Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Bonython, Associate Professor of Law, Bond University

This Saturday, most Australians over 18 will vote in the federal election. The right to participate in elections is enshrined in international and domestic human rights law.

Under Australia’s Commonwealth Electoral Act, all citizens over 18 are eligible to be entered on the electoral roll and vote in federal elections. Failure to do so, if you meet these requirements, is an offence.

There are some exceptions. Along with people convicted of serious crimes, people of “unsound mind” are ineligible to enrol to vote if they are unable to understand the electoral process or significance of voting.

Typically, this includes people with incapacitating mental illness (such as untreated schizophrenia), or intellectual disability.

Some people won’t be enrolled to begin with. For some, a carer will apply to have them removed from the roll. Endorsement from a medical practitioner is required to have someone removed from the roll.

A need for law reform

“Unsound mind” is archaic language. It predates the 1918 Commonwealth Electoral Act. Historically, people of “unsound mind” were presumed to lack capacity to make legally recognised decisions. Alongside other outdated stigmatising terminology such as “idiocy”, “insanity” and “lunacy”, “unsound mind” has largely been removed from Australian law.

Further statutory reform has responded to the international Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability, to which Australia is a signatory. This convention fundamentally changed the law of capacity, including for people with intellectual disability.

Read more:
‘Don’t shove us off like we’re rubbish’: what people with intellectual disability told us about their local community

Rather than paternalistically excluding people with disability from decision-making processes by denying them participation or permitting substitute decision-makers to make decisions on their behalf, the Convention requires that people with disability be supported in making their own decisions. That support includes provision of information at an appropriate level.

Guardianship laws, mental health laws, and medical decision-making laws throughout Australia have been updated to reflect a shift towards supported and participative models of decision-making for people with disability.

They reflect both the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability, and modern understandings of capacity, intellectual disability and mental illness. The Convention requires that people with disability have the right to participate in political processes, such as voting in elections.

Many Australians with intellectual disability have previously been declared ineligible to enrol under historic “unsound mind” provisions.

To become eligible, these Australians are required to positively demonstrate they can understand the electoral system, and the significance of voting. That usually requires medical evidence. No other group of prospective voters in Australia is required to demonstrate its competence to vote in this way, regardless of education, literacy, language or engagement with the political system.

This creates a discriminatory barrier for people with disability. It is inconsistent with international human rights law and other Australian law.

Read more:
From ‘demented’ to ‘person with dementia’: how and why the language of disability changed

Is it feasible?

The Australian Law Reform Commission, in its inquiry into equality, capacity and disability in law, called for reform to the Electoral Act.

In its interim report, the commission called for the legislation to be reworded. Its final report called for the exclusion to be repealed entirely, recognising that retention in any form is discriminatory. Proposals for either reform have so far fallen on deaf ears, notwithstanding support from the Australian Electoral Commission.

Australia is not the only country waiting to modernise its electoral laws. A range of other countries continue to exclude people with “intellectual disability” from voting. Several European nations such as France have progressively updated their laws. Change is feasible. It does not require that people who are permanently incapable of voting, vote.

One common argument against reforming voting laws to be more inclusive is a perception it would undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Critics claim people with intellectual disability are vulnerable to coercion and accordingly likely to be inappropriately influenced to vote a particular way. Others speculate institutions, such as aged-care facilities, may pressure their clients and residents to vote according to corporate objectives.

Read more:
Australia once rejected ‘feeble-minded’ immigrants. While the language has changed, discrimination remains

In the United Kingdom, where voting is not mandatory, laws that prevented people from voting due to lack of mental capacity were overturned. People with any form of intellectual disability are eligible to vote. However, the law also expressly states decisions on whether to vote, and how to vote, remain the person’s alone. No one is entitled to exercise a vote on their behalf.

If electoral integrity is a concern, the solution is to ensure safeguards adequately protect voters with intellectual disability from inappropriate coercion. Give people with disability an option as to whether they vote, and provide support. Do not deny them access to a fundamental human right.

Wendy Bonython and Bruce Arnold made submissions to the ALRC enquiry mentioned in this article.

Bruce Baer Arnold 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. This election, many adults with disabilities won’t be allowed to vote. That should change – https://theconversation.com/this-election-many-adults-with-disabilities-wont-be-allowed-to-vote-that-should-change-183130

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Hay, Honorary Fellow, The University of Queensland

Environmental scientists see flora, fauna and phenomena the rest of us rarely do. In this series, we’ve invited them to share their unique photos from the field.

While most people go out of their way to avoid snakes, we’re the opposite. We’re crazy about snakes. As wildlife photographers, we’ve spent months in the Australian bush and in overseas jungles tracking down beautiful snakes.

Photographing snakes is no easy task. Apart from wild weather, long hours, biting insects and lack of sleep, there’s one final hurdle to overcome: actually finding the elusive reptiles. Australia’s snakes, for instance, usually flee when they hear humans, and they’re very good at hiding.

But it’s all worth it for those moments when we round a corner and spot the scaly body of a species we haven’t seen before.

Why do we spend so much time looking for snakes?

Australia’s snakes are remarkably diverse and adaptable. We have over 200 different species across the land and sea. They have carved out niches in every possible habitat, from coastal rainforests to arid deserts to alpine regions.

It’s difficult to put into words about why we love snakes so much, but we have both been obsessed with the beauty and mystery of snakes since we were young children. This obscure obsession has developed into fascinating careers for both of us, which is also how we found each other.

Even though they’re found across the continent, our snakes are notoriously difficult to find. They’re exceptionally good at hiding. When we go herping (searching for snakes), we don’t just wander through the bush hoping to stumble across one. There’s quite a process we go through to boost our chances.

Snakes are hard to find. Here’s how we improve our chances.

First, we decide which species we want to photograph. To make our trips worthwhile, we often look for spots where the ranges of several target species overlap. Once we choose an area, we take a deep dive into the details of each species.

Combined, we have more than 50 years of snake knowledge to draw on. We use this to examine each species’ preferred habitats and microhabitats and where these features occur in our area.

To home in further, we focus on behaviour. Is it nocturnal? Is it active only in daytime? Or is it crepuscular, moving around only at dusk?

Once we’ve figured out the most likely spots to look, we have to choose the best time of year to go.

You might think summer is always the best, given reptiles are more active in the warmth. For some species, we’ve had better luck in cooler months, when they’re inactive. This can make them easier to find.

Once we’ve picked a time to go, we look at the local climate and weather forecasts to help predict the location and severity of storms.

Heavy rain is generally not good for herping, unless you’re looking for one of Australia’s 46 species of blind snakes, which come up from underground to escape drowning in water-logged soils.

But for the above-ground species we look for, the best conditions come when there’s been recent rain or the threat of rain. This is because rain leads to vegetation growth, which in turn increases insect activity and animals that feed on them, and so on and so forth. It stimulates activity throughout the food chain.

Once we’ve done all of this, we plan our trip and hopefully find some remarkable species to photograph. Success is, of course, not guaranteed. We once went looking for a species of whipsnake, spending a full week and $3000 in the process and still didn’t find the snake. But we did find many unusual lizards.

Herping is no relaxing holiday. It is very hard work requiring early mornings and late nights. To find nocturnal snakes, for instance, we have to stay up until the early hours of the morning. (Nocturnal snakes are active only in warmer months, and soak up radiant heat left over after the day). We often start early, too, since the best natural light for photography is early morning or late afternoon, when the sun is low in the sky.

We’re both registered snake catchers, so sometimes we’ll be called out to a job and find an interesting snake which we can photograph before releasing it.

Safety comes first

When the stars align and we find one of the snakes we’ve been looking for, we have to make sure we don’t get too excited. Our safety is more important than any photograph.

We’re often in remote parts of Australia, hundreds of kilometres from any help. If one of us gets a snake bite, it would mean real trouble.

When you’re looking through a camera’s eye-piece, you can get the impression you’re further away from the snake than you really are. We’ve had to learn how to choose the right lens for each species, to ensure we can keep a safe distance without making the snake too small in the frame.

Only one of us takes the photographs at any one time. That’s because you need someone to watch the situation and make sure you’re not taking risks. As a husband and wife team, we place our full trust in each other. Distractions are not an option.

We don’t intend this to be a how-to guide for people to find dangerous reptiles and photograph them. Snake photography is not a hobby to dive into without a great deal of preparation and knowledge.

Having said that, it is a rewarding profession – particularly when you get a shot of a rare reptile that’s very hard to find. Getting a shot like this and seeing it used in books, field guides and online makes all the preparation worthwhile.

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

– ref. Here’s how we track down and very carefully photograph Australia’s elusive snakes – https://theconversation.com/heres-how-we-track-down-and-very-carefully-photograph-australias-elusive-snakes-176971

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University

One way to make sense of Finance Minister Grant Robertson’s fifth budget speech was to see it as a political performance working on different levels.

First, Labour needs this budget to do an immediate job – address concern with the cost of living. Following two years of pandemic-dominated politics, Robertson had to tell a compelling story about his plans for tackling mounting fuel, food and other prices.

Reminding people that some of this is beyond the government’s control is not a winning strategy. Handing out something tangible was imperative today – hence a NZ$1 billion cost-of-living package, including a one-off $350 cash payment for some 2.1 million low- and middle-income earners, and extended public transport subsidies and fuel excise cuts.

But the government also wants a reset in its head-to-head with a resurgent National Party. Many voters have moved on from the pre-Omicron phases of the pandemic. And with a genuine contest looming at next year’s election, Labour and the Greens will be hoping today’s announcements serve as a political circuit-breaker.

Some of the big-ticket items – chiefly the health reforms and Emissions Reduction Plan – speak to the longer term. We can imagine the government will be closely watching the Australian federal election this weekend to see how much climate policy influences voters’ choices.

Finally, there may also be something deeper going on. As reaction to today’s budget rolls in, we’ll get a sense of New Zealanders’ ongoing appetite for a more active and engaged state. Here and internationally, the pandemic years have represented a break with small state orthodoxy.

And while Robertson reassured voters and markets that this is a prudent, sustainable budget (many governments would walk over broken political glass for a projected surplus in 2025), the National and ACT parties will seek to portray Labour as fiscally profligate. Whichever narrative prevails will go a long way to determining whether Robertson delivers a third-term budget.

– Richard Shaw, Massey University

The government in the economy

Budgets are generally no longer a surprise – most things are telegraphed well in advance. This is deliberate as mistakes happen when households and businesses have to play “guess what the government is thinking”.

A slight surprise was the one-off cost-of-living payment to those earning under $70,000. While no doubt any extra money is welcome to those struggling, the amount does need to be put into context. At the median wage of about $57,000 a year, an extra $350 is equivalent to a 0.6% pay increase. Inflation in the first quarter of 2022 alone was 1.7% and 6.9% for the year, and this is a one-off payment – you don’t get that money on an ongoing basis.

This budget also entrenches a bigger government presence in the economy.

In 2016, core crown expenses of $74 billion equalled 29% of gross domestic product (GDP). Core expenses are projected to be $127 billion (about 33% of GDP) for the year ended June 2023, and $138 billion (31% of GDP) by 2026. At the same time, tax revenue has grown from $70 billion (27.5% of GDP) in 2016 to a projected $116 billion in 2023 (30% of GDP).

Tax revenue is projected to grow to $138 billion by 2026 – or by about 6% per year – by which point it will be around 31% of GDP and the government’s books will balance once again. Under the current expenditure settings, significant changes to tax thresholds or rates seem unlikely.

– Stephen Hickson, University of Canterbury

Leaving poor children behind

The centrepiece of the budget’s cost-of-living response – a temporary three-month cash payment of $350 – targets families earning under $70,000. Cash injections, when targeted and adjusted appropriately, are important poverty tools, allowing families to plug gaps in vital expenditure.

The problem, however, is that such payments aren’t targeted progressively and bypass those who are really being “squeezed” – the lowest income families who are most likely being kept in poverty by our income assistance programmes, and who are not eligible for this cost-of-living payment.

Indeed, Treasury’s own estimates predict that, while all families’ incomes should increase in the next few years, middle-class families’ incomes are projected to increase at a faster rate than those at the bottom of the income distribution.

Read more:
The cost of living crisis means bolder budget decisions are needed to lift more NZ children out of poverty

We shouldn’t be surprised by the most vulnerable families being forgotten in the budget announcements today. The government had announced changes to benefit rates (decried by child poverty experts at the time as not enough) ahead of the budget and signalled this was already “enough”.

But the announcement that child support payments will go directly to parents on benefits (rather than being paid by the other liable parent to the government) is a welcome change that will lift some children out of poverty and reduce another punitive barrier to supporting the well-being of families that don’t fit the nuclear norm.

By the government’s own budget projections, the already modest child poverty targets set last year won’t be put back on track. In fact, they’ll fall well short of estimates based on a relative measure of income before housing costs are included, and only just squeeze into the margin of error on a measure of fixed income after housing costs are included – a short-term target that was easily met last year.

This budget will be remembered as the first to demonstrably leave poor children behind.

– Kate Prickett, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

No step-change on climate change

With the announcement of the Emissions Reduction Plan on Monday, there were only a few surprises left for budget day: an additional $47 million went to climate adaptation, $16 million for community-based renewable energy, a $73 million top-up for the Warmer Homes programme, and $132 million to extend the public transport fare reduction for two months, or longer for Community Services cardholders.

Otherwise, the budget confirmed fiscal commitments we already knew, such as the ten-fold boost to decarbonisation funding at $678 million, and $350 million for cycleways and public transport. The ERP proposal for mission-led “climate innovation platforms” appears to be unfunded.

Read more:
Air of compromise: NZ’s Emissions Reduction Plan reveals a climate budget that’s long on planning, short on strategy

All up, the transport sector receives $1.3 billion, energy $692 million and agriculture $380 million. As a complement to the Emissions Trading Scheme, this policy mix is expected to reduce emissions by 95 to 228 metric tons over the next three emissions budgets until 2035.

But what about the government’s hints that, after underwhelming investment on climate action in past years, 2022 would be the year of the climate budget? If we exclude the extraordinary spending of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, then ordinary spending on climate-related initiatives through the budget process has only gently increased.

