Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Graeme Orr, Professor of Law, The University of Queensland

Money in electoral politics is like salt in the human body. Essential for activity – but too much imperils the heart.

Australia’s laws for the financing of national elections are the least developed of any comparable country. The present model marks its 40th birthday this year. In that time, other nations, and most Australian states, have modernised and tightened their laws.

Parliamentary committee recommendations that have just been released – with the endorsement of Labor, Greens and crossbench members – may be the catalyst for change.

What is the current regime? What reforms are proposed? And what are the prospects for lasting reform?

Read more:
Sweeping election donation and spending reforms recommended by parliamentary committee

Current rules

The Hawke government laid down the essentials of the present system in 1983. Then, as now, they involve some public disclosure of donations, plus public funding for parties or candidates that receive over 4% of the vote.

Disclosure is meant to achieve transparency around sources of campaign money. Public funding is “clean money”, to defray the cost of electioneering. (It has particularly helped minor parties, which attract few corporate donations.) Together, these measures aimed for improved integrity and a modicum of political equality.

The disclosure net has widened, particularly under the last Coalition government, to cover all sorts of lobby groups that electioneer. But at most it only requires annual reporting.

The net is also replete with holes. Parties only have to disclose “gifts” over $15,200 a year. Smaller donations, for federal electioneering, may be given anonymously to each division of a party.

Worse, the Liberal and Labor parties charge six-figure annual sums to join their business “network” or “forum”. The Australian Electoral Commission then lets them decide if that is a “gift” or a valuable purchase. This equates the undemocratic sale of access to politicians to, say, a genuine conference fee.

Public funding started at 30 cents per vote (quaintly, the cost of a stamp for a mailout). It is now over $3.12 per vote. Without limits on spending or donations, it has acted more like bankable seed funding than an incentive to avoid big and possibly dodgy donations.

Proposed reforms

The latest recommendations aim for holistic regulation across four topics. In doing so, they approximate Canada’s system, the most comprehensively regulated of our liberal-egalitarian democratic cousins. The system would also be similar to those that have evolved, over the past 15 years, for state elections in New South Wales and Queensland.

The first topic is transparency. The report recommends that gifts over $1,000 a year to a party – or to a lobby group for electioneering – be disclosed. For greater timeliness, it follows Queensland in proposing “real-time” disclosure.

The second topic is spending limits. These are a must for fairness. For the last two national elections we witnessed the farce of Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party splurging record amounts to drown out its rivals.

Spending limits can rein in that arms race. While the UAP had little formal success, it still distorted the agenda (and vexed many electors).

The third topic is donation caps. As with spending limits, no dollar amount is yet proposed. This gives wriggle room to find a “Goldilocks” figure somewhere between the Greens’ desire for a low cap and what the Liberal-National parties and Climate 200-backed teal independents would prefer.

By comparison, state caps range between $7,000 a year to a NSW party and just $4,320 over a four-year term in Victoria. As with spending limits, it’s important to adjust for the bigger stage of national campaigns.

The freedom of expression of lobby groups also must be accommodated, without letting them dominate. (Unlike parties, lobby groups are neither up for election, nor publicly accountable.)

The final topic is public funding. To compensate for reining in donations, public funding will rise. The report also recommends “administrative funding” for parties, to assist with compliance costs. Taxpayers struggling with the burgeoning cost of living can but hope public funding does not swell to the $8+ per vote enjoyed by ACT parties.

Political prospects

“It’s time for change”, as the old slogan goes. But change to what? The recommendations merely outline a model. It presumably enjoys in-principle government support.

Much needs to be thrashed out over the rest of the year. Whatever bill the government ultimately proposes to the Senate will require the Greens’ and crossbench support, or opposition backing. It is unlikely to attract the latter.

Liberal-National committee members embraced greater disclosure, but at the $8,000-a-year mark, and not more than monthly. They rejected donation and spending caps “as proposed”. Not outright: Liberal MPs felt the sting of being outspent by teal independents in 2022.

Being in opposition, they have a point. Labor will attract extra donations while it wields power. Above all, the Coalition wants the “affiliation fees” of those unions that are part of the Labor Party to be capped like donations. It also worries about unions electioneering in ways that most businesses would not.

Read more:
Stronger laws on ‘foreign’ election influence were rushed through this week – limiting speech but ignoring our billionaire problem

Independent MPs Senator David Pocock and Kate Chaney broadly supported the proposals. However, they also want concessions to “recognise barriers” to independent candidates (who lack party infrastructure and nationwide branding) and new parties.

Politics necessarily mixes principle and pragmatics. In the law about politics, pragmatics includes self-interest. Reform, at last, seems likely. Yet, to be lasting, reform should also attract a broad array of parties and even lobby groups.

Graeme Orr has worked on two ARC grants involving political finance issues, including one supported by the Electoral Council of Australia. He currently is an ‘expert’ member of the NSW Electoral Commission’s iVote panel.

– ref. Proposed spending and donations caps may at last bring genuine reform to national election rules – https://theconversation.com/proposed-spending-and-donations-caps-may-at-last-bring-genuine-reform-to-national-election-rules-208031

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yousuf Mohammed, Dermatology researcher, The University of Queensland

Topical corticosteroids, also referred to as corticosteroids or cortisone, are the go-to treatment for many skin disorders including eczema, dermatitis and psoriasis. They can be found in various forms such as creams, ointments, and solutions.

These medications work by entering the skin cells and mimicking natural hormones, blocking inflammation and constricting blood vessels. Topical corticosteroids come in different strengths, from mild (such as 0.5% Hydrocortisone, available over the counter) to very potent prescription formulations.

But the way different people react to topical steroids can be unpredictable. While some people might get significant relief with short-term use, others could need continuous care.

So, how should you use cortisone creams and ointments? And why is there conflicting advice about their long-term use?

Read more:
Health Check: why do we get dry skin in winter?

‘Use sparingly’

Patients are currently recommended to use cortisone formulations “sparingly” or “thinly”. But this can increase the risk they won’t work effectively. Treatment failure can add to “steroid phobia” and stop people getting the medication they need.

Such warnings ignore the fact many patients are prescribed modest-strength topical steroids, which are safe and effective when used properly. Adverse effects, such as when the formulations damage or irritate skin, are not typical.

From the patient’s perspective, the current warnings lump all steroids together regardless of their potential for side effects. Also, the advice tends to support false concerns: that topical and ingested (orally taken) corticosteroids carry the same dangers, which they do not.

Mixed messages

Should you use a weaker formulation for longer? Or hit the problem hard with a stronger concentration for less time?

At the moment, some treatment recommendations – such as for scalp psoriasis – say patients should use a high-dose cortisone formulation for four weeks and increase frequency of use if it’s not effective. If cortisone is extensively used, it is advised adults and children should be examined yearly for side effects.

Skin atrophy (or deterioration) is the most common side effect of topical corticosteroids and manifests as tiny degenerative alterations within a few weeks. The patient’s age, body site, cortisone potency and the existence of any coverings, all have an impact on the extent of skin damage.

Reduced skin cell growth, decreased collagen development and stimulation of tiny vessels and capillaries in the skin are the main features of such skin atrophy. Thinner skin, more moisture, higher temperatures, and partial blockage make areas where skin folds on the body (for example, the armpits, between fingers, the groin) particularly vulnerable. These are also often the sites of skin irritation needing treatment.

Skin thinning

Topical steroids cause the skin to reabsorb a type of connective tissue building block, called mucopolysaccharide ground material. Repeated use in the same spot on the body results in alterations to the skin’s connective tissue and epidermal thinning.

That can result in lax, translucent, wrinkled skin as well as striae (stretch marks), fragility, hypo-pigmentation (fading) and the prominence of underlying veins.

More research is needed to help specialists choose the best corticosteroids for a given condition. High-potency cortisone formulations, long-term use and sun exposure have been implicated in chronic fragile skin syndrome, which is increasingly common and features the symptoms outlined above.

However, if best practice guidelines are followed, these side effects can be reduced by using lowering the potency of corticosteroids and stopping treatment when the patient has fully recovered.

Corticosteroids should only be used for a maximum of three months. For some conditions, such as vitiligo, they need to be used for longer periods, so regularly taking several weeks’ break is advised.

The good news is that once topical corticosteroids are stopped, short-term atrophy from treatment can be reversed, although skin normalisation may take months.

Read more:
Drugs and the sun – your daily medications could put you at greater risk of sunburn

Can you use it safely on your face?

Due to the substantial risk of steroid-induced skin deterioration, the guidelines recommend against using potent and very potent corticosteroids on the face, flexures (parts of the body that bend, such as elbows) or genitalia. So, mild to moderate-potency corticosteroids are the main treatment option.

Using strong cortisone creams or ointments on the face can lead to steroid dependence. Patients who are dependent on steroids and have acne, rosacea, perioral dermatitis or telangiectasia (widened blood vessels on the skin) continue to use the drug because they worry stopping the drug could worsen their condition.

Topical steroids on the face can cause symptoms sometimes referred to as “red face syndrome”, dermatitis rosaceaformis steroidica or steroid addiction. And stopping steroid use on the face after an extended period can have considerable rebound effects including erythema (redness), burning and scaling.

Read more:
What is sodium lauryl sulfate and is it safe to use?

The bottom line

When used correctly, cortisone creams, ointments and lotions can be safe and effective.

Clear instructions could include estimating dosage in “fingertip units”, with a chart showing the number of units needed for various body parts, such as one unit to treat skin on an adult’s hand but seven units to treat skin on their back.

To avoid skin damage, corticosteroids should only be used on skin affected by a skin disease. Better education and information is needed to reflect the minimal risks from topical corticosteroids that are low to moderate strength and how important it is to use enough medication to treat a condition.

Finally, treatment should be customised based on the person’s symptoms, the body parts affected and how long treatment might be required.

Yousuf Mohammed receives funding from U.S FDA grants. This article reflects the views of the author and
should not be construed to represent views or
policies.

Khadeejeh AL-Smadi 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. Can I put cortisone on my face? The right advice on creams to fix irritated skin – https://theconversation.com/can-i-put-cortisone-on-my-face-the-right-advice-on-creams-to-fix-irritated-skin-203575

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rod Davies, Lecturer in popular music and songwriting, Monash University

The Australian recording industry recently announced a campaign called Radio Fair Play⁠.

The campaign argues “artists and rights holders aren’t getting paid fairly for songs played on radio”, in reference to the license fees radio stations pay for the use of songs in their broadcasts.

In Australia, sound recording license fees are collected by the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) who distributes the revenue as income to record labels and artists. PPCA claims Australian radio pays between just 10 and 27% of the commercial rates paid elsewhere in the world and artists here are being considerably underpaid.

It seems like a simple argument – “pay artists fairly”. But there are more factors at play than just whether radio stations will pay higher fees.

For starters, standing in the way is a 55-year-old Australian law that currently protects commercial radio and the ABC from paying more.

What are radio caps?

Formal recognition of economic rights in sound recordings didn’t exist in Australia until the introduction of the Copyright Act in 1968. Prior to this, only songwriters received royalties when their music was played on the radio.

Parliamentary negotiations leading up to the Copyright Act were dominated by the broadcasters and record companies, and focused on two crucial points of contention: who do the broadcasters have to pay? And how much do the broadcasters have to pay?

The Labor opposition supported the legislation of sound recording rights for all parties – record labels, broadcasters and performers. However, the governing coalition was dramatically split in its support. While the Liberals were keen on the proposal, the Country Party held serious concerns that license fees would severely impact regional radio, a position that threatened to dismantle the coalition.

In the end, the Copyright Act 1968 included an economic right for sound recordings, but in order to keep the government intact and appease the broadcasters, limitations on license fees were also legislated.

“Radio Caps” place an upper limit on annual license fees for the use of sound recordings, such as songs. Commercial stations are capped at no more than 1% of their gross revenue, while the ABC pays $0.005 (half a cent) multiplied by the total population of Australia.

PPCA argues these laws are unfair, “unique to sound recordings” and puts Australia in a position that is “out of step” with the rest of the world.

They have a point. The rate for sound recordings is currently set at 0.4%. In comparison, songwriting royalty rates for Australian commercial radio, which have no such statutory cap, are set at a much higher rate of up to 3.76%.

If the caps are scrapped, the market could determine what the music is worth and, effectively, the size of the revenue pool. Labels and artists expect their share of the pool, which is determined according to their proportion of airplay, to receive a significant boost.

Paying artists more for the use of their music on radio is a great concept, but the Radio Fair Play campaign cannot result solely in “better deals” for record companies and artists. It must be fair for all musicians, as well as the listeners, consumers and communities who rely on broadcast radio.

Read more:
Australia is one of few countries that doesn’t pay session musicians ongoing royalties. Our music industry suffers as a result

Is it as easy as removing the caps?

PPCA have “fought for decades” to remove these caps. Their claims have been supported by a number of independent reviews, and in 2006 the Australian government announced the caps would be abolished – but this has never happened.

If PPCA want to be successful this time around, they will need to have broader support across not only the music industry, but the wider community as well.

This campaign must address the potential effects of higher license fees on regional radio, such as redundancies and closures. The demise of local regional print journalism has been well documented, and radio is one of few remaining media that offers communities a local voice.

There are a number of solutions that have already been proposed for the struggling regions, such as new media monopoly laws, government advertising subsidies, and startup funding for new communications technologies.

But concrete plans to support these communities need to be designed and implemented by industry and government before regional media receive another shattering blow in being forced to pay a higher proportion of their revenue in music licensing.

Read more:
Regional journalism is dying: advertising subsidies won’t help

⁠

More than just an ‘artist’ issue

There is another issue for performers that needs to be addressed as well. New laws that aim to grow the royalty revenue pool should also remunerate musicians that are currently not being supported by license fees.

While the Copyright Act 1968 offered no economic rights to performers at large, there has since been global advancements in intellectual property rights and equitable remuneration.

From the late 90s, session musicians on sound recordings have received a share of broadcast license fees all around the world – except in Australia, where session musicians get no royalty payments at all.

Read more:
Australia is one of few countries that doesn’t pay session musicians ongoing royalties. Our music industry suffers as a result

This issue is absent from the Radio Fair Play campaign. If the recording industry believes fixing one anomaly is important, they should also support fairness overall.

It will take a unified approach and some bold reform to ensure there is a whole-of-industry solution that covers all of the issues and equitably remunerates all of the players. Australia painted itself into a corner in 1968, and now there’s quite a lot of renovating to do.

Rod Davies is a freelance musician and a member of MEAA/Musicians Australia, which is part of a coalition campaigning and working on behalf of musicians for equitable remuneration.

– ref. What’s a fair price to pay for music? In Australia, musicians aren’t getting paid as much as overseas artists for songs played on the radio – https://theconversation.com/whats-a-fair-price-to-pay-for-music-in-australia-musicians-arent-getting-paid-as-much-as-overseas-artists-for-songs-played-on-the-radio-207310

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Starling, Postdoctoral researcher, University of Sydney

What’s that smell? Is that what you think it is? You check your shoes and, sure enough, one is adorned with a sticky, foul-smelling patty of fresh wrongness. You have stepped in a landmine of the canine variety.

We’ve all been there, and we all know footpaths, nature strips, parks, playing fields and front lawns are not good places for dog poo to sit.

Yet, our streets and parks continue to be littered with dog poo. And with the pandemic driving a surge in dog ownership, anecdotal reports suggest the dog poo problem has grown only worse in recent years.

Beyond the obvious unsightliness and the likelihood of making unwanted contact with dog poo, there are some other important reasons to pick up after dogs.

Here’s what you need to know and what the science says about common efforts to deter dogs from pooping on your yard.

Read more:
Is my dog too cold? How cold is too cold for a walk? Here’s how to tell

Dog poo is linked to illness, pollution and antibiotic resistance

Dog faeces may contain microorganisms that cause illness in humans such as Salmonella, E. coli, Giardia and internal parasites.

Dog poo can also be a potential reservoir for antibiotic-resistant bacteria, meaning humans could develop bacterial infections that are difficult to treat through contact with dog faeces.

A recent Sydney study also identified dog faeces washed into storm water as a significant contributor to water pollution.

This topic, in spite of its relevance and impact, has received little attention from scientists. Thankfully, however, we have a few brave souls who can say they have studied dog crap for the betterment of humanity.

This research has revealed some patterns in where dog faeces is found in public.

Where is the dog poo problem more common?

