Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Wayland, Associate Professor, University of New England

Death is a part of life, an adage usually reserved for those who physically exist in our lives – family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances. So what happens when a profound death experience happens on the screen? Is that still a legitimate experience of mourning?

This week, the popular TV show Succession had a significant “on screen” death – where even the cast filming the scene spoke as if the response to the trauma had a very real feeling.

In the same way as the cast, social media reactions to the sudden and unexpected death of a person with a complex character, after four seasons of growing to understand them, can feel like the death of someone you actually know.

The research behind this phenomenon can be found as far back as the 1970s when early understandings around the death of a main character on children’s television served to provide real world insight into the irreversibility of death as a universal experience.

Over time, as popular culture and television became more nuanced, the diversity of the ways in which death occurred in fictional programs began to replicate the complexity of “real” loss in our lives. Via television, we get access to catastrophic loss, multiple casualty events, loss after significant illness – as well as seeing how death impacts the people left behind.

In the most recent episode of Succession, we also see what happens when a death occurs involving a person where their character or relationship to others is strained. We see ways in which grief is not always a byproduct of love.

Why does this grief feel real from an armchair perspective?

Death on screen can also act as a trigger or a reminder of the losses we have endured.

When a show realistically portrays grief in its purest form, the emotive or reflective reaction can unlock our own grief. Engaging with the small screen is an overt act of escapism, often for entertainment. We might be switching on a program with the intention of relaxation, only to be met with trauma and sadness.

When a sudden loss is brought into our lounge rooms, or via the devices on our laps, we experience shock, confusion and anger about the abruptness of an event, just like the feelings we can experience when loss happens suddenly in our real lives.

Read more:
Far from the ‘ludicrously capacious’: what the fashion of Succession tells us about the show – and about society

Safe reporting of sudden and traumatic death on fictional TV shows is not covered by media reporting guidelines. Warnings prior to a scene, or consistent information at the end of an episode about seeking additional support, might be minimal.

Recent research identifies multiple contexts related to warnings where TV shows may note that an episode will explore death, however, the complexity of how this might be portrayed is limited.

What is this grief called?

While there is no rulebook for grief, reacting emotionally to a small screen death can bring about concerns that we look silly or that we lack awareness of the distinction between reality and fiction. This form of parasocial grieving, described as having feelings attached to a pseudo-relationship, does feel real, does have consequences and does need space to be managed.

We don’t all watch the same shows, we don’t all respond to the death of a character the same way, we might even struggle to understand why people have the reactions they do when a TV death occurs. I would encourage you to pause for a moment and remember the ones that did get under our skin.

In 1985, Australian viewers lived through the death of Molly from A Country Practice, where the final image of a mother’s end-stage cancer diagnosis played out while watching her daughter fly a kite.

Teens watching Sarah Michelle Gellar stumble across the sudden untimely death of her mother in Buffy the Vampire Slayer shaped many feelings when there is a catastrophic loss without warning.

In the last decade, the sudden death of Patrick from Offspring had people legitimately calling in sick from work the next day.

The global reaction to the Red Wedding scene in Game of Thrones had forums on Reddit unpacking why so many characters were murdered and sharing the impact of the sights and sounds of blood and murder and traumatic grief.

We engage in a social contract when we connect to a TV show. We expect to be removed from our real life and engage in the viewing of other spaces. Death in those spaces – and the reactions to that loss – can feel as if they break that contract.

Sarah Wayland 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 death on the screen feel the same as a ‘real’ one? – https://theconversation.com/can-death-on-the-screen-feel-the-same-as-a-real-one-203549

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Honorary Fellow, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

Over the past two days there’s been controversy over whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should accept an invitation to attend the NATO summit in Lithuania in July, with reports suggesting he will not.

Albanese’s office is yet to confirm whether the prime minister, who is currently on leave, will attend the meeting.

But the debate is a reminder that politicians and the public must recognise the value of such opportunities.

Why is the NATO summit a big deal?

NATO – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – is a 31-nation collective defence pact that includes most members of the European Union as well as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Turkey.

Under treaty, an invasion of any NATO member is treated as an invasion of all. This is of great comfort, especially for smaller countries with a threatening neighbour. In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Finland has become a member and Sweden has applied to join.

Read more:
Finland, NATO and the evolving new world order – what small nations know

Why has Albanese been invited?

While Australia isn’t a member of NATO, it has a good relationship with the organisation. Australia is one of NATO’s “partners across the globe”, with permanent observer status.

Australia was a key partner during the long Afghanistan mission, with Australia seen as important in helping NATO meet its goals. Prime ministers Rudd and Gillard both attended NATO summits during this period.

There are currently two factors that make Australia a higher priority for NATO.

First, Australia is viewed as making a significant contribution to efforts to support Ukraine against Russia’s invasion. When I introduced myself to Ukraine’s youngest member of parliament, the first thing he said was thanks for Australia’s contribution of Bushmaster armoured vehicles. Australia is also working with France to manufacture ammunition.

Second, there is greater NATO focus on Indo-Pacific security issues. The 2022 NATO Strategic Concept mentioned issues around the threat from China for the first time. Australia is an obvious partner to NATO in Indo-Pacific security.

Griffith University’s Susan Harris Rimmer saw the invitation for Australia to attend the NATO summit in 2022 as a significant step reflecting NATO’s intent to focus on China and Indo-Pacific security.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg speaks about NATO’s Indo-Pacific partners, including Australia, in very positive terms:

We may be oceans apart. But our security is closely connected. And we share the same values, interests and concerns. This includes supporting Ukraine.

The case for attending

All this means there is a strong case for attending if possible. NATO is an important gathering of world leaders. As ANU’s John Blaxland puts it, the chance to “press the flesh” with world leaders is part of the “process of building relationships with key heads of states of important partner nations”.

For Australia to be taken seriously, it needs to show up. And given Australia’s location, the reality is that Australians are usually the ones who have to do the travelling. If we were to wait for all the NATO leaders to visit Australia, it would literally take decades.

It is clear Albanese recognises this. He attended last year’s NATO summit in Madrid not long after the election, saying “it was important that Australia be represented”.

The danger of negativity

Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Birmingham has urged Albanese to attend this year’s summit, which he said would “demonstrate Australia’s 100% commitment to the rules-based order, our democratic partners and the defence of Ukraine”.

But it’s worth noting that last year, others had a different response. After Albanese went to the Madrid summit, his travel schedule was criticised by Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor, Shadow Immigration Minister Dan Tehan and National Party Leader David Littleproud. He faced negative commentary and news outlets keeping track of how many days he had been out of the country.

As he returned from the NATO summit and visiting Ukraine, Albanese was forced to defend his travel. He described criticism comparing this to his predecessor Scott Morrison’s trip to Hawaii during the 2019-20 bushfires as “beyond contempt”.

Supporting our leaders to have international impact

At this point it is not clear whether Albanese will attend the NATO summit. He is currently on leave, and acting prime minister Penny Wong said she would not announce Albanese’s schedule.

If media reports he will not attend turn out to be true, I hope the only reason would be a simple scheduling conflict. Albanese has a range of upcoming travel commitments, including the coronation of Charles III in the UK and the G7 meeting in Japan, both in May. He will host leaders of the “Quad” nations in Australia, and there is speculation about trips to India, the US and China.

For the national interest, it is important that both the public and political opponents support our leaders in engaging internationally as a key part of their role to promote Australia’s interests and represent us on the world stage.

As Albanese said in response to criticism of his travel in 2022, “we can’t separate international events from the impact on Australia and Australians”. This connection needs to be widely understood.

Melissa Conley Tyler is Executive Director of the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue (AP4D) which receives funding from the Australian Civil-Military Centre and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

– ref. Anthony Albanese should attend the NATO summit if he can. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/anthony-albanese-should-attend-the-nato-summit-if-he-can-heres-why-203675

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

Professor Marcia Langton holds the Foundation Chair of Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne, and was co-author (with Professor Tom Calma) of the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process report to the Morrison government. She has been a fighter for rights and progress for Indigenous Australians for decades, and she’s one of those at the centre of the yes campaign for the Voice. Her own voice is always forthright and formidable.

Langton admits she isn’t “entirely confident” where the referendum stands at the moment but is more positive as the debate continues. “I’ve been gauging the response of the general public by reading a lot and having a look at the social media, and I think most people can see that this is a very simple and modest proposition and that it will make a difference. And what I’m seeing more and more is most people realising, yes, well, why don’t Indigenous people have a say about policies and the laws that affect them?

“They realise when they think about it that this has gone on for too long, where all of these laws and policies that seem to be universally ineffective in closing the gap, and causing more suffering, have been imposed on us by non-Indigenous people. […] I think most people are still very embarrassed about the Northern Territory intervention initiated by John Howard.”

While Langton admits she doesn’t agree with Julian Leeser’s preference to alter the proposed wording of the constitutional change, she believes Leeser – who has quit the opposition frontbench to campaign for the yes case – has shown “integrity and decency of the kind that most Australians aspire to. You can see from the response that he’s getting from across the political spectrum that he’s now even more respected for his stance.”

One key issue in the debate about the Voice is how extensive will be the issues on which it would be able to make representations.

Langton says a point “widely misunderstood […] is that the voice will be a statutory body. And like any other statutory body, it should be treated according to the standards of non-discrimination. If no other statutory body is restricted on the basis of race or gender or age in making representations to government, then to restrict the Voice in making such representations could be seen as racially discriminatory.”

A key question being asked is how people will be selected to represent their communities. Langton says: “We have to accommodate an already existing Indigenous governance landscape. So across the country we have an enormous number of existing bodies, none of which have any assured way of advising governments. None of them are provided with a formal way to advise governments. I’ll give you two examples.

“One is the Torres Strait Regional Authority. And the other is the ACT Indigenous elected assembly. Now, indeed, both of them can give advice to the state governments, and that’s a good thing. But they don’t sit in an integrated framework. […] We developed a set of principles for the creation of such bodies as the Indigenous voice arrangements.

“Those principles are:

• Empowerment
• inclusive participation
• cultural leadership
• community-led design
• non-duplication and links with existing bodies
• respecting long-term partnerships
• transparency and accountability
• capability driven data
• evidence based decision making.

“Those are the principles, and it was our preference that those principles be legislated so that each body that is created, should we be successful, complies with those principles.”

A major point for debate around The Voice is whether it will deliver practical outcomes. Langton illustrates by example.

“As for the kinds of problems that the Voice would be able to tackle much more effectively than governments, I give you the case of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first people to respond effectively, long before governments did so, were the Indigenous health organisations […] The Indigenous community-controlled health sector leaders had dealt with two epidemics in recent history and one in particular had a very high mortality rate. So in response to that, the Indigenous health sector wrote an epidemic plan, and that was about ten years old, but it was easily revised to become the pandemic plan. So they went straight into action when we began to hear the news from overseas about COVID-19.”

“So who was first to close their borders? Not the states and territories. It was the Aboriginal landowners on advice from the Indigenous health sector that closed their borders to stop travel in and out of Aboriginal lands to keep their populations safe.

“Because the most vulnerable populations to COVID-19 were the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations with pre-existing health burdens such as chronic diseases, diabetes, kidney disease and so on.

“We expected, you know, an enormous death toll in the Indigenous community, we expected at least 3% of the indigenous population to contract the disease. 27,701 cases was the prediction.

“But because the Indigenous health sector rushed to implement the pandemic plan and set up a national taskforce with public health advisories that went out across our media sector, translated into at least 18 languages, we were able to stop the deaths. And so in the first year of the pandemic, I think we had one death as opposed to 27,000. And so we were the most successful group in the world, I would argue, in preventing COVID-19 from taking lives. So up until January 2021, there were only 148 cases of COVID among Indigenous people nationwide, 15% hospitalisations, one case in ICU and no deaths. And there were no deaths in remote communities and no cases associated with the Black Lives Matter marches because of our public health advisories.

“So I think that’s, you know, a very good example, of why Indigenous people in control of their own affairs is much more effective than governments. And we can see the terrible mistakes that governments across the country made, even though they were advised by the very best of our epidemiologists, is because they don’t have the reach into the local population that our Indigenous health sector has.”

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Professor Marcia Langton on the Voice’s powers and potential – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-professor-marcia-langton-on-the-voices-powers-and-potential-203672

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brett Montgomery, Senior Lecturer in General Practice, The University of Western Australia

Last week, without warning, the federal government significantly restricted the subsidy for an important and safe asthma medicine for children. A short document explained to prescribers what had changed, but gave no reasons.

The medicine, fluticasone propionate 50mcg, is a metered-dose inhaler, more commonly known by the brand names Flixotide Junior or Axotide Junior. It’s one of the the lowest dose medicines of its type available, and until April 1 the government had subsidised nearly 80,000 of these puffers each year.

However, the new change will make it harder to afford, especially for vulnerable families, who already suffer the greatest burden of asthma.

Read more:
What causes asthma? What we know, don’t know and suspect

The importance of asthma prevention

When a child has asthma, inflammation and sensitivity causes airway narrowing, which makes it hard to breathe.

About one in ten Australian children has long-term asthma. It can cause frightening breathlessness, poor school participation, and sometimes hospitalisation. Rarely, and tragically, children die from asthma.

Children with persistent or severe asthma symptoms need medicines to reduce airway inflammation. “Inhaled steroids” are the safest and most effective treatments. In fact, the World Health Organisation has included them on its List of Essential Medicines for Children.

These medicines reduce the risk of severe flares of symptoms, especially in children with a history of such flares. The aim is to use the lowest effective dose, yet it is the subsidy of low dose fluticasone which the new policy affects.

How medicine subsidy decisions work

To be sold in Australia, all prescription medicines must be registered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which assesses the safety and efficacy of the medicine.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is a list of medicines our government helps to pay for. This scheme caps the cost of dispensed medicines at about A$30 for most people, and about A$7 for people with concession cards.

To get a drug on the list, the manufacturer needs to convince the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) the medicine is cost-effective.

Having this sort of process – a single major payer, and well-qualified decision-makers – is a good thing. It’s a reason Australia has much more affordable medicines than the United States. This usually benefits both patients and health authorities.

Read more:
Passive smoking, synthetic bedding and gas heating in homes show the strongest links to asthma

The new rules

Previously, any doctor could prescribe low dose fluticasone for a child with asthma under the PBS. But as of April 1, this is no longer true.

The new PBS rules are complicated.

First, no one over the age of six will get any government subsidy to help with the cost of this medicine.

Second, the PBS will only subsidise it for children under the age of six if a paediatrician or lung specialist has started the medicine, and if the prescriber has first contacted the PBS for approval.

The PBS has not spelled out why this change was made, either on their website or when pressed by journalists.

Generally, if the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and a manufacturer can’t agree on a medicine’s price, the medicine will stay off the PBS, and will remain unsubsidised. Alternatively, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee may place restrictions on the population for whom the medicine is subsidised.

In this case, given no safety or effectiveness concerns have been raised, and the change coincided with a scheduled price-reduction date, the new restrictions may be simply about money – the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the manufacturer not agreeing on a price.

What does it mean for families?

In children over the age of six, several alternative medicines can be prescribed.

But in children under five, there are no good alternatives, with no other age-appropriate low-dose steroid inhalers approved by the TGA.

In the under-five age group, GPs now have three options if they think their patient needs inhaled steroids:

1. prescribe fluticasone 50mcg on a private script

2. refer to a child or lung specialist

3. prescribe other medicines “off label” (in a way not approved by the TGA), which will often involve higher-dose steroids.

All of these are problematic.

The use of private scripts will mean families need to pay whatever their local pharmacy charges them. At many pharmacies we expect the price to be around $11 to $28 per inhaler, but there are no guarantees all pharmacies will provide the medication at this cost.

The use of private scripts will certainly hurt families who rely on concessions or safety nets, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds who are disproportionately affected by asthma.

Requiring referral to a specialist also has many detrimental consequences. There are already bulging waitlists for these services, leading to delays in care. In many parts of Australia there are no bulk-billing specialists, which makes it hard for vulnerable families to access these services.

