battle-lies-ahead-212002

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ann Kayis-Kumar, Associate Professor, UNSW Sydney

If you’re struggling to complete your tax return, you’re not alone. There are cases of Australians being years, even decades behind in their tax returns. And the poorer you are, the more likely you’ll need but can’t afford some professional help.

While tax debts and tax stress transcend socioeconomic boundaries, poorer people are more likely to be late on their tax returns – in some cases up to 30 years behind.

Our research shows about 37% of people in financial hardship seen by financial counsellors need tax help but are unable to afford it. That’s at least 80,000 Australians.

That’s a huge problem, because individuals and small businesses with outstanding returns are often ineligible for many types of government support. While the cost of tax advice is tax-deductible, you need to have the spare cash in the first place.

So if you’re worried about meeting this year’s tax return due date – or have a backlog of returns – here’s what you need to know about accessing free advice, and how we could help far more Australians, all year around.

Who can get free tax help now?

The Australian Tax Office offers a free Tax Help service to those with incomes of less than A$60,000.

This service is an important part of the landscape and assists about 30,000 people with simple tax affairs each year.

However, it is only offered between July and October. And the eligibility criteria exclude anyone working as a contractor (such as gig workers) or running a business, including as a sole trader.

This leaves a tax advice gap between those eligible for Tax Help and those who can afford professional advice to navigate the tax and transfer system.

So many people in hardship fall through the cracks – especially sole traders and micro-businesses in financial distress. For example, if your small business is cash-strapped and you’re already struggling financially and psychologically, you may not have the cash to pay for necessities, let alone an accountant.

There are other penalties as well. For example, you need to be up to date on your tax returns to claim Centrelink entitlements, or to access your superannuation early on “severe hardship grounds”.

Read more:
myTax is fast and free – so why do 2 in 3 Australians still pay to lodge a tax return?

What financial counsellors told us

We quantified the need for tax help in Australia through a nationwide survey of financial counsellors. This survey, conducted in 2019, was the first of its kind in the world to identify and quantify the prevalence of tax issues faced by the financially disadvantaged.

Financial counsellors are different to financial planners or financial advisers. Their job is to help people in debt or financial difficulty.

As such, they are the front line in helping people experiencing hardship. Thanks to the support of Financial Counselling Australia, about 20% of the 890 financial counsellors in Australia responded to our survey.

We asked what specific type of tax advice was needed. About 93% of clients wanted advice on lodging tax returns, and 88% wanted advice about tax debts.

Financial counsellors based in lower socioeconomic communities were more likely to have clients with long-term overdue tax returns. This is particularly troubling, because it means the most disadvantaged people in hardship cannot navigate the system without professional advice, which they cannot afford.

About 75% of financial counsellors observed the unmet need for tax advice was increasing. Reasons given for this included declining levels of financial literacy, the increase in “gig economy” workers, and contractors with more complicated tax issues and compliance burdens, such as collecting the goods and services tax.

Survey respondents noted the increasing number of sole traders with little knowledge. Most clients needed help to lodge multiple years of outstanding tax returns and advice on tax debts.

Read more:
Sometimes people can do with a break: 3 ways tax debt relief rules are too tough

Why we need free tax help all year around

While financial counsellors reported financial stress across different levels of income, those on low incomes are less likely to be able to afford independent tax help and face the most barriers to accessing free tax advice.

Financial counsellors are not able to complete or lodge tax returns. This presents a major gap in advice available to those in need.

Read more:
Does paying for tax advice save money? Only if you’re wealthy

As well as the Australian Tax Office’s Tax Help service, the federal government provides funding for the National Tax Clinic Program, in which university students studying tax-related courses and qualified tax experts offer free tax advice and support to people in need. By 2025, this program is set to expand to 20 clinics across all states and territories.

But our research showed the need for free tax advice went well beyond what these tax clinics can support with current funding levels.

One largely untapped opportunity is for the tax accounting profession to emulate the law profession. Australia has almost 200 community legal centres, providing pro bono (free, for the public good) advice to those who cannot afford a lawyer.

We recommend federal funding for a nation-wide free tax clinic program so that existing clinics can operate full time, year-round – like that national network of community legal centres.

The effect could be life-changing. As noted by one client of the UNSW Tax and Business Advisory Clinic:

I really don’t think people understand the magnitude of offering this assistance to people in hardship & situations where financial abuse is a factor […] it really has made a difference to my life and my children’s lives.

For information about the Australian Taxation Office’s tax help program go here. To find a university tax clinic in your state or territory, go here.

Ann Kayis-Kumar receives funding from the Australian Government’s Australian Taxation Office National Tax Clinic Program, the Ecstra Foundation’s Financial Capability Program, and the NSW Department of Communities & Justice’s Investing in Women Funding Program.

Michael Walpole receives funding from the Australian Government’s Australian Taxation Office National Tax Clinic Program, the Ecstra Foundation’s Financial Capability Program, and the NSW Department of Communities & Justice’s Investing in Women Funding Program. He has also previously had funding from the Australian Research Council.

Youngdeok Lim receives funding from the Australian Government’s Australian Taxation Office National Tax Clinic Program, the Ecstra Foundation’s Financial Capability Program, and the NSW Department of Communities & Justice’s Investing in Women Funding Program.

Gordon Mackenzie and Jack Noone 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. Worried you’ll lodge a late tax return? At least 80,000 Australians can’t afford tax advice – https://theconversation.com/worried-youll-lodge-a-late-tax-return-at-least-80-000-australians-cant-afford-tax-advice-211267

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ann Kayis-Kumar, Associate Professor, UNSW Sydney

If you’re struggling to complete your tax return, you’re not alone. There are cases of Australians being years, even decades behind in their tax returns. And the poorer you are, the more likely you’ll need but can’t afford some professional help.

While tax debts and tax stress transcend socioeconomic boundaries, poorer people are more likely to be late on their tax returns – in some cases up to 30 years behind.

Our research shows about 37% of people in financial hardship seen by financial counsellors need tax help but are unable to afford it. That’s at least 80,000 Australians.

That’s a huge problem, because individuals and small businesses with outstanding returns are often ineligible for many types of government support. While the cost of tax advice is tax-deductible, you need to have the spare cash in the first place.

So if you’re worried about meeting this year’s tax return due date – or have a backlog of returns – here’s what you need to know about accessing free advice, and how we could help far more Australians, all year around.

Who can get free tax help now?

The Australian Tax Office offers a free Tax Help service to those with incomes of less than A$60,000.

This service is an important part of the landscape and assists about 30,000 people with simple tax affairs each year.

However, it is only offered between July and October. And the eligibility criteria exclude anyone working as a contractor (such as gig workers) or running a business, including as a sole trader.

This leaves a tax advice gap between those eligible for Tax Help and those who can afford professional advice to navigate the tax and transfer system.

So many people in hardship fall through the cracks – especially sole traders and micro-businesses in financial distress. For example, if your small business is cash-strapped and you’re already struggling financially and psychologically, you may not have the cash to pay for necessities, let alone an accountant.

There are other penalties as well. For example, you need to be up to date on your tax returns to claim Centrelink entitlements, or to access your superannuation early on “severe hardship grounds”.

Read more:
myTax is fast and free – so why do 2 in 3 Australians still pay to lodge a tax return?

What financial counsellors told us

We quantified the need for tax help in Australia through a nationwide survey of financial counsellors. This survey, conducted in 2019, was the first of its kind in the world to identify and quantify the prevalence of tax issues faced by the financially disadvantaged.

Financial counsellors are different to financial planners or financial advisers. Their job is to help people in debt or financial difficulty.

As such, they are the front line in helping people experiencing hardship. Thanks to the support of Financial Counselling Australia, about 20% of the 890 financial counsellors in Australia responded to our survey.

We asked what specific type of tax advice was needed. About 93% of clients wanted advice on lodging tax returns, and 88% wanted advice about tax debts.

Financial counsellors based in lower socioeconomic communities were more likely to have clients with long-term overdue tax returns. This is particularly troubling, because it means the most disadvantaged people in hardship cannot navigate the system without professional advice, which they cannot afford.

About 75% of financial counsellors observed the unmet need for tax advice was increasing. Reasons given for this included declining levels of financial literacy, the increase in “gig economy” workers, and contractors with more complicated tax issues and compliance burdens, such as collecting the goods and services tax.

Survey respondents noted the increasing number of sole traders with little knowledge. Most clients needed help to lodge multiple years of outstanding tax returns and advice on tax debts.

Read more:
Sometimes people can do with a break: 3 ways tax debt relief rules are too tough

Why we need free tax help all year around

While financial counsellors reported financial stress across different levels of income, those on low incomes are less likely to be able to afford independent tax help and face the most barriers to accessing free tax advice.

Financial counsellors are not able to complete or lodge tax returns. This presents a major gap in advice available to those in need.

Read more:
Does paying for tax advice save money? Only if you’re wealthy

As well as the Australian Tax Office’s Tax Help service, the federal government provides funding for the National Tax Clinic Program, in which university students studying tax-related courses and qualified tax experts offer free tax advice and support to people in need. By 2025, this program is set to expand to 20 clinics across all states and territories.

But our research showed the need for free tax advice went well beyond what these tax clinics can support with current funding levels.

One largely untapped opportunity is for the tax accounting profession to emulate the law profession. Australia has almost 200 community legal centres, providing pro bono (free, for the public good) advice to those who cannot afford a lawyer.

We recommend federal funding for a nation-wide free tax clinic program so that existing clinics can operate full time, year-round – like that national network of community legal centres.

The effect could be life-changing. As noted by one client of the UNSW Tax and Business Advisory Clinic:

I really don’t think people understand the magnitude of offering this assistance to people in hardship & situations where financial abuse is a factor […] it really has made a difference to my life and my children’s lives.

For information about the Australian Taxation Office’s tax help program go here. To find a university tax clinic in your state or territory, go here.

Ann Kayis-Kumar receives funding from the Australian Government’s Australian Taxation Office National Tax Clinic Program, the Ecstra Foundation’s Financial Capability Program, and the NSW Department of Communities & Justice’s Investing in Women Funding Program.

Michael Walpole receives funding from the Australian Government’s Australian Taxation Office National Tax Clinic Program, the Ecstra Foundation’s Financial Capability Program, and the NSW Department of Communities & Justice’s Investing in Women Funding Program. He has also previously had funding from the Australian Research Council.

Youngdeok Lim receives funding from the Australian Government’s Australian Taxation Office National Tax Clinic Program, the Ecstra Foundation’s Financial Capability Program, and the NSW Department of Communities & Justice’s Investing in Women Funding Program.

Gordon Mackenzie and Jack Noone 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. Worried you’ll lodge a late tax return? At least 80,000 Australians can’t afford tax advice – here’s how to help more – https://theconversation.com/worried-youll-lodge-a-late-tax-return-at-least-80-000-australians-cant-afford-tax-advice-heres-how-to-help-more-211267

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University

While China’s relationship with the region and the world is a constant focus of attention and scrutiny, world leaders have also been closely watching North Korea, particularly for its steadily increasing ballistic missile capability.

It was the primary focus of last week’s trilateral summit held at Camp David between US President Joe Biden, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

This was the first time Biden hosted foreign leaders at the historic presidential retreat. It was a major diplomatic step in the Biden administration’s strategic policy to ramp up deterrence against China and also Russia.

A joint statement released at the summit’s conclusion condemned China’s recent military actions in the South China Sea and around Taiwan. It also opposed any changes to the territorial status quo of the Indo-Pacific through the threat or use of force.

Russia’s war against Ukraine was also condemned. The leaders pledged continued support for Ukraine in its resistance to the Russian invasion.

North Korea has increased the rate of its missile testing to record levels, with over 80 launches since the beginning of 2022. The most concerning of these tests were of its solid-fuel road-transportable Hwasong-18 ICBMs in April and July 2023. These can be quickly prepared for launch at short notice and have the range to strike the entire United States (and Australia).

Read more:
Solidarity and symbolism the order of the day as US, Japan and South Korea leaders meet at Camp David

Eyes on North Korea

In its commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the armistice marking the end of the Korean War last month, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un hosted Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu as part of a visiting delegation of senior Russian and Chinese officials.

North Korea has also been accused of supplying weapons to Russia for its war in Ukraine, which the DPRK denies. The Camp David summit therefore showed the determination of the Biden administration to reinforce alliances with its democratic partners in the Indo-Pacific.

This in turn is designed to deter the deepening level of co-operation between autocratic China, Russia and North Korea. China responded angrily to the summit, accusing the US of bringing “bloc confrontation” to the region.

Estimated to have the eighth-most-powerful military capabilities in the region, North Korea’s increasing belligerence has been noted at the United Nations. The UN Security Council was briefed last week that the “increasing militarisation” of North Korea is causing the human rights situation in the country, already one of the most oppressive in the world, to deteriorate even further.

North Korea has been under UN Security Council sanctions since 2006 for its unlawful nuclear weapons program and severe human rights abuses. Any opposition to Kim Jong-un’s totalitarian regime is brutally suppressed. The Australian Defence Forces are involved in enforcing these sanctions through Operation Argos, patrolling out of bases in Japan.

Read more:
North Korea: fears of a new famine after three years of COVID isolation and harsh repression

Even before the Camp David summit, the armed forces of the US, Japan and South Korea had been engaged in trilateral co-operation and military drills in response to North Korean missile launches.

To counter this mutual threat, the Camp David summit outlined a range of plans for the US to transform its existing bilateral military alliances with Japan and South Korea into trilateral security co-operation. Specific measures include intelligence sharing for an early warning system, a “hotline” between the three leaders, and co-ordination of anti-ballistic missile capabilities.

While no formal agreement was made, the principles espoused at Camp David to counter North Korea will aim to be institutionalised through annual trilateral leaders’ summits. Larger-scale military exercises will be conducted annually. And the broader area of economic security, an early warning system to identify threats to supply chains of resources like batteries and critical minerals, will also be established.