Dog fouling is significantly more common in parks where dogs are allowed off-leash, and areas close to car parks.

The way dog walkers have traditionally used an area may also be an important factor, with one UK study noting:

availability of bins, path morphology, visibility, and path location are key factors in determining the occurrence of dog faeces.

The same study noted that while most dog walkers do the right thing, some are too “proud to pick up”, while others make contextual judgements about where and when it could be permissible to leave dog waste. Yet others are “disengaged” dog walkers, who “will not pick up even if they are aware of the health and environmental consequences”.

Other research has suggested targeting keeping dogs on-leash between car parks and off-leash areas and providing waste disposal stations on popular dog-walking routes.

This doesn’t help if you have a neighbour who lets their dog out to relieve themselves on the nature strip (or your yard), or people who walk their dogs without carrying waste disposal bags.

And we all love the ones who bag the poop but leave the bag tied to a fence or by a gate.

What about the old water-bottles-on-the grass trick?

Dog owners who don’t pick up after their dog can be fined, but it can be hard to catch them in the act, and reporting a neighbour to authorities can often lead to ongoing hostility.

Bottles of water on the grass is a time-honoured strategy to deter dogs, but there is no evidence this is effective and no clear reason why it would be.

Dogs sometimes like to circle and find just the right spot to go, so they may prefer an area that has fewer obstacles to negotiate. Perhaps a yard bristling with lawn ornaments would enjoy some protection. (Interestingly, science suggests dogs may circle around like this to align their body to face north.)

There are commercially available dog deterrents, but little evidence they are effective and under what conditions.

Some believe any strong scent may deter an animal with a very strong sense of smell from lingering long enough to take a dump. But scent travels, so heavy and repeated applications would likely be needed (and this strategy could have unintended side effects on native urban ecosystems).

Educating dog walkers is key

Aside from providing bags and a bin and enforcing leash laws particularly around carparks close to off-leash areas, research suggests education does help.

Messages emphasising that good neighbours and members of the community diligently pick up after their dogs may be most effective, as people are responsive to social messages.

If you have tried to appeal to your neighbour’s sense of community to no avail, and you’re not keen on a front yard bristling with garden gnomes and flamingos or drenched in possible dog-deterring chemicals, you could try providing bags and a sign promising surveillance.

For all the dog owners out there that do pick up after their dogs, your community thanks you.

The best way to dispose of dog faeces is in the bin. Composting requires high temperatures to neutralise the nasties in dog poop, and home composts are unlikely to get hot enough. And burying it simply allows these microorganisms to build up in the soil.

Read more:
Is your dog happy? Ten common misconceptions about dog behaviour

Melissa Starling 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. Is leaving dog poo in the street really so bad? The science says it’s even worse than you think – https://theconversation.com/is-leaving-dog-poo-in-the-street-really-so-bad-the-science-says-its-even-worse-than-you-think-207416

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Clark, Associate Professor – Animal Ecophysiology, Deakin University

Fish are the most diverse group of vertebrates, ranging from tiny gobies and zebrafish to gigantic tunas and whale sharks. They provide vital sustenance to billions of people worldwide via fisheries and aquaculture, and are critical parts of aquatic ecosystems.

But fish around the world are getting smaller as their habitats get warmer. For example, important commercial fish species in the North Sea have declined in size by around 16% in the 40 years to 2008, while the water temperature increased by 1–2℃. This “shrinking” trend is forecasted to significantly exacerbate the impacts of global warming on marine ecosystems.

The link between warmer water and smaller size is well known, but poorly understood. Our experiments keeping fish in warmer water offer some crucial clues – and may help us learn how to prepare for a warmer future with smaller fish.

The temperature–size rule

Fisheries are a potential confounding factor when studying the effect of warmer waters on fish, because fisheries often target large fish. Removing these larger fish from the population benefits the survival of fish that mature quickly and reproduce at a younger age, when they are smaller.

This trait of maturing early can be passed through fish generations. Indeed, it can lead to a phenomenon known as “fisheries-induced evolution”, where the exploited species tends to decrease in size over time.

How do we tell the difference between the impacts of climate warming and those of fisheries?

One way is to examine the body size trends in fish species that are not targeted by fisheries. Several fish species in French rivers, for example, are not exploited by fisheries but have decreased in size over several decades while their environment has grown warmer.

Another way is to examine fish under controlled conditions, by manipulating water temperature and studying the impact on fish size. Such experiments have shown that fish do indeed end up smaller in body size when kept under warm conditions, and the trend is so common it has been given a name: the “temperature–size rule”.

We also know that smaller fish produce proportionally fewer offspring. And if fish are shrinking, fisheries that base their catch quotas on weight will be taking a larger number of individual fish.

So shrinking fish means each fish will have fewer offspring, and more fish being caught. This is likely to have substantial ecological and commercial ramifications.

Supply and demand

Warmer water means smaller fish, but why?

The most popular current theories suggest the cause is due to a mismatch between how much oxygen a fish needs (to sustain its body’s metabolism) and how much it can get (via its gills).

The argument is that fish gills do not grow at the same pace as the rest of their bodies. Once a fish reaches a certain body size, its gills can only supply enough oxygen to keep its body running – there is no oxygen left over for growth.

Read more:
How is climate change affecting fishes? There are clues inside their ears

What does this have to do with warming? The next step of the argument says fish use more oxygen in warmer water – but their gills don’t get any bigger. So fish reach the limit of their growth at a smaller size, leading to the temperature–size rule.

This “oxygen mismatch” theory has sparked heated debate among global scientists, largely because insufficient data exist to confirm or refute it.

Oxygen supply can keep up with demand

To get some data, we have carried out long-term experiments keeping fish under warmer water conditions than normal. We also tried providing extra oxygen, to see if it benefited their growth.

We have regularly taken metabolic measurements, and quantified the gill surface area of the fish to understand how well they can transport oxygen from the water into the body.

Our results show the “oxygen mismatch” theory doesn’t hold up. While the metabolism of fish does increase with warming of the water, we found the gills grow sufficiently to keep up with the increased oxygen demand as fish increase in size.

So, why then are fish shrinking as the climate warms?

Is reproduction the key?

We know that fish tend to grow faster in warmer conditions and reach reproductive maturity at an earlier age and smaller size. It is possible that once fish start reproducing, energy is channelled into reproduction rather than further growth.

Evidence for this comes from a population of fish living in a Swedish lagoon that gives us an eye to a warmer future, as the lagoon receives warm (non-contaminated) water from a nearby nuclear power plant.

Fish in the warm lagoon grow faster and reach reproductive maturity earlier, then they tend to die at a younger age and at a smaller body size than their counterparts living in adjacent, cooler waterways. “Live fast, die young”, as the saying goes.

While this idea seems to be broadly applicable, some conflicting findings point to the need for more focused research attention.

Fish can’t keep shrinking forever

As our understanding of the relationship between temperature and fish size increases, we would also like to know whether we can do anything about it.

In our latest research, we explored differences in growth rates between individual fish of the same species.

One thing we wanted to know was whether particular physiological traits may allow some individuals to get around the temperature–size rule and be impacted less by climate warming. We found there is significant variability across individual fish, but we don’t know how this variability could be harnessed to future-proof fish populations.

Read more:
Warming oceans are changing Australia’s fishing industry

As our work continues, we also look to the future and think about the ramifications to fish and the industries that rely on them.

Fish cannot keep shrinking forever. There is a minimum size that each species must reach in order to maintain a viable population.

If species reach their specific thermal limits in particular locations, they will not be able to reproduce and they will cease to exist in those locations. If their entire habitat range becomes too warm, the species will become extinct.

These considerations of smaller fish and shifting thermal habitats will be critical for the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture industries as we continue into a future with a warmer, more extreme climate. Our efforts to quantify and forecast the impacts will help resource managers and industries prepare for climate-linked disruption.

Timothy Clark receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Deakin University.

– ref. The world’s fish are shrinking as the climate warms. We’re trying to figure out why – https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-fish-are-shrinking-as-the-climate-warms-were-trying-to-figure-out-why-207729

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lyn Griffiths, Professor, Queensland University of Technology

Concussion and head trauma is a real and serious risk for many Australians. While most people suffer acute and relatively short-lived effects, such as dizziness and headache, in some cases symptoms persist for weeks, months or years. It can result in long-term and debilitating neurological impairment.

Concussion in sport – from the junior to the elite level – is being prioritised as a public health concern in Australia. A Senate inquiry into concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sport is due to report in August. Of note in the hearings has been the AFL’s acknowledgement of an association between head trauma and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease found in several deceased players.

The latest data show concussion can happen in nearly every sport, not just contact sports, with almost 3,100 hospitalisations for concussion caused by sports in 2020–21.

But not everyone responds the same way to concussion. At present, there are few reliable indicators of who will suffer specific or long-term effects. We do know the number and severity of symptoms and multiple concussions are important. And we are developing understanding of how a person’s genes play a role.

Traumatic brain injury

Concussion is a form of traumatic brain injury that can result in neurological dysfunction, including migraine, cognitive deficit, confusion, slowed reaction times, personality changes, drowsiness and emotional changes. Some people also suffer long-term problems with memory, thinking and other symptoms, such as anxiety and mood disturbances.

After brain injury there is a cascade of events that impacts the health of neurons and affects the flow of chemical ions, such as calcium, in the brain. Mutations in genes that affect the transport of neuronal ions (atoms or molecules with a positive or negative electrical charge), termed ion channel genes, can also affect how the brain works.

The strongest evidence of a connection between concussion response and ion channel gene function is from patients with a family history of a rare type of migraine (hemiplegic migraine, which causes the sufferer to experience severe migraine associated with motor impairment and muscle weakness) and episodic ataxia (which causes bouts of movement incoordination).

Specific types of these severe neurogenetic disorders are caused by mutations in the calcium channel gene CACNA1A. Patients with these mutations can be highly sensitive to head impacts. Some specific mutations can see very minor head trauma lead to concussion, seizures, cerebral oedema (swelling), coma and sometimes death.

Research has also shown 35% of patients with mutations in a second hemiplegic migraine ion channel gene, ATP1A2 – which is linked to hemiplegic migraine, ataxia, epilepsy and other seizures and controls brain sodium and potassium levels, report concussion symptoms following mild head trauma.

Focusing on all ion channel genes, our genomics lab (Griffiths Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health) recently studied 117 concussion-affected people. We found mutations in 21 ion channel genes, 14 of which could have an impact on concussion susceptibility or outcomes.

Read more:
Concussion: almost half of people still show signs of brain injury after six months

Other types of genes

Apart from a role for ion channel genes, there have been a number of additional genes linked by research to concussion.

One of the most studied is the ApoE gene, which is involved in transporting cholesterol in the body and has long been recognised as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. Studies have indicated a variant of this gene (ApoE4) is linked with poorer and more long-term concussion outcomes. Those who carry this variant are also more likely to have significant signs of brain degeneration after concussion.

Another genetic variation in the ApoE gene that makes it less productive has been linked to a higher likelihood of concussion.

Beyond ApoE, genes that help control a variety of brain functions have been suggested as factors in concussion – including some involved in neuronal growth, dopamine receptors and, most recently, brain axon (nerve fibre) development.

Read more:
Hit your head while playing sport? Here’s what just happened to your brain

A predisposition for injury

Questions concerning the link between genetic predisposition to injury in sport are not new. Twenty years ago, the Australian Law Reform Commission referred to research showing

[…] a milder form of this condition [CTE or punch-drunk syndrome] could occur in players of rugby, soccer and other sports associated with repetitive blows to the head.

In 2016, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) released a position statement on the ethics of genetic testing and research in sport. But the latest AIS Concussion and Brain Health Position Statement does not mention the use of genetic information concerning concussion-related susceptibility.

Currently, there is available DNA diagnostic testing for the two ion channel genes already implicated in concussion, because this testing is used for the diagnosis of familial hemiplegic migraine and episodic ataxia. But genetic testing is not currently undertaken for concussion.

In Australia, it is difficult to find information on whether genetic testing occurs in elite sport. In the United Kingdom, genetic testing does take place, although it is not common. Athletes and support staff there are open to the idea of genetic information being used to improve sport performance and reduce injury risk.

Read more:
Uncharted Brain: Decoding Dementia – a three-part series to read and listen to

What’s next?

It is vital there is more careful consideration of genetic factors involved in concussion development and response. Clarification of the role of ion channel gene mutations and other gene variants, along with information from additional biomarkers and imaging, will be important in developing better concussion management and treatment approaches.

Before introducing genetic testing, regulatory and governance frameworks would also need careful consideration. Wider ethical and legal implications will need to be fully examined including health privacy laws, privacy of genetic samples, anti-discrimination laws and employment-related laws, especially in professional sport.

With the growing awareness of concussion-related injury risks highlighted by the Senate inquiry, further research in Australia could also investigate attitudes toward the use of genetic testing and predisposition to injury risk in sport.

Lyn Griffiths has received migraine and concussion research funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, US Migraine Research Foundation, US Dept of Defence and Teva, and in addition receives research funding for a Defence Innovation Hub from Australian Defence and from VariantBio for her Norfolk Island genetics studies. She is a member of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia and Chair of the Board of Censors for Diagnostic Genomics.

Annette Greenhow receives funding from the Government of Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and previously received funding from Australian Catholic University and the City of Gold Coast Ambassador Program. She is affiliated with the Australia and New Zealand Sports Law Association as a board member (views are her own).

– ref. Genetics and concussion – why a minor knock can be devastating for some people – https://theconversation.com/genetics-and-concussion-why-a-minor-knock-can-be-devastating-for-some-people-204528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Smith, Director, BehaviourWorks, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University

Most Australians (97%) want more action to protect nature, even if they don’t know the full extent of the biodiversity crisis. That’s the startling finding emerging from our first national survey of 4,000 voters.

Biodiversity matters. We rely on nature for healthy food, clean air and water. Roughly half of the global economy depends on natural systems. But Australia is losing biodiversity at a cracking pace. Over the past 200 years, a species has become extinct every second year on average. This includes one in ten of Australia’s mammal species. Thousands of species that were once common and widespread are now rare.

Halting and reversing species loss requires the support of the whole community. So we wanted to find out what Australians think about these issues and the potential solutions.

We found most of the community strongly supports pro-nature policies, such as ending logging of native forests and requiring businesses to report their impacts on nature. We hope the results in our Biodiversity Council report released today will galvanise support for greater conservation action.

Read more:
If the budget ditched the Stage 3 tax cuts, Australia could save every threatened species – and lots more

Understanding the biodiversity crisis

Biodiversity refers to the richness and diversity of plants, animals and other living things in nature. Australia has one of the most unique and diverse natural environments in the world.

However, the state of the Australian environment is declining. The effects of climate change, land clearing, invasive species, pollution and more are causing irreparable damage.

The pace of loss and its consequences are even greater than previously thought. For example, biodiversity loss reduces the availability of clean water and air, and may limit future discoveries of potential treatments for many diseases and health problems. The loss of wild pollinators threatens the production of food crops globally.

This has led the World Economic Forum to declare biodiversity loss as the third most severe threat humanity will face in the next ten years.

As with climate action, the involvement and support of the wider community is essential to tackling the issue and requires people to take personal action. We also need people to back policies that protect and restore biodiversity.

Read more:
Nature is in crisis. Here are 10 easy ways you can make a difference

Australians want action

In late 2022, we conducted an online survey of more than 4,000 people across Australia. We had a representative sample across age, gender and location, benchmarked against Australian census data. We asked people about their attitudes to nature, how much they participated in “pro-biodiversity” behaviours such as native gardening and sustainable consumption, and how concerned they were about biodiversity loss.

We also explored people’s opinions about the state of the environment, government performance and relevant policies.

Many people were not aware of the full extent of biodiversity loss, with 60% believing that the state of the Australian environment is “good” or “very good”.

Yet the vast majority of people still cared deeply for Australia’s environment. More than eight out of ten people were concerned about biodiversity issues (85%) and said it was important that nature in Australia is looked after (83%). As many as six out of ten (63%) people were “very” or “extremely” concerned.

Encouragingly, almost everyone (97%) wanted more action to conserve biodiversity. More than half wanted “a lot” or “a great deal” more action (58%). This shows that even when awareness is limited, people value nature and recognise the importance of protecting our natural environment.