GPs will feel obliged to refer cases they previously would have been able to manage, which may erode the community’s trust in GPs.

The decision adversely impacts the interests of so many Australian kids, especially those from our most vulnerable populations who already suffer disproportionately from asthma. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the manufacturer should work together to reconsider it.

Read more:
The price of PBS medicines is coming down. But are we helping the right people?

Brett Montgomery has no relationship with the manufacturer of the medicines discussed in this article (GSK). Brett is a member of the guidelines committee for the Australian Asthma Handbook, which is an unpaid role. The Australian Asthma Handbook is a project of the National Asthma Council Australia. The National Asthma Council Australia has received funding from GSK for some activities, but is not a sponsor of the Handbook. Brett writes here in an individual capacity rather than on behalf of any organisation.

Louisa Owens is affiliated with the National Asthma Council of Australia and Asthma Australia. Louisa has no relationship with the manufacturer of the medicines discussed in this article (GSK). Loiusa is a member of the guidelines committee for the Australian Asthma Handbook, which is an unpaid role. The Australian Asthma Handbook is a project of the National Asthma Council Australia. The National Asthma Council Australia has received funding from GSK for some activities, but is not a sponsor of the Handbook. Louisa is also a member of the Professional Advisory Council for Asthma Australia. Louisa writes here in an individual capacity rather than on behalf of any organisation

Shivanthan Shanthikumar 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. New asthma medicine restrictions will hurt the poorest children the most – https://theconversation.com/new-asthma-medicine-restrictions-will-hurt-the-poorest-children-the-most-203424

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meg Elkins, Senior Lecturer with School of Economics, Finance and Marketing and Behavioural Business Lab Member, RMIT University

TikTok allows video up to 10 minutes, but says surveys show almost half its users are stressed by anything longer than a minute. An Instagram video can be up to 90 seconds, but experts reckon the ideal time to maximise engagement is less than 15 seconds. Twitter doubled the length of tweets in 2017 to 280 characters, but the typical length is more like 33 characters.

It’s easy to get sucked into short and sensational content. But if you’re worried this may be harming your attention span, you should be. There’s solid evidence that so many demands on our attention make us more stressed, and that the endless social comparison makes us feel worse about ourselves.

For better mental health, read a book.

Studies show a range of psychological benefits from book-reading. Reading fiction can increase your capacity for empathy, through the process of seeing the world through a relatable character. Reading has been found to reduce stress as effectively as yoga. It is being prescribed for depression – a treatment known as bibliotherapy.

Book-reading is also a strong marker of curiosity – a quality prized by employers such as Google. Our research shows reading is as strongly associated with curiosity as interest in science, and more strongly than mathematical ability.

And it’s not just that curious minds are more likely to read because of a thirst for knowledge and understanding. That happens too, but our research has specifically been to investigate the role of reading in the development of curious minds.

À lire aussi :
Too many digital distractions are eroding our ability to read deeply, and here’s how we can become aware of what’s happening — podcast

Tracking reading and curiosity

Our findings come from analysing data from the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth, which tracks the progress of young Australians from the age of 15 till 25.

Longitudinal surveys provide valuable insights by surveying the same people – in this case a group of about 10,000 young people. Every year for ten years they are asked about their achievements, aspirations, education, employment and life satisfaction.

There have been five survey cohorts since 1998, the most recent starting in 2016. We analysed three of them – those beginning in 2003, 2006 and 2009, looking at the data up to age 20, at which age most have a job or are looking for one.

The survey data is rich enough to develop proxy measures of reading and curiosity levels. It includes participants’ scores in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment tests for reading, mathematics and science ability. There are survey questions about time spent reading for pleasure, time reading newspapers or magazines, and library use.

To measure curiosity, we used respondents’ answers to questions about their interest in the following:

• learning new things
• thinking about why the world is in the state it is
• finding out more about things you don’t understand
• finding out about a new idea
• finding out how something works.

We used statistical modelling to control for environmental and demographic variables and distinguish the effect of reading activity as a teenager on greater curiosity as a young adult. This modelling gives us confidence that reading is not just correlated with curiosity. Reading books helps build curiosity.

Gloom and doom-scrolling

Does this mean if you’re older that it’s too late to start reading? No. Our results relate to young people because the data was available. No matter what your age, deep reading has benefits over social-media scrolling.

The short-term dopamine rush of scrolling on a device is an elusive promise. It depletes rather than uplifts us. Our limbic brain – the part of the brain associated with our emotional and behavioural responses – remains trapped in a spiral of pleasure-seeking.

Studies show a high correlation between media multitasking and attention problems due to cognitive overload.
The effect is most evident among young people, who have grown up with social media overexposure.

US social psychologist Jonathan Haidt is among the researchers warning that high social media use is a major contributor to declining mental health for teenage girls:

Boys are doing badly too, but their rates of depression and anxiety are not as high, and their increases since 2011 are smaller.

Why this “giant, obvious, international, and gendered cause”? Haidt writes:

Instagram was founded in 2010. The iPhone 4 was released then too — the first smartphone with a front-facing camera. In 2012 Facebook bought Instagram, and that’s the year that its user base exploded. By 2015, it was becoming normal for 12-year-old girls to spend hours each day taking selfies, editing selfies, and posting them for friends, enemies, and strangers to comment on, while also spending hours each day scrolling through photos of other girls and fabulously wealthy female celebrities with (seemingly) vastly superior bodies and lives.

In 2020 Haidt published research showing girls are more vulnerable to “fear of missing out” and the aggression that social media tends to amplify. Since then he’s become even more convinced of the correlation.

Social media, by design, is addictive.

With TikTok, for example, videos start automatically, based on what the algorithm already knows about you. But it doesn’t just validate your preferences and feed you opinions that confirm your biases. It also varies the content so you don’t know what is coming next. This is the same trick that keeps gamblers addicted.

Tips to get back into books

If you are having difficulty choosing between your phone and a book, here’s a simple tip proven by behavioural science. To change behaviour it also helps to change your environment.

Try the following:

• Carry a book at all times, or leave books around the house in convenient places.

• Schedule reading time into your day. 20 minutes is enough. This reinforces the habit and ensures regular immersion in the book world.

• If you’re not enjoying a book, try another. Don’t force yourself.

You’ll feel better for it – and be prepared for a future employer asking you what books you’re reading.

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

– ref. Why reading books is good for society, wellbeing and your career – https://theconversation.com/why-reading-books-is-good-for-society-wellbeing-and-your-career-200447

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Poropat, Research associate, Curtin University

In May and June of 2018, Australia’s first near-complete skull of a sauropod – a group of long-tailed, long-necked, small-headed dinosaurs – was found on a sheep station northwest of Winton in Queensland.

I was part of the dig team from the Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum that made the discovery, and subsequently had the privilege of leading the team that studied the skull. After years of work, our results are published today in Royal Society Open Science.

The skull belonged to a creature we have dubbed “Ann”: a member of the species Diamantinasaurus matildae which shows surprising similarities to fossils found halfway across the world, lending weight to the theory that dinosaurs once roamed between Australia and South America via an Antarctic land connection.

A good skull is hard to find

The sauropod dinosaurs have been a source of lifelong fascination for me, and finding a sauropod skull was one of my childhood dreams. Sadly, the fossil record is biased towards preserving sauropod limbs, vertebrae and ribs, and heavily against skulls.

This makes sense when you consider the processes that act on an organism’s body after it dies, which palaeontologists call taphonomy.

Large, robust limb bones are resistant to decomposition, and if they are buried rapidly they might fossilise quite readily. Vertebrae and ribs comprise a significant proportion of a vertebrate skeleton, increasing their odds of preservation.

By contrast, sauropod skulls were relatively small, made up of many delicate bones that were only loosely held together by soft tissue, and seemingly easily detached from the end of the neck. They might also have been prime targets for carnivorous dinosaurs: the only previously described sauropod braincase from Australia preserves several bite marks from fierce theropods.

The bones of the skull were found around two metres beneath the surface, scattered over an area of about nine square metres. Much of the right side of the face is missing, but most of the left is present. Sadly, many of the bones show signs of distortion (presumably a result of post mortem scavenging or trampling), which makes physical reassembly of the skull a delicate process.

Modern technology recreates an ancient animal

This being the case, we set out to reconstruct the skull digitally. We CT scanned the bones at St Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne. This enabled the internal features of each bone to be observed on a computer.

Inside one bone in the snout (which we also had scanned at the Australian Synchrotron), we found replacement teeth. It has long been known that sauropods, like crocodiles today, continually replaced their teeth throughout their lives.

We also scanned all of the bones with a surface scanner, enabling detailed 3D models of each bone to be made on a computer. The skull could then be reassembled in a virtual space with no risk of damage to the fossils themselves.

The teeth in the new sauropod skull were very similar to those found at other sites in the Winton area. Comparisons with Australia’s only other fragmentary sauropod skull (also from Winton) revealed additional similarities.

Meet Diamantinasaurus matildae

Our skull belongs to the species Diamantinasaurus matildae. Diamantinasaurus would have been about as long as a tennis court, as tall as basketball ring at the shoulder, and weighed ~25 tonnes – about as much as two fire engines.

Diamantinasaurus occupies a low branch on the family tree of a group of sauropods called titanosaurs. Other members of the titanosaur group (from higher branches on their family tree) include the largest land animals that ever lived, such as Patagotitan and Argentinosaurus, which exceeded 30 metres in length. Titanosaurs were the only sauropods to live right until the end of the Cretaceous Period (66 million years ago), when the age of dinosaurs came to a close.

Read more:
The march of the titanosaurs: the Snake Creek Tracksite unveiled

Diamantinasaurus has a rounded snout, typical of medium- to high-level browsing sauropods. Its teeth are robustly constructed, but those from other sites show little sign of wear by soil or grit, reinforcing the idea Diamantinasaurus preferred to feed some distance above ground level.

Only two replacement teeth are present in each tooth socket, implying that Diamantinasaurus replaced its teeth relatively slowly. And finally, the teeth are restricted to the front of the snout, meaning that Diamantinasaurus, like all other sauropods, did not chew its food.

Family resemblances

We compared our sauropod skull with others from around the world. The most similar skull was that of Sarmientosaurus musacchioi, which lived in southern South America. Diamantinasaurus and Sarmientosaurus lived at around the same time (about 95 million years ago), and at around the same latitude (50°S).

We had previously hypothesised that these two sauropods were close relatives, albeit on the basis of limited evidence. The new skull shores up that idea in a big way: bone for bone, the skulls of Diamantinasaurus and Sarmientosaurus are extremely similar.
This might seem strange, given the great physical distance between South America and Australia today. However, back then each of those continents retained a lingering land connection with Antarctica.

Read more:
A key feature contributed to sauropods getting so enormous, new dino foot study reveals

Sauropods seemingly preferred warmer climates at low to medium latitudes. However, 95 million years ago the climate was extremely warm, even by the warm standards of the Cretaceous. With polar latitudes more amenable for sauropods, these scaly behemoths – and other landlubbing animals – could trundle through lush forests at the bottom of the world between South America and Antarctica.

It is a privilege to be able to finally put a face to the name Diamantinasaurus matildae. Future discoveries will hopefully help cement its status as one of the most completely understood titanosaurs worldwide.

Stephen Poropat 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. First near-complete sauropod dinosaur skull found in Australia hints at ancient links between continents – https://theconversation.com/first-near-complete-sauropod-dinosaur-skull-found-in-australia-hints-at-ancient-links-between-continents-203405

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andreas Zametzer, PhD Candidate at Timescales of Mineral Systems Group, Curtin University

Meteorite impacts can be cataclysmic events in the history of a planet, melting rock, changing atmospheric chemistry, and wreaking general havoc.

However, impacts may also have created Earth’s continents, supported ecological niches that kick-started life, and even developed metal ores.

In a new study published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, we examined what’s left of the world’s oldest known impact crater: the 2.29 billion-year-old site at Yarrabubba in Western Australia.

We found evidence hot water circulated in fractures in the rock after the impact, possibly because the impact melted some of the ice that covered much of the planet at that time. Hot water in fractured rock may have provided a niche for early life-forms, and its presence also has implications for our understanding of how deposits of metal ore form in Earth’s crust.

Space rocks have been key players in Earth’s history

Meteorite impacts appear to come and go in a 200 million year cycle over the course of Earth’s history.

Across the planet, about 200 major impact sites have been documented. The oldest of these is at Yarrabubba in Western Australia.

More than two billion years ago, a space rock slammed into the continental crust at Yarrabubba. This ancient crust had formed some 2.65 billion years before the present and was intensely changed by the impact.

The result was a crater with an estimated diameter of about 70km, which is nowadays eroded to a mere pimple. The shock of the impact was so great it even melted parts of the surrounding crust, which is made of granite – a common type of rock you might see in fancy kitchen bench tops.

In our new research, we took a close look at what the impact did to the chemistry of the crust. The chemical effects of meteorite impacts are not often explored, but they may be important in understanding the full range of environmental consequences.

CSI: Rock

Geologists forensically study minerals trapped in rocks to investigate what happens inside Earth, in much the same way that crime scene investigators study materials at a scene to determine their origins.

One kind of clue geologists are particularly keen on is isotopes. These are different forms of a particular element.

Different isotopes of an element all behave the same in chemical reactions, but they contain different numbers of neutrons inside the atom. This makes some isotopes unstable: over time, they will radioactively decay into different elements.

Read more:
Scientists have traced Earth’s path through the galaxy via tiny crystals found in the crust

We can make use of this radioactive decay. For example, we can determine the age of the Yarrabubba crater and its surrounding rocks by measuring the ratio of uranium to lead isotopes, which acts like a stopwatch counting the time since a mineral has grown.

This tells us the age because uranium decays into lead over time, and we know the rate at which this decay happens. So measuring the isotopes of both elements in a sample shows us how much decay has happened, allowing us to calculate the mineral’s age.

Another way to use isotopes is in certain minerals where these ratios remain fixed over time and do not change. The isotopic signatures then become a powerful tool to track where material has come from, in much the same way that a person’s surname can give a clue to their family’s origin.

Messengers in a crystal bottle

We analysed the isotopic compositions of lead in mineral grains from the crust surrounding the crater at Yarrabubba.

We looked at crystals of feldspar, typically the pink-coloured grains in our granite bench top example, as these naturally contain lead but no uranium.

This is important as the lead isotopes trapped within this mineral reflect the composition of the liquid from which the mineral originally grew.

We found a wide range of lead isotopic compositions, as well as new uranium-bearing minerals that grew within fractures in the grains at the time of the impact, starting new stopwatches.

Read more:
We found the world’s oldest asteroid strike in Western Australia. It might have triggered a global thaw

The only plausible explanation for these modifications of isotopic signatures is that the impact must have generated networks of circulating hot water that infiltrated damage zones throughout the rock. In the case of Yarrabubba, the water may well have come from the meteor hitting an ice sheet, as ice covered much of the world 2.29 billion years ago.

The impacts of impacts

Our documentation of the circulation of heated water produced by an impact is important from two very different perspectives.

First, hot fluid systems may have nurtured early life. Impacts were much larger and more frequent on the early Earth, and in some ways these violent and disruptive events would have stood in the way of complex life evolving.

Yet researchers have demonstrated that microbial communities can blossom where heat, water and nutrients meet pulverised rock: exactly the conditions impacts can produce. Some have even suggested impacts are a fundamental part of planetary evolution and necessary for creating a habitable planet.

Second, seeing how impact-generated hot water can transport metals can help us understand how ore deposits are created. Some of the first sources of metal for early humans were meteorites, from which they chipped away bits of metal for tools and jewellery.

Yet impact sites can contain larger concentrations of metals than just from the meteorite itself, which is often vaporised. Ore deposits typically form when there is a geological structure, for example a fracture within a rock, into which metals can be moved by fluids.

Impacts clearly shatter the crust, but they also provide circulating hot water. If there is metal present in the target rocks to begin with, this hot water may carry and concentrate these metals into a richer deposit.

Chris Kirkland receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Minerals Research Institute of Western Australia.