Building on earlier analysis, we estimate that at least $3 billion was allocated to climate-positive initiatives in 2022, compared to $1.4 billion in 2020 and $2.8 billion in 2021. Without a doubt, this year’s climate-related expenditure is more coherent and targeted, but not obviously a step-change.

– David Hall and Nina Ives, Auckland University of Technology

A mixed bag for health

Health was a clear focus of the budget ahead of the health system restructure. The $1.8 billion funding increase for year one, with $1.3 billion in the second year, will give the system a needed boost as it adapts to the reforms. The last thing we need is a seriously underfunded system unable to cope in a period of significant change.

Aside from the additional operational funding, the budget was a bit of a mixed bag for health. Mental health services received a significant boost, including for school-based mental health and well-being support and specialist mental health and addiction services. These initiatives are important for the government to deliver on improving well-being.

Additional funding for air and road ambulance services will be important in maintaining and improving service quality. The $191 million in additional Pharmac funding over two years will also be welcome news for many. However, it’s still likely to leave some people disappointed, as the budget doesn’t give clear directions on what that additional funding will be spent on.

Read more:
Why the budget should treat public health like transport – vital infrastructure with long-term economic benefits

The equity pay deal with support workers is set to expire, so it was good to see further commitment of $40 million per year. However, there was no specific response to calls for improved pay for allied health workers.

Health workforce development has been allocated additional funding to support the delivery of kaupapa Māori and Pacific services. This and other initiatives will be important for health equity. However, the budget doesn’t offer further specific commitment to overcoming the shortage of general practitioners. The need for a third medical school in New Zealand is becoming increasingly urgent.

Overall, more funding for health is always going to make things look better than less funding. The big questions now lie in how successful the overall reforms of the health system will be.

– Michael Cameron, University of Waikato

David Hall is affiliated with the Forestry Ministerial Advisory Group.

Michael P. Cameron receives funding from Te Hiringa Hauora/Health Promotion Agency.

Kate C. Prickett, Nina Ives, Richard Shaw, and Stephen Hickson do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A budget for the ‘squeezed middle’ – but will it be the political circuit-breaker Labour wants? – https://theconversation.com/a-budget-for-the-squeezed-middle-but-will-it-be-the-political-circuit-breaker-labour-wants-183335

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Preston, Professor of Economics, The University of Western Australia

In 2020 the Morrison government allowed Australians to raid their superannuation to get through during the pandemic. This week Scott Morrison proposed letting people raid their super for a home deposit.

Helping people own their home is an important social good. But the latest data on superannuation savings and drawdowns – graphed below – shows how early access to super in the pandemic has already widened the retirement savings gap between men and women.

Allowing early access to superannuation as a housing policy risks increasing inequality and widening the gender gap between men and women in retirement even further.

How much super do most Australians have?

The first graph shows median superannuation savings by gender and age from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ most recent survey of Household Income and Wealth (published in April).

This survey covers the 2019–20 financial year and includes the first part of the federal goverment’s COVID-19 early super release scheme, which ran from April to December 2020. The scheme allowed a A$10,000 withdrawal before June 30 2020, and a further $10,000 after. A total of $38 billion was withdrawn, with $20 billion of that in the 2019-20 year.

Median rates are a better reflection of the “average” than the mean, because the latter can be easily skewed upwards by a small number of very high income earners. The mean super balance for the 25-34 age group, for example, is $42,000 for men and $34,500 for women, compared with the median of $25,500 and $22,000 respectively.

It is worth noting what this implies for the Coalition’s super home buyer proposal, which would allow up to 40% of super to be withdrawn for a home depsit. Based on 2019-20 numbers, for those aged 25 to 34 with median super balances this would amount to $10,200 for men and $8,800 for women.

Who’s most likely to withdraw super?

The next two graphs shed light on who is most likely to draw down their super when given the chance. This data comes from the latest instalment of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, published in December 2021. The focus is on those aged 18-64.

HILDA is a nationally representative longitudinal survey, which means it surveys the same people each year. In 2020 it asked 17,000 survey participants if they withdrew any superannuation under the COVID-19 scheme, and how much.

Not surprisingly, those on lower incomes, with lower educational qualifications, who were renting and had lower financial literacy, were more likely to have withdrawn super. Those aged 25-34 were most likely to withdraw.

Estimates based on HILDA data show that 12.7% of men and 9.5% of women made a withdrawal in 2020. The mean amount withdrawn was $12,758 for men and $10,264 for women. The median amount withdrawn by both groups was $10,000.

Read more:
Who really wins and loses from first homebuyer schemes? What you need to know as a buyer, owner or renter

In interpreting these numbers we must factor in that women tend to have lower balances from which to draw, and that those in greater financial need are more likely to withdraw their super if allowed.

The pandemic has widened the gender gap

These factors are reflected in the next graph showing the gender gap in super balances has widened between June 2019 and June 2021. These numbers are based on data from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority published in January 2022.

These male-female differences in superannuation savings are large, and the gap increases with age. It means women, on average, retire with significantly less savings than men and face greater economic insecurity in old age.

To ensure greater equality in retirement incomes, we need policies to eliminate gender-based wage discrimination, as well as pay superannuation contributions during paid parental leave.

We also need to ensure that super contributions are appropriately preserved until retirement.

Read more:
Yes, women retire with less than men, but boosting compulsory super won’t help

Housing affordability is a serious problem, and supporting Australians to achieve home ownership is an important goal, as is assisting them meet financial needs. But early access to superannuation is not the way to do it.

Alison Preston 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. Raiding super early has already left women worse off. Let’s not repeat the mistake for home deposits – https://theconversation.com/raiding-super-early-has-already-left-women-worse-off-lets-not-repeat-the-mistake-for-home-deposits-183351

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Eltham, Lecturer, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University

The past term of government has been tough for arts and culture in Australia. Culture was among the worst affected by the pandemic of any aspect of society: the first to lock down; the last to have health restrictions lifted.

Culture is also recovering slowly. Shows at key festivals are still being cancelled due to COVID-19. The damage to the sector has been so deep that informed observes believe it will take years to fully recover.

Despite this, the arts and culture have been disappointingly absent from the 2022 election campaign.

Read more:
How do the major parties compare on arts and cultural policy? We asked 5 experts

Those looking for a genuine vision for Australian arts and culture won’t find it with the major parties.

The Coalition has not put out an arts or cultural policy, instead running on its record of pandemic stimulus and a claim of record funding) to the arts portfolio in the most recent budget.

That is cold comfort for a sector still struggling to recover from its biggest setback in a century. March’s federal budget slated funding cuts of roughly 19% for the federal arts portfolio that Paul Fletcher heads.

The Australian Labor Party released its policy on Monday evening at the Espy Hotel in Melbourne. Labor’s arts platform at this election is surprisingly modest.

Labor’s arts spokesperson Tony Burke gave a wide-ranging address which touched on Labor’s history of cultural policy at the federal level. There were also some bite-sized policy commitments, such as $84 million for the ABC and $80 million for a First Nations art gallery in Alice Springs.

According to Burke, Labor will “relaunch” a cultural policy if elected, promising to consult widely. But there are few specific or concrete promises, and many decisions are deferred.

Notably, there was no promise of new money for the Australia Council, the nation’s primary federal cultural agency. Labor has also refused to make a specific promise on local content quotas for streaming platforms like Netflix. As of publication, Labor’s arts policy wasn’t even published on the party’s campaign website.

Read more:
‘The relation between politics and culture is clear and real’: how Gough Whitlam centred artists in his 1972 campaign

Big visions

There are some genuinely big visions being advanced for the arts and culture in this election. They are coming from independents such as Allegra Spender in Wentworth and Jo Dyer in Boothby, and especially from the Greens.

In particular, the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young has put forward the kind of big-picture blueprint for a renewed cultural policy that 30 years ago was advanced by Paul Keating.

Read more:
Paul Keating’s Creative Nation: a policy document that changed us

There are transformative funding promises, including a $1 billion content fund for Australian screen production and another $1 billion for the performing arts. The Greens want to double the Australia Council’s funding, ramp up funding for game production, and inject $30 million into the Indigenous media sector.

You could argue such promises are cheap, because there is no political scenario in which the Greens will sit on the government benches or control the Treasury. But their policy is also strong on regulation, where a Greens cross-bench will likely wield significant legislative power in the next Senate.

The Greens are pushing for streaming platforms to invest 20% of their earnings from Australian subscribers into Australian content (some of the teal independents are also backing this). If implemented, it will lock in meaningful levels of local content on Australian screens.

The most original proposal put forward by the Greens is their policy for a trial of a basic income for artists, paying up to 10,000 artists $772.60 a week for a year. The policy is modeled on a trial of basic incomes for artists in Ireland, where it is specifically targeted at redressing the crippling precarity of cultural labour markets.

Hanson-Young spruiks her policy as supporting artists “to develop their craft, build their portfolios and support them to keep creating.” By directly seeking to create income for artists, it is a potentially far-reaching policy intervention.

Read more:
Australia should have a universal basic income for artists. Here’s what that could look like

Moving the mainstream

The artists’ wage proposal is clearly a long way off being legislated in Australia. But putting forward new ideas is a critical role for minor parties. As John Maynard Keynes recognised in the 20th century, policy ideas that seem far-fetched today can quickly move to the mainstream when the winds of change blow in the right direction.

With the Coalition increasingly preoccupied with the prosecution of culture wars, and Labor huddled in a defensive crouch, it is now up to the minor parties and independents to advance a larger vision for Australian culture in the next term of government.

If the cards fall her way in the Senate, Hanson-Young may be in a position to drag Labor towards implementing some bold ideas.

Ben Eltham has previously received funding from the Australia Council for the Arts. He is affiliated with the Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute, where he has previously co-written a report about federal cultural policy. He is a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), a union that represents workers in the cultural sector.

– ref. Arts and culture have been all but overlooked this election – but the Greens have a big-picture plan – https://theconversation.com/arts-and-culture-have-been-all-but-overlooked-this-election-but-the-greens-have-a-big-picture-plan-183358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben White, Professor of End-of-Life Law and Regulation, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology

The last state in Australia, New South Wales, has today passed its voluntary assisted dying bill. This means the vast majority of the population now lives in a jurisdiction where voluntary assisted dying is, or will be, lawful.

However, voluntary assisted dying is not yet available in NSW. As in other states, there is an 18 month implementation period to establish how it would work.

Here’s what’s just happened in NSW, what can be learned from other states, and what to expect next.

Read more:
Planning for death must happen long before the last few days of life

What does the NSW legislation say?

The NSW legislation reflects the broad Australian model of regulating voluntary assisted dying in the other states.

It will be available to an adult with decision-making capacity who has an advanced and progressive illness that will cause death, likely within six months (or 12 months for neurodegenerative conditions).

Other eligibility criteria include the patient is suffering, and their choice is voluntary and enduring. Two senior doctors, who have completed mandatory training, will each conduct a rigorous eligibility assessment. A voluntary assisted dying board will be established to ensure the system is operating safely.

Each state has variations in its voluntary assisted dying laws. One of note in NSW is a person can choose between taking the medication themselves or having a health practitioner administer the medication to them.

In other states, although both methods are allowed, self-administration is the default method.

Read more:
FactCheck Q&A: do 80% of Australians and up to 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support euthanasia laws?

What does this mean for people in NSW?

During the 18 months between the legislation passing and implementation, NSW can benefit from the experience of the five other states.

Victoria was the first to have legalised voluntary assisted dying in 2019 followed by Western Australia in 2021. Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland have also passed similar legislation but their laws are not yet in force.

Read more:
One year of voluntary assisted dying in Victoria: 400 have registered, despite obstacles

This just leaves the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory without voluntary assisted dying laws.

One key lesson for NSW is for people to access voluntary assisted dying, there need to be sufficient doctors trained and willing to participate from the start.

This requires the legislatively-mandated training to be ready early, and incentives and supports provided for doctors to undertake it. It also requires knowing which doctors may be open to participating.

Read more:
Voluntary assisted dying will begin in WA this week. But one Commonwealth law could get in the way

A linked issue from Victoria and WA is the critical facilitating role played by “voluntary assisted dying care navigators”. These health professionals support patients, families and other health professionals who wish to seek or provide voluntary assisted dying, and guide them through the complex eligibility assessment procedure.

This role includes the vital function of connecting patients with doctors. The establishment of this small but critical workforce, well before voluntary assisted dying is available, is essential.

A final observation from other states’ implementation is the importance of education for key stakeholders.

Potentially eligible people can only access voluntary assisted dying if they are aware it exists. So there needs to be a clear public communication strategy to tell the community that voluntary assisted dying is available, and where to find more information.

Building awareness for the broader health workforce (beyond those providing voluntary assisted dying) is also important.

These two groups are linked. Evidence shows people wanting more information about end-of-life law are likely to ask health professionals.

Read more:
We all hope for a ‘good death’. But many aged-care residents are denied proper end-of-life care

What happens in NSW once the law kicks in?

The end of 2023, when the NSW voluntary assisted dying laws are expected to begin, may seem a long time away. But the experience of other states has been that there is little time to waste. This is a major health, legal and community initiative and implementing it is challenging.

There will be patients seeking access to it as soon as the law begins. So the system must be ready.

In WA, there was higher-than-anticipated early demand. Within the first four months of the law being implemented, 50 terminally-ill people chose to die using voluntary assisted dying. As a state with a significantly larger population, NSW should be anticipating more.

So work must start now to ensure that as soon as the NSW law begins, there is a functional system ready to support people eligible for voluntary assisted dying.

How about the territories?

As territories, the NT and ACT cannot legislate on voluntary assisted dying. The Commonwealth passed legislation in 1997 to prohibit this.

However, there have been repeated calls for this to change. If this were to occur, this would open the possibility for the territories to follow the lead of the states and pass their own laws permitting voluntary assisted dying.

Ben White receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and State Governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, he (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland Governments to design and provide the legislatively-mandated training for doctors involved in voluntary assisted dying in those States. He (with Lindy Willmott) has also developed a model Bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Ben White is a recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT190100410: Enhancing End-of-Life Decision-Making: Optimal Regulation of Voluntary Assisted Dying) funded by the Australian Government.

Lindy Willmott receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and State Governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, she (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland Governments to design and provide the legislatively-mandated training for doctors involved in voluntary assisted dying in those States. She (with Ben White) has also developed a model Bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider.