Most people agreed everyone in Australia has a role to play (68%). More than half already engaged in actions to protect nature, such as being a sustainable consumer and managing pets or gardens for nature.

What about policy solutions?

Most of our survey respondents also believe all levels of government are responsible for taking action. Around three-quarters (72%) said more money should be spent on the environment. Only about one in 20 (6%) said less should be spent.

Most Australians were supportive of introducing new policies that could help protect biodiversity. The vast majority of people (80% or higher) support or strongly support:

• restoring water to wetlands and rivers
• increasing fines for people caught smuggling illegal wildlife or products
• restoring nature in cities and towns
• increasing fines for high polluters
• tougher fines and stronger laws to stop illegal habitat destruction and tree clearing.

More than 70% of people also support:

• banning logging in native forests
• introducing laws to prevent domestic cats roaming the streets
• requiring businesses to report their impact on nature
• establishing new protected areas (such as national parks) at places with high biodiversity.

A majority of Australians from all states and territories, political alignments, and regions, and from urban and rural areas supported these policies.

Significantly, very few people opposed these policies (between 3% and 9% across the suite of policy options). The remainder neither supported nor opposed policy action.

This means stronger laws and policies to protect and restore the environment are far less contested among Australians than is often depicted in the media and political debates.

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

What now?

Policymakers should see our survey results as a green light to take stronger action for nature. Now is the time to start strengthening environmental laws, ceasing native forest logging, and increasing investment in biodiversity protection and restoration.

Around seven in ten Australians in our survey also indicated that nature conservation issues could influence their vote in future elections.

Politicians should take note. Self-identified swinging voters are significantly more concerned than non-swing voters (for example, 73% are “very” or “extremely” concerned about extinction compared with 66% of non-swing voters). They also believe more action is needed (63% believe “a lot” or “a great deal” more action is needed compared with 57% of non-swing voters), and state they are more likely to vote accordingly (80% of swing voters would be influenced by nature conservation in their Federal election votes compared with 73% of non-swing voters).

Australia has a lot to gain from engaging everyone in nature conservation and restoration, and much to lose if we fail.

Liam Smith receives funding from all levels of government, NGOs and the private sector. He is a Lead Councillor on the Biodiversity Council.

Jaana Dielenberg works for the Biodiversity Council and is hosted by The University of Melbourne. She receives funding from the Ian Potter Foundation, The Ross Trust, Trawalla Foundation, The Rendere Trust, Isaacson Davis Foundation, Coniston Charitable Trust and Angela Whitbread through the Biodiversity Council. She is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia.

Kim Borg receives funding from multiple State and Federal government agencies, NGOs, and the private sector via her work at BehaviourWorks Australia to conduct research on behaviour change topics.

Rachel Morgain receives funding from the Ian Potter Foundation, the Hermon Slade Foundation, the Ross Trust, Rendere Trust, environmental NGOs and the Victorian and Australian Governments. She works and consults with NRM Regions Australia.

– ref. 97% of Australians want more action to stop extinctions and 72% want extra spending on the environment – https://theconversation.com/97-of-australians-want-more-action-to-stop-extinctions-and-72-want-extra-spending-on-the-environment-207811

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Berry, Research Principal, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

From the outside, the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales seems idyllic. Rainforests, mountains, beaches and Byron Bay. But the past few years have made life harder for many who live there, with Black Summer bushfires, the COVID pandemic and intense flooding.

These disasters have exposed a key vulnerability: food. While it’s often assumed Australia’s strong agricultural sector means we are secure, these successive disasters show the danger of this assumption.

Much of this region’s food is trucked in from cities and food grown in the region transported out. The 2022 flood crisis damaged farms, cut off roads and freight lines, and inundated cool storage facilities. This, in turn, led to empty supermarket shelves. And not just for a day. In Lismore, they were empty for weeks or up to four months for major supermarkets.

Our new research found that shortening supply chains will be vital to make regions more resilient to these shocks – as well as drawing on community efforts such as farmers’ markets.

Shorter supply chains are stronger supply chains

During the floods, food supply chains bent or broke. Food simply couldn’t get into some towns in the Northern Rivers. You could see the evidence: empty supermarket shelves and major impacts on food-based livelihoods including grocers, cafes and other local businesses.

As a local food business owner told us:

We are not making any money at the moment, just working to maintain customers.

What’s the solution? First, we must think of food as a local system rather than a linear supply chain.

Communities move fast while government often moves slowly

In the wake of the floods, an inquiry found a worrying lack of preparedness or ability to respond by the state government. The community had to respond as best it could.

Local farmers’ markets reopened in a week after the major Lismore flood in February 2022, thanks to the work of managers, farmers and volunteers who worked to clean up muddy sites and supply food. As one helper told the ABC:

Everywhere is closed – that’s why we wanted to open the farmers’ market, because everyone’s out of supplies.

Without trucks, supplies came from local farmer networks, existing stocks and supplies, people’s own pantries and, when the floodwaters receded, from unaffected food outlets south and north of the region. As a farmers’ market manager told us:

Supermarket shelves were completely empty [but] we had all this produce.

The people running local food exchanges and pop-up kitchens served and delivered food to those who couldn’t access food on their own. They could do this thanks to the town’s strong community networks. As a resident put it,

It was more a case of community coming together, rather than it come from anywhere else.

During and before the disasters, local food champions have been testing and sharing resilient farming approaches, diversifying food production and ensuring equipment is flood-resilient and easily repairable.

Food insecurity is on the rise – and worsened by disasters

Food insecurity was already a major problem across Australia before these successive shocks. But it’s surged even higher as the nation weathers the economic fallout from the pandemic and rising living costs.

In 2022, Foodbank reported that one-third of Australian households had problems with finding enough to eat.

Our study found food charities in the Northern Rivers were also disrupted by the floods. A year on, the sector is still require funding and resources to meet ongoing demand.

We also found there was hidden demand for even more food assistance. For instance, one remarkable Lismore resident cooked more than 1,400 meals a week in their home kitchen to donate to people who didn’t feel comfortable or able to go to food charities. They carried on doing so for 10 months afterwards. As the resident said:

Most days I could have given meals out twice over as there was just so much need.

Read more:
How many Australians are going hungry? We don’t know for sure, and that’s a big part of the problem

We should build up community food networks and regional circular economies

Even before the floods, Lismore was one of the most disaster-prone areas in Australia. This won’t be the last major shock the region faces.

So what can we do? Our recommendations to boost food resilience include:

• creating a regional food plan and food policy council, as recommended in last year’s state government inquiry into food production and supply

• finding ways to respond rapidly across the food supply chain during disasters

• strengthening food system connections and collaboration

• supporting local food champions and community food efforts.

While Lismore’s plight drew huge attention, other parts of Australia have been suffering food shortages too. April’s enormous Cyclone Ilsa cut roads and broke bridges in Western Australia’s Pilbara region, causing food shortages. And last year’s floods in South Australia cut the vital Trans-Australian railway, which transports 80% of WA’s food. That left supermarket shelves empty.

We must make the vital food systems supporting our regions more resilient. What does that look like? Picture better funding and support for food charities, building food hubs, and preventing high value arable land from being turned into suburbs, particularly those slated for relocating flood-affected residential housing out of the floodplain.

Our recommendations are in line with the CSIRO’s 2050 roadmap for the future of our food supplies, as well as important work being done elsewhere in Australia by the Canberra Region Food Collaborative, Sydney Food Futures, Logan Local Food Map, Cardinia Food Circles and Bega Circular Valley.

Crises brings a chance to think differently. We should seize it to rebuild and strengthen our food systems so we can weather these shocks.

If we harness community networks, innovative solutions and drive policy change, we can build a more resilient and secure food system for the Northern Rivers – and beyond.

Read more:
What is food insecurity?

This report was produced by researchers from Plan C, the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney and Wild Community. It was funded by the Northern Rivers Community Foundation.

Fiona Berry receives funding from various government and non-government organisations. In 2023 this includes the Northern Rivers Community Foundation and Plan C.

Sheriden Keegan receives funding from Plan C and Northern Rivers Community Foundation.

Somayeh Sadegh Koohestani works for Institute for Sustainable Futures and received funding in 2023 from Northern Rivers Community Foundation and Plan C.

Jean S. Renouf 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. Supermarket shelves were empty for months after the Lismore floods. Here’s how to make supply chains more resilient – https://theconversation.com/supermarket-shelves-were-empty-for-months-after-the-lismore-floods-heres-how-to-make-supply-chains-more-resilient-207982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cher McGillivray, Assistant Professor Psychology Department, Bond University

The program Parental Guidance has been showing on Channel 9 this month. This is the second season of the show that pits 12 sets of parents with very different parenting styles against each other to work out which is “best”.

This year, for example, there is a couple who use “American-style” parenting, pushing their young daughter to excel in a range of academic and sporting pursuits. Then there are parents who adopt an “unstructured style”, which prioritises a child’s own decisions and mental health over “conventional measures of success”.

But do most parents actively pick a parenting style? What should you think about when it comes to how you parent?

Read more:
Free-range vs helicopter: Channel Nine’s Parental Guidance and the quest to find the ‘best’ way to bring up kids

Approaches to parenting

The way you parent does matter. Research shows parenting is one of the greatest contributors to child and adolescent development and wellbeing.

Most parenting approaches fall under one of four main approaches:

1. neglectful: these parents do not show enough love or interest in the child, or set boundaries around behaviour. The 2023 Australian Childhood Maltreatment Study found about 8.9% of surveyed Australians aged over 16 had experienced neglect as children. Parental neglect can result in a child who does not have the ability to regulate their own emotions, has poor self-esteem and relationships difficulties.

2. permissive: these parents are lenient, accepting, promote psychological autonomy and avoid coercive behavioural practices. This approach has been linked to children lacking resilience, doing worse in school and struggling to control their impulses.

3. authoritarian: these parents shows little warmth and are strict. This may result in compliance when the child is young, but when a child is older, they may rebel, have low self-esteem and behavioural issues.

4. authoritative: here, parents are warm and loving but give their child firm boundaries. They support their child to develop a sense of autonomy. The parent works together with the child to solve problems rather than telling them or controlling them. Research shows this leads to a positive self-esteem.

Falling into a style

But while many parents view parenting as central to their lives, they often don’t make a conscious choice about their parenting style.

They tend to fall into a style because of how they were parented, their culture, personality, family size, education level and religion.

For example, if you were raised by very strict parents and it worked for you, you may seek to do this with your own children. If you hated this, this may seek to raise to children without a lot of rules.

Even if parents do eagerly read up on different styles before having a child, the pressures of life, work and family tend to see parents lack the energy to remain consistent. They either become more permissive as a way of letting go or become stricter to regain control.

It is important to be conscious about parenting

So, while most of us won’t actively “choose” a parenting approach and may use combinations of approaches, it is important to be conscious of how you are parenting.

Being a conscious parent means being mindful and aware of who you are as a parent. This allows you you to react in more helpful ways while ensuring your needs as a parent are also met.

This means reflecting on your and your child’s temperaments.

For example, if you see a young person’s disruptive behaviour as something that is done on purpose and rude, you will likely have a bad reaction. But if you understand your child has an exuberant temperament, their behaviour may become less agitating.

Or, if your parents pushed you hard to succeed academically, you may need to adjust your definition of “success” if you have a child with learning difficulties or who is much more interested in sport.

Being a conscious parent also means looking after yourself. If you are aware of your needs, you can make sure you get the rest and recuperation you need to make good decisions as a parent.

Read more:
Exhausted, disconnected and fed up – what is ‘parental burnout’ and what can you do about it?

Be consistent but adapt

But while parenting needs to be consistent (so kids know what to expect), this does not mean you can’t or should not adapt your style to the circumstances.

For one thing, it will likely alter as your child grows. Parenting a toddler or young child is very different from parenting a teenager. Younger children can be directed and “told” a lot more than older children. But other circumstances also change. Your shy, clingy toddler may become an extroverted, independent teen.

Lastly, don’t worry about what your friends (or people on TV) are doing. Just keep thinking about what your family needs are and how your choices are fitting in with your parenting goals.

Cher McGillivray 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. Most parents don’t pick a parenting style. But that’s why being a ‘conscious parent’ matters – https://theconversation.com/most-parents-dont-pick-a-parenting-style-but-thats-why-being-a-conscious-parent-matters-207824

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Isakhan, Professor of International Politics, Deakin University

After the Islamic State captured the northern Iraqi city of Mosul in mid-2014, they unleashed a wave of devastating human suffering and unprecedented heritage destruction.

The Islamic State targeted many of Mosul’s most sensitive and important cultural heritage sites.

Most notoriously, in 2015 the Islamic State released a number of propaganda videos in which they had filmed themselves using sledgehammers to topple and destroy statues at the Mosul Museum, and using power tools to deface giant reliefs at the ancient archaeological site of Nineveh.

In response to such mass heritage destruction, the international community has launched various initiatives worth millions of dollars to reconstruct the heritage sites of the city.

However, very little is known about whether or not the people of Mosul support such initiatives.

To find out, we conducted a survey of 1,600 people from across Mosul. Here are four of the more significant findings.

Read more:
ISIS is destroying ancient artefacts to send a message of intent

1. Heritage is not a priority

We wanted to gauge whether or not heritage reconstruction was a priority for the people of Mosul, given other urgent needs following years of dictatorship, war and Islamic State control.

We presented respondents with a list of ten options, and asked:

If you had to choose just three, which of the following do you think are the most urgent priorities for the future of Iraq?

The top answers were “safety and security” (61%), “unemployment and poverty” (54%), “education and schools” (52%) and “hospitals, health and sanitation” (49%).

Only 16% of respondents listed “heritage protection and reconstruction” in their top three urgent priorities.

2. But people still believe heritage sites should be reconstructed

We also wanted to gauge respondents’ overall attitude to heritage reconstruction efforts in Mosul.

We asked whether they agreed with the statement:

Heritage sites that were damaged or destroyed during recent conflicts should be restored or reconstructed.

The overwhelming majority (98%) of respondents agreed with the statement.

So, while very few respondents considered heritage reconstruction to be among the most urgent priorities facing Iraq, assuming it would continue regardless of their preferences, it had broad support from the people of Mosul.

3. Restoration should prioritise modernising buildings

We also wanted to know what form they would like restoration to take.

We provided respondents with a list of six possible answers, and asked:

What would you prefer to see happen to the heritage sites that have been damaged or destroyed during the recent conflicts?

None of those surveyed wanted to see damaged or destroyed heritage sites left in ruins. Only 4% wanted them developed into entirely new structures.

Instead, the vast majority (96%) wanted to see buildings restored and reconstructed, with the largest number of respondents (48%) indicating they would like to see the sites “restored and reconstructed into a new and more modern structure”.

The people of Mosul prefer damaged structures to be transformed into new and more usable buildings for the community over projects that aim to match historical or pre-war conditions.

This finding has implications for foreign heritage actors as they undertake reconstruction works in Mosul. It points to a long-standing dichotomy in heritage practice between UNESCO’s stated preference to preserve the “authenticity” of heritage sites and developing something meaningful and useful for a living community.

4. Iraqis think rebuilding should be Iraqi-lead

Finally, we sought to understand respondents’ views on who had done the most to restore heritage sites to date and who they would like to see leading such works in the future.

We asked two key questions:

Which actor do you think has done the most to restore or reconstruct heritage sites across Iraq?

And:

If you had to choose just one, who would you most like to see being entrusted with any restoration or reconstruction work at heritage sites?

After each question, we presented respondents with a list of 14 actors, from the Iraqi government to foreign states and multilateral institutions.

For the question concerning who respondents understood to have done the most reconstruction work, 17% identified global agencies such as UNESCO, 13% chose the Iraqi government and 8% identified the Gulf States. Only 2% saw Western governments as having done the most to restore heritage sites across Iraq.

This contrasts sharply with results from the second question on which agencies locals would most like to see leading the reconstruction efforts.

Most respondents named the Iraqi government (48%), with only 8% support for UNESCO, 6% for the involvement of the Gulf States, and just 2% for Western governments to lead restoration projects.

Despite an acknowledgement that multilateral actors like UNESCO have led much of the reconstruction to date, people expressed a clear preference for the Iraqi government to be entrusted with heritage projects into the future.

To harness local support for the rebuilding effort, international actors must make every effort to work closely with local partners and communities in Mosul to ensure their endeavours are embedded within broader security, developmental and infrastructure investment.