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

– ref. How the world’s oldest known meteorite impact structure changed the chemistry of Earth’s crust – https://theconversation.com/how-the-worlds-oldest-known-meteorite-impact-structure-changed-the-chemistry-of-earths-crust-201228

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Naeni, PhD candidate at Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

The on-again, off-again talks between Iran and western powers over Tehran’s nuclear program have stalled yet again due to disagreements between the two sides.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has blamed Iran for “killing an opportunity” to come back to the negotiating table and maintained the talks were no longer a priority for the Biden administration.

Iran, meanwhile, seems to be inching closer to being able to actually build a nuclear weapon.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have said Iran had enriched uranium up to 84%, just short of the 90% required for a bomb.

And General Mark Milley, the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress in late March that Iran could have enough fissile material to make a bomb in “less than two weeks” and a nuclear weapon itself within several months.

Given these developments, is there any room left for an agreement?

Tunnel vision on nuclear talks

Over the past two years, both the US and European Union have been resolute in their efforts to revive the nuclear deal that had been scrapped by then-US President Donald Trump in 2018, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

However, Western attempts have yet to bear fruit, reportedly due to the “maximalist demands” made by the Iranians, including removing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from the US list of foreign terror organisations.

Despite this, the EU believes the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action remains “the only way” for addressing Iran’s nuclear program. The US, despite de-prioritising the talks, is also not willing to officially announce the death of the deal.

This tunnel vision, however, seems to ignore the changes that have taken place since 2015, as well as the more general pattern of decision-making in Iran.

Although backers of the deal often argue it has significantly restricted Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Tehran’s nuclear program has actually expanded in just two years. And recently, a news outlet affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards made it clear that Iran cannot “close its doors to the scientific methods of making a bomb for rational reasons”.

Now, the big question is what Iran’s leaders will do next. The CIA director, William Burns, said in February that he believes Iran’s Supreme Leader has not yet made a decision on building nuclear weapons.

So, what is the Iranian leadership thinking? To answer a question like this, the pattern of decision-making in Iran’s history is a critical factor that has widely been ignored.

A history of painstaking deliberations

Since the 1979 revolution, Iranian leaders have exhibited a cautious and slow approach to making major decisions.

This protracted process of decision-making in Iran is rooted in anxiety about the long-term survival of the regime, which has been grappling with a range of internal and external threats over the past four decades.

For instance, it took eight years for the Islamic Republic to accept the ceasefire and peace talks with Iraq following their war in the 1980s.

In addition, Iranian authorities took a decade to be ready for serious negotiations on a nuclear agreement with the US and other global powers, following the disclosure of the country’s nuclear program in 2003.

Moreover, while Iran first suggested a “look to the East” policy in the mid-2000s under then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country didn’t begin developing major policies in this direction until 2015. This has included military cooperation with Russia in both Syria and now Ukraine and a long-term economic, military and security agreement with China.

However, building nuclear weapons would certainly be the most consequential strategic decision by the Iranian leadership since the 1979 revolution.

Read more:
Iranian protesters are making demands in charters and bills of rights

What the West can do?

So far, the slow process of decision-making in the Iranian leadership has played a significant role in hindering the weaponisation of the nuclear program.

And this limitation of the leadership could provide western powers with an opportunity, given the ongoing protests currently roiling the country.

The months-long protests erupted following the death of a woman in the custody of the morality police last year, hastening the decline of the regime’s legitimacy inside the country and bringing new rounds of sanctions from the international community.

If western countries abandon their obsession over the revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and continue to support the Iranian people in their protests through diplomatic and economic pressure, it will send a powerful signal to Iran’s leaders: the threats to the regime’s existence are not limited to military factors, but also increasingly come from within the country.

Read more:
Are Western sanctions on Iran making a difference?

It is important to note that amid the protests, Iranian officials and hardliner media have frequently stressed the nuclear deal is not dead and negotiations are ongoing, even though most of them had previously opposed any deal with the West.

This indicates the Islamic Republic would not be ready for the risks that the demise of the nuclear talks could bring – namely, even fiercer protests from the public if it caused another economic shock.

Therefore, the longer the balance of power between the Iranian people and government remains unsettled, the more unlikely it is the regime will make a firm decision on nuclear weapons in the near term.

Consequently, this will provide the West with powerful leverage to secure a more robust and effective agreement in the long term.

Amin Naeni 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. With Iran purportedly capable of making a nuclear bomb in a matter of months, what will its leaders do next? – https://theconversation.com/with-iran-purportedly-capable-of-making-a-nuclear-bomb-in-a-matter-of-months-what-will-its-leaders-do-next-202234

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Bennett, Chair in Epidemiology, Deakin University

Australia is currently experiencing the longest break between infection peaks since Omicron arrived in late 2021 and community-wide transmission took off.

With winter looming, it’s worth taking stock of where we are with COVID and what we might expect over the colder months – especially in the southern states and territories. The climate and the way our behaviour changes at this time of year increase the transmission potential for all infectious respiratory diseases.

This will be our second winter with Omicron subvariants, but there are signs it might not be as challenging as the last.

Read more:
Haven’t had COVID or a vaccine dose in the past six months? Consider getting a booster

Peaks and troughs

The last time we had national hospital counts above 2,400 was on January 20, some 12 weeks ago. Our dips in the Omicron era have previously been short lived. Variant BA.1 replaced BA.2 quickly this time last year and hospital counts rose above 2,400 within five weeks of the first wave. In November 2022, the hospital counts again climbed above 2,400 with a change in subvariants after only ten weeks of respite.

Will the current break last? Most states are seeing a rise in hospital numbers, but those that started climbing earliest (New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania) might already be seeing hospital numbers levelling out. So there is hope the current surge will not lead to as high rates of severe illness.

And we know, COVID counts recorded for hospitals aren’t all admissions for COVID. Most are incidental infections. Tasmanian data show on average less than one third of COVID positive patients were admitted for COVID illness.

With each wave, a smaller proportion of COVID positive patients are being reported in ICU. The proportion of people on ventilators because of COVID has also reduced to less than 10% from 30% in the initial January 2022 Omicron peak. The deaths associated with each peak have also fallen with each main wave, with the summer wave just passed having about half the daily deaths reported at its peak compared with our previous summer. Antivirals have played an important role, but so too has population immunity, now estimated at 99.6%.

Community immunity

Thankfully, Omicron is less likely to cause severe illness, especially in a population with significant levels of immunity from both vaccine and prior infection. Antivirals also reduces the risk that infections will end up in hospital. But at times of peak infections, even a smaller proportion translates to significant loss of life among those who are vulnerable.

The shift in the dominant Omicron subvariants and their immune escape characteristics allow people to acquire new infections sooner than they might have if only exposed to the same variant they were infected with previously. Add to this the fact we now have a mix of variants in the population at any one time, then reinfections become more common and the overall infection rate will rise. So, while high levels of population immunity reduce the impact of infection, multiple variants circulating means infection rates can still rise.

Surveillance data from NSW shows this time last year there were only two Omicron variants in circulation, BA.1. and BA.2. Now genomic testing is capturing 12 different Omicron variants and the dominant variants keep shifting, with XBB emerging as the most dominant strain alongside XBB1.5.

Getting COVID again … and again

Reinfection is difficult to measure and will be seriously underestimated due to low reporting rates and mild or asymptomatic infections.

Reinfections help fuel infection rates and therefore increase the risk of exposure to people who are at risk of severe disease if infected.

We are still not sure whether having repeat infections might alter the chances of developing long COVID. It seems less likely for Omicron, especially in people who experience mild or no symptoms.

Young adults are still the group where most infections and reinfections occur. They should be conscious of the extra risks in the winter months with more indoor mixing and make sure they’ve have had at least one booster to reduce their long COVID risk.

Read more:
Long COVID puts some people at higher risk of heart disease — they need better long-term monitoring

Who should still get boosted?

Vaccination may still help reduce the risk of passing the virus on, even if you do become infected in the first month or two after a dose. A recent US prison study found the risk of onward transmission was reduced by nearly a quarter, and by 40% in those who were both vaccinated and had a recent infection, but this protection wanes by about 6% per week.

How this applies to a wider community is hard to gauge. People living in very close quarters have higher transmission rates than the general population – so it’s not clear how much of a reduction we would see in the community setting, even among younger adults with higher rates of work place and social mixing.

Younger adults, like everyone else, are only eligible for a booster six months after their previous dose or their last infection – and many may not go six months without infection as they are the ones most likely to be infected during each Omicron peak which have been spaced less than six months apart.

The best protection against onward transmission in the prison study came from a combination of vaccine and recent prior infection. Once young adults have had their first booster, ongoing immunity boosting from subsequent exposures or infections means they – and therefore the population – have less to gain from multiple boosters.

For those who are vulnerable to severe infection, have a weakened immune response, or have been shielding from the community, a booster dose with the latest vaccines is still strongly recommended.

Read more:
We got some key things wrong about long COVID. Here are 5 things we’ve learnt

Protecting ourselves this winter

The tools we used to manage transmission risk with previous variants do not work now. We saw with Delta that even strict lockdown and mask mandates could only just hold transmission in check with high vaccination coverage.

Omicron has some fundamental differences that undermine these measures, including a higher proportion of cases having a very high viral load, which means there is more virus in the aerosols people exhale. This undermines the effectiveness of masks, social distancing and other measures.

Omicron also has a shorter incubation period, which means more secondary cases will be infectious before the index case even knows they themselves are infected.

A reminder

The Australian winter will likely see a rise in cases again. The cycle of subvariants will leave us exposed and hasten the waning of immunity. And we’ll spend more time together indoors.

Being up-to-date with the latest CVOID and flu vaccines is critical for those more vulnerable to waning immunity and serious illness, and may reduce symptoms in any adults who hasn’t yet had their first booster or an infection in recent months.

It would be great if all symptomatic people could stay home. We’d have less respiratory illness all round. But even then exposure to COVID in the community would be inevitable with so many infectious people without symptoms.

Personal protection with well-fitted masks might still reduce the risk that exposure to Omicron variants will lead to infection in high risk settings. But the safest plan is still to stay home if you are unwell, look for well-ventilated areas when out, open windows to ventilate your home before and during visits, and be considerate of those who are wearing masks as they are more than likely vulnerable and anxious.

Read more:
Millions of Australians still haven’t had their COVID boosters. What message could convince them now?

Catherine Bennett has received research funds from the NHMRC, MRFF and VicHealth, and sat on independent scientific advisory groups for ResAPP, AstraZeneca, Impact Biotech Health, Moderna and Novavax.

– ref. Another COVID winter is coming. Is this the calm before another peak? – https://theconversation.com/another-covid-winter-is-coming-is-this-the-calm-before-another-peak-203149

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Bennett, Adjunct Professor in Ecology, La Trobe University

When faced with uncertainty, we often look for predictions by experts: from election result forecasts, to the likely outcomes of medical treatment. In nature conservation, we turn to expert opinion to assess extinction risk, or predict the long-term responses of plant species to fire management.

But how reliable are these predictions? There’s a well known saying, “Prediction is difficult, particularly when it involves the future”.

In our new research, we put this to the test. We asked eight experienced ornithologists to predict how bird species respond when farmland is revegetated – a common conservation practice.

The result? There was a surprising amount of variation among experts. And there were consistent biases, such as favouring birds commonly seen on farms while underestimating small woodland species. However, when we combined their responses, we got better outcomes.

Does this mean we shouldn’t use such expertise? No. Expert knowledge has a vital role in conservation decisions.

But like anything, it has limitations we should recognise. We should treat expert knowledge as a guide, rather than a source of truth.

How do you put experts to the test?

Expert knowledge is commonly used for making decisions in conservation, yet it is seldom tested.

We asked our expert ornithologists to predict which bird species would be found at 20 revegetation sites on farms in western Victoria, which were spread across an area of more than 1,400 square kilometres.

We gave each expert detailed information about the sites, including a map, the size of the revegetation plot and when it was planted, the number of tree species planted, and management at the site.

Our experts then had to make judgements about how likely specific bird species were to be detected there. This was based on a list of more than 100 species for each site, which had been recorded in the surrounding district.

Then we compared their predictions with data from bird surveys of the sites – undertaken by different experienced ornithologists – as well as a random selection of bird species.

Read more:
New research shows planting trees and shrubs brings woodland birds back to farms, from superb fairy wrens to spotted pardalotes

What did we find? A lot of variation between our experts.

Across the eight ornithologists, the average number of species they considered likely to be detected at sites ranged from 15 to 45. The average recorded from bird surveys was 19.

The predicted composition of the bird community at each site also varied between experts. Some were closer in their predictions than others, but all differed significantly from the community of bird species actually observed.

We all have biases – and experts are not immune

You might wonder if there were similarities in what the experts got wrong. There were.

By and large, our experts overestimated how likely common farmland species – like the galah, eastern rosella, willie wagtail and magpie-lark – would be. They also overestimated the likelihood of larger species that can occur in open country with scattered trees, such as the laughing kookaburra and black-faced cuckoo-shrike.

Why might this be? These species are very visible and common in farm landscapes, but they also range widely and are hence less likely to occur at a particular site while it was being surveyed.

By contrast, our experts tended to underestimate the presence of small woodland birds, such as the brown thornbill, superb fairy-wren, silvereye and grey fantail.

When we combined the expertise of our eight ornithologists, we saw less variability. When grouped, our experts performed much better than a random selection of bird species. Even so, their predictions still differed strongly from those actually observed.

Why does this matter? The loss of woodland birds in farmland areas of southern Australia is a major conservation concern. Revegetation helps restore wooded habitats for such species. These biases could lead to conservation managers discounting the benefits of revegetation for conservation.

The task we gave our experts was not easy. To make reliable predictions is complex. For each species, they had to make multiple judgements. How common is the species in this region? Was the revegetated area likely to provide suitable habitat? How might this species be influenced by the age of the planting and the diversity of tree species? Would it be a resident species, or a visitor? Regular or irregular?

Some of the variation we found is likely due to differing levels of familiarity with the birds of western Victoria. Our experts also had different levels of experience in carrying out surveys and studying birds in revegetated habitats.

What does this mean for our reliance on expertise?

Expert knowledge may be the best – or only – source of information for decision making when we need to rely on predictions, where knowledge has to be applied in novel circumstances, or where management involves complex interacting factors.

So how can we improve the accuracy and reliability of expert predictions, given we all have biases and gaps in our knowledge?

Carefully selecting experts based on relevant experience, using a structured protocol to draw out information, and combining knowledge from multiple experts can help.

Where possible, we should seize the opportunity to test expert predictions and identify potential biases. At present, this kind of testing is rare.

Good conservation management benefits from the wealth of knowledge held by experts, but it also depends on evidence from well-designed empirical studies.

Expert predictions are only as good as the data – and the experience – on which their judgements are based.

Read more:
The limits of expert judgment: Lessons from social science forecasting during the pandemic

Andrew Bennett has received funding from the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, and the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority. He is affiliated with Birdlife Australia, the Ecological Society of Australia, the Australian Mammal Society, and the International Association for Landscape Ecology.

Angie Haslem is affiliated with the Ecological Society of Australia

Jim Thomson works for the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action.

Previously worked for the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (Now Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action). Currently working for them as an external research associate.

– ref. We rely on expert predictions to guide conservation. But even experts have biases and blind spots – https://theconversation.com/we-rely-on-expert-predictions-to-guide-conservation-but-even-experts-have-biases-and-blind-spots-202733

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anita Wreford, Professor Applied Economics, Lincoln University, New Zealand

The recent report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underscores the urgency of emissions reductions. For Aotearoa New Zealand, where 50% of emissions come from agriculture in the form of methane and nitrous oxide, this means the primary sector must be part of the response.

New Zealand is indeed the first country to investigate introducing a price on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

The most recent pricing proposals would require farmers to pay a levy on their agricultural emissions. To begin with, only 5% of emissions would be priced, with proposals to reduce the 95% free allocation gradually over time.

Much of the existing modelling shows emissions could be cut by up to 10% by reducing the intensity of production, often through lowering animal numbers and fertiliser use. This doesn’t necessarily mean lower profitability. With good pasture management, farmers may be able to reduce stocking rates and increase profits.