– ref. Voluntary assisted dying will soon be legal in all states. Here’s what’s just happened in NSW and what it means for you – https://theconversation.com/voluntary-assisted-dying-will-soon-be-legal-in-all-states-heres-whats-just-happened-in-nsw-and-what-it-means-for-you-183355

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Foley, PhD Candidate, La Trobe University, La Trobe University

National security has been a feature of this election campaign, but there’s been little substantive difference on key issues of foreign policy. Last week’s foreign policy debate between Foreign Minister Senator Marise Payne and Shadow Minister Penny Wong barely touched on differences in policy.

An exception was Labor’s proposed changes to the government’s existing Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. This scheme provides jobs for Pacific and Timor-Leste workers in Australia.

Labor’s proposed policies for the Pacific are positive for Australia’s foreign policy, and include some wins for these workers.

But the plan so far does not make it clear how it will address rampant wage theft, exploitation and unsafe working conditions faced by Pacific workers in Australia.

And reforms made under the Coalition government have so far failed to fix systemic problems that have led to some Pacific Island workers being exploited.

Read more:
How should the next Australian government handle the Pacific?

What has Labor proposed?

The recent Solomon Islands-China security pact revealed Coalition weaknesses in the Pacific. Labor soon proposed a suite of policies it said would “restore Australia’s place as the partner of choice for the countries in the Pacific”.

It proposed a new “pacific engagement visa” to provide pathways to permanent migration, the first of its kind in the existing Pacific labour mobility schemes.

This visa would initially allow about 3,000 Pacific Islanders to migrate annually to Australia.

Other proposed reforms include:

• the travel costs of Pacific migrant workers to be paid by the federal government, instead of by employers
• allowing Pacific migrant workers to bring their families with them
• in a move welcomed by unions, a new dedicated agricultural visa would replace a contentious “Ag visa” introduced last year.

Mistreatment, wage theft and exploitation

The existing Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, which emerged from a series of reforms to older schemes, was launched in 2022.

It is more heavily regulated than other temporary workers visas. Still, significant concerns remain about workers on these schemes

Both Labor and Coalition governments have overseen various iterations of the scheme where exploitation and wage theft occurred. Since 2012, 30 workers have reportedly died on the Pacific Labour Scheme visa and a previous iteration, the Seasonal Worker Program.

Recently, the Senate Select Committee on Job Security heard from Pacific Islander seasonal workers who experienced wage theft and unsafe working conditions.

Pacific workers have experienced reduction in promised hours and pay deductions. One investigation revealed seasonal farm workers receiving as little as A$9 a week after deductions.

Critics have likened the poor conditions, underpayment and “skimming” of paychecks to modern slavery and “blackbirding” – where Pacific Islanders were lured or taken forcibly to work in Australia.

A scheme that serves too many masters

The problem with the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme is it serves too many masters.

Leaders in Pacific Island states like it because it provides overseas sources of work for citizens. For Australia, this scheme provides a positive soft diplomacy tool in Pacific engagement.

Yet, labour migration has also been shaped by the interests of Australian agricultural and horticulture sectors keen to fill a labour shortage.

In revisions of the Pacific labour program under the Coalition, industry interests have been prioritised ahead of workers.

And while Labor’s focus on increasing numbers of the overall intake through permanent residency is welcome, it raises questions about how it will ensure greater protections for workers.

The extent to which its plan will protect Pacific Islanders from exploitation is not clearly outlined in their policy platform. It only promises a “review” of the scheme and the provision of “whistle-blower” status to all temporary migrant workers.

A policy priority

Both major parties acknowledge labour mobility is important to Australia’s relationship with Pacific Island nations.

As we have seen during the election campaign, constructive and genuine engagement with the Pacific region is critical to Australia’s national interests.

But addressing serious concerns about exploitation in existing schemes is crucial.

There is debate about whether to keep the scheme specific to the Pacific or extend it to Southeast Asia – so getting this scheme right is important.

Whoever wins on May 21, protecting Pacific workers in Australia must be a policy priority, as temporary migration will continue to rise post-pandemic.

Read more:
In the wake of the China-Solomon Islands pact, Australia needs to rethink its Pacific relationships

Emily Foley receives funding from the Department of Education Skills and Employment via the Research Training Program.

Rebecca Strating receives external funding from Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, US Department of State, UK High Commission in Australia, and Taiwan Foundation for Democracy.

– ref. Labor’s proposed Pacific labour scheme reforms might be good soft diplomacy but will it address worker exploitation? – https://theconversation.com/labors-proposed-pacific-labour-scheme-reforms-might-be-good-soft-diplomacy-but-will-it-address-worker-exploitation-183119

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dani Larkin, Lecturer/Deputy Director of the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW Sydney

One of the recommendations from the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for the establishment of a First Nations Voice to parliament, enshrined in the Constitution. This would ensure First Nations people are formally consulted on government decisions and legislation affecting their communities.

However, for a Voice to parliament to be enshrined in the Constitution, it would need to be passed at a referendum.

A recent survey found significant public support for a First Nations voice to parliament.

However, it seems Labor and the Coalition are clashing on what this might look like in practice.

We asked five experts to grade the major parties’ policies and past actions on pursuing a Voice to parliament.

Coalition

Labor

Dr Dani Larkin is part of the legal team at the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW that provides technical support to the Uluru Dialogue and community education on constitutional reform.

Eddie is part of the legal team at the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW that provides technical support to the Uluru Dialogue and community education on constitutional reform.

Dr Emma Lee has consulted on the National Co-Design Group for Indigenous Voice. Dr. Lee has also received funding from the Australian Research Council Grant DP200101394 Making policy reform work: a comparative analysis of social procurement.

James Blackwell is a member of the Uluru Dialogue at UNSW, which is campaigning to support the Uluru Statement From the Heart and its sequence of constitutional reforms.

Sana Nakata receives funding from Australian Research Council (DP200100728; LP200200046).

– ref. How do the major parties rate on the First Nations Voice to Parliament? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/how-do-the-major-parties-rate-on-the-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-we-asked-5-experts-181162

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bhiamie Williamson, Research Associate & PhD Candidate, Australian National University

It is often lamented that Indigenous peoples’ electoral power is insignificant in Australia, except perhaps in the remote Northern Territory seat of Lingiari.

But our new analysis of Indigenous populations in marginal seats at the upcoming federal election suggests Indigenous votes could matter — and not just in remote Australia.

As we show below, there are 15 marginal seats across Australia where the number of eligible Indigenous voters is larger than the electoral margin at the last federal election.

That means Indigenous peoples have considerably more potential electoral power than has been appreciated. Bringing together an Indigenous voting bloc would require rallying enrolled voters, and persuading non-enrolled eligible Indigenous voters to participate.

Invisible electoral power of Indigenous peoples

Indigenous people make up a relatively small part of the Australian population — just 3.3% at the 2016 Census. This fact leads some prominent figures to consider Indigenous participation in elections as ineffective. However, because the Indigenous population is not evenly spread across Australia, there are strategic opportunities for Indigenous people to exercise electoral power.

Minority groups in marginal seats can wield significant electoral influence. For example, Australian citizens of Chinese-Australian ancestry are considered to hold decisive electoral power in some marginal electorates.

Indigenous votes are generally considered to be decisive only in the remote Northern Territory seat of Lingiari. Lingiari covers all the Territory except Darwin with just under half of the population being Indigenous. Here, Indigenous voters are widely acknowledged to be crucial in a close electoral contest.

Our analysis shows Indigenous votes could be important in several seats beyond the Northern Territory. The table below describes 15 seats where the estimated number of eligible Indigenous voters is larger than the electoral margins at the 2019 federal election.

These include other remote seats such as Leichhardt and Kennedy in northern Queensland, and Durack, which covers most of Western Australia. But this list of electoral divisions also includes several urban marginal seats such as Lilley in northern Brisbane, Dobell on the New South Wales Central Coast, and Cowan in Perth.

However, most of these 15 seats are in regional areas, particularly in NSW and Tasmania.

Read more:
Why voter ID requirements could exclude the most vulnerable citizens, especially First Nations people

Mobilising an Indigenous vote

Our paper uses data from the Australian Electoral Commission. These data suggest fewer than half of Indigenous voters are both enrolled and cast a vote. This creates challenges for parties and independents alike. However, addressing these challenges creates significant opportunities.

If Indigeonus people who are eligible to vote but that until now haven’t, did vote, these previously inactive voters would outnumber the 2019 electoral margins in ten of the 15 marginal seats listed above. In other words, if non-voting Indigenous peoples enrolled and voted, they would be decisive in these ten seats.

Low rates of Indigenous electoral participation mean that campaigns aiming to appeal to Indigenous voters might rely on tactics more generally used in countries with voluntary voting systems. These include “get out to vote” campaigns and the provision of policies that aim excite a “base” of voters. These are quite different strategies to those typically used in Australia, which tend to appeal to the middle of the political spectrum.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is currently the subject of a complaint being mediated by the Australian Human Rights Commission. West Arnhem Regional council Mayor Matthew Ryan alleges the AEC has suppressed votes through indirect discrimination.

In April, the AEC told NITV news it was increasing efforts to encourage Indigenous people to vote in the federal election, including speaking to community leaders and partnering with Indigenous media. “That is a really critical issue for us,” commissioner Tom Rogers said.

But the AEC needs to provide more support to Indigenous voters. This would require facilitating remote enrolment, improving access to the ballot box, providing interpreter services where appropriate, and further investment in voter education programs.

Equally importantly, parties and/or independents would need to offer attractive policies that support Indigenous peoples’ aspirations and visions for the future.

Of course Indigenous peoples, like all other groups in society, are unlikely to vote as a single cohort. Research has demonstrated Indigenous voters do change their votes between parties in response to policies and choice of representatives. But it is up to those running to garner support.

Read more:
To Australians sick of the election: this is why voting is not a waste of your time

A different democratic narrative

In his 2014 essay “A Rightful Place”, Noel Pearson spoke of the “feeble democratic participation” of Indigenous peoples. We believe this view of Indigenous electoral frailty to be misguided and disempowering. The discussions about Indigenous electoral insignificance can become self-fulfilling, as Indigenous peoples think their vote doesn’t matter, so they don’t vote. This results in their electoral power going unrealised.

We do not believe electoral participation alone will advance Indigenous interests in this country. It must be used alongside other strategies including activism, lobbying, and establishing a First Nations Voice. However, harnessing the electoral power of Indigenous peoples may offer opportunities to further progress in these areas.

Electoral empowerment can only begin when Indigenous peoples recognise that their votes matter. As the youthful Indigenous population grows older and more Indigenous people reach voting age, potential electoral power will only grow.

The question then becomes how we can support Indigenous communities to wake up this electoral power and wield it to promote the sustainable self-determination of Indigenous peoples.

Francis Markham 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. He is not a member, employee or officeholder of any political party.

Bhiamie Williamson 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. Indigenous votes matter — and not just in remote Australia – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-votes-matter-and-not-just-in-remote-australia-183124

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucas Cernusak, Associate professor, James Cook University

In recent years, the Great Barrier Reef off Australia’s northeast coast has seen multiple events of mass coral bleaching as human-caused global warming has driven sustained high temperatures in the ocean.

Alongside the Coral Sea is another spectacular natural wonder: the rainforests of the World Heritage-listed wet tropics of Queensland.

It turns out the same climate change forces contributing to coral bleaching have also taken a toll on the trees that inhabit these majestic tropical rainforests.

In new research, we and our co-authors found that mortality rates among these trees have doubled since the mid 1980s, most likely due to warmer air with greater drying power. Like coral reefs, these trees provide essential structure, energy and nutrients to their diverse and celebrated ecosystems.

A 50-year record

Our study was based on 20 plots of trees in rainforests in northeast Queensland, which were created and monitored in a project begun in 1971 by a forest scientist named Geoff Stocker.

These plots were later incorporated into the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area, and the monitoring has been carried on by CSIRO scientists based in Atherton, Queensland.

The plots are typically half a hectare (5,000m²) in size. In each plot the species and diameter of all trees larger than 10cm diameter at breast height were recorded.

The plots were revisited at intervals ranging from two to about five years. Tree diameters were recorded again, along with any new trees that had grown into the 10+cm size class, and any trees that had died.

Over the years, a few additional plots were initiated and contributed to our analyses. But these 20 provided a uniquely long record and formed the core of the dataset.

The lifespan of trees

With many plots visited multiple times, and many tree species on each plot, we were able to estimate the average percentage of trees in each species that died in a given year (the “annual mortality rate”). We also examined how this rate has changed over time.

Read more:
Trees aren’t a climate change cure-all – 2 new studies on the life and death of trees in a warming world show why

Until about the mid 1980s, the average annual mortality rate was around 1%. This means that any given year, each tree had about a one in 100 chance of dying.

This corresponds to an average tree lifespan of about 100 years.

However, beginning in the mid-1980s, the annual mortality rate began to increase. By the end of our dataset in 2019, the average annual mortality rate had doubled to 2%.

These results match a similar pattern in tree deaths in the Amazon rainforest at the same time, which suggests the increase in tropical tree mortality may be widespread.

A doubled annual mortality rate means that trees are only living half as long as they were, which means they are only storing carbon for half as long.

If the trend we observed is indicative of tropical forests in general, this could have big implications for the capacity of tropical forests to absorb and mitigate carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.

Thirsty air

What caused the increasing mortality rates of the tropical trees?

A first guess might be temperature stress: the average air temperature of the plots has increased in recent decades.

However, we did not find that temperature directly caused the increasing mortality rates. Instead the mortality rates correlated better with the drying power or “thirstiness” of the air, which scientists call the “air vapour pressure deficit”.

You’re probably familiar with the idea of relative humidity. It tells you how much water vapour there is in the air, as a percentage of the maximum amount the air can hold.

When temperatures rise, the air’s capacity to hold water vapour increases exponentially. Each degree of warming lets the air hold about 7% more water vapour.

So if the air temperature increases, and the relative humidity stays the same, the air will have a bigger capacity to take on more water vapour.

To a first approximation, this is what has happened with global warming. Air temperature has increased, relative humidity has remained approximately constant, and the air has become thirstier.

