Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edgar Liu, Senior Research Fellow, Healthy Urban Environments (HUE) Collaboratory / City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

In response to the horror stories of abuse and neglect from the Royal Commission into Aged Care, the new federal Labor government has made legislative changes. Prior to this, Australia’s most recent aged-care reforms were enacted a decade ago. The focus, however, is still largely on residential care homes, so what about older Australians in the broader community?

More older Australians are still living in their own homes. How do our policies and cities support them? We have published an analysis comparing 85 policy documents across all three levels of Australian governments against World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on age-friendly cities.

We found these policies reflect outdated views of old age. They neglect many important aspects that contribute to happy and fulfilling lives in older age.

The policy focus is overwhelmingly on care and support services. There are decreasing levels of attention to housing, transport, walkability and, least of all, cultural diversity.

Read more:
This is how we create the age-friendly smart city

WHO guidance on making age-friendly cities

The WHO first published its Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide in 2007 to support the active ageing policy framework it proposed back in 2002. Described as “the centrepiece of WHO’s age-friendly cities approach”, the guide became a major point-of-reference for age-friendly policymaking around the world.

In 2010, the WHO launched the Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities. The network aims to help governments and other organisations build age-friendly cities through evidence-based guidance and knowledge exchanges. Australia’s members include two states, 34 local councils and one regional organisation.

Our research, however, found little to no difference between Australian members and non-members in making direct policy references to these guides. For example, more of South Australia’s (a non-member) policy documents referred to the guidelines than Western Australia’s (a member), as the table below shows.

There were also discrepancies between the tiers of government. State and territory governments were more likely to take on such guidance than federal and local governments. Yet local governments are the intended audience of the framework and the guide.

Previous research in Canada blamed this on “the minimal state powers of municipal governments”. In Australia, too, our federated system has left local councils with limited authority and resources.

An outdated view of old age

In analysing the 85 policy documents, we adopted a “traffic light” system to highlight whether they acknowledged ageing-related challenges and proposed corresponding actions.

Our analysis focused on five policy areas:

1. care and support services

2. cultural diversity

3. housing

4. transport

5. walkability.

These areas broadly align with the WHO’s age-friendly domains.

The skewed policy focus is on care and support services. This reflects decades of aged-care reforms in Australia and their take-up at all levels of government. It also potentially reveals a stereotypical view of old age as being a time of frailty, decline and disengagement.

In contrast, many Australian and international movements advocate positive ageing. Their approach recognises the important contributions people make in later life.

Read more:
Retire the retirement village – the wall and what’s behind it is so 2020

Our analysis also reveals a failure to recognise how diverse circumstances impact the ageing processes. The result is a neglect of the broader spectrum of older Australians’ support needs.

This was most obvious in the failure of policies to recognise diverse cultural needs. There is almost a complete blindness to their impacts on ageing and other social determinants of health.

A mismatch between resources and services

In Australia’s three-tiered government system, each level has its own authority and resourcing ability. Previous Australian research shows local governments have limited ability to raise the resources they need to design and implement policies and programs for their ageing residents as the WHO guidance intended.

Our analysis shows a reliance on national programs instead. These may not be as nuanced in responding to local needs and conditions.

In related work, our fine-level spatial analysis also highlights a mismatch between the growth of ageing populations across Australia and where aged care services are being offered. This is due largely to inequitable eligibility criteria. These effectively favour home owners living in standalone suburban houses over others such as renters.

Read more:
For Australians to have the choice of growing old at home, here is what needs to change

The latest proposal to revamp a residential aged-care sector that is no longer fit-for-purpose must be applauded. Policy should aim to provide these residents with all the attention and dignity they deserve. But as the population ages, there’s an ever greater need to provide support across all the domains that enable older people to live healthy, fulfilling lives.

People want age-friendly communities

We must look more broadly, to the many more older Australians who live in the community. It’s an option our governments have long encouraged. And it’s what most people prefer for themselves.

Read more:
‘Ageing in neighbourhood’: what seniors want instead of retirement villages and how to achieve it

Local authorities would know local residents and their needs most intimately. But our analyses show they are hamstrung in supporting the needs of older people in the community.

Continued reform must aim to ensure local councils have the powers and resources required to serve these needs. This will go some way towards responding better to Australians’ changing needs. Importantly, it will also help to reframe the dialogue of ageing away from frailty and debilitation.

Edgar Liu receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Ltd, UNSW Ageing Futures Institute, the Cancer Institute NSW, and the Western Sydney Health Alliance. His position at the HUE Collaboratory is supported by Maridulu Budyari Gumal (SPHERE).

Bruce Judd receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Kyushu University Japan, and the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute. He is affiliated with the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute, International Federation of Ageing and the European Network for Housing Research.

Mariana T Atkins receives funding from UNSW Ageing Futures Institute. She is affiliated with the Centre for Social Impact.

– ref. Most older Australians aren’t in aged care. Policy blind spots mean they live in communities that aren’t age-friendly – https://theconversation.com/most-older-australians-arent-in-aged-care-policy-blind-spots-mean-they-live-in-communities-that-arent-age-friendly-192591

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

With progressive members of the US Congress recently calling for a resumption of direct talks between the West and Vladimir Putin’s Russia, it’s a good time to consider how such talks could look and what might be gained – or lost.

As Russia’s military losses mount in Ukraine, the rhetoric surrounding Russia’s war is increasingly apocalyptic. Few in Ukraine are calling for talks, and US President Joe Biden has indicated he will respect Ukraine’s wishes.

Yet could direct talks between top Russian and Western leaders help to avoid disaster?

During the Cold War – a time now often compared to the present point in history – Soviet and Western antagonists managed to hold several successful dialogues on matters including nuclear de-escalation. Cold War examples suggest that not merely “talks”, but “summits” – symbolising high-level dialogues between equals – may help to initiate a rhetorical reset.

What are the arguments for and against such high-level talks?

The critics

The potential downsides of talking are clear. Some commentators have argued that talking would reward Putin for his nuclear brinkmanship.

Indeed, there’s no question that, besides talking, there must be other strong forms of response to the invasion.

Another argument assumes Putin’s ultimate aim is to incorporate Ukraine into the Russian nation, and short of that, any talks will inevitably fail.

Still others simply think it’s morally unacceptable to talk with aggressors.

This isn’t a new debate. Leaders have often grappled with whether to talk with enemies, even if they abhor their enemies’ actions.

For instance, similar questions, focusing on Iran at the time, featured in the campaign between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008.

This time around, Western leaders from Biden in the US, to Prime Minister Sanna Marin of Finland, have adopted McCain’s harder line.

The case for talks

Those who would call for talks might ask, however, if it’s realistic to expect wars to end by simply waiting for the initial aggressor to admit they were wrong.

Of course, another option is to wait for the war to run its course on the ground. But despite its setbacks, Russia’s resources for sustaining the war are nowhere near fully depleted.

Choosing not to talk with the other side is understandable. When a war is vicious and unjust, it must be called out.

But what if, by expressing our moral disapproval by choosing not to talk, the war we disapprove of paradoxically lasts longer? What if the consequences are many more deaths?

Is it right simply to blame the other side for the extra deaths? Or do we bear some obligation to talk in a bid to foreshorten the war, even if we didn’t cause it?

Status grievance as a root of war

Previous wars have often been explained in part by status grievance – the historical humiliation of a group, leading to a score to settle. Of course, the grievances may be wholly misguided. And status grievance shouldn’t be a legitimate cause for war.

Yet whether we think it’s legitimate or not, status grievance is in fact a contributing cause of war. We might ask Russia why it can’t simply accept its diminished post-Cold War position. But it may be no use. Status grievance cannot in most cases be wished away or defeated by rational argument. To those it animates, status grievance feels as real and rational as any other cause for war.

Russia’s rationale for attacking Ukraine seems to be a paradigm case of status grievance. On the Ukrainian side is a struggle against conquest, a struggle for sovereignty, and a struggle for democratic and liberal values – each clearly worth fighting for.

Yet on the other side is a settling of scores on a wider scale. In his speech addressing Russia’s efforts to annex four eastern provinces in Ukraine, Putin’s focus was not on Ukraine, but on a catalogue of misdeeds of a West bloc too powerful to be trusted. He cited the Western record of colonising, enslaving and weakening other peoples and powers. He didn’t turn a similarly critical gaze onto Russia itself.

What would a summit look like?

At the moment, a range of academics and politicians are hoping for a summit, although only a few are willing to say so out loud and risk blowback.

If a summit did take place, it could perhaps include Russia and other leading global powers as the main parties. The United Nations or a neutral government might play host.

But what would the parties talk about? Many wars have underlying causes based in clashes of values. Without addressing these, we may struggle to end even the most horrifying wars.

In Northern Ireland, for instance, the 1998 peace agreement formally adopted values such as “mutual respect” and “equality”.

It may cost nothing for the sides in the current war to hear each other out about values. For instance, there’s no harm in Western powers recognising their adversary’s equal worth. We can readily respect Russia’s historical scientific and cultural accomplishments.

At any summit, the signing of a treaty would be ideal, but it isn’t necessary. A merely informal statement of mutual respect between the historical blocs could be pursued, with the aim of defraying some of the underlying forces sustaining the war.

Russia seems to crave acknowledgement of its high status as a global power, and as an accomplished people. That is not a hard concession for the West to make. Yet it may offer Putin a face-saving way to begin de-escalating.

Read more:
How can Russia’s invasion of Ukraine end? Here’s how peace negotiations have worked in past wars

Summit ground rules would need to be stipulated. These could include discussion based on reciprocity: for example, listening by each side to the values and grievances of the other.

Finally, there could be no substantive preconditions – no requirement that, before a summit could take place, one side first acknowledge the errors of its ways. We’d need to be far more realistic. Peacemaking always involves two or more parties to a conflict that, though they view each other’s causes as illegitimate, proceed to talk anyway.

Sooner or later, summit talks may take place. Perhaps the only question is when. Leaders in the West, representing people deeply disturbed by Russia’s invasion, may not be ready. As the Congressional progressives found out, there are political risks to even floating the idea.

The arguments for a summit are at least as clear as those against, however. With careful design, and a little luck, a summit could conceivably reset the discourse around a war that is currently stuck in cycles of escalation.

Ron Levy has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Should the West negotiate with Russia? The pros and cons of high-level talks – https://theconversation.com/should-the-west-negotiate-with-russia-the-pros-and-cons-of-high-level-talks-193297

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Iftekhar Ahmed, Associate Professor, University of Newcastle

People living in the Hunter region of New South Wales know all too well the devastation disasters can bring. After enduring the 2019-2020 horror bushfire season, La Niña settled in for three wet summers and residents experienced back-to-back floods this year.

Since early October, we’ve conducted nine in-depth interviews with members of flood-response teams in the Hunter for our ongoing qualitative research into how prepared these communities are for future floods. Many people in the Hunter are living in temporary accommodation. A councillor we spoke to pointed out, “there are still people living in caravans, and they’ll be in caravans for quite some time”.

For the Northern Rivers region, which was ravaged by record-breaking floods in February and March this year, some relief is coming.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet today announced a A$800 million buyback scheme for residents in seven areas – including Lismore, Ballina and Tweed – where “major flooding would pose a catastrophic risk to life”. Some 2,000 homeowners will be eligible for funding to sell their homes, repair damage, or make their homes more resilient.

More flooding is expected across eastern Australia in coming weeks, as La Niña conditions are set to persist until early 2023. This is a time to take stock of the lessons gained from the previous spate of floods, and to assess how agencies and communities are heeding these lessons to manage coming floods.

Floods in the Hunter

Overall it seems regular warnings are being provided and agencies have actively stepped up their operations. Still, some Australian communities currently experiencing floods, such as in Victoria, remain vulnerable.

For example, this month many people have become marooned in places where flood defences were inadequate and it was too late to evacuate.

Our research focuses on the Hunter region’s experience of recent floods as they relate to climate change. We want to find out how local communities can improve their resilience and capacity to adapt to floods.

In the Hunter, floods have severely impacted businesses. Cumulative losses in businesses across the region caused a significant economic setback, at a time when many were still struggling with the economic impacts of COVID.

For example, a pub in the centre of Wollombi was submerged to its roof last July. And a vineyard and resort owner we spoke to explained: “We were trapped here for nearly a week in July, including some resort guests”.

Read more:
Nearly 6 months on, flood victims are still waiting to be housed. This is what Australia must do to be ready for the next disaster

Towns such as Broke, Gillieston Heights, Maitland and Singleton were completely isolated, as road networks became inundated. This made evacuations difficult or even impossible.

A police officer said people were trapped in recent floods and he expected the same if another flood strikes, adding: “We need to put in place better evacuation systems.”

Great demands are placed on volunteers of the State Emergency Services (SES). As one volunteer said: “I just joined the SES early this year and since then it has been a very busy time!”

Other volunteers mentioned the potential for “burnout” after dealing with so many floods over a long time, including this month.

Mixed messages

The biggest problem to be solved, according to our interviews, is inadequate communication.

A local police officer told us: “The focus should be on early warning and communication. There were mixed messages [to residents] from the services on the ground”. This was in regards to when exactly residents should evacuate.

These mixed messages not only hampered timely evacuation operations, but also strained the communication between the regional Emergency Management Centre and on-ground staff, as well as between emergency services and communities.

He also pointed out the challenge of local complacency to heed warnings, encapsulated in the typical “She’ll be right” mentality.

Read more:
What’s in the mud? Flood victims’ fears eased by early test results

Research shows social media offers communication opportunities during disasters, but it’s also evident that the potential for misinformation on social media can hinder effective communication. Lack of internet access and language barriers can also make effective communication difficult.

Another police officer said: “Communication is something that I am always thinking of. It’s not just us getting the messages out but getting [communities] to hear our messages and respond to them appropriately”.

The importance of emergency communications has been highlighted in Australian research on disaster risk management. For example, a 2016 paper found around 20% of all emergency management problems since 2010 were linked to communicating with communities.

As agencies and communities grapple with frequent flooding, it seems preparedness measures may indeed be improving. For example, in anticipation of Victoria’s floods this month, we saw the rapid deployment of sandbags and even the building of a new levee in Echuca.

Across towns in the Hunter regions, our research participants told us of efforts to improve, for instance, equipment supply and inter-agency coordination. For example, the NSW SES have, in recent years, initiated “Flood Forums” to gather together, plan and coordinate different emergency agencies, in response to communications issues.

Read more:
Beyond a state of sandbagging: what can we learn from all the floods, here and overseas?

What next?

Another key area that deserves attention is to understand the multi-hazard scenario confronting Australian agencies and communities, as we face back-to-back bushfires, floods, and storms under climate change.

One way to tackle this is by bringing together agencies, such as the Rural Fire Service and the SES, into coordination to address multiple hazards, perhaps even as a single entity.

Interestingly, this was suggested by both SES and Rural Fire Service volunteers in our research interviews. They told us that combining the agencies into a single entity would lead to, for instance, less competition for recruiting volunteers.

As soil remains sodden and catchments are saturated, towns across Australia should be wary of more floods in the coming weeks. We hope being awareness of the urgent need for disaster management agencies to communicate better will lead to tangible improvements.

Iftekhar Ahmed received funding from the University of Newcastle for an ongoing research project entitled “Improving local resilience to floods in the Hunter Region to address Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13′, from which this article is drawn.

Thomas Johnson receives funding from the University of Newcastle for an ongoing research project entitled “Improving local resilience to floods in the Hunter Region to address Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13”, from which this article is drawn.

– ref. We spoke to the exhausted flood-response teams in the Hunter Valley. Here’s what they need when the next floods strike – https://theconversation.com/we-spoke-to-the-exhausted-flood-response-teams-in-the-hunter-valley-heres-what-they-need-when-the-next-floods-strike-192863

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Billions of dollars in proceeds of crime are being funnelled through clubs and pubs in New South Wales, according to the NSW Crime Commission. Predictably, the industry is claiming it’s not an issue and solutions are too difficult.

Laundering money through a local club or hotel involves loading cash into one of the state’s 86,640 poker machines, then cashing out and claiming the money as winnings.

This is not a preferred method for most organised criminals, the crime commission says. Sophisticated criminals have other methods. But it is still a sizeable proportion of the estimated $20 billion in criminal proceeds laundered in NSW each year.

In Queensland, you can put only $100 into a poker machine at one time. In Victoria the limit is $1,000. In NSW, newer machines allow $5,000, and older machines up to $10,000. For supposedly harmless suburban fun it’s hard to understand why such sums are allowed.

The findings of the NSW Crime Commission’s inquiry into money laundering via clubs and hotels follow scandalous money-laundering revelations from casino inquiries in NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland.

Those inquiries found Crown Resorts and Star Entertainment allowed hundreds of millions of dollars to pass through their casinos, in contravention of anti-money-laundering regulations.

Both companies were found not fit to hold their licences. Crown has been fined $80 million in Victoria. Star has been fined $100 million in NSW, and had its licence suspended.

Read more:
Star Sydney suspension: how do casino operators found so unfit get to keep their licences?

Both have been required to undergo extensive “renewal”. They have agreed to adopt cashless gaming to better protect against money laundering.

It’s therefore unsurprising the NSW Crime Commission’s principal recommendation is to introduce a cashless system for all electronic gaming machines in NSW. Also unsurprising is that the industry is focused on why it shouldn’t.

Read more:
Now Sydney has two casinos run by companies unfit to hold a gaming licence

Cashless gambling recommended

The NSW Crime Commission’s report recommends a cashless gambling system for pubs and clubs the same as for casinos – consistent with the identification requirements of Australia’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act.

Electronic gaming cards would record amounts loaded and withdrawn, times, turnover, and losses/wins. The maximum amount of cash able to be loaded on to a player’s account in a single day would be $1,000.

Josh Landis, the chief executive of ClubsNSW (which represents most of the state’s 1,200 licensed clubs) has said that such technology has not been trialled, and was uncosted and unproven.

But Crown Resorts and Star Entertainment are implementing such systems. Similar systems have been operating successfully in Norway since 2009, and in Sweden since 2013.

Victoria has already implemented a card-based precommitment system, incorporating most necessary characteristics. Every poker machine in the state is linked to this system. Its flaw is it is voluntary, allowing those who wish to clean dirty money, or avoid a limit, to simply opt out.

It’s not just about money laundering

Money laundering isn’t the only reason to introduce cashless gaming systems.

On any day in NSW, hundreds of thousands of people are experiencing significant gambling harm, mostly using poker machines. Many hundreds of thousands more – partners, children, employers – are also harmed as a consequence.

A pre-commitment system incorporating all the features of the NSW Crime Commission’s cashless model would stop money laundering and also help those struggling to control their gambling. For those who want to stop it would provide a truly effective gambling self-exclusion system.

The Tasmanian government has promised to implement a statewide system by 2024.

Read more:
Responsible gambling – a bright shining lie Crown Resorts and others can no longer hide behind

A matter of political commitment

The real test here isn’t technology. It’s political will.

NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet has expressed concern at the exploitation of vulnerable people via gambling. Opposition leader Chris Minns has said the crime commission’s report is concerning but will not commit to a cashless card.

ClubsNSW and the Australian Hotels Association are two of Australia’s most powerful lobby groups. According to an ABC investigation, they have doled out about a third of $40 million in political donations disclosed by gambling-related organisations over the past two decades.

Since 2010, ClubsNSW has signed memorandums of understanding with incoming governments to protect its members interests.

In the first six months of 2022 (the most recent data available), people in NSW lost $4 billion using pokies – $2.4 billion in clubs, $1.6 billion in pubs. This is 23% more than the same period in 2019, before pandemic restrictions.

Yet according to the Australian Hotels Association, the industry is on “on its knees” and being told to introduce “an unproven, untested, un-costed and unnecessary cashless system”.

Read more:
4 gambling reform ideas from overseas to save Australia from gambling loss and harm

In NSW, gambling operators are not permitted to donate to state political campaigns. But ClubsNSW (and its member clubs) can because they are “not for profit”.