Relations between Japan and South Korea thaw

All this was made possible by the recent thawing of the diplomatic deep freeze between Japan and South Korea. This was largely driven by the grievances of the administration of former Democratic Party President Moon Jae-in.

The dramatic improvement in relations between Japan and South Korea were enabled by Moon’s successor, the conservative-aligned Yoon. His willingness to brave domestic political opposition and move on from the historical legacy of Japan’s imperial colonisation of Korea, particularly compensation for wartime sex slaves and forced labour, was eagerly reciprocated by his Japanese conservative counterpart Kishida.

Yoon’s visit to Tokyo last March and his state visit to the US in April, plus Kishida’s visit to Seoul in May, paved the way for the Camp David summit.

Ever since Japan and South Korea established diplomatic relations in 1965, the US has often been frustrated with the prickly relations between its two key allies in North-East Asia. It has frequently encouraged reconciliation that would allow greater trilateral military co-operation.

Read more:
What South Korean president Park’s political demise means for the region’s geopolitics

The Biden administration appears to have finally achieved this long-desired strategic objective. However, in the news conference closing the summit, Biden expressed his intention to strengthen the US alliances of the region, despite the isolationist policies of his predecessor, Donald Trump. This allusion reminds of the instability Trump threatens to bring again to US foreign policy.

Yoon also faces the prospect of his People Power Party losing control of the South Korean parliament in elections next year. Defeat could result in his impeachment.

Kishida could also be ousted if he loses the leadership ballot for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party due in September next year.

Domestic political ructions in any of the three partner countries could yet undermine the outcomes of the Camp David summit.

Craig Mark 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. Camp David summit turns attention to North Korea, as well as China – https://theconversation.com/camp-david-summit-turns-attention-to-north-korea-as-well-as-china-211875

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jay Daniel Thompson, Lecturer (Early Career Development Fellow) and Program Manager, Professional Communication program, RMIT University

On Saturday, X (formerly Twitter) chairman Elon Musk tweeted he would be removing the microblogging platform’s block function. It would remain intact for direct messages, but would otherwise become obsolete.

This is the latest in a series of controversial and often confusing moves from Musk since he took ownership of the platform in October 2022. Why does Musk want to block the block function? And what might the consequences be for users, and indeed the future of the platform?

Why block the ‘block’?

Simply, the block function on X prevents one user from interacting with another. With the click of a button, the blocker can deny another user the ability to read their tweets or reshare their content.

Musk’s dislike of this feature isn’t new. In June he remarked that “blocking public posts makes no sense”. He has also condemned campaigns among users to block subscribers paying for a Twitter Blue subscription (which grants them perks such as a blue tick beside their name and the ability to edit posts).

Musk’s latest pronouncement might be related to his self-styled “free speech absolutist” persona. Last year, after he announced the deal to purchase X (then Twitter), Musk remarked:

Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.

Accordingly, Musk then restored accounts that had been banned for what previous site moderators classified as dangerous content. These high-profile reinstatements included rapper Kanye West (removed for anti-Semitism), congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (removed for spreading COVID misinformation) and right-wing personality Dominick McGee (who posted child abuse material).

In June of this year, Musk publicly said “distasteful” content – including tweets celebrating a migrant boat accident in the Mediterranean Sea in which lives were lost – could remain online as long as they weren’t illegal.

Of course, “blocking” someone on social media isn’t the same as removing their account or deleting content. Blocking is not censorship as this is commonly understood in a social media context; it does not involve, say, removing users or their content from a platform, or even shadow-banning (whereby a platform reduces the visibility of certain posts among a large number of users).

That said, blocking does threaten the pugilistic model of free speech Musk endorses. He has called X the “player versus player” (a kind of duelling mode in online video games) of social media. The likelihood of skirmishes is reduced when “players” can block one another.

What would the consequences be?

Perhaps blocking the “block” function would allow lively and heated (but not harmful) debate to flourish on X. Or perhaps not. As Adi Robertson writes in an article for The Verge:

Blocking provides some very tangible benefits, helping users (especially high-profile ones) do anything from avoiding harassment to simply cleaning up spam in their replies.

It can also prevent exposure to hate speech, which has risen since Musk took ownership. According to the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, X “fails to act on 99% of hate posted by Twitter Blue subscribers”. Musk has disputed the findings and filed a lawsuit against the group (an action that sits uneasily alongside his free-speech absolutism).

The inability to block hate speech could help normalise it and create a hostile environment for people in groups that are often targeted, such as women, LGBTQ+ people, Indigenous people and migrants.

X has long been labelled a “hellsite” on account of the toxicity that appears on the platform. In a post-block era, it might become even more hellish.

What happens beyond the block?

Musk has suggested “a stronger form of mute” could replace the block function. The mute function currently allows users to avoid seeing the activities of certain other users – but the muted person can still interact with the muter (such as by commenting on their posts) in a way that a blocked person can’t.

What would “a stronger form of mute” look like? Musk hasn’t said. His plans to remove the block and implement this function seem particularly unclear when you consider he has already fired so many of the company’s workers, including technical staff.

Further, both the Apple Store and Google Play have guidelines stipulating that platforms hosting user-generated content must allow the blocking of other users. Removing this capacity might lead to the app stores dropping X, which could spell economic death for the platform.

Worded differently, Musk might succeed in “blocking” X from its users permanently. Or he may argue a stronger form of mute fulfils the same requirements as the block function. Either way, the signs point to a strong likelihood of X becoming a particularly nightmarish town square.

Read more:
Why Elon Musk’s first week as Twitter owner has users flocking elsewhere

Jay Daniel Thompson receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a collaborative study entitled ‘Addressing online hostility in Australian Digital Cultures’ (DP230100870). Dr. Thompson is also the recipient of a 2023 Herbert & Valmae Freilich Project ECR Small Grant for a project entitled ‘Digital citizenship and ethical journalistic representations of online hostility directed at women and girls’.

– ref. Beginning of the end: how Elon Musk’s removal of the block function on X could trigger its hellish demise – https://theconversation.com/beginning-of-the-end-how-elon-musks-removal-of-the-block-function-on-x-could-trigger-its-hellish-demise-211897

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jay Daniel Thompson, Lecturer (Early Career Development Fellow) and Program Manager, Professional Communication program, RMIT University

On Saturday, X (formerly Twitter) chairman Elon Musk tweeted he would be removing the microblogging platform’s block function. It would remain intact for direct messages, but would otherwise become obsolete.

This is the latest in a series of controversial and often confusing moves from Musk since he took ownership of the platform in October 2022. Why does Musk want to block the block function? And what might the consequences be for users, and indeed the future of the platform?

Why block the ‘block’?

Simply, the block function on X prevents one user from interacting with another. With the click of a button, the blocker can deny another user the ability to read their tweets or reshare their content.

Musk’s dislike of this feature isn’t new. In June he remarked that “blocking public posts makes no sense”. He has also condemned campaigns among users to block subscribers paying for a Twitter Blue subscription (which grants them perks such as a blue tick beside their name and the ability to edit posts).

Musk’s latest pronouncement might be related to his self-styled “free speech absolutist” persona. Last year, after he announced the deal to purchase X (then Twitter), Musk remarked:

Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.

Accordingly, Musk then restored accounts that had been banned for what previous site moderators classified as dangerous content. These high-profile reinstatements included rapper Kanye West (removed for anti-Semitism), congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (removed for spreading COVID misinformation) and right-wing personality Dominick McGee (who posted child abuse material).

In June of this year, Musk publicly said “distasteful” content – including tweets celebrating a migrant boat accident in the Mediterranean Sea in which lives were lost – could remain online as long as they weren’t illegal.

Of course, “blocking” someone on social media isn’t the same as removing their account or deleting content. Blocking is not censorship as this is commonly understood in a social media context; it does not involve, say, removing users or their content from a platform, or even shadow-banning (whereby a platform reduces the visibility of certain posts among a large number of users).

That said, blocking does threaten the pugilistic model of free speech Musk endorses. He has called X the “player versus player” (a kind of duelling mode in online video games) of social media. The likelihood of skirmishes is reduced when “players” can block one another.

What would the consequences be?

Perhaps blocking the “block” function would allow lively and heated (but not harmful) debate to flourish on X. Or perhaps not. As Adi Robertson writes in an article for The Verge:

Blocking provides some very tangible benefits, helping users (especially high-profile ones) do anything from avoiding harassment to simply cleaning up spam in their replies.

It can also prevent exposure to hate speech, which has risen since Musk took ownership. According to the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, X “fails to act on 99% of hate posted by Twitter Blue subscribers”. Musk has disputed the findings and filed a lawsuit against the group (an action that sits uneasily alongside his free-speech absolutism).

The inability to block hate speech could help normalise it and create a hostile environment for people in groups that are often targeted, such as women, LGBTQ+ people, Indigenous people and migrants.

X has long been labelled a “hellsite” on account of the toxicity that appears on the platform. In a post-block era, it might become even more hellish.

What happens beyond the block?

Musk has suggested “a stronger form of mute” could replace the block function. The mute function currently allows users to avoid seeing the activities of certain other users – but the muted person can still interact with the muter (such as by commenting on their posts) in a way that a blocked person can’t.

What would “a stronger form of mute” look like? Musk hasn’t said. His plans to remove the block and implement this function seem particularly unclear when you consider he has already fired so many of the company’s workers, including technical staff.

Further, both the Apple Store and Google Play have guidelines stipulating that platforms hosting user-generated content must allow the blocking of other users. Removing this capacity might lead to the app stores dropping X, which could spell economic death for the platform.

Worded differently, Musk might succeed in “blocking” X from its users permanently. Or he may argue a stronger form of mute fulfils the same requirements as the block function. Either way, the signs point to a strong likelihood of X becoming a particularly nightmarish town square.

Read more:
Why Elon Musk’s first week as Twitter owner has users flocking elsewhere

Jay Daniel Thompson receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a collaborative study entitled ‘Addressing online hostility in Australian Digital Cultures’ (DP230100870). Dr. Thompson is also the recipient of a 2023 Herbert & Valmae Freilich Project ECR Small Grant for a project entitled ‘Digital citizenship and ethical journalistic representations of online hostility directed at women and girls’.

– ref. The beginning of the end: Elon Musk’s removal of the block function on X could trigger its hellish demise – https://theconversation.com/the-beginning-of-the-end-elon-musks-removal-of-the-block-function-on-x-could-trigger-its-hellish-demise-211897

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Priyanka Dhopade, Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, University of Auckland

Aotearoa New Zealand is the latest country to enter the expanding and competitive international space market.

In the aerospace strategy and national space policy, the government lays out how it intends to grow the domestic space sector by launching rockets and satellites and promoting Earth observation research.

The documents indicate the government’s general priorities in “protecting New Zealand’s national interests” and the “responsible use of space”.

Sustainability is a focus in both strategy and policy but is used interchangeably in three different contexts:

• To “sustain” the economic development of the industry

• to describe the benefits of aerospace technology for sustainability efforts, like monitoring climate change

• to describe the environmental impacts of aerospace activities, largely focused on space debris, while reducing emissions (though the latter is largely a concern for the aviation industry, not space).

When a part from India’s recent rocket launch landed on Australian shores last month, it captured people’s attention – and delivered a reminder that Earth’s orbits are teeming with the discards of human endeavours in space.

Space debris indeed poses long-term threats to space activities and Earth’s environment. But sustainability should have a wider focus than the pollution of Earth’s orbital space.

Our new research provides key recommendations for expanding our view on the sustainable use of space – and this could reveal unforeseen risks and opportunities for businesses, governments, communities and Indigenous peoples.

Read more:
Harpoons, robots and lasers: how to capture defunct satellites and other space junk and bring it back to Earth

What does sustainability in space mean?

The worsening impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss have taught us that we cannot easily clean up our messes retrospectively and that pollution has inter-generational consequences.

But factoring in sustainability is usually an afterthought as we continue to compromise environmental, societal and cultural wellbeing for the sake of economic development. The ambiguity in what we mean by sustainability is part of the problem.

Nowhere in New Zealand’s aerospace strategy or policy documents is sustainability actually clarified. What is included, what is excluded, and whose concept of sustainability are we operating with?

Without clarity, it is difficult to develop techniques and targets for sustainability or to be held accountable for missing them.

Balancing priorities with values

It is also difficult to draw parallels between different knowledge systems or sectors. But this could help us avoid the mistakes that have led to the current climate and biodiversity crises.

The way economic priorities are balanced with values through a holistic relationship with the Earth, sea and sky is already embedded in many Indigenous cultures around the world, including Māori.

Read more:
Why do different cultures see such similar meanings in the constellations?

Aotearoa New Zealand’s founding documents outline the co-existence of two distinct authorities – Māori, represented by hapū (the primary political unit in traditional Māori society at the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and the British Crown. While the national space policy is committed to recognising and reflecting Māori interests in the space sector, it is not clear how these interests will translate into a genuine partnership approach to decision making.

Our research makes recommendations about how we might consider what we are trying to “sustain”, for whom and over what timeframe, what the requirements are to do so, and who needs to be at the decision-making table.

Earth, its atmosphere and beyond

Are we thinking about our future activities just on Earth, or further afield, including planetary exploration and asteroid mining?

Closer to Earth, commercial satellite technology is now a well established method to observe our planet from space. It helps to monitor weather and climate effects and provides crucial telecommunication services. But at what environmental cost to Earth?

There are currently no mandatory regulations for the space industry to report their greenhouse gas emissions or consider the life-cycle impact of their products on Earth’s environment. Without this information, how can we perform any cost-benefit calculations, on Earth or elsewhere?

Read more:
A rapidly growing rocket industry could undo decades of work to save the ozone layer – unless we act now

We are getting better at sending objects on a one-way trip to Mars, and even to the edge of the solar system. Is space ultimately a dumping ground for waste from human activity?