But Aotearoa is already one of the most efficient producers of meat and dairy products globally. If we reduce emissions here, will that not simply lead to other, less efficient countries picking up the lost production, while our farmers pay the price?

This idea is known as “carbon leakage” and is often used as an argument against any domestic policy that could result in reduced agricultural production. The issue is important as New Zealand depends heavily on agricultural exports. In 2022, of all merchandise trade, 65% were agricultural commodities.

Understanding whether carbon leakage will occur or not is a complex task. Here, we look at what evidence we have and insights from agricultural trade modelling.

Read more:
The Groundswell protest claimed regulation and taxes are unfair to farmers – the economic numbers tell a different story

New Zealand modelling

It’s difficult to know exactly what might happen in agriculture, as emissions pricing on agricultural products has not yet been used elsewhere. There is no historical evidence to draw on.

International modelling studies present a mixed picture of the likelihood of leakage: an OECD study estimated 34% of agricultural emissions would be leaked, mostly to developing countries.

Recent modelling for New Zealand examines a series of scenarios of domestic pricing on its own as well as international pricing. The results show that for the current proposal where only 5% of emissions are priced to begin with, with a 1% increase each year, New Zealand’s production of meat and dairy products could decline by 2050.

The effect on dairy producers would be a loss of returns of under 1%, while meat producers would face a 6% decline. Some of the production would be taken up by other countries, but the overall volume would be lower than in the baseline situation, where no emissions pricing existed.

This shows leakage may occur, with reductions in production of New Zealand dairy products. But global meat and dairy production by 2050 would be considerably lower than without the policy, which would have a positive overall impact on the climate.

As the proportion of emissions that are priced increases, we expect the quantity of meat and dairy produced in New Zealand to decrease. This in turn could increase the volume of leakage. –

More sustainable future diets

It is important to remember that although there is a reduction in meat and dairy production, there is likely to be an increase in the production of other types of food which doesn’t contribute so much to climate change.

A recent study shows how food consumption alone could contribute an additional degree of warming above preindustrial temperatures by 2100. This demonstrates the importance of food choices in addressing climate change.

Read more:
If we perfect cultivated meat, we could hedge against food shortages as climate chaos intensifies

Many of New Zealand’s trading partners are exploring and beginning to implement their own agricultural emissions-reduction goals and targets. Internationally, there is an increasing focus on the role international trade rules can play in addressing climate change, including border carbon adjustment mechanisms and environmental standards for imports.

In a similar scenario as described above, but where New Zealand’s main competitors also take action, New Zealand may actually see a small increase in production by 2050, despite the domestic pricing policy.

The extent of leakage therefore really depends on how other countries tackle their own emissions. Economy-wide net zero emissions targets are in place for Australia, Chile, European Union countries, the US and the UK by 2050, and for China by 2060.

The opportunity for leakage would be significantly reduced through multilateral agreements or through regional or bilateral commitments within trade agreements.

Read more:
What if carbon border taxes applied to all carbon – fossil fuels, too?

New Zealand could decide to be a leader and demonstrate to the rest of the world a commitment to reducing emissions from our highest emitting sector. This may result in some leakage initially, but this would likely decline as other countries take similar action.

Or we can wait until other countries begin to take more serious action on agricultural emissions. But in the meantime, emissions reductions will increasingly be driven through finance and private-sector initiatives, for example through access to processing companies, which are progressively requiring emissions reductions throughout their value chains and through lending and finance, where banks are beginning to offer reduced interest rates for sustainable practices.

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

– ref. NZ farmers worry about ‘carbon leakage’ if they have to pay for emissions, but they could benefit from playing the long game – https://theconversation.com/nz-farmers-worry-about-carbon-leakage-if-they-have-to-pay-for-emissions-but-they-could-benefit-from-playing-the-long-game-202839

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Grattan Institute

No one likes spending cuts and tax hikes, but on our estimate the government will soon need more of them if they are going to make a dent in looming A$70 billion a year budget deficits.

A new Grattan Institute report, Back in Black? A menu of measures to repair the budget argues the present combination of low unemployment and high inflation makes this a good time to start to put things in order.

The sooner we do, the sooner we will be well-placed to respond to future economic shocks and avoid pushing costs onto future generations.

We were right to spend big when COVID hit

The massive government support unleashed during the 2020 and 2021 lockdowns was essential for supporting households and businesses and helped keep unemployment low and Australia’s 2020 recession mild.

It left us with government debt that, at 23% of GDP, set to climb to almost 32% by the end of the decade, is high by historical standards, but low by international standards.

Our real problem is a structural one of spending growing faster than revenues.
And it was building long before COVID.

Demands on government are set to grow

Costs are inexorably growing for three reasons.

The first is that our expectations are growing as we age and become more wealthy, pushing up spending on healthcare, disability care and aged care.

The second is that many of these services happen to be the hardest to mechanise, meaning there is little we can do to stop them costing more over time.

The third reason is geopolitical and climate developments. The huge AUKUS deal is just the latest manifestation of pressure to ramp up defence spending. Increases in the frequency and severity of natural disasters mean we have no choice but to spend more on emergencies than before.

Combined with higher interest rates that are pushing up the cost of servicing debt, these three forces are set to leave a persistent gap between government revenue and spending of about 2% of GDP according to Treasury calculations. That’s $50 billion per year in today’s dollars, each and every year.

But even that grim forecast looks optimistic.

Grattan Institute estimates suggest the true structural gap exceeds $70 billion per year when extra, largely unavoidable, spending is taken into account – including on AUKUS, overdue wage rises for care workers, more realistic growth in hospital spending, and long-overdue increases in unemployment benefits.

And that’s just the next decade. In the longer term, the budget will come under extra pressure from slower productivity growth, Australia’s ageing population, and climate change.

Higher economic growth and productivity growth would reduce the enormity of the challenge, and Grattan Institute has put forward ideas about how to support this before.

But hoping we will be able to grow our way out of chronic budget deficits is not a prudent approach. While we should try to boost growth, by itself it is unlikely to get the nation’s finances onto a sustainable trajectory.

13 multibillion dollar ideas

The size of the problem, and the political difficulty of budget repair, mean both spending and revenue measures need to be on the table.

Spending cuts have been the focus of budget repair efforts for most of the past decade, so a lot of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. But there are still savings to be had.

The biggest would come from greater discipline in decisions about what to spend on infrastructure and defence. Better decisions upfront based on economic – rather than political – considerations could save several billion each year.

Buying smaller, more regularly and “off the shelf” would reduce the risks and costs of mega-projects that have a history of massive cost overruns.

Read more:
How can Australia pay $368 billion for new submarines? Some of the money will be created from thin air

Our report identifies a further $15 billion a year of savings measures, including undoing Western Australia’s special GST funding deal, counting more of the family home in the age pension asset test, and improving hospital efficiency and purchasing in health.

But even with substantial spending cuts, tackling Australia’s budget challenge without compromising core services will require more revenue.

The biggest opportunity comes from plugging “leakages” in the income tax system. Tax breaks and minimisation opportunities are growing. Reining in superannuation tax concessions, reducing the capital gains tax discount, limiting negative gearing, and setting a minimum tax on trust distributions could collectively raise more than $20 billion a year.

Read more:
Inheritance taxes, resource taxes and an attack on negative gearing: how top economists would raise $20 billion per year

Reworking the legislated Stage 3 tax cuts so they are less generous at the top end would save another $8 billion per year.

Lifting the age at which people could get access to their super from 60 to 65 and freezing compulsory super contributions at their present level (10.5% of salary) would save at least another $8 billion.

Other options include lifting the rate of goods and services tax (with a compensation package, and the Commonwealth and states sharing the net revenue), winding back fuel tax credits and beefing up the petroleum resource rent tax.

Ordering the whole menu at once would be a recipe for indigestion. But if Treasurer Jim Chalmers chooses just a few items on the menu, we will be well on the way to tackling Australia’s budget problem.

Read more:
Australia needs an honest conversation about tax and budgets – and Jim Chalmers is ready to talk

Kate Griffiths’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.

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

– ref. Treasurer Chalmers has a $70 billion a year budget hole: we’ve found 13 ways to fill it – https://theconversation.com/treasurer-chalmers-has-a-70-billion-a-year-budget-hole-weve-found-13-ways-to-fill-it-203331

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

The decision of Julian Leeser, who has resigned from the opposition frontbench to campaign for a yes vote on the Voice to parliament, is both principled and pragmatic.

Principled because only rarely in politics do we see people make a significant personal sacrifice for their beliefs.

Being shadow minister for Indigenous Australians and shadow attorney-general is well short of being a minister. Still, stepping down to the backbench and going against the overwhelming view of your party on a critical issue takes a good deal of political courage.

Who knows what happens down the track – different circumstances could see Leeser’s political career re-flower. But as of now, he has been willing to deliver a blow to his own chances of future advancement.

His position is pragmatic because, as the saying goes, he hasn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The man who received a copy of the Australian Constitution for his tenth birthday is obsessively finicky about that document. He believes the wording of the Albanese government’s proposed question for the referendum is flawed. Specifically, he thinks the new provision would be vulnerable to legal challenge.

He will try to get it changed. It is currently under examination by a parliamentary committee. But he knows significant alteration is extremely unlikely. That, however, is not going to prevent him from campaigning for a yes vote – because he judges the bigger cause is more important.

As he said on Tuesday:

I believe that through empowering people and by building institutions that shift responsibility and decision-making closer to people, we are more likely to shift the dial on Indigenous health, education, housing, safety and economic opportunity.

Among the various reasons Leeser will be an asset to the “yes” case is that he is personally close to leading Labor figures on the Voice, notably Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney, and Patrick Dodson. He has worked with Dodson (who is currently on indefinite sick leave) in past years on constitutional recognition and a Voice.

Leeser’s personal position is somewhat similar to that of conservative legal academic Greg Craven, who has also been long involved with these issues. Craven doesn’t like the wording either, but says he will vote yes (although not campaign).

Leeser’s joining the yes case is a fillip for Anthony Albanese and a huge blow for Peter Dutton. For the opposition leader, the situation is diabolical.

Various prominent Liberals around the country are already on the “yes” side, and one would expect more to emerge.

Dutton’s parliamentary party is strongly against the Voice (with a few declared exceptions). But a number of frontbenchers won’t want to be campaigning for the “no” case, because that doesn’t represent their real position or because of political caution.

Whether or not they campaign, shadow ministers are bound to the party decision. So how will the shy ones handle invitations to community forums in the run-up to the vote? They can only plead “another engagement” so often.

The most prominent Liberal moderate, Simon Birmingham, who is opposition leader in the Senate, is in a particularly difficult situation.

Meanwhile, Dutton has to fill the positions of shadow attorney-general and shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, which Leeser had held.

He needs someone with a law degree for the shadow attorney-general job. He could split the portfolios, although that would not be ideal, as the “no” campaign will partly rest on legal points. Paul Fletcher has legal qualifications and, like Leeser, is from New South Wales, so could be a possibility for the shadow attorney-general post. But the Indigenous position would not fit Fletcher, a moderate.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: the high cost of the Liberals’ Voice rejection – for both Peter Dutton and the party

The now-chaotic situation in the Liberal Party comes after the huge rebuff Aston voters delivered in the recent byelection – and there, the Voice wasn’t even on the radar.

In other circumstances, the leader’s position would be in danger. That’s not the case at the moment. The problem is actually more serious.

The messages from Aston, and from Leeser’s stand on the Voice go to something much deeper: how the Liberal party is out of sync, on many fronts, with key parts of the modern Australian electorate, especially people under 40. (This point stands whatever the referendum result.) Getting back in touch requires a massive revamp of the party’s approach and there is little sign it is up to the task.

Leeser on Tuesday succinctly laid out the challenge for the “yes” case on the Voice, saying Australians who remained to be convinced fell into three groups.

The first group are those who are opposed to the Voice – on philosophical and constitutional grounds.

The second group are those who support the Voice in principle – or who want to support it – but who in the vast majority of cases have genuine doubts and questions about the proposal that the government has put forward.

And the third group are yet to engage, but they too have questions and concerns.

Can the “yes” campaign win over enough people from these groups, particularly groups two and three, for the necessary majority of the national vote and majority of states?

Impossible to know at this stage. But some voters will surely be reassured that such a cautious, conservative figure as Leeser, who has demonstrated personal integrity, is giving them permission to vote “yes”, and to not be too fearful of the consequences.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Julian Leeser shifts his own dial in the Liberal Party – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-julian-leeser-shifts-his-own-dial-in-the-liberal-party-203574

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dennis Altman, VC Fellow LaTrobe University, La Trobe University

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong joined 50,000 people to march in support of queer rights across the Sydney Harbour Bridge for World Pride in early March. A week earlier, Albanese became the first sitting prime minister to march in Sydney’s Mardi Gras, something he’s done over several decades.

And yet at the same time, in another part of the world, Uganda’s parliament passed a string of draconian measures against homosexuality, including possible death sentences for “aggravated homosexuality”. Any “promotion” of homosexuality is also outlawed.

Read more:
Uganda’s new anti-LGBTQ+ law could lead to death penalty for same-sex ‘offences’

Seven years ago, I co-wrote a book with Jonathan Symons called Queer Wars. Back then, we suggested there was a growing gap between countries in which sexual and gender diversity was becoming more acceptable, and those where repression was increasing.

Sadly, that analysis seems even more relevant today.

A growing gap

Some countries have been unwinding criminal sanctions around homosexuality, which are often the legacy of colonialism. This includes, in recent years, former British colonies Singapore and India.

But others have been imposing new and more vicious penalties for any deviation from stereotypical assumptions of heterosexual masculine superiority (what Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell terms “hegemonic masculinity”).

Anti-gay legislation is currently pending in Ghana, which led US Vice President Kamala Harris to express concerns on a recent visit.

These moves echo the deep homophobia of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has bizarrely linked intervention in Ukraine to protecting traditional values against LGBTQ+ infiltration.

Meanwhile, reports from Afghanistan suggest that anyone identified as “LGBT” is in danger of being killed.

Indonesia recently passed legislation penalising all sex outside marriage. This follows years of anti-queer rhetoric from Indonesian leaders and crackdowns in regional areas.

And while the Biden administration is supportive of queer rights globally, the extraordinary hysteria around trans issues in the Republican Party reminds us the West has no inherent claim to moral superiority.

Read more:
What’s going on with the wave of GOP bills about trans teens? Utah provides clues

Where to next?

Speaking at the World Pride Human Rights Conference, both Wong and Attorney General Mark Dreyfus made it clear Australia would press for recognition of sexuality and gender identity as deserving protection, as part of our commitment to human rights.

Wong also announced a new Inclusion and Equality Fund to support queer community organisations within our region.

Australian governments have usually been wary of loud assertions of support for queer rights. This is partly due to a reasonable fear this merely reinforces the perception that such language reflects a sense of Western superiority, unwilling to acknowledge other societies may have very different attitudes towards gender and sexuality.

Australia is part of the Equal Rights Coalition, an intergovernmental body of 42 countries dedicated to the protection of the rights of LGBTQ+ people, and has supported sexual and gender rights in the country reviews undertaken by the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Australia has a minimal presence in Uganda, and direct representations are unlikely to have much effect. Uganda is a member of the Commonwealth, as are Ghana, Kenya and Zambia, where official homophobia appears to be increasing. But there’s little evidence the Australian government sees this as a significant foreign policy forum, or is prepared to push for sexual rights through its institutions.

As persecution on the basis of sexuality and gender identity increases, more people will seek to flee their countries. Queer refugees face double jeopardy: they’re not safe at home, but they’re often equally unsafe in their diasporic communities, which have inherited the deep prejudices of their homelands.

The UN’s refugee agency reports that most people seeking asylum because of their sexuality are unwilling to disclose this, because of discrimination within their own ethnic communities. This makes it impossible to have accurate numbers. But a clear signal from Australia would be a powerful statement of support – that it understands the situation and welcomes people who need flee because of their sexuality or gender expression.