If this continues, political parties will be open to the allegation that they, like clubs, are benefiting from the proceeds of crime.

Pokie operators have billions of reasons to assert this is no big deal. Politicians should take a different view.

Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, the Turkish Red Crescent Society, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government’s Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Lancet Public Health Commission into gambling, and of the World Health Organisation expert group on gambling and gambling harm.

– ref. Pubs and clubs – your friendly neighbourhood money-laundering service, thanks to 86,640 pokies – https://theconversation.com/pubs-and-clubs-your-friendly-neighbourhood-money-laundering-service-thanks-to-86-640-pokies-193312

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Dickinson, Professor, Public Service Research, UNSW Sydney

In this week’s federal budget the costs of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) have been revised upwards, with average forecast growth of 14% a year over the next decade.

It looks like the NDIS could cost more than A$50 billion per year within four years and could be more expensive than many other federal government social programs.

But provisions have been made in the budget to identify and reduce areas of spend and improve the value for money we are getting from the scheme.

Read more:
NDIS plans rely on algorithms to judge need – the upcoming review should change that

What will the NDIS cost?

The objective of the scheme was to support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability by providing “reasonable and necessary” supports. What is reasonable and necessary not only depends on the individual, but also on what barriers our society places in front of them.

The original 2011 estimates for the scheme were that the NDIS would cover 411,000 participants and cost $13.6 billion per year. The total cost of the scheme for this year is expected to reach $35 billion to cover 535,000 participants.

While some of this increase is due to rising costs (including pay rises awarded to social and community services employees), it is clear there are many more participants than was originally envisaged.

Spending to save

The budget has made provision for initiatives that should help rein in funding.

Within the budget, $385 million has been added to funding for the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA, which administers the NDIS). These funds will be used in part to recruit 380 new staff.

NDIA staff numbers were originally planned to sit just under 11,000. But in 2014, the Abbott government imposed a staff cap of 3,000. Over the years since, the number of staff has gradually increased but still falls short. External labour hires have been used to fill the gaps.

There is also money in the budget to examine plan appeals. Since 2016, appeals against decisions made by the NDIA have risen by more than 700%. The legal costs are high for the NDIA, and the process can be very difficult and time-consuming for participants. Labor’s new budget commits $12.4 million to develop an expert review process to reduce the number of cases being heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

A new Fraud Fusion taskforce is budgeted to receive $126.3 million to address issues of misuse of scheme funds. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission chief estimates as much as $6 billion per year is being misused.

Finally, the budget commits $18.1 million to the NDIS review, which has been brought forward by a year, to examine the design, operations and sustainability of the scheme.

Taken together, these funding commitments should help to address areas of the scheme where funding is not being used to appropriately support participants.

Read more:
A disabled NDIA chair is a great first move in the NDIS reset. Here’s what should happen next

How do state and territory governments figure?

The NDIS is jointly funded by the federal government and Australia’s states and territories. Under current arrangements, however, any scheme overspend beyond the initial agreements falls to the federal government.

The state and territory governments have a keen interest in making sure the NDIS works as it has implications for other services.

This interplay is seen where NDIS participants in state and territory-funded hospitals, who are medically ready for discharge, are unable to leave as appropriate services are not in place. The NDIS has launched a new plan to address discharge delays.

What states and territories do in terms of mainstream services also has important implications for the NDIS. The more barriers there are in accessing mainstream services (such as education or healthcare) for people with disability, the more reasonable and necessary supports are needed to overcome these barriers.

An ‘oasis in the desert’

Shorten has suggested the NDIS is seeing larger numbers of people who have less complex disabilities and do not require 24/7 support. The scheme was designed to support people with permanent and significant disability.

One reason given for the high numbers entering the NDIS is there aren’t alternative options for people with disability – including those who experience episodic disability, such some kinds of psychosocial disability or neurodegenerative conditions like multiple sclerosis – to access services.

The NDIS has been described as the “oasis in the desert” as mainstream services have moved away from offering disability supports.

Making mainstream services more accessible and providing support to those on the edge of the scheme is crucial to a successful NDIS.

Not just a cost but an investment

While the costs of the NDIS are being spoken about widely in media coverage, what is often less acknowledged is that the NDIS is an investment scheme. We should be more concerned about whether we are getting the best returns we can from our investment.

One big driver of participant numbers has been children and young people with an autism diagnosis. This has been partly driven by the increased recognition that early supports for these young people can have large future benefits and reduce the supports they will need down the track.

The NDIS was designed with the view that supporting people with disability should not only allow people more control over their lives, but also support some participants and families to work, and this would mean they would contribute to the economy via taxable income. We are unlikely to be fully realising this potential yet, but these returns will likely continue to grow as the scheme improves.

NDIS funding employs more than 270,000 people and contributes indirectly to the employment of many more workers. It has been estimated that for every $1 billion the NDIS is underfunded, there is a drop in around 10,200 jobs and a reduction in the national employment rate of 0.1%.

Last year, a report estimated that every dollar spent on the NDIS creates $2.25 in the Australian economy. This means that when NDIS costs increase, the benefits to the economy also increase significantly.
Ultimately, there is no silver bullet in reforming the NDIS and curbing the costs of the scheme. But we do know where some of the issues are, and the budget has allocated investment to help tackle these.

How the scheme continues to grow depends not just on how it operates, but also on what is available outside the NDIS. We need to ensure people in the scheme are getting the most value they can out of the funds provided.

Read more:
NDIS fraud reports reveal the scheme’s weakest points

Helen Dickinson receives funding from ARC, NHMRC and CYDA.

Dennis Petrie has received research funding from NDIA, NHMRC, ARC, MRFF, Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Victorian Department of Health and WISE Employment Australia.

– ref. The budget sounded warnings of an NDIS ‘blow out’ – but also set aside funds to curb costs and boost productivity – https://theconversation.com/the-budget-sounded-warnings-of-an-ndis-blow-out-but-also-set-aside-funds-to-curb-costs-and-boost-productivity-193315

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

Cruise ships carrying passengers with COVID are back in the news. The Coral Princess, with an unconfirmed number of people testing positive on board, is set to dock at Fremantle, Western Australia. The Quantum of The Seas, with passengers reportedly testing positive, is heading for Brisbane. There have been similar situations at other ports in New Zealand and the Pacific.

But this isn’t 2020. The cruise ship industry and health authorities have learned much from large outbreaks linked to the Ruby Princess and Diamond Princess cruise ships early in the pandemic.

Yet, there’s even more we can do to limit the impact of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) spreading from cruise ships to communities on land.

Read more:
Fleas to flu to coronavirus: how ‘death ships’ spread disease through the ages

Why are we worried about cruise ships?

Cruise ships can have epidemics of a variety of infectious diseases, not just COVID, facilitated by large numbers of people in close proximity, especially during indoor social activities.

We know SARS-CoV-2 is spread mainly by inhaling contaminated air, so indoor activities may pose a risk if ventilation is poor.

Cruises typically last at least a week, which covers the incubation period for infections such as influenza and COVID. So all it takes is for one infected person to be on the ship to set off an epidemic.

Staff stay on ships much longer than passengers, and can continue to infect new passengers, perpetuating a cycle of outbreaks.

But almost half of infections are transmitted asymptomatically. So, without testing everyone on board (before they board and during outbreaks), infectious people can board a ship without being aware they are infected and cause an epidemic. Infected staff can also infect new passengers, and passengers can infect communities they visit on land.

Read more:
Cruise ships are coming back to NZ waters – should we really be welcoming them?

What happened with cruise ships and COVID in 2020?

Early in the pandemic, large outbreaks on ships, such as the Diamond Princess made the headlines. Some 634 of 3,711 (17%) people on board tested positive for COVID. The ship was quarantined for two weeks.

An estimated 69% of transmissions on board were transmitted asymptomatically.

Read more:
Yes, Australians on board the Diamond Princess need to go into quarantine again. It’s time to reset the clock

The Ruby Princess had a COVID outbreak in March 2020 with around 700 cases. Yet health authorities allowed passengers to disembark in Sydney without testing, who then dispersed around the country at a time we had no vaccines.

Our research showed this resulted in growing community clusters for weeks afterwards.

Read more:
Ruby Princess inquiry blames NSW health officials for debacle

But it’s not 2020

We now have vaccines. But vaccination rates vary globally (and cruise passengers are often from many countries). Some vaccines are less effective than others, not everyone is up-to-date with their booster shots, vaccine immunity wanes (even after having a booster), and current vaccines are generally less-effective against currently circulating Omicron subvariants.

This means people can be infected and infectious despite being vaccinated.

Many of us have also had COVID, especially in 2022. But our immunity following infection (whether or not we’re also up to date with our vaccines) wanes too. People who were infected with older variants may also have a dampened immune response to Omicron, which means limited protection.

Cruise ships and health authorities have also tightened up their COVID protocols.

The New South Wales government, for instance, publishes on its website the COVID risk of in-coming vessels. It places ships in one of three categories according to a number of factors, including the number of COVID cases on board.

Cruise ships also have strict protocols for controlling and managing outbreaks. This includes masks for close contacts, mandatory isolation for infected passengers for five days, and testing of anyone with symptoms.

The problem is that transmission can continue because of asymptomatic infections. The ship may need medical evacuations or assistance for severely ill people. There is also the problem of infection being transmitted to communities on shore after people without symptoms disembark.

Read more:
What the ‘let it rip’ COVID strategy has meant for Indigenous and other immune-compromised communities

We can do more

People disembarking and unknowingly spreading the virus is especially a problem for small towns.

The itinerary of the Coral Princess, which has since been modified, included the Western Australian towns of Broome and Geraldton, both of which have large Aboriginal communities, and other towns, such as Albany and Busselton.

Small towns may not have a hospital, may have limited access to health care, and would not have capacity to deal with many severely ill patients. Capacity for medical evacuations are also limited.

In the map below, we can see how hospitals are distributed in rural areas around Broome. Most hospitals are near Perth and the southwest coast. Broome has one hospital with about 40 beds. Large hospitals in Perth and Darwin are about 2,000 kilometres away, which would be the destinations for medical evacuations of severely ill patients.

So it’s important to monitor for outbreaks in Broome after the Coral Princess docked there this week, and ensure availability of testing to enable early intervention (such as antiviral drugs) to control outbreaks.

Cruises with outbreaks on board should ideally avoid small towns or remote locations with limited health services or vulnerable populations, as the impacts on these communities may be much greater than in a large city.

Visiting small towns during an on-board epidemic would be safer if everyone who disembarks is tested first, is negative, and wears a mask on shore.

What else could we do?

The cruising industry has acknowledged the reality of COVID being a continuing threat. This could be improved by recognising the role of asymptomatic transmission in testing policies.

For instance, all passengers and crew should have a negative rapid antigen test at the start of the cruise, and during an outbreak. All close contacts and all disembarking passengers should be tested for COVID, regardless of symptoms. The cost of testing would be much less than the lost costs of large epidemics.

During a cruise epidemic, companies also need to consider the locations being visited, how much COVID is already present there (some remote towns have very little COVID) and available health-care systems for locals.

Rapid use of antivirals may also help to control epidemics on board as these allow passengers testing positive to clear the virus faster.

The aviation industry does well in providing safe air in-flight. The cruise industry has also started changing ventilation to add fresh air instead of recirculated air indoors.

But there is still some way to go before we can say the threat of COVID is over, on-board or on land.

C Raina MacIntyre currently receives funding from NHMRC, MRFF and Sanofi for nvestigator driven research.

Samsung Lim receives funding from Medical Research Future Fund, Department of Health.

Ashley Lindsay Quigley 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. Cruise ships are back and carrying COVID. No, it’s not 2020. But here’s what needs to happen next – https://theconversation.com/cruise-ships-are-back-and-carrying-covid-no-its-not-2020-but-heres-what-needs-to-happen-next-193384

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paola Magni, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Science, Murdoch University

We can all agree humans need to reduce their impact on the environment. And while most of us think of this in terms of daily activities – such as eating less meat, or being water-wise – this responsibility actually extends beyond life and into death.

The global population is closing on eight billion, and the amount of land available for human burial is running out, especially in small and densely populated countries.

To minimise environmental impact, human bodies should return to nature as quickly as possible. But the rate of decay in some of the most common traditional disposal methods is very slow. It can take several decades for a body to decompose.

In a one-of-its-kind study, our team analysed 408 human bodies exhumed from grave pits and stone tombs in the north of Italy to find out what conditions help speed up decay.

The environmental cost of traditional burials

Funeral rituals should respect the dead, bring closure to families and promote the reaching of the afterlife in accordance with people’s beliefs. This looks different for different people. Although the Catholic church has allowed cremation since 1963, it still prefers burials. Muslims are always supposed to be buried, while most Hindus are cremated.

Read more:
Indians are forced to change rituals for their dead as COVID-19 rages through cities and villages

In Australia, however, the latest census revealed almost 40% of the population identifies as “not religious”. This opens up more avenues for how people’s bodies may be handled after death.

Most traditional burial practices in industrialised countries have several long-lasting harmful effects on the environment. Wood and metal fragments in coffins and caskets remain in the ground, leaching harmful chemicals through paint, preservatives and alloys. Chemicals used for embalming also remain in the ground and can contaminate soil and waterways.

Cremation also has a large carbon footprint. It requires lots of trees for fuel and produces millions of tons of carbon dioxide each year, as well as toxic volatile compounds.

There are several alternatives to traditional burials. These include “water cremation” or “resomation” (where the body is rapidly dissolved), human composting, mummification, cryonics (freezing and storage), space burials, and even turning the body into trees or the ashes into diamonds or record vinyls.

However, many of these alternatives are either illegal, unavailable, costly or not aligned with people’s beliefs. The vast majority choose coffin burials, and all countries accept this method. So the question of sustainable burials comes down to choosing between the many types of coffins available.

What leads to faster decomposition?

Coffins range from traditional wooden caskets, to cardboard coffins, to natural coffins made from willow, banana leaf or bamboo, which decompose faster.

The most environmentally sustainable choice is one that allows the body to decompose and reduce to a skeleton (or “skeletonise”) quickly – possibly in just a few years.

Our research has presented three key findings on conditions that promote the skeletonisation of human bodies.

First, it has confirmed that bodies disposed in traditionally sealed tombs (where a coffin is placed inside a stone space) can take more than 40 years to skeletonise.

In these sealed tombs, bacteria rapidly consume the oxygen in the stone space where the coffin is placed. This creates a micro-environment that promotes an almost indefinite preservation of the body.

We also found burial grounds with a high percentage of sand and gravel in the soil promote the decomposition and skeletonisation of bodies in less than ten years – even if they are in a coffin.

That’s because this soil composition allows more circulation of air and microfauna, and ample water drainage – all of which are helpful for degrading organic matter.

Finally, our research confirmed previous suspicions about the slow decomposition of entombed bodies. We discovered placing bodies inside stone tombs, or covering them with a stone slab on the ground, helps with the formation of corpse wax (or “adipocere”).

This substance is the final result of several chemical reactions through which the body’s adipose (fat) tissues turn to a “soapy” substance that’s very resistant to further degradation. Having corpse wax slows down (if not completely arrests) the decomposition process.

A new, greener option

In looking for innovative burial solutions, we had the opportunity to experiment with a new type of body disposal in a tomb called an “aerated tomb”.

Over the past 20 years aerated tombs have been developed in some European countries including France, Spain and Italy (where they have been commercialised). They allow plenty of ventilation, which in turn enables a more hygienic and faster decomposition of bodies compared to traditional tombs.

They have a few notable features:

• an activated carbon filter purifies gases

• fluids are absorbed by two distinct biodegrading biological powders, one placed at the bottom of the coffin and the other in a collecting tray beneath it

• once the body has decomposed, the skeletal remains can be moved to an ossuary (a site where skeletal remains are stored), while the tomb can be dismantled and most of its components potentially recycled.

Aerated tombs are also cheaper than ordinary tombs and can be built from existing tombs. They would be simple to use in Australia and would comply with public health and hygiene standards.

Most of us don’t spend much time thinking about what will happen to our bodies after we die. Perhaps we should. In the end this may be one of our most important last decisions – the implications of which extend to our precious planet.

Read more:
Most Americans today are choosing cremation – here’s why burials are becoming less common

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. Coffin? Casket? Cremation? How to make your death more environmentally friendly – https://theconversation.com/coffin-casket-cremation-how-to-make-your-death-more-environmentally-friendly-188456

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

The Victorian state election will be held in four weeks, on November 26. A Resolve poll for The Age, conducted October 20-24 from a sample of “more than 800”, gave Labor a 59-41 lead over the Coalition.

Resolve does not give a two-party estimate until close to elections, so this is the first Victorian Resolve poll with a two-party estimate. Analyst Kevin Bonham estimated Labor would lead by 58-42 from the primary votes, a three-point gain for the Coalition since September.

Primary votes were 38% Labor (down four since September), 31% Coalition (up three), 12% Greens (steady), 12% independents (steady) and 6% others (steady). Labor Premier Daniel Andrews led Liberal leader Matthew Guy by 49-29 as preferred premier (46-28 in September).

With just four weeks until the election, the Victorian polls continue to indicate a landslide victory for Labor. But at the last election in 2018, Labor won 42.9% in the lower house, so this poll shows a five-point primary vote swing against Labor.

A five-point primary vote swing against Labor in the upper house would be likely to cost them some of the 18 upper house seats they won at the last election, out of 40 total seats, particularly as the upper house still uses the group voting ticket system which Labor has done nothing to reform in the eight years it has held government in Victoria.

Read more:
How Victorian Labor’s failure on upper house electoral reform undermines democracy

Victorian Morgan poll: 60-40 to Labor

A Victorian Morgan state poll, conducted during September from a sample of 1,379, gave Labor a 60-40 lead, a two-point gain for Labor since August. Primary votes were 42% Labor (up 5.5), 28% Coalition (down one), 14.5% Greens (up 0.5) and 15.5% for all Others (down five).

Voters were asked to specify minor parties from a long list, but only non-teal independents (7%) had more than 2% support. This poll was conducted during September and released October 18, so it is not a recent poll.

NSW Freshwater poll: 54-46 to Labor

The New South Wales state election is in March 2023. A Freshwater poll for The Australian Financial Review, conducted October 13-16 from a sample of 1,042, gave Labor a 54-46 lead (52.0-48.0 to the Coalition at the 2019 election). Primary votes were 37% Labor, 36% Coalition, 11% Greens, 1% Shooters, 5% independents and 11% others.

NSW uses optional preferential voting. For the two party estimate, 47% said they would vote for or preference Labor, 40% the Coalition, 8% would not preference either (exhaust) and 6% were undecided. The headline estimate excluded exhaust and undecided.

Liberal Premier Dominic Perrottet had a 37% favourable, 35% unfavourable rating, while Labor leader Chris Minns was at 26% favourable, 15% unfavourable. Minns led Perrottet by 41-38 as preferred premier. Poll figures are from The Poll Bludger.

I have not seen any previous Australian polls by Freshwater, but Newspoll and Resolve both gave NSW Labor large leads in late September, so these results are credible.

Read more:
Labor seizes big lead in two New South Wales polls six months before election

Federal Essential poll: Albanese’s ratings remain strong

In last week’s federal Essential poll, conducted in the days before October 18 from a sample of 1,122, 58% approved of Anthony Albanese’s performance (down one since September) and 26% disapproved (up one), for a net approval of +32.

By 52-48, respondents thought it was never acceptable to break an election promise, over it being acceptable if circumstances change. Asked about Labor’s promise to stick with the Coalition’s changes to the tax system, 53% thought Labor should stick to its promise while 47% thought as the current economic situation is very different to 2019, Labor breaking this promise was understandable.

Some 11% thought they would benefit a great deal from the tax changes, 22% a fair bit, 23% not that much, 10% hardly any and 24% none at all. Voters supported the changes by 29-27.