This means the drying power of the atmosphere (or “evaporative demand”) has increased. This is what we found best explained the increasing mortality rates in Australian tropical trees.

What’s next

If greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, both the air temperature and the air vapour pressure deficit will continue to increase. Our results suggest that in all likelihood this will cause a further acceleration in the increasing mortality rates of tropical rainforest trees.

Like coral reefs, tropical rainforests may then experience relatively rapid changes in species composition, biodiversity, and three-dimensional structure, threatening these prized Australian ecosystems as we know them. The best way to mitigate this threat is to urgently reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, in order to slow global warming and eventually stabilise the global climate system.

Read more:
Friday essay: trees have many stories to tell. Is this our last chance to read them?

Lucas Cernusak receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Susan Laurance receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. Climate change is killing trees in Queensland’s tropical rainforests – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-killing-trees-in-queenslands-tropical-rainforests-183215

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Murray Goot, Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations, Macquarie University

The number of voters the Coalition is attempting to sway in the final days of the campaign varies widely, depending on how the targeted voters are defined. But the historical precedent for success to which commentators refer isn’t persuasive.

The party leaders’ final policy announcements and campaign appearances are about shoring up support among voters not yet fully “committed”, pulling “softly committed” voters away from other parties, and persuading those with no clear party preference.

These are the voters pollsters more properly categorise as “don’t knows”, or perhaps “won’t says”, rather than “undecided” – a category that can apply to those who have indicated a choice but aren’t certain about it.

The media will puzzle endlessly over the effectiveness of the leaders’ appeals. Making sense of the evidence, based on varying notions of “commitment”, will be difficult.

The 2004 election is a key reference point. But evidence for a late swing, often said to have saved John Howard that year, needs to be examined carefully.

Opinion polls are designed to minimise the number of ‘don’t knows’

Opinion polls are designed to minimise the number of “don’t knows”. The greater the “don’t knows”, the greater the uncertainty about voting intentions and the more difficult it is to decide what to do with them.

Should pollsters ignore them on the grounds they will not vote or vote informal? Or find some other way of working out how they might vote?

Conveniently, pollsters also have a way of ensuring the number of “don’t knows” is small. Respondents who initially refuse to say how they intend to vote are usually asked to which party they are “leaning”. Thanks to this step, none of the polls report a “don’t know” figure of more than 7%.

None of the pollsters say how big the share of “don’t knows” is before the “leaning” question is asked. But the proportion is sure to be much greater than 7%.

The ultimate way of minimising the “don’t knows” is not to register them at all.

Jim Reed, who conducts the Resolve poll for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, insists respondents choose a party or independent: no “don’t knows” allowed.

But what of respondents who appear ‘decided’ but are not ‘committed’?

However, having forced respondents to choose, Resolve asks respondents: “How firm are you with your vote?”

In its latest poll, recent 86% of respondents are “committed”, 14% are “uncommitted” – a much bigger number than the “don’t knows” reported by other polls.

Party pollsters have their own ways of defining those voters who might be still be “in play”. They ask, for example, about the “hesitations” voters have about Labor/Albanese or the Liberals/Morrison.

The major parties obviously think carefully about the voters they might be able to shift from a minor party or independent, or between Labor and Liberal.

But they also hope to persuade voters who are going to vote first for other parties or independents, to preference them so that they get their vote, two-party preferred.

The numbers the parties are looking to influence vary, but they are much higher than the conventional “don’t knows” or Resolve’s “uncommitted”.

Ahead of the Liberals’s policy speech, the prime minister put the number of voters “either undecided or opting for a minor party of independents” at about 25%.

In the Weekend Australian, Dennis Shanahan put the number even higher. In addition to those intending to vote for minor parties or independents, he says, are those who are “officially uncommitted”, totalling “at least one in three voters”.

There are not enough ‘undecideds’ to neutralise Labor’s lead

Where the proportion that “don’t know” is small, and the gap on the two-party preferred wide – as it is in some, though not all, of the polls – the chances of the “don’t knows” making a difference isn’t great.

In theory, Labor needs 51.8% of the two-party vote to win.

So, even if the “don’t knows” split 2:1 in favour of the Coalition, this would only reduce the the gap in the Morgan poll from six points (47-53) to four (48-52) – not enough to prevent a Labor majority. In the Newspoll, it would reduce it to six (47-53).

The “uncommitted” vote offers the Coalition much greater hope. But caution is called for.

It’s not clear the number of “uncommitted” voters now is much greater than it has been at other elections.

More to the point, there have been few if any elections when, in the last week, it has been the “uncommitted” voters who have turned things around.

Take 2004 with a grain of salt

For those contemplating a boil-over, the 2004 election looms large.

Behind in the polls with about a week to go, the story goes, Howard wrong-footed Labor with his forests’ policy; Labor then shot itself in the other foot when Mark Latham, with a day to go, appeared to grab Howard’s hand and pull Howard towards him.

According to then Liberal campaign director, Brian Loughnane, Latham’s handshake generated more feedback to Liberal Party headquarters than anything else during the six-week campaign, and “brought together all the doubts and hesitations that people had about Mark Latham”.

But the Coalition’s support peaked not at the end of the campaign but in the first few weeks.

It went on to win by a massive majority: 24 seats. Well before the final week, the Coalition already had it won.

Whether or not the “uncommitted” prevent Labor winning this time, the part they played in securing the 2004 win for Howard is more Liberal legend than political science.

Murray Goot receives funding from no organisation but has received funding from the Australian Research Council and various government bodies and formal inquiries in the past.

– ref. Morrison is hoping for an election surprise but ‘uncommitted’ voters rarely turn things around in the final week – https://theconversation.com/morrison-is-hoping-for-an-election-surprise-but-uncommitted-voters-rarely-turn-things-around-in-the-final-week-183131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

With severe staffing cuts, pressures for instant productivity and a priority on producing clickbait, few would think we are in a golden age for journalism. Few, either, would think that the media have distinguished themselves in this election campaign.

There have been periods in the past – such as the last three years of Menzies’ reign or the first four to five years of the Fraser government – where the Canberra press gallery achieved peak passivity.

In my view, sadly, those periods are now matched by the gallery’s poor performance in the lead up to the 2022 election. Exploiting this passivity has also become a key part of the government’s re-election strategy.

Car parks and the 2019 campaign

During the 2019 election campaign, the Morrison government promised A$660 million to build 47 car parks near train stations, justified as part of its strategy to reduce urban congestion. Two-thirds of the car parks were in Melbourne, even though Sydney had a majority of the nation’s most congested roads, and three quarters of them were allotted to Liberal-held electorates.

The government pledged six to the marginal Liberal seat of Goldstein, and three to Liberal-held Dunkley. The Labor-held seat of Isaacs lies between these two, and has almost a dozen railway stations, but it was not allocated any. After Labor won Dunkley, two of the car parks were cancelled.

In June 2021, the auditor-general found that in the lead up to the government’s announcements, there were no data produced on current car parking, or commuter numbers, and decisions were made with no input from the relevant bureaucrats. Several of the projects involved funding from state or local governments, but little if any consultation had been had with those governments before the announcements. Tellingly, a major working document was titled “top 20 marginals”.

In November 2021, the government said that just three of the 47 car parks had been completed, and that work had started on another six.

À lire aussi :
The ‘car park rorts’ story is scandalous. But it will keep happening unless we close grant loopholes

Shrugging off the auditor-general

The government endured some embarrassment in July 2021 after the publication of the auditor-general’s report, but largely shrugged it off.

The infrastructure minister leading up to the 2019 election, Alan Tudge, denied ever having seen the document titled “top 20 marginals”, while Morrison avoided answering the question.

Finance Minister Simon Birmingham dismissed the criticism because the Coalition had won the 2019 election. Move over John Stuart Mill and Thomas Jefferson: according to the Birmingham Doctrine, democracy is anything you can get away with.

It was a policy cynically conceived and then cynically abandoned. It was based on the belief that thanks to media passivity and lack of curiosity, they could get away with it.

The Age/Sydney Morning Herald journalists Shane Wright and Katina Curtis did some excellent reporting digging into the auditor-general’s report – and government grants more generally – and there was a Senate inquiry and some freedom of information requests. But their efforts failed to generate traction elsewhere in the media.

The passivity continues: in October 2021, the government claimed 33 of the projects would be either completed or under construction by the end of 2022. I have not seen any media reports testing whether this assertion is still true.

Morrison won his gamble.

Part of a pattern

If the lack of news coverage of the broken promises on the car parks were a single example, it would be bad enough, but it seems to be part of a pattern.

After the Hayne banking royal commission reported in February 2019, the government said it would implement all its recommendations. Since then, it has quietly abandoned several of the key ones. The Age/Sydney Morning Herald economics editor Ross Gittins recently wrote a scathing column about it, but it has received little attention elsewhere.

Similarly, the government pledged to implement the recommendations of the aged care royal commission, released last year. How many media have since followed up their implementation? Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services Richard Colbeck has been allowed a convenient invisibility throughout the election campaign.

Early in the campaign, an excellent ABC Four Corners investigation by Linton Besser highlighted how well-connected company Aspen Medical had won several government contracts, some without any open tender process. Neither that report nor more general probing of whether the government’s widespread outsourcing has delivered value for money to the public has been widely pursued by the media.

Journalism is hard, but needs to be better

Media coverage is not helped by the fact the largest commercial employer of journalists in the country – News Corp – is simply a propaganda arm for the government, and their mediocrity sets a tone for others. Nor is performative aggression at media conferences a substitute for probing reporting.

The Morrison government has been able to campaign in the comfortable belief that with a few exceptions such as its failure to establish an integrity commission, its record over the past three years would not be subjected to probing examination by the news media.

À lire aussi :
Below the Line: What issues are politicians ignoring this election? – podcast

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

– ref. The media has reached ‘peak passivity’ in the lead up to the 2022 election – https://theconversation.com/the-media-has-reached-peak-passivity-in-the-lead-up-to-the-2022-election-183109

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law. President, Australian Association for Professional & Applied Ethics., Griffith University

It’s difficult to ask, but how many fatalities should Australia accept from COVID in 2022?

The World Health Organization says worldwide there were almost 15 million excess deaths in 2020–21 due to the pandemic.

In Australia, deaths have surged, with more than 5,600 so far this year and hundreds each week.

Some epidemiologists, including Mike Toole from the Burnet Institute and other public figures, are critical that little attention is being paid to these fatalities.

Public health officials are focused on hospitalisations, which remain relatively low, and the case fatality rate (the proportion of those with the illness who die), which is falling, in part due to the high vaccination rate. So governments are easing the remaining restrictions.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said yesterday that every COVID death was a “terrible loss” but Australians wanted to “move on”.

Do we have the balance right, from an ethics perspective?

Our ethical responsibilities

COVID policy-making and ethical decision-making are challenging, and there is room for a diversity of views. But there are three areas of responsibility we should focus on.

First, in the election run-up, voters deserve to know where each party stands, such as their intended policy response to any surge in fatalities (perhaps driven by a new virus variant). There also must be a review of lessons learned.

Second, we should each consider what we are personally willing to do for the wider community. Getting that booster, or vaccinating your children, can be both personally and socially worthwhile.

Third, our community has vulnerable people, for whom infection might be a death sentence. If we see someone wearing a mask and carefully socially distancing, we should respect their efforts. Above all, if you have any indication you might be infected, take extra care not to risk exposing others.

Leer más:
COVID mask mandates might be largely gone but here are 5 reasons to keep wearing yours

Simply put, the pandemic isn’t over yet, and we’re going to have to continue relying on each other.

Questions of political and personal ethics

When we’re thinking about how many COVID fatalities are acceptable, we need to distinguish the different ethical questions that face us.

One is the question of policy. What should our governments be doing in response to the high death toll? Should they employ some new mix of vaccine/booster mandates, lockdowns, contact-tracing, travel restrictions, mask mandates, and the like?

Then there’s the question of our own personal behaviour. We can all make efforts to limit the risk of spreading the virus to other, perhaps vulnerable, people.

Ethics is a higher standard than law, and not every moral obligation should be compelled by government.

Leer más:
Many places are starting to wind back COVID restrictions, but this doesn’t mean the pandemic is over yet

Guidance from ethical theory: utilitarianism

It can seem commonsense that we should do all we can to prevent harms to vulnerable people. But mainstream ethical theories resist this intuitive idea.

The theory of utilitarianism focuses purely on consequences. Utilitarianism tells us to maximise the sum total happiness of all sentient beings. While this approach can be very demanding, it would resist a stringent response to COVID, for two reasons.

First, utilitarianism gives no special obligation to fellow citizens. Because we live in a wealthy country, our best strategic investment is usually to look further afield, and to reduce global extreme poverty. This focus would be the same for COVID too, such as by directing our efforts to boost global vaccine efforts.

Second, utilitarianism will note that most COVID fatalities are among the elderly. Utilitarianism values all happiness equally – whether of a child or a 90-year-old.

But saving the life of a 90-year-old is likely only to net a few more years of happy existence. Saving the life of a child would likely deliver more than 20 times that number. In technical terms (such as those used by the World Health Organization), saving the child yields an enormous net gain in “disability-adjusted life-years” (DALYs).

For both these reasons, with widespread vaccination limiting COVID’s harms in Australia, the utilitarian would resist directing enormous efforts to constrain local fatalities.

Guidance from ethical theory: duties and rights

Another common ethical approach is to focus on actions rather than outcomes. For these duty-based approaches (the technical term is “deontological”), the end does not justify the means.

Unlike utilitarianism, duty-based approaches would allow us to prioritise locals. They also would be wary about discriminating between young and old, as all life is equally valuable.

Duty-based approaches hold we should avoid risking harm to others, and should be generous to those in need.

Leer más:
Disabled people are being left out of COVID recovery. Here are five ways to change that

However, because duty-based approaches value things like freedom, responsibility and integrity, they limit these obligations.

Sweeping obligations to save others erodes the space for people to pursue their chosen callings, fashion their own diverse life plans, and nurture close relationships.

Consider a comparison

Both ethical theories align in treating COVID consistently with other threats to life and well-being. This makes sense.