Society and culture

For millennia, the night sky has been a sacred environment, a repository of knowledges and a source of connection for people. It is now threatened by increasing light pollution from mega constellations of satellites and accumulating space debris.

In Australia, Aboriginal oral traditions provide a unique insight into what the sky may have looked like more than 10,000 years ago – and what that teaches us about human history. In Aotearoa, the ongoing revitalisation of Māori astronomical traditions symbolises the necessary bicultural constitutional foundations, as set out in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, for a rapidly emerging space sector.

This foundation means having authentic partnerships with tangata whenua, the Indigenous peoples. It means ensuring Māori voices are welcomed and respected at the decision-making stage and on what we choose to do in space.

Read more:
Major changes coming over the horizon for the global space industry

Māori are already paving a new way to space and deep tech. They are gaining significant funding and inspiring the next generation of rangatahi (young people) to be space professionals, while simultaneously grounded in their Māori astronomy. Broadening our view of sustainability could be the difference between oppression and recognition of Māori interests in the domestic space sector.

So far, space exploration has been propelled by competition. Throughout history, this has been sustained by cold wars and national pride, without much thought about consequence. But it is time to reconsider this and start to think of space as a commons – something more than just a resource to exploit. Space is something we all have a stake in, together on our pale blue dot.

With credit to our co-authors in our research publication: Adam Morris, Nicholas Rattenbury, Cody Mankelow, Alice Gorman, Stevie Katavich-Barton.

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. Sustainability is often an afterthought in space exploration – that needs to change as the industry grows – https://theconversation.com/sustainability-is-often-an-afterthought-in-space-exploration-that-needs-to-change-as-the-industry-grows-211335

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristin Graham, Lecturer in Podiatry, University of South Australia

Ballet flat shoes – those thin-heeled lightweight slip-on shoes – are making a fashion comeback. And it’s not hard to see why: they’re versatile, easy to wear, soft, flexible and often worn by celebrities.

We have often been warned of the dangers of high-heeled shoes, so you might think ballet flats are problem-free.

When you look at the research, however, a complicated picture emerges. There’s no definitive evidence to show ballet flats are generally harmful to foot health in the long-term. But ill-fitting ballet flats can be a problem.

Read more:
Do high top shoes actually reduce ankle sprain risk? Here’s what the research says

Make sure it fits, especially in the toe box

An estimated 70% of the population are wearing ill-fitting shoes. This mismatch between foot and shoe shape can increase foot pain, reduce stability, and can mean more blisters, corns and calluses. And habitual wearing of tight shoes has been associated with bone changes in the toes and feet over time.

Many flats feature a shallow and narrow toe box (the part of the shoe where the toes go). A too-small toe box often doesn’t align with the shape of a foot and ends up squishing the toes. It can also increase pressure on top of and under the foot, and restrict the movement of the forefoot during walking.

But a too-big toe box is also a problem. Too much foot movement within the shoe can cause pressure and friction on the skin, which can also lead to calluses, corns, blisters, and wounds.

A poorly fitting toe box can also cause micro trauma to toenails which, ultimately, can change their look and thickness.

So if you’re wearing flats, make sure you choose a shoe with the right sized toe box.

What about the heel?

Health professionals often recommend a small heel over a completely flat shoe. Very flat shoes can place more strain on the soft tissues that support the foot arch – specifically, the plantar fascia.

Research has shown moving from a completely flat shoe to a small, raised heel reduces the tension force on the plantar fascia during standing activities.

On the other hand, other research has shown most people will adapt their ankle and knee motion to accommodate shoes of different heel heights.

What about support?

Ballet flats tend to have very flexible, thin soles and heel counters (the part, coloured red in this picture, that hugs the heel and the back part of the foot).

These thin and flexible structures mean flats are often accused of lacking support. But debate rages among foot and shoe experts about how important support is in the first place.

Research on barefoot-style shoes has shown walking in these types of shoes significantly reduces some loads on the knee compared to more stable supportive shoes.

Minimalist shoes have also been found to increase strength in certain foot muscles used when we push off during walking, running or jumping.

However, other research found stable supportive shoes can improve knee pain when walking more than flat flexible shoes.

The thin soles in flats mean there is little cushioning under the foot. While more cushioning can improve comfort, and reduce stress and strain on your foot sole skin, there is no evidence it reduces loads across the lower leg.

In fact, walking in cushioned shoes has been shown to increase the load on the knee compared to flat, flexible shoes.

So, what’s the verdict?

The verdict is mixed. Yes, there’s evidence poorly fitting shoes and a flat heel can be detrimental, with consequences seen in the rearfoot (around the ankle) and knee.

But there’s also no hard evidence ballet flats cause long-term foot health problems.

What matters is choosing a well-fitted shoe to suit your foot shape and needs.

If you’re shopping for ballet flats, try to:

• choose a pair with a toe box that does not cramp your toes and has a sole at least as wide as your foot

• choose flats that offer at least some structure and support

• choose a pair with a small heel rather being than completely flat.

Kristin Graham is affiliated with Australian Podiatry Assocaition.

Saravana Kumar Is a member of Physiotherapy Association of Australia, Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health and Health Services Research Association of Australia & New Zealand.

Helen Banwell 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. Ballet flats are back. Here’s what the research says about how they affect your feet – https://theconversation.com/ballet-flats-are-back-heres-what-the-research-says-about-how-they-affect-your-feet-207806

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic O’Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University

Big policy ideas usually don’t come up in parliamentary valedictory speeches – they’re for saying goodbye and thank you. So departing Labour MP Jamie Strange was the exception last week when he made a case for New Zealand and Australia becoming one country.

The main problem, he joked, would be integrating the Australian cricket team. But he talked up the potential economic benefits, and the option does remain open under sections 6 and 121 of the Australian Constitution.

In fact, New Zealand did seriously consider joining the Australian federation in the 1890s. After all, it had been administered as part of the colony of New South Wales for about a year after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

And the relationship was already close. Maori traders began visiting Sydney from the 1790s. Settlers moved back and forth across the Tasman from the earliest contact.

Quite how such a union might be forged in the 21st century, however, raises some interesting questions about how similar – or dissimilar – the two countries have since become.

A simplified relationship

Political union would simplify the relationship: trade would be more efficient, social and cultural ties might be strengthened, passports wouldn’t be needed and banking would be easier.

Indeed, an Australian parliamentary committee recommended political union in 2006, but the Zealand prime minister at the time, Helen Clark, rejected the idea. The then opposition leader, Don Brash, said it should at least be considered, but found little support.

The committee’s second preference was for a common currency to make trans-Tasman business easier.

But close relationships don’t require political union. Australia and New Zealand hold regular ministerial meetings, share various regulatory standards, and there is military and intelligence cooperation.

There are also important policy differences – such as over the AUKUS security pact and New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy. Union wouldn’t mean the two countries coming together as equals. New Zealand members of an Australian government would influence those policies, but they wouldn’t determine them.

From nation to state

Current constitutional arrangements would mean New Zealand simply became a state of the existing Commonwealth of Australia. It would elect members to the federal parliament, but it would no longer have an independent voice in international forums.

Under the Australian Constitution, the New Zealand state parliament would be responsible for schooling, hospitals and transport, among the reserve powers of the Australian states.

Foreign policy, defence, monetary policy, higher education, pharmaceutical and GP funding would be among the responsibilities transferred to Canberra. A better cricket team might not be compensation enough.

But thinking seriously about the idea would also require both countries to consider how they might forge a different commonwealth together. And that would require an assessment of underlying national values that rarely troubles political discourse in either country.

Read more:
What Australia could learn from New Zealand about Indigenous representation

The Voice and the Treaty

Nowhere would this be more evident than in the respective debates about whether democracy should be properly inclusive of Indigenous peoples.

In Australia, opinion polls are showing the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament doesn’t have the support it needs to pass a referendum later this year. The tone of that debate also shows just how differently Australia and New Zealand think about such issues.

In my book Sharing the Sovereign, I argued that while the guaranteed Māori seats in parliament (introduced in 1867) and the role of the Treaty of Waitangi are sharply contested in New Zealand, their influence is gradually increasing.

Read more:
The Voice isn’t apartheid or a veto over parliament – this misinformation is undermining democratic debate

Political resistance to the ACT Party’s policy of marginalising the Treaty in public life is likely to be intense if it forms part of the government after the election in October. But even then, the idea that Māori people have a voice in government is largely accepted.

Australia’s prime minister argues that the Voice is a matter of justice because “it is common courtesy to consult people when you’re taking a decision that affects them”. The inference being that while First Nations people can have “their” say, “we” are still in charge.

As Wiradjuri scholar Stan Grant observed about the country he grew up in: “we lived in Australia, and Australia was for other people”.

Culture and public life

Based on population, New Zealand would be entitled to about one-sixth of the seats in the Australian House of Representatives. Like the other states it would elect 12 senators. There is no guaranteed Indigenous representation in either house and Australia would no doubt struggle to accept Māori representation. At best, there might be two or three Māori seats in the lower house.

In reality, the Māori presence in public life gives New Zealand a cultural certainty and security that is not so evident in Australia.

And the Treaty of Waitangi extends that place to all migrants. Samoan, Tongan, Chinese and Dutch MPs (among others) occasionally speak their languages in parliament as statements of identity and belonging.

Read more:
New Zealand claims Barnaby Joyce as one of its own, in new dramatic citizenship turmoil

Meanwhile, section 44(1) of the Australian Constitution says people who hold dual or multiple citizenships are not eligible for election to parliament. Although more than half the Australian population was either born overseas or has a parent born elsewhere, this multicultural demographic is not represented in its parliament.

Indeed, then-deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce was forced to leave parliament in 2017 after it was discovered he held New Zealand citizenship. He was one of many forced out in similar circumstances – a citizen of a “foreign power” only by descent but apparently therefore a threat to national security.

Cultural insecurity seems the more likely explanation. In an article on the section 44 scandal, I pointed out the absurdity by describing myself as “a citizen of Australia, Ireland and New Zealand who supports the All Blacks, drinks Guinness and looks forward to fighting for Tamworth when Dunedin invades”.

Australia and New Zealand may well be similar enough for political union to be an idea worth considering, but rejecting – if only to help us each to understand ourselves better.

Dominic O’Sullivan 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. A retiring NZ MP has suggested joining Australia – we should at least think about it (before saying no) – https://theconversation.com/a-retiring-nz-mp-has-suggested-joining-australia-we-should-at-least-think-about-it-before-saying-no-211728

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Professor and Director, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University

Preliminary data from the 2023 Intergenerational Report shows Autralia’s population aged 85 and over is set to more than triple over the next 40 years. This will exacerbate existing strains on the aged-care system.

The government’s Aged Care Taskforce is investigating aged-care funding options to develop a “fair and equitable” system, while exploring efficiency, affordability and sustainability.

The government will spend more than A$146 billion on aged care in the next four years. General tax revenue will cover that cost, mostly funded by individual income tax receipts. But the government is concerned general tax revenue won’t be enough to fund the expected growth in aged care, in the near future and longer term.

There are three primary options to increase aged-care funding. The government can either increase its contribution, ask consumers to pay more, or use a combination of both.

The need for more consumer contributions has dominated recent aged-care debates. The less asked, but more important, question is whether the general tax revenue model the government uses to fund aged care is an appropriate model to promote sustainability.

While a social insurance model is the main alternative, it won’t be the silver bullet we’re looking for to fix our aged-care funding crisis.

Read more:
Aged-care funding reforms must ensure users pay their fair share

How would social insurance work?

A social insurance model would use either voluntary or compulsory contributions from worker salaries to cover the cost of aged-care services.

It could include a prior build-up of funds, where consumers draw on accumulated savings to purchase aged-care services. Alternatively, it could operate as a pay-as-you-go (PAYG) system, where consumers draw on worker contributions each year, with an understanding that workers will draw on future contributions when they require aged care.

The first social insurance model was established in 1883 by the first chancellor of the German Empire, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. He wanted blue-collar workers to remain healthy and productive by providing access to health-care services.

The “Bismarck” model has since permeated throughout Europe, funding health-care systems in Germany, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

While this model works reasonably well in these countries, whether a social insurance model is right for funding aged care in Australia is debatable. How social insurance levies are applied matters to efficiency and equity.

Is social insurance efficient?

An efficient funding model collects and distributes revenue for the least cost possible. A social insurance model would require new legislation and a government agency managing reserves, increasing administration costs.

Less visible but more substantial funding model costs are from market distortions associated with the revenue collection mechanism such as personal income tax or a levy.

Whether a social insurance model is more efficient from a market perspective depends on how the government would otherwise increase general tax revenue.

The impact on efficiency from a social insurance model would be equivalent to an increase in income tax rates under a general tax revenue model. Both would reduce take-home pay and potentially reduce the incentive to work, for example, by reducing the willingness to work overtime.

Efficiency differences would occur if the government increased tax rates faced by businesses. This could distort business decisions, potentially reducing investment.

The size of the impact would depend on the size of the tax increase. The Victorian government introduced the mental health and wellbeing surcharge on payroll tax in 2022 to raise funds for improved mental health-care services. While business suggested it would harm growth, there is no indication this has occurred.

Read more:
Money’s tight for young people. Adding a Medicare-style levy to everyone’s tax bill is the wrong way to increase aged-care funding

Is social insurance equitable?

Other differences exist between general tax and social insurance models when assessed against equity. An equitable funding model requires people with similar financial means to pay similar amounts, and those with greater financial means to pay more.

Differences primarily result from our ageing population. Under a general tax revenue model, current workers pay for current aged-care services, but may receive more and better quality aged care when older. They will pay less compared to their future cost of care.

A social insurance model that builds up funds may better match contributions with future costs. But this requires a big ask from workers, to simultaneously build up the fund for future aged-care costs and pay for current aged-care costs.

Future aged-care costs are also uncertain. Underestimating costs mean the government will still need to spend more on aged care. Overestimating costs means workers contributed more funding than needed, losing some opportunity to spend on other goods and services, such as holidays.