Federal Resolve poll on Optus and corruption commission

I previously covered the federal Resolve poll for Nine newspapers that gave Labor an estimated 59-41 two party lead. Additional questions on the Optus hack and the proposed corruption commission are covered here.

By 68-11, voters blamed Optus over the federal government for the hack. By 59-12, they thought Optus should be fined many millions of dollars for allowing the hack to occur. By 83-3, they thought Optus should pay for new identity documents to be reissued.

By 70-6, voters agreed a federal integrity commission was needed after being told that all states currently have such bodies. Asked whether more commission hearings should be public, or only public in exceptional circumstances, 51% wanted more public hearings and 27% only in exceptional circumstances.

Morgan poll: 54.5-45.5 to Labor, and YouGov Taiwan poll

In this week’s federal Morgan poll, Labor led by 54.5-45.5, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition since the previous week. Polling was conducted October 17-23.

A YouGov poll for the US Studies Centre at The University of Sydney, conducted in early September from a sample of 1,068, had 46% agreeing that Australia should send military forces to help the United States defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack, while 25% disagreed.

Similar polls were taken in Japan and the US. In Japan, it was 35-29 in favour of helping the US defend Taiwan. In the US, 33% agreed with sending American troops to defend Taiwan, while 31% disagreed. Poll results were reported in The Guardian on October 25.

Rishi Sunak is Britain’s new PM, Brazilian election and US nidterms update

Former Chancellor Rishi Sunak was the only candidate in the Conservative leadership contest to replace Liz Truss as PM to secure the 100 nominations required from Conservative MPs, and was thus elected Britain’s next PM this week; I covered this for The Poll Bludger.

After no candidate won a majority in the October 2 first round, the Brazilian presidential election will go to a runoff this Sunday. Polls indicate that the leftist challenger Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (called “Lula”) is narrowly ahead of the far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro.

Republicans have continued to improve in the FiveThirtyEight forecasts with 12 days until the November 8 US midterm elections. Democrats are now just a 52% chance to hold the Senate, down from 61% in my October 20 article. Republicans are an 82% favourite to gain the House of Representatives, up from 75%.

Read more:
Republicans gain in US midterm polls with three weeks until election

Adrian Beaumont 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. Labor retains large lead in Victorian Resolve poll four weeks from election; also leads in NSW – https://theconversation.com/labor-retains-large-lead-in-victorian-resolve-poll-four-weeks-from-election-also-leads-in-nsw-192333

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

Flooding stirs up river sediments, which can spread contaminants in our waterways and floodplains. Flood water can carry sediments bearing contaminants from a range of sources, both historical and new, such as sewage, petrol stations, industrial yards and farming areas. This is worrying many people whose homes and gardens have been hit by repeated floods across eastern Australia.

One of the sites of the latest flooding is the suburb of Maribyrnong in Melbourne’s inner west. The Maribyrnong River’s industrial past means swimming was already not recommended. The community has longstanding concerns about water and sediment quality. The flood washed those concerns right into the homes of hundreds of residents.

In response, EPA Victoria’s Science division mobilised last week, at the request of Maribyrnong Council, to provide some answers for residents. We took samples from the river at three locations. We also collected and analysed flood sediments in public areas and residents’ gardens.

The results so far from across the impacted area are consistent – the chemicals and compounds analysed were mostly below levels of concern for human health. The exception was concentrations of pathogens like E. coli, which is linked to sewage. Exposure to sunlight is expected to reduce these pathogen levels.

The best thing you can do to protect yourself at these times is to stay clear of the river and wear gloves, boots and masks while cleaning up. Leave your dirty shoes outside and wash your hands regularly. While flood conditions and clean-ups continue, stay abreast of the most recent advice on managing the hazards.

Read more:
Don’t go wading in flood water if you can help it. It’s a health risk for humans – and dogs too

Why was Maribyrnong at high risk?

The river flooding raised significant concerns in the community because it drains from an industrial catchment with known contamination. The catchment is also home to Tullamarine Airport, a known source of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These industrial chemicals are persistent – they’re known as “forever chemicals” – and spread easily through the environment.

Maribyrnong sits on a river floodplain, which accommodates excess water and sediment during high flow. The redistribution of contaminated sediment across such areas during floods is well established. Research also has found examples of toxicity in farm animals from such events.

In addition to daily water sampling along the Maribyrnong, we have to date sampled sediment from 109 gardens and 13 public areas. To reflect the potential sources of contamination, flood water and sediment are being analysed for a suite of:

• potentially toxic trace metals – arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, lead and zinc

• chemicals present in oil, coal and petroleum known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

• PFAS

• pathogen indicator bacteria including E. coli and Enterococci.

Read more:
Victoria’s wild storms show how easily disasters can threaten our water supply

So why are contamination levels not higher?

Sediment cores from floodplains and riverbanks allow scientists to evaluate what it contains. Bands of coarse particles – sands and silts – from high-flow events are interspersed with finer clay deposited as the water recedes. Finer deposits often contain more contaminants than the coarser material.

This is because the surface-area-to-volume ratio of a particle increases with decreasing particle size. This means there is more surface area for metal ions and organic contaminants to bind to finer sediments.

Floods are known to deposit potentially toxic trace metals on floodplains. However, other large flood events, such as the one caused by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005, have produced outcomes like we see in Maribyrnong, where clean sediments have been draped over more contaminated urban soils.

For example, results so far show flood sediments contained average concentrations of lead, a well-known contaminant, about one-third of the national guideline for residential gardens. Lead was an element of concern because of the former munitions factory in Maribyrnong.

Read more:
Backyard hens’ eggs contain 40 times more lead on average than shop eggs, research finds

Levels of PFAS chemicals were also very low. On average, concentrations were roughly a tenth of the values regarded as being of concern for human health.

Small amounts of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) were detected. This is unsurprising given the upstream sources at Tullamarine Airport.

What’s the next step?

EPA Science has engaged the State Emergency Service to set up similar sampling in regional locations. This will help to provide the same evidence-based guidance to communities affected by floods in those areas. This work should begin next week, with the organisations working together on sampling and fast-tracked laboratory analysis.

The current focus of this new rapid response from EPA Victoria is for flood-impacted communities. The work will shortly shift to all Victorian residents who want to know what’s in their soil. Through EPA’s GardenSafe program, they can have their garden soil tested, free of charge, for trace element contaminants and soil quality indicators.

Building homes on a floodplain, which by definition is a plain that floods and where homes will always be at risk, arguably increases the impacts of climate change. That said, it’s not a new venture for humans who have been taking advantage of accessible and organically rich floodplains for centuries.

Given how much flood-prone land is now developed, the crux of long-term management is to ensure we are better prepared. Future decisions should aim to create adequate space for rivers to do their natural work.

Rapid sampling and advice do not fix the root cause of the problem. However, this work can ease residents’ fears, allowing them to focus on cleaning up and rebuilding their lives after the flood.

Read more:
Beyond a state of sandbagging: what can we learn from all the floods, here and overseas?

Mark Patrick Taylor works for the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria. He is the Executive Director of EPA Science and is also Victoria’s Chief Environmental Scientist. He is an Honorary Professor at Macquarie University, Sydney. The EPA funded the analysis of the samples mentioned in the article as part of its response to the Victorian statewide flood emergency.

Kara Fry works for the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria. She is a Citizen Science Officer in EPA’s Science Partnerships team. Previously, Kara was a research assistant at Macquarie University where she managed the citizen science programs VegeSafe and DustSafe.

Paul Leahy works for the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria. He is the Principal Scientist – Freshwater. He is an Associate of RMIT University STEM College.

– ref. What’s in the mud? Flood victims’ fears eased by early test results – https://theconversation.com/whats-in-the-mud-flood-victims-fears-eased-by-early-test-results-193111

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Since Jacinda Ardern described the state of world affairs as “bloody messy” earlier this year there have been few, if any, signs of improvement. Ukraine, China, nuclear proliferation and the lasting impacts of a global pandemic all present urgent, unresolved challenges.

For a small country in an increasingly lawless world this is both dangerous and confronting. Without the military or economic scale to influence events directly, New Zealand relies on its voice and ability to persuade.

But by placing its faith in a rules-based order and United Nations processes, New Zealand also has to work with – and sometimes around – highly imperfect systems. In some areas of international law and policy the machinery is failing. It’s unclear what the next best step might be.

Given these uncertainties, then, where has New Zealand done well on the international stage, and where might it need to find a louder voice or more constructive proposals?

Confronting Russia

Strength and clarity have been most evident in New Zealand’s response to the Russian attack on Ukraine. There has been no hint of joining the abstainers or waverers at crucial UN votes condemning Russia’s actions.

While it can be argued New Zealand could do more in terms of sanctions and support for the Ukrainian military, the government has made good use of the available international forums.

Read more:
Putin plays the annexation card, pushing the war in Ukraine into a dangerous new phase

Joining the International Court of Justice case against “Russia’s spurious attempt to justify its invasion under international law” and supporting the International Criminal Court investigation into possible war crimes in Ukraine are both excellent initiatives.

Unfortunately, similar avenues have been blocked when it comes to other critical issues New Zealand has a vested interest in seeing resolved properly.

China and human rights

This has been especially apparent in the debate about human rights abuses in China, and allegations of genocide made by some countries over the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

New Zealand and some other countries correctly avoided using the word “genocide”, which has a precise legal meaning best applied by UN experts, not domestic politicians. Instead, the government called on China to provide meaningful and unfettered access to UN and other independent observers.

Read more:
How will China interact with the world over the next 5 years? Xi’s new speech holds clues

While not perfect, the visit went ahead. The eventual report by outgoing UN human rights commissioner Michelle Bachelet concluded that China had committed serious human rights violations, which could amount to crimes against humanity.

This should have forced the international community to act. Instead, 19 countries voted with China to block a debate at the UN Human Rights Council (17 wanted the debate, 11 abstained). The upshot was that China succeeded in driving the issue into a diplomatic dead-end.

Allowing an organisation designed to protect victims to be controlled by alleged perpetrators isn’t something New Zealand should accept. The government should make it a diplomatic priority to become a member of the council, and it should use every opportunity to speak out and keep the issue in the global spotlight.

Arms control

Elsewhere, New Zealand’s foreign policy can arguably be found wanting – most evidently, perhaps, in the area of nuclear arms regulation.

Advocating for the complete prohibition of all nuclear weapons, as the prime minister did at the UN in September, might be inspiring and also good domestic politics, but it doesn’t make the world safer.

With the risk of nuclear conflagration at its highest since the Cuban missile crisis, a better immediate goal would be improving the regulation, rather than prohibition, of nuclear weapons. This would entail convincing nuclear states to take their weapons off “hair-trigger alert”.

The other goals should be the adoption of a no-first-use policy by all nuclear powers (only China has made such a commitment so far), and a push for regional arms control in the Indo-Pacific to rein in India, Pakistan and China.

Read more:
Nukes, allies, weapons and cost: 4 big questions NZ’s defence review must address

Pandemic preparedness

Finally, there is the danger of vital law and policy not just failing, but not even being born. This is the case with the World Health Organization’s so-called “pandemic treaty”, designed to better prevent, prepare for and respond to the next global pandemic.

New Zealand set out some admirable goals in its submission in April, but these have been watered down or are missing from the first working draft of the proposed agreement.

Read more:
On the brink: Global crises ranging from climate to economic meltdown demand radical change

This shouldn’t be accepted lightly given the lessons of the past two-and-a-half years. Transparency by governments, a precautionary approach and the meaningful involvement of non-state actors will be essential.

Similarly, improved oversight of the 59 laboratories spread across 23 countries that work with the most dangerous pathogens is critical. Currently, only a quarter of these labs score highly on safety. The proposed treaty does little to demand the kind of biosecurity protocols and robust regulatory systems required to better protect present and future generations.

As with the other urgent and difficult issues mentioned here, New Zealand’s future is directly connected to what happens elsewhere in the world. The challenge now is to keep adapting to this changing global order while being an effective voice for reason and the rule of law.

Alexander Gillespie 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. Dealing with a ‘bloody messy’ world – the urgent foreign policy challenges facing NZ – https://theconversation.com/dealing-with-a-bloody-messy-world-the-urgent-foreign-policy-challenges-facing-nz-192935

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Lunnay, Post-doctoral researcher in Public Health , Torrens University Australia

Up to one in ten cases of breast cancer in Australia is linked to drinking alcohol. Midlife women are already at increased risk for breast cancer because of their age, and tend to drink more than younger women. That means this group is at even more risk for breast cancer.

Health authorities have mostly so far dealt with this by telling women not to drink. But does this approach – which positions drinking as an individual’s “problem” based on their own “bad” choices – actually work?

In fact, our recent study found women aren’t necessarily aware of the link between alcohol and breast cancer. And even when they are, they aren’t always able to “choose” to quit.

What women told us

We wanted to better understand where women sought health information, how they accessed information specific to breast cancer risk as it relates to alcohol, and how they determined whether (or not) such information was trustworthy.

We interviewed 50 “midlife” women (aged 45-64) living in South Australia from different social classes.

Previous research has shown alcohol consumption performs a range of important functions for women, such as coping, socialising, networking and managing difficulties. Women often feel they cannot necessarily “choose” not to drink in these circumstances.

Women also face mixed messages about alcohol and cancer risk. Some alcohol brands display pink ribbons in an effort to “raise awareness” about breast cancer. And more broadly, media reports have come and gone over the years about the purported risks or benefits of alcohol for various illnesses.

Many women in our study did not know that alcohol causes breast cancer. But upon hearing about it, they mostly wanted to know more.

One woman told us:

I didn’t realise there was a link and I went on and interrogated it after that, because I do enjoy a glass of wine. And I wondered, what am I knowingly getting into here […] and to understand how alcohol affects your body, in terms of it increases the estrogen levels, and so that has a link to breast cancer.

Others thought if knowledge became more common, breast cancer risk messages might more likely be accepted (or, at least, be less likely to be rejected). One woman told us:

I think sometimes the more information comes out, or the more it’s repeated, the more it becomes common knowledge for people rather than easily dismissed.

Read more:
‘Oh well, wine o’clock’: what midlife women told us about drinking – and why it’s so hard to stop

Questioning the message and the messenger

But, even if women are aware, the message that alcohol causes breast cancer can be difficult and confusing to hear. In response, trust in the message can waver. As one woman said:

I do question quite a lot because I do think the media play it up […] I take it with a pinch of salt.

Messages that seem exaggerated were also off-putting. As one woman put it:

First of all, you just look at the tone of the way they wrote about things, you’d probably, if you thought it’d been sensationalised, or if they were axe-grinding.

Indeed, encountering conflicting information in daily life made some public health messages feel less believable to some women we spoke to. Some women instead preferred to rely on “gut feeling” to judge information.

Considering who and what to trust in terms of information about alcohol and breast cancer was key for women. Some want these complexities to be recognised and messages to be delivered in “even-handed” ways. As one woman told us:

You just listen to it, see if they’re going to be harping on a certain theme, maybe without having any basis for saying so, if they’re trying to push a certain point of view without having any basis or back-up for that. Rather than someone being even-minded about, you know, even-handed about things.

Sceptical of experts

Some women, especially those living with disadvantage, were more likely to be sceptical of information and information sources, even if it is based on research from experts.

They described needing time to consider messages and judge them as trustworthy, with some feeling research evidence can be skewed to serve different interests. As one put it:

Well, I know there’s been various research done but I have to admit I tend to be rather sceptical about certain research […] things can be found that really say “Oh, yes, this is what [has been found] and then someone will come along and [say] “No, it’s not like that at all”.

We found women want to trust clear, consistent and non-judgemental messaging, otherwise distrust in the message and messenger might become the default position.

Health messaging for women around alcohol breast cancer risk must acknowledge the social and commercial factors that encourage alcohol consumption.

Too often, public health messaging asks women to take on the responsibility of reducing their alcohol consumption – without enough recognition that the same women are targeted by alcohol advertising and many see alcohol as a reliable “friend” in the absence of other social support.

If we don’t acknowledge that, we risk perpetuating the same stigma and blame that drives women to drink in the first place.

Read more:
Did you look forward to last night’s bottle of wine a bit too much? Ladies, you’re not alone

Belinda Lunnay receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Samantha Meyer receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Paul Ward 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. ‘I take it with a pinch of salt’: why women question health warnings linking alcohol with breast cancer – https://theconversation.com/i-take-it-with-a-pinch-of-salt-why-women-question-health-warnings-linking-alcohol-with-breast-cancer-192179

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Ananian-Welsh, Associate Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

Australia is now 39th in Reporters Sans Frontiers’ World Press Freedom Index, a staggering decline of 20 places since 2018. This reflects a fact acknowledged by both the Morrison and Albanese governments: Australia has a press freedom problem.

The 2019 AFP raids on News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the ABC prompted two parliamentary inquiries and as many constitutional challenges. Meanwhile, the prosecutions of whistleblowers David McBride, Witness K and Richard Boyle revealed the potential consequences for those who expose government wrongdoing.

Vast and complex security laws, set against an absence of protections unique in the Western world, have made public interest reporting a risky business for journalists and their sources.

These problems are well known, but we are yet to see actual law reform to support public interest journalism.

Read more:
Australia needs a Media Freedom Act. Here’s how it could work

A commitment to reform

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus recently assured Australians his government was “going to do something” about press freedom reform.

Specifically, it would act on Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommendations made in 2020 and accepted by the Morrison government.

A central pillar of the committee’s report were reforms to federal warrant applications.

It recommended only senior judges have the power to grant warrants relating to journalists and media organisations.

It also said the “interests of public interest journalism” should be represented by a government-appointed “public interest advocate”. Otherwise, warrant applications should remain ex parte (meaning without the knowledge or presence of other parties, such as the affected media organisation).

The government has committed to these reforms. But as several overseas examples show, the proposals go nowhere near far enough to address the deficiencies in press freedom in Australia.

Read more:
Security committee recommends bare minimum of reform to protect press freedom

Learning from our allies

Under US law, a blanket protection exists to prevent state access to journalistic materials, subject to strictly limited exemptions.

In New Zealand, as in Queensland and Victoria, a journalist cannot be forced to show police materials that would identify a confidential source (unless a judge determines the public interest in the administration of justice outweighs the public interests in source confidentiality and press freedom).

In Canada, only a senior judge may grant police access to information a journalist holds – and only where there is no alternative and access is justified by a robust public interest test.

The most compelling framework is presented by the UK Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which New Zealand is on the cusp of embracing.

UK police cannot get a warrant to see any journalistic materials such as recordings or documents (unless it is necessary to avoid seriously prejudicing an investigation).

Instead, UK law sets up a special process by which police apply for “production orders”, which the media gets a chance to contest.

Access to journalistic material will only be granted if other methods of getting the material have been tried (or would be futile) and if access is in the public interest.

In recognition of journalists’ ethical obligations to protect their confidential sources, police access to confidential journalistic materials is limited to terrorism investigations. Even then, strict limitations and protections apply.

These considerations are not taken lightly. UK courts have emphasised the high bar police must reach to obtain a production order, and the importance of rights to privacy and press freedom.

A five point plan

Australia remains the only liberal democracy lacking a national bill or charter of human rights, with the protections for privacy, speech and press freedom they usually entail.

Something would be better than nothing. But compared to international practice, the Parliamentary Joint Committee recommendations fall short.

Tellingly, Dreyfus and his Labor colleagues on the committee noted the recommendations did “not go far enough” and were “a bare minimum – a starting point – for reform.”

Now Dreyfus is attorney-general and can actually drive reform. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, and Australia could introduce laws shaped by the experience of our closest international partners.

We suggest a five point plan based on comparative research and analysis:

1. create a special framework of production orders for controlling state access to all journalistic materials, not just confidential source information.

2. have only senior judges determine access to such material.

3. create a mechanism by which access can be contested in court prior to being executed.