For Iraqis themselves to embrace ongoing efforts to reconstruct Mosul’s heritage, foreign actors will need to foster an authentic grass-roots process where Iraqis take ultimate responsibility for the reconstruction of their heritage.

Taken together, our findings demonstrate engaging with local opinion on heritage is perhaps the only way efforts to restore heritage can have a meaningful long-term impact on the prospects of peace in complex environments like Mosul.

Read more:
Iraq war, 20 years on: how the world failed Iraq and created a less peaceful, democratic and prosperous state

Benjamin Isakhan has received funding from the Australian Department of Defence and the Australian Research Council.

Lynn Meskell has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Mosul faced mass heritage destruction by the Islamic State. We asked residents what they thought about rebuilding – https://theconversation.com/mosul-faced-mass-heritage-destruction-by-the-islamic-state-we-asked-residents-what-they-thought-about-rebuilding-207725

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Andrews, Visiting Fellow and Director – Micro heterogeneity and Macroeconomic Performance program, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

To many of us, “non-compete clauses” are for other people – TV presenters and chief executives; the sort of people who, if they left their employer for a competitor, would take with them inside knowledge and so must be stopped by a legal agreement, at least for a period of time.

Our concerning finding, reached as Australia’s competition minister Andrew Leigh asks the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Treasury for advice on the extent of non-compete clauses in Australia, is that they may be even more widespread here than in the United States.

In the US, researchers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have found an extraordinary 18% of workers are subject to non-compete clauses of some kind. They even apply where you might think they would not: to 9% of care workers, and 12% of US construction workers.

In Australia, in the first survey on non-compete clauses conducted using the same methodology as the US survey, we’ve found 22%.

22% may be an under-estimate

As with the US survey, because some workers might not know whether they are subject to non-complete clauses, we restricted our questions to those who had changed jobs in the past 12 months.

The job leavers were asked whether, as far as they knew, they were “not allowed to join or start a business in competition with” their former employer.

Restricting the survey to job leavers means that, if anything, our finding that 22% of the workforce is subject to non-compete clauses might be an understatement. Workers tightly bound by non-compete clauses might find it hard to change jobs.

Adding in those workers restricted in other ways – not able to poach former clients or co-workers (non-solicitation clauses) and not able to share their former employer’s confidential information (non-disclosure clauses) – we found half of all Australian workers are subject to some sort of restraint.

Childcare workers, yoga instructors

As part of the research I and Bjorn Jarvis conducted for the e61 Institute, we asked legal practitioners to tell us how the use of restraints had changed over time.

They told us non-compete clauses had become more common and were now the default option in many employment contracts, applying to outward-facing junior roles in industries such as childcare and yoga instruction, in addition to more senior roles in law, finance and business services.

Our survey suggests they apply to 27% of trade union members, 43% of gig workers, and 26% of community and personal service workers.

Once, non-complete clauses were put in place to protect legitimate business interests, such as trade secrets and client relationships.

But these days it seems they are increasingly also being used to stifle job mobility. While good for employers, as they face less wage pressure, it is bad for workers and Australia’s productivity.

Workers who switch jobs get 8% more pay on average (and better mental health), yet the probability that the average Australian worker switches jobs has fallen from 12.8% in the mid-1990s to 9.5% in 2022.

And the benefits of being able to switch extend to workers who choose not to. The more they are able to switch, the greater their bargaining power.

The benefits also extend to the economy more broadly, as the reallocation of workers from less-productive to more-productive firms boosts aggregate productivity.

The US is considering banning non-compete clauses

In January, the US Federal Trade Commission proposed a ban on non-compete clauses, which it said could increase wages by US$300 billion per year.

The US Senate is currently debating a workforce mobility bill that would enshrine the ban in law.

In Australia, non-compete clauses are only enforceable if they can be shown to reasonably protect a legitimate business interest.

But in practice they exert a chilling effect. Around 40% of US workers are estimated to have turned down job offers from competitors due to non-compete clauses, even though they have worked in states where they are unenforceable.

Read more:
How more job-switching could make us better off

In addition to taking advice about the impacts of non-compete clauses in Australia, Andrew Leigh is also investigating no-poach clauses.

His own research has found they are widespread within franchise operations including McDonalds, Bakers Delight and Dominos. This means that, for example, no McDonalds store is able to offer more pay to get a worker to move from another McDonalds store, leaving the workers themselves none the wiser.

Leigh’s findings and ours suggest Australia’s labour markets are more restricted than generally realised, with many of the restrictions imposed by employers.

Sweeping them away would be one of the easiest ways to boost productivity.

Dan Andrews receives funding from the Susan McKinnon Foundation (via the e61 Institute).

– ref. 1 in 5 Australian workers have non-compete clauses, making it harder to get better paid jobs: new survey – https://theconversation.com/1-in-5-australian-workers-have-non-compete-clauses-making-it-harder-to-get-better-paid-jobs-new-survey-207987

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

≤

Caps on spending and donations for federal elections and “real time” disclosure of donations to parties and candidates are among the sweeping recommendations for reform made by a powerful parliamentary committee.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, in its interim report tabled on Monday, also recommends donation and spending caps apply to third parties and associated entities.

The majority report also urges a new system of increased public funding for parties and candidates, in light of the impact its proposed changes would have on private funding in elections.

Under the reforms proposed, the donation disclosure level would be reduced to $1000. The present threshold (from July 1 last year) is $15,200.

The committee has also said the government should develop legislation “to provide for the introduction of measures to govern truth in political advertising”.

The committee does a review after each election.

In her foreword to the report, the committee chair, Labor’s Kate Thwaites says the evidence it heard allowed the committee “to develop clear goals for reform to increase transparency in election donations and curb the potentially corrupting influence of big money, to build the public’s trust in electoral and political processes, and to encourage participation in our elections”.

The Albanese government is committed to substantial reform on electoral spending and donations. The committee will undertake further evidence and work before its final report to be delivered late in the year.

Electoral reform is likely to become a battlefield between the government and Coalition. In addition the community candidate movement will be concerned that some reforms would disadvantage aspiring new players.

Coalition members of the committee put in a dissenting report, disagreeing with the “caps” on donations and spending as they are proposed, and with other aspects of the majority report.

Opposing spending caps the Coalition dissenting report says: “A spending cap that fails to take into account Labor’s union-funded campaign machine is nothing short of a financial gerrymander”. It also says if any caps on donations or spending are introduced, they should apply to third parties and associated entities, and any spending caps should be lower for third parties and related entities.

The report points out that while there have been reforms in many states and territories to improve transparency and accountability, there has not been substantial reform at the Commonwealth level.

“It is time for the government to reform the Commonwealth system,” the report says. It says the issues are not new and urges reform before the next federal election. Changes should be implemented together.

The report says the aims of the reforms are to improve transparency, reduce “the potentially corrosive influence of big money”, level the playing field for new entrants, ensure integrity and compliance, and allow continued participation in elections from the public, civil society, business, parties and others.

Crossbencher Kate Chaney, a member of the committee, said “imposing caps is complicated. People don’t want big money influencing election outcomes, but they also want to know they have a choice of candidates.

“The major parties have developed an election funding system that embeds them. Only about 0.4% of Australians are members of a major political party and voters want to know about other candidates too. We need to level the election playing field” by addressing party and incumbent advantages, she said.

The report notes the 2022 election saw “the rise of independents who were the recipients of donations from a significant third party – Climate 200, a crowdfunding initiative with over 11,000 Australians who provided donations’ Climate 200 raised about $13 million which was donated to selected independent candidates, Wealthy individuals also donated substantial amounts to Climate 200.”

Special Minister of State Don Farrell said, “The Albanese Government is committed to improving transparency and accountability across our democracy”. It looked forward to the final report. “Electoral reform should always be consultative and bipartisan,” 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. Sweeping election donation and spending reforms recommended by parliamentary committee – https://theconversation.com/sweeping-election-donation-and-spending-reforms-recommended-by-parliamentary-committee-208030

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

The Greens and the Coalition have teamed up again to present a vote being taken on the government’s $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund.

Consideration of the legislation has been delayed until October 16.

The government at the weekend announced an immediate $2 billion for social housing – which will go to states and territories over this fortnight – hoping that would persuade the Greens to support the fund.

But the Greens are holding out for controls on rents, which are actually within the jurisdiction of the states.

Anthony Albanese, answering a Greens question in parliament, said the Greens had made themselves “irrelevant to the debate”.

“I understand that renters are doing it tough,” he said. “Yes, I want to do things about that”, and the government was working with the states on various measures. But “what we are not doing is destroying supply while we do it. Because the key to fixing housing is supply.”

If the government did what the Greens wanted there would be less supply of housing, Albanese said the Greens should have had “the guts” to vote against the legislation rather than deferring it.

The Minister for Housing, Julie Collins, said “there is a cost to these delays.

“Every day of delay is more than $1.3 million that does not go to housing for people that need it. If this bill gets delayed until October, the Greens political party and the Liberals would have succeeded in delaying it for more than six months. Every six months is $250 million that could have gone to building more homes.”

This is the second time the Greens and Coalition have prevented a vote on the legislation. The proposed $10 billion fund would produce $500 million a year for social and affordable rental housing.

Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said the fund was “an important piece of national infrastructure”.

Opposition leader in the Senate Simon Birmingham told Sky the Coalition had “always thought that adding these billions of dollars extra to government debt for no immediate impact on the housing market was a bad idea, especially so for a policy that has no benefit in terms of addressing rates of home ownership in Australia”.

The Senate’s action prompted speculation that the deferral could form the initial step to having the bill qualify as double dissolution legislation. Special Minister of State Don Farrell said: “If the Senate defers bills to October, the government will regard this as the Senate failing to pass the bill, and I’m sure you understand the consequences of that”.

Greens leader Adam Bandt said that “it says a lot about the government that they’d rather tout this as a double dissolution trigger rather than negotiating to pass their own bill”.

The Constitution’s Section 57 provides that if the House of Representatives passes a bill and the Senate “rejects or fails to pass it” and after three months the lower house again passes the bill and the Senate again rejects or fails to pass it, it can become the basis for a dissolution of both houses.

Sydney University constitutional expert Anne Twomey said the High Court has previously held that the Senate needs a reasonable amount of time to debate and deliberate upon a bill.

“This may include sending it to a parliamentary committee. But in this case, the delay is not due to a need to deliberate. It is for the purpose of waiting to see if the Albanese Government will change its policy and negotiate an agreement in National Cabinet which suits the policy aim of the Greens,” Twomey said.

“While there is no certainty, the government would have a good case to argue that a delay of this kind amounts to a failure to pass. Even taking into account the winter recess, there is still plenty of time to properly debate the bill before 16 October”.

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. Government’s housing fund legislation delayed by Green-Coalition alliance – https://theconversation.com/governments-housing-fund-legislation-delayed-by-green-coalition-alliance-208016

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

With parliament now having passed the Voice to Parliament referendum bill, and with the campaign about to get underway in earnest, there is a critical need for more trusted information. As scholars of deliberative democracy, we suggest Australia borrow from the US state of Oregon a new way of informing the public in referendums.

The federal government has already announced a civics education program for the referendum campaign. Better information can’t come soon enough, given the spread of confusing and sometimes misleading information in the lead-up to the referendum so far.

But will the government’s plan work? Not if it mostly involves top-down communication to voters, with information solely written and communicated by experts and politicians.

The trouble is, as good as this information may be, many voters are uncertain whom to trust. That’s especially so as the campaign descends into the rabbit hole of debate over technicalities. Few voters are deeply versed in constitutional law or Indigenous affairs.

This is where a “citizens’ referendum review”, first used in Oregon but later adopted in many other places, could be beneficial.

This kind of review is based on a public engagement tool called a “mini-public”, a body of randomly selected citizens who form a microcosm of the wider society in both demographics and attitudes.

Members of such a body first learn extensively about a topic from a diverse range of experts and advocates. They then engage in extended deliberations with each other to hash out a fair and informed recommendation to provide the public.

This is called a “citizens’ statement”, which explains precisely what’s at stake in the referendum, doing so in clear, balanced, accurate and accessible terms.

Read more:
What can history teach us to ensure a successful referendum for A First Nations Voice to parliament?

How mini-publics have worked elsewhere

Mini-publics have been used hundreds of times around the world, if not more – often with considerable success.

When a matter is complex and contentious – say, policies related to climate change or COVID-19 – mini-publics can be especially effective.

For instance, in Oregon, some of the first citizens’ reviews considered the wisdom of referendums aiming to impose minimum criminal sentences for sex crimes and drunk driving, and to legalise medical marijuana.

These were complex issues. But the Oregon experience showed that a collection of citizens could be brought up to speed on the issues and effectively communicate the pros and cons of the referendum proposals to the wider population.

One of the crucial aspects of these bodies is they tend to be better trusted than more top-down models led entirely by governments or academic elites. Voters often view the members as being “just like me”.

Indeed, mini-publics are usually designed to be demographically, regionally and politically diverse. Participants are also not politicians. Thus, they tend not to be as stuck in their polarised tribes. Comparatively speaking, ordinary citizens generally lack the same motivation and desire to wage no-holds-barred battles with the other side.

We are not the only ones calling for this model in Australia. The non-partisan newDemocracy foundation has also suggested it as a potential model for providing better information to voters about the Voice.

A fair and trusted source of information

There needs to be a source of information on the Voice that is informed, reasonable, fair and trusted. The government’s Voice campaign materials so far may be fair, but in our hyper-polarised political environment, any information authorised by the government of the day may not be widely trusted.

Information pamphlets distributed in past referendums – which included contributions from political leaders and other partisans – have faced similar problems.

As University of Sydney constitutional law expert Helen Irving recalls, the push for the republic in 1999 ran into problems partly because voters had low trust in three types of elites:

there were the alleged ‘elites’ (‘Chardonnay drinkers’) at the heart of the republican movement, those classed as ‘elites’ merely by being residents of Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, and another version of ‘elites’ meaning simply federal politicians.

The citizens’ referendum review model shows more promise. We know from many studies of mini-publics around the world that they are, on the whole, fair, informed, flexible and highly trusted by a wide cross section of people.

They may provide what political leaders cannot – a fresh and open mind, and a sense of perspective about which arguments do or don’t hold up.

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

What a mini-public could do in the Voice campaign

Importantly, though, running a citizens’ referendum review should not be an excuse to reassess what question should be put to voters. That has already been decided.

Moreover, the review must be well-designed. Rather than being dominated by one side in the referendum debate, it must be deliberatively broad-ranging and non-partisan. The promise of mini-publics depends on their being genuinely independent and impartial.

The review should also not reach any single verdict for or against the Voice, but rather cover all reasonable arguments and provide a set of pro and con arguments for dissemination in the referendum campaign.

The federal government should fund the review adequately and publicise its results across the country. The panellists could even write the “yes” and “no” pamphlets being sent to Australian households.

The Australian voting public should have the benefit of this kind of review to help inform their votes. In a campaign already cluttered with confusing, competing claims, we need a better approach.

Ron Levy has received funding from the Australian Research Council and convenes the International Advisory Panel on Referendums.

John Dryzek receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund.

Selen A. Ercan receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. In a Voice campaign marked by confusing, competing claims, there’s a better way to educate voters – https://theconversation.com/in-a-voice-campaign-marked-by-confusing-competing-claims-theres-a-better-way-to-educate-voters-206193

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Harcourt, Industry Professor and Chief Economist, University of Technology Sydney

The first test of the 2023 Ashes is well underway at Edgbaston in Birmingham, featuring England’s aggressive “Bazball” style of play (named after New Zealand-born coach Brendan “Baz” McCullum) and a surprise early declaration by the hosts at the end of the first day. This invited an Australian fightback inspired by Usman Khawaja, who notched a 141-run haul before being bowled by paceman Ollie Robinson (whose expletive-laden send-off is making headlines).

England currently leads by 35 runs on the end of day three, and it all sets the scene for an exciting series.

It comes just a week after Australia won the World Test Championship, defeating India in comprehensive style at The Oval in south London.

The Ashes always excites the traditionalists, as the Australia-England rivalry is the oldest in cricket.

But while playing the old enemy for the Ashes is, for many, the pinnacle of Australian cricket, Australia-India is developing as a modern rivalry.

This is significant because when it comes to the economics of cricket, it’s India that’s in the box seat, not England.