What else should the government consider?

A social insurance model is a departure from our broader tax system. The government does not ask workers to contribute to their future health-care costs, nor to future social payments such as the aged pension. Both are funded by general tax revenue.

A social insurance model that required a prior build-up of funds would also take years to establish. It would not help with current underfunding problems in aged care, which have provoked poor quality and provider financial distress.

There is no strong evidence to suggest social insurance is more efficient or equitable than a general tax revenue model. Like general tax revenue models, social insurance models are exposed to shifting political winds.

The best path toward sustainable aged-care funding is for the government and consumers to pay more. The problem of securing aged-care funding may lie less in the funding model and more in securing government commitment when fiscal priorities change.

Read more:
The aged-care budget delivers for workers but meeting our future needs will require bold funding reforms

Henry Cutler 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. Our older population will triple in 40 years. But a social insurance model won’t fix the aged care funding crisis – https://theconversation.com/our-older-population-will-triple-in-40-years-but-a-social-insurance-model-wont-fix-the-aged-care-funding-crisis-211191

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dana M Bergstrom, Honorary Senior Fellow, University of Wollongong

After decades immersed in Antarctic science, I’ve learned that physical and biological changes rarely occur smoothly. More often than not, they unfold in sharp steps. Right now, Antarctica’s climate and ecosystems are experiencing disturbing changes.

Much of this winter’s sea ice is missing. A crucial ocean current is slowing down, and glaciers and ice shelves are disintegrating.

On land, fragile moss ecosystems are collapsing. Majestic emperor penguins may be headed for extinction. And pollution from human activity in Antarctica has left a toxic legacy.

It’s almost certain things will get worse. On Friday, hundreds of international scientists called for an urgent expansion – not contraction – of Southern Ocean science in response to the emerging climate crisis. This adds to the scientific chorus claiming we have only a narrow window to save the planet.

I’ve spent 40 years in Antarctic and subantarctic research. Some 22 of those were spent at the federal government’s Australian Antarctic Division; my final day there was last Thursday. No longer a public servant, I feel compelled, as a private citizen now, to publicly stand up for the icy continent and the benefit of Antarctic science to society.

Read more:
Antarctic alarm bells: observations reveal deep ocean currents are slowing earlier than predicted

Crucial to life as we know it

Antarctica matters. What happens there affects global weather patterns and sea levels.

But Antarctica’s climate is changing. Record-breaking stored heat is melting ice shelves from underneath, setting off a chain reaction. Without the buttressing of the ice shelves, glaciers flow faster to the sea. In West Antarctica, the Thwaites “doomsday glacier” is melting faster than predicted. In East Antarctica, lesser-known ice shelves have collapsed and glaciers are shrinking, adding to sea-level rise.

Read more:
Antarctica’s ‘doomsday’ glacier: how its collapse could trigger global floods and swallow islands

Antarctica is governed by the Antarctic Treaty, negotiated by 12 countries, including Australia, during the Cold War in 1959. Australia’s territory in Antarctica comprises 42% of the continent.

In my view, the treaty is magnificent. It represents a grand vision: a continent set aside for conservation, peace and science.

But Antarctica remains under threat. And the biggest threat of all is climate change.

In June this year, all treaty nations, including Australia, collectively stated:

changes in Antarctic and Southern Ocean environments are linked to, and influence, climate impact drivers globally.

They added “further irreversible change is likely” without “accelerated efforts” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientific research is crucial in the face of these threats, to help better understand these changes now and over the longer term, and to feed into policy interventions.

Surprisingly a budget shortfall appears to be inadvertently curtailing plans for science this summer, according to the Guardian Australia.

In July, the ABC reported the Antarctic Division told staff A$25 million in budget savings was needed this financial year. This led to a review of plans for field research this summer. Reportedly, two out of three permanent research stations (Mawson and Davis) will not be filled with the normal number of scientists this season. That means some planned and approved projects will not be going ahead this year, including surveys on sea-ice thickness and landfast sea ice.

Read more:
Fractured foundations: how Antarctica’s ‘landfast’ ice is dwindling and why that’s bad news

The Greens claim the $25 million hit to the Antarctic Division represents a 16% cut to its operating budget for the current financial year.

Seizing an opportunity, the Greens and Liberal Party established a Senate inquiry into what they refer to as funding cuts, to report by November 30.

Generally speaking, Antarctic activities receive overwhelmingly bipartisan support. For many decades Australia’s record in Antarctic protection has been impressive. For example, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek recently tripled the size of the marine protected area around Macquarie Island.

Former Labor environment minister Peter Garrett advanced whale conservation. He was instrumental in the campaign against so-called “scientific whaling” in the Antarctic, backed by government scientists, which culminated in Australia’s successful challenge to Japanese whaling in the International Court of Justice in 2014.

Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull funded Australia’s new icebreaker and feral pest eradication from Macquarie Island. And Labor prime minister Bob Hawke, with treasurer Paul Keating, collaborated with French prime minister Michel Rocard in 1991 to ensure a mining ban and sign the Madrid Protocol to protect Antarctic ecosystems.

Support for Antarctic Division activities contributed to curtailing the illegal toothfish fishing in Antarctic waters. A regulated, sustainable industry is now in place. Krill fisheries operate according to science-based decisions. Efforts to reduce albatross bycatch in longline fishing were also led by Antarctic Division scientists.

Cleaning up the mess in Antarctica

The story of Antarctica serves as a compelling reminder humanity must end our reliance on fossil fuels. We must also do a far better job of environmental stewardship – including paying for the scientific research so urgently needed.

Failing to fully support vital Antarctic science in a rapidly unfolding climate emergency, in my view, is unwise.

Dana M Bergstrom has received funding from the Australian Antarctic Program. As well as her university affiliation, her recent past position was a Principal Research Scientist with the Australian Antarctic Division.

– ref. I’ve spent 40 years studying Antarctica. The frozen continent has never needed our help more – https://theconversation.com/ive-spent-40-years-studying-antarctica-the-frozen-continent-has-never-needed-our-help-more-211520

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flavio Macau, Associate Dean – School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

This is the second article in The Conversation’s series examining Australia’s cost of living crisis. Read the first article in the series here.

Australia is in a cost-of-living crisis. We know that because the prices typical Australians pay for typical products have been climbing much faster than typical wages, as acknowledged in the standard briefing provided to members of parliament by Australia’s Parliamentary Library.

For most of the last century, and certainly for most of the past 20 years, wages have consistently climbed faster than prices, with minor exceptions in 2009 and 2014 when the difference between the two was small – less than 1%.

But since March 2021 prices have been climbing faster than wages.

When inflation peaked in late 2022, the annual consumer price index was climbing 4.4 percentage points faster than wages – a gap that has since shrunk, but remained at 2.4 percentage points in the latest figures for the year to June.

COVID has played an important part. In the beginning, the pandemic brought prices down, and by a lot. Remember paying 80 cents per litre for petrol?

In the first year of COVID, to the June quarter 2020, Australia went through its first year of negative inflation since 1997. That means that, taken together, prices actually fell.

Fast-forward only two years, and the quarterly consumer price index hit 7.8% in December (and the more experimental monthly index hit 8.4%.)

For those born after the 1980s, this was a first. Going from bottom to top at such a speed only increased the pain.

It began with broken supply chains

The acceleration in inflation began with a mismatch between supply and demand.

Before COVID, the world experienced more than three decades of stability and high predictability in supply chains, thanks to an intense move towards globalisation.

Countries became more specialised, industries and agriculture moved away from the United States and Europe, and manufacturing became leaner by using the just-in-time production model which ensured they met demand, but didn’t get stuck with inventories.

This prosperity was based on the assumption that goods and people could move freely across the globe. Until COVID.

Overnight, ports, railroads and trucks saw their operations slashed as people isolated. Air travel came close to a complete shutdown. With insufficient availability, transport prices skyrocketed.

Then governments sprayed us with money

Then there was a huge increase in demand for products as governments splashed around money in an effort to keep their economies afloat.

Being unable to travel, dine out or get a proper haircut, people went online to buy bicycles, air fryers and hair dryers like never before. Online shopping accelerated faster than expected, with big waiting lists for items as diverse as cars, video games, pool chlorine and pet food.

And supply was constrained by workers having to stay home. Factories couldn’t operate at capacity. Because different regions were affected at different times, and most businesses work with low inventories, “just-in-time” struggled.

Parts, components and materials suddenly became scarce. For businesses such as abattoirs, health rules in states like Victoria restricted beef, lamb and pork processing to two-thirds of normal output.

Read more:
Floods, pandemics, wars and the market: what’s driving the price of milk

Too many people buying, not enough products to sell, and difficulty moving goods created an imbalance between supply and demand, which pushed up prices globally from late 2020 onwards.

Then Russia invaded Ukraine

In early 2022 just as the world was preparing to open up, Russia invaded Ukraine.

The war triggered an energy crisis. Russia, a major global supplier of gas and oil, was driven out of several markets by international sanctions in what is a textbook trigger for inflation.

In the first wave, petrol, gas and electricity skyrocketed. In Australia, petrol stations reflect changes in international markets in a matter of days. We paid $2.50 per litre at the pump.

The second wave came as long-term contracts were renegotiated. Industries lock in prices with energy providers months in advance, meaning an increase in costs today takes time to make its way through the system.

The third wave came as prices for parts, components and materials increased downstream in a domino effect.

As an example, the increase in energy prices in early 2022 led to a rise in steel prices in late 2022, reaching home appliance prices in early 2023, and the price of goods sold in shops only in recent months.

And climate change accelerated

The pandemic’s disruptive effects lasted about two years. The war in Ukraine may go for longer, hopefully not. But the time span of both pales when confronted with something that will impact Australians for generations: climate change.

One significant consequence is extreme weather.

The Bureau of Meteorology’s report on the State of the Climate 2022 highlights the ongoing changes for Australia including amplified storms, floods, droughts, heatwaves and blizzards with “one in a 100 year” events multiplying.

Each brings disruption to supply chains, pushing up prices.

Take the rollercoaster ride of an iceberg lettuce going from $2.50 to $12.50 due to floods in Australia last year. Now it’s back to about $3.90.

Read more:
Why is lettuce so expensive? Costs have shot up, and won’t return

Or the shortage of frozen chips due to droughts in Europe and floods in New Zealand earlier this year.

Or the recent ban from India on rice exports due to extreme monsoons in South Asia, set to increase international rice prices above the 14% increase already seen in the past year. Supply uncertainty fuels inflation.

Read more:
What’s driving the potato chip shortage and when will it pass?

The move to renewables, which is fundamental to mitigating climate change, has a price tag attached to it at the moment. Net-zero targets require considerable investment by businesses as they move to green energy and materials.

While there will be a long-term return, there are costs now.

Preparing the factory floor against heatwaves (installing fans), floods (relocating sites), and disruptions (building inventory) drive up prices. On top of that, insurance premiums are on the rise, some becoming prohibitive.

Yet there’s a silver lining

This list of inflation drivers is not exhaustive as there are more forces at play, among them labour shortages, population growth and the housing crisis.

But there is good news. Supply chains are more robust after the pandemic, evidenced by container transport prices going back to what they were in 2020. The world is moving away from fossil fuels faster after the invasion of Ukraine.

Wind and solar energy are becoming cheaper at a remarkable rate, and there is promising news on hydrogen as a fuel. Business continuity plans to minimise disruptions in the face of extreme weather are stronger than before.

Supply and demand should soon find a new lasting equilibrium.

Prices will not go back to what they were, but there is every reason to believe the increases will be tamed sooner rather than later. It will be a welcome relief.

Read more:
You don’t have to be an economist to know Australia is in a cost of living crisis. What are the signs and what needs to change?

Flavio Macau is affiliated with the Australasian Supply Chain Institute (ASCI)

– ref. Prices are up and the supply of things we need is in flux. How did we get here? – https://theconversation.com/prices-are-up-and-the-supply-of-things-we-need-is-in-flux-how-did-we-get-here-210888

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

Everything we consume contains energy our bodies use to move, grow and maintain health. To work out how much energy is in different foods and drinks, we need to first look at a few core concepts.

Firstly, you’ve probably heard of the units of measurement for energy – calories – as well as the metric equivalent, which is joules. One calorie is defined as the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1℃.

In human nutrition, the amounts of energy needed to maintain health, and to fuel a body, are much larger than the tiny singular calories used to heat up a gram of water. So, the term “calorie” in nutrition commonly refers to a kilocalorie (or kcal), which is 1,000 calories. When you see the word “calories” on a nutrition label, it’s likely referring to kcals.

The energy stored in food and drinks is released when the body breaks down one or more of the four macronutrients inside the food (carbohydrates, proteins, fats, alcohol). The body then uses that energy for activities such as keeping our heart beating, our lungs breathing and our muscles moving.

When energy in food is estimated, it is the amount of energy food and drinks provide for these bodily processes. The four macronutrients provide different amounts of energy:

1. 1 gram of carbohydrate provides about 4 kcal of energy
2. 1 gram of fat provides about 9 kcal of energy
3. 1 gram of protein provides about 4 kcal of energy
4. 1 gram of alcohol provides about 7 kcal of energy.

How are calories estimated?

There are two ways to estimate the amount of energy in food and drinks.

The first is called “bomb calorimetry”. This gold-standard method involves placing a small sample of food or drink inside a device known as a bomb calorimeter. The food is burned in the presence of oxygen, releasing heat.

The amount of heat released is directly related to the amount of energy in the food, allowing a calculation to be made. This method is most commonly used for foods rich in fats and is considered the most reliable (but expensive) method.

The second method, the Altwater system, is a much less expensive method for estimating energy content. It is more commonly used when calculating energy of most food and drinks sold in supermarkets. Named after legendary food researcher Wilbur Altwater, this system uses a standard conversion factor for each macronutrient found in food and drinks. By estimating the amount of each of the four macronutrients, an approximate calculation of the total energy can be made.