4. ensure substantive protection via a clear public interest test. Investigators should only be able to access journalistic material if there is no reasonable alternative source and the public interest in the investigation of crime outweighs the public interest in press freedom.

5. in exceptional circumstances, police may be able to get a warrant (without the knowledge of the media organisation they’re targeting) instead of a production order.

In these exceptional circumstances referred to in point five, however:

• a public interest advocate should be present to represent the public interest in press freedom

• the warrant should be drafted as narrowly as possible, and

• if a warrant is granted and executed, any seized material should be held by a court so media can challenge police access and, if necessary, for this to be resolved by a court.

Police raids on Australian media have tangible effects on press freedom, but they are not the whole story. Meaningful protections should also:

• safeguard journalists’ sources through privacy law

• enhance whistleblower protections

• limit data surveillance, and

• include journalism-based defences to certain criminal offences.

With both sides of politics behind press freedom reforms, now is the time to support democracy. Australia must not slip further down in global standings.

Rebecca Ananian-Welsh receives funding UQ Advancement funding.

Jason Bosland 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. Journalists must be protected in police investigations. Here’s our five point plan for reform – https://theconversation.com/journalists-must-be-protected-in-police-investigations-heres-our-five-point-plan-for-reform-193102

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edward Jegasothy, Lecturer, School of Public Health, University of Sydney

Australia is facing a cost-of-living crisis. Rising costs of rent, fuel, food and power have increased financial stress for many households.

While financial pressures are now being felt by a broader section of society, for many Australians, such pressures are constant.

The health costs of such socioeconomic disadvantage are startling. A 2021 report found the most disadvantaged 20% of Australians die four to six years earlier than the least disadvantaged.

One-fifth of the country’s ill-health would be avoided if everyone enjoyed the same socioeconomic circumstances as the top 20%. Internationally, more equal societies enjoy better overall health.

So how does financial hardship damage health? And what can we do about it?

Shorter lives with more disease

People in poorer socioeconomic circumstances do worse across almost all health measures. This includes life expectancy, non-communicable diseases (such as heart disease, diabetes), injuries, and as we’ve seen in the COVID pandemic, infectious diseases.

Read more:
First, COVID hit disadvantaged communities harder. Now, long COVID delivers them a further blow

Compared to wealthier Australians, those who are worst-off carry a health burden 40% higher for anxiety, twice as high for heart disease and more than twice as high for diabetes.

Poor outcomes in disadvantaged groups are due to a mix of higher exposure to negative risk factors for health (environmental and occupational hazards, tobacco) and poorer access to positive factors (healthy food, preventative care, autonomy to make decisions for yourself and your family) than the broader population.

Read more:
Australia is dragging its feet on healthy eating. In 5 years we’ve made woeful progress

These disparities come about through disempowerment, social discrimination and disadvantage.

Poor health can also perpetuate financial hardship through reduced access to education, employment, and other key social resources, leading to a vicious cycle.

Financial hardship is bad for families, especially children

Households under financial stress have difficulty paying for essentials such as rent, food, clothing and heating. While they spend less in dollar terms on these items, expenditure on essentials accounts for a greater proportion of their total household income. This leaves people with less control over their wellbeing and quality of life.

Households experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage are also at increased risk of family disruption, stigma and domestic violence. The health burden of intimate partner violence is two-and-a-half times higher in the poorest 20% compared with the most advantaged 20% of households.

Financial hardship is particularly bad for children. Despite former Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s declaration that “by 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty”, around one in six still do. This impacts their access to food, security and social participation.

It also has lifelong effects on their health and wellbeing, making it more likely they will experience financial hardship as adults, thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

Poor communities lack access to resources to improve their health

Socioeconomic disadvantage is often concentrated in particular communities, where social and environmental factors can further compromise health.

Loss of employment opportunities, limited public services and infrastructure such as transport are often exacerbated by political neglect and geographic disparities in local government resources. This is partly captured in Australia’s stark regional health inequalities: people in regional and remote areas are more likely to have heart disease, kidney disease and injuries.

While many communities respond to these challenges, long-term community health requires support from the wider society. This includes a commitment to listen and respond to local needs and priorities, address historical injustices (particularly for Indigenous communities), and invest in sustainable community development.

Read more:
Rather than focusing on the negative, we need a strength-based way to approach First Nations childrens’ health

So what can we do about it?

Financial hardship is a structural problem, so tackling it is a daunting challenge, particularly in the current economic climate. But international evidence shows it is possible to reduce socioeconomic inequalities and improve health through collective action.

Such efforts require a commitment to “levelling up” society by expanding welfare, improving public services, and ensuring the political participation of disadvantaged groups.

As the link between poverty and health is related to disempowerment, to counter the effect, we need to empower people. This means listening to those experiencing poverty and disadvantage to understand their needs and including them in decision-making.

Australia’s response to the COVID pandemic shows it is possible to mobilise resources and political will in the face of a public health crisis. In 2020, the Australian government temporarily increased the unemployment benefit from its base rate (46% below the poverty line) – an implicit admission these payments were inadequate.

While poverty in Australia fell during the first two years of the pandemic, it has increased again as income supports have been phased out. Australia spends less on welfare than most high-income OECD countries and our taxes are spread less equitably. There is plenty of scope to improve this inequality by lifting benefit levels permanently to keep Australians out of poverty.

The health costs of financial hardship and inequality constitute a public health crisis, one that requires a collective commitment to “levelling up” society: the quintessentially Australian value of giving everyone a “fair go”.

The good news is, we have the tools to do this and the evidence to show it works – even in times of economic difficulty. Let’s make this a priority, for the sake of everyone’s health.

Read more:
Australia’s COVID response was ‘overreach’ and worsened existing inequalities, according to independent review

Edward Jegasothy is employed by the University of Sydney and is affiliated with the Public Health Association of Australia.

Sarah Hill 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. Disempowered, shut off and less able to afford healthy choices – how financial hardship is bad for our health – https://theconversation.com/disempowered-shut-off-and-less-able-to-afford-healthy-choices-how-financial-hardship-is-bad-for-our-health-192241

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

A story from the early days of the Abbott government still circulates in the halls of Parliament House.

The government’s Expenditure Review Committee apparently supported then Minister for Agriculture Barnaby Joyce’s first A$500 million budget funding for the National Party’s dam-building plans, over then Treasurer Joe Hockey’s objections. Hockey reputedly said to Joyce “good luck with that, I don’t think you’ll build one of them”. If true then Joe, take a cigar.

In our land of drought and flooding rains, better water management should feature in every federal budget. Thankfully, the budget handed down by Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Tuesday delivers it.

It slashes spending on big dams and elevates the role of science in water decision-making. It also positions Labor to undertake further reform in the Murray-Darling Basin by buying back more water from farmers to improve the health of the rivers, and manage the impacts of climate change.

These measures promise to deliver more sustainable use of water in Australia’s most economically important and exploited river system. But they also buy a fight with some quarters of the farming community, and the New South Wales and Victorian governments.

Nationals set about building dams

Dams are a talisman for Australians who believe development and the conquest of nature is essential to nation-building.

The National Party arguably exemplifies this ideology. It gained control of the water portfolios in the former federal government and current NSW government and set about trying to build dams, especially in the Murray-Darling Basin.

The Liberal Party has conceded to National Party demands on water even though the National Water Initiative, established by the Coalition in 2004, stipulates:

proposals for investment in new or refurbished water infrastructure […] be assessed as economically viable and ecologically sustainable prior to the investment occurring.

This week’s budget wields a long overdue axe to dam proposals from Coalition governments, saving $1.7 billion over four years. Two of the most controversial dam proposals in the Murray-Darling Basin are among those axed or indefinitely postponed.

First is the $1.27 billion Dungowan proposal near Tamworth in NSW. It was slammed by the Productivity Commission as excessively expensive and the leading example of poor water infrastructure decision making.

Second is the hugely expensive – up to $2.1 billion at last estimate – raising of Wyangala Dam, near Cowra. In 2021 a NSW parliamentary inquiry found the proposal was “yet to demonstrate the cost effectiveness and water yield benefits of the project”.

Read more:
Labor’s ‘sensible’ budget leaves Australians short-changed on climate action. Here’s where it went wrong

Further, $153.8 million of unallocated funding in former “water efficiency” projects in the basin has been (somewhat ambiguously) “re-profiled”. These efficiency projects have been criticised as double-counting water at the expense of the environment, being very expensive and subsidising irrigators.

Importantly, Labor has quietly sought to lock a commitment to better governance with transparent environmental and socio-economic assessment standards in a new National Water Grid Investment Framework.

Science and the Murray-Darling Basin

Labor has allocated $51.9 million over five years to strengthen the Murray-Darling Basin Plan “by updating the science to account for the impacts of climate change and restore trust and transparency in water management”.

This spending is timely. The past decade and more has seen risk-averse government agencies commission water research through narrow briefs to the government-owned CSIRO and other contractors. In one instance, the South Australian Royal Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin described this research as “improperly pressured” and representing “maladministration”.

The situation worsened when the research program into better water management commissioned by the independent National Water Commission was axed under Abbott in 2014.

Read more:
Excessive water extractions, not climate change, are most to blame for the Darling River drying

This has resulted in science that may not be independently peer-reviewed and often doesn’t address the big questions.

For instance, after allocating around $13 billion for water management reforms in the basin since 2008, governments still can’t tell the public:

• why water inflows into South Australia are about 22% lower than basin modelling projected (excluding climatic variability)

• the area and types of wetlands watered each year

• if threatened species populations are recovering.

Further, water institutions in the basin do not currently adequately address the threat of climate change.

Returning water to the rivers

Measures to implement the basin plan are meant to be complete in mid-2024. Consequently, allocated funding for all Basin water reforms was due to decline markedly after this point. Yet, major and expensive elements of the plan have still not been implemented.

In just one example, the Victorian and NSW governments were supposed to reach agreements and pay over 3,300 riverside land owners to fill river channels and allow water to spill safely onto the lower-most floodplains. This would conserve nearly 375,000 hectares of wetlands, and maximise conservation of flora and fauna with the limited volume of available environmental water.

However, since 2013 the state governments have failed to make a single agreement with land owners.

Hundreds of billions of litres of water that were supposed to have been reallocated to the environment are still missing. The latest federal budget describes the lack of water recovery for the environment as an unquantified “fiscal risk”.

Waving a big stick, Labor has allocated initial funding for meeting the environmental water targets in the plan. The amount of the funding has not been disclosed. It could involve purchasing water entitlements from farmers who volunteer to sell them – a move deeply opposed by the state governments and the irrigation industry.

The budget also funds repairs to other broken elements of the basin’s water governance. After a decade of cuts, the now Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water will have funding restored to, among other goals, improve “the health of our rivers and freshwater ecosystems”.

Read more:
Australia has an ugly legacy of denying water rights to Aboriginal people. Not much has changed

There is also money to start work on re-establishing a National Water Commission, and to reform the much criticised water trading markets to make them more transparent and robust.

Finally, the budget allocates $40 million to begin addressing the appalling dispossession of water from Indigenous peoples, who now hold just 0.17% of surface water entitlements in the basin. It’s a small but important first step for water justice.

Jamie Pittock is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, and is a member of and advises a number of other environmental non-government organizations. Many moons ago he received funding from the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (RIP) for research on on climate change adaptation in the Murray-Darling Basin.

– ref. Money for dams dries up as good water management finally makes it into a federal budget – https://theconversation.com/money-for-dams-dries-up-as-good-water-management-finally-makes-it-into-a-federal-budget-193380

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cormac Purcell, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, UNSW Sydney

Australian surf lifesavers are increasingly using drones to spot sharks at the beach before they get too close to swimmers. But just how reliable are they?

Discerning whether that dark splodge in the water is a shark or just, say, seaweed isn’t always straightforward and, in reasonable conditions, drone pilots generally make the right call only 60% of the time. While this has implications for public safety, it can also lead to unnecessary beach closures and public alarm.

Engineers are trying to boost the accuracy of these shark-spotting drones with artificial intelligence (AI). While they show great promise in the lab, AI systems are notoriously difficult to get right in the real world, so remain out of reach for surf lifesavers. And importantly, overconfidence in such software can have serious consequences.

With these challenges in mind, our team set out to build the most robust shark detector possible and test it in real-world conditions. By using masses of data, we created a highly reliable mobile app for surf lifesavers that could not only improve beach safety, but help monitor the health of Australian coastlines.

Detecting dangerous sharks with drones

The New South Wales government has invested more than A$85 million in shark mitigation measures over the next four years. Of all approaches on offer, a 2020 survey showed drone-based shark surveillance is the public’s preferred method to protect beach-goers.

The state government has been trialling drones as shark-spotting tools since 2016, and with Surf Life Saving NSW since 2018. Trained surf lifesaving pilots fly the drone over the ocean at a height of 60 metres, watching the live video feed on portable screens for the shape of sharks swimming under the surface.

Read more:
Lifeguards with drones keep us (and sharks) safe, and beach-goers agree

Identifying sharks by carefully analysing the video footage in good conditions seems easy. But water clarity, sea glitter (sea-surface reflection), animal depth, pilot experience and fatigue all reduce the reliability of real-time detection to a predicted average of 60%. This reliability falls further when conditions are turbid.

Pilots also need to confidently identify the species of shark and tell the difference between dangerous and non-dangerous animals, such as rays, which are often misidentified.

AI-driven computer vision has been touted as an ideal tool to virtually “tag” sharks and other animals in the video footage streamed from the drones, and to help identify whether a species nearing the beach is cause for concern.

AI to the rescue?

Early results from previous AI-enhanced shark-spotting systems have suggested the problem has been solved, as these systems report detection accuracies of over 90%.

But scaling these systems to make a real-world difference across NSW beaches has been challenging.

AI systems are trained to locate and identify species using large collections of example images and perform remarkably well when processing familiar scenes in the real world.

However, problems quickly arise when they encounter conditions not well represented in the training data. As any regular ocean swimmer can tell you, every beach is different – the lighting, weather and water conditions can change dramatically across days and seasons.

Read more:
740,000km of fishing line and 14 billion hooks: we reveal just how much fishing gear is lost at sea each year

Animals can also frequently change their position in the water column, which means their visible characteristics (such as their outline) changes, too.

All this variation makes it crucial for training data to cover the full gamut of conditions, or that AI systems be flexible enough to track the changes over time. Such challenges have been recognised for years, giving rise to the new discipline of “machine learning operations”.

Essentially, machine learning operations explicitly recognises that AI-driven software requires regular updates to maintain its effectiveness.

Building a better shark spotter

We aimed to overcome these challenges with a new shark detector mobile app. We gathered a huge dataset of drone footage, and shark experts then spent weeks inspecting the videos, carefully tracking and labelling sharks and other marine fauna in the hours of footage.

Using this new dataset, we trained a machine learning model to recognise ten types of marine life, including different species of dangerous sharks such as great white and whaler sharks.

And then we embedded this model into a new mobile app that can highlight sharks in live drone footage and predict the species. We worked closely with the NSW government and Surf Lifesaving NSW to trial this app on five beaches during summer 2020.

Our AI shark detector did quite well. It identified dangerous sharks on a frame-by-frame basis 80% of the time, in realistic conditions.

We deliberately went out of our way to make our tests difficult by challenging the AI to run on unseen data taken at different times of year, or from different-looking beaches. These critical tests on “external data” are often omitted in AI research.

A more detailed analysis turned up common-sense limitations: white, whaler and bull sharks are difficult to tell apart because they look similar, while small animals (such as turtles and rays) are harder to detect in general.

Spurious detections (like mistaking seaweed as a shark) are a real concern for beach managers, but we found the AI could easily be “tuned” to eliminate these by showing it empty ocean scenes of each beach.

The future of AI for shark spotting

In the short term, AI is now mature enough to be deployed in drone-based shark-spotting operations across Australian beaches. But, unlike regular software, it will need to be monitored and updated frequently to maintain its high reliability of detecting dangerous sharks.

An added bonus is that such a machine learning system for spotting sharks would also continually collect valuable ecological data on the health of our coastline and marine fauna.

In the longer term, getting the AI to look at how sharks swim and using new AI technology that learns on-the-fly will make AI shark detection even more reliable and easy to deploy.

The NSW government has new drone trials for the coming summer, testing the usefulness of efficient long-range flights that can cover more beaches.

AI can play a key role in making these flights more effective, enabling greater reliability in drone surveillance, and may eventually lead to fully-automated shark-spotting operations and trusted automatic alerts.

Read more:
Sleeping fish? From sharks to salmon, guppies to groupers, here’s how they grab a snooze

The authors acknowledge the substantial contributions from Dr Andrew Colefax and Dr Andrew Walsh at Sci-eye.

Cormac Purcell received funding from the NSW Department of Primary Industries to conduct this research at Macquarie University. He was previously affiliated with Sci-eye, a company founded to advance the development of technology to tackle human-wildlife conflict. Fujitsu Australia also supported this research with a loan of computing equipment.

Paul Butcher works for and receives funding from NSW Department of Primary Industries while being an adjunct of Southern Cross University and Deakin University.

– ref. How shoring up drones with artificial intelligence helps surf lifesavers spot sharks at the beach – https://theconversation.com/how-shoring-up-drones-with-artificial-intelligence-helps-surf-lifesavers-spot-sharks-at-the-beach-192498

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zack Dorner, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Economics, University of Waikato

The most important part of the government’s proposed agricultural emissions pricing scheme is the price. This may seem obvious – but the government has failed to provide a clear indication of what the price will be and how it will be set.

Unfortunately, this uncertainty is already undermining what is otherwise a very good policy proposal. The first casualty of the lack of price certainty seems to have been well-informed public debate.

On the one hand, farming advocates have said the pricing scheme will put 20% of sheep and beef farmers out of business. On the other, environmentalists have said it will do nothing to address the urgent climate crisis.

Public consultation on the scheme is open until November 18. My hope would be that one outcome is the Climate Change Commission being given responsibility for setting the price – as soon as possible – to provide more certainty.

In reality, because we don’t know the price, we can’t say how much the scheme might reduce agricultural emissions and what impacts it could have on the sector. But if we assume a price that will give us credible emission reductions, industry-led modelling predicts an average cost of 0 to 7.2% of farm profits.

Carrot and stick

Under the proposed plan, farmers will be charged for every kilogram of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) they emit. They will also be given incentives to implement specific GHG-reducing practices on their farms. Both the “stick” and the “carrot” make up the price.

Read more:
Eating lots of meat is bad for the environment – but we don’t know enough about how consumption is changing

This is a good policy because the stick funds the carrot. Combined, they increase the price while reducing the impact on farmers. The scheme is farm-level, which is more costly to administer than the earlier proposals to place emissions charges on processors like Fonterra. But it should be more effective at reducing emissions.

While our milk and meat produce relatively low GHGs per kilogram of product by international standards, a strong pricing scheme such as this will help us maintain that position.

Ministers will set the price, annually or every three years, taking into account advice from the Climate Change Commission.

Uncertainties around pricing

Methane is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted by farming cows and sheep. The government has set a target for methane emissions of 10% below 2017 levels by 2030. But it’s hard to know what the price needs to be to achieve the target.

There are a few things that complicate the calculation.

Firstly, there’s the human factor. It’s hard to model exactly how strongly farmers will respond to the price, particularly when we are talking about relatively small costs in relation to all the decisions made on farms.

Secondly, we don’t know what technologies will become available to farmers over the next five to ten years. A range of technologies show promise but are still in development. If one or two of them become available and affordable in that time frame, the 10% target may be easy to achieve at little cost.

By putting the decision in the hands of government, we now have political uncertainty to add to this list.

A need for compromise

There are many competing factors to weigh up when setting the price. First is achieving the GHG reduction targets – a difficult task in itself. There may need to be some flexibility, as long as we are on the right track.