India is the new cricket powerhouse

The 2023 season of the Indian Premier League drew more than 500 million viewers, a 32% growth in television ratings on last season.

The very first IPL game of the 2023 season in fact attracted more viewers than the Super Bowl, the climax of the NFL’s American football season and one of the biggest dates on the world sporting calendar.

The first IPL match attracted 130 million viewers, compared with a record 115.1 million for the 2023 Super Bowl.

The 2023 IPL champions the Chennai Super Kings are valued at about US$1.15 billion (A$1.67 billion), according to Forbes in 2022. They’ve been touted as the “Manchester United of the IPL”, and may one day become one of the top global sporting franchises like the Dallas Cowboys (A$11.7 billion) and Real Madrid (A$7.4 billion).

So how did India do it?

When T20 took off in England and spread to the cricketing nations, everyone thought test cricket would die. But it didn’t. In fact, it’s stronger than ever.

If anything, it’s the game in between T20 and test cricket, the 50-over game, that’s likely to become obsolete – with only the World Cup played every four years attracting significant attention (although now the T20 World Cup overshadows that too).

India acted fast to surf the T20 wave. The IPL was formed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) following India’s victory in the 2007 World Cup, after a breakaway league had been mooted to break the BCCI’s grip on the game.

According to the BCCI Vice President Lalit Modi, at the time the IPL was

designed to entice an entire new generation of sports fans into the grounds throughout the country. The dynamic Twenty20 format has been designed to attract a young fan base, which also includes women and children

Part of India’s success is its size, overtaking China this year to have the largest population of any country with 1.4 billion people, as well as its economic success in recent decades with a growing middle class. By 2025, India’s middle class will number 583 million, or 41% of the country’s projected population.

This has been supercharged by the digitisation of the Indian economy, with televisions and smart phones giving the average cricket lover access to their favourite teams.

The IPL has attracted the top cricketers from around the world, mainly off the back of private franchises, many of which are owned by billionaires. This gives teams deep pockets when buying players from all over the globe, with the TV broadcast rights topping up IPL coffers too.

This has also boosted women’s cricket, including their pay packets, with the launch of the Women’s Premier League in India earlier this year.

Cricket diplomacy

It just shows the power of India in world cricket, and more generally the power of sport in today’s global economy.

Indeed, sport is no longer about small talk, but an intrinsic part of the global economy and geopolitics.

I was in India last month hosting the “Cricket, Collaboration and Commonwealth” conference for the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) in New Delhi. There was a robust discussion on the economics of the IPL and the role of “cricket diplomacy” in Australia-India relations.

While I was in New Delhi, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Australia speaking to packed houses of India diaspora in Sydney. Modi wanted to build on the momentum of the blossoming India-Australia partnership, after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited India in March.

Cricket diplomacy was on display then too, spawning now famous images of Prime Ministers Modi and Albanese on a chariot before the fourth test match in Ahmedabad.

Albanese used the trip to announce a new education deal with India. Nearly 50% of Indians are under the age of 25, and only 21% of Indians aged 25-34 have a tertiary qualification, so there are immense opportunities for Australian universities and TAFEs.

Read more:
Albanese visit hopes to strengthen ties with India amid China’s rise. But differences remain

Cricket diplomacy has been central to the Modi-Albanese partnership, which highlights the role of sport in political and economic relationship building.

And the rise of the IPL has boosted India’s ascendancy as a superpower in world cricket. Its economic power has been as important as the improved on-field performance of Team India.

What’s more, the large attendances at The Oval for the ICC World Test Championship and now the raucous crowds at the Ashes shows the supposed death of test cricket has been greatly exaggerated.

Tim Harcourt 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. Ashes rivalry is as alive as ever. But when it comes to the economics of cricket, India is in the box seat – https://theconversation.com/ashes-rivalry-is-as-alive-as-ever-but-when-it-comes-to-the-economics-of-cricket-india-is-in-the-box-seat-207812

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Burne, Lecturer, BFA Screenwriting, Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne, The University of Melbourne

Twenty-two years after the original UK television series The Office was released, and 18 years after the highly successful US remake (2005-2013), Australia is getting its own version of The Office. This will be the 14th remake of the concept by Ricky Gervais, which has included adaptations in Chile, France, Finland, India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Germany and other countries.

It’s an interesting move by Prime Video when there are already two highly rewatched English language versions available – highlighting the ongoing relevance of the workplace comedy.

It also speaks to the relative safety of remaking a known series concept rather than an original, in a time of expensive television production. Starting from an idea that has already proven hugely popular with audiences worldwide can seem to minimise the financial risk of making a new TV show – if it’s done right.

A history of remakes

There has been a long history of remakes on television. Ugly Betty (as it is known in the US version) is one of the most recognised. Originally a Colombian telenovela, Yo Soy Betty, la Fea (1999-2001), the concept has been remade in other languages around 20 times to date. Other versions include Na Daj Se, Nina (Croatia, 2007-2008) and Lotte (The Netherlands, 2006-2007), both of which I worked on adapting from the Colombian original.

Australian television concepts from the 1970s and 1980s travelled remarkably well. Sons and Daughters has versions in Germany (Verboten Liebe, 1995-2015) and Croatia, (Zabranjena Ljubav, 2004-2008). The Australian classic Prisoner became the highly popular Hinter Gittern (1997-2007) in Germany. And long-running soap opera Neighbours has been the basis of shows in Poland, Sweden and Slovakia.

A common factor in all of these is the internationally successful Grundy Television and creator Reg Watson.

What Grundy Television realised and honed was that to give an international remake the best chance of success, writers and producers need to be willing to pull a series back to its foundational concept – such as twins separated at birth meet and fall in love, a women’s prison, neighbours becoming good friends – and then to build culturally informed stories and characters from that.

Localising is not just changing a few small details, it requires driving characters and stories from deep within a local culture and storytelling tradition. It requires a deep commitment to developing a show as if it was a new idea, even if it is based on an existing series. Audiences are savvy and want nuance, history, politics, issues.

Read more:
Bluey was edited for American viewers – but global audiences deserve to see all of us

Recently, many international dramas have formed the basis for successful US shows, such as Israel’s Prisoners of War (2010-2012) becoming Homeland (Showtime, 2011-2020), and the Danish/Swedish Noir series The Bridge (2011-2018) spawning The Bridge (US/Mexico), as well as The Tunnel (UK/France), The Bridge (Russia/Estonia), The Bridge (Malaysia/Singapore), Der Pass (Germany/Austria) and Gefyra (Greece/Turkey).

These shows incorporated a deep socio-political angle within the familiar thriller or crime genre, giving audiences a new depth and breadth to the stories.

Mistakes and flops

Less successful have been US attempts to remake Australian comedies such as Kath & Kim (2008-2009) and dramas such as The Slap (2015). Perhaps their Australian contexts, social mores and comedy did not translate – or were not translated well.

Reviewers said of the American Kath and Kim that the humour was unfunny, the characters unlikeable and unrelatable. Variety’s Brian Lowry said, “If this was a major hit in Australia,” he said, “then something has been seriously lost in translation.”

Ironically, one of the greatest mistakes screenwriters make is sticking too closely to the original. No matter how popular it was, how good the writing is, how funny the jokes are, translating scripts very rarely works due to cultural differences in humour, socio-economic circumstances and workplace politics.

The Dutch version of the Yo Soy Betty, la Fea began shooting Dutch translations of Colombian scripts: the production shut down one week in as it became clear that none of the circumstances, relationships, tone, rhythm or humour made sense in a Dutch context.

That’s when I was brought in to work with the Dutch writers to completely redevelop the show for the local context. (I brought television storytelling experience and relied on the Dutch writers for character specifics, local stories, cultural specificities, etc.)

Read more:
Noice. Different. Unusual. Watching Kath and Kim as a (locked down) historian

An Office in Australia?

The Office Australia might seem a simple prospect, given there have been two preceding series in English. Plus, culturally, Australia has been well-informed of and by the UK and US. What could possibly go wrong?

Humour and social mores will have changed: the world is a very different place in 2023 compared to 2001. Many of David Brent’s 2001 exploits and jokes would see him quickly fired by any 2023 risk-averse company no matter how apathetic and downtrodden his staff might be.

Also when The Office came out, mockumentary felt fresh to television, now we’ve had Parks and Recreation, Modern Family, and our own The Games and Utopia. Plus, of course, we’ve had reality TV shows where things quickly spiral beyond any inappropriate awkwardness The Office ever came up with – think about Vanderpump Rules or Selling Sunset.

Australia is different to the UK and the US, in the way we live, work, joke, date and play. Australian comedy has a different rhythm, pace and flavour to that of anywhere else.

One of the most important things a good adaptation understands is that specificity is key. For instance, the character Gareth/Dwight is less likely to be territorial army or army reserve and more Steve Irwin; an office party probably involves backyard cricket not bowling alleys. This provides a great opportunity to add a fresh edge to familiar characters, plus a cultural specificity intriguing to international audiences.

For example, the US adaptation Ugly Betty brought in the story of Betty’s family’s immigration issues, highlighting a relatable problem for many immigrant Americans and deepening the difference in class, power and privilege between Betty and the other characters in her workplace.

The Office Australia is making one major change from the UK and US versions: the office boss is a woman, Hannah Howard (played by Felicity Ward). This is a potentially brilliant, timely change, which will differentiate it as a series. But beware the scriptwriter who thinks you can simply swap a gender and keep all the traits, insecurities, worries, jokes and dynamics the same.

There’s the potential for wonderfully rich, new comedy material – if the writers and producers are willing to pull The Office apart, go back to its key concept, characters, themes and its story engine – and then rebuild it, for a new time, place and gender.

The Office Australia launches in 2024 into 240 countries and territories. It will be interesting to see if they understand us. And whether we understand ourselves well enough to make a compelling new version of this popular show.

Philippa Burne 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. The Australian remake of The Office has the potential to be great – if the writers remember how unique our humour is – https://theconversation.com/the-australian-remake-of-the-office-has-the-potential-to-be-great-if-the-writers-remember-how-unique-our-humour-is-207614

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brad E Tucker, Astrophysicist, Australian National University

Over the past eight years, I have been asked to submit astronomical evidence for court cases all over Australia.

Normally when we think of evidence in court, we think of eyewitnesses, DNA or police reports. Often, this evidence requires an expert to explain it – to be able to communicate the findings and data to the members of the court to make an informed decision. These experts are typically in medicine, engineering, psychology, or other fields.

Expert astronomers usually are not what one pictures in court, but that is exactly what I do.

The first time I was asked by police to do it came as a bit of a surprise. I had never thought about applying astronomy to the courtroom. Once the first group knew I can do it, more and more requests came in, from colleagues in the same police force or division, or investigators having seen my evidence elsewhere.

Now, I’m asked to submit evidence for roughly 1–2 cases per week. Usually this requires submitting a statement of evidence to the court. But sometimes I am asked to attend court and explain what the evidence means.

When I’m needed as an expert in court, it tends to be for matters of consequence. My evidence is either critical to a part of the case, or the case itself is fairly major and all the details are being checked and verified.

But what exactly am I providing evidence for?

Tracking the Sun and the Moon

Most court evidence from an astronomer involves calculating the positions and lighting from an astronomical body – the Sun or Moon. Luckily, the tools we use to calculate the positions of celestial bodies are very accurate, and can be calculated hundreds to thousands of years into the past or future.

An obvious example is when someone claims the Sun was in their eyes, causing a glare, and they get into a car accident. Someone needs to say where the Sun was, its position, and how it aligned with the street and direction of travel. At certain times and in certain directions, the Sun may indeed hinder someone’s vision.

There is also the situation where someone sees something, but it happened around sunrise or sunset. An expert is needed to say what the lighting level was – as there are very clear definitions based on the Sun’s position below the horizon, and how much you can see. For instance, what if the event occurred five minutes after sunset? The light level depends on the time of year, the location and other factors. It is not a clear-cut case of daytime versus nighttime.

The Moon can feature in court evidence as well. Especially in dark locations away from city lights, an astronomer can provide evidence on how much light the Moon provided on a given night.

There are also historical cases or times when people note the view or phase of the Moon as a way of defining when something happened. The full Moon has a precise definition, but the day before or after may appear to look like a full Moon, despite it not technically being full.

The limitations of expertise

Of course, like any part of science, there are limits to what I can say. If someone was looking through a window – how refractive was the window? Were there clouds blocking the Moon or Sun? It is up to other experts, and other parts of the legal system to sort out these factors.

Just like many fields, space technology is changing, and so too is its impact on law and crime. Satellites are being used more and more in cases to help track things as they happen. For example, the space technology company Maxar operates some of the highest-resolution commercial satellites to image Earth. For a small cost, people can task these satellites to look at certain areas and/or times.

Lately, we have seen the impact of satellites on Russia’s war in Ukraine, and how they have been instrumental in looking at troop movements, and even evidence of some of the alleged war crimes.

Read more:
Ukraine war: offensive use of satellite tech a sign of how conflict is increasingly moving into space

Satellite images have been used for a range of criminal investigations, such as people smuggling or illegal mines.

They are also being used in Australia for criminal matters. This is yet another situation where an expert is needed to explain the satellite imagery and what it may mean, or even help access it altogether.

Experts are vital

Working as an expert witness has given me hope, because I see the extent to which the justice system will sometimes go to get all the details right – like taking into account the phase of the Moon or the position of the Sun. It is also the perfect example of the importance of experts in our society.

In science, we are actively encouraging people to go to sources of accurate and trustworthy information, especially in an era of rife misinformation.

Through experts, fields like space and astronomy can impact people’s lives directly – even in the court room.

Read more:
Servant or partner? The role of expertise and knowledge in democracy

Brad E Tucker 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. Where was the Sun? Here’s why astronomers are more useful in court cases than you’d think – https://theconversation.com/where-was-the-sun-heres-why-astronomers-are-more-useful-in-court-cases-than-youd-think-204276

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

Today independent MP and former GP Sophie Scamps will introduce a bill into federal parliament that would restrict junk food advertisements aimed at children.

The bill would target advertising for unhealthy foods Australia’s health ministers have previously defined, including sugar-sweetened drinks, confectionary and unhealthy fast food meals. Advertising for these foods and drinks would be banned on television, radio and streaming services from 6am to 9.30pm, and banned altogether online and on social media. The proposal highlights one of our biggest health challenges and does something about it.

The share of Australian adults who are overweight or obese has tripled since 1980. Today, about a quarter of Australian children are overweight or obese. The consequences are serious. Obesity increases the risk of a range of illnesses, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, setting children up to develop chronic disease. The health care costs of obesity run into the billions of dollars each year, not to mention all the years of life lived with illness and disability, or lost to early death.

This isn’t the first time a ban on junk food advertising has been floated. But there is more reason than ever to make it happen.

Why now?

Unhealthy diets are the main cause of Australia’s obesity epidemic, and restricting advertising for unhealthy foods could help improve what we eat.

That’s why experts have been calling for advertising restrictions for years. Back in 2009, the Australian National Preventive Health Agency recommended them, and they have long been recommended by the World Health Organization. They’re supported by evidence that advertising influences children’s diets and preferences, driving cravings and feelings of hunger.

Even without this evidence, it would be a safe assumption that junk food advertising works. Otherwise, companies wouldn’t spend money on it, and they certainly do.

One study found Australian advertising on sugary drinks alone costs nearly five times more than government campaigns promoting healthy eating, physical activity and obesity prevention. And companies carefully design advertising to entice children. Their strategies include promotional characters, gifts, and games and shifting advertising online to follow changing viewing habits.

Most parents don’t need any persuading to know advertising works, having seen younger children employ “pester power” and older children spend their pocket money on unhealthy options. That’s probably one reason two thirds of Australians support bans on junk food advertising during children’s viewing hours.

Read more:
Are you living in a food desert? These maps suggest it can make a big difference to your health

What’s taking so long?

So why haven’t governments acted? When health bodies started calling for advertising restrictions nearly 15 years ago, the industry promptly came up with a plan of its own. Optional codes of conduct were drawn up for “responsible advertising and marketing to children”. But there are significant loopholes and gaps in these codes, which are voluntary, narrow, vague, and consequence-free.

Predictably, self-regulation hasn’t reduced junk food advertising to children. While countries with mandatory policies have seen junk food consumption fall, it has increased in countries where the industry sets the rules.