Consider one of the leading causes of death in Australia: cancer. Australia employs many policy responses to this ongoing threat. We ban asbestos and tax cigarettes. We publicly fund medical research and healthcare. We run campaigns to slip, slop, slap.

Yet we could do more. We could raise taxes and direct more resources into research and treatments. We could ban tobacco outright. We could even ban going to the beach during high-UV periods!

Instead – and taking a leaf from the ethical theories considered above – we direct our efforts towards impactful policies, and avoid intruding too far into people’s personal decision-making.

Sensible ethical responses to COVID will behave similarly. In terms of both public policy and personal decision-making, we need to remember the pandemic isn’t over yet. Just as we do for other serious threats to our lives and well-being, we will all have a continuing role to play.

Hugh Breakey no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. COVID has killed 5,600 Australians this year and the pandemic isn’t over. Ethics can shape our response – https://theconversation.com/covid-has-killed-5-600-australians-this-year-and-the-pandemic-isnt-over-ethics-can-shape-our-response-182765

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ruby Grant, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Tasmania

About one in three LGBTIQ+ voters are not sure who to vote for, or are considering changing who they vote for, this federal election, according to a survey by Equality Australia.

So, if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, queer or otherwise part of the rainbow community, you might be wondering what the major parties have to offer you.

Health care and LGBTIQ+ issues are among the top concerns for the roughly 850,000 LGBTIQ+ Australians eligible to vote this election. So let’s look at what each party has promised on health.

Read more:
Marriage equality was momentous, but there is still much to do to progress LGBTI+ rights in Australia

Labor

Improving health and aged care are central Labor platforms this election. Labor plans to make it easier to see a doctor, set up urgent care clinics, and cut costs of medications.

Labor has promised to consult more with LGBTIQ+ people about their health needs. It will support the national LGBTIQ+ mental health and support hotline, QLife, with a one-off grant to help the service reach more people. Labor also wants to set up a new taskforce to end Australia’s HIV epidemic.

LGBTIQ+ people would benefit from a stronger health system, but there is not much detail on how Labor’s health reforms would make health care more inclusive for LGBTIQ+ Australians.

Also missing from Labor’s health commitments is specific support for transgender people. Its 2021 national platform said it wanted to ban gay conversion practices and unnecessary medical treatment of intersex people, but these have not been election promises this year.

Read more:
Yes, words can harm young trans people. Here’s what we can do to help

The Greens

The Greens have also focused on affordable health care this election. They want to expand Medicare to include dental and mental health care by reinvesting private health insurance rebates into the public system.

Out of all the major parties, The Greens have made the most LGBTIQ+ specific commitments this election. They propose A$285 million “to ensure all LGBTIQ+ people have access to holistic and comprehensive health services regardless of whether they live in a capital city or a rural town”. There will be funding for LGBTIQ+ community-run organisations, health services and research.

The Greens will dedicate funding to cover out-of-pocket costs for trans people accessing gender affirming health care.

They also plan to commit $132 million to act on The Darlington Statement, which advocates for intersex people.

All these commitments might seem ambitious. But they are supported by research and recommendations from LGBTIQ+ organisations.

Read more:
Surgery to make intersex children ‘normal’ should be banned

Coalition

The Liberal Party promises support for primary and preventative health care, expansion of telehealth services, more funding for public and private hospitals, and cost cuts for private health insurance.

Its women’s health platform is based on an almost $54 million commitment to “make it easier for more Australians to become parents”. Aged care is also a big feature of its platform, as is mental health.

The Coalition assures voters it is “committed to supporting the mental health of the LGBTIQ+ community – particularly the LGBTIQ+ youth – as demonstrated by the ongoing investment in child and youth mental health and LGBTIQ+ specific programs and services”.

The Liberal Party recently announced a $4.2 million funding boost over three years for national services to support LGBTIQ+ mental health.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: On Katherine Deves, a hung parliament, and the new silence about COVID

However, the Coalition has a patchy history when it comes to LGBTIQ+ health. Liberal and National Party members have opposed marriage equality and LGBTIQ+ inclusive sex education.

Some Coalition members recently supported religious exemptions allowing discrimination against LGBTIQ+ staff and transgender students in faith-based schools.

Liberal Party candidate for Warringah, Katherine Deves, is vocally opposed to transgender women participating in women’s sport. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has defended Deves, wrongly saying “gender reversal surgery for young adolescents” is a “significant issue”.

Read more:
I’m a pediatrician who cares for transgender kids – here’s what you need to know about social support, puberty blockers and other medical options that improve lives of transgender youth

Call to focus on the real issues

Research shows discrimination and lack of access to inclusive services are the main contributors to the increased risk of mental health problems and suicide LGBTIQ+ people face.

Labor and the Coalition make big promises to fund and support mental health. But these efforts are undermined by both parties’ support for religious discrimination and their lack of leadership on transgender inclusion in health care and in public life more broadly.

When it comes to LGBTIQ+ issues this election, most have played out in the mainstream media as the “transgender issue”. However, this misses some of the real issues that matter to this community – freedom from discrimination and access to quality health care.

Ruby Grant is a board member of LGBTIQ+ advocacy group, Equality Tasmania. She has previously received research funding from the Tasmanian Government.

– ref. LGBTIQ+ and unsure how to vote? Here are what the major parties are promising on health – https://theconversation.com/lgbtiq-and-unsure-how-to-vote-here-are-what-the-major-parties-are-promising-on-health-183214

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University

Climate change and reducing emissions has figured little in the 2022 federal election campaign. But after many years of inadequate national climate policy, the need for sensible, long-term measures is now dire.

The first task of the government in Australia’s 47th parliament must be to increase the national emissions target for 2030. But this is just the first step. Australia urgently needs a proper policy framework to get the nation on a lower emissions path – systematically and for the long term.

A long to-do list on climate policy awaits the new government and those that follow. The issues before us are too difficult, too important and too pressing to abandon them to political point-scoring or ideological zealotry.

The to-do list

Years of climate policy inaction has left plenty of low-hanging fruit ready for the next government to harvest.

On Australia’s emissions reduction out to 2030, the Coalition already expects to do better than the existing 26-28% target. If returned to government, the Coalition could formally raise the target – but presumably there would be no appetite to raise it by much.

Labor has pledged 43% emissions reduction by 2030 – a target, like the Coalition, based on 2005 emissions levels. But that still falls short of the 46-50% cut urged by the Business Council of Australia, and is far less that the pledges of many other developed countries.

A meaningful target is needed to bolster confidence to low-carbon investors and signal to our international peers that we’re playing our part.

The next government needs to ensure continued private investment for new renewable energy generation, and help bring power infrastructure online quickly and affordably. That means meaningful reform in the national electricity market and working constructively with the states.

And however much it may go against political instinct, the next government must face up to the coal industry’s coming decline. It will need to manage coal plant closures without delaying the renewables transition, and plan for the inevitable fall in export demand for coal and later, gas.

Economies in regions such as central Queensland and the Hunter Valley in New South Wales will change. The federal government has a role in helping prepare for this, again in collaboration with the states.

Importantly, the next federal government must push Australia’s industrial sector to get more energy efficient and shift to renewables. That will keep energy-intensive industries globally competitive in the long term.

Making the existing “safeguards mechanism” effective is the obvious way to start. It should become a “baseline and credit” scheme covering all medium and large industrial polluters, with financial penalties for being above an emissions threshold and financial incentives for being below.

This would create a quasi-carbon price that can later be the stepping stone to a comprehensive carbon pricing scheme. Carbon taxes and emissions trading are widespread elsewhere in the world and a natural part of a comprehensive climate policy package.

The next government must help ensure the transition to electric cars, trucks and trains is smooth, speedy and fair – including through road tax reform. And it should adjust policy and regulation to further decentralise our energy system, including having electric cars providing power to the grid when and where needed.

In the building sector, we need meaningful national energy efficiency standards, low-carbon construction requirements and a push away from gas for heating.

Read more:
No, Mr Morrison. Minority government need not create ‘chaos’ – it might finally drag Australia to a responsible climate policy

But what about the cost? Many politicians have created fear by claiming strong climate action means economic doom. In reality, many carbon-saving investments pay for themselves over time in the form of lower energy costs. Others cost extra but bring benefits such as cleaner air and more secure energy supplies.

The decline of fossil fuel exports will hurt Australia economically, but this is out of our hands. The task here is to foster economic diversification, which should be central in national industry policy.

Beyond the question of lower emissions, it’s high time the federal government got serious about adapting to climate damage that’s already happening and will worsen.

The task for the next government, then, is to help make happen the large investments that will safeguards Australia’s future. This message should be attractive to politicians who want to be seen as leaders.

Making it happen

There is also more work to do to deeply understand the pathways to a cleaner economy in Australia, the problems we face and the opportunities that can be ours.

As just one example, properly funded science will help Australian agriculture progress towards the net-zero emissions goal. It would also help the sector better understand how to respond to challenges such as changed growing conditions and more frequent or severe floods and bushfires.

As a nation, we must also get serious about identifying where and how Australia could become a major player in the energy and commodity industries of a low-carbon world. Australia could be a major international supplier of clean energy and zero-carbon commodities.

To get there requires building trust and bringing everyone along.

Net-zero as a rallying point

So where to begin for the next government? A good start would be convening an inclusive process towards a proper, long-term strategy for Australia to reduce its emissions.

The goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 is a rare point of general agreement on climate policy – both across the political spectrum and among the main lobby groups.

But how might we get there? What will it mean for different industries and regions? Where do the economic upsides lie? What are the social pressure points? Finding answers to these questions should be the basis for a real national conversation – one that includes businesses, unions, communities, non-government organisations, the research sector and the media.

Such a process would be very different from that behind the document accompanying the Coalition government’s net-zero announcement late last year. Whoever is in government next has the chance to run an inclusive process that fully maps out the options and implications of net-zero.

Read more:
Scott Morrison attends pivotal global climate talks today, bringing a weak plan that leaves Australia exposed

A new politics

Whether the next government likes it or not, it will have to deal with climate policy. Obviously, the election outcome will be the key determinant for how far the next government is willing to go.

A Labor government would clearly plan to do more than a returned Coalition government. Either is likely to do more if governing in a parliamentary minority and supported by pro-climate independents.

Yet to get strong, wholehearted action at federal level would require a sea change in politics that presently is not on the cards. The climate wars of yesteryear are the root problem.

At some point this decade, however, Australia needs a complete political reset on climate policy. In a world that needs to act urgently and deeply on climate change, the political contest should be over how best to do much more.

Read more:
Climate change hits low-income earners harder – and poor housing in hotter cities is a disastrous combination

Frank Jotzo does not have affiliations or funding sources that are relevant, or likely to be perceived to be relevant, to the subject of this article.

– ref. ‘A new climate politics’: the 47th parliament must be a contest of ideas for a hotter, low-carbon Australia – https://theconversation.com/a-new-climate-politics-the-47th-parliament-must-be-a-contest-of-ideas-for-a-hotter-low-carbon-australia-182770

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Stanford, Economist and Director, Centre for Future Work, Australia Institute; Honorary Professor of Political Economy, University of Sydney

Every three months the Bureau of Statistics releases the lesser-known cousin of the consumer price index. It’s called the Wage Price Index (WPI) and it records changes in the overall level of wages, in the same way the price index records changes in the overall level of consumer prices.

Rarely does it generate headlines, but coming three days before an election and showing the worst performance ever compared with the consumer price index, it has provided concrete evidence that the buying power of wages is shrinking.

Contrary to hopes that lower unemployment would spark higher wages growth, the WPI barely budged in the year to March: climbing 2.4%, up from 2.3% in the year to December.

The consumer price index for the year to March grew twice as fast, by 5.1%

It means real wages (the buying power of wages) shrank 2.7% over the year to March in aggregate – one of the fastest and steepest declines ever.

Since March, during the election campaign, interest rates have been pushed up, further adding to the cost of living.

Read more:
Are real wages falling? Here’s the evidence

Coming right at the end of the campaign, the news reinforces a traditional Labor concern (living costs) and diminishes a traditional Coalition selling point (superior economic management).

And it’s a full frontal challenge to conventional economics.

Here are just three of the conventional thoughts it has thrown into doubt.

Wages are determined by supply and demand

Conventional economics treats the price of labour like the price of any other commodity (such as fruit at a market), determined by supply (if there’s too much the price will fall) and demand (if a lot of people want it the price will rise).

That is held to mean that, even if there is still some unemployment, wages will grow faster if employers find it hard to find workers (as they are now) and slower if workers find it hard to find jobs (as was the case when unemployment was higher).

There is said to be a special unemployment rate – the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, NAIRU – below which wages will start to grow quickly, entrenching accelerating inflation.

The problem is that the NAIRU can’t easily be observed, and moves around.

Read more:
Despite record vacancies, Australians shouldn’t expect big pay rises soon

The Treasury and Reserve Bank once believed NAIRU was close to 7%, then 6%, then 5% or lower. Now they are
not sure it exists.

With unemployment well below the rates they once believed would push up the growth rate, there is growing doubt about whether it can.

Part of the reason is that unlike the market for fruit (or pork bellies or flat whites), institutions and bargaining power affect what happens to wages in addition to supply and demand. De-unionisation, insecure work, and deregulation of the wage-setting process have shifted the balance of power away from workers.

Labour markets are flexible

Decades of changes to Australia’s wage-setting system were sold as allowing labour markets to respond more smoothly to changes in supply and demand, ensuring workers were more closely paid in accordance with what they produced (productivity).

But a lot of (anti-worker) rigidity remains. One source is punitive public sector pay caps, which even the Reserve Bank says are contributing to weak wage growth.

Another is greenfield enterprise agreements, which lock in predetermined pay rates for years.

Inflation originates in the labour market

Anthony Albanese sparked an important debate when he said wages should at least keep up with inflation.

Scott Morrison said this would be like “throwing throwing fuel on the fire” of inflation. But Wednesday’s figures seem to indicate that inflation has a life of its own. It is soaring while wages growth is not.

And after adjusting for productivity growth (which has been surprisingly resilient, averaging 2% per year for the past two years), unit labour costs have grown the slowest in years, by just 1.5% per year since 2019.

Whatever is causing inflation, it isn’t firms passing on higher wage costs to their customers. Some are passing on higher profit margins. In anything, what we are experiencing is more like profit-price inflation than wage-price inflation.