However, this method requires detailed knowledge of the ingredients within composite foods (such as muesli bars or hamburgers) – which may reduce accuracy. There is also a margin of error to expect with the Altwater system, because it assumes each ingredient is always the same in composition.

For example, a cup of oats grown in one part of the country won’t necessarily have the exact same nutritional content as another cup of oats grown elsewhere, due to climate and soil differences. So, this system is an estimation based on an average.

Importantly, both methods estimate the amount of energy in food and drinks. But the actual energy our bodies extract from these foods and drinks can vary due to factors such as individual differences in digestion and absorption, as well as food processing and cooking methods.

Why do foods have calories written on them?

In Australia, it’s a legal requirement for packaged food items to have a nutrition information panel that displays the number of kcal it contains.

However, homemade food items sold at places like a fresh market may not be required to provide a nutrition information panel. This will depend on the type of food being sold and the scale of the business operation.

Fresh foods such as fruit, vegetables and meat also don’t require a nutrition information panel. To find out the number of kcal in them, you can either run an experiment with a bomb calorimeter or look up an estimated value in an online nutrition database.

Food composition databases such as CalorieKing compile information about the energy and nutrient content of various foods. Dietitians and other health professionals often use these databases to estimate the energy content of foods to inform dietary recommendations.

Different international standards

Both kJ and kcal refer to energy – they are just two different units of measurements (such as how inches and centimetres are two different units for measuring length). Kilojoules (kJ) is part of the International System of Units (SI).

Australia, New Zealand and some parts of Europe use kJ. The United States and the United Kingdom use kcal. To convert between calories and kilojoules you use the conversion factors:

• 1 kcal = 4.184 kJ
• 1 kJ = 0.24 kcal (about ¼).

For example, if you have a packet of chips with an energy content of 200 kcal, you can convert it to kJ as follows: 200 kcal × 4.184 = 836.8 kJ.

As for how many calories are acceptable to eat, the Australian Guidelines for Healthy Eating estimate the average adult requires about 7,000kJ or 1,670Kcal every day. However, differences in age, gender, size, health and physical activity will influence how much energy a person needs.

To estimate your personal energy requirements, you can use this nutrients and dietary energy calculator.

Read more:
It’s time to bust the ‘calories in, calories out’ weight-loss myth

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

Emily Burch works for Southern Cross University.

Katelyn Barnes works for The University of Queensland and ACT Health.

– ref. Calories and kilojoules: how do we know the energy content of food, and how accurate are the labels? – https://theconversation.com/calories-and-kilojoules-how-do-we-know-the-energy-content-of-food-and-how-accurate-are-the-labels-211613

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

New extracts released ahead of the government’s Intergenerational Report show it warns Australia’s economy will grow more slowly in the coming 40 years than in previous decades.

At the same time, there will be pressures on the revenue base, and changes in revenue sources.

Real gross domestic product is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 2.2% from 2022-23 to 2062-63 – which is 0.9 percentage points lower than the average rate over the previous four decades.

The lower growth reflects a slowdown in Australia’s rate of population increase, reduced participation in the workforce as the population ages, and assumed slower long-term productivity growth. Other advanced economies also face slow growth.

The full report will be released by Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Thursday.

By the early 2060s, when Australia’s population is forecast to be more than 40 million, the economy is expected to be about two and a half times bigger than now, in real terms.

Read more:
The intergenerational report will prepare us for 2063 – but what exactly is it?

The report projects total receipts (tax and non-tax) to rise from 25% of GDP to 26.3% in 2033-34, as predicted in this year’s budget, before gradually declining to 26% by 2062-63.

Tax receipts are projected to climb to 24.4% of GDP by 2033-34, as in the budget.

But the report then assumes the tax-to-GDP ratio remains at this level right through to 2062-63.

It describes this as a technical assumption and says assumptions that limit long-term tax-to-GDP growth have been a feature of every intergenerational report.

Without them, “taxes would rise significantly as a share of GDP over the projection period” as income and wages increased and the progressive income tax system operated. The result “would not be realistic”.

In government the Coalition adopted a tax-to-GDP “cap” of 23.9%, but Chalmers, before the 2022 election, rejected the notion of a cap, describing it as “arbitrary” and “imposed for political reasons, rather than good economic reasons”.

The report says the tax-to-GDP ratio averaged around 23.9% over the eight years to 2007–08 (the period between the introduction of the GST and the global financial crisis) before climbing to 24.2% during the mining boom in 2004–05 and 2005–06.

It says since 2007–08 the economy has been affected by significant external shocks, including the financial crisis and COVID.

The report points to structural changes to the economy it says will put pressure on the revenue over coming decades. It says:

Indirect sources of revenue are expected to decline as the decarbonisation of the transport industry and changing consumer preferences erode fuel and tobacco excise bases.

On the other hand, company tax and other taxes including GST are projected to broadly track economic growth, with personal income taxes increasing as a share of GDP, reflecting rising incomes and wages and population growth, but with the increase limited by the technical assumption about the tax-to-GDP ratio.

Chalmers said Australia’s future prosperity would depend on revitalising productivity growth, delivering high quality essential services and ensuring the budget was sustainable.

Earlier on Monday, he told a news conference the intergenerational report was “all about making the big shifts in our economy and our society work for us and not against us”.

He said the report was aimed at building understanding of five big shifts,

from globalisation to fragmentation, from hydrocarbons to renewables, from information technology to artificial intelligence, from younger to older, and what that means them for our industrial base and in particular for a bigger role for the care economy.

Chalmers welcomed an economic reform blueprint released by the Business Council of Australia on Monday, although he said the government did not agree with all of it.

One area of disagreement was its call to put more of the tax burden on the GST.

There was “a huge amount of common ground that we can work with the Business Council on outside the GST,” he said.

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. Intergenerational report to warn of slow growth and pressures on revenue – https://theconversation.com/intergenerational-report-to-warn-of-slow-growth-and-pressures-on-revenue-211916

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

The Queensland state election will be held in October 2024. A Resolve poll for The Brisbane Times, conducted from May to August with a sample of 947, gave the Liberal National Party 38% of the primary vote (up five since January to April), Labor 32% (down three), the Greens 11% (down one), One Nation 8% (up one), independents 8% (down two) and others 3% (up one).

Resolve doesn’t give a two-party estimate until near elections, but The Poll Bludger estimated a 51.5–48.5 lead for the LNP from this poll, a 4.5-point gain for the LNP since April.

Since the May 2022 federal election, Resolve has had better results for Labor in its federal and state polls than other pollsters, so this is a particularly bad result for Labor. The only other recent Queensland poll was an early July Freshwater poll that gave the LNP a 52–48 lead.

Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s net likeability has deteriorated this year. She was at net +8 in the poll conducted in late 2022, net -5 in early 2023 and now net -15 in this poll. LNP leader David Crisafulli’s net likeability improved six points from April to +7. Crisafulli led Palaszczuk by 37–36 as preferred premier, reversing a Palaszczuk lead of 39–31 in April.

Labor has governed in Queensland since early 2015, but federally, Queensland is the most conservative state. It was the only state the Coalition won at the 2022 federal election.

By the October 2024 state election, Labor will have governed for almost ten years, so there could be an “it’s time” factor for voters.

Victorian Resolve poll: Labor down but still far ahead

A Victorian state Resolve poll for The Age, conducted with the federal July and August Resolve polls from a sample of 1,047, gave Labor 39% of the primary vote (down two since June), the Coalition 28% (up two), the Greens 13% (down two), independents 13% (up one) and others 7% (up one).

The Poll Bludger estimated this poll would give Labor a 60–40 lead, a 2.5-point gain for the Coalition since June.

À lire aussi :
Woeful Victorian poll for state Coalition; Victoria and NSW to lose federal seats as WA gains

Labor Premier Daniel Andrews’ net likeability was down eight points since June to -7, while Liberal leader John Pesutto’s net likeability was up four points to -9. Andrews led Pesutto as preferred premier by 44–29 (49–26 in June).

In questions asked only of the August sample, voters opposed the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games by a 39–35 margin, but those supporting the cancellation would include people who thought Victoria should not have offered to hold the games in the first place.

Respondents were opposed by 44–30 to the decision to ban gas connections to new homes from next year. By 49–30, they supported freezing rent levels so owners can only increase rent every two years.

The July federal Resolve poll was conducted entirely before the games cancellation was announced on July 18, so only the August part of this poll would include reaction to this decision.

À lire aussi :
Victoria’s Labor Party plunges in a Morgan poll after Commonwealth Games axed

Federal Morgan and Redbridge polls give Labor large leads

In last week’s Morgan federal poll, conducted August 7–13 from a sample of 1,452, Labor led by 54.5–45.5, a one-point gain for Labor since the previous week. Primary votes were 35.5% Labor, 34.5% Coalition, 12% Greens and 18% for all others. Labor’s lead in Morgan has increased recently from a low of 52–48 in late July.

The Poll Bludger reported on Sunday that a Redbridge federal poll, conducted last week from a sample of 1,000, gave Labor a 55.6–44.4 lead, from primary votes of 38% Labor, 32% Coalition, 10% Greens and 21% for all others.

Additional federal Resolve questions

I previously covered the slide in Labor’s vote, Albanese’s ratings and support for the Indigenous Voice to parliament in a federal Resolve poll for Nine newspapers that was conducted August 9–13 from a sample of 1,603.

In additional questions from this poll, 54% wanted the next federal election after a full term is served in early 2025, while 20% wanted an early election in 2024. By 35–33, respondents did not think Labor’s housing policy important enough to call a special early election of both houses of parliament.

On housing policy, 30% agreed with Labor’s position, 24% with the Coalition, 18% with the Greens and 28% were undecided.

On climate change, 45% (down six since October 2021) thought it a serious and urgent problem that we should be taking action on now, even if that involves significant costs, 29% (up two) thought gradual action adequate, and 16% (up four) said we shouldn’t take action that has significant costs “until we are sure climate change is a real problem”.

By 59–19, respondents supported Labor’s 43% emissions reduction target by 2030, but support for specific climate change measures dropped since October 2021. For example, 29% (down eight) supported the Greens’ proposal to ban all coal mining and exports by 2030.

The poll article in The Age blames cost-of-living increases for undermining support for climate action.

Newspoll to be administered by a new pollster

The Poll Bludger reported on Sunday that Pyxis Polling will conduct Newspoll. Pyxis was formed after two senior staff at YouGov, which used to conduct Newspoll, resigned to start their own polling company.

I do not know when the first new Newspoll will appear, but it has now been five weeks since the last YouGov-conducted Newspoll.

Adrian Beaumont ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. LNP takes lead in Queensland Resolve poll, but Labor still far ahead in Victoria – https://theconversation.com/lnp-takes-lead-in-queensland-resolve-poll-but-labor-still-far-ahead-in-victoria-211674

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Campbell, Senior research fellow and lecturer, Monash University

This year, the Australian government rejected Clive Palmer’s coal mine proposal – but approved three others. Over 100 more fossil fuel projects are in the decision pipeline.

Why are we still approving coal projects when climate impacts are intensifying? There is, as the International Energy Agency has pointed out, no place for new fossil fuels if we have a chance of holding global heating to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels. Our existing fossil fuel infrastructure is enough to blow our remaining carbon budget.

Unusually, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek and her department were required to account for climate impacts in a recent decision.

They decided the climate effects did not have “relevant impact”. One of the key reasons they gave for this was that the emissions from burning the coal from a single mine will, they claim, have a “very small” impact on warming – just 0.00024℃ over the lifetime of the mine.

As a physicist, this argument does not stack up. What seems like a minuscule amount of warming to a politician is, to scientists, very concerning. It’s no wonder environmental organisations are filing lawsuits to try to stop these mines.

One new mine is the same as millions of nuclear bombs of heat

Right now, Plibersek and her department are weighing up final approval for the expansion of the Mount Pleasant coal mine in New South Wales’ Hunter Valley. If approved, it would let the mine’s owners MACH Energy Australia double its extraction rate to 21 million tonnes of coal per year.

So far, the project has breezed through environmental approvals. But how can Australia’s environment minister reason that new coal mines won’t do too much damage to the climate?

Plibersek gives two main arguments. One is the assumption that if we don’t dig up fossil fuels, someone else will. Known as “the drug dealer’s defence”, this rationale has been rejected in a growing number of fossil fuel court cases, for example in in NSW, Queensland and the United States.

The second – the “very small” impact on warming – is worth a closer look.

By the mining company’s calculation, the expanded project will add 535 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) to our atmosphere over the lifetime of the mine. That’s about a year’s worth of Australia’s entire domestic emissions.

The department took this CO₂e figure and estimated how much this would change Earth’s global temperature. That’s where they got the “very small” figure of 0.00024℃.

Read more:
Earth’s energy budget is not in balance. Should we be concerned?

To a politician, this small number may seem insignificant. But to a physicist it is truly remarkable. What it actually means is we are able to alter an entire planet’s temperature with this single mine extension.

Changing a planet’s temperature takes an enormous amount of energy.

If it weren’t for the greenhouse effect, Earth would be too cold for life. The problem is humans have been steadily increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, causing Earth to retain more and more of the Sun’s vast energy, heating the planet to dangerous levels.

Burning fossil fuels is responsible for most of this.

Our planet is now warming at a rate of 0.018℃ per year.

If we compare that to the department’s figure of 0.00024℃, we see the total warming effect from the Mount Pleasant mine would be about 1.3% of one year’s global warming.

Doesn’t sound like much? Consider this. Human activity is causing about 7.8 zettajoules of extra heat to be added to the Earth’s climate system every year. So, 1.3% of a year’s global warming gives roughly 0.1 zettajoules worth of extra heat through burning the output of an expanded Mount Pleasant coal mine.