An official Canadian government document states:

Canada has a proud history of providing protection to and helping to resettle the world’s most vulnerable groups. That includes those in the Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and additional sexually and gender diverse community.

Theirs is a model worth following.

Dennis Altman is Patron of the Pride Foundation, which supports queer refugees and asylum seekers.

– ref. There’s a growing gap between countries advancing LGBTQ+ rights, and those going backwards – https://theconversation.com/theres-a-growing-gap-between-countries-advancing-lgbtq-rights-and-those-going-backwards-203329

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne

Australia’s health system is under significant pressure. The Labor government has inherited a system with declining bulk-billing rates for GP visits. These fell from almost 90% of all GP attendances bulk billed in December 2021 to just over 80% a year later.

Significant workforce shortages remain in rural and remote Australia, despite a raft of incentive programs to improve access to health care. In 2021–22, about 3.5% of adults did not see a GP because of cost, with higher rates of missed care outside metropolitan areas.

This means it would be possible to radically alter the Medicare system. One option is to restrict Medicare access to GPs who agree to bulk bill all patients, while allowing those who don’t bulk bill to rely solely on out-of-pocket payments.

A new Medicare agenda should address the problems of fraud, geographical inequity, and bulk-billing decline. This can be done by conceptualising access to Medicare rebates by practitioners as a privilege, not a right.

Read more:
GPs are abandoning bulk billing. What does this mean for affordable family medical care?

Why were policymakers constrained?

Health policy in Australia has been limited for decades by assumed constitutional constraints, which have been talked up by the medical profession to prevent policies they oppose.

After the second world war, the Chifley Labor government began a series of social security reforms. Legislation for one element of the reform – a pharmaceutical benefits scheme – was struck down by the High Court because there was no relevant head of power in the Constitution.

In response, the government proposed amending the Constitution to give it broad social welfare powers. This proposal had bipartisan support and was passed at a referendum in 1946. A new sub-section (xxiiiA) was consequently added to section 51 of the Constitution, giving the Commonwealth power to make laws about:

The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances.

The parenthetical civil conscription constraint was included following an amendment from the Liberal Party. This was motivated by a desire to prevent the creation of a scheme like the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, which required all GPs to work under contract to government and hospital specialists to be salaried employees.

The presumed constitutional constraint seemed to shape the Labor Party’s thinking about what might be constitutionally possible when designing Medibank, the precursor to Medicare. Despite some members of caucus supporting a salaried hospital system, this was not pursued.

But in 1980 and 2009, the High Court narrowed the meaning of civil conscription. This meant the subsection no longer constrained government power in the way it once had.

Medical practitioners now work in a diverse range of settings, not all of which rely fully on revenue from Medicare. So the nexus between access to Medicare rebates and the ability to work as a doctor has been broken. The government can now expand the constraints it puts on billing rights without it being considered civil conscription.

Read more:
Labor has a huge health agenda ahead of it. What policies should we expect?

A bold way to restructure Medicare

It is time for a complete rethink of how Medicare payment arrangements are designed and regulated, free from the assumed constitutional constraints.

The recent Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance highlighted that:

the current state of Medicare, and some of the challenges […] are the result of previous attempts to apply discrete and band-aid solutions to single issues over time and a lack of system thinking and consideration.

The band-aid approach no longer works. A fundamental rethink of Medicare is required, moving away from practitioners’ relatively unconstrained and uncapped access to fee-for-service rebates.

Read more:
6 reasons why it’s so hard to see a GP

Presently, all specialists – including GPs – can apply for a Medicare provider number which enables rebate payments for their services, with few constraints.

Rather than an “all comers” approach, a new basis for Medicare could be one where practices sign up to Medicare and agree to meet Medicare’s contractual conditions such as agreement to bulk bill all patients, participation in training future health professionals and in quality improvement programs, and that practices are multidisciplinary. Again, fair remuneration needs to underpin all this.

Participating practices could be paid on a variety of bases, including number and type of patients enrolled, number of patient attendances (enrolled or not), and other payments.

Payment rates would need to be seen as fair by both government and practices.

A participation basis for Medicare, moving away from an unconstrained approach, coupled with adequate workforce planning, could also be used to encourage new graduates to work in locations and specialties in short supply by limiting access to rebates for specialties in locations of oversupply.

This would also facilitate management of fraud and over servicing through contractual controls, rather than cumbersome administrative law processes.

A “participating provider” approach would transform the patient experience. Most importantly, the bulk-billing lottery would end: practices displaying a Medicare sign would bulk bill all patients, not just some.

There would need to be a new deal for doctors too, with remuneration set fairly – not at the whim of government – ending the political fee freezes suffered under the previous government.

Australia’s Medicare fabric has many holes

Although Medicare has served Australia well, it’s beginning to fray at the edges with reductions in bulk billing and provider satisfaction, and geographical shortages.

The old incentive structures have not addressed these problems and now new approaches, which may previously have been thought impossible in part because of the perceived constitutional constraints, must be considered.

What we have is shown is that the policy agenda is more open than might have hitherto been considered. The time is right for these options to be considered.

Read more:
How do you fix general practice? More GPs won’t be enough. Here’s what to do

This article was co-authored by Emma Campbell, former Grattan Institute intern and current LLB/BPPE student at The Australian National University.

Stephen Duckett was a member of the Strengthening Medicare Task Force.

Fiona McDonald receives funding from the Medical Research Council (UK).

– ref. What if Medicare was restricted to GPs who bulk billed? This kind of reform is possible – https://theconversation.com/what-if-medicare-was-restricted-to-gps-who-bulk-billed-this-kind-of-reform-is-possible-203543

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

So, you think you know why rents climbed.

You probably think was skyrocketing interest rates and a tsunami of migration.

It’s true that interest rates have jumped more over the past year than at any time on record, and it’s true that migration has roared back – in the six months to September 2022 (the latest month for which we’ve official figures) arrivals exceeded departures by 170,000.

But here’s the thing. Advertised rents began climbing sharply in late 2021 – six months before the Reserve Bank began pushing up interest rates, and at a time when it was forecast not to.

And net migration was negative back when rents were taking off – the number of arrivals didn’t even match the number of departures.

It’s supply and demand

Something else made rents move.

As it happens, there’s no particular reason to think interest rates would have quickly affected rents even if they had been climbing. If higher rates force some landlords to sell, and they sell to other landlords, the number of properties for rent won’t change. If those landlords sell to owner occupiers who would otherwise rent, they cut both the number of rental properties and the number of renters.

What matters for rents, as for any price, is the demand for and the supply of the product being priced. More demand (more renters wanting properties) and the price climbs. More supply (more properties available for rent) and the price falls.

Read more:
$1 billion per year (or less) could halve rental housing stress

On the face of it, neither demand nor supply was changing much during COVID as rents started climbing. Australia’s population was growing more slowly than at any time in modern history. And, as best as we can tell, the number of properties available for rent was climbing, albeit weakly.

What did change during COVID, according to the research department of the Reserve Bank, was the average number of people per household.

The change doesn’t sound big – the average fell from a bit above 2.6 residents per household to a bit below 2.55 – but applied to millions of households it meant about 140,000 more houses and apartments were needed than would have been.

Average household size (capital cities)

The sudden change was awfully for hard for the building industry to respond to, especially when it was laid low by COVID.

Why did we suddenly want to live with fewer people?

The head of the Bank’s economic division, Luci Ellis, thinks it was COVID itself, and lockdowns. We suddenly became more precious about sharing space.

‘Love the one you’re with’

Ellis says proportion of Australians living in group houses declined and stayed low. Faced with the choice of living with a large number of housemates and just one other person, perhaps a romantic partner, a lot of renters left group houses and shacked up with each other.

As she put it last year:

On the question of who you would rather be locked down with, at least some Australians have voted with their removalists’ van, by moving out of their share house and in with their partner.

There’s more to it of course, but where the supply and demand for anything are roughly in balance (rents had been increasing by less than 1% per year in the four years before COVID, and fell in the first year of COVID) any sudden change in either supply or demand can move prices quickly.

Advertised rents aren’t typical …

Having said that, for most renters prices are still moving slowly. Advertised capital city rents are up 13% over the past year, and average regional rates up 9%. But average rents (the average of what all renters pay) are up only 4.8%.

The rents charged to ongoing tenants climb much more slowly than the rents charged to new tenants, in part because landlords often like their tenants, and in part because for the first year renters are usually on fixed contracts.

But over time as renters move home, and landlords become less squeamish, more and more renters tend to pay the rents advertised. It makes the increase in advertised rents an unwelcome sign of what’s to come.

… but they’re a sign of rents ahead

And it might get worse. Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe says population growth is set to climb to 2%, – about the peak reached during the resources boom.

We won’t be able to build houses anything like that fast. Lowe says the last time Australia’s population surged it took about five years for housing supply to fully respond to housing demand.

We’ve ways of dealing with it of course. One is to re-embrace group homes, another is to delay moving out of our partents’ homes, or to move back in.

But even if this does happen, Lowe says, with typical understatement, that rent inflation – ultra-low before COVID – is likely to stay “quite high” for some time.

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

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

– ref. What made rents soar? It might have been COVID, and pairing off – https://theconversation.com/what-made-rents-soar-it-might-have-been-covid-and-pairing-off-203542

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic Zaal, Director, Australian Solar Thermal Research Institute (ASTRI), CSIRO

Australia’s transition to renewables is gathering speed, but there’s a looming problem with storage. We will need much more long-duration storage to get us through the night, once coal and fossil gas exit the system.

We also need to find new and better ways to create heat for industrial processes. Renewables can supply much of that heat during the day, but energy storage will be required to meet industry’s night-time heat needs.

Solar thermal technology has the potential to provide both long-duration storage and industrial heat, yet it has been largely overlooked in the Australian context. That is about to change.

The CSIRO Energy Storage Roadmap identifies a mix of technologies will be required, across sectors, to meet Australia’s energy storage needs, particularly at night. Solar thermal will be an important part of the mix.

Batteries alone won’t cut it. They’re good for short-duration storage, ranging from mere minutes to an hour or two. But you’d need an awful lot of them, at enormous cost, to cover 8-12 hours. Solar thermal becomes cost-effective for long-duration storage at scale, and brings other benefits too.

Read more:
Australia’s energy market operator is worried about the grid’s reliability. But should it be?

Introducing thermal energy storage

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) identified storage of four to 12 hours’ duration as “the most pressing utility-scale need in the next decade”. That’s what’s required “to manage stronger daily variations in solar and wind output, and to meet consumer demand, also during more extreme days, as coal capacity declines”.

Most people know about lithium-ion battery (chemical) storage and pumped hydro (mechanical) storage. However, thermal energy storage is not well understood or recognised. This is partly due to perceived costs and engineering challenges. However, as concentrated solar thermal plants are built all over the world – 30 are being developed in China alone – the knowledge base is growing.

More than 80% of Australia’s total energy use involves a thermal process:

• combustion of coal and gas for electricity
• combustion of fuels for transport
• combustion of fuels for industrial process heat.

A large proportion of these existing fossil-fuel thermal processes can be met with renewable thermal energy storage.

The CSIRO Roadmap found thermal energy storage was a relatively low-cost solution with multiple applications, including utility-scale power generation, renewable fuel production and industrial process heat.

For utility-scale power generation, the lowest cost technology for eight-hour storage in 2050 is thermal energy storage using concentrated solar thermal power. The cost in 2050 was slightly over A$100/MWh, compared with lithium-ion battery at A$140/MWh and pumped hydro at around A$155/MWh.

For 24-hour storage technologies in 2050, thermal energy storage was again the lowest cost at A$99/MWh, compared with pumped hydro at A$145/MWh or grid-charged electrical (using solar photovoltaics and wind) thermal energy storage at A$150/MWh.

Short-duration storage is likely to remain the domain of lithium-ion battery for at least up to two hours duration, and perhaps as high as four hours.

Here’s how it works

Concentrated solar thermal power uses mirrors to convert sunlight into heat energy. This heat energy is typically stored.

The stored thermal energy can then be used, at any time of day or night, on demand, to produce steam for electricity production, or heat/steam for industrial processes.

The system typically provides for six to 24 hours of operations. What this means is concentrated solar thermal can provide continuous, on demand power and/or process heat 24/7. It can also simultaneously generate power and store heat at the same time.

The stored thermal energy is typically used at night. Concentrated solar thermal systems deployed in China, Spain, the United States, South America, Africa and the Middle East generally have over ten hours of storage, which allows for the overnight generation of renewable power and heat.

Concentrated solar thermal is also a synchronous technology because it uses a traditional spinning turbine (identical to those used in coal-fired power plants). This creates much-needed system-strength and frequency services to the grid. In essence, when coal fired power stations close, concentrated solar thermal is a technology that could continue to provide essential system services.

While more than 100 concentrated solar thermal plants, generating 7GWh of power, have been deployed around the world, the technology has not yet been deployed at scale in Australia. This will soon change with the construction by Vast Solar of a 30MW concentrated solar thermal plant in Port Augusta, supported in part by the federal government. The project will have ten hours of thermal energy storage to generate power for supply to the grid, primarily at night. The project will also provide renewable heat and power to produce more than 7,000 tonnes of green (renewable) methanol each year. (Methanol is an essential chemical building block for hundreds of consumer and industrial products such as paints, carpets, fabrics, building materials and liquid fuels).

Heed the warning

We need to start building long-duration energy storage systems now, so we have secure and reliable power when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. We also need to replace fossil fuels used to create industrial process heat.

Sectors such as mining, industry, transport, agriculture, and households all require secure, reliable, and affordable renewable energy. For many sectors, this need occurs at night, and that necessitates storage.

Read more:
Australia’s 116 new coal, oil and gas projects equate to 215 new coal power stations

Dominic Zaal receives funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), which is a Federal Government funding agency.

– ref. Batteries won’t cut it – we need solar thermal technology to get us through the night – https://theconversation.com/batteries-wont-cut-it-we-need-solar-thermal-technology-to-get-us-through-the-night-203545

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eyal Mayroz, Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney

Violence has again erupted in the Middle East during one of the holiest times of year for both Jews and Muslims.

In recent days, militants in southern Lebanon have fired a large number of rockets at Israel in response to an Israeli police raid on the Al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem.

Israel blamed the Hamas militant group for the attacks and retaliated by launching air strikes at Palestinian militias in Lebanon – the most alarming cross-border violence in 17 years – as well as at the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

A rare rocket attack then came from Syria, prompting another round of Israeli air strikes against targets there. Clashes also broke out in the West Bank after thousands of Israelis, joined by seven Cabinet ministers, marched to an evacuated settlement there, demanding it be legalised.

The motives behind such provocations include anger, fear, the desire for revenge and frustration. These emotions are driven by the horrors of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories on the one hand, and anger at Palestinian terrorist attacks or unbridled desire for Jewish hegemony on the other.

Extreme interpretations of nationalism or religiosity – and often a combination of both – tend to aggravate these sentiments.

These spasms of violence should be seen as provocations since there is no military solution to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Deterrence is what the two main actors, Israel and Hamas, are seeking. Maintaining, achieving or increasing deterrence is key in both sides’ calculations of how to react when violence does break out.

Wedged between provocation, retaliation and deterrence, each side estimates how far it can stretch the line before copping a costly response from the other.

Read more:
Israel is facing twin existential crises – what is Benjamin Netanyahu doing to solve them?

A multitude of calculations

For Hamas, the key calculation is how to escalate attacks against Israel, while still keeping Gaza out of the violence. The aim is to steer the struggle against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories to the West Bank, Jerusalem and into Israel itself.

Recognising this, Israel tries to direct its military responses back to Gaza, as soon as it can establish a link between the provocation and Hamas.

Hezbollah, the militant group in Lebanon that has a growing partnership with Hamas, has a different set of calculations.

These include its long-standing feud with Israel, a desire to settle old scores (including past assassinations of Hezbollah leaders), religious passions (for example, sensitivities in relation to the Al-Aqsa Mosque), and directives from Iran.