During the COVID crisis, profits climbed to a record high as a share of GDP while labour compensation (mainly wages) fell to its lowest point in postwar history.

While economic truisms are being reassessed, voters are in the process of coming to grips with what stubbornly low wages growth means for them. Many more of them make their living by selling their labour than by taking profits.

Jim Stanford is a member of the Australian Services Union

– ref. Proof positive. Real wages are shrinking, Wednesday’s figures put it beyond doubt – https://theconversation.com/proof-positive-real-wages-are-shrinking-wednesdays-figures-put-it-beyond-doubt-183343

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Podger, Honorary Professor of Public Policy, Australian National University

On the eve of the election, the Coalition has said it will impose a higher “efficiency dividend” on public service agencies over the next four years in an effort to cut public service spending and address the budget deficit.

An efficiency dividend is a measure, first introduced by Labor in the late 1980s, that reduces the budgets of public sector agencies by a certain percentage.

The current efficiency dividend is 1.5%, but the Coalition has promised to boost the figure to 2% for the next three years, with Treasurer Josh Frydenberg saying:

What we are doing is offsetting that spending with an increase in the efficiency dividend by half a per cent, which will raise more than A$2.3 billion […] The annual departmental bill across the Commonwealth is about $327 billion. What we’re saying is it will be reduced to about $324 billion, as a result of this additional measure.

Across-the-board cuts to the public service via the so-called efficiency dividend represent a blunt instrument to achieve budgetary savings.

They have been used by both sides of politics over the years. They allow politicians to avoid taking responsibility for cuts on the pretence they are only about efficiency and that the public sector agency heads can manage them with no impact on services to the public.

But there have been many reviews over the years, including by parliamentary committees, that have revealed the efficiency dividend often does impact the level and quality of services, particularly for smaller agencies and particularly over time.

It can lead to increased charges, reduced services (for example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Year Book no longer comes out annually) and increased waiting times.

While Labor has strongly criticised the Coalition’s proposed increase in the dividend, its criticism is a little hollow as it has said it will retain the efficiency dividend.

Labor is also proposing an additional cut in spending on administrative expenses through cuts to funding of consultants, contractors and labour hire – only some of which will be redirected to new public service positions.

Read more:
Elections used to be about costings. Here’s what’s changed

The Thodey report

Of course, taxpayers should expect the public service to pursue efficiencies and increased productivity – administrative expenses should not be automatically increased in line with increases in input costs. In particular, there is scope to use technology better to drive down costs and improve service provision.

But this requires new investments as recommended by an independent review of the Australian public service, led by David Thodey AO.

Following the Thodey report’s release in 2019, the government agreed to an audit of its current IT investments but we are yet to see that audit.

Nor has any mention been made of new investments that might deliver the efficiencies the government expects, let alone achieve the improved services Thodey was looking for.

In the absence of a more nuanced and targeted approach to make genuine efficiency gains, there is also the risk of further reducing the capability of the public service.

It is likely to mean further reducing resources for longer-term research and being less able to enhance public service wages where there is a need to attract key skills (such as in information technology).

A lazy cost-saving measure

While Labor and the unions are highlighting the likely impact on public service numbers, I would be less concerned on that score if the measure was genuinely about efficiency.

The concern I have is that this is not only a lazy cost-saving measure: it also reflects antipathy towards the public service as an institution.

We have seen this before with the imposition of staffing caps, in addition to the caps on administrative expenses. These have forced greater use of consultants and labour hire, even where this is less efficient than using public servants.

And we have seen it in the rejection of key Thodey report recommendations, not only about removing the staffing caps but also about enhancing the role of the public service commissioner. This would have ensured more merit-based senior appointments and a more appropriate way of setting pay and conditions.

Read more:
The ‘sports rorts’ affair shows the government misunderstands the role of the public service

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

– ref. ‘A lazy cost-saving measure’: the Coalition’s efficiency dividend hike may mean longer wait times and reduced services – https://theconversation.com/a-lazy-cost-saving-measure-the-coalitions-efficiency-dividend-hike-may-mean-longer-wait-times-and-reduced-services-183361

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

Every election is unique, but each also presents comparisons and contrasts with elections past.

In this podcast, Australian National University history professor Frank Bongiorno gives his insights into the current battle but also takes the long views of campaigns.

Bongiorno talks about the role of leaders in what’s often dubbed the “presidential” election age (“a kind of proxy for judgements about policy”) and how Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese are presenting themselves.

The debate on wages and inflation has overtones of the arguments in the 1970s and 1980s, but “sort of minus the policy”.

This was supposed to be a “khaki” election, but the khaki has faded during the campaign, perhaps unsurprisingly. Most often, Australians are solidly focused on domestic issues when they vote.

The “teals” have been a special feature of this campaign. But are they a new version of other breakaways, like the Australian Democrats of old?

The rise of voter disillusionment is a feature of recent elections, as is the detachment of voters from the major parties. Not so long ago, about seven in ten voters voted at each election the same way as they had voted throughout their lives, Bongiorno says, based on the ANU’s Australian Election Study. But now it is just under four in ten. “That means there’s a growing number of voters whose support is biddable, and the independents and minor parties are benefiting from that kind of loosening of the hold of the major parties over the voters.”

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Historian Frank Bongiorno reflects on elections present and past – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-historian-frank-bongiorno-reflects-on-elections-present-and-past-183360

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Johanna Nalau, Research Fellow, Climate Adaptation, Griffith University

Australia is no stranger to disasters like droughts, floods, bushfires and heatwaves. The problem is, they’re going to get worse. And then worse again. As the global temperature ratchets up, these disasters will grow in size, frequency and intensity. We will have to get much better at adapting, and do this even as we phase out fossil fuels to stop climate change getting worse.

Climate adaptation is about working with our new reality, rather than clinging to the way things were done in the past. We must accept our climate and environment has already changed, with more major upheavals on the way. If we don’t, we’ll be caught napping by “unprecedented” events which just keep on coming.

While local and state governments have led the way on climate adaptation to date, we have much more to do, as the worrying lack of preparation for the floods that devastated Lismore makes clear.

Do both: climate adaptation and emissions reduction

Many people believe climate adaptation is a red herring, diverting resources and attention away from emissions.

This is simply not true. We must do both. The world has already warmed 1.2℃ since the industrial age began, and is heating up by just under 0.2℃ per decade. There is also a lag time between fossil fuels burned today and the extra warming this causes.

Read more:
4 ways we can change our behaviour to adapt to the climate crisis

Climate change is already here, and will only intensify. We must urgently slash emissions while also helping our communities be ready. The good news is adaptation often helps lower emissions, and vice versa.

It can be hard to picture what climate adaptation looks like. So take the hard-hit town of Lismore as an example. Official warnings did not reach this Northern Rivers community. When these monster floods hit, these communities were largely left to save themselves. If it hadn’t been for neighbours undertaking rooftop rescues, the death toll would likely have been much higher. In the aftermath, many residents have been living in tents and caravans while struggling to find affordable housing.

To be ready for the next floods, Lismore would benefit from:

• rebuild using flood-resistant designs and materials
• coordinating community preparations
• exploring land-swap or changing land-use planning for high-risk areas
• better coordination between government agencies
• better warnings delivered sooner.

As soon as you consider the problem, it becomes clear there is no silver bullet. We need to plan ahead of time, rather than try to scramble to respond to disasters as they grow in size and frequency. Preparing and planning saves lives and cuts costs.

Drawing on local community strength is vital, as the Northern Rivers has shown Australia. But it is not enough by itself. Movements like Resilient Byron and Resilient Lismore show how locally led adaptation can assist communities. They could do more, with directed long-term investments and support.

What have we done so far?

The knowledge we already have about surviving in the world’s most arid inhabited continent is a start. First Nations communities have a sophisticated understanding of caring for country, while Australian farmers are among the best climate-risk managers globally, after a rocky start.

To date, most government-led climate adaptation happens at local and state levels. Highly innovative approaches have come from local governments, such as a council-led land-swap to get people permanently out of flood plains in the Lockyer Valley. Victoria’s state government has a climate adaptation program to help the natural resources sector prepare for possible futures, while Queensland has a strategy for local governments to find the greatest risks to coastal areas and plan for adaptation.

While these are welcome, we must do much more at a national level. In this area, we seem to be going backwards. In 2007 the federal government invested heavily in climate adaptation, but these initiatives were progressively dismantled after the 2013 election. Today, disaster spending is focused on recovery rather than preparation. While that might be politically rewarding, it is extraordinarily expensive.

Read more:
‘I simply haven’t got it in me to do it again’: imagining a new heart for flood-stricken Lismore

On a national scale, our current climate adaptation strategy lacks clear targets and timelines. Not only that, it does not connect the dots between the levels of adaptation required and different scenarios for cutting emissions. We hope the new framework being produced by the National Reconstruction and Recovery Agency will better incorporate adaptation.

What does well-adapted look like?

Our political parties differ substantially on climate adaptation efforts. Liberal and National Party policies barely mention climate adaptation. Labor has disaster preparation policies, such as up to A$200 million per year on disaster prevention and recovery, while the Greens are most ambitious with plans to both slash emissions and boost adaptation through initiatives such as making housing better able to cope with floods and cyclones.

Climate adaptation pays dividends – regardless of who takes government. Active climate adaptation would save Australia A$380 billion in gross domestic product over the next 30 years.

We cannot let climate adaptation be the plaything of day-to-day politics. To have any chance of success, we need a robust bipartisan strategy. We should look to countries such as the UK which has laws requiring a national climate risk assessment every five years as well as a program coordinating and reporting adaptation actions across the country.

There is support for these measures in Australia, with 72% of us in favour of introducing national climate risk assessments giving our state and local governments access to up to date information on flood projections, neighbourhoods most vulnerable to heatwaves and expected levels of sea level rise. Crucially, this would let us pick out the best ways we could adapt.

Australia also needs a national climate adaptation hub, a one-stop shop offering advice to all levels of government, communities, non-governmental organisations and the private sector on the adaptation strategies available and ways to scale up the best approaches.

We must act now to make the best of the future coming towards us. We know a great deal about what we’ve set in motion by heating up our planet. Now we must prepare for what this brings. And we have to do it together.

Johanna Nalau receives funding from Australian Research Council. She is also a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 6th Assessment Working Group and the Co-chair of Science Committee in the World Adaptation Science Program, United Nations Environment Programme.

Hannah Melville-Rea is affiliated with an independent think tank, the Australia Institute.

Prof Mark Howden is a Vice Chair of the IPCC Working Group II.

– ref. Lismore faced monster floods all but alone. We must get better at climate adaptation, and fast – https://theconversation.com/lismore-faced-monster-floods-all-but-alone-we-must-get-better-at-climate-adaptation-and-fast-182766

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David King, Senior Lecturer in General Practice, The University of Queensland

GPs have been sounding the alarm over rising costs of providing care – compounded by the pandemic and more complex demands. Many have said they are abandoning bulk billing, the Medicare scheme that pays doctors a flat rate for providing consultations.

GPs earn considerably less than other medical specialists, sometimes two or three times less annually. If GPs maintain high rates of bulk billing and the Medicare repayment rate doesn’t cover their costs, practices become unsustainable.

Health-care quality can also decline, as GPs try to see more patients in a day to clock more bulk-billing fees. But opting out of bulk billing, as our specialist colleagues have done, could mean some patients lose access to care.

Meanwhile, more than 13% of voters who responded to The Conversation’s #SetTheAgenda poll were worried about health. Cost-of-living pressures were also on their list of concerns before the election.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has long supported GPs moving away from bulk billing so they don’t have to depend on government to set their incomes. This time around, many GPs will heed the call, and leave patients with a larger gap fee to pay. Here’s why.

Read more:
Explainer: what is Medicare and how does it work?

The rising cost of health care

General medical practices are essentially small, private businesses, which are free to set their own fees and working conditions. Medicare is a government insurance scheme to help patients access private GPs.

Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) fees are raised each year in accordance with the government’s Wage Price Index. This approach has long been criticised for failing to keep pace with inflation in the health sector.

Compounding this lag, rebates were frozen in 2013 as a cost-cutting measure for attendance items until July 2018.

Total spending on health in 2021–22 is estimated to be A$98.3 billion, representing 16.7% of the federal government’s total expenditure. Around 6.5% of total health expenditure is allocated to delivering GP services.

The gap between the AMA-recommended fee (around $86) and the Medicare rebate for a standard GP consult ($39.10) has grown by $13.50 over a decade to around $47. Average patient out-of-pocket costs for services directly provided by GPs have increased by 50% over the last decade.

Some 88.4% of GP services were bulk-billed in the final quarter of 2021, an increase of 0.3% on the previous year, according to the Department of Health. But much of this increase can be explained by mandated bulk-billed telehealth consultations under COVID rules, which replaced in-person consultations during lockdowns. The percentage of bulk-billed consultations was also down on the previous quarter.

Health care consumer confidence

So, health care costs in Australia are rising faster than cost of living pressures and wages growth. And there is ample evidence out-of-pocket costs create barriers to people getting health care – especially for many who need it most: rural populations, young families, those with disabilities and chronic conditions.

Earlier this year, a large survey found 30% of people with chronic conditions were not confident they could afford health care if they became seriously ill; 14% of people with chronic conditions said they could not afford healthcare or medicine now.

Rising out-of-pocket costs for health care is an important issue the major parties have not yet substantially addressed during the election campaign. The Labor party has finally come to the table with a funding promise to better support GPs and primary care, which the AMA has applauded as a good start.

Read more:
How do the major parties rate on Medicare? We asked 5 experts

GPs feeling the strain

General practices have worked hard to adapt to funding squeezes by creating efficiencies of scale (boosting practice size); adopting new technology, and seeing more patients with shorter consultation times. But around half are concerned about the long-term viability of their practices.

Anecdotally, younger GPs say they are thinking about leaving face-to-face general practice, finding the demands and expectations unsustainable. Even sadder is their perception the specialty has been devalued and deskilled.

Due to the lower income and status of general practice, medical students have a limited interest in pursuing it as a career and registrar training places go unfilled.

So, the GP workforce gets older. Some 50% of GPs are now over 50. Around 80% of GPs think better pay would attract more graduates to the specialty.