A second factor is maintaining a competitive agricultural export sector. Reducing emissions will come at a cost, but we will want to avoid putting too high a burden on farmers too quickly.

A third factor is providing some certainty over the price. This is important for farmers when they’re deciding whether to invest time and money in new practices and technologies.

Read more:
Climate change threatens food but microscopic algae offer answers

Governments may be tempted play with any of these factors – for example, promising to drop prices at election time. And if the price is set too low, the scheme will be an expensive failure. Too high and the costs may be borne too quickly.

Who should set the price?

A better option would be to let the Climate Change Commission set the price. It’s well placed to do this with expert and community input, and was set up as an independent body specifically for jobs like this.

Yes, the government has said the commission will recommend a price and ministers will respond. But why add the additional political uncertainty?

The government should provide clear criteria for determining the price, which would increase rather than reduce certainty. And the commission should set prices early and for a specific period of time. For example, next year it could set the prices for when the scheme starts in 2025, with the plan to review it in 2028.

Of course, governments don’t like to hand decision-making power over to others. But in this case it would make sense. The first casualty of price uncertainty may have been some public doubt over the merits of the policy. Let’s make sure the next casualty isn’t the policy itself.

Zack Dorner received funding from the Ministry for Primary Industries in 2022 to review modelling of the agri-emissions pricing policy. He is receiving funding from DairyNZ to co-supervise a Master’s student. He also receives funding from a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Endeavour project, looking at increasing pro-environmental actions on farms.

– ref. Farmers need certainty over emissions pricing – removing government from the equation might help – https://theconversation.com/farmers-need-certainty-over-emissions-pricing-removing-government-from-the-equation-might-help-192932

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin T. Jones, Senior Lecturer in History, CQUniversity Australia

As university students around the country finish their final exams and assessments for the year, the idea of removing due dates might seem incredibly appealing.

Being more open-ended about when assignments are submitted may also seem like the logical next step for universities. Even before COVID-19, they have been looking for ways to make learning more flexible. This is generally done by offering units online or in a hybrid model, where some units are in person and some are online. But is it truly flexible if just the place has changed?

An emerging trend in the sector is “self-paced learning,” where students do not have to fit their learning into a university semester and there might be flexible due dates for assessments.

In other words, students with internet access and a laptop can study at a time and place that suits them.

At CQUniversity this is called “hyperflexible learning”. Our university already offers hyperflexible postgraduate units.

We wanted to know what the experience would be like for students and staff if hyperflexible units were offered at undergraduate level.

Our study

In a 2021 pilot study, we looked at four undergraduate history and communication units. The humanities was a good fit for the pilot because they attract a wide range of students, did not have tests or exams and had fewer restrictions like external accreditation.

We offered the units in the traditional mode and a hyperflexible mode. In the hyperflexible mode, students had access to all the unit content, could self-pace and did not have due dates for their written and oral assessments.

The unit’s content was self-paced, via short recorded videos and interactive learning modules, rather than traditional lectures. There were opportunities for learning with other students (like live Zoom tutorials), but these were not compulsory.

Of the group, 27 students chose to take the hyperflexible option. We interviewed them and three unit coordinators before and after the term about their experiences. We also surveyed all 12 humanities staff about their perceptions of hyperflexible learning.

While the sample size was small, students and staff suggested there are both risks and benefits to this type of study.

‘I wouldn’t have passed’: what did students say?

On balance, the students who took part had a positive experience. One even said:

If it wasn’t hyperflexible I wouldn’t have passed.

Several noted how assessment deadlines were a significant source of stress and relished the freedom to fit study around their life, rather than the other way around. Several said it made it easier to accommodate their work and family commitments.

One student said they were thrilled when they heard about the hyperflexible option because:

I am a very anxious student, and deadlines really, really stressed me out.

Other students suggested the quality of their learning was better in a hyperflexible model as they were able to “go deeper” on a topic that interested them and not have it reserved for one particular week. It was suggested that the hyperflexible unit allowed “study in a more intensive way”.

But students also raised concerns. Several noted it “feels a bit isolating”, “disconnected”, like they are “the only student doing it” and they are not “participating in the university experience”.

Others were worried they might not receive the same level of feedback from staff and there might be a temptation to “leave everything to the last minute”.

Read more:
University fees are poised to change – a new system needs to consider how much courses cost and what graduates can earn

Doing two jobs: what did staff say?

University staff were generally more cautious about the benefits of hyperflexible learning. Common concerns were students would lose their sense of being part of a group, feel lost or overwhelmed, allow assignments to pile up, and it could ultimately see more students dropping out.

Staff were also concerned no due dates could increase their workload. They noted they would be less free to take leave or attend conferences if they did not have a reasonable expectation when their marking would be due. Even when students were being taught the same content, there were new challenges and as one staff member said:

I feel as though I am managing two cohorts.

Staff members did see benefits in hyperflexible learning also and most said they were willing to experiment with it. Several commented on the potential for motivated students to finish their degrees faster. One staff member noted that having now taught a hyperflexible unit:

I have confidence that most students get there in the end.

Read more:
It’s not just Australian students who need more food, university staff are also going hungry

What now?

Our study suggests removing due dates from undergraduate units has potential to make university study more accessible and less rigid, while reducing student stress.

One key issue is how students can maintain a sense of being together in a group, receive support, and feel a connection to their university.

For educators, hyperflexible learning is a distinct form of teaching and staff members would need to be adequately trained and supported. This way of teaching is individualistic and seeks to fit study around the needs of each student. To some extent, this is in conflict with the ideal of university as a learning community.

Although the responses to the pilot program were largely positive, there is still a lot more we need to know about the impact of removing due dates and time pressures. For example, although due dates were removed, students still had to complete their assessments within the semester – due to university and government policies.

Also, while this approach might fit the assessment-focused humanities, we don’t know how this works in disciplines that are more heavily exam-driven (like health and IT).

Ultimately, risks associated with hyperflexible learning and the impact on both staff and students need to be considered carefully before adopting these approaches for undergrads.

So, sorry students – seems like you’ll have to finish that essay this week after all.

This research was funded by a CQUniversity Learning and Teaching Research Development Grant.

Benjamin T. Jones 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. We took away due dates for university assignments … here’s what we found – https://theconversation.com/we-took-away-due-dates-for-university-assignments-heres-what-we-found-193024

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

An opposition leader has a tricky task when delivering a first budget reply after an election rout. But circumstances played into the hands of Peter Dutton for his big parliamentary occasion on Thursday night.

Jim Chalmers’ budget was, as the treasurer argued, responsible and restrained. But it contained alarming numbers on the potent issue of surging power prices. They’re not Labor’s fault, and of course when it comes to energy policy the Coalition has dirty hands.

But dealing with the crisis, driven by the Ukraine war, is now Labor’s problem, and that gave Dutton something substantial to latch onto.

Aside from the budget, the government this week introduced its workplace reforms, which include extending multi-employer bargaining, and business is critical, fearing a rise in strike action. Industrial relations is traditional core ground for the Coalition (not that it has always gone well politically). The legislation provided some more fodder for Dutton.

In Thursday’s reply, Dutton sounded nervous and fluffed some lines. Without the troubles Labor faces, he probably would have struggled. In the event, it was a comprehensive effort that touched many bases. Chalmers had pre-billed his budget as “workmanlike”, and so was Dutton’s reply. Neither indulged in the “flashy”.

Homing in on the cost of living, Dutton told Australians: “Labor’s budget was a missed opportunity to help you at a time when you need help.”

Notably, however, he did not say the government should have splashed cash around.

Dutton reprised Labor’s killer pre-election line. “On Tuesday, the treasurer failed to mention in his speech what Labor’s budget papers revealed: ‘Everything is going up, except your wages’.

“Cost of living, power prices, taxes, interest rates, unemployment and the deficit are going up, or will be going up,” Dutton said, claiming that “by Christmas, a typical family will be $2000 worse off under this budget”.

The budget “makes life more difficult for millions of Australians,” he said; he invoked the familiar Coalition mantra that “Labor can’t manage the economy”.

It’s true life will be more difficult for millions of Australians in coming months, with rising prices and interest rates. But it is not true, as Dutton claims, that this is as a result of the budget.

Despite the climate issue being a significant factor in the Coalition’s loss of teal and other seats, Dutton used the energy crisis to maintain a hard line.

“Labor’s push for 82% renewables by 2030 comes without a plan to ensure reliable baseload power,” he said. “Labor is misleading Australians when it says it can roll out billions of dollars’ worth of transmission wires, cables and towers for renewables in the next few years.” Nuclear got a nod.

Read more:
Australia’s growth downgraded and inflation drives massive rise in cost of pensions and payments in budget

He said the budget saw the government “rip-up funding for gas exploration and cancel gas infrastructure projects which would eliminate shortfalls and make your bills cheaper. They handed over funding to environmental activists who want to overturn gas projects approvals.

“Higher gas prices will be baked-in for the foreseeable future, putting high-paying jobs in regional communities at risk.”

The government retreated from its flirtation with recalibrating the Stage 3 tax cuts, but Dutton painted this as just a temporary reprieve.

“Our legislated tax plan future-proofs your income,” he said. Labor had taken the Coalition’s tax plan to the election, “but now they are laying the groundwork to break this promise”.

“This budget provides no certainty for ten million Australians expecting tax relief in 2024. The budget is intended to soften up Australians. It gives the government time to come up with excuses by May next year to tax you more.”

Unsurprisingly, the opposition leader didn’t announce major new Coalition policy, but he reaffirmed the election policy to allow first home buyers to dip into their superannuation to buy a home (which would be extended to women who separated later in life).

He contrasted this with the budget’s “housing accord” between governments, investors (Chalmers is thinking super funds) and industry to build a million houses. “They want your super to invest in someone else’s home – not your own.”

He cast the government’s multi-employer bargaining changes as a throwback to the 1980s, a world where “multiple sectors will be able to engage in crippling economy-wide strikes, where parties unaffected by disputes join in on protests”.

Read more:
Floods drive up fruit and veg prices, while energy costs will prolong high inflation

Dutton trod carefully in some areas, finding aspects of the budget with which to agree (the extension of the childcare subsidy, lower medicine prices), and promising co-operation on issues such as violence against women and children.

Elsewhere, notably on education, he was combative, saying “the system has allowed ideologically driven advocates too much influence over what is taught to our children”.

He also used the occasion to sketch his personal story, just as Anthony Albanese did so often in the run-up to the election. Albanese said he learned the value of a dollar growing up as the son of a single mum; Dutton told us his parents taught their kids “to appreciate the value of money”.

In the direct political contest – government versus opposition – Labor is in a very strong position. Post-election, the public is not expressing buyer regret. The opposition is painfully strung out on a spectrum stretching from its right wing to its moderates, with Dutton still to figure how he can shape his troops into a cohesive fighting unit.

But in that real world where families sit around those much-talked-about kitchen tables, the government knows it confronts intractable problems.

This week it has been criticised for not having sorted out a policy on power prices before the budget. One reason is because crafting one is fraught with difficulty. Nevertheless the task looms more urgent by the day.

Wednesday’s unexpectedly high inflation number – 7.3% for the September quarter – just reinforced how painful cost-of-living pressures are becoming. It also called into question the budget’s forecast that inflation will peak (in the December quarter) at 7.75%, although Chalmers is sticking to it.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Jim Chalmers, Angus Taylor and Danielle Wood on the budget

As if they don’t have enough bad news, households with mortgages will be slugged with another interest rate rise when the Reserve Bank board meets on Tuesday, Melbourne Cup day.

Labor was helped to office by the cost-of-living pressures and its promise it would get real wages growing.

But living costs are much more acute now, and the budget confirmed the earliest real wages are likely to start moving is 2024.

In the space of a few months the cost of living has transformed, politically, from a Labor weapon to a Coalition one. As it looks to the May budget, the government will be preoccupied with trying to deal with both the substance and the politics of the issue.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Cost of living goes from a winner for Albanese in May to a weapon for Dutton in October – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-cost-of-living-goes-from-a-winner-for-albanese-in-may-to-a-weapon-for-dutton-in-october-193393

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rod Sims, Professor in the practice of public policy and antitrust, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Virtually every country in the world is facing a crisis in energy costs, yet while other countries can’t do much about it, Australia can.

Australia could get its east coast gas producers to supply the domestic gas market for less than A$10 a gigajoule. Earlier this year, prices were more than $40 a gigajoule, and now sit at $25-30 a gigajoule.

Tuesday’s budget factored in retail electricity price rises of more than 50% over two years. The increases in retail gas prices exceeded 40%.

Outlining the budget on Tuesday, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said any responsible government facing these kinds of price hikes needed to “consider a broader suite of regulatory interventions” than in the past.

Chalmers had “more work to do” and would work with the states.

Here is the key step I think should be taken.

To restrain electricity prices, cut gas prices

The quickest way to get electricity prices down is to significantly lower the cost of gas. Gas generators come online after cheaper forms of generation have already been pressed into service, and so help set the final price charged.

Getting gas prices below $10 a gigajoule would also help households that are facing crippling gas bills, as well as industries that rely on sensibly priced energy for their existence including Australia’s glass, paper and fertiliser industries.

Once those industries close, they are unlikely to return.

Here’s what’s been done so far.

The Turnbull, Morrison and recently the Albanese governments have each reached agreements with the three liquid natural gas producers operating out of Gladstone in Queensland that together control around 90% of east coast reserves.

‘Sufficient supply’ isn’t affordable supply

The agreements require the supply of sufficient gas to meet the needs of east coast gas consumers.

For a while they worked to reduce then-high domestic prices to sensible levels, because international prices were low. But now international prices have climbed to multiples of usual levels, agreements to supply without specific reference to prices are no longer enough.

An agreement to supply “sufficient” quantities of gas at $25-40 per gigajoule is an agreement to not supply much. After industries close, supply will be “sufficient” for the remaining users who can afford it, but it won’t be what we want.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Rod Sims on the gas price crisis

We need to get the east coast liquefied natural gas (LNG) producers to supply sufficient gas to the east coast at prices below $10 a gigajoule. They would continue to make a profit at those prices, albeit much less than otherwise.

As it happens, the Commonwealth has the power to get such commitments, because it has the power to stop exports. That power gives it complete leverage.

We need to be clear on two points.

First, there is no suggestion here that the LNG producers’ long-term contracts are at risk. Asian buyers need not be concerned. All three LNG projects were underwritten by long-term contracts at fixed prices.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: We must find a way to get gas prices down, but how?

What we are talking about is the gas the three producers have available beyond their need to service these long contracts. This gas can either be exported to the spot, or short-term, market at very high prices or sold domestically.

They should be told they can only export gas to the currently lucrative international spot market if they sell sufficient gas domestically to get prices clearly below $10 a gigajoule.

Other exporters reserve gas

Second, what I am suggesting is akin to what all other gas exporting countries do.

Australia has by far the highest domestic gas prices of any gas exporting country. No other country would tolerate its gas being exported while its domestic market is paying the same high prices as international customers.

The gas companies need to come to the party, either to earn their “licence to operate” or to avoid the threat of export controls.

If they know the threat of export controls is real, I believe they will do what’s necessary without the need to actually control exports.

A final point: there can be no argument about “sovereign risk”, the idea that foreign companies will no longer do business with Australia if it changes the rules.

The long-term gas exporting contracts would remain intact. Australia would simply be aligning itself with all other gas exporting nations – and, by the way, with Western Australia, which has long looked after its residents and businesses by reserving gas to ensure reasonable domestic prices.

Rod Sims was Chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission from 2011 to 2022.

– ref. Cheaper gas and electricity prices are within Australia’s grasp – here’s what to do – https://theconversation.com/cheaper-gas-and-electricity-prices-are-within-australias-grasp-heres-what-to-do-193388

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Hepburn, Professor, Deakin Law School, Deakin University

Over the next two years, energy prices are expected to rise by a whopping 56%. That’s the dismal forecast in this week’s federal budget.

The rise will be extremely painful, adding enormous pressure to households already struggling with the cost of living.

In response, the government is talking tough. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has flagged a government intervention and has asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to examine the gas market closely.

But does the government have any real leverage? It’s so far baulked at pulling the gas trigger – a mechanism to limit exports if there’s a local shortfall.

If Labor genuinely wants to stop prices skyrocketing, it must forcibly reserve gas for the east coast market. The policy has worked for Western Australia. The question is, does it have the nerve?

Is there any hope for consumers? Short term, it’s unlikely. But within three years, Australia should be able to produce half its electricity from renewables – and the sun and wind are, thankfully, resistant to geopolitical price hikes.

Why do energy prices keep rising?

Right now, we’re still highly dependent on fossil fuels, because the renewable transition is still in its early stages.

Oil, gas and coal prices are spiking following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Sweeping sanctions on Russia forced many European countries to find alternative gas supplies, causing global prices to skyrocket. So while Australia has plentiful gas, producers are selling much of it overseas – and domestic users have to pay the same high international price.

What’s more, the Australian electricity market has been forced to rely more on expensive gas due to rising number of extreme weather events, unexpected coal plant outages, fuel supply issues and the closure of old coal plants.

To date, the national market (which excludes Australia’s north and west) has imposed few restrictions on gas exports. This cannot continue. Gas is a public resource and the government must act to protect vulnerable consumers.

What has the government tried?

Since taking power in May, Labor has done two things to bring prices down: extended an existing agreement with gas producers, and proposed changes to the gas trigger to make it easier to pull. Neither have had noticeable success.

The agreement signed at the end of September extends the Morrison-era agreement out to 2030. The goal is simple: ensure we do not run short of gas next year.

The problem is, while good in principle, these types of agreements – known as heads of agreement – are not legally binding.

The extended agreement says producers must offer uncontracted gas to the domestic market – gas left over after producers have satisfied their contractual supply obligations – before it’s offered to the international market.

It must be offered at a competitive price, which is hard to define in a highly turbulent international market. It provides no price security.

What’s more, the code of conduct guiding the agreement is voluntary and there’s no legal recourse for non-compliance.

This is a feeble, unsatisfactory way to regulate Australia’s multibillion-dollar gas sector in the face of a global energy crisis.

Read more:
Albanese government’s first budget delivers election promises but forecasts soaring power prices

What about the so-called “gas trigger”?

If a shortfall of gas is forecast, the federal government can pull the gas trigger – a mechanism where the energy minister can impose export restrictions.

This is a supply mechanism, not a price mechanism. Intended as a last resort, it was introduced in 2017 and has never been used – not even this year, despite the dire predictions of a shortfall next year.

What’s Labor doing? Proposing to make it easier to pull this trigger by assessing any shortfall every three months instead of only once a year. But this won’t change the price of gas.

Don’t we have more protection against price spikes?

When you look at your energy bill, you may notice a key phrase: the default market offer. Effectively a price cap, it was introduced in 2019 to ensure the standing offers of energy retailers couldn’t rise too much.

Standing offers – as opposed to market offers – include mandatory consumer protections, usually making them more expensive. Confused? You’re not alone. While energy users have always been able to choose between standing and market offers, in reality, most of us didn’t know the difference.

That’s why the ACCC got involved in 2018, finding the national electricity market wasn’t operating in the best interest of consumers.

In response, the government introduced a code forcing energy retailers to adhere to the default market offer, set by the Australian Energy Regulator. This price cap is figured out by taking into account wholesale cost of energy and cost of living pressures. For instance, this financial year, price increases were capped at 1-9% in Victoria, 8.5-14% in New South Wales, and 11.3% in South-east Queensland.

The default market offer has proved an important safeguard against anti-competitive pricing in the retail sector. But the problem now is the wholesale cost of energy has spiked, forcing up the default market offer to reflect the rising cost of energy for retailers.

How could Labor get serious on energy prices?

As prices surge, pressure will rise on the government to quit tinkering and take stronger action – namely, legally reserving gas for east coast use, and tackling the soaring network costs of maintaining and expanding the poles and wires through which electricity flows.