Hezbollah is constrained, however, by Israeli military responses and by the need to reconcile its allegiance to Iran with its accountability to the Lebanese people. Many Lebanese already accuse Hezbollah of prioritising Iranian interests over their own. Being held responsible for a costly Israeli retaliation against Lebanese territories would be problematic for the organisation.

Israel, in turn, also fears another war with Hezbollah, which would be extremely costly. The organisation has a huge arsenal of rockets (estimated at more than 100,000), including high-quality and long-range weapons, which it could fire into Israel at will.

The famed Israeli Iron Dome air defence system would not withstand the power and sheer numbers of these weapons.

Israel’s worst fear, however, is of a concurrent escalation on multiple fronts, with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza in the south, an Intifada-style uprising in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the west, and Hezbollah in Lebanon to the north.

A fourth front could open up in Israeli cities between Israel’s Palestinians, Jews and security forces. And there’s always a possibility of a fifth front being fought against Iranian forces stationed in Syria.

Israel’s preferred approach to these multiple threats would be to try to isolate the different actors by limiting its retaliations to a single provocation at a time. This, however, would not be easy.

Why both sides have avoided escalation thus far

As we’ve seen recently, the tensions between the various sides tend to originate or are exacerbated by provocations from minor actors – Jewish settlers in the West Bank, Jewish nationalists inside Israel, and Palestinian militants in the occupied territories, inside Israel or in southern Lebanon.

In the past, retaliations to such provocations by Israel, Hamas and other groups were, more often than not, measured. That is, they were aimed to project power and resolve internally to avoid being seen as weak by one’s own people. But a measured response also signals to the other side a wish to avoid escalation.

The targets struck in recent outbreaks of violence illustrate this. On the Hamas side, limiting rocket firing to Jewish towns in southern Israel, as opposed to more central cities, signalled a desire to avoid a major escalation. On Israel’s side, aiming at low-level Palestinian targets, as opposed to primary command posts or key leaders, could mean the same.

However, it is unclear how the new hard-line Israeli government will respond to the evolving violence.

At the moment, Israel seems to prefer avoiding escalation. The latest polls show the new ruling coalition is nose-diving in popularity and would fail to gain a majority of seats in parliament if elections were held today. This may explain why the more vocal nationalists appear to be deferring, at least temporarily, to more cautious voices in government.

However, a significant provocation in Al-Aqsa Mosque, or a significant terrorist attack against Jews, could both alter this mind-set.

Read more:
Israel protests: Netanyahu delays judicial reforms over fears of ‘civil war’ – but deep fault-lines threaten future of democracy

Where to from here?

The international community has a critical role to play by forcing or incentivising the various sides into painful but necessary concessions on the (very) long road to peace.

One could appreciate the value of the de-escalation strategies currently in use. However, if the main purpose is to preserve deterrence, then a more honest dialogue within, as well as between, the camps on the risks of violent provocations could offer perhaps better solutions.

In the endless tit-for-tat violent cycle, there are no winners, only losers.

Eyal Mayroz 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. As tensions escalate in the Middle East, can all-out war be averted? – https://theconversation.com/as-tensions-escalate-in-the-middle-east-can-all-out-war-be-averted-203550

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Leif, Senior Lecturer, Educational Psychology & Inclusive Education, Monash University

A major international report says the “disciplinary climate” in Australian schools is among the “least favourable” in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

On Tuesday, the OECD released a profile on education in Australia.

Its findings follow headlines about student behaviour and a federal parliamentary inquiry into “increasing disruption in Australian school classrooms”.

How severe is the problem and what can we do about it?

What does the OECD report say

The OECD report looks at many aspects of Australia’s education system. And identifies many strengths, such as how Australian students view their teachers positively and teachers have comparatively high levels of job satisfaction.

But it also found the “disciplinary climate” in schools in Australia was among the least favourable in the OECD according to student reports.

This is based on a 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) index, which asked students how often noise and disorder occur in the classroom. Australian classrooms scored -0.2 while the OECD average is 0.04.

It also refers to a 2018 TALIS (OECD teaching and learning) survey, which found 37% of Australian lower-secondary school principals reported intimidation or bullying among students occurred at least weekly. Australian teachers also reported feeling less prepared for, or capable of, managing disruptive classroom behaviour than their OECD peers.

Findings from the survey suggest Australian students perceive their classrooms to be more disruptive than they have in the past. It also suggests one of the reasons teachers are choosing to leave the profession is disruptive behaviour.

In separate studies, researchers have found new teachers find it particularly hard to manage disruptive student behaviour.

Read more:
A new review into how teachers are educated should acknowledge they learn throughout their careers (not just at the start)

Do we have a behaviour crisis?

These are important challenges that must be addressed. Post-COVID, teachers have reported student behaviour appears to be getting worse, with students more distracted and less engaged than before the pandemic began.

However, there is currently little data showing how often disruptive behaviour occurs in Australian classrooms, what these behaviours look like, and how teachers currently work to prevent and respond to these behaviours.

It is possible that behaviour issues are happening more in some areas or in some schools, rather than across the board.

Read more:
If Australian schools want to improve student discipline, they need to address these 5 issues

Why do we see poor behaviour?

The development of disruptive behaviour can be influenced by a range of biological, social, environmental, and educational factors. Here are three key reasons why students might engage in disruptive behaviour at school:

1. Students find the school work too difficult

Students with delayed academic skills are more likely to exhibit disruptive and challenging behaviour, and students who display disruptive behaviour may be more likely to fall behind academically.

This connection has been shown to be strongest between a student’s reading skills and disruptive behaviour. This makes sense, because as students’ progress through primary school, they need to demonstrate increasingly advanced language and literacy skills to participate and succeed academically in all subjects.

2. Students are trying to impress their peers

Students are more likely to display disruptive behaviour in schools and classrooms where this is accepted. Researchers talk about the “classroom climate”. These are the values, beliefs and norms that set the behaviour within a classroom setting.

At school (particularly in high school), peer approval is one of the most important variables that can influence student behaviour.

Being disruptive may seem “cool” in some peer groups, and researchers have found that this can promote a culture of student disruption.

3. Students are copying their parents

Students model and learn the behaviours they see. Telling students how to behave well won’t work when the adults in the room are overwhelmed, stressed, and not in control of their emotions.

Recent research suggest teachers and school leaders are facing increasing threats and hostility from parents. Students may witness these parent-teacher conflicts and behave in similar ways when managing conflict at school.

Read more:
‘They phone you up during lunch and yell at you’ – why teachers say dealing with parents is the worst part of their job

What can we do about it?

While behavioural issues are complex, there are practical things teachers and school leaders can do to reduce disruption.

This begins with looking at what can be done to support positive student behaviour, rather than focusing on what you can do to reduce disruption.

The means approaches for supporting improved student behaviour are educative, not punitive. They also promote a sense of predictability and safety in classrooms. This can include:

Limiting distractions

Teachers can change their classrooms to limit distractions and promote positive behaviour. For example:

• rearranging seating to make it easier for students to see the teacher and pay attention

• putting felt pads under furniture to reduce noise levels

• turning off sounds on mobile devices to limit distractions

• adding environmental cues (such as written instructions and checklists) to remind students about what they should be doing.

Teaching behavioural skills

We can’t assume students know how to behave well at school. School is a complex environment and may have different expectations to home.

So teachers can teach behavioural skills the same way they teach academic skills (and teach them early and often). This means giving students instruction, practice, feedback, and encouragement. Specific behavioural skills to teach might include:

• responding to your name when called

• requesting help with difficult tasks

• entering the classroom quietly and beginning a “getting started” task

• showing kindness and respect to peers and staff.

Teachers should also respond to disruptive behaviour or behavioural errors as if they were learning errors and provide an immediate correction. This includes giving the student a chance to practise (or show you) the appropriate behaviour and the providing positive feedback if warranted.

Allowing time for lots of practice

Researchers have found that for a child to learn something new, it needs to be repeated eight times on average.

For a child to unlearn an old behaviour and replace it with a new behaviour, the new behaviour must be practised on average 28 times.
Providing plenty of praise

Research shows praising students for positive behaviours has a high-impact. It is important to make the praise genuine and attached to a specific behaviour.

Getting students involved

The classroom climate can be improved when students play an active role in setting classroom expectations and holding one another to high standards.

This includes asking students what their classroom norms and expectations should be. It could also include:

• encouraging students to acknowledge each other for doing the right thing – a practice known as “tootling”

• making it safe for students to both make mistakes and succeed. Create a culture where students can openly discuss and learn from their mistakes, as well as share their successes

• modelling calm conflict resolution and support students to work through academic and social challenges.

Read more:
Our new study provides a potential breakthrough on school bullying

Erin Leif currently receives funding from the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness, and Housing, and has received funding from the Victorian Department of Education and the Australian Education Research Organisation. Erin Leif is currently the president of the Association for Behaviour Analysis Australia and is an expert advisor to Behaviour Support Practitioners Australia.

– ref. Australian classrooms are among the ‘least favourable’ for discipline in the OECD. Here’s how to improve student behaviour – https://theconversation.com/australian-classrooms-are-among-the-least-favourable-for-discipline-in-the-oecd-heres-how-to-improve-student-behaviour-202946

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, recently invested US$180 million into Retro Biosciences – a company seeking to extend human lifespans by ten healthy years.

One way it plans to achieve this is by “rejuvenating” blood. This idea is based on studies that found old mice showed signs of reversed ageing when given the blood of young mice.

Altman isn’t the only Silicon Valley entrepreneur supporting life extension efforts. PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Google cofounder Larry Page have poured millions into projects that could profoundly affect how we live our lives.

The first question raised is scientific: could these technologies work? On this front the jury is still out, and there are grounds for both optimism and scepticism.

Read more:
Can ageing really be ‘treated’ or ‘cured’? An evolutionary biologist explains

The second question is just as important: even if lifespan extension is feasible, would it be ethical?

We explain why some common ethical arguments against lifespan extension aren’t as solid as they might seem – and put forth another, somewhat overlooked explanation for why trying to live forever might not be worth it.

Is it worth it if you still die anyway?

One might argue lifespan extension merely pushes back the inevitable: that we will die. However, the problem with this view is that any life saved will only be saved temporarily.

A lifespan extension of ten years is akin to saving a drowning swimmer, only for them to die in a traffic accident ten years later. Although we might be sad about their eventual death, we’d still be glad we saved them.

The same is true of conventional medicine. If a doctor cures my pneumonia, I will eventually die of something else, but that doesn’t mean the doctor or I will regret my being saved.

It’s also worth taking a longer view of where lifespan extension research could lead us. In the most optimistic scenarios put forth by experts, even modest short-term gains could help people add centuries to their life, since the benefits of each intervention could cascade. For example, each extra year of life would increase the likelihood of surviving until the next big breakthrough.

Is it worth it if immortality could get boring?

Many have argued against lifespan extension on ethical grounds, saying they wouldn’t use these technologies. Why might somebody be opposed?

One worry is that a very long life might be undesirable. Philosopher Bernard Williams said life is made valuable through the satisfaction of what he calls “categorical desires”: desires that give us reason to want to live.

Williams expects these desires relate to major life projects, such as raising a child, or writing a novel. He worries that, given a long enough life, we will run out of such projects. If so, immortality would become tedious.

It’s unclear whether Williams is right. Some philosophers point out human memories are fallible, and certain desires could resurface as we forget earlier experiences.

Others emphasise that our categorical desires evolve as our life experiences reshape our interests – and might continue to do so over the course of a very long life.

In either case, our categorical desires, and hence our reason for living, would not be exhausted over a very long life.

Even if immortality did get tedious, this wouldn’t count against modest lifespan extensions. Many would argue 80-something years isn’t enough time to explore one’s potential. Personally, we’d welcome another 20 or even 50 years to write a novel, or start a career as a DJ.

Is it worth it if poor people miss out?

Another worry regarding lifespan extension technologies is egalitarian.

These technologies will be expensive; it seems unjust for Silicon Valley billionaires to celebrate their 150th birthdays while the rest of us mostly die in our 70s and 80s.

This objection seems convincing. Most people welcome interventions that promote health equality, which is reflected in broader societal demands for universal healthcare.

But there’s important nuance to consider here. Consider that universal healthcare systems promote equality by improving the situation of those who aren’t well off. On the other hand, preventing the development of lifespan extension technologies will worsen the situation of those who are well off.

The ethical desirability of equality based on “levelling down” is unclear. The poorest Australians are twice as likely to die before age 75 than the richest. Yet few people would argue we should stop developing technologies to improve the health of those aged over 75.

Moreover, the price of lifespan extension technologies would eventually likely come down.

The real problem

However, we think there’s one serious ethical objection that applies to extreme cases of life extension. If humans routinely lived very long lives, this could reduce how adaptable our populations are, and lead to social stagnation.

Even modest increases in life expectancy would radically increase population size. To avoid overpopulation, we’d need to reduce birth rates, which would drastically slow generational turnover.

As one of us (Chris) has explored in previous research, this could be incredibly harmful to societal progress, because it may:

1. increase our vulnerability to extinction threats
2. jeopardise individual wellbeing, and
3. impede moral advancement.

Many fields benefit from a regular influx of young minds coming in and building on the work of predecessors.

Even if the brains of older scientists remained sharp, their “confirmation bias” – a tendency to seek and interpret information in ways that confirm one’s prior beliefs – could slow the uptake of new scientific theories.

Moral beliefs are also prone to confirmation bias. In a world of extended lifespans, individuals whose moral views were set in their youth (perhaps more than 100 years ago) will remain in positions of power.

It seems likely our society’s moral code is badly mistaken in at least some respects. After all, we think past societies were catastrophically mistaken in theirs, such as when they endorsed slavery, or rendered homosexuality illegal.

Slowing generational turnover could delay the point at which we recognise and fix our own moral catastrophes, especially those we can’t yet see.

Read more:
Life extension: the five most promising methods – so far

Julian Koplin receives funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

Christopher Gyngell via his affiliation with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute received funding from the Victorian State Government via the Operational Infrastructure Support Program. He also receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund.

– ref. The rich are pouring millions into life extension research – but does it have any ethical value? – https://theconversation.com/the-rich-are-pouring-millions-into-life-extension-research-but-does-it-have-any-ethical-value-201774

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julia Hurst, Faculty of Arts Indigenous Postdoctoral Fellow, Indigenous and Settler Relations Collaboration, The University of Melbourne

This is the third article in our series explaining Voice, Treaty and Truth. Read the other articles in the series here and here.

Australia has never been good at listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Despite the truths that have already been told in processes like the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody or the Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, time and again governments have ignored recommendations designed to address the impacts of Australia’s settler-colonial past and present.

State refusals to respond to truth have led to renewed calls for processes that will detail the impacts of colonisation in the everyday lives of Indigenous people. These calls were an important part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which sought “the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution”, complimented by “a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history”.

As legal scholars Gabrielle Appleby and Megan Davis have commented, the call for truth-telling in the Uluru Statement is just one part of a wider call for structural reform intended to ensure improvement in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Read more:
What actually is a treaty? What could it mean for Indigenous people?

Why truth?

Beginning in the 1980s, formal truth-telling processes (usually called truth commissions) emerged as a method of reckoning with the past in deeply divided societies around the world. Perhaps the most famous example is the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which aimed to address the gross violations of human rights that happened under apartheid.

Truth commissions like this are generally temporary, state-sanctioned inquiries that typically last from one to five years, with a remit to investigate particular events and examine specific violations over a defined period of time. This typically involves collecting testimony from victims and (sometimes) perpetrators.

It is only relatively recently that truth-telling processes have been used as a response to settler colonial violence, most notably via Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which arose after a class action lawsuit on behalf of the roughly 150,000 First Nations children taken from their familes and placed in residential schools.

The Uluru Statement isn’t the first time First Nations on this continent have called for truth-telling. Since colonisation, Indigenous peoples have insisted that Australia must not look away from their experiences of dispossession and survival.