The pandemic has compounded the strain on our health workforce, with GP clinics shouldering significant responsibility for testing, vaccinating and caring for COVID patients. Staff and supply shortages and inadequate funding models have put substantial stress onto an already busy and demanding career.

Read more:
With surgery waitlists in crisis and a workforce close to collapse, why haven’t we had more campaign promises about health?

No quick fixes

It’s understandable that many GPs are opting out of bulk-billing. But there are no simple solutions for delivering high quality health care to everyone.

Adopting new funding models, including more blended payments – moving away from fee-for-service and incorporating “pay for performance” funding – could ease the strains on general practices.

Our health system is due for some courageous reforms. GPs have long advocated for better telehealth, reducing the current funding bias towards procedural medicine, and more consultation tiers, to improve quality of care. A strong Medicare system is important to provide a safety net, ensuring equitable access for all Australians.

David King 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. GPs are abandoning bulk billing. What does this mean for affordable family medical care? – https://theconversation.com/gps-are-abandoning-bulk-billing-what-does-this-mean-for-affordable-family-medical-care-182666

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kai Riemer, Professor of Information Technology and Organisation, University of Sydney

Imagine there is a public speaking square in your city, much like the ancient Greek agora. Here you can freely share your ideas without censorship.

But there’s one key difference. Someone decides, for their own economic benefit, who gets to listen to what speech or which speaker. And this isn’t disclosed when you enter, either. You might only get a few listeners when you speak, while someone else with similar ideas has a large audience.

Would this truly be free speech?

This is an important question, because the modern agoras are social media platforms – and this is how they organise speech. Social media platforms don’t just present users with the posts of those they follow, in the order they’re posted.

Rather, algorithms decide what content is shown and in which order. In our research, we’ve termed this “algorithmic audiencing”. And we believe it warrants a closer look in the debate about how free speech is practised online.

Our understanding of free speech is too limited

The free speech debate has once more been ignited by news of Elon Musk’s plans to take over Twitter, his promise to reduce content moderation (including by restoring Donald Trump’s account) and, more recently, speculation he might pull out of the deal if Twitter can’t prove the platform isn’t inundated with bots.

Musk’s approach to free speech is typical of how this issue is often framed: in terms of content moderation, censorship and matters of deciding what speech can enter and stay on the platform.

But our research reveals this focus misses how platforms systematically interfere with free speech on the audience’s side, rather than the speaker’s side.

Outside the social media debate, free speech is commonly understood as the “free trade of ideas”. Speech is about discourse, not merely the right to speak. Algorithmic interference in who gets to hear which speech serves to directly undermine this free and fair exchange of ideas.

If social media platforms are “the digital equivalent of a town square” committed to defending free speech, as both Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Musk argue, then algorithmic audiencing must be considered for speech to be free.

How it works

Algorithmic audiencing happens through algorithms that either amplify or curb the reach of each message on a platform. This is done by design, based on a platform’s monetisation logic.

Newsfeed algorithms amplify content that keeps users the most “engaged”, because engagement leads to more user attention on targeted advertising, and more data collection opportunities.

This explains why some users have large audiences while others with similar ideas are barely noticed. Those who speak to the algorithm achieve the widest circulation of their ideas. This is akin to large-scale social engineering.

At the same time, the workings of Facebook’s and Twitter’s algorithms remain largely opaque.

Read more:
Is your phone really listening to your conversations? Well, turns out it doesn’t have to

How it interferes with free speech

Algorithmic audiencing has a material effect on public discourse. While content moderation only applies to harmful content (which makes up a tiny fraction of all speech on these platforms), algorithmic audiencing systematically applies to all content.

So far, this kind of interference in free speech has been overlooked, because it’s unprecedented. It was not possible in traditional media.

And it is relatively recent for social media as well. In the early days messages would simply be sent to one’s follower network, rather than subjected to algorithmic distribution. Facebook, for example, only started filling newsfeeds with the help of algorithms that optimise for engagement in 2012, after it was publicly listed and faced increased pressure to monetise.

Only in the past five years has algorithmic audiencing really become a widespread issue. At the same time, the extent of the issue isn’t fully known because it’s almost impossible for researchers to gain access to platform data.

But we do know addressing it is important, since it can drive the proliferation of harmful content such as misinformation and disinformation.

We know such content gets commented on and shared more, attracting further amplification. Facebook’s own research has shown its algorithms can drive users to join extremist groups.

What can be done?

Individually, Twitter users should heed Elon Musk’s recent advice to re-organise their newsfeeds back to chronological order, which would curb the extent of algorithmic audiencing being applied.

You can also do this for Facebook, but not as a default setting – so you’ll have to choose this option every time you use the platform. It’s the same case with Instagram (which is also owned by Facebook’s parent company, Meta).

What’s more, switching to chronological order will only go so far in curbing algorithmic audiencing – because you’ll still get other content (apart from what you directly opt-in to) which will target you based on the platform’s monetisation logic.

And we also know only a fraction of users ever change their default settings. In the end, regulation is required.

While social media platforms are private companies, they enjoy far-ranging privileges to moderate content on their platforms under section 230 of the US’s Communications Decency Act.

In return, the public expects platforms to facilitate a free and fair exchange of their ideas, as these platforms provide the space where public discourse happens. Algorithmic audiencing constitutes a breach of this privilege.

As US legislators contemplate social media regulation, addressing algorithmic audiencing must be on the table. Yet, so far it has hardly part of the debate at all – with the focus squarely on content moderation.

Any serious regulation will need to challenge platforms’ entire business model, since algorithmic audiencing is a direct outcome of surveillance capitalist logic – wherein platforms capture and commodify our content and data to predict (and influence) our behaviour – all to turn a profit.

Until we are regulating this use of algorithms, and the monetisation logic that underpins it, speech on social media will never be free in any genuine sense of the word.

Read more:
Facebook is tilting the political playing field more than ever, and it’s no accident

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

– ref. Wrong, Elon Musk: the big problem with free speech on platforms isn’t censorship. It’s the algorithms – https://theconversation.com/wrong-elon-musk-the-big-problem-with-free-speech-on-platforms-isnt-censorship-its-the-algorithms-182433

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

Medicare, Australia’s universal health insurance scheme, provides financial protection against the cost of medical bills, and makes public hospital care available without any charge to the patient. For the large majority of Australians in urban settings, it is a brilliant system – providing subsidised access to care.

But subsidised access is only useful for those who have access. If there is no doctor nearby, there is nothing to subsidise. This creates a huge inequity – most of Australia has good access to doctors, but the Northern Territory does not.

And what’s worse, there is no effective policy to redress the inequity that payments flow to areas where there are doctors.

In our recently published paper, we found NT residents receive roughly 30% less Medicare funding per capita than the national average (A$648 compared with A$969).

The gap is worse for First Nations Australians in the NT, who attract only 16% of the Medicare funding of the average Australian.

Read more:
Labor’s health package won’t ‘strengthen’ Medicare unless it includes these 3 things

We measured the extent of the problem over the years 2010–20. We used the federal government’s published figures on Medicare to explore the impact of this uneven workforce distribution on Medicare billing in the NT.

The differences are stark.

The inequitable funding is even worse when the poorer health status of First Nations Australians and the additional costs associated with geographical remoteness are taken into account.

The NT has a younger age profile than the rest of Australia, but this explains only one-third of the gap.

What’s going wrong with the funding?

Despite Medicare’s intended universality, the NT is systematically disadvantaged.

People in the Territory have poorer access to primary health care, which includes GP services and those provided by Aboriginal community-controlled health services.

Aboriginal health services receive some special additional funding separate from the Medicare-billing funding. However, even with that extra funding, there is still a shortfall to NT residents of about A$80 million each year.

The NT government receives a relatively higher proportion of the GST funding pool in recognition of its challenges with remoteness and Indigenous services. But this is calculated assuming NT residents have the same access to Medicare as all other Australians. As we have shown, they don’t and so the extra GST funding does not result in a fair funding stream to meet NT primary care needs.

The outcome of inadequate primary health care funding is increasing reliance on hospital services. People’s chronic health conditions worsen if they’re not well managed in the community and this increases the risk they will need a hospital admission, especially for “potentially preventable hospitalisations”. NT hospitals experience excessive pressure of workload and complexity as a result.

We have shown previously that effective primary health care for remote patients with chronic, long-term diseases can substantially reduce their use of hospital services and result in better health outcomes at a lower cost.

When visiting the NT in 2000, one of the architects of Medicare, John Deeble, observed the funding failure first hand and suggested another form of health-care financing was needed to adequately support remote primary health care.

In terms of health equity and our national commitment to close the life expectancy gap for First Nations peoples, the status quo is undeniably short-changing our efforts.

What needs to be done?

There needs to be a reset in how we finance remote primary health care services in the NT.

The value proposition is excellent. Due to the extreme health needs and vulnerable populations, the return on investment is high – more than A$5 in saved acute care costs for every dollar invested.

The federal government’s Health Care Homes funding reform trial was very successful in remote NT communities. For the first time, service providers received flexible funding to care for patients’ chronic conditions, rather than a fee for each service they provided. It also enabled the provider and patient to develop a relationship.

Unfortunately the Health Care Homes program ended in June 2021, and has not been renewed. This program should be reinvigorated for chronic disease care in the NT and extended to include other core programs of mental health and suicide prevention, and child and maternal health.

The federal government should take this opportunity to get remote primary health care financing right and ensure Medicare funds reach those who need them most.

Read more:
How do the major parties rate on Medicare? We asked 5 experts

Acknowledgement: Xiaohua Zhang, Jo Wright, and Maja Van Bruggen from the Northern Territory Department of Health are co-authors of the journal article on which this article is based.

John Wakerman receives funding from The Australian Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and the NT Primary Health Network.

Paul Burgess has previously received grant funding as an investigator on MRFF, NHMRC and the Digital Health CRC funded projects. No funding was received for the work that led to this publication. Paul works for the NT Government.

Rus Nasir worked for the NT Government as acting director of Aboriginal health.

Yuejen Zhao works for the NT Govnernment.

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

– ref. First Nations people in the NT receive just 16% of the Medicare funding of an average Australian – https://theconversation.com/first-nations-people-in-the-nt-receive-just-16-of-the-medicare-funding-of-an-average-australian-183210

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Eltham, Lecturer, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University

Mentions of arts and cultural policy have been thin on the ground this election. The Coalition has not released any specific arts policies during the campaign, and Labor’s arts policies have only just been announced in the last week before everyone heads to the polls.

While arts isn’t one of the big talking points this election like health or climate change, it is still an important policy area for many. In response to The Conversation’s #SetTheAgenda poll, readers told us they were interested in support for the ABC and Australian literature, arts and humanities.

One reader said they were hoping for “the recognition of the arts in relation to the well being of people”. Another said they wanted a cultural policy “catering to the smaller/gig economy not just the big players/organisations”.

So what do we know about the major parties’ commitment to the arts, and how do they stack up? We asked five experts to analyse and grade the major parties’ arts and cultural policies. No one gets an A, but there are a couple of Fs.

Here are their detailed responses:

Coalition

Labor

Ben Eltham has previously received funding from the Australia Council for the Arts. He is affiliated with the Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute, where he has previously co-written a report about federal cultural policy. He is a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), a union that represents workers in the cultural sector.

Brendan Keogh has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council

Kirsten Stevens has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Peter Tregear is Chair of IOpera, a chamber opera company which has received financial support from the Federal Government’s RISE fund. He is also a founding member of Public Universities Australia, an alliance of organisations and individuals lobbying to promote the public value and function of Australian universities.

Tully Barnett receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. How do the major parties compare on arts and cultural policy? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/how-do-the-major-parties-compare-on-arts-and-cultural-policy-we-asked-5-experts-183209

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark John Costello, Professor, Nord University

Denying the severity of a crisis neither removes nor lessens the problem. Sticking to the status quo because it doesn’t suit our work practices, or social and economic norms, not only delays the inevitable, it compounds the problem.

The crisis, whether a pandemic or climate change, must dictate the timetable. Given the urgency of the crises we face, that timetable needs to be equally urgent. The world needs much more regular reporting on progress (or lack of it) for action and adaptation to keep pace.

Society’s response to the COVID-19 health crisis demonstrated the ability of citizens and governments to adapt rapidly when provided with information daily. The chronic crises of climate change and biodiversity loss require similar treatment: global assessments should be published annually, not once every few years.

The pace of the pandemic, with half-a-billion people infected and over six million deaths to date, demanded daily epidemiological data from the outset to manage the response. Failures in timely or accurate monitoring and reporting, and naïve responses, led to more deaths and illness, and many suffering with long COVID for years.

Nature will not wait for changes in scientific knowledge or public opinion, nor for electoral cycles to shift politicians’ priorities. The lessons of the pandemic should now be applied to other global crises.

Interrelated crises

Decades of evidence of fossil-fuel-driven climate change means it is now accepted as fact by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

While regionally variable, the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme events related to climate change – including wildfires, droughts, floods, landslides and heatwaves – have international consequences for human health, property loss and food security. In turn, these may lead to mass migration, government instability and military conflict.

Read more:
Mass starvation, extinctions, disasters: the new IPCC report’s grim predictions, and why adaptation efforts are falling behind

Most citizens now grasp the interrelated nature of the climate crisis and the loss of the biodiversity on which food security and healthy ecosystems depend.

The pandemic, climate and biodiversity crises are interconnected (see diagram below). One study lists 52 interactions covering equity, governance, public health, food systems, water availability, hygiene, urbanisation and infrastructure. These are symptoms of the unsustainable human impacts on the planet and its biodiversity.

Since its inception in 1988, the IPCC has scheduled rigorous assessments of scientific data and knowledge of climate change. This work involves thousands of scientists and numerous meetings, at five- to eight-year intervals. Most importantly, these form a scientific consensus approved by governments.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) follows a similar path. Special reports and assessments from both organisations provide salient and up-to-date scientific information to governments worldwide. These run to thousands of pages and are expensive to produce.

Read more:
Rising authoritarianism and worsening climate change share a fossil-fueled secret

But the accelerating pace of climate change, loss of biodiversity and now regular extreme events dictate that the IPCC and IPBES must shift their assessment cycles from once every few years to yearly. The transformational adaptation of society called for by the IPCC should also apply to its own scientific reporting.