In WA, the energy crisis has been much more muted. This year, wholesale energy price rises in the west have averaged A$64 a megawatt-hour while east coast rises have been more than four times higher at an extraordinary $284/MWh.

That’s because the WA government learned from a 2008 gas outage and brought in a reservation policy which mandates 15% of the gas extracted in the state must stay there.

A federal gas reservation policy is the best way to increase supply and drive down prices.

The second step is to intervene in network costs, which contribute up to half of the cost to you as a consumer.

The problem is, worsening extreme weather damages existing infrastructure. And we’ll need much more transmission infrastructure to get to a clean energy grid.

To solve this part of your energy bill pain, state and federal governments can work to expand our underground power network, which is more resilient to floods and fire. But we also need to develop a fair and equitable way of allocating network costs.

Beyond softly-softly

Where does this leave us? In a world of (temporary) pain. Until we stop relying on expensive gas, coal and oil, market turbulence will add more pain. Change is coming – and fast – with renewables expected to meet 50% of our electricity needs within three years.

Those three years are likely to be rough. We are dependent on gas until enough renewables and storage come online. Given our gas is a national resource, we should treat it as such. The softly-softly approach isn’t working.

As consumers feel the pain, energy poverty and food insecurity will spike. Things may have to get worse for Labor to bite the bullet and take decisive action.

Read more:
Want a solution for the energy crisis gripping Australia’s east? Look west

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

– ref. Will your energy bills ever come down? Only if Labor gets serious with the gas majors – https://theconversation.com/will-your-energy-bills-ever-come-down-only-if-labor-gets-serious-with-the-gas-majors-193298

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Livings, Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Evidence, University of South Australia

The trial of Bruce Lehrmann, accused of raping former Liberal Party staffer Brittany Higgins, has been aborted after a juror was found in possession of material that had not been presented as evidence, against the judge’s specific directions.

This was not the first drama in the jury’s deliberations. On Tuesday, after more than four days of deliberating, the 12 jurors passed a note to ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum saying they could not agree on a unanimous verdict. The judge called the jurors back into the courtroom and encouraged them to keep working on a decision.

Today, however, she announced she had no choice but to discharge the jury due to a juror’s “misconduct”, which was apparently discovered when a member of the court staff noticed an academic research paper in one of the juror’s document holders that had been knocked to the floor.

Is this uncommon?

It’s not uncommon for juries to be discharged in circumstances where a juror decides to do their own unauthorised research, such as by photographing a crime scene, making their own enquiries, or planning to visit a place mentioned in evidence.

One of the more extraordinary cases of jury misconduct occurred in 1994 when a number of jurors in Britain deployed a ouija board to contact the victim of a murder. A new trial was ordered.

Interestingly, misconduct often comes to light when one juror approaches the judge about a fellow juror’s behaviour. It’s more difficult to know how common it is for extraneous research by a juror to go undetected, particularly given the veil of secrecy that surrounds jury deliberations.

In today’s hyper-connected world, it’s easy for a juror to access information, in this case an academic paper about the incidence of false complaints of rape.

Why are jurors not allowed to conduct their own research?

The role of the jury is to come to a decision based on the evidence before them.
Juries are community representatives within the courtroom, whose job it is to determine questions of fact and apply the law to those facts to reach a verdict.

One might think that, in so doing, it’s inevitable individual jurors bring with them their own life experiences and moral values, and there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, Justice McCallum told the jury in this case:

You are expected to use your common sense […] your understanding of human nature and your ability to judge people […] You are entitled to have regard to your understanding and experience of the nature of memory.

However, the jurors in the trial of Lehrmann sat through days of evidence, carefully presented and argued over by prosecution and defence counsel, and deemed admissible according to the rules of evidence.

The most important rule of admissibility is that the evidence is relevant to the case. Beyond relevance, evidence is subject to complex rules of admissibility, designed primarily to screen out material that’s unfairly prejudicial to the defence, and to protect vulnerable witnesses.

Examples include rules against the admission of hearsay, prior sexual experience of a complainant, or the “character” of a defendant. These rules are all the more important when it comes to emotive crimes like rape.

Given the complex nature of some of the evidence with which they are presented, and the “holes” in the trial narrative that might appear from the exclusion of potentially relevant evidence, jury members may be tempted to turn to outside sources in an attempt to increase their understanding of issues raised during the course of a trial.

The dangers of allowing such extraneous “research” are twofold. First, such evidence is not subject to the rules of admissibility alluded to above. Second, it is not subject to the rigours of cross-examination.

For these reasons, jurors are reminded again and again to come to a decision based solely on the evidence presented. It’s for this reason the jury in this case will have been instructed to disregard anything they may have read, heard or seen in the media about the case before they had been empanelled, and certainly not to undertake their own research.

Read more:
Why was the Brittany Higgins trial delayed, and what is ‘contempt of court’? A legal expert’s view on the Lisa Wilkinson saga

What happens next?

The trial has been aborted and the jury has been dismissed. The judge granted Lehrmann bail until February 20, and set that as a provisional retrial date. The matter is now referred back to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold. It’s unclear whether a retrial will be heard before a jury.

A re-trial comes at considerable economic cost. What’s more, all of the witnesses will now be put through the same ordeal once again.

Despite the disruption caused by the errant juror’s behaviour, however well-meaning, the juror has committed no offence in the ACT. However, other jurisdictions deem juror contempt a serious criminal offence.

It remains to be seen what the next chapter in this protracted case brings.

Rick Sarre is affiliated with the ALP.

Ben Livings 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. Why was the Lehrmann trial aborted and what happens next? – https://theconversation.com/why-was-the-lehrmann-trial-aborted-and-what-happens-next-193382

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andreea Lachsz, PhD Candidate, University of Technology Sydney

This week, a United Nations torture prevention subcommittee delegation suspended its visit to Australia. The delegation arrived on October 16 and was due to end its visit on October 27, but suspended the visit prematurely on Sunday October 23.

In giving its reasons for the decision, the delegation claimed it had

been prevented from visiting several places where people are detained, experienced difficulties in carrying out a full visit at other locations, and was not given all the relevant information and documentation it had requested.

Justice Aisha Shujune Muhammad, the head of the four-member delegation, concluded there had been “a clear breach by Australia of its obligations under OPCAT”. The OPCAT is the UN’s Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Why suspension?

The Australian government signed the OPCAT anti-torture protocol in 2009 and ratified it in 2017, voluntarily agreeing to meet the obligations.

These include granting the subcommittee unfettered access to information such as the number of people deprived of their liberty in places of detention, and the treatment of those people and their conditions of detention. This also includes allowing unfettered access “to all places of detention and their installations and facilities”.

The subcommittee was reportedly granted access to some places of detention during its Australia visit last week, including in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and immigration detention centres.

However, the subcommittee was reportedly barred from entering some facilities in jurisdictions such as Queensland and New South Wales.

Justice Muhammad explained that

irrespective of whether [denial of access] happens in parts of the country, or in the country as a whole, we see that as an obstruction to our mandate.

Muhammad emphasised that suspending the subcommittee visit was not a decision taken lightly. In fact, such a decision has only been made three times in the past:

• a visit to Azerbaijan was suspended, but then recommenced in April 2015, with a confidential report to the government

• a visit to Ukraine was suspended and then recommenced in September 2016, with the report to the government being made public

• and a visit to Rwanda was suspended in October 2017, to be ultimately terminated, without a report, in June 2018.

A collaborative approach

There are misconceptions about what the subcommittee actually does. It’s not an oversight or complaint handling body. It doesn’t carry out investigations or inspections. And it’s not in the business of naming and shaming governments or countries.

The opposite is true. The subcommittee’s work is grounded in co-operation, making confidential recommendations to governments on strengthening critical safeguards to mitigate the risk of torture and ill-treatment of detained people.

The optional anti-torture protocol is a forward-looking instrument, which focuses on building constructive relationships, and engaging in constructive dialogue, with governments and detention authorities.

This preventive mandate is to be distinguished from oversight and accountability mechanisms such as complaints adjudication, audits, regulation, monitoring, criminal proceedings, civil litigation and coronial inquests.

Can Australia benefit from a successful visit?

The short answer is yes. Every country can benefit from accommodating a visit by a subcommittee delegation, to have a fresh, objective, expert set of eyes on places of detention, and to learn from best practices internationally.

No country has a perfect record when it comes to preventing torture and ill-treatment in places of detention.

Australia is one of 91 countries that have voluntarily joined the anti-torture protocol. In doing so, it has affirmed a commitment to meet international human rights obligations to take proactive steps to prevent torture from happening in the first place.

So the emphasis here is on not just responding to torture and ill-treatment after the fact, when people have already gone through terrible pain and suffering, with potentially lifelong consequences.

Where to from here?

Australia was commended by the UN Working Group and many other countries at its 2021 appearance before the UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review for ratifying the optional anti-torture protocol.

Under the protocol, Australia has committed to establishing a “national preventive mechanism” (NPM) – which can be constituted by multiple bodies and is the domestic counterpart to the UN subcommittee.

To date, the federal government has nominated its NPM body, as have the governments of the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. However, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are yet to do so.

The deadline for Australia to meet these commitments is in January 2023. It had been postponed for three years, and subsequently extended by one year.

In mid-November, Australia will appear before the UN Committee Against Torture, which monitors implementation of the UN anti-torture convention. The Australian NPM coordinator, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, has made a submission to the UN on the progress of implementation of the optional protocol.

Although the subcommittee has suspended its visit to Australia, there’s still an opportunity for Australian governments to work collaboratively to address any obstacles to the subcommittee effectively exercising its mandate, and being able to resume its visit.

On the other hand, the subcommittee may choose to terminate its visit if the issues it has identified aren’t resolved in a reasonable time frame. In that case, it may decide to make its observations public.

Andreea Lachsz is currently contracted to the ACT government as the ACT National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) Coordination Director. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of ACT government, ACT NPM or any extant policy.

– ref. Why has a UN torture prevention subcommittee suspended its visit to Australia? – https://theconversation.com/why-has-a-un-torture-prevention-subcommittee-suspended-its-visit-to-australia-193295

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Housing took centre stage in Treasurer Jim Chalmers’s first budget this week. Relatively modest but positive steps were made towards tackling Australia’s worsening shortage of affordable social housing, as well as the broader challenge of housing affordability. But parts of the package cast some doubt on the new government’s analysis of the problem and its ambitions to tackle it.

The most substantive aspect of budget housing plans was the confirmation of promised funding for 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes over five years via the new Housing Australia Future Fund. This will involve a A$10 billion, debt-funded, equity investment. Resulting annual returns will be ploughed into building subsidised housing available at below-market rates.

The 2022 ALP election platform had outlined this initiative. The budget added a bonus in the form of federal funding for another 10,000 affordable rental homes under a newly minted National Housing Accord with state and territory governments.

As part of that deal, the states have pledged to enable construction of “up to” 10,000 affordable homes on top of Commonwealth commitments. One way they would do this is by making well-located state land available for the purpose.

Read more:
Labor’s proposed $10 billion social housing fund isn’t big as it seems, but it could work

How achievable is the 1 million homes pledge?

To help make housing more affordable for Australians in general, the accord also commits Australian governments to enabling at least 1 million new homes over five years from 2024.

A million homes has a good ring to it, but how ambitious is it really?

Critics have pointed out that 985,000 homes were built over the past five years. However, in Australia’s notoriously volatile housing system, that was a period of peak activity unlikely to be repeated soon. In the five years to 2014, for example, the total was only 860,000 homes. And official and industry forecasts suggest only about 180,000 housing completions per year on average over the next three years.

By these measures, the million homes target could be quite challenging. So how can it be achieved?

Firstly, if governments directly fund 50,000 social and affordable rental homes, that will be a good start.

Secondly, according to the budget statement, it’s hoped measures such as stepped-up rezoning of non-housing land for housing and higher-density redevelopment near transport hubs will boost market housing output. These moves could lead to better-sited house building.

This approach also follows from the analysis that unreasonably high prices and rents are largely a result of “constrained housing supply”, in turn largely due to excessive planning restrictions.

Planning simplification can never be a bad aspiration. However, it’s questionable whether market players would ever boost construction rates enough to significantly lower new house prices – and therefore existing property values too.

Read more:
The market has failed to give Australians affordable housing, so don’t expect it to solve the crisis

A one-sided view of the housing system

The real problem here is that the budget and Labor’s election platform focused solely on the supply side of the market. They turned a blind eye to the policy settings that affect housing demand such as migration, tax, social security and financial regulation.

It would be hoped the more holistic analysis of Australia’s housing problems and solutions that’s essential to address these issues will underlie the government’s forthcoming National Housing and Homelessness Plan.

Positively, the budget allocated funds for the plan’s development. But that task has been assigned to the Department of Social Services. This seems to raise the risk of an unduly narrowly defined conception of what’s needed. The concern is it might focus exclusively on homelessness and affordability at the lower end of the market.

Certainly, these are crucial aspects of the wider housing policy challenge. But to examine them in isolation risks misdiagnosis and the prescription of palliative solutions.

Budget downplays need for institutional reform

The budget papers also imply a substantial downgrading of another ALP election pledge – to emulate countries such as Canada by setting up a national housing agency. Just $500,000 a year is allocated to this task. In my book, Housing Australia should be leading on the national plan, as well as accommodating the re-established National Housing Supply and Affordability Council.

With the right mandate, Housing Australia could create a much-needed permanent body of housing expertise within government, co-ordinating policy development and implementation across departments and levels of government. It could help to insulate housing policymaking from the short-term political dynamics that have plagued it for decades. This is an area where long-term thinking comes at a premium.

Read more:
Australia has been crying out for a national housing plan, and new council is a big step towards having one

Negotiating the multi-party Housing Accord within months of taking power is an impressive government achievement. More broadly, though, these developments seem to speak to a disappointingly lukewarm commitment to essential institutional reforms.

The governance structure for housing policy in Australia is outdated, fragmented and underpowered. It’s badly in need of an overhaul.

The decayed state of this framework, and the long-term erosion of housing policy capacity within government, help to explain the problems of the housing system itself.

After nearly a decade of Commonwealth neglect, the Albanese government has moved fast to flesh out its main housing commitments. Yet an administration with serious long-term ambition to restore the health of our housing system would also be embracing the challenge of wider policy governance reform. It’s a fairly low-cost undertaking, but a precondition for progress beyond this term of office.

Hal Pawson receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), the Australian Research Council (ARC), Launch Housing, the Queensland Council of Social Service, and Crisis UK

– ref. 1 million homes target makes headlines, but can’t mask modest ambition of budget’s housing plans – https://theconversation.com/1-million-homes-target-makes-headlines-but-cant-mask-modest-ambition-of-budgets-housing-plans-193289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marcus Harmes, Professor in Pathways Education, University of Southern Queensland

The announcement the BBC will move the global streaming of Doctor Who from free to air channels to Disney+ will change the viewing habits for millions of people internationally.

In Australia, Doctor Who will be removed from the ABC, in New Zealand from the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation, and in America from BBC America.

According to reports, the BBC and Disney+ are thrilled with the deal. The show’s chief writer Russell T. Davies has said this new relationship will allow the show to “launch the TARDIS all around the planet, reaching a new generation of fans while keeping our traditional home firmly on the BBC in the UK.”

But what about the traditional homes Doctor Who has in other countries, which often kept rare Doctor Who episodes safe which the BBC discarded in the 1970s, before the BBC began archiving the videotapes of their old black and white programs. Now the BBC keeps everything, but once wiped or threw out tapes when they thought the programs had no further value.

Read more:
60 years and 14 Doctors: how Doctor Who has changed with the times – and Ncuti Gatwa’s casting is the natural next step

Black and white broadcasting for the world

The first people anywhere in the world to see Doctor Who were British viewers of the BBC’s television service on November 23 1963. Any one with a television licence could have watched and several million people did, having just learned of President John F Kennedy’s assassination.

The rest of the world did not have to wait long. In the mid-1960s television was mostly black and white and the BBC’s 405 line productions could be broadcast by technicians in television stations around the world.

West Australians first saw Doctor Who in January 1965. Shortly after, the ABC in other capitals began to broadcast the series.

The global broadcasting of Doctor Who has created different viewing patterns for diverse audiences.

Famously in Britain, Doctor Who was part of a Saturday evening “tea time” experience for school children: a line-up of football, light entertainment and drama from early afternoon to late night. Doctor Who kept its place as the mainstay of the BBC’s Saturday line-up almost without interruption from 1963 to 1989.

But for Australians like me, Doctor Who was viewed in a different way. As a child of the 1980s, Doctor Who was in an unmissable weekday afternoon line-up on the ABC.

Australians weren’t watching exactly the same episodes as their counterparts watching the BBC. Early Doctor Who is startlingly violent, and early on the show gained its enduring reputation as so scary kids watched from behind the sofa. These black and white episodes feature mass killings, hangings, shootings, attempted and actual rape, psychotic attacks by a scissor wielding woman, and more.

Doctor Who episodes broadcast in Australia in the 1960s and 1970s had many of these juicy moments were edited out by the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board.

Oddly, this means Australian television archives contain snippets of 1960s episodes still missing from the BBC archives, among them the existentially dreadful attack from Mr Oak and Mr Quill, humanoids made of gas who advance on a helpless woman breathing poison gas out of gaping black holes in their faces. These small moments of violence are all that’s left of some classics stories.

Global audiences from the 1960s to present

These snippets of missing episodes exist because, prior to the late 1970s, the BBC did not routinely archive its shows – including Doctor Who. Indeed, a global network of television archives has been crucial in maintaining the nearly 50 year history of the show.

Doctor Who episodes missing from the BBC archives have been recovered from Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Africa. They were found there because the BBC sent them there, as exports for showing on local free to air channels.

As recently as 2013, a large number of missing episodes were found in a remote television relay station in west Africa.

Much academic research into the viewing and reception of Doctor Who is about British audiences. How fascinating it would be to know more about the first global audiences and the viewing reactions and audiences from Hong Kong to Nigeria.

Modern Doctor Who’s global audience is no less diverse. In 2013 the incumbent Doctor, Peter Capaldi, embarked on a world tour and fans in Seoul, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, New York and Sydney clamoured to meet him.

But these fans, like others elsewhere in the world, watched their favourite show free to air.

Read more:
My time as a ‘scary girl’ on Doctor Who

Streaming the 60the anniversary and beyond

The BBC’s announcement changes everything for fans around the world.

It puts Doctor Who on par with programs from the streaming giants which are the most talked about in popular culture, like House of the Dragon or The Crown.

But Doctor Who has always been an accessible commodity on the ABC, the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation and their like.

In Australia, Doctor Who on the ABC was simply a fact of life. This announcement will not only be a disappointment but a concern about access.

It also means Doctor Who will be judged against lavish programs with immensely larger budgets, different storytelling approaches and multinational casts.

In 2021, the Guardian writer Martin Belam suggested the time had come to exterminate Doctor Who for precisely these reasons, but back then the show was still safe on global free to air.

This change means Doctor Who will enter its 60th year with its global broadcasting changed beyond recognition and judged against the giants of streamed television.

Read more:
A fragmented streaming video market is good for everyone but the consumer

Marcus Harmes 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. Without free-to-air, we wouldn’t have Doctor Who in the archives. What will we lose when it moves to Disney? – https://theconversation.com/without-free-to-air-we-wouldnt-have-doctor-who-in-the-archives-what-will-we-lose-when-it-moves-to-disney-193310

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Roberts, Professor in Robotics, Queensland University of Technology

In recent years, cafes, supermarkets and online shops have started to trial drone delivery in a handful of locations around the world. More than a dozen drone delivery companies are now running such trials.

Just this week, Wing (owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet) announced a partnership with Australian supermarket giant Coles to deliver small items via drone to customers close to a Gold Coast supermarket. Wing is already operating in parts of Canberra and Logan, Queensland.

Given the technical success of various trials so far, it is worth exploring whether drone delivery might become mainstream and can actually be scaled up geographically.