When these truths have been told, however, they have all too often been met with denial, defensiveness or even aggression. For example, when the Stolen Generations inquiry pointed to evidence of the forcible removal of Indigenous children that, it charged, constituted a breach of the UN Convention on Genocide, there was an immediate conservative backlash. The Howard government rejected the findings of the inquiry in one of the earliest salvos against what conservatives have termed a “black armband” view of Australian history.

There is a reason settler governments have been reluctant to engage in truth-telling. First Nations often seek truth as a means of changing an untenable status quo, reshaping society’s attitudes so as to improve their own future prospects and reaffirm their distinct sovereignties and their right to self-determination.

As the non-Indigenous Canadian political scientist Courtney Jung has argued, while settler governments may try to use the conclusion of a truth commission to “draw a line through history”, First Nations seek to build “not a wall but a bridge”, using truth-telling to “draw history into the present, and to draw connections between past policy, present policy, and present injustices”.

Whose truths? What truths?

Broadly speaking, First Nations peoples seek truths that address three key themes: narrative and memory; trauma and healing; and responsibility and justice.

We have described this potential as “the promise of truth”, in which truth-telling leads to a kind of agreement between Indigenous and settler peoples, rather than being a process centred on the state and its violence.

The promise of truth is that it will change national narratives and produce a new, shared collective memory that acknowledges crimes of the past; it will contribute to the healing and recovery of Indigenous people who have been harmed by colonisation and dispossession; and it will compel settlers and their institutions to take responsibility for the harms of colonisation.

This approach stands in contrast to what we have called the “colonisation of truth”, through which truth-telling is seen primarily as rehabilitative of the settler colonial state while obscuring ongoing injustices. When truth is colonised, it may reproduce narratives that restore aspects of settler legitimacy and treat injustices as being solely in the past. Alternatively, this version of truth may treat First Nations people merely as victims, telling stories of harm and trauma without delivering reparation. Or it may suggest that the demand for responsibility and justice has been fulfilled simply by engaging in the truth-telling process, rather than treating the telling of truth as a starting point for a fairer future.

Truth, then, is complex, and what it may achieve in the Australian context is not yet clear. As treaty processes progress in several Australian jurisdictions, the commitment to truth-telling seems likely to be a part of future negotiations. This close connection between treaty and truth is unique to the Australian case and confirms the strongly held belief that truth has transformative potential. We do not yet know whether the linking of truth and treaty will produce the transformation in relationships that is so urgently needed.

Victoria, which announced a commitment to treaty in 2016, is the jurisdiction most advanced in testing this proposition. In 2022, Victoria established the Yoorrook Truth and Justice Commission (Yoorrok is a Wemba Wemba word meaning “truth”), marking a new era in Australian truth-telling focused on the history of invasion and colonisation of First Nations’ territories. Until the creation of Yoorrook, no previous commission, royal commission or inquiry into colonisation in Australia has included the word “truth” in its official title.

Yet still, truth is not a straightforward proposition. “Truth burns,” as Indigenous academic Marcia Langton recently put it. Sometimes, truth-telling is painful and connects directly to harm and injustice.

Read more:
The Voice: what is it, where did it come from, and what can it achieve?

Truth is tricky. It can appear to open spaces for new understandings, while simultaneously shutting these spaces down and reinforcing the colonial status quo.

Ultimately, truth-telling is uncomfortable but necessary, as change in any relationship inevitably is. But this is where the possibility lives. As new truth-telling takes place across this continent we have an opportunity to imagine what it might mean to be in a relationship that does not deny the truth of First Nations’ lives, or the truth of how Australia has come to be.

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

– ref. First Nations people have made a plea for ‘truth-telling’. By reckoning with its past, Australia can finally help improve our future – https://theconversation.com/first-nations-people-have-made-a-plea-for-truth-telling-by-reckoning-with-its-past-australia-can-finally-help-improve-our-future-202137

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Boraman, Lecturer in Politics, Massey University

Most people today are coping with the rising cost of living individually: cost cutting, looking for a better paid job, taking on “side hustles”, and so on. But not so long ago, many workers globally and in Aotearoa New Zealand approached the same problem in far more collective ways.

From the late 1960s to the early 1980s – sometimes referred to as “the long 1970s” – the union movement used strikes to combat the effects on workers of chronic inflation and a deep economic crisis. These were often successful, both in Aotearoa and around the world.

In many ways, the long 1970s were similar to today, a turbulent era of wide-ranging transformation, social polarisation and economic decline. After the long post-war economic boom, the so-called “golden age” of capitalism came to a halt in the late 1960s. A long-term social and economic decline set in after the oil shocks of the 1970s.

Largely in response to this, strike levels reached historic peaks in many countries. As British journalist Andy McSmith wrote of the UK’s 1978-1979 “winter of discontent”, it was simply “irrational not to strike”, given how inflation was eroding pay packets. In Aotearoa New Zealand, for example, inflation averaged 11.5% in the 1970s and peaked at 17.2% in 1980.

Collective resistance wasn’t only organised in workplaces. There were also consumer campaigns such as the Campaign Against Rising Prices in the 1960s and 1970s, mostly organised by (unpaid) women domestic workers, and often supported by unions.

Many unions mobilised to obtain better pay – often because of workers’ demands over declining real incomes. Millions of workers around the world struck to keep their wages level with inflation, in many instances securing pay increases above inflation rates.

Defending living standards

In Aotearoa New Zealand, as historian Ross Webb has argued, the Federation of Labour (FOL) adopted a largely successful strategy of “defending living standards” from the late 1960s to about 1984. They argued that employers and governments were trying to place the burden of the recession on workers and their families.

Union tactics were reasonably canny. They did not simply butt heads with employers set on reducing costs, or governments intent on restricting wage increases through incomes policies.

Instead, they contested the assumption of employers and politicians that inflation was mainly caused by wage increases (the wage-price spiral), rather than a result of companies raising prices, profiteering and passing on the cost of the oil shocks.

Read more:
Inflation is raising prices and reducing real wages – what should be done to support NZ’s low-income households?

There were two tactics in particular that don’t seem to exist in Aotearoa today. The first was targeting stoppages against a particular employer. Once a breakthrough was achieved at one workplace, unions would ensure the gain was made into a broader industry, regional or national standard. Targeted strikes were not as costly or as risky as national or industry-wide strikes, with striking workers supported through weekly union levies.

The second tactic involved broad, nationally-coordinated, cross-union mobilisations. These included general strikes (either city-wide or national) and nationwide demonstrations. These solidarity actions generally focused on unsympathetic or intransigent governments intent on clamping wage increases.

When the Arbitration Court announced a nil general wage order in 1968 (meaning wages couldn’t rise), despite inflation running at about 5%, the FOL organised a limited campaign of targeted strikes against certain employers. Its Wellington Trades Council held a one-day, general, city-wide strike and a stormy protest outside parliament.

General strikes and export bans

Targeted stoppages were often highly effective, especially in strategic industries where profits and production could be quickly halted. For example, meatworkers banned all meat exports to counter the nil wage order. This was the country’s biggest export at the time, accounting for 40% of export revenue.

The export ban, together with many other stoppages, quickly brought results. Workers were granted a 5% increase nationally, just two months after the nil order was announced.

In 1979-1980, a union campaign successfully saw the repeal of the 1979 Remuneration Act, imposed by Robert Muldoon’s authoritarian populist-right government and which enabled the state to unilaterally lower negotiated wage increases between employers and unions.

Read more:
Strikes: how rising household debt could slow industrial action this year

The campaign involved a one-day national general strike in 1979. Some 340,000 to 400,000 workers (75-80% of the FOL’s membership) participated, according to reasonably reliable estimates. It was the most well-supported strike in local history, followed in 1980 by a successful three-month strike by paper mill workers at Kinleith that gained substantial national support.

The final nail in the coffin for the Remuneration Act was the living standards campaign organised by the FOL and the Combined State Unions in 1980. Large protest marches were held around the country, including one that attracted up to 45,000 people during a three-hour, city-wide stop-work action in Auckland.

There were also smaller shop-floor strikes aimed at achieving localised pay agreements to keep up with inflation. These often resulted in piecework or bonus payment schemes, or allowances for clothes, boots and working in dirty or dangerous condition. They all helped enormously with take-home pay.

Read more:
Debate: The forward march of labour restarts with historic strikes in France and the UK

Disputed strategies

These actions drew strong reactions from employers, the state, and from some sections of the community. Conservatives – such as those who took part in the “Kiwis Care” march in 1981 – claimed strikers were greedy, disruptive, destroying the “national interest” and holding the country to ransom. Yet the law-and-order measures employed to contain or repress strikes usually just inflamed unrest.

A more effective response came in the form of economic restructuring and de-industrialisation in the 1980s. Neoliberals argued strikes squeezed profits and production, and restricted management’s “right to manage” the factory and office floor. Employers and politicians used various tactics, such as factory closures, to successfully break unions and undermine workers’ power.

While inflation was tamed in Aotearoa by the early 1990s, it came at the expense of dramatically increased class inequality.

Read more:
Recent pay rises suggest that collective bargaining may be on the way back

Worker resistance to the cost-of-living crisis in the long 1970s is still a polarising and contested subject. Probably the dominant view, voiced by the neoliberal right as well as some on the moderate left, is that workers caused their own demise by striking too much.

Some argued that unions had adopted an “immature” conflict-based strategy that could never win, and that neoliberal restructuring was the inevitable response and outcome. Such a view tends to demonise the strike-prone 1970s as the “bad old days” when supposedly thuggish “unions ran the country”.

But it’s overly simplistic to blame workers for simply trying to keep their pay up with inflation after negotiation strategies failed. Those on the activist wing of unions would counter by arguing workers fought back en masse in the long 1970s to defend living standards. But they were simply defeated in the 1980s by more powerful global and local forces.

The diminished collective

Globally, strikes are perhaps back in vogue. In early 2023, there have already been a “mega-strike” in Germany, a “protect the right to strike” action in the UK, and mass strikes against the raising of the pension age in France. In Aotearoa, teacher unions have mounted a rare coordinated strike. As economic problems deepen, it’s likely more will occur.

So far, however, these strikes against the cost-of-living crisis have not been as large or as widely supported as those of the long 1970s. In high-income countries, strike levels today are generally nowhere near the peaks of that period.

This is, of course, directly related to the astonishing decline of union membership since the 1970s. As a proportion of the whole workforce, union membership in Aotearoa has fallen from a peak of 57.5% in 1979 to 17% in 2021. Strikes are therefore limited to a minority of the workforce, especially in the underfunded public sector.

Little wonder, then, that most people these days are coping with soaring costs by taking individual rather than collective action. It’s also one of many reasons why so many feel powerless to effect deeper and lasting change.

Toby Boraman receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund. He is a member of the Tertiary Education Union.

– ref. Strikes, protests and collective action: how fighting a cost-of-living crisis wasn’t always about tightening your own belt – https://theconversation.com/strikes-protests-and-collective-action-how-fighting-a-cost-of-living-crisis-wasnt-always-about-tightening-your-own-belt-203402

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Jongenelis, Associate Professor, Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, The University of Melbourne

You’re driving your teen home from school when they open up to you about their vaping. What started off as an occasional puff of an e-cigarette has turned into something more serious.

“I was curious and just wanted to try it,” they say. “All my friends were doing it and I wanted to do it too.”

But now they are vaping more often and getting anxious when they can’t access their vape. They want to quit but they aren’t sure how.

Here are some practical tips to help your teen stop vaping.

Read more:
Sex and lies are used to sell vapes online. Even we were surprised at the marketing tactics we found

I don’t want to lecture. But what can I do?

You’ve seen the news and you know e-cigarettes are harmful.

You might want to reprimand your child, or say “If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it?”. But you know criticism and lecturing don’t work. So, what do you do?

First, acknowledge it’s a great sign your teen wants to quit and is asking for help. We know motivation is critical to behaviour change.

But if you’re a parent of a teen who isn’t ready to try quitting, you need to work on boosting their motivation to quit first.

Read more:
My teen’s vaping. What should I say? 3 expert tips on how to approach ‘the talk’

Boost their motivation to quit

Talk with your teen about their vaping. Ask them what led to them wanting to quit and their reasons for wanting to give up. You can both use those reasons to help motivate quitting.

Use that knowledge to balance the benefits of quitting with the costs of not quitting. You can do this using a practical exercise.

Discuss potential barriers that might get in the way of quitting.
What is your teen worried will happen if they try to quit? Have they been using vaping to relax and are worried they will become more anxious? Are they worried about losing friends? Do they think they won’t be able to quit?

Once you have an idea of the costs and benefits your child perceives, you’ll be in a better position to help them. For example, if they have been using vapes to relax, help them find other ways of reducing stress.

It might also help to tap into their values and use these to highlight that their vaping isn’t aligned with who they want to be.

For example, if they are skipping class to vape but are usually a diligent student, discuss this discrepancy and the longer-term impact of their dependence (for example, not getting into uni).

Read more:
A parent’s guide to why teens make bad decisions

Set a goal

Once your child is motivated, it’s time to set a goal to quit. Work with your teen to develop a SMART goal that is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, with a Timeframe.

That goal might be to quit vaping by a certain date. But your teen may need to set smaller goals first. This might mean “This week, I will only vape on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.”

Once achieved, these goals can be made more challenging until gradually, your teen has succeeded in quitting vaping.

Make sure you reward your teen or they reward themselves for achieving their goals, even the small ones.

Next, if your teen has been using nicotine vapes – and many vapes contain nicotine even if they are not labelled as such – they may be addicted.

Contact the Quitline (details below) or see your GP to discuss support for your teen. They may need extra help weaning off e-cigarettes. A nicotine tapering plan may help.

How to handle the setbacks

Your teen will likely have some trouble quitting. Remember those barriers from earlier? Create coping plans. What will your teen do if they are feeling stressed and want to reach for their vape? What will your teen do if they are at a party and are offered a puff?

These strategies may help your teen:

• keeping busy by doing puzzles, drawing, or playing games on the phone

• changing locations. Encourage your teen to get out and about. They can go to the gym, outside for a walk, or head to the footy

• reminding your teen about the reasons they want to quit and the costs of not quitting

• helping them practise saying “no” to a vape

• having snacks or gum they can grab when they have the urge to vape.

Show compassion

There are many reasons people vape. Among them is a vaping industry, with deep pockets, that’s expert at manipulating young people to start and continue vaping.

So be compassionate and try not to judge your teen. Lecturing, criticising and being punitive won’t help them quit. Position yourself as someone they can rely on.

More support and information about quitting vaping is available from
Lung Foundation Australia and
Quitline (ph: 13 7848).

Associate Professor Michelle Jongenelis receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australian Council on Smoking and Health, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the World Federation of Public Health Associations’ Tobacco Control Working Group.

– ref. How can I help my teen quit vaping? – https://theconversation.com/how-can-i-help-my-teen-quit-vaping-201558

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Selinske, Senior Research Fellow, RMIT University

Last month, Sir David Attenborough called on United Kingdom residents to “go wild once per week”. By this, he meant taking actions which help rather than harm the natural world, such as planting wildflowers for bees and eating more plant-based foods.

Australia should follow suit. We love our natural environment. But we have almost 10 times more species threatened with extinction than the UK.
How we act can accelerate these declines – or help stop them.

We worked with 22 conservation experts to identify 10 actions which actually do help nature.

Why do we need to act for nature?

If you go for a bushwalk, you might wonder what the problem is. Gums, wattles, cockatoos, honeyeaters, possums – everything is normal, right? Alas, we don’t notice what’s no longer there. Many areas have only a few of the native species once present in large numbers.

We are losing nature, nation-wide. Our threatened birds are declining very rapidly. On average, there are now less than half (48%) as many of each threatened bird species than in 1985. Threatened plants have fared even worse, with average declines of over three quarters (77%).

Biodiversity loss will have far-reaching consequences and is one of the greatest risks to human societies, according to the OECD.

The small choices we all make accumulate to either help or harm nature.

Our top ten actions to help biodiversity

1. Choose marine stewardship council certified seafood products

Why? Overfishing is devastating for fish species. By-catch means even non-food species can die in the process.