In the meantime, Australia and its children have been left behind. Since Quebec in Canada introduced the first ban back in 1980, more than a dozen countries around the world have followed and more are planning to. The proposals being debated in our parliament are modelled on policies adopted in the United Kingdom in 2021.

This isn’t the only area where Australia has fallen behind when it comes to setting sensible food rules. We are not among the 43 countries with rules to reduce trans-fats, which cause cardiovascular disease, or one of the 85 countries with a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, which are linked to diabetes.

Our policies to reduce salt consumption and improve food labelling are weaker than those in leading countries too.

Read more:
How to save $50 off your food bill and still eat tasty, nutritious meals

It’s time to make healthy choices easier

Unhealthy diets need to improve, but the simple answer of blaming the individual is the wrong one. Unhealthy food choices are shaped by things like time pressures, cost of living pressures, the availability of fresh food and the marketing adults and children are constantly bombarded with.

That’s why governments need to make healthy choices cheaper, more convenient and more appealing, so that they can compete with unhealthy options. Taking advertising aimed at children out of the equation would be a good first step.

Peter Breadon’s employer, Grattan Institute, has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

– ref. Is it finally time to ban junk food advertising? A new bill could improve kids’ health – https://theconversation.com/is-it-finally-time-to-ban-junk-food-advertising-a-new-bill-could-improve-kids-health-207906

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

The legislation to enable the Australian people to vote in a referendum for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament has passed the Senate by 52 to 19.

The vote took place with the public gallery crowded with supporters, and was greeted with prolonged applause. Those watching included prominent leaders of the “yes” campaign, including Megan Davis, Pat Anderson and Thomas Mayo.

But Indigenous crossbencher Lidia Thorpe labelled it “assimilation day” and interjected repeatedly during the debate on the bill’s third reading, and during the applause.

Those who voted against the legislation will be involved in preparing the no case for the yes/no pamphlet that will be sent to all voters.

Earlier, Nationals leader David Littleproud told the ABC he did not support having the claim the Voice would “re-racialise” Australia – a claim Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has made – included in the pamphlet’s no case. “I don’t support those sort of words. I’m not prepared to put my weight behind those words,” he said.

The government has not announced a date for the vote yet.

The referendum legislation required an absolute majority, so every vote was recorded.

In the final round of speeches in the Senate, shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said “we are opening up a legal can of worms. The proposed model […] is not just to the parliament but to all areas of executive government. It gives an unlimited scope.”

Opposition spokeswoman for Indigenous Australians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said the Voice would divide the country.

Greens Senator Dorinda Cox said the Greens “remain committed to the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, truth, treaty and voice. The referendum is the first important step.”

ACT crossbencher David Pocock said the Voice was “about ensuring that First Nations people, Australia’s first peoples, have a say on issues that affect them”.

Thorpe declared: “Happy assimilation day”. She said the Voice was “appeasing white guilt in this country by giving the poor little blackfellas a powerless advisory body”. She would be voting no to something that gave no power.

“”There is not one law in this country that has ever, ever, ever been good for us, not one. And now we’re meant to accept a powerless voice. It is truly assimilating our people so we’ll fit nicely as your little Indigenous Australians, it’s what you want us to be, right?”

She was asked by Senate President Sue Lines to cover her T-shirt, which had “gammin” in it, used in Aboriginal slang to mean fake.

Pauline Hanson said many people were still very confused about the proposal.

Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy said “this is a critical moment in our country’s history. It is the right thing to do.” McCarthy paid tribute to Senator Patrick Dodson, who is on extended leave due to illness.

Murray Watt, representing the attorney-general, called for the coming debate to be respectful, saying there was an onus on people to “tell the truth” and accusing no supporters of misinformation.

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. Referendum legislation passes 52-19 to applause but Lidia Thorpe condemns ‘assimilation day’ – https://theconversation.com/referendum-legislation-passes-52-19-to-applause-but-lidia-thorpe-condemns-assimilation-day-208006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicola Gaston, Co-Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, University of Auckland

The crisis in Aotearoa New Zealand’s university and wider research sector did not happen overnight. While funding shortfalls and sweeping redundancies are now making headlines, the underlying problems have been evident for years.

As I wrote after last year’s budget, financial support for research across our universities and crown research institutes “is steadily eroding and has been doing so for some time”, given the impacts of inflation.

The year before was no better. “The 2021 budget is not the investment we needed to see,” I wrote then. “Anything other than an increase in line with inflation is rather a slap in the face.”

And of 2020’s COVID-dominated budget, I could only say: “Under normal conditions, I might describe this as a disappointing budget for science […] missing not merely in action, but in aspiration.”

It was a similar story in 2019, with a 1.8% increase to tertiary tuition subsidies only slightly alleviating inflation pressure; and in 2018, when the government restated its intention to lift research funding to 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) over ten years.

That 2% of GDP target has been around for a long time now, with little significant movement and a current spend of 1.47%. The lack of new funding for science and research in recent successive budgets might once have been explained by sector reform being a work in progress. But time is running out.

With redundancies wreaking havoc across the university sector in particular, getting new funding into the system should have been a priority in this year’s budget. The opportunity cost of not doing this is simply too great.

Challenge and capacity

The university sector is now undeniably in crisis, with the scale of the cuts – most seriously at Otago and Victoria University of Wellington, but also at Waikato and Massey – becoming clearer in the past few weeks.

The prime minister and minister of education refuse to interfere in what they see as operational matters, saying universities need to adapt to changing realities.

And there is little doubt universities face real challenges, from the changing nature of work, to increased expectations of digital learning, and the implications of artificial intelligence tools.

Read more:
University funding debates should be broadened to reflect their democratic purpose

But cutting staff undermines the sector’s capacity to deal with those challenges in the first place – because capacity lies at the heart of this issue. As former prime minister Helen Clark said last week:

It has taken decades to build the current capacities of our universities. That should not be destroyed by short-term budgetary considerations. The money required to maintain viable and comprehensive universities is small in the overall scheme of things.

The missing money may indeed be small. But a lack of inflation adjustment over multiple years has created real problems – especially given universities did not qualify for any financial support during COVID-19, and have cut or not replaced staff over the past three years already.

A system at odds with itself

This year, the key budget hole is traceable to a dip in student numbers, likely related to sub-optimal student experiences during the pandemic, and perhaps the relatively strong job market. It’s easy to sympathise with this, and to hope those students return to tertiary education in future. The question is, what will our universities look like if and when they do?

That research funding target of 2% of GDP – reiterated again in this year’s budget – has been with us since 2017.

Patience was encouraged on the basis that, while government funding was below target, business expenditure on research and development (R&D) was even worse. We needed to wait for R&D tax credits to move that dial before government funding would increase.

Read more:
The arts helped us through the pandemic – NZ’s budget should radically rethink how and why they’re funded

But the reverse is now true. As last year’s white paper from science sector reform programme Te Ara Paerangi-Future Pathways made clear, it was no longer business R&D capacity that was holding us back – it was capacity on the public side:

The current [research, science and innovation] system is poorly placed to utilise increased funding to prepare us for [the] future.

That the loss of capacity threatened by current university cuts seems not to have raised concerns in government about the viability of its own research strategy suggests something is profoundly wrong.

Simple funding solutions

The immediate solution shouldn’t be that hard. As has been pointed out elsewhere, money to cover projected higher student enrolments was originally budgeted for by the government.

The decision not to allocate that money due to lower than expected enrolments is really a question of funding priorities and structures.

The research activities of universities are supported first through baseline funding to ensure there is available capacity; and secondly through contestable grants that allow governments to invest in research areas on strategic grounds (such as health or economic development).

A shift in the balance between baseline and per-student funding is not a dramatic structural change. An alternative might be to set a floor on how much per-student funding can be cut from one year to the next – just like the government sets a cap on raising student fees, for example.

Read more:
Are New Zealand’s universities doing enough to define the limits of academic freedom?

A coordinated national strategy

In the longer term, it would also be good to see stronger coordination and collaboration between universities at both governance and academic levels.

Perhaps a “supercouncil” composed of representatives of each university council could provide the forum for this. It would help ensure individual university strategies were complementary, making the most of their distinctiveness and responsibilities to local communities.

And to address those concerns about adaptation to modern realities, a ministry of education initiative to develop strategic plans for disciplines and programmes (with academic input) would be welcome.

The relationship between university research and teaching, mandated in the Education Act, should mean that changing research realities have implications for how and what we teach.

It is a matter of academic freedom that universities and academics make these decisions themselves. But having national strategic thinking available to support those decisions could only be a good thing.

At the very least, it would be rather more strategic than making these decisions based on the order in which staff apply for redundancy.

Nicola Gaston receives funding from the Tertiary Education Commission, as Co-Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology. She also receives funding from the Marsden Fund, administered by the Royal Society Te Aparangi.

– ref. Starved of funds and vision, struggling universities put NZ’s entire research strategy at risk – https://theconversation.com/starved-of-funds-and-vision-struggling-universities-put-nzs-entire-research-strategy-at-risk-207708

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ayesha Scott, Senior Lecturer – Finance, Auckland University of Technology

When it comes to money, are you a big spender or a fearful saver? Do you give away all your money or ignore financial demands until they become urgent?

After decades of focus on financial literacy, it has become clear there is more to how we manage our money than access to information. Now new research has identified five distinct money personalities that drive how we spend.

Commissioned by Te Ara Ahunga Ora (Retirement Commission) for their free, independent personal finance site Sorted, our study included an extensive review of the research on personality traits, values and attitudes. We then created an online survey, completed by nearly 500 New Zealanders, exploring how people engaged with their money.

The research findings form the backbone of a new online money personality quiz designed to help people understand their money personality and inform their financial decisions and behaviour.

With New Zealand officially in a recession, it has never been more important to understand money management. Despite our best intentions, we often struggle to make “good” financial decisions consistently – including saving enough, using debt wisely, and staying on top of insurance policies and KiwiSaver.

Doing better with our money

According to Te Ara Ahunga Ora, New Zealanders are good with the basics of financial capability – budgeting and keeping track of money. But we score lower than comparable countries like Canada, Norway, Australia and Ireland on more advanced financial capabilities like long-term savings. We also lack confidence when it comes to our cash.

There is a growing body of evidence that personality traits, money values and attitudes each play a crucial part in either aiding or hindering us making those “smart” financial decisions.

Read more:
The coming storm for New Zealand’s future retirees: still renting and not enough savings to avoid poverty

Attitudes towards saving, the degree to which we value material possessions, and how comfortable we are with risk, will all affect the financial decisions we make – and, as a result, our financial wellbeing.

The 5 money personalities

We identified five distinct money personalities, each with their own strengths and weaknesses: the enterpriser, socialite, minimalist, contemporary and realist.

An enterpriser is a financially confident, future-orientated planner who enjoys looking after their finances and is proud of being money savvy. Their strengths include self-control, financial knowledge and making their money work for them.

An enterpriser is unlikely to make impulsive or emotional purchases. However, their aspirational approach – viewing money as a priority and a symbol of success – may pair badly with materialism, causing them to spend money to gain status rather than for value or utility. Enterprisers benefit from learning about investing and planning for the future.

The minimalist is frugal, confident with their saving ability, and on top of their financial situation. Minimalists value a simpler life, scoring low on materialism and are not prone to impulsive or emotional purchases.

Their weakness is not always making their money work as hard for them as it could, as they are less likely to take financial risks – even where there is a potential for higher investment returns. Low-cost, passive investment strategies may appeal to minimalists.

A socialite is a joyful risk taker, outgoing, and confident with their money handling. A generous extrovert, they are more likely to be materialistic than other personality types and tend to live for today rather than plan for tomorrow.

Their high tolerance for risk suggests some socialites may take on unwise levels of financial risk. Those in this group who are also impulsive or prone to emotional purchases may find themselves overspending or vulnerable to over-extending themselves with consumer debt.

Socialites may like to explore active investment strategies and riskier investment classes, however. Taking calculated risks and building financial resilience is an important focus for them.

A contemporary doesn’t enjoy managing their money and they lack confidence when it comes to financial matters. They are likely to say they’re a spender despite being less materialistic than others; living for today, they tend to engage in impulsive emotional spending and are generous to a fault.

For contemporaries, the focus is increasing financial resilience by paying down debt and building an emergency savings fund, enabling them to share their wealth with others without affecting their own financial well-being. Working on their money mindset and general financial knowledge may allow them to build confidence and savings, then take a passive or “set and forget” approach to their financial life.

Read more:
A $400-a-week shortfall: people in their 40s face a bleak retirement on KiwiSaver’s current trajectory

A realist is future-focused, very conservative with risk, and values money highly. But they are not confident with their money handling, despite paying close attention to their financial situation.

The most introverted personality type, a more aspirational realist may be materialistic but is unlikely to make impulsive or emotional purchases a habit. This suggests building confidence and encouragement to take appropriate investment risks is important. Given they do not like making money decisions, automation of bill payments and savings may appeal.

Know thy money self

Each money personality offers different challenges when it comes to making financial decisions.

Taking Sorted’s money personality quiz is fun, but it’s also a useful financial decision you can make right now.

It’s not just about the label. Knowing your money personality can help you understand your strengths and weaknesses when it comes to financial decision making, giving you tools to improve your financial resiliency and security.

Te Ara Ahunga Ora commissioned this research project in partnership with Sorted. Ayesha Scott has received funding from the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) and AUT Business School. Ayesha collaborates with Good Shepherd NZ and BNZ and has consulted for KiwiSaver providers as an independent expert reviewer.

Te Ara Ahunga Ora commissioned Aaron Gilbert to conduct this research project in partnership with the Sorted team. He has also received research funding from the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) and AUT Business School.

– ref. Know thyself, know thy finances: which of the 5 money personalities are you? – https://theconversation.com/know-thyself-know-thy-finances-which-of-the-5-money-personalities-are-you-207621

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Biteau, Maître de conférence en physique des astroparticules, Université Paris-Saclay

As dawn rose over the German city of Bremen on May 7 1823, Heinrich Olbers put the finishing touches to an article that left his name in history. After the deaths of his wife and daughter, Dr Olbers had recently given up his work as an opthalmologist to devote himself to his nocturnal passions: the stars, the Moon, meteorites and comets.

Like many of his peers, Olbers trained himself in astronomy. He gained a solid reputation in the academic world and spent long nights observing the sky from the observatory on the second floor of his house.

On that morning, Olbers had come to a strange conclusion: based on all that was known about the Universe at that time, the night sky should not have been dark. In fact, the entire heavens should have been glowing as brightly as the Sun.

Olbers was not the first to note this paradox. But his name is the one we attach to it today. The enigma of the night sky’s darkness has echoed down the centuries from Olbers and the poet Edgar Allan Poe to 20th-century astronomers and space probes today.

Finite light in an infinite Universe

Like many of his contemporaries, Olbers followed Isaac Newton and René Descartes in believing the Universe was infinite.

If the Universe were finite and static, the force of gravity should draw all the stars together at a central point. But if the Universe stretched on forever, gravitational forces would on average be balanced in all directions.

But Olbers realised this model of the cosmos was inconsistent with observations. In a limitless Universe filled with an infinite number of stars, wherever we look at night our gaze should land on the surface of a star, in much the same way as every line of sight in a forest ends at a tree.

This is the problem Olbers raised in his paper of May 7 1823: the cosmological model of the time suggested every point in the sky should be as bright as the surface of the Sun. There should be no night.

Olbers proposed a solution: the light from more distant stars was absorbed by dust or other material floating in space. The English astronomer John Herschel later pointed out this couldn’t be right, because anything absorbing that much light would eventually heat up enough to glow.

When Olbers died on March 2 1840, at the age of 81, the riddle we know today as Olber’s paradox was unsolved.

A poet’s intuition

Eight years later, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, poet and writer Edgar Allan Poe thought he had found an answer. On February 3 1848, he gave a public lecture about his ideas to 60 people at the New York Society Library.

Veering between metaphysics and science, Poe argued the cosmos had emerged from a single state of matter (“Oneness”) that fragmented and dispersed under the action of a repulsive force.

This meant the Universe was a finite sphere of matter. If the finite universe is populated by a sufficiently small number of stars, then we won’t see one in every direction we look. The night can be dark again.

Even if we assume the Universe is infinite, if it began at some point in the past then the time taken by light to reach us would limit the size of the amount of the Universe we can see. This travel time would create a horizon beyond which distant stars would remain inaccessible.