As you would expect, the answer is “it depends”. There are many issues when considering drones around people, such as safety and infrastructure. For example, a recent crash of a delivery drone on electricity lines in a suburb of Logan left thousands without power.

There is also potential unwanted noise and visual pollution, and a perceived issue around privacy.

Read more:
Privatising the sky: drone delivery promises comfort and speed, but at a cost to workers and communities

Safety first

Adding potentially dozens of small aircraft to the sky above our homes, workplaces and roads each day is a serious business. As you would hope, currently the operation of commercial drones is a highly regulated undertaking in most countries.

In Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has strict regulations that aim to make the operation of drones as safe as possible. They also prohibit drone use if the craft can’t be used safely in a given situation.

In fact, Australia was one of the first countries to have drone regulations. For example, you cannot fly a drone close to an airport, or directly over people.

Commercial operators of drones are acutely aware of this and gain a licence to operate – it is not in anyone’s interest to operate unsafely, and it would be bad for business.

A limited geographic market – for now

To satisfy the requirement of operating drones safely, delivery operators focus on flying drones over unpopulated land, generally very low-density areas, and in particular the urban fringe. These are newer suburbs where drone flight paths can be planned to eliminate or minimise safety issues, such as an unexpected crash.

It is no coincidence Wing has been running drone delivery trials in low-density areas of Southeast Queensland, and outer Canberra suburbs. These places are ideal for drone delivery and a great place to continue to develop this business, even if the odd bird attack can disrupt things.

But drone delivery in dense parts of major cities? This is very unlikely in the medium term, due to extreme difficulty in safely operating drones in dense suburbs.

If you live in an apartment building, where would the delivery take place? On the roof? Maybe, if your building was set up for it. This is where scaling up faces the largest difficulties, and the logistics of running potentially hundreds of drones from a distribution centre become truly challenging.

However, if there was a high demand for it, and the right investments were made, it is feasible that drone delivery to dense city areas could be achieved.

But just because it might be technically possible, doesn’t mean it will happen. The long-term business case would need to make sense, of course. But there is a more critical issue in the near term – the social licence to operate.

A social licence

A social licence is not an official thing, a government body does not issue one. It is more about whether the general public accepts and supports the new thing.

At the end of the day, this social acceptance is what often determines the success or failure of widespread uptake of new technology, such as delivery drones.

Take nuclear power, for example. Many countries have nuclear power and the public there seem happy with that. Other countries had a social licence for nuclear power and lost it, such as Japan. In Australia we do not have a social licence for nuclear power, but that does not mean we won’t gain it in the future.

Read more:
From divestments to protests, social licence is the key

A social licence is an ever-evolving construct based on the pros and cons of a technology, all of which is influenced by its perceived value. Most people are now seemingly comfortable to be tracked 24 hours a day by their smartphones, as they believe the benefits outweigh the potential negative impacts.

It is likely we already have a solid social licence to use drones to deliver emergency life-saving medicine to people in need. In a potential life-or-death situation like that, it is easy to see that normally the benefits outweigh any risks or inconvenience to others.

But delivering a coffee or a tube of toothpaste by drone? I think the social licence for that is up for grabs. At this point in time, it could go either way.

Jonathan Roberts is Director of the Australian Cobotics Centre, the Technical Director of the Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing (ARM) Hub, and is a Chief Investigator at the QUT Centre for Robotics. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He was the co-founder of the UAV Challenge – an international drone competition.

– ref. Drone delivery is a thing now. But how feasible is having it everywhere, and would we even want it? – https://theconversation.com/drone-delivery-is-a-thing-now-but-how-feasible-is-having-it-everywhere-and-would-we-even-want-it-193301

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Breen, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Recent news that thousands of charges have been filed in the Waikato and Auckland youth courts in the past nine months once again put a spotlight on youth crime and our responses to it.

This comes not long after a recent rise in ram raids and smash-and-grab burglaries by young offenders was called a “tsunami” of youth crime by the National Party police spokesperson.

And despite evidence suggesting the number of young people in court had dropped in the year to June 30, opposition calls for a crackdown may well mean it becomes an issue at next year’s general election.

But just how the justice system should deal with children and teenagers remains a complex question – especially when it comes to the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

In fact, New Zealand is among a number of countries criticised by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child for retaining an unacceptably low age of criminal responsibility.

It’s now more than 60 years since the Crimes Act set the age at ten years. Children younger than that, the law says, are incapable of forming criminal intent. Since that law was written, we have learned a lot more about the brain development of children and adolescents, and how their decision-making abilities differ from adults.

Given this also affects their ability to comprehend the court process itself, and therefore their right to a fair trial, is it time New Zealand revisited the minimum age and the reasons for raising it?

New Zealand out of step

Even politicians calling for a tougher approach to youth crime seem to agree that keeping children out of the criminal justice system should be a priority, particularly for young and first-time offenders.

Currently, children aged over ten but under 14 are subject to the adult criminal justice system. But they may avoid conviction if it can be shown they didn’t know their actions were wrong or illegal.

At the same time, however, the Oranga Tamariki Act allows for children aged ten to 13 years to be charged with serious offences such as murder or manslaughter.

Read more:
Sam Uffindell was lucky to avoid NZ’s criminal justice system as a schoolboy – but it was the right outcome

This puts New Zealand alongside Australia and other Pacific nations where the minimum age of criminal responsibility is ten (with the exception of Papua New Guinea and Tonga where it is seven). And despite calls for change, England, Wales and Northern Ireland also still recognise a minimum age of ten.

But Scotland raised its age of criminal responsibility from eight to 12 in 2019. Elsewhere it is higher: 14 in Germany, 15 in Sweden, 16 in Portugal and 18 in Luxembourg.

Hints of change

International law only goes so far when it comes to establishing common ground. While the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child requires countries to establish a separate justice system for children with a minimum age of criminal responsibility, it doesn’t specify an age.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child has sought to fill that gap. Responding to changing trends driven by developments in neuroscience and child development, in 2019 it encouraged states to raise their minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 (the commonest age internationally at that time).

For nearly 20 years, New Zealand has resisted the committee’s call and kept the minimum age at ten. It has offered a range of justifications, including wanting to focus on more effective responses to children’s offending.

However, in 2021 New Zealand indicated some movement, advising the committee that it was monitoring the progress of a working group set up to review the law in Australia.

Read more:
More than 90% of Year 10 teachers don’t know the age of criminal responsibility in Australia

Keeping children out of court

Ideas about a minimum age of criminal responsibility have been evolving since at least the 18th century, when it was decided that, in order to be convicted, children aged between seven and 14 had to understand what they’d done and that it was wrong.

This was reflected in New Zealand’s Criminal Code Act of 1893 and Crimes Act of 1908, and has shifted only by degrees since then.

But while public safety is a legitimate aim of the justice system, including the child justice system, raising the minimum age doesn’t mean children will escape any consequences for their actions.

Read more:
Sending teens to maximum security prisons shows Australia needs to raise the age of criminal responsibility

With more countries now raising their ages of minimum criminal responsibility, New Zealand could comfortably raise its own threshold to 12, or even 14. Given that most youth offending is not serious, and is therefore dealt with outside the criminal justice system, the wider societal impact may not be significant.

But it would reduce the risk of ten-year-olds who have not committed a serious crime ending up in the criminal justice system. This is not to say they would not face any consequences for their actions. Rather, the consequences might be more effective in improving their chances later in life.

Claire Breen 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. 10 is too young to be in court – NZ should raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility – https://theconversation.com/10-is-too-young-to-be-in-court-nz-should-raise-the-minimum-age-of-criminal-responsibility-188969

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

The jury in the Lehrmann trial has been discharged after it was discovered a juror had obtained information outside the evidence presented.

ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum said it was unfortunate but indicated she had no option but to abort the trial.

The member of the 12 person jury – which had been deliberating since last Wednesday – had been doing their own research.

Early this week, jurors indicated they had not been able to reach an unanimous verdict, but McCallum urged them to continue to deliberate.

The juror’s material was found during a routine tidying.

Former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann was charged with raping his then colleague Brittany Higgins in the office of then Coalition minister Linda Reynolds shortly before the 2019 election.

Higgins’ sensational allegation, which she made public in the media in early 2021, fuelled a debate about a toxic culture in the Parliament House workplace and created serious and ongoing political problems for then Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who was widely accused of mishandling the fallout.

The trial saw Higgins face extensive questioning from the defence counsel and also heard evidence from Reynolds and another former minister, Michaelia Cash, for whom Higgins worked after leaving the Reynolds office.

Read more:
Why was the Brittany Higgins trial delayed, and what is ‘contempt of court’? A legal expert’s view on the Lisa Wilkinson saga

Reynolds denied her main concern when she first discussed the incident with Higgins was that if it came out it would harm the government at the imminent election.

The jury also heard from witnesses who were ministerial and parliamentary security staff at the time.

Higgins accused Lehrmann of assaulting her on a couch in the parliamentary office of Reynolds, who was defence industry minister at the time, in March 2019, after a night out drinking in two Canberra bars.

Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to a charge sexual intercourse without consent.

Higgins spoke with police in 2019 but decided not to pursue the matter. In 2021, after giving two media interviews, she went ahead with a complaint.

She told police in February 2021 that she had been drinking with defence industry contractors and staffers, including Lehrmann, at The Dock in Kingston and 88mph on the evening of March 22, 2019.

Read more:
The Jenkins review has 28 recommendations to fix parliament’s toxic culture – will our leaders listen?

Higgins and Lehrmann agreed to share an Uber, but he said he “had to pick something up from Parliament House,” she said.

They arrived there at about 1.40am on March 23, and were let in to the Reynolds office by security.

Higgins, who described herself as highly intoxicated, said she fell asleep in Reynolds’ office.

“The next thing I remember is being on the couch as he was raping me,” she said. “I couldn’t get him off me. I was crying throughout the entire process. I said ‘no’ at least half a dozen times, he did not stop.”

Higgins was later found asleep and naked on the couch by a parliamentary security officer.

According to parliamentary security guard Mark Fairweather, Lehrmann left the building at 2:33am. Higgins departed several hours later, putting a jacket from a charity bag of clothes over her white dress.

Read more:
Morrison says ‘sorry’ to Higgins for ‘terrible things’ that happened

The court heard Higgins told her former partner, Ben Dillaway, that she’d woken “half naked” in Reynolds office and was “barely lucid”.

“I really don’t think it was consensual at all,” Higgins texted Dillaway on March 26, 2019. Dillaway subsequently said he would speak to someone in the prime minister’s office on her behalf.

In his interview with police after the allegations went public, Lehrmann said the pair had no sexual contact. He described it as “an innocuous sort of night” with colleagues.

Lehrmann said when they entered the ministerial suite he went to his desk while Higgins entered Reynolds’ office. He said he did not see her again before he left.

Lehrmann was quickly dismissed after the late night visit, for “serious misconduct”, with Reynolds citing his entering her ministerial suite for non-work purposes and being dishonest about his reasons (telling security he was there for official business).

Higgins, under cross examination, denied falsifying the allegations because she was worried about losing her job. “I’m not a monster, I would never do something like that,” she told the court.

Read more:
In 2021 #MeToo finally made it to #Auspol – what happens next?

Concluding her evidence – which was broken by an interval of several days when she was “unavailable” – Higgins addressed Lehrmann directly, declaring “nothing was fine after what you did to me, nothing”.

It was revealed during Reynolds’ evidence that the former minister had asked Lehrmann’s legal team for transcripts of Higgins’ evidence and also suggested text messages between Higgins and another of her former staffers, who was friendly with Higgins, “may be revealing”. As well, Reynolds’ partner sat in court during the case.

Reynolds, who had been told her contacts were inappropriate, denied the claim by prosecutor Shane Drumgold that she had been “attempting the coach the cross-examination”.

Summing up at the end of the trial, Drumgold posed five questions he said the jury had to consider: Was Lehrmann attracted to Higgins? Why did he go to parliament house? Did he have sex with Higgins? Did Higgins consent? Was Lehrmann reckless as to whether Higgins consented?

Drumgold described Higgins as an “inherently credible witness”. “When she couldn’t recall something, she said so … when she didn’t know an answer, she made it plain,” he said. She “didn’t seem to embellish her account of rape at all”.

He also said “there were clearly strong political forces at play in the period immediately after the events, through the election and beyond. These forces were at play for the almost two years [Higgins] worked for Senator Cash”.

In his summing up defence barrister Steven Whybrow said “Lehrmann has no onus to prove anything”.

“We can probably sum up this case in the kindest way to Ms Higgins … and just say she doesn’t know what happened,” he told the court. “What we do know for a fact [is] that Ms Higgins passed out, fell asleep in the minister for defence industry private office and is seen by a security guard naked.”

Read more:
The missing women of Australian politics — research shows the toll of harassment, abuse and stalking

He allowed Higgins might now be convinced of what she alleged. “She doesn’t know what happened and she’s reconstructed events to the point she now genuinely believes they’re to be true.

“That doesn’t mean they are true. If she’s convinced herself in the witness box this has happened it might be entirely genuine.”

In her directions to the jurors, McCallum told them: “It’s important that you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the witness is both honest and accurate in the account she has given”. In considering her evidence, “you may like to see whether it’s supported by other evidence”.

Urging them to assess the evidence clinically, McCallum said: “You would have seen the number of journalists in court every day. They’re practically hanging from the rafters.

“You are not answerable in this trial to public opinion no matter which way you think it sways.”

McCallum said there were three questions to be considered: whether sexual intercourse happened, which was the “principal issue”; whether consent was given by Higgins (it can’t be given if a person is unconscious, asleep or too intoxicated), and whether Lehrmann was reckless towards whether Higgins was consenting.

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. Lehrmann trial aborted after juror accessed own information – https://theconversation.com/lehrmann-trial-aborted-after-juror-accessed-own-information-192396

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan C Evans, Senior Lecturer and ARC DECRA Fellow, UNSW Sydney

This week’s federal budget reiterated the government’s plan to establish a new scheme for encouraging private investment in conservation, called a biodiversity market (now, rebranded to a “nature repair” market).

A biodiversity market would see landholders granted certificates for restoring or managing local habitats. Landholders could then sell these certificates to, for instance, businesses.

But the effectiveness of such schemes overseas and in Australia can at best be described as mixed. Whether biodiversity markets can actually improve the dire trajectory of our native plants and animals depends heavily on two things:

1. whether they reward environmental stewardship, which delivers overall benefits for biodiversity or
2. whether they rely on the use of “offsets”, and the loss of biodiversity elsewhere, to generate market demand.

Unfortunately, the government is sending mixed messages on this critical issue. Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has said while the market “is not designed to be an offset scheme”, companies could still buy certificates to compensate for damage they cause to nature.

In submissions to the recent public consultation on the proposed market, we and other experts argued the scheme should explicitly rule out the use of certificates as compliance offsets for biodiversity damage. Here, we give three major reasons why this is important.

What sort of market?

The term “biodiversity market” refers to a range of approaches that can operate quite differently.

For example, “environmental stewardship schemes” reward land managers who benefit native ecosystems, such as by planting trees and restoring rivers.

“Biodiversity offset schemes” similarly offer financial incentives to land managers, but with a critical difference: on-ground work to benefit nature is used to offset, or compensate for, biodiversity losses elsewhere.

This means offsets don’t usually result in overall improvements to nature, but rather maintain existing declines.

The government hopes voluntary private sector demand will drive this biodiversity market. This is because the government says it cannot afford the A$1-2 billion a year needed to adequately protect Australia’s natural environments and reverse biodiversity decline.

This sounds like a lot, but let’s put $1 billion into perspective.

It’s about one-tenth of the public money spent every year subsiding fossil fuel extraction in this country. It’s about a fifth of the cost of cancelling the submarine contract with France.

And it’s about a 25th of the annual cost of the stage three tax cuts promised in this week’s federal budget.

Read more:
We pay billions to subsidise Australia’s fossil fuel industry. This makes absolutely no economic sense

It is completely unknown, however, whether businesses will want to voluntarily purchase enough biodiversity certificates purely for corporate social responsibility to make the market work.

On the other hand, allowing businesses to use the certificates for legally-required offsets now – or sometime in the future – will certainly generate more immediate market demand. But this would open up the market to a host of problems, and ultimately undermine its very purpose: to improve biodiversity.

Three reasons to rule out offsets

First, almost all biodiversity offsets in Australia are legally required as conditions of approving new developments, under environmental policies and laws. These policies have strict requirements – and for good reason.

For example, offsets must be “like for like”. In other words, the compensation must be for the same type of biodiversity as the loss.

Such like-for-like requirements limit the number of possible trades in a market, but are crucial to protect Australia’s most threatened species. Otherwise, for instance, allowing replanted koala habitat to count as compensation for the loss of cassowary habitat simply means cassowaries are more likely to become extinct.

Read more:
Can we really restore or protect natural habitats to ‘offset’ those we destroy?

The problem is that biodiversity certificates will certify activities (such as tree planting or fencing), rather than specific outcomes (such as increased population size) for particular species or ecosystems.

So it’s not clear how these certificates could be used to compensate for biodiversity losses in line with the national environmental law.

Second, the new biodiversity market is sold as a good news story: willing land managers creating benefits to nature that the private sector wants to support, to help turn around Australia’s atrocious environmental record.

But in practice, offsets have never been a good news story, with scheme failure, misapplication and abuse regularly making headlines. Including offsets in the mix might scare off buyers and sellers.

Third, offsets are legal requirements, so a market that encourages a land manager to supply them achieves no additional benefit for the environment through that trade. It may become cheaper for businesses to acquit their current or future compliance obligations – but it would be a zero sum game for biodiversity.

A better way forward

The proposed biodiversity market is a central response to Australia’s damning State of the Environment report earlier this year.

But previous government attempts to attract private investment to encourage biodiversity have fallen flat, so it would be wise to learn from these experiences.

A better way to stimulate market demand is for the federal government to make an initial public investment in protecting biodiversity to boost private sector confidence. The Queensland government did this in 2020, when it announced a $500 million Land Restoration Fund.

Read more:
Labor’s plan to save threatened species is an improvement – but it’s still well short of what we need

Another source of risk is that the government proposes the Clean Energy Regulator would be responsible for the biodiversity market, as well as for Australia’s carbon credit scheme. It seems wise to await the findings of the current independent review into Australia’s carbon scheme before loading complex new responsibilities onto the carbon market regulator.

We argue that instead, the biodiversity market should be administered by a specialised regulator – such as the proposed new Environmental Protection Agency.

This market is not a silver bullet. It is also no substitute for adequate public investment or law reforms needed to stop nature declining in the first place.

But if it’s carefully designed, with an initial investment from the federal government as a kick-start, a biodiversity market for genuine additional benefits to nature could prove its worth.

Read more:
Labor’s biodiversity market scheme needs to be planned well – or it could lead to greenwashing

Megan C Evans receives funding from the Australian Research Council through a Discovery Early Career Research Award and has previously been funded by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, WWF Australia, and the National Environmental Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub.

Martine Maron has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, and the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program, and advises both state and federal government on offset policy. She is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, President of BirdLife Australia, and a Governor of WWF-Australia.

– ref. The government hopes private investors will help save nature. Here’s how its scheme could fail – https://theconversation.com/the-government-hopes-private-investors-will-help-save-nature-heres-how-its-scheme-could-fail-193010

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laurie Buys, Professor of Healthy Ageing, Australian Catholic University

Why do people get old? – Emily, 8 years old, Victoria

That’s a great question, Emily!

Who do you think is old? Is it anyone older than you, like an annoying older brother or sister? Is it your mum? Your grandpa? Anyone with wrinkly skin?

Or is it someone who might have had lots of birthdays and still has lots of fun?

Maybe you know an older person who likes using TikTok. Maybe they like dancing or riding a bike? Or maybe they laugh at the same jokes you do.