Now, a zettajoule is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy. This number is so large we can’t relate to it. We can think of it instead as around 1.7 million Hiroshima bombs worth of extra heat. From one single mine extension.

So, it is not a “very small” amount of energy. And that’s just one mine. If the 25 proposed new coal mines and three recently approved projects go ahead, they would add 12,600 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere. That, in turn, would trap heat equivalent to roughly 43 million Hiroshima bombs. And this doesn’t even count the planned gas and oil projects, or projects approved at the state level.

Read more:
Two trillion tonnes of greenhouse gases, 25 billion nukes of heat: are we pushing Earth out of the Goldilocks zone?

We can’t claim we don’t know

New fossil fuel project approvals at a time when global heating is accelerating seem like a remarkable disconnect.

It’s for this reason we’re seeing a spike in climate lawsuits. The Environment Council of Central Queensland is taking Plibersek to court, aided by Environmental Justice Australia.

Central to their case will be the claim the minister acted unlawfully when she “refused to accept the climate harm these projects are likely to cause, as outlined in thousands of scientific reports, including from the IPCC and her own department.”

The lawsuit has stopped the Mount Pleasant extension and Whitehaven’s Narrabri mine from proceeding further until the case has been heard.

We can’t predict the outcome of the case – it could go either way.

But we can predict the outcome of new fossil fuel projects. Dig up coal, burn it, heat the planet. We can’t argue our way out of the laws of physics.

Read more:
Tanya Plibersek killed off Clive Palmer’s coal mine. It’s an Australian first – but it may never happen again

Simon Campbell receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with Australian Parents for Climate Action (AP4CA).

– ref. What harm could one coal mine do? Plenty – 1.7 million Hiroshima bombs of heat for starters – https://theconversation.com/what-harm-could-one-coal-mine-do-plenty-1-7-million-hiroshima-bombs-of-heat-for-starters-210384

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Prudence Gibson, Author and Research Fellow, UNSW Sydney

“They stole my face,” shouts a ten-year-old boy into a microphone, before stomping away.

We are in the Rafael Lozano-Hemmer exhibition Atmospheric Memory at the Powerhouse in Sydney. The boy’s photograph was taken as soon as he entered the exhibition and then publicly projected onto his shadow.

Like the social media it replicates, the exhibition content is a product of its users – which can feel like theft.

The main exhibition room, Atmospheres, contains a number of different works including a water-spray wall. The mist coming from the wall is a response to changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over time. It forms cloud-like visual texts whenever audience members speak into a microphone.

On the walls and floor of the main exhibition room, there are projected outsize images – a moving feast of text and data. These images and data represent the chaos of the digital world and the ubiquity of digital tracking technologies in urban environments.

All this digital imagery and scrambled text is a bit manic and unsettling.

Some of these elements from the Mexican-Canadian artist Lozano-Hemmer have been separately exhibited in Australia and internationally before. But brought together, the frenetic activity of so many competing elements in one room compromises their individual effect, especially as some recording components were not working on the day.

Themes of surveillance

The main work in the exhibition is called Zoom Pavilion. A tower supports 24 robotic cameras, which track visitors as we enter the space and report our appearance to the projectors, throwing our images onto the floor and the walls around us.

This work is a collaboration between Lozano-Hemmer and the pioneering Polish projection artist Krzysztof Wodiczko, and presents Wodiczko’s well-known theme of surveillance.

Read more:
Not Big Brother, but close: a surveillance expert explains some of the ways we’re all being watched, all the time

This type of art is what Lozano-Hemmer calls “relational architecture”, invoking the ideas of engagement and social experimentation (the “relational”) and the built environment.

He has also described these works as “platforms for public participation” and “technological theatre”: artworks that try to augment public space with gigantic interactive projections designed to bring people together in a playful way.

In another room, Field Atmosphonia is a dynamic light display accompanied by 3,000 different sound channels, including field recordings of insects and hundreds of types of birds. It is the complexity of the natural world transposed into the digital.

Imagine a murmuration of lights accompanied by sounds. Visitors walk in confused patterns, in sync with the pulses of light. Several toddlers, enchanted by the sounds and lights, run frantically away from their parents and back again.

Lost connections

This Sydney version of the show incorporates an eccentric variety of objects from the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences’ collection.

These objects include a boomerang, two terrariums with plants and rocks, three glass-blown bush-plum shapes by artist Yhonnie Scarce and, in the foyer, a slow-moving photographic panorama of late-19th-century misty Blue Mountains from the collection of Charles Kerry.

The connections between these collection items and Lozano-Hemmer’s work are hard to understand, except that they all connect to the atmosphere in various ways … at a stretch. The inclusion of the boomerang and glass shapes smacks of First Nations tokenism.

Recreated, reformed and re-presented

The overarching idea for Atmospheric Memory is that voice activation and image recording can be stored then endlessly recreated, reformed and re-presented to the audience.

Lozano-Hemmer attributes the origins of this idea to British 19th-century engineer and inventor Charles Babbage, who claimed perfect recollection is a calculation of the movement of all air molecules and could be rewound to reveal hidden voices.

Lozano-Hemmer has repositioned Babbage’s interest in psychic resonance and spirit reflection alongside his technological forecasting.

Read more:
What was the first computer?

It is arguable that Babbage’s ideas really were the precursor to the digital interconnection and uncanny surveillance tactics of the 21st century, as suggested by this exhibition. But Babbage also fell for the late-19th-century mystic allure of life-death illusionism, replayed here as the virtual/real dichotomy.

Both elements (illusionism and technology) are in play in the exhibition, but are not resolved.

Still, the rooms were packed with families enjoying the interactive elements. Even the kids who were worried about their stolen faces seemed to be having a fun time.

After pointing out the central problem of the show, the same boy returned to the mic to shout “Bye!” as he scurried off after his mother.

Atmospheric Memory is at the Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, until November 5.

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. The interactive art of Rafael Lozano-Hemmer: psychic resonance, surveillance and a murmuration of lights – https://theconversation.com/the-interactive-art-of-rafael-lozano-hemmer-psychic-resonance-surveillance-and-a-murmuration-of-lights-211430

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janelle Evans, Senior Lecturer, Critical and Theoretical Studies, Victorian College of the Arts, Faculty of Fine Arts and Music, The University of Melbourne

In 1772, Joseph Banks commissioned the foremost painter of animals in England, George Stubbs, to paint a dingo and a kangaroo.

To our modern eyes the paintings lack the vitality and strength of the animals we are familiar with in Australia. The kangaroo more closely resembles a rodent than a bipedal marsupial. The dingo’s glassy-eyed stare lacks any animation.

Stubbs was renowned for how well he captured horses and dogs. Even today, those paintings of his capture the lifelike individual essence of his subject. So why did his paintings of the dingo and kangaroo – some of the earliest European representations of Australian animals – look so strange?

Read more:
It’s Australia v England, in battle over Stubbs masterpieces

‘To compare it would be impossible’

Stubbs had not travelled with the 1768 Endeavour expedition to the South Seas. Instead, Banks commissioned him to paint from skins collected during the voyage.

While the journey was officially to chart the transit of Venus across the Sun from the vantage point of Tahiti, King George III also secretly instructed James Cook to search for the fabled Terra Australis Incognito and

with the consent of the Natives […] to take possession of a Continent or Land of great extent […]in the Name of the King of Great Britain.

Banks collected the skins of a “large dog” and a “kongouro” (thought to be a misinterpretation of the Guugu Yimidhirr word gangurru, which refers to the Grey Kangaroo) when the Endeavour pulled into safe harbour for repairs after striking the Great Barrier Reef in June 1770.

Banks recorded his first impressions of this very unfamiliar animal in his journal entry dated July 14 1770.

To compare it to any European animal would be impossible as it had not the least resemblance of any one I have seen. Its fore legs are extremely short and of no use to it in walking, its hind again as disproportionately long; with these it hops 7 or 8 feet at each hop in the same manner as the Gerbua, to which animal indeed it bears much resemblance, except in size […]

Sydney Parkinson, one of the artists who accompanied Banks, made five sketches of the dead animal after it was shot by one of the ship’s gamekeepers.

These sketches, the flayed (and possibly inflated) skins, Banks’ journal entry and his personal memories were the material that informed Stubbs as he made his preparations to paint these very unfamiliar animals.

Read more:
Friday essay: the art of the colonial kangaroo hunt

The semantic memory

Stubbs was lauded for his anatomically correct forms of horses and dogs. On occasion, Stubbs also painted exotic animals like the lions housed in the Royal Menagerie.

But his paintings of the dingo and kangaroo were the first time he painted animals he had never studied from life.

Stubbs capitalised on the swell of interest in the return of the Endeavour by exhibiting the paintings at the Society of Artists in London 1773.

This brought the dingo and the kangaroo to the scientific community and public’s attention. The animals became the two most associated with the new world of Australia – adding greatly to Great Britain’s sense of national pride as the conqueror of new worlds.

Stubbs’ kangaroo painting set the standard for future representations of the animal until well into the 19th century, serving as a model for engravings and illustrations used in scientific and popular publications.

But Stubbs’ kangaroo more closely resembles the rat-like Gerbua of Banks’ description than the creature we know today. This can perhaps be explained by Stubbs’s unfamiliarity with the animals.

As an artist who had made a lifelong study of the anatomy and movement of animals, he would normally have relied on what psychologists refer to as “implicit memory” when painting his subject in the studio. That is, the unconscious memory he would instinctively rely on from years of painting animals he was familiar with.

It’s a bit like riding a bicycle: once learned, it’s never forgotten.

In this case, Stubbs primarily relied on “semantic memory”, or general knowledge of his experiences in the world, to paint the unfamiliar by utilising the knowledge, written material and personal recollections Banks had given to him.

Having been told a kangaroo was a giant rat-like gerbua by Banks, it is understandable that Stubbs also relied on his implicit memory of rats and gerbuas to depict the kangaroo.

Rendering the unfamiliar

As an artist, I can relate to this. My paintings of unfamiliar landscapes in Scotland and Ireland always seem to depict trees that look like eucalypts.

Despite using the same brand of watercolours I have used my whole artistic life, the way I paint the interplay of light, shadow and hue on mountain passes, birch groves and fields of heather and gorse usually seems more gaudy than the dull blue-grey colours of the Australian bush.

Unconsciously, I overlay the hues of the Australian landscape onto my paintings of the British landscape in order to tone the gaudiness down – much like the English painters who conversely depicted the Australian bush as English landscapes.

Rendering the unfamiliar familiar.

Read more:
Terra nullius interruptus: Captain James Cook and absent presence in First Nations art

Janelle Evans 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. Painting the unfamiliar: why the first European paintings of Australian animals look so alien to our eyes – https://theconversation.com/painting-the-unfamiliar-why-the-first-european-paintings-of-australian-animals-look-so-alien-to-our-eyes-202719

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Woods, Professor of Health Economics, University of Technology Sydney

Treasurer Jim Chalmers is preparing to release the Treasury’s sixth Intergenerational Report on Thursday.

Whereas the first, in 2002, made projections out to 2042, this one will take us beyond the middle of the century, to 2062-63.

Already, Chalmers has spent some of the weekend pre-releasing headline numbers. More on those numbers later.

But first: what is the Intergenerational Report and why do we have it?

What is an intergenerational report?

Australia is one of many countries to produce such reports. They had their genesis in the 1980s, when much of the world became concerned that baby boomers (born in the years after the second world war) would be reaching older ages in the second decade of the 21st century.

At that time they would start leaving work and stop paying income tax.

But – and this was important – it was also the time they would also be needing more taxpayer-funded health care and aged care.

In 1982, the United Nations held a World Assembly to discuss these challenges. By the mid-1990s, four countries – New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and the
United States – were producing long-term fiscal projections.

In 1998 the Australian parliament made a similar commitment, legislating the Orwellian-sounding Charter of Budget Honesty. This required an intergenerational report within every five years to assess where Australia will be in 40 years’ time.

To date, Australia’s five reports have focused on the key drivers of economic growth, including the size and structure of the population, workforce participation, and productivity.

Some big expenditure items have also been looked into, including the three big supports of the care economy: health care, aged care and disability care. More recently, interest payments and defence spending have also gained prominence. These analyses have allowed the Treasury to compare the proportion of national income it is spending now with the proportion it is likely to be spending in 40 years’ time.

Extract from 2021 Intergenerational Report

Some things included, others not

I am one of a number of public policy experts who have just published a book, More than Fiscal, analysing the strengths and weaknesses of Australia’s 2021 Intergenerational Report.

While we concluded it had some value, we also identified significant shortcomings.

One was that nearly all of the reports to date have been very narrow in their scope. Many of the issues the public wants addressed have been missing.

Apart from the 2010 report, produced by the Rudd Labor government, the reports have included little about climate change, or about such other topics as social and economic inequality, housing availability and affordability.

They have said little about the performance of our cities, life in regional and rural Australia, geopolitical tensions and coping with natural disasters.

One clue that this year’s intergenerational report might be an improvement is Chalmers’ reference at his press conference on Monday to a report that would build our understanding of five big shifts, from

globalisation to fragmentation, from hydrocarbons to renewables, from information technology to artificial intelligence, from younger to older, and what that means them for our industrial base and in particular for a bigger role for the care economy

And yet a flurry of “backgroundings” issued over the weekend have largely served to update data on the topics the report usually covers.

Population growth is projected to slow, but is expected to reach 40 million by the early 2060s. As predicted in previous intergenerational reports, Australia will have a greater proportion of older people.

The budget pressures identified in previous reports – health care, aged care, disability care, interest payments and defence spending – are projected to grow from one-third of total Commonwealth government spending today to one-half of all Commonwealth government spending by 2062-63.

The care economy in particular is expected to almost double from around 8% GDP to around 15% in 2062–63. Further pre-announcements are expected over the next few days.

Too political, and still lacking input from Australians

Another serious concern identified by the expert group is that the reports have at times shown a decidedly political bias. In 2015, this went as far as making projections based on the Abbott government’s unlegislated policy and contrasting them with projections made if the policies weren’t adopted.