Poe’s audience at the New York Society Library did not give him the rapturous reception he had hoped for. Later the same year, he published his theories in the prose poem Eureka, which was little circulated.

The following year, on October 7 1849, Poe died at the age of 40. It would be more than a century before scientists confirmed his intuitions about the enigma of the dark night sky.

Two and a half facts

In the first half of the 20th century many new theories of the cosmos were developed, spurred on by Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which explained gravity, space and time in new ways. In the second half of the century, these cosmological theories began to be tested with observations.

In 1963, British astronomer Peter Scheuer argued that cosmology was based on only “two and a half facts”:

• fact 1: the night sky is dark, which had been known for some time
• fact 2: galaxies are moving away from each other, as shown by Hubble’s observations published in 1929
• fact 2.5: the content of the Universe is probably evolving as cosmic time unfolds.

Strong controversies on the interpretation of facts 2 and 2.5 agitated the scientific community in the 1950s and 1960s. Was the Universe essentially stationary, or had it begun in an enormous explosion – a Big Bang? Supporters of both sides conceded, however, they needed to explain the darkness of the night sky.

The lifetime of stars

British cosmologist Edward Harrison resolved the conflict in 1964. He showed that the main factor determining the brightness of the night sky is actually the finite age of the stars.

The number of stars in the observable Universe is extremely large, but it is finite. This limited number, each burning for a limited time, spread over a gigantic volume, lets darkness manifest itself between the stars.

Harrison later realised this solution had already been proposed not only by Edgar Allan Poe, but by British physicist Lord Kelvin in 1901.

Observations in the 1980s confirmed the resolution proposed by Poe, Kelvin and Harrison. Olber’s paradox had finally been put to rest.

Fossil light

Or perhaps not quite. Viewed from a different angle, there is another resolution to the paradox: the night sky is not actually so dark after all.

After the discovery of the expansion of the Universe in the late 1920s, scientists realised the Universe could have started off extremely compact, dense and hot. This is the “hot Big Bang” model we have today.

One core prediction of this model is the existence of “fossil light” released in the cosmic dawn. This fossil light should be observable today – but not with the naked eye, as the expanding Universe would have shifted it to longer wavelengths.

This radiation – the cosmic microwave background – was detected in 1964. Now measured with exquisite accuracy, the cosmic background radiation is the most common light in the Universe.

We now know the cosmos is also illuminated by a second, much fainter background light, produced by galaxies as they form and evolve. This light is referred to as the cosmic ultraviolet, optical and infrared background.

So we can also answer Olber’s paradox by saying the sky is not dark, but faintly glimmers with the dim relic radiation of all that has been over the finite lifetime of the Universe.

New answers, new questions

In 2023, Olber’s paradox has evolved into a rich field of research. In our own work, we carry out ever-more precise measurements of the brightness of the night sky, and simulate the stars of the cosmos with supercomputers. We can now determine the number of stars in the sky with great accuracy.

Nevertheless, puzzles remain. Last year the New Horizons space probe, out beyond the orbit of Pluto and away from the dust of the inner Solar System, found the sky is twice as bright as we expected it to be.

And so the question of the darkness of the sky lives on, crossing ages and cultures.

Jonathan Biteau receives funding from University Paris-Saclay, CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche) and ANR (Agence National de la Recherche).

Alberto Domínguez receives funding from Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spain) and Banco Santander – Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

David Valls-Gabaud receives funding from the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) and CNES (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales).

José Fonseca receives funding from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia.

Juan Garcia-Bellido receives funding from MICINN (Spain) through various research projects.

Simon Driver receives funding from the Australian Research Council which supports studies of the Extragalactic Background Light (EBL). Simon is also a member of the Hubble Space Telescope SkySURF program (measuring the EBL) and a member of the Messier team (a potential space mission which includes, as part of its science case, studies of the EBL).

Hervé Dole 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. Why is the sky dark at night? The 200-year history of a question that transformed our understanding of the Universe – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-sky-dark-at-night-the-200-year-history-of-a-question-that-transformed-our-understanding-of-the-universe-206575

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabrielle Appleby, Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW Sydney

As we start to see the campaign for the Voice referendum gather momentum, there are a lot of Australian voters with genuine questions, trying to understand the proposal and wade through the information – including misinformation and active (that is, intentional) disinformation – that is out there in this public debate.

This type of information can manipulate people’s understanding of the issues, distort their vote and the result. It can also cause enormous harm to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Those looking for answers that avoid misinformation and disinformation often – with good reason – turn to experts. And there are lots stepping up and trying to help, including those writing for The Conversation, and most recently @ReferendumQandA, a group of public, human rights and international lawyers answering common questions as the referendum approaches. When you read this information, you should always be wary of people speaking outside of their expertise and experience, and anonymous accounts where these points can’t be checked.

With that in mind, we are a group of three non-Indigenous and Indigenous academics, providing our answers to ten key questions arising in the Voice debate, where the answers are often confused and distorted by misinformation.

Read more:
We now know exactly what question the Voice referendum will ask Australians. A constitutional law expert explains

1. Do Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people support the Voice?

While there is not a single view among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there is significant – indeed extraordinary – levels of support among them for the Voice.

First, Indigenous support is demonstrated by the deliberative processes that sits behind the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This involved more than 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from across the country (the claim that non-Indigenous people attended the dialogues is false).

From this process, delegates were able to arrive at a national consensus position, prioritising the reforms of Voice, towards Makarrata (Treaty and Truth).

Second, polling confirms the Voice continues to receive overwhelming Indigenous support. Two polls from 2023 confirm that 80% and 83% of Indigenous people support the Voice.

Further, Indigenous organisations across the country have indicated their support for the Voice. This includes land-based representative bodies such as the Northern Territory Land Councils and the Kimberley Land Council, and peak service organisations such as the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association.

2. Will the Voice insert race into the Constitution?

The concept of race is already in section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, which gives the Commonwealth parliament the power to legislate for “people of any race for whom it is deemed to be necessary to make special laws”.

That section was originally included so as to give effect to the White Australia Policy, and Aboriginal people were excluded from it. But since the section was amended in 1967, following a nationwide campaign for change, it has included the power to make such laws “for people […] of the aboriginal race in any State”.

As was intended in 1967, the power has been exercised for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (such as in relation to native title and cultural heritage protection laws). On the other hand, the same power could also arguably be used to pass laws that operate to their detriment. Its existence and breadth underscores the need for a mechanism – the Voice – to listen to the very people to whom those laws would apply.

3. How will the Voice make a practical difference?

The Voice will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a constitutionally guaranteed right to speak to government and the parliament about what’s needed for practical improvements to people’s lives. This in turn would help address disadvantage and systemic discrimination.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have answers to many pressing issues confronting their communities, but all too often are not heard. The positive impact of listening to Indigenous voices is supported by research such as that conducted in Australia led by Fiona Stanley and Marcia Langton, and internationally at the Harvard Project on American Indian Development.

4. How can the Voice represent the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander views?

Claims that the Voice will be a “Canberra Voice”, unrepresentative of the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and their views, misrepresents the proposal.

The constitutional provision requires only that the Voice is an “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”, and leaves the rules governing its composition to be determined by parliament. It is appropriate that parliament is responsible for determining the composition of the Voice, because the identity, experience, culture and views of First Nations across Australia are complex and diverse. This means it will need to be done in close consultation with local Indigenous communities, and will require ongoing monitoring, input and evaluation in cooperation with those communities. The parliament is best placed to undertake that sort of ongoing negotiation.

The government has committed to exactly that form of consultation in the design principles that have been set in collaboration with the Referendum Working Group, a group of Indigenous leaders. These principles indicate how the government intends the Voice to represent the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and their views. These principles commit the government to a Voice that is chosen based on the wishes of local communities, is not appointed by government, reflects gender balance and youth perspectives, and all members must be Indigenous.

These principles are informed by the recommendations of the 2021 Indigenous Voice Co-Design process as well as the design and proposed reforms of ATSIC.

Importantly, however, the government recognises the need for further consultation with Indigenous people on the specific design of the Voice.

These commitments will ensure the Voice is representative of the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander views.

5. Is the Voice in breach of international human rights standards?

No. In fact, the Voice is supported under international human rights law as it recognises Indigenous peoples’ rights to political representation and is consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In human rights and international law, equality and anti-discrimination means more than just treating people exactly the same. Indeed, this type of formal equality will often result in ongoing discrimination against people who have been historically marginalised because it doesn’t redress institutional and structural discrimination, or recognise difference.

The Voice has been endorsed by several UN treaty bodies, which have also expressed serious concern about the human rights violations Indigenous people in Australia continue to experience.

6. Don’t Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people already have lots of ‘voices’ to government and parliament?

No. There is currently no representative body to provide, in a nationally coordinated way, the government and parliament with the views and experience of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will be affected by their decisions.

To the extent there are other Indigenous organisations working with government and parliament, the Voice will complement, not detract, from their work. For instance, peak service organisations working in areas such as health, education and law, offer important Indigenous specific services and advice to government in service delivery, they are not representative.

And while there may be more Aboriginal parliamentarians than ever – and this should be celebrated – these individuals do not primarily represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They are party members bound by party policy, or individual MPs, who represent the whole of their constituencies. Further, Indigenous representation in the parliament is not guaranteed – it will rise and fall depending on party selection, and election results.

Finally, while individual traditional owners might be able to negotiate land claims and native title rights with government, they do not have a nationally representative voice to speak to parliament and government in a coordinated way about the laws and policies that will apply to these negotiations. There is no one to make sure the rules of the game are fair.

7. Will the Voice give rise to High Court litigation and clog up parliamentary work?

No. According to the prevailing weight of informed legal opinion, the establishment of the Voice does not pose any abnormal risk of excessive litigation.

Any suggestion the Voice would clog up the parliament or the government ignores the parliament’s ability to determine its own business, and the parliament’s legislative power to determine how the Voice will engage with the government.

Read more:
What happens if the government goes against the advice of the Voice to Parliament?

8. How does the Voice affect sovereignty?

Sovereignty is a complex idea, referring at a general level to ultimate political authority within a community. However, people talk about it in different ways. The Voice proposal interacts with sovereignty at three different levels.

First, the call for the Voice reform is based on the strong assertion in the Uluru Statement from the Heart of the continuing and unceded sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Second, there is nothing in the Voice proposal which alters the British Crown’s assertion of sovereignty at settlement, nor the fact that First Nations people have never consented to the forceful transfer of sovereignty to the Australian nation as we now know it.

Read more:
What we mean when we say ‘sovereignty was never ceded’

The third is under international law, which requires the agreement or consent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to cede sovereignty. This is not what is happening under the Voice proposal. Indeed, international treaty bodies have repeatedly confirmed that the Voice would be a positive step for the recognition and political participation rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within the state.

9. Why do we need to put the Voice in the Constitution?

There are two key parts to this answer. The first is that the Voice has a number of objectives, one of which is the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of the land. First Nations people, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, indicated they wished for recognition in the form of the Voice. If we are serious about recognition, we should do it in a way that accords with the wishes of those to be recognised.

The second part of the answer relates to the operation of the Voice. If the Voice is in the Constitution, it can only be abolished by another referendum, rather than by a change of government policy. This gives it independence and stability, so it can fulfil its function of speaking about matters that might not be politically popular.

10. Do Australians have enough detail to vote at the referendum?

Yes. There’s often a lot of confusion about this question, which is because there are two types of detail that people talk about.

The first is the detail about the constitutional change. This is the bit Australians are being asked to vote on, and the bit that is “permanent” (subject to a future referendum). There is heaps of detail in relation to the constitutional change, including the wording of the amendment, the referendum question, the explanatory memorandum to the amendment, a parliamentary inquiry’s report, and the government has even taken the extraordinary route of releasing the solicitor-general’s advice on the legal soundness of the amendment.

The second is the detail about what the legislation establishing the “nuts and bolts” of the Voice will look like. To be clear, this detail is not part of the constitutional amendment – and it is entirely normal for constitutions to leave this type of detail to be worked out in future by the parliament. It would be misleading to release the full detail of the Voice, because this detail would need to be passed through parliament, and would be subject to future change.

However, there is some detail about what the Voice will look like. The government has taken the sensible option of indicating what it will do following a successful referendum, and how it will go about setting up the Voice. It has worked with the Referendum Working Group to finalise a set of design principles that provide the outline of what the voice will look like – how it will represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across the country, what functions it will have, and how it will be accountable.

Gabrielle Appleby was a pro bono constitutional consultant to the Regional Dialogues and First Nations Constitutional Convention that delivered the Uluru Statement from the Heart. She is a member of the Indigenous Law Centre (UNSW Law & Justice) and supports the work of the Uluru Dialogues.

Geoffrey Lindell has provided pro bono assistance to the UNSW Indigenous Law Centre on the Voice.

Hannah McGlade is a member of the Referendum Engagement Group, the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issue and supports the work of the Uluru Dialogues.

– ref. 10 questions about the Voice to Parliament – answered by the experts – https://theconversation.com/10-questions-about-the-voice-to-parliament-answered-by-the-experts-207014

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yaqoot Fatima, Associate Professor, UQ Poche Centre for Indigenous Health, The University of Queensland

Adolescence is a sensitive life stage when emerging independence, changing social roles, excessive screen time, academic pressures, and significant biological changes can lead to emotional and behavioural problems.

The current generation of teens is chronically sleep-deprived and, unfortunately, considered the most sleep-deprived group in human history.

In teenagers, irregular bedtimes, short sleep duration and poor sleep quality are commonly reported sleep issues. These problems can cause emotional regulation issues, risky behaviour and academic disengagement. In the longer term, poor sleep can lead to obesity, health conditions (including diabetes), mental health problems, and risk taking behaviour.

The issue of poor sleep and its impact on life outcomes needs particular attention for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teenagers who experience disproportionately high rates of poor outcomes in health, social and emotional well-being and education.

Sleep vulnerability

The ongoing effects of colonisation, intergenerational trauma, and other social determinants of health increase the vulnerability of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teenagers to poor sleep. While some poor sleep issues are transient, continued exposure to racism, discrimination, household overcrowding and lack of safe sleeping spaces lead to chronic sleep issues.

Sleep health data for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is limited. Still, some studies suggest one in three young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people struggle with poor sleep, significantly higher than their non-Indigenous counterparts.

The impact of poor sleep on the life outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people is a major concern for community members, service providers and policymakers.

Despite this, services focused on sleep health promotion in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are non-existent. This could be because although the need for healthy sleep is universal, the meaning of sleep health is shaped by cultural and societal factors. These include the acceptability of co-sleeping, living in multi-family housing or the role of dreaming.

Mainstream programs that don’t draw together the principles of health and cultural knowledge offer limited effectiveness for sleep health promotion in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. But a new program could change that.

A co-designed approach

In response to community needs, Australia’s first sleep health program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teenagers – Let’s Yarn About Sleep – was co-designed in Mount Isa, Queensland.

Community members were vocal about wanting to harness the potential of sleep as part of efforts to improve health outcomes, reduce teenage contact with the criminal justice system and improve academic engagement. Community yarns also identified the need to strengthen local sleep health service delivery and train Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as “sleep coaches”.

The co-design and evaluation of the program involved consultations with more than 200 community members, integrating Traditional and Western knowledge on sleep health and offering ideas for improving sleep.

The ten-week program includes data collection before and after delivery, including questionnaires, sleep diaries and actigraphy (a non-invasive method of monitoring human rest and activity cycles).

Read more:
Drinking fountains in every town won’t fix all our water issues – but it’s a healthy start

What the program involves

The program empowers young people to identify their sleep health goals and work with coaches to achieve them. At the beginning of the program, participants identify a group and an individual goal they would like to attain.

The group goal focuses on making sleep health a priority. For example, group members agreeing not to use their phones after 10pm. Individual goals are focused on reponses to personal circumstances. So, individual goals included de-cluttering or going to bed at least 30 minutes earlier.

While the program’s key focus is to improve participants’ knowledge, understanding and awareness of sleep health, one of the key objectives is to support participants in developing sustainable sleep hygiene practices (healthy habits for a good night’s sleep). During the program, participants learn about sleep hygiene practices such as following a consistent bedtime, reducing screen time and practising Indigenous relaxation training before bedtime.

The program has also led to the training of two Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as Australia’s first Indigenous sleep coaches. Clinical staff at the local Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation and hospital have since expressed interest in gaining these skills.