You see, being old means different things to different people. If someone has had a lot of birthdays, they may not actually feel old.

The government might call them old and expect them to stop working. Even then, they don’t feel old.

In fact, some people who have had a lot of birthdays, learn new things, never stop working, and have years of great adventures.

Of course, some older people, just like some younger people, can feel lonely. Or perhaps they have a few health problems. Maybe they have sore knees and can’t walk as far and as fast as they used to.

But mostly, they can do things they want and live long, healthy and happy lives.

So, we’ve covered a lot. The word “old” means different things to different people. Not everyone feels or acts “old”. But some do.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why do older adults get shorter?

Great, but why do people get old?

I’ll give you two answers.

I could say getting old is all about your body. When people get older, their body’s cells might not work in the same way. This could explain why some older people get diseases like cancer. Or I could say some of their body parts wear out a little, and may not work as well. That’s why some older people don’t hear so well.

But there’s another answer I’d like you to think about.

We know most older people are busy doing things and often help out with their families. Your grandparents might even pick you up from school or teach you to make yummy cakes.

So maybe the reason why people get old, after all those birthdays, is to share all the amazing things they’ve learned along the way.

Maybe the real reason why people get old is to be there to help young people as they grow old.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Laurie Buys receives funding from Australian Research Council and industry partners.

– ref. Curious Kids: why do people get old? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-people-get-old-190142

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shireen Morris, Senior Lecturer and Director of the Radical Centre Reform Lab, Macquarie University Law School, Macquarie University

Australians will soon vote in a referendum on a First Nations Voice – a constitutionally guaranteed body empowering Indigenous communities to advise parliament and government on Indigenous affairs, as advocated by the Uluru Statement.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has released a draft constitutional amendment requiring parliament to establish the Voice.

However, some critics have raised concerns about “judicial activism”. They worry the High Court might interpret the provisions in unpredictable ways, creating legal uncertainty.

Careful constitutional drafting can address such concerns by making the amendment “non-justiciable”.

Non-justiciable constitutional clauses respect parliamentary supremacy. It means courts don’t get involved.

A constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice is intended to be non-justiciable.

The amendment can now be perfected to remove any doubt that parliament will be charge of its operation, not judges.

Read more:
Putting words to the tune of Indigenous constitutional recognition

What’s been proposed

The government’s draft constitutional amendment reads:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
3. The parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

This is modest and reasonable, but can be refined.

Clause two could be revised to read (bolding is author’s addition):

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on proposed laws and matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Adding “proposed laws” will confirm and signpost non-justiciability. It will fortify the amendment against criticism. It will help answer concerns about uncertain judicial interpretation.

Constitutional clauses referring to “proposed laws” are considered unenforceable by the courts. This is because the High Court deals with laws, while “proposed laws” are parliament’s business.

Australia’s first chief justice and founding father of the Constitution, Samuel Griffith, explained in 1911 that parliament’s internal affairs are “not subject to […] review by a court of law”.

As former High Court judge Edward McTiernan once said, “Parliament is master in its own household.”

Why ‘proposed laws’ is a key phrase

The “proposed laws” suggestion is not new.

Back in 2014, Indigenous leaders and constitutional conservatives – experts anxious to protect the Constitution from judicial activism – collaborated on how to achieve the empowering constitutional recognition Indigenous peoples sought, without creating High Court uncertainty.

The solution was a constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous advisory body, which would work through political dialogue, rather than through the courts.

Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey suggested an amendment in 2015. It used the phrase “proposed laws”, which she noted was:

deliberately employed to indicate that this is an internal parliamentary process that cannot be interfered with or enforced by the courts.

Legal scholars Professors Megan Davis and Gabrielle Appleby recently recalled how Twomey’s 2015 suggestion informed the First Nations dialogues that culminated in the Uluru Statement’s 2017 call for a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice.

In its 2017 final report, the government-appointed Referendum Council affirmed the Voice amendment must be non-justiciable, noting:

The proposed Voice would not interfere with parliamentary supremacy, it would not be justiciable, and the details of its structure and functions would be established by parliament through legislation that could be altered by parliament.

However, the “proposed laws” approach only works with standalone provisions that do not limit parliament’s law-making power.

Those suggesting a “duty to consult” within an Indigenous head of power as a more modest constitutional change should be commended for engaging productively, but are on the wrong track. These formulations limit parliament’s power, creating uncertainty for courts to resolve.

The government’s approach is more modest and workable, and should be refined.

Better than other proposals

The intent to keep the Voice amendment away from the courts and under the purview of parliament sets it apart from all other options for Indigenous recognition.

An earlier proposal for a constitutional ban on racially discriminatory laws would enable courts to strike down parliament’s laws.

Proposals for a new preamble acknowledging Indigenous peoples could yield unpredictable judicial interpretations of the whole Constitution. Constitutional conservatives oppose a symbolic insertion for this reason.

By contrast, a constitutionally guaranteed Voice intends to keep policy matters out of the courts for resolution through political processes. It is the most legally sound and constitutionally compatible solution.

On the question of scope

Non-justiciability also means those trying to excessively limit the issues on which the Voice can provide advice are missing the point. If properly drafted, scope issues would be resolved by parliament through legislation.

And why would politicians want to unnaturally limit the Voice’s ability to give non-binding advice on matters that are important to Indigenous communities? Environmental laws, for example, might not directly target Indigenous people but may yield negative consequences for economic development on Indigenous land. Indigenous communities may wish to alert government to the impacts of such policies.

To prohibit such advice would undercut a key practical benefit of the Voice. Flexibility and common sense are needed here.

Equally, those seeking to constitutionalise a broad scope should remember the Referendum Council’s directive: as the final report made clear, scope issues should be resolved by parliament, not judges.

Let’s work together

Experts should keep non-justiciability firmly in mind when suggesting improvements to the government’s draft constitutional amendment.

We need an efficient bipartisan process to refine and agree on the Voice amendment.

The phrase “proposed laws” should be included to confirm parliament will be in charge, not the courts.

Read more:
Creating a constitutional Voice – the words that could change Australia

Shireen Morris is Director of the Radical Centre Reform Lab at Macquarie University Law School, which was established with generous support from Foundation Donors, Henry and Marcia Pinskier. Dr Morris advises Cape York Institute on constitutional reform. She is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. A constitutional Voice to Parliament: ensuring parliament is in charge, not the courts – https://theconversation.com/a-constitutional-voice-to-parliament-ensuring-parliament-is-in-charge-not-the-courts-193017

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Martin, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Deakin University

New details have emerged on the severity of the Medibank hack, which has now affected all users. Optus, Medibank, Woolworths, and, last Friday, electricity provider Energy Australia are all now among the household names that have fallen victim to a data breach.

If it seems like barely a week goes by without news of another incident like this, you would be right. Cybercrime is on the rise – seven major Australian businesses were affected by data breaches in the past month alone.

But why now? And who is responsible for this latest wave of cyber attacks?

In large part, the increasing number of data breaches is being driven by the growth of a global illicit industry that trades in your data. In particular, hackers known as “initial access brokers” specialise in illegally gaining access to victim networks and then selling this access to other cyber criminals.

The cyber crime ecosystem

Hackers and initial access brokers are just one part of a complex and diversifying cyber crime ecosystem. This ecosystem contains various cyber criminal groups who increasingly specialise in one particular aspect of online crime and then work together to carry out the attacks.

For example, one of the fastest-growing and most damaging forms of cyber crime – ransomware attacks – involves malicious software that paralyses a victim’s device or system until a decryption key is provided following payment of a ransom.

Read more:
What is ransomware and how to protect your precious files from it

Ransomware attacks are big business. In 2021 alone, they earned cyber criminals more than US$600 million. The huge amounts of money to be made in ransomware, and the rich abundance of targets from all around the world are fostering the development of a vast ransomware industry.

Ransomware attacks are complex, involving up to nine different stages. These include gaining access to a victim’s network, stealing data, encrypting a victim’s network, and issuing a ransom demand.

Specialist criminals

Increasingly, these attacks are carried out not by lone cyber criminal groups, but rather by networks of different cyber crime groups, each of which specialises in a different stage of the attack.

Initial access brokers will often carry out the first stage of a ransomware attack. Described by Google’s Threat Analysis Group as “the opportunistic locksmiths of the security world”, it’s their job to gain access to a victim’s network.

Once they have compromised a victim’s network, they typically sell this access to other groups who will then steal data and deploy the ransomware that paralyses the victim’s computer systems.

There is a massive and growing underground market for this type of crime. Dozens of online marketplaces on both the dark web and surface web offer services from initial access brokers.

Their access to companies can be purchased for as little as US$10, although more privileged, administrator-level access to larger companies often commands prices of several thousands of dollars or more.

Responding to the growing cyber threat

Over the past month, we have seen several instances of cyber criminals forgoing actual ransomware. Instead, they sought to directly extort companies by threatening to publicly release any data they have stolen.

While not as devastating as a ransomware attack, data breaches can cause serious financial and reputational damage to an organisation (just ask Optus chief executive Kelly Bayer Rosmarin), not to mention major problems for any customers or clients who now have their private information released online.

Read more:
I’ve given out my Medicare number. How worried should I be about the latest Optus data breach?

In the final six months of 2021, more than 460 data breaches were reported to government authorities. Even more worryingly, this number is almost certainly an underestimate.

While companies with a turnover of more than AU$3 million are required by law to report data breaches involving personal information, most small businesses are not subject to mandatory reporting laws. Therefore, they have little incentive to report a data breach that could scare off customers and damage their brand.

Taking action against cyber crime

So what can we do about it? In the first instance, companies need to rethink their approach to data. Data should be treated not simply as an asset that can be freely held and traded in, but also as a liability that needs to be carefully protected.

Some experts are calling for Australia to follow the European Union’s approach and to introduce stricter corporate regulations that better protect consumer data.

This week the federal government also introduced plans to fine companies that do not maintain sufficient cyber security and suffer repeated data breaches.

Read more:
After the Optus data breach, Australia needs mandatory disclosure laws

Reforms like this could help, particularly in preventing relatively unsophisticated data breaches, like the one that recently affected Optus.

On the other hand, punitive fines towards victims could further strengthen the hand of entrepreneurial cyber criminals – they could try to leverage these fines to further extort their victims.

There is no silver bullet to solving the threats posed by cyber criminals. At a minimum, both government and industry must continue to work together to improve our cyber defences and resilience. Through research, we must also work to better understand the global cyber crime ecosystem as it continues to evolve.

James Martin receives funding from the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre.

Chad Whelan receives funding from sources for related work, including the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre.

– ref. Why are there so many data breaches? A growing industry of criminals is brokering in stolen data – https://theconversation.com/why-are-there-so-many-data-breaches-a-growing-industry-of-criminals-is-brokering-in-stolen-data-193015

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Georgia van Toorn, Research fellow, UNSW Sydney

NDIS Minister Bill Shorten has announced a review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, amid claims of a cost blowout, heightened by budget forecasts.

The review will look at ways to improve access to and delivery of the NDIS, including its operations and financial sustainability.

The announcement follows last year’s failed attempt by the Morrison government to limit scheme spending, using algorithmic tools and processes to scrutinise the cost of funded plans for individual recipients. As a result of pushback by disability advocates, independent assessments of NDIS eligibility, or “roboplanning”, is now officially dead.

But algorithmic technologies have already become a central component of NDIS assessment, planning and review processes. Unless they are repurposed to address the concerns of people with disability and their families, these automated technologies will continue to undermine trust and confidence in the scheme.

Read more:
NDIS fraud reports reveal the scheme’s weakest points

The algorithm behind NDIS budget cuts

Every year, NDIS participants undergo a review of their plan to assess whether their supports are “reasonable and necessary”.

According to the most recent NDIS quarterly report, 25% of participants had their funding cut by more than 5% between 2021 and 2022.

In the second half of 2021, 34% experienced cuts of more than 5%. This was 3% more people than the year prior, and 10% more than the year before that (2019–20).

The impact of these measures is reflected in the explosion of appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which reviews federal government decisions. Since 2016, appeals against decisions made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), which oversees the scheme, have risen by more than 700%. Shorten has appointed an independent taskforce to address the backlog of appeals, a situation he described as “repellent and repugnant”.

Behind the planning process sits an opaque system of automated decision-making. This system uses a set of actuarial and predictive tools that guide NDIS planning and reviews.

The process rests on an automatically generated plan, called a “typical support package”. The plan is informed by the NDIA’s long-term modelling, which predicts a cost profile for each participant based on their age, disability and level of function.

Data related to individual characteristics are entered into a computer program. Participants are profiled to estimate the support they need, based on a statistical average of what people in that category, with those characteristics, typically receive.

The plan is adjusted manually if it is judged not to meet specific needs. Finally, at the end of the process, an NDIA delegate approves the support package.

Automating judgement, misjudging need

There are two major problems with this system of automated decision-making.

First, it assumes people with similar disabilities, or levels of functioning, all share similar needs and preferences for support. In other words, it stereotypes them by putting them in a “box” based on a prescribed set of allowable supports and services.

In Australia, people with disability have fought hard against such a tick-a-box approach. In the case of roboplanning, for example, disability groups argued it was discriminatory and demeaning, and undermined disabled people’s right to self-determination.

Automated approaches can be especially problematic for Indigenous Australians and Australia’s large culturally and linguistically diverse disability community, whose experiences of disability and support needs are shaped by complex social and cultural factors.

Second, automated processes conceal political decisions about the allocation of public funds.

According to the NDIA, the automatically generated plans are the crucial “link between the scheme’s overall funding and the allocation to each individual participant”. In other words, these plans are essentially benchmarks, which can be adjusted in line with budgetary concerns and cost-cutting imperatives.

All this happens in the “back end” of the NDIA’s computer systems, away from public scrutiny. All participants and families can see are the end results of automated adjustments, in the form of seemingly arbitrary cuts to people’s funding when they apply or go for review.

Read more:
A disabled NDIA chair is a great first move in the NDIS reset. Here’s what should happen next

The future of NDIS automation

The Albanese government faces significant challenges in balancing the need for financial sustainability with the NDIS’s social and human rights objectives.

So far, it has taken steps in the right direction, by appointing several people with lived experience of disability to the NDIA’s senior leadership. Since May, the government has halved the number of NDIS participants waiting on the outcome of an appeal.

Yet it remains to be seen how Labor will make good on its election promise to “fix the planning process so people with disability have real choice and control”.

This is, after all, the ultimate goal of the scheme: to place disabled people in control of the decisions, resources and supports that are necessary for them to lead fulfilling and flourishing lives.

The review needs to consider whether algorithmic technologies are fit for this purpose.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Bill Shorten on NDIS reform and the Optus fallout

Georgia van Toorn receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making & Society.

Karen Soldatić receives funding from the Australian Research Council and is a Non-Executive Director for Diversity Arts Australia.

Jackie Leach Scully 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. NDIS plans rely on algorithms to judge need – the upcoming review should change that – https://theconversation.com/ndis-plans-rely-on-algorithms-to-judge-need-the-upcoming-review-should-change-that-193106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Sherry, Professor and Co-director, Sport Innovation Research Group, Swinburne University of Technology

High-profile Australian athletes and supporters across sports such as cricket, netball and Australian Rules football have recently called for their sports to reconsider their partnerships with fossil fuel or mining companies.

Our report, released today, is the first research to quantify the number and value of fossil-fuel sponsorships in Australian sport. It reveals coal, gas and oil companies spend A$14 million to A$18 million each year sponsoring 14 high-profile leagues and sports in Australia.

We identified 51 such partnerships. The major fossil-fuel sponsors of sport include companies such as Santos, Alinta, BHP and Woodside.

The money these sponsors spend on sport is at least partly an investment in “greenwashing” their images. Fossil fuel corporations are major sources of the emissions that drive climate change, but through sports sponsorship they leverage the positive image of sport and fan loyalty associated with teams.

The association of these sponsors’ names and logos with popular sports and athletes can sanitise the image of fossil fuel companies. When sports embrace high-polluting brands, they help normalise those companies’ contributions to the climate crisis.

But many Australian sport organisations are starting to take action to reduce their carbon footprint. They are also leveraging their media profiles to promote environmentally positive behaviours. As they do so, coal, oil and gas sponsorships and partnerships are coming under increasing public scrutiny.

Read more:
Should athletes just shut up and play ball? No – society is changing and sport sponsorship must too

Why does this matter for sport?

Sport is part of the Australian cultural identity. Millions of Australians watch and play sport. Hundreds of thousands volunteer every week to do the work needed to bring community sport to life.

Sport is integral to the social fabric of communities. It provides well-documented mental and physical health benefits as well as social benefits for participants. Sport also contributes around $50 billion a year to the Australian economy.

However, climate change is both an immediate and future threat to sport in Australia.

Increasing heat as a result of climate change is a problem for sport. The viability of iconic sporting events such as cricket’s MCG Boxing Day Test and the Australian Open tennis could be threatened by heatwaves reaching highs of 50℃ by 2040. Extreme heat poses a risk for community sport too.

Higher temperatures are also driving longer and more intense bushfire seasons, exposing athletes and spectators to dangerous air pollution.

In this context, accepting sponsorship from coal, gas and oil corporations creates reputational risks for Australian sport.

Read more:
In a climate crisis, how do we treat businesses that profit from carbon pollution?

Which sports are favoured?

Our report, Out of bounds: coal, gas and oil sponsorship of Australian sports, was prepared by Swinburne University of Technology’s Sport Innovation Research Group for the Australian Conservation Foundation. We identified 51 partnerships (3.5% of all partnerships) between 14 top-tier sporting organisations and coal, gas and oil companies. We found oil and gas companies tend to sponsor Australian Rules football, rugby union and rugby league, while fossil-fuel energy retailers favour partnerships with cricket, soccer and netball.

While not a small level of investment, we suggest these 14 sports could, over time, replace the $14 million to $18 million they receive each year.

The benefits that associating with sport provides to these corporations would be much more difficult for them to replace.

Read more:
Sportswashing: how mining and energy companies sponsor your favourite sports to help clean up their image

What can sports do?

There is a solution to this challenge for the Australian sport industry. Sport organisations have a history of having to move away from corporate sponsors due to growing public concern about their impact on individual and community health and wellbeing. Tobacco, alcohol and gambling are just some industries that have faced regulation to control their involvement with sport as a promotional platform.

Cricket Australia has already announced it is parting ways with Alinta Energy when its nearly $40 million, five-year sponsorship deal ends in 2023.

The road away from coal, oil and gas company sponsorship of sport, as well as wider environmental approaches, can be either direct or indirect. Directly, organisations or brands can end or reject coal, oil and gas sponsorship. They can also actively advocate or illustrate sports’ role in a more sustainable future.

Indirectly, sports organisations may “signal an intent” by signing a climate-related agreement or join an environmental association as an institutional member. For some sport organisations these commitments appear at odds with their sponsorship partnerships with oil, coal and gas companies.

Global and national concern about the impacts of climate change on human health and the environment is growing. Sports fans are increasingly likely to question sponsorship arrangements with corporations that extract or sell coal, gas and oil.

Sporting competitions and clubs should actively work to avoid such reputational risks. They need to recognise the influence their brand has on society, especially as it relates to the climate crisis that’s also threatening the viability of sport.

Emma Sherry consults to many Australian sport and non-profit organisations. She receives funding from the Australian Conservation Foundation. She is affiliated with Sport Inclusion Australia and the Australian Sport Innovation Centre of Excellence.

Brian P. McCullough receives funding from external governmental agencies and sport organizations to conduct research on sport and the natural environment. He is affiliated with the Center for Sport Management Research and Education, Laboratory for Sustainability in Sport, and the Sport Ecology Group.

Olivia Bramley 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. Out of bounds: how much does greenwashing cost fossil-fuel sponsors of Australian sport? – https://theconversation.com/out-of-bounds-how-much-does-greenwashing-cost-fossil-fuel-sponsors-of-australian-sport-192720