Yet another is that the reports have been focused on Commonwealth government spending. This is despite Australia being a federation, in which the states and territories play a very significant role – including running hospitals and schools and having responsibility for legislation relating to housing.

There is no sign Treasurer Chalmers will address these concerns this time, despite solutions being fairly easy to implement.

Read more:
Intergenerational reports ought to spark action, as well as scare us

The next intergenerational report will be published in three years, as Chalmers has increased the frequency to once every three years. It would be great if that and future reports were prepared by an independent body, such as the Productivity Commission, and spanned the full range of government activity across all jurisdictions.

A final thought centres on a key role for the intergenerational reports – to generate widespread discussion about the direction Australia is taking.

Why not require the independent body issue a draft report, which could be debated by all parts of society, with that public input taken into account in the final publication?

Thursday’s report has already fallen short of what it could have been, but there will be another one – and fairly soon.

Michael Woods is a Professor of Health Economics at the University of Technology Sydney and was a former Deputy Chair of the Productivity Commission. He currently receives funding from governments and organisations in relation to ageing research.

– ref. The intergenerational report will prepare us for 2063 – but what exactly is it? – https://theconversation.com/the-intergenerational-report-will-prepare-us-for-2063-but-what-exactly-is-it-211694

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frances Doyle, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Western Sydney University

Book Week is here again. Around Australia, parents of primary school-aged children are coming up with costumes, so their kids can take part in parades.

Some kids are going to love wearing costumes and showing them off to classmates and teachers.

But, what if after all that effort, your child doesn’t want to wear their costume? Or, they get to school and nerves take over.

Read more:
Book Week: it’s not the costume that matters, but falling in love with reading

3 things not to do

1. Plan an extravagant costume without your child’s input. It can be helpful to engage your a child in decision-making and problem solving when they are calm.

2. Keep your child home. Avoidance can make anxiety worse. And, avoidance sends the message that the Book Week parade is definitely something to fear.

3. Get angry and upset with your child. While you might feel annoyed or disappointed, kids learn from our reactions. And, we don’t want to teach them talking about feelings is a bad thing.

Read more:
Kids driving you crazy? Try these science-backed anger management tips for parents

Why kids might not want to take part in the school parade

It could be they are feeling anxious about looking silly in their costume. Maybe they are worried no one will know their Book Week character. Perhaps, they are concerned other kids will make fun of them.

About 6.9% of Australian children and adolescents have a diagnosed anxiety disorder, with past surveys showing 2.3% experience social anxiety. Yet these figures only include those who qualify for a diagnosis. Many other children have difficulties with worries and fears that might not be interfering with their daily life.

Anxiety is a normal human emotion evoked when we think there is an imminent threat. But, it can be hard to know what to do to support kids who are feeling anxious.

Read more:
Anxiety can look different in children. Here’s what to look for and some treatments to consider

5 ways to support your child

So, what can parents or carers do? Here are some helpful tips.

1. Get input from kids early and often

Follow your child’s lead for a costume idea or give options so they can feel they have a choice in what they will wear. Even if it’s a simple choice like “do you want to wear the red shirt or the green shirt?” Choices help us to feel in control.

2. Play ‘thought detective’ with your child

Often, we can believe worried thoughts are true. But there are often more realistic ways to look at the situation. You can ask questions to help your child come up with alternative ways of thinking about the upcoming parade. Could the feelings be re-framed as excitement? Or freedom from uniforms or usual school clothes? You can also help your child understand what to expect. This might assist with worries they will be the only kid in a costume or that they won’t know what to do.

3. Encourage your child to take small steps

You want to encourage your child to be slightly out of their comfort zone, but not completely overwhelmed. Maybe it’s wearing their normal clothes and holding a picture of a character from a book. Perhaps it’s a hat or mask? Perhaps they feel brave enough to wear a costume, but not do the parade. Of course, if they get to school and feel ready to do the parade, then encourage them to do so. By facing fears, it gives children a chance to experience whether their worries come true or not. And, often, worries don’t come true.

4. Use rewards to help motivation

Rewards help motivate children to do things they might not otherwise want to do. Rewards could be stickers, food treats, a small toy, high fives or some special time together. Your child might be willing to do the parade if they know that they will get extra special time with you. This could be time playing a favourite game, going to the park with you, or time together reading a favourite book.

5. Practise calming strategies

When a child feels anxiety in their body, they will experience physical sensations. This may mean they feel like they want to run away from the situation, freeze or even have an emotional outburst. This might happen before going to school or at the time of the parade. Parents can help kids by using calming strategies, such as taking big breaths or counting.

Treatment for anxiety in kids

If anxiety keeps interfering with your child’s life, there are treatments that can help to reduce symptoms. It can be worth talking to a professional to get them early support.

You can get support from the school counsellor, your GP, a private psychologist or even an online treatment program.

Parents and carers are important people in children’s lives. How you react to your child’s anxiety can really help them as they grow and develop.

Read more:
I think my child has anxiety. What are the treatment options?

Frances Doyle receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council’s Medical Research Future Fund.

– ref. It’s Book Week but your child is too anxious to take part. 5 expert tips to save the day – https://theconversation.com/its-book-week-but-your-child-is-too-anxious-to-take-part-5-expert-tips-to-save-the-day-211826

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Campbell, Senior research fellow and lecturer, Monash University

This year, the Australian government rejected Clive Palmer’s coal mine proposal – but approved three others. Over 100 more fossil fuel projects are in the decision pipeline.

Why are we still approving coal projects when climate impacts are intensifying? There is, as the International Energy Agency has pointed out, no place for new fossil fuels if we have a chance of holding global heating to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels. Our existing fossil fuel infrastructure is enough to blow our remaining carbon budget.

Unusually, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek and her department were required to account for climate impacts in a recent decision.

They decided the climate effects did not have “relevant impact”. One of the key reasons they gave for this was that the emissions from burning the coal from a single mine will, they claim, have a “very small” impact on warming – just 0.00024℃ over the lifetime of the mine.

As a physicist, this argument does not stack up. What seems like a minuscule amount of warming to a politician is, to scientists, very concerning. It’s no wonder environmental organisations are filing lawsuits to try to stop these mines.

One new mine is the same as millions of nuclear bombs of heat

Right now, Plibersek and her department are weighing up final approval for the expansion of the Mount Pleasant coal mine in New South Wales’ Hunter Valley. If approved, it would let the mine’s owners MACH Energy Australia double its extraction rate to 21 million tonnes of coal per year.

So far, the project has breezed through environmental approvals. But how can Australia’s environment minister reason that new coal mines won’t do too much damage to the climate?

Plibersek gives two main arguments. One is the assumption that if we don’t dig up fossil fuels, someone else will. Known as “the drug dealer’s defence”, this rationale has been rejected in a growing number of fossil fuel court cases, for example in in NSW, Queensland and the United States.

The second – the “very small” impact on warming – is worth a closer look.

By the mining company’s calculation, the expanded project will add 535 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) to our atmosphere over the lifetime of the mine. That’s about a year’s worth of Australia’s entire domestic emissions.

The department took this CO₂e figure and estimated how much this would change Earth’s global temperature. That’s where they got the “very small” figure of 0.00024℃.

Read more:
Earth’s energy budget is not in balance. Should we be concerned?

To a politician, this small number may seem insignificant. But to a physicist it is truly remarkable. What it actually means is we are able to alter an entire planet’s temperature with this single mine extension.

Changing a planet’s temperature takes an enormous amount of energy.

If it weren’t for the greenhouse effect, Earth would be too cold for life. The problem is humans have been steadily increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, causing Earth to retain more and more of the Sun’s vast energy, heating the planet to dangerous levels.

Burning fossil fuels is responsible for most of this.

Our planet is now warming at a rate of 0.018℃ per year.

If we compare that to the department’s figure of 0.00024℃, we see the total warming effect from the Mount Pleasant mine would be about 1.3% of one year’s global warming.

Doesn’t sound like much? Consider this. Human activity is causing about 7.8 zettajoules of extra heat to be added to the Earth’s climate system every year. So, 1.3% of a year’s global warming gives roughly 0.1 zettajoules worth of extra heat through burning the output of an expanded Mount Pleasant coal mine.

Now, a zettajoule is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy. This number is so large we can’t relate to it. We can think of it instead as around 1.7 million Hiroshima bombs worth of extra heat. From one single mine extension.

So, it is not a “very small” amount of energy. And that’s just one mine. If the 25 proposed new coal mines and three recently approved projects go ahead, they would add 12,600 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere. That, in turn, would trap heat equivalent to roughly 43 million Hiroshima bombs. And this doesn’t even count the planned gas and oil projects, or projects approved at the state level.

Read more:
Two trillion tonnes of greenhouse gases, 25 billion nukes of heat: are we pushing Earth out of the Goldilocks zone?

We can’t claim we don’t know

New fossil fuel project approvals at a time when global heating is accelerating seem like a remarkable disconnect.

It’s for this reason we’re seeing a spike in climate lawsuits. The Environment Council of Central Queensland is taking Plibersek to court, aided by Environmental Justice Australia.

Central to their case will be the claim the minister acted unlawfully when she “refused to accept the climate harm these projects are likely to cause, as outlined in thousands of scientific reports, including from the IPCC and her own department.”

The lawsuit has stopped the Mount Pleasant extension and Whitehaven’s Narrabri mine from proceeding further until the case has been heard.

We can’t predict the outcome of the case – it could go either way.

But we can predict the outcome of new fossil fuel projects. Dig up coal, burn it, heat the planet. We can’t argue our way out of the laws of physics.

Read more:
Tanya Plibersek killed off Clive Palmer’s coal mine. It’s an Australian first – but it may never happen again

Simon Campbell receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with Australian Parents for Climate Action (AP4CA).

– ref. What harm could one coal mine do? Plenty, producing 1.7 Hiroshima bombs of heat – https://theconversation.com/what-harm-could-one-coal-mine-do-plenty-producing-1-7-hiroshima-bombs-of-heat-210384

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Asma Aziz, Lecturer in Power Engineering, Edith Cowan University

Recent electricity price increases of 20–30% have hit households hard. Some are installing rooftop solar systems and batteries to reduce or even end their reliance on energy providers.

However, Australia’s uptake of household batteries lags well behind rooftop solar installations. The high upfront cost of batteries is a key reason.

A household battery stores excess electricity generated by your solar power system. You can use it later when solar generation can’t meet your needs – for example, at night or on cloudy days. This reduces the amount of power you buy from the grid.

But how long will the battery take to pay for itself, in the form of lower power bills? The answer varies. It depends, among other things, on where you live, your solar system size and design, how much electricity you use and at what times, network tariffs, and limits on how much surplus electricity you can feed into the grid.

Our current research project has found cases in which a solar panel and battery system will save you money in Western Australia. But the situation varies across Australia. Here, we take a look at what to consider before you buy.

Baca juga:
Solar curtailment is emerging as a new challenge to overcome as Australia dashes for rooftop solar

A tricky transition for consumers

Almost a third of Australian households have rooftop solar systems – the highest rate in the world. Households can now generate electricity on a massive collective scale.

This capability is key to the clean energy transition. But when solar systems aren’t generating enough power, households must draw electricity from the grid or a battery.

Battery costs vary with brand, size and location. On average, you’ll pay around A$1,420 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to install 1–5kWh of storage capacity. That’s down from $1,710 per kWh in 2017. The point at which buying a battery makes sense for most households is estimated at around $700 per kWh (for a lithium battery with a ten-year warranty).

At current prices, online advice suggests the warranty will typically expire before the battery pays for itself. So consumers might conclude they are better off buying solar systems only and waiting for battery prices to drop.

That’s not always the case. Our modelling found the payback time is less than the warranty period in Perth for at least two cases: using 50kWh per day with a 13.5kW solar system and 13kWh per day Tesla Powerwall 2 battery, and at 30kWh per day with a 6.6kW system and 6.5kWh LG Chem RESU battery. These batteries will cost you around $12,900 and $5,300 respectively, plus installation.

Our research also found that while there can be other reasons to get a battery, most people care about the financial benefits. But it’s not a simple decision. Some situations are good for batteries, but many people can’t use them effectively.

The amount of sunshine where you live and electricity prices also matter a lot.

In many cases, batteries might need government subsidies to be worth it.

Baca juga:
Think of solar panels more like apple trees – we need a fairer approach for what we use and sell

What you need to know to design the optimum system

Installers usually advise householders on what size solar and battery system is best for them. To get this right, installers need to know:

• household load profile – its energy use at different hours of the day and times of the year
• daily load – the household’s average total energy use in 24 hours
• tariffs – how much the household is charged for electricity from the grid, with higher tariffs at times of peak demand
• grid sales limits – households might be paid for energy they export to the grid. However, retailers may restrict the level of exports, change the feed-in tariff at different times of the day, and block feed-in to maintain grid stability.

Most households will not know their load profile. Even if they do, it might change in response to energy providers’ demand management programs – which give households incentives to reduce electricity consumption at peak times.

A system that was optimally sized might not remain so. And once installed, systems are difficult and costly to modify.

Also, customers can’t control tariff changes and grid sales limits. These can have huge impacts on the returns from their solar investments.

Unless all these factors are considered, a household might end up with an unsuitable solar panel and battery system and never recover the costs.

All this means consumers need a reliable source of information. The problem is not a lack of information but an overwhelming amount from a wide range of sources. It can be hard to tell who has a vested interest in promoting certain choices and who is offering independent advice.

Many consumers will leave the decisions to their installer. They must then choose their installer with care.

Baca juga:
How to maximise savings from your home solar system and slash your power bills

How to fix this

Householders are not the only ones who will benefit from widespread adoption of solar batteries. Network operators will too.