Where to start: Look for the blue tick of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) or the green tick of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) approval on seafood products where you shop, or use the Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide. Certified products are caught or farmed sustainably.

2. Keep your dog on a leash in natural areas – including beaches

Why? Off-leash dogs scare and can attack native wildlife. When animals and birds have to spend time and energy fleeing, they miss out on time to eat, rest and feed their young.

Where to start: Look for local off-leash areas and keep your dog leashed everywhere else.

3. Cut back on beef and lamb

Why? Producing beef and lamb often involves destroying or overgrazing natural habitat, as well as culling native predators like dingoes.

Where to start: Eat red meat less often and eat smaller portions when you do. Switch to poultry, sustainable seafood and more plant-based foods like beans and nuts. Suggest a meatless Monday campaign in your friend and family group chat to help wildlife – and your own health.

Read more:
How to get the nutrients you need without eating as much red meat

4. Donate to land protection organisations.

Why? These organisations protect land in perpetuity. Donations help them expand and do important on-ground biodiversity management.

Where to start: Check out organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Bush Heritage Australia, Trust for Nature, and Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

5. Make your investments biodiversity-friendly

Why? Many funds include companies whose business model relies on exploiting the natural environment. Your money could be contributing. Looking for biodiversity-positive investments can nudge funds and companies to do better.

Where to start: Look at the approach your superannuation fund takes to sustainability and consider switching if you aren’t impressed. You could also explore the growing range of biodiversity-friendly investment funds.

6. Donate to threatened species and ecosystem advocacy organisations

Why? These groups rely on donations to fund biodiversity advocacy, helping to create better planning and policy outcomes for our species.

Where to start: Look into advocacy groups like WWF Australia, Birdlife Australia, Biodiversity Council, Environment Centre NT, and the Environmental Defenders Office.

7. Plant and maintain a wildlife garden wherever you have space

Why? Our cities aren’t just concrete jungles – they’re important habitat for many threatened species. Gardening with wildlife in mind increases habitat and connections between green space in suburbs.

Where to start: Your council or native nursery is often a great source of resources and advice. Find out if you have a threatened local species such as a butterfly or possum you could help by growing plants, but remember that non-threatened species also need help.

8. Vote for political candidates with strong environmental policies

Why? Electing pro-environment candidates changes the game. Once inside the tent, environmental candidates can shape public investment, planning, policy and programs.

Where to start: Look into local candidate and party policies at every election. Consider talking to your current MP about environmental issues.

9. Desex your cat and keep it inside or in a cat run

Why? Research shows every pet cat kept inside saves the lives of 110 native animals every year, on average. Desexing cats avoids unexpected litters and helps to keep the feral cat population down.

Where to start: Keep your cat inside, or set up a secure cat run to protect wildlife from your cute but lethal pet. It’s entirely possible to have happy and healthy indoor cats. Indoor cats also live longer and healthier lives.

Read more:
One cat, one year, 110 native animals: lock up your pet, it’s a killing machine

10. Push for better control of pest animals

Why? Pest species like feral horses, pigs, cats, foxes and rabbits are hugely destructive. Even native species can become destructive, such as when wallaby populations balloon when dingoes are killed off.

Where to start: Look into the damage these species do and tell your friends. Public support for better control is essential, as these issues often fly under the radar.

Making a difference

Conservation efforts may seem far away. In fact, our daily choices and actions have a considerable effect.

Talking openly about issues and actions can help these behaviours and habits spread. If we all do a small part of the work and support others to do the same, we will see an enormous effect.

Matthew Selinske receives funding from the Australia Research Council. The research cited in this article was undertaken by the Threatened Species Recovery Hub with funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program (Phase 1) and from the Victorian Government. Matthew is a board member of the Society for Conservation Biology’s Social Science Working Group.

Georgia Garrard receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Research cited in this article was undertaken by the Threatened Species Recovery Hub with funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program (Phase 1) and from the Victorian Government. She is chair of Birdlife Australia’s Research and Conservation Committee, a member of Zoos Victoria’s Scientific Advisory Committee and a member of the Sustainable Subdivisions Framework advisory group for the Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment.

Jaana Dielenberg works for the Biodiversity Council and previously worked for the Threatened Species Recovery Hub. Research cited in this article was undertaken by the Threatened Species Recovery Hub with funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program (Phase 1) and from the Victorian Government.

Sarah Bekessy receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ian Potter Foundation and the European Commission. She is a Councillor of the Biodiversity Council, a Board Member of Bush Heritage Australia, a member of WWF’s Eminent Scientists Group and a member of the Advisory Group for Wood for Good.

– ref. Nature is in crisis. Here are 10 easy ways you can make a difference – https://theconversation.com/nature-is-in-crisis-here-are-10-easy-ways-you-can-make-a-difference-202855

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Jefferson, Senior Lecturer in Education, Edith Cowan University

Many Year 10 students are beginning to think seriously about what subjects they might pick for years 11 and 12.

These are important decisions – not just because they may form the basis of further university study and career paths. They will also be the focus of the final years of schooling and could turn into the skills students carry forward into their adult lives.

Read more:
Choosing your senior school subjects doesn’t have to be scary. Here are 6 things to keep in mind

This reminds me of a school awards night I once attended. The keynote speaker was a former student who now worked as an emergency trauma surgeon. In Year 12, he studied typical pre-medical school subjects like maths, physics and chemistry. But he also did drama – a choice that was questioned by the school at the time.

The doctor told us how drama turned out to be the most useful subject for him. It had given him the ability to work well with a diverse team in a highly-charged space, whether it be a stage or an emergency room.

This shows how important it is to make informed choices and how it is worth encouraging children to think outside the box.

What’s happening to teenage brains as they decide?

These decisions are happening as teenagers’ brains are going through significant changes. This includes “pruning” of the teenage brain where it gets rid of grey matter it isn’t using.

Alongside this, new neural pathways and connections are created. This means information processing is becoming more efficient.

All this pruning, developing and strengthening varies from person to person and means their interests and passions can change considerably over this period.

What are the rules?

There are a huge number of options to study, from academic subjects that contribute to your ATAR, to vocational education and training courses.

Students and families should familiarise themselves with the core requirements (all students need to study English, for example). Also note some degrees need you to have studied certain subjects or have assumed knowledge prior to commencing study.

Read more:
What actually is an ATAR? First of all it’s a rank, not a score

How can parents help?

Here are some ideas for parents and carers who want to help their children navigate what’s best for them in the final years of school:

• Chat with your child about their interests and passions: it’s understandably challenging for a 15-year-old to map out their life too far ahead. A good place to start is a comprehensive site such as Your Career. This can be a constructive way to together have a look at fields that fall in their line of interest and then discuss

• Be informed of the options: attend any parent information sessions held by the school to ensure you are up to speed with the choices it is offering. Be prepared to advocate for your child when appropriate to enable them to study subjects they enjoy or show and interest in. Remember there is a great deal more flexibility with pathways today and just because someone says your child “has” to do a subject it doesn’t mean it has to be done now

• See the big picture: what does your child want out of the final years of school? Is it the highest possible university entrance rank? Do they want to start developing workplace or trade skills? Understand there are plenty of options beyond school – whether it be vocational training, an apprenticeship, university via an ATAR or going to university via a non-ATAR pathway

• Get input from others: school careers counsellors can provide excellent advice. If your school has one, encourage your child to make an individual appointment. See if your child can talk to people working in fields they may be interested in.

Read more:
‘Thinking about my future is really scary’ – school leavers are not getting the careers support they need

• Be flexible and patient: it’s highly likely your child will change their mind with their subject choices. This is absolutely normal and it’s important for you to listen to and support them as they navigate these challenges. If we are meant to undergo five to seven career changes during our lifetime, then we need to make it safe for our children to do so from the start.

One last thing

Our children are unique and will have their own dreams and aspirations. So their subject choices may not reflect what we’ve done or want them to do and it is important to take a breath and step back from imposing our views on them.

We can point things out like, “if you really want to do engineering it might make sense to study maths now, so you don’t have to do a bridging course”. Or, “you seem to really love design and technology and visual arts”. But ultimately the choice is theirs.

And in fostering our children’s sense of ownership of these choices, we are contributing to their ability to become lifelong learners.

Sarah Jefferson 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. Year 10 students are thinking about their final subjects – here’s how parents can help – https://theconversation.com/year-10-students-are-thinking-about-their-final-subjects-heres-how-parents-can-help-203164

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ou Yang, Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

The best word to describe the way Australia taxes alcoholic drinks is “incoherent”.

It was the word used by the 2010 Henry Tax Review to describe a system in which some wine effectively faces no alcohol tax, expensive wine is taxed heavily and cask wine lightly, beer (but not wine) is taxed by alcohol content, brandy is taxed less than other spirits, and cider is taxed differently to beer.

Industry calculations suggest cask wine is taxed at as little as six cents per standard drink, mid-price wine at 26 cents, bottled beer at 56 cents, and spirits at $1.24.

And yet it is cask wine that is often said to do the most damage.

The Henry Review recommended taxing all drinks containing more than a small amount of alcohol at the same rate per unit of alcohol, regardless of type. It was a recommendation backed by specialists in Australia’s tax system.

Implicit, and largely unexamined, in these recommendations is the assumption that alcohol does the same damage in whatever form it is taken.

Our new study, linking drinkers’ risky behaviours to the types of alcoholic beverages they mostly consume, finds this isn’t so.

Damage depends on the type of drink

Using data from six waves of an Australian recreational drug survey, we find that regular-strength beer and pre-mixed spirits in a can rank among the highest in their links to both drink-driving and hazardous, disturbing or abusive behaviours.

Mid-range are mid-strength beer, cask wine, and bottled spirits and liqueurs.

At the bottom are low-strength beer and pre-mixed spirits in a bottle, which have the weakest links to risky and abusive behaviours when intoxicated.

Probability of drink driving, by age and beverage type

Some of the relationships vary with the type of damage. While bottled wine is linked to a moderate to high probability of drink-driving, it is also linked to a low probability of hazardous, disturbing or abusive behaviours.

Pre-mixed spirits in a bottle are related to a low probability of both drink driving and hazardous, disturbing and abusive behaviours. But when account is taken of the gender of the drinkers (so-called alcopops are typically drunk by females), we find them no longer as safe.

Probability of hazardous, disturbing or abusive behaviour

Our study suggests that Australia’s haphazard system of taxing alcohol might have got some things right. Beer, which is typically taxed more highly than wine, seems to do more damage.

But it has got some things wrong. Cask wine appears to be significantly undertaxed relative to the damage it does.

More broadly, our findings suggest that if alcohol is to be taxed according to the damage it does, the tax system we adopt will need to be more complicated than a single rate for every unit of alcohol regardless of the form in which it comes.

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

– ref. Australia’s system of taxing alcohol is ‘incoherent’, but our research suggests a single tax rate isn’t the answer – https://theconversation.com/australias-system-of-taxing-alcohol-is-incoherent-but-our-research-suggests-a-single-tax-rate-isnt-the-answer-195907

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lewis Fitz-Gerald, Lecturer, Screen Studies, University of New England

At the beginning of the first John Wick film, the tools of his deadly trade lie entombed beneath concrete, buried alongside Wick’s worst self – the pitiless assassin only his happy marriage permitted him to retire.

Fans of the series know what happened next. In order to exact his revenge, he destroys his vault with a sledgehammer, revealing an arsenal of guns. The real John Wick is back. Carnage ensues.

The carnage continues in John Wick 4, which is currently in cinemas. The franchise owes much to acclaimed Hong Kong action film director John Woo and the “gun-fu” fighting style his films established, which blends slick pistol skills with kung-fu.

Revenge narratives share well-recognised tropes: a murder, a ghost, madness, a stronger enemy and a vengeful hero. Each Wick film honours these elements separately, while at the same time containing them within Wick himself. Murder is Wick’s business. Motivated by murders, he commits them as revenge. Often.

Visited by the “ghost” of his dead wife (videos of her on his phone), he also functions as a ghost in the minds of his enemies, the mythic Baba Yaga of their nightmares. Driven to extremes, others believe him mad. He is both the vengeful hero and the stronger enemy.

Wick is by turns all these things because in seeking his own revenge, he becomes the object of the revenge of others.

Revenge and consequence

Keanu Reeves’ performance in the first Wick film is never more powerful than when, tied to a chair by his captors, he bellows the righteous justifications of his revenge. Wick does not threaten vengeance, he promises it, shouting “you can either give me your son, or die screaming alongside him!” All that follows in the subsequent films is consequence – the price Wick pays for seeking revenge in the first place.

Revenge tales are deeply satisfying because they permit us to imagine the retribution we might mete out for our own hurts – how we might right perceived wrongs if we only had the courage to act. We cheer on steely heroes and count the cost later. The cost is always high.

The John Wick saga harvests Western tropes, beginning much as Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven (1992) does, with the mute burial of a wife and reluctant retrieval of weapons. Eastwood’s William Munny is not bent on revenge. Munny is revenge’s servant, a gun for hire, coaxed out of retirement by others. The grim events that follow are awful enough, but it is only when Munny’s friend Ned (Morgan Freeman) is murdered that Munny exacts a terrible revenge all his own.

Read more:
Revenge: the neuroscience of why it feels good in the moment, but may be a bad idea in the long run

The Coen brothers’ fine re-make of True Grit (2010) re-visits the theme. Again, the gunman is a servant (Jeff Bridges’ Marshal Cogburn), this time of 14-year-old Mattie Rose’s (Hailee Steinfeld) revenge. Mattie enlists Cogburn to pursue her father’s killer and pays a terrible price. She loses an arm to snakebite, leads a spinster’s life without hope of family, and in the film’s bleak denouement, arrives too late to even thank Cogburn for saving her life.

Wick is likewise too late to save or thank Marcus (Willem Defoe) in film one, loses a finger in film three, and throughout the series is without hope of family.

In Christopher Nolan’s puzzle film Memento (2000), Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) is the amnesiac captive of a revenge narrative he barely comprehends. Nolan’s confounding circular design has Leonard pursuing himself, as both perpetrator and avenger, in perhaps the surest cinematic examination of revenge’s futility.

In the John Wick series, the narrative may be linear, but revenge’s cyclic, repetitive nature is amply demonstrated, confirming John Ford’s quote that “revenge proves its own executioner.”

Revenge as a propellant

In Keanu Reeves, Wick had an established star around whom The Matrix Trilogy had already been built. Mad Max (George Miller, 1979), and Taken (Pierre Morel, 2008), had already confirmed revenge as a kind of industrial propellant, possessing the capacity to launch or re-launch stellar careers like those of Mel Gibson and Liam Neeson.

Mad Max grew so successful it outlasted its star, a role in which other actors have since flexed their muscles. The Taken series neatly resolved the problem of the revenge plot’s exhaustion in advance, by kidnapping rather than murdering Bryan Mills’ (Neeson) family members. After all, family members can always be kidnapped again. They are in Taken 2, before Taken 3 brings the series to its climax.

Read more:
‘Rape-revenge’ films are changing: they now focus on the women, instead of their dads

In these ways, revenge is passed between protagonist and antagonist, from film to film, like a baton, as it is in the John Wick series. The series’ accomplishment is that it synthesises its many influences while asserting its originality.

Audiences have responded. In welding his diverse, multi-cultural world to the revenge narrative, director Chad Stahelski (accomplished martial artist and former stunt double/coordinator for Reeves), has built a billion dollar box-office behemoth as dominant as Wick himself.

At the end of John Wick 4, Wick’s fate is uncertain. While it is determined, the Wickiverse continues to expand. A baton will soon be passed in the spin-off film Ballerina. Now in post-production, it is set between John Wick 3 and John Wick 4. Reeves will play a supporting role. Surely only an epic, deeply personal revenge story could rouse Reeves one more time.

If there is to be a John Wick 5, it will only be because success is the best revenge, and just as surely, revenge is the best success.

Lewis Fitz-Gerald 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. How the John Wick franchise fits into the bloody tradition of the revenge film genre – https://theconversation.com/how-the-john-wick-franchise-fits-into-the-bloody-tradition-of-the-revenge-film-genre-203136