Read more:
To reduce harm from alcohol, we need Indigenous-led responses

What happened as a result of improved sleep

So far, 35 teenagers in the community have been enrolled in the program and 13 have graduated. The program has also been integrated into the Emerging Leaders program at the local high school.

The program data shows the majority of the program participants were staying up until very late at the night. However, participants achieved their self-identified goals and believe this program gave them tools to improve their sleep. The program has received support from community Elders, parents and carers, service providers and young people.

The project team and community members are working to co-design a sleep health program for adults and extend the youth sleep program to other communities.

Roslyn Von Senden, a Kalkadoon woman from Mount Isa, who is training to become a sleep coach, reflected on the cultural importance of the program.

Dreams are an important part of our life, a medium to connect with our ancestors to be guided, foresee things, connect with others, and get inspiration and ideas to express our artistic talent. Sleep loss deprives us of opportunities to connect with our culture, ancestors, and who we are as traditional custodians of the world’s oldest surviving culture.

While the initial program was funded through the Medical Research Future Fund and focused on Mount Isa, additional funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and industry partner Beyond Blue supports the program in other remote communities.

The resulting community-led sleep health movement aims to leverage the untapped potential of sleep health in improving academic and sporting performance, reducing crime, improving health outcomes and empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people.

Yaqoot Fatima is supported by funding from the NHMRC Partnership Grant, MRFF Indigenous Health Research Grant, MRFF-EMCR grant, and Beyond Blue for sleep health research.

Azhar Potia’s research is supported partially by the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course (Project ID CE200100025).

James Ward and Mina Kinghorn 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. The first sleep health program for First Nations adolescents could change lives – https://theconversation.com/the-first-sleep-health-program-for-first-nations-adolescents-could-change-lives-206286

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Esther Suckling, Research Associate, Grattan Institute

If every Australian household that uses gas went all-electric today, we would “save” more than 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over the next ten years. That’s because there are more than 5 million households on the gas network, and the avoided emissions per home ranges from 5-25 tonnes over the coming decade, depending on the location.

Most people would spend less money on energy too. Electric appliances use less energy than gas appliances to do the same job, making them cheaper to run.

Our new report shows how much most households can save by switching from gas to electricity for heating, hot water and cooking. The extra cash couldn’t come at a better time: about a quarter of Australian households say they found it difficult to pay their energy bills this year.

But many households face hurdles that stop them, or make it hard for them, to go all-electric. Governments could make it easier for people and bring emissions-reduction targets closer to reality.

Read more:
Want an easy $400 a year? Ditch the gas heater in your home for an electric split system

Most households save by upgrading to electric

Households in Melbourne tend to use more gas than those in other mainland capitals, mainly because the winter is so cold. Our report found Melburnians who replace broken gas appliances with electric ones, or move into an all-electric home, could save up to A$13,900 over ten years. Households with rooftop solar will save even more.

It’s a similar story in most parts of Australia except the west, where gas is relatively cheap. This mainly reflects differences in the historical development of the gas markets between the west and east coasts.

Getting off gas could also be good for your health. Several studies link cooking with gas to childhood asthma.

Read more:
Gas cooking is associated with worsening asthma in kids. But proper ventilation helps

Households face a series of hurdles

Renters make up nearly a third of all households, and they have little or no control over the appliances that are installed. As most electric appliances cost more to buy than gas ones – and the subsequent bill savings flow to tenants – landlords have little incentive to upgrade their properties from gas to all-electric.

Apartment living can increase the level of complexity. Multi-unit dwellings often bundle gas bills into body-corporate fees, limiting the occupants’ incentive to go all-electric. There can also be space constraints in these buildings. Centralised electric heat pumps, for example, take up more space than centralised gas water heaters.

Then there are households that simply can’t afford the upgrade. Induction stoves and heat pumps are more expensive than their gas equivalents, by up to a combined $2,000. This initial outlay will soon be recovered by cheaper energy bills, but that doesn’t help households that don’t have the cash up front. The 12% of households that skipped meals to pay their energy bills in the past year are the most likely to remain locked into high gas bills.

Some people also simply prefer cooking with gas. Some think induction cooktops will be no better than the poor-performing electric cooktops they may have used in the distant past. Others haven’t ever heard of a heat pump for hot water.

Read more:
Heat pumps can cut your energy costs by up to 90%. It’s not magic, just a smart use of the laws of physics

Here’s how governments can help

Governments, both state and federal, should lower the hurdles on the path to all-electric homes -– to reduce people’s cost of living and to cut carbon emissions.

As a first step, state governments should ban new gas connections to homes. In 2021, more than 70,000 households joined the gas network. Trying to shift households off gas while allowing new connections is like pouring water into a bucket with a hole.

Then, governments should provide landlords with tax write-offs on new induction stoves and heat pumps for hot water, for a limited time. After that, they should require every rental property to be all-electric. Governments should pay to upgrade public housing to all-electric, where they are the landlords. And they should pay not-for-profits managing community housing to do the same.

The federal government should help all households to spread the cost of electric appliances over time. It should subsidise banks to offer low-interest loans for home electrification, via the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

And governments should set out to change people’s preferences, from gas to electric. They should embark on a multi-decade communication campaign, not unlike the campaign to upgrade from analogue to digital television in the early 2000s.

A key challenge will be shifting people’s ideas about the best way to cook. There are precedents. In Gininderry, a new all-electric suburb of Canberra, one developer recruited chefs to run demonstrations on induction cooktops at the display village. The proportion of potential homebuyers willing to consider buying an all-electric home rose from 67% to 88%.

‘Green gas’ is no panacea: electricity is cheaper

The gas industry has another solution in mind: instead of switching from gas to electricity, it suggests using “green gas” -– biomethane or “green” hydrogen. Biomethane is chemically identical to natural gas, but is derived from biological materials such as food waste, sewage or agricultural waste. Green hydrogen is made by using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

But both options are too expensive and too far away. Under the most generous of assumptions, green hydrogen will only become cost-competitive with electricity after 2045. And there is not enough biomethane commercially available to replace gas in households.

Meanwhile, more than three million Australian homes already run on electricity alone.

Getting the five million homes that use gas to the same point won’t be easy. But with good policy, it is doable. For households, and the climate, there is much to be gained.

Read more:
Kicking the gas can down the road: why a gas price cap is the worst way to protect energy consumers.

Esther Suckling 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. All-electric homes are better for your hip pocket and the planet. Here’s how governments can help us get off gas – https://theconversation.com/all-electric-homes-are-better-for-your-hip-pocket-and-the-planet-heres-how-governments-can-help-us-get-off-gas-207409

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pablo Guillen, Associate Professor, School of Economics, University of Sydney

This article is part of our series on big ideas for the Universities Accord. The federal government is calling for ideas to “reshape and reimagine higher education, and set it up for the next decade and beyond”. A review team is due to finish a draft report later this month, with a final report in December 2023.

Every year thousands of students around Australia sit their final high school exams. The performance in these exams will help determine their Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR). For many, it will also determine whether they can attend university, which university, and which undergraduate degree they can enrol in.
The Universities Accord review team has called for advice on the role admissions systems play in “matching learners to pathways” and supporting an increase in participation and success at university. The accord also has a broader focus on improving access to a quality higher education.

When discussing equity issues around university entry, most attention is usually paid to perceived school quality, exam preparation and assessment design.

Less attention is paid to the crucial process by which each student is allocated a place in a particular degree at a particular university.

Our research shows design flaws in this process can see school leavers miss out on studying their most preferred degree, even if they are eligible to enrol in it based on their academic performance.

This can have significant ramifications for a students’ lifetime earnings, career progression and professional satisfaction.

The NSW admissions system

We studied the New South Wales admissions system, which is managed by the Universities Admissions Centre. Although there is some variation, other Australian states and territories have similar systems.

Undergraduate applicants are asked to submit an ordered list of five degrees for which they would like to be considered.

The Universities Admissions Centre then puts each student’s preference information into an algorithm that accounts for their individual score and the entry cut-off scores determined by each university for each of their degrees.

Obviously, an applicant’s choice of which five degrees to list is of critical importance to them.

The centre provides students with advice to help them optimise their preferences. At the time of our study it was:

List your ‘dream preference’ at number one but follow that with realistic preferences. At the bottom of the preference list you should include one or two ‘safe’ options to ensure that you get an offer.

(The Universities Admissions Centres website now says: “First on your list should be the course you’d most like to do, followed by your second, third and fourth preferences and so on.”)

So students need to make a sophisticated gamble to determine their future careers. They need to “dream” but also be realistic. It may not be in their best interests to list the five degrees in the order in which they truly prefer them.

If they only include dream degrees, with high cut-off marks, they may miss out on a university offer. But if they only include safe options, with low cut-off marks, they may miss out on doing what they truly want to study.

Read more:
Students think the ATAR is ‘unfair’ but we need to be careful about replacing it

Our study

To assess these theoretical concerns, in 2019, we ran an experiment with students experienced in applying through the actual NSW admissions system.

More than 800 participants were provided with the advice they would have typically received from the Universities Admissions Centre (that is, list a “dream” preference first, then include more realistic options).

All participants were given a fictitious ATAR and a set of six degrees. They then had to make a preference list of five degrees.

Participants were rewarded with money depending on the outcome of the experiment. They received more money when offered a place in a degree they preferred more highly.

Our findings

Our process was designed to mimic – but be more simple than – the University Admission Centre. Despite this, 75.5% of participants failed to report their preferences in order of their best interests. That is, list what they really wanted to do.

We also found students from comprehensive public high schools were at least 6.9% more likely to make a “mistake” (by not telling the truth about their preferences) than peers from public selective high schools and private schools.

Our research shows the system is not only inefficient but confusing to applicants.

Students can also be exposed to conflicting advice when applying to university. Some universities have been known to advise students to list their “safe” choice first to make sure they get in.

Read more:
‘They don’t expect a lot of me, they just want me to go to uni’: first-in-family students show how we need a broader definition of ‘success’ in year 12

A redesign is needed

We believe the current process needs a thorough redesign.

Limiting the number of applicants’ preferences to five degrees is a problem. A very risk-averse applicant would include too many safe options and likely miss out on better ones for which they would have a chance to get in. Meanwhile, a risk-loving applicant might list only hard-to-get-in degrees and completely miss out.

A better solution would be to allow applicants to list as many degrees as they want, up until they are indifferent between their least preferred degree and not going to university at all.

Given there are hundreds of degrees to choose from, it would be very difficult to come up with a complete and exhaustive list. However, a practical solution is readily available: applicants first submit their five most favoured degrees. If they don’t get an offer – and only if they don’t get an offer – they submit a second batch of five degrees.

Most will be matched in their first or second batch. Applicants who are not matched can keep submitting further batches. As is the case now, they only need to think in “fives”, but once they have an offer, they are removed from the applicant pool.

We believe it is possible for Universities Admissions Centre’s current process to be changed so it is easier to understand.

This would eliminate the need for strategising by applicants and advice on how to strategise. If you understand how our method works, we believe high school leavers will too.

Pablo Guillen receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Mark Melatos receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the NSW HSC Standards Committee.

Onur Kesten 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. Our research shows how students can miss out on their preferred uni degree – but there’s a simple fix – https://theconversation.com/our-research-shows-how-students-can-miss-out-on-their-preferred-uni-degree-but-theres-a-simple-fix-207415

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Humphery-Jenner, Associate Professor of Finance, UNSW Sydney

When was the last time you got a pay increase? Was it anywhere near the rate of inflation?

If it feels as if your wage is shrinking and cost of living pressures are growing, you’re in good company. And it might just be harming productivity. Here’s why.

Labor productivity (measured as gross domestic product per hour worked) has been shrinking for a year now, after decades of reasonable, albeit declining, productivity growth throughout the 1980s, 1990s and the first two decades of the 2000s.

All sorts of reasons have been suggested. One is working from home. Commonwealth Bank chief Matt Comyn has ordered staff to return to the office saying there are “certain types of work that are done more effectively in person”.

Reserve Bank research says it might be a resurgence in the proportion of wages set by industry awards rather than workplace agreements, meaning there’s less scope for rewarding performance.

Another is weak wage growth itself.

Shrinking real wages are demotivating

We must also look at wages. Wages are falling in inflation-adjusted (“real”) terms.

Adjusted for inflation, Australians are being paid less than they were in 2020.

Shrinking real wages are demotivating. While this is hardly a new insight, a bemusing number of people seem shocked by the idea that someone might be less keen to work when the real value of what they are paid is falling.

Research on executive compensation established this as long ago as the 1970s.

The whole field of compensation contract theory is based on the insight that a person’s sense of wellbeing goes up with money but down with perceived effort and risk. Money can induce people to work in ways they otherwise would not.

Company boards have long used incentives to encourage otherwise-cautious executives to take risks. They even tailor compensation contracts to executives’ behavioral traits.

How do workers produce less?

Consciously or otherwise, workers whose real wages are falling might care less about their jobs. They might work more slowly, or they produce worse-quality goods or services. And their attitude might permeate to other workers and to clients, undermining productivity more broadly.

If this happens at enough corporations – and certainly real wages are falling at enough corporations – it will harm GDP per hour worked throughout the entire economy.

Sluggish wage growth can also affect the number of observed hours worked.

When wage growth and incentives are strong, ambitious workers will work more than their contracted hours, and won’t claim for it.

They might work on weekends and nights, easing staff scheduling and time zone issues, helping the firm do what it needs to do.

Uncounted extra hours don’t increase the “hours” in GDP per hour, but they do increase the GDP, increasing measured productivity.

When people stop doing unpaid overtime, while their recorded hours mightn’t much change, the GDP they produce declines.

There are reasons to believe Australian workers are no longer going above and beyond to produce more to the extent that they used to.

One is an increase in the number of Australians holding multiple jobs.

Over the past five years, the proportion of Australian workers holding more than one job has climbed from 6% to 6.7%, which appears to be an all-time high.

These official figures understates the extent to which Australians are turning their focus away from their main jobs for three reasons:

• they exclude side hustles not counted as “jobs”

• they exclude jobs in the cash economy

• they exclude workers whose “new” second job is spending time with their family rather than working overtime.

The rise in multiple job holders is likely to both increase the total number of hours worked, and reduce the effort workers put into their main jobs.

And, as these second jobs are often more junior, it can mean highly-skilled workers producing less per hour than they would have had they put the hours in their main job.

The overall picture is one of a demotivated workforce realising there is no longer much point in “going the extra mile”, “going above and beyond”, or buying into whatever the latest euphemism is.

Returning to the office might make things worse

Although returning to the office might is touted as a way to boost productivity by building collaboration, it might well do the reverse.

There is ample evidence to show that workers hate commuting. In capital cities, commuting can consume two hours per day driving, parking and allowing time for unexpected delays.

It is also costly. Workers will tolerate it if there is no other choice or it is a clear path to more money.

But if companies reinstate a two-hour commute and associated costs without paying more money, they are likely to further demotivate their workers, further undermining their willingness to “go above and beyond”, produce more, and be more efficient.

What’s needed are incentives

A straightforward solution is to create incentives that make it clear that workers who care more will get cared for more.

The incentives need to be in addition to standard raises. Using them as a cynical ploy to hold wages constant unless employees work ever harder will backfire.

The incentives must also be credible. It isn’t enough to create the vague possibility of promotions. Employers have to demonstrate that if their workers produce more they will be paid more. And the extra pay needs to be enough to matter.

Read more:
Don’t blame workers for falling productivity – we’re not the ones holding it back

An even better solution would be job-hopping.

Australians have long been lethargic about changing jobs, allowing themselves to be hit with a “loyalty tax” for staying put.

The most recent Bureau of Statistics survey, for the year to February 2022, shows an overdue uptick in the proportion of workers switching jobs, from 7.5% to 9.5%.

The 2023 update will be released at the end of this month.

The importance of job-hopping (switching jobs to get better reward) as a means of incentivising both workers and employers makes Labor’s proposed expansion of industry-wide enterprise bargaining a bad idea.

If employers set wages together, they are unlikely to set them differently.

In any event, there is little sign that employers are interested in motivating their workers to produce more. It’s easier to blame workers and make a case for low pay rises.

Mark Humphery-Jenner 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. Tired of shrinking pay? The real drain on Australians’ productivity is falling wages – https://theconversation.com/tired-of-shrinking-pay-the-real-drain-on-australians-productivity-is-falling-wages-207807