WA has one of the world’s largest isolated electricity grids. It also has a high uptake of rooftop solar. This threatens grid stability when solar generation surges and exceeds the capacity the network is designed to handle. Network operators are permitted to disconnect systems installed after March 14 last year as a last resort.

Baca juga:
Using electric water heaters to store renewable energy could do the work of 2 million home batteries – and save us billions

If more households installed batteries, they could store surplus energy that otherwise could destabilise the grid. But households want to be sure it’s a good investment. As recommended by Energy Consumers Australia, a trusted “one-stop shop” is needed to provide independent, tailored advice to consumers and refer them to government programs and measures.

Retailers and installers should provide households with consumer-friendly technology such as home energy management systems, including smart meters, to help them understand and manage their energy use.

Households should also be informed of alternatives. One option is community batteries, which store and supply energy to a neighbourhood of homes with solar power. Another is virtual power plants – energy-sharing networks that connect thousands of household batteries.

Armed with all this information, consumers could make more informed decisions about investing in the energy transition. Until then, many will defer the decision. And that could increase costs for both households and electricity networks.

Baca juga:
Thinking of buying a battery to help power your home? Here’s what you need to know

The research leading to some of the results mentioned in article has received funding from Edith Cowan University for EMCR Grant Scheme 2022 (Stream 2), 2023 ‑ 2024

Daryoush Habibi tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Is it worth investing in a battery for your rooftop solar? Here’s what buyers need to know (but often can’t find out) – https://theconversation.com/is-it-worth-investing-in-a-battery-for-your-rooftop-solar-heres-what-buyers-need-to-know-but-often-cant-find-out-209219

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Fuhrer, Professor of Physics, Monash University

The past few weeks have seen a huge surge of interest among scientists and the public in a material called LK-99 after it was claimed to be a superconductor at room temperature and ambient pressure.

LK-99 garnered attention after South Korean researchers posted two papers about it on arXiv, a non-peer-reviewed repository for scientific reports, on July 22. The researchers reported possible indicators of superconductivity in LK-99, including unexpectedly low electrical resistance and partial levitation in a magnetic field.

The potential discovery drew enthusiasm on social media and was widely reported in traditional media too. As a physicist working on quantum phenomena in materials, I was gratified to see the interest in superconductivity, and I shared in the excitement about the report. But I also approached the results with scepticism, especially since many previous reports of room-temperature superconductivity have failed to be reproduced.

Now, after follow-up experiments by scientists around the world, it seems LK-99 is not so special after all. However, while this particular avenue of research may be a dead end, the dream of a room-temperature superconductor is still very much alive.

What is a superconductor, and why are they useful?

You’re probably familiar with ordinary conductors, like metals, in which electrons can move fairly easily through the “crystal lattice” of atoms that makes up the material. This means an electric current can flow – but the electrons are jostled around a bit as they move, so they lose energy as they travel. (This jostling is called electrical resistance.)

In a superconductor, there is zero resistance and an electrical current can flow perfectly smoothly without losing any energy. Many metals become superconductors at very low temperatures.

Superconductivity occurs when the electrons slightly distort the crystal lattice of the metal in a way that makes them team up into “Cooper pairs”. These pairs of electrons then “condense” into a superfluid, a state of matter that can flow without friction.

Superconductors are very useful. They can be used to create extremely powerful electromagnets, such as those in MRI scanners, particle accelerators, fusion reactors and maglev trains.

Current superconductors work only at ultra-cold temperatures, so they require expensive refrigeration. A material that superconducts at everyday temperature and pressure could be used much more widely.

Currently, the highest superconducting temperatures at ambient pressure are around –138℃ (135 Kelvin), found in “cuprate” superconductors, a family of copper-containing compounds discovered unexpectedly in 1986. Electron pairing in the cuprates appears to involve a different mechanism than interaction with the lattice.

However, while our understanding of such exotic superconductors has improved, we still can’t yet predict with any certainty new materials which could superconduct at even higher temperature. Still, there is no reason to think this can’t be achieved. Moreover, many if not most superconducting materials are discovered serendipitously – so a claimed discovery of an unexpected room-temperature superconductor can’t be dismissed out of hand.

So what about LK-99?

LK-99 is a compound containing oxygen, phosphorus, lead and copper. Little was known about the material when the papers claiming superconductivity emerged. For example, it wasn’t even known whether it should conduct electricity at all.

The report of superconductivity at ambient conditions sparked a crash effort from researchers around the world to understand the material and reproduce the results. While it is still early days, and neither the initial report nor the follow-ups have been peer-reviewed, a picture has started to emerge that the LK-99 compound described by the authors is not a superconductor, and not even a metal.

Read more:
Viral room-temperature superconductor claims spark excitement – and skepticism

So if it’s not a superconductor, why did the original researchers think it was? One study has pointed out that an impurity in the initial LK-99 samples, cuprous sulfide, could explain some of what they saw.

Cuprous sulfide experiences a sudden, large change in resistance at a temperature of around 127℃ (400K). The first researchers saw this drop in resistance and attributed it to superconductivity in LK-99, but it is more likely explained by very low (not zero) resistance in the cuprous sulfide impurity.

The partial levitation of LK-99, which might have indicated a property of superconductors called “magnetic flux pinning”, seems to be caused by ferromagnetism, a familiar effect that occurs in iron and many other materials.

So while nobody has proven the LK-99 samples studied in the original reports don’t superconduct, the balance of evidence right now is strongly in favour of other explanations. Most scientists studying superconductivity don’t see much reason to continue looking at LK-99.

Excitons and beyond

What’s next for superconductivity research? Well, we can cross LK-99 off the list of materials to study, but the search goes on.

In fact, there has been a lot of progress in the past few years towards creating zero resistance under ordinary conditions.

Read more:
Room-temperature superconductors could revolutionize electronics – an electrical engineer explains the materials’ potential

Making electrons pair together is the key to superconductivity, but this is hard to do as they naturally repel each other. However, it’s possible to make an electron pair up with a “hole” in a material – a gap where an electron should be.

These electron–hole pairs are called excitons, and they can be combined with light to form a frictionless superfluid at room temperature. This superfluid doesn’t carry an electrical current (because the charges of the electron and the hole cancel out), but separating the electron and hole might allow supercurrents without resistance.

Topological insulators

An alternate route to zero resistance at room temperature has been found in so-called topological insulators. These are materials that only allow electrons to move along their edges or surfaces, in some cases with no resistance.

Graphene, a material made of sheets of carbon only a single atom thick, can be turned into a topological insulator in a strong magnetic field. But the required magnetic field is so extreme it can only be realised in a few laboratories in the world.

There are also other types of topological insulators that work without an externally applied magnetic field. Current versions of these materials show zero resistance only at very low temperatures, but there appears to be no reason they couldn’t work at room temperature.

Unfortunately superfluid excitons and topological insulators can only carry a limited amount of current, and are probably not useful for creating powerful magnets. But they could still be useful for transmitting the tiny electrical signals used in computer chips, and my colleagues and I are using them to create low-power electronic and computing technologies.

Michael Fuhrer receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Hopes fade for ‘room temperature superconductor’ LK-99, but quantum zero-resistance research continues – https://theconversation.com/hopes-fade-for-room-temperature-superconductor-lk-99-but-quantum-zero-resistance-research-continues-211733

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Crawford, Adjunct Lecturer at the Centre for Justice, Queensland University of Technology

So, that’s it then. The 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup, hosted on Australian and New Zealand soil for the first time, came to an end on Sunday night as Spain beat England 1-0 in the final, after the Matildas lost 2-0 to Sweden on Saturday to finish fourth, their best ever result.

On top of the historic result, the Matildas captured the hearts of a nation. They broke television streaming records, with the semi-final match against England becoming the most-watched program since the current rating method was established in 2001.

Jubilant scenes erupted at live sites, pubs and homes across the nation. One viral video even captured a flight full of international travelers tuning in mid-air to watch the Matildas’ penalty shootout against France.

The Women’s World Cup has also delivered an estimated A$7.6 billion boost to the Australian economy.

Through countless instances such as these, we’re experiencing not just a great sporting moment, but a great cultural one too.

But, as anyone in and around women’s football knows, the Women’s World Cup needs to be more than a four-week football festival.

It needs to move the dial on the treatment of, and investment in, women’s sport, including with the following big-ticket items.

1. Celebrate and extend the cultural shift

The “Olympic Games effect” often sees coverage of women’s sports increase during the Olympics, where people are cheering on not their usual men’s or women’s teams, but their country.

But the Women’s World Cup has generated something incredible: women inspiring girls, women, boys, and men with feats that simultaneously position gender front and centre and inspire changing attitudes around the skills, capability, and value of girls and women.

Encouraging and continuing this cultural shift will be equally, if not more, game-changing.

For starters, it will ensure young girls have idols to look up to – which women’s football greats such as Brazil’s Marta missed out on.

We must cement such a shift with good policy and investment to promote further inclusion. This should have implications beyond sport, including extending to improving women’s representation in boardrooms.

2. Acknowledge no single event can fix everything

In speaking about AFLW, but in a sentiment equally applicable to football, sports journalist Neroli Meadows noted that one day the concept of women not being able to play football, or their playing being seen as a novelty, will be as foreign a concept as women not being allowed to vote.

The 2023 Women’s World Cup has gone at least partway to achieving that normalisation.

But it’s imperative not to overplay what the team and the tournament have brought. No single sport event can neatly address all gender equality issues (we’ve heard such optimism and hype around women’s sport and its gender-equality-advancing ability before).

So while it’s important to celebrate the wins, it’s equally important to recognise the tournament isn’t the endgame but an important next step.

3. Use the data to align value with investment

Until recently, the absence of investment in women’s football and the failure to broadcast matches meant the resulting data have only ever shown us what women’s football is not.

That lack of data is also why broadcasters were able to lowball FIFA when it was trying to sell the 2023 Women’s World Cup broadcast rights. It’s also why Channel 7 was able to secure the rights to screen 15 matches for just A$4–5 million (since described as “the deal of the century”).

It’s likewise why women’s football hasn’t been considered important enough to warrant inclusion under anti-siphoning laws, which facilitate events of national significance being broadcast on free-to-air television to ensure maximum accessibility.

That cannot be allowed to happen again. The astonishing viewership data and record ticket sales must be leveraged into real commercial and gender-equality change possibilities.

4. Invest in gender-specific research and gear

A spate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries extinguished the tournament dreams of some of the world’s top women’s footballers.

Oft-cited research confirms women are up to eight times more likely to suffer ACL injuries than men. But there remains little women-specific research into ACL injury causes, much less prevention. Addressing this glaring absence is urgent.

This is symptomatic of wider issues around research overlooking women. For example, it was only last week that the world’s first study into period product absorption that used actual blood, not saline or water, was released.

Read more:
New study: much of what we’re told about gym exercises and resistance training is from studies of males, by men

The need to address other barriers is similarly important. For example, poorly fitting kits contribute to a high attrition rate for girls and women from sport. A Victoria University study confirmed what most girls and women already knew: done well, uniforms imbue comfort and confidence. But done poorly, they cause discomfort and self-consciousness and can put girls off wanting to continue sport.

Girls and women want flexibility and self-determination in uniform selection, and shorts and T-shirt options rather than skirts or dresses. Also, breathable dark material that masks sweat – so we should get rid of white shorts.

There’s also a glaring need to consider kits beyond outfield players: women referees remain overlooked.

Likewise, women’s goalkeeper kits have been unavailable for purchase this Women’s World Cup, despite many ‘keepers nation-inspiring defensive efforts. If ever there were something that summed up how women’s football simultaneously excels while being thwarted, this is it.

5. Appoint women to senior positions, but avoid the ‘glass cliff’

England coach Sarina Weigman was the only woman coach in the final four, and women remain a long way from holding apex positions such as the president of FIFA.

This tournament needs to open the door for women to be making decisions for women’s sport.

At the same time, we need to be measured and sustainable in the approach we take. We need to steer clear of the “glass cliff” phenomenon – where women are awarded senior positions only during tumult and the men who usually hold those roles are abandoning ship.

Establishing solid, steady training and mentoring programs and networks is a must.

6. Pay them properly

Providing a public holiday if the Matildas were to have won the final is all well and good. But there remains one key missing element for them, as it is for all women’s sports: pay and prize money commensurate with their contributions and talent.

Having achieved pay parity in 2019 and now earning base payments and bonuses for progressing to the knockout stages, the Matildas are in a slightly better position than their netball peers the Diamonds. The latter won the netball World Cup last week but received no pay and no bonuses for their efforts.

Read more:
Australia just won the netball world cup. Why isn’t there room for multiple women’s world cups in our sports media?

However, FIFA Women’s World Cup prize money, still a fraction of the men’s prize money, remains the elephant in the room. Total prize money for this year’s women’s tournament was US$110 million (A$165 million), while the total for the 2022 men’s edition was US$440 million (A$688 million).

FIFA has paid lip service to achieving prize money parity in coming years, but there’s little to stop it getting there now — especially off the back of record ticket sales.

7. ‘Correct the internet’

Women’s contributions have traditionally been devalued or overlooked (a phenomenon known in science as the “Matilda effect”). This has happened across many domains, including women’s football.

For example, often the historical record has seen football records such as the world’s leading international goalscorer misattributed to men. This is actually Canadian forward Christine Sinclair, having scored 190 international goals, not Cristiano Ronaldo, who’s scored 123.

Former New Zealand international footballer Rebecca Sowden has launched a campaign to “correct the internet”, aided by a gender-bias-correcting approach Google announced in July.

Efforts such as this aim to accurately place the women at the centre of this cultural and sporting revolution, appropriately affording them their place in history.

Fiona Crawford has worked in and around football for more than a decade, including having previously worked for Football Federation Australia/Football Australia.

– ref. Just the beginning: 7 ways the Women’s World Cup can move the dial on women’s sport forever – https://theconversation.com/just-the-beginning-7-ways-the-womens-world-cup-can-move-the-dial-on-womens-sport-forever-210550