Annual reports may not need to be as detailed and comprehensive and could have fewer authors, while still maintaining breadth of expertise, geographic representation and diversity. Workloads and costs would be reduced by the data-gathering and analysis covering just one year.

Accountability and action

Reports could be more succinct, with less jargon, by focusing on the facts and their meaning. This would streamline production and increase efficiencies. Annual assessments could then be synchronised with government and business budgeting and planning, as the climate and biodiversity crises are also economic problems.

In turn, this would enable governments to adjust policies and funding priorities, investments, taxes and fines on an annual basis. Crucially, they could highlight any failures to meet the previous year’s promises.

Read more:
Scorched dystopia or liveable planet? Here’s where the climate policies of our political hopefuls will take us

Even before the pandemic, nearly all the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2020 had yet to be met, including the failure to protect 10% of the oceans by 2020 under the Convention on Aichi Biological Diversity Targets.

Still only 2.8% of the ocean is designated to be fully protected from human impacts, and 3.2% partially. Despite international commitments under the United Nations Law of the Sea in 1982, it seems 94% of the ocean is not being managed in an environmentally sustainable way. We are a long way from the new target of 30% by 2030.

Action can never be guaranteed, but annual accessible assessments and a better-informed population would mean greater accountability, particularly as election cycles would cover multiple reports.

Social and political change

There have been calls, too, for monthly data on emissions on top of annual national reporting on progress to climate change targets. And while some agree that the present IPCC assessment process is untenable, their proposal is to halt further IPCC assessments altogether.

We argue that more frequent assessments will lead to the societal and political change needed. Other shifts in societal behaviour – reducing smoking, alcohol abuse, healthy diets, drunk driving and promoting recycling – took years of convincing scientific evidence to take hold.

Read more:
Without a better plan, New Zealand risks sleepwalking into a biodiversity extinction crisis

This process of shifting individual behaviour that then translates into government action is well under way with the climate and biodiversity crises. We’re optimistic that increased government efforts can address the crises, with their delays making action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions a higher priority every year.

Shortening and simplifying the process to make primary data more accessible to society, as demonstrated during the pandemic and commonly seen in the reporting of weather and climate (though sadly not for biodiversity data) is a starting point.

A globally representative and diverse panel of scientists can oversee the process, interpreting the observations in the light of peer-reviewed research, as already happens with assessments. All of this will guide solutions to ensure the health of our planetary ecosystem and the future of all its inhabitants.

Mark John Costello was a lead author in a regional chapter and co-lead of a cross-cutting chapter in the IPCC WG2 6th Assessment. His participation in the IPCC was supported by the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. He was the first chair of OBIS and served as vice-chair of the GBIF Science Committee.

Katherine Kelly 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. Prompt and accurate information is vital in a pandemic – the climate and biodiversity crises demand the same urgency – https://theconversation.com/prompt-and-accurate-information-is-vital-in-a-pandemic-the-climate-and-biodiversity-crises-demand-the-same-urgency-182329

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

The final Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted May 12-17 from a sample of 2,049, gave Labor just a 52-48 lead by 2019 election preferences, a two-point gain for the Coalition since last fortnight’s Resolve. By respondent preferences, Labor’s lead was narrower at 51-49, a three-point gain for the Coalition.

Primary votes were 34% Coalition (up one), 31% Labor (down three), 14% Greens (down one), 6% One Nation (up one), 4% UAP (down one), 6% independents (up two) and 4% others (steady). 86% said they were now committed to their first preference (up 10), while 14% were not yet committed (down 10).

50% thought Scott Morrison was doing a bad job and 43% a good job for a net approval of -7, up two points. Anthony Albanese gained three points for a net approval of -8. Morrison led as preferred PM by 40-36 (39-33 previously).

Labor and Albanese led the Liberals and Morrison by 32-30 on keeping the cost of living low (34-28 previously). On economic management, the Liberals led by 40-30 (42-27 last time).

The poll supplemented its usual online sample of about 1,400 for campaign polls with several hundred respondents interviewed by telephone.

In the three polls so far this week, Resolve has had the most dramatic narrowing. Essential has generally had better results for the Coalition than other polls, and Labor’s lead after preferences has been as low as one point twice this year. The narrowing in Morgan was not all it seemed.

I don’t think the Coalition’s campaign launch on Sunday and their housing policy is responsible, as the fieldwork for these polls began well before then. With Morrison’s ratings still well in negative territory, the narrowing may reflect hesitation about voting Labor.

I expect more polls from Newspoll, Ipsos and perhaps a final Morgan poll by Friday night.

Essential: 48-46 to Labor with undecided included

The final Essential poll, conducted May 11-16 from a sample of 1,600, gave Labor a 48-46 lead with undecided included (49-45 last fortnight). Primary votes were 36% Coalition (steady), 35% Labor (steady), 9% Greens (down one), 4% One Nation (up one), 3% UAP (down one), 6% Others (up one) and 7% undecided (up one).

With undecided excluded, the two party would be 51-49 to Labor. Analyst Kevin Bonham estimated 51.6-48.4 to Labor by 2019 preference flows.

49% disapproved of Morrison’s performance (up one since April) and 43% approved (down one), for a net approval of -6, down two points. Albanese’s net approval was up one point to +1. Morrison led as better PM by 40-37 (40-36 previously).

34% said the government deserved to be re-elected (up one since last fortnight), and 49% said it was time to give someone else a go (up three).

Morgan poll: Labor’s lead narrows to 53-47, but …

A national Morgan poll, conducted May 9-15 from a sample of 1,366, gave Labor a 53-47 lead, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the previous week’s poll. Primary votes were 34% Labor (down 1.5), 34% Coalition (steady), 13% Greens (steady), 4% One Nation (steady), 1% UAP (steady), 9% independents (up 0.5) and 5% others (up one).

This two party result is based on 2019 preference flows. Until last week, Morgan was using respondent preferences, which were better for Labor. Bonham gets a Labor lead of 53.9-46.1 from Morgan’s primaries, implying Morgan miscalculated the 2019 flows.

It’s likely Morgan’s high independent vote is because they continue to ask for independents in all seats, even though most seats don’t have viable independents. Resolve was the other pollster that used to have high independent votes, but dropped the independent option in its last poll in most seats, leading to a surge for the Greens.

Read more:
Labor’s lead steady in Newspoll and gains in Resolve; how the polls moved during past campaigns

It’s not mentioned in the poll report, but Labor’s two party estimate using respondent preferences was actually up 0.5 points from the previous week to a 56.5-43.5 lead for Labor.

Seat polls galore, but mainly in NSW and WA

As I’ve said before, seat polls have been unreliable at past elections. The polls listed here are relatively poor for Labor in WA, but strong in NSW, which most of these polls focused on. There are two potential NSW losses for Labor: Eden-Monaro and Hunter, but far more for the Coalition.

Data for the seat polls would mostly have been collected last week, before any national narrowing began.

Polls were good for “teal” independents in Wentworth and Goldstein, and for Labor in inner Brisbane seats, but none of these polls surveyed a regional Queensland seat.

A note on seat margins: in Australia, the margin is the winning party’s two party percentage minus 50%, not the difference between the two leading candidates. For example, Parramatta is Labor held by a 3.5% margin, meaning that Labor won it by 53.5-46.5 at the 2019 election, a 7.0% difference.

Read more:
Where are the most marginal seats, and who might win them?

Utting research robopolls of four WA seats were conducted May 12-13 from samples of 400 per seat for the WA Sunday Times. Compared to March polls of the same four seats, these are much better for the Coalition. Labor would still gain Swan and Pearce.

In Swan (Lib, 3.2% margin), Labor’s March lead is down from 59-41 to 53-47. In Pearce (Lib, 5.2%), Labor’s lead reduced from 55-45 to 52-48. In Hasluck (Lib, 5.9%), the Liberals lead by 55-45 after trailing 52-48 previously. And in Tangney (Lib, 9.5%), the Liberals have a 54-46 lead after a 50-50 tie last time.

WA has nearly always been much more pro-Coalition at federal elections than the country overall. These polls suggest that it has reverted to type. Labor’s national poll leads may reflect swings to Labor in the eastern states since the campaign began.

Polls for the Industry Association were reported by Sky News on Sunday. They surveyed seven NSW seats from samples of 800 per seat. Fieldwork dates and pollster used were not mentioned.

In Robertson (Lib, 4.2%), Labor led by 58-42. In Reid (Lib, 3.2%), Labor led by 53-47. In Parramatta (Lab, 3.5%), Labor led by 54-46. In Gilmore (Lab, 2.6%), Labor led by 56-44. In Shortland (Lab, 4.5%), Labor led by 57-43. In Hunter (Lab, 3.0%), Labor led by 51-49. And in Lindsay (Lib, 5.0%), the Liberals led by 57-43.

The report also said that similar polling earlier in the campaign showed losses for the Coalition in Banks (Lib, 6.3%) and Bennelong (Lib, 6.9%).

The weighted share in a Compass poll of North Sydney (Lib, 9.3%), conducted in the week of May 6 from a sample of 507, gave the Liberals 40.5%, Labor 21.6%, an independent 13.6% and the Greens 12.9%. Analyst Kevin Bonham estimated this would be 50.5-49.5 to Labor.

A Redbridge poll of North Sydney for Climate 200, conducted May 3-14 from a sample of 1,267, gave the Liberals 35.5%, the independent (Kylea Tink) 24.8% and Labor 18.9%. Bonham said respondent preferences gave Tink a 54.5-45.5 lead over the Liberals.

A Redbridge poll for independent Allegra Spender in Wentworth (Lib, 1.3% vs independent Kerryn Phelps in 2019), reported by The Guardian, gave the Liberals 36%, Spender 33.3%, Labor 11.7%, the Greens 6.2% and UAP 5.3%. Spender would win from these primary votes.

The Poll Bludger reported Tuesday that a Laidlaw poll of Fowler (Lab, 14.0%), conducted three weeks ago from a sample of 618, had Labor’s Kristina Keneally leading independent Dai Le by 45-38 after preferences with 17% undecided.

In the Victorian seat of Goldstein (Lib, 7.8%), Samantha Maiden reported Saturday that a uComms poll for the left-wing activist GetUp! with a sample of 831 gave independent Zoe Daniel a 59-41 lead over Liberal incumbent Tim Wilson.

uComms has had very strong results in its polls for “teal” independents. The Poll Bludger is sceptical as they have not altered their weighting since the 2019 election, when not weighting by education is thought to have caused the poll failure.

Read more:
As the election campaign begins, what do the polls say, and can we trust them this time?

YouGov polls for Labor in May of Brisbane (Qld, LNP, 4.9%), Ryan (Qld, LNP, 6.0%), Bennelong and Higgins (Vic, Lib, 2.6%) from samples of 400 per seat had Scott Morrison’s disapproval rating at 57% in Bennelong, 58% in Ryan, 62% in Brisbane and 65% in Higgins according to The Guardian.

Maiden reported Tuesday that uComms polls for GetUp! in Gilmore, Ryan, Eden-Monaro (NSW, Lab, 0.9%), Page (NSW, Nat, 9.5%) and Macquarie (NSW, Lab, 0.2%) gave Labor a 57-43 lead in Gilmore, 55-45 in Ryan and 56-44 in Macquarie. But the Nationals led by 51-49 in Page and the Liberals by 51-49 in Eden-Monaro.

Tasmanian upper house: Labor loses Huon

Tasmanian upper house elections occurred in Huon, McIntyre and Elwick on May 7. The last two were decided by large margins, but in Huon preferences were distributed Tuesday after the postal reception deadline.

Primary votes were 25.1% Labor, 23.7% for conservative independent Dean Harriss, 22.7% Liberals, 20.9% Greens and 7.8% Local Party. After preferences, Harriss defeated Labor by 52.6-47.4. This means Labor drops from five seats to four in the 15-member upper house.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Labor’s lead narrows in three new national polls; and seat polls galore – https://theconversation.com/labors-lead-narrows-in-three-new-national-polls-and-seat-polls-galore-183110

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kira Westaway, Associate professor, Macquarie University

What do a finger bone and some teeth found in the frigid Denisova Cave in Siberia’s Altai mountains have in common with fossils from the balmy hills of tropical northern Laos?

Not much, until now: in a Laotian cave, an international team of researchers including ourselves has discovered a tooth belonging to an ancient human previously only known from icy northern latitudes – a Denisovan.

The find shows these long-lost relatives of Homo sapiens inhabited a wider area and range of environments than we previously knew, confirming hints found in the DNA of modern human populations from Southeast Asia and Australasia.

Read more:
Fresh clues to the life and times of the Denisovans, a little-known ancient group of humans

Who were the Denisovans?

Little is known about these distant cousins of modern humans, except that they once lived in Asia, were related to and interacted with the better-known Neanderthals, and are now extinct.

The first traces of Denisovans were only found in 2010, with the discovery of an innocuous finger bone in remote Denisova Cave. The extreme cold of the cave meant some ancient DNA was preserved in the bone – and the DNA revealed the finger had belonged to an unknown species of human.

This discovery changed the course of human evolutionary studies, and the newly discovered humans were named Denisovans after the cave where the fossil was found.

Fossilised teeth from Denisovans were later discovered in the same cave. Two upper and one lower molar were found in sediments that were dated to between 195,000 and 52,000 years ago.

Meanwhile, it was found that genes from Denisovans survived in modern day people from Southeast Asia and Australasia. This implied that the Denisovans had dispersed over a far larger area than anticipated.

Read more:
Evolutionary study suggests prehistoric human fossils ‘hiding in plain sight’ in Southeast Asia

The hunt for more fossils

The hunt was on to find more evidence of these humans outside Russia, but scientists had no idea what they actually looked like. For the first time in history we knew more about a human’s DNA than their anatomy!

The next twist came when a 160,000-year-old Denisovan jawbone surfaced on the Tibetan Plateau, giving the scientific community a tantalising glimpse of what the bodies of these ancient humans were like and where they lived.

But questions remained: just how far did they spread in Asia, and how did their genetic imprint survive in Southeast Asians and Australasians?

Clearly Denisovans could live in the cold environments of Siberia and Tibet, but could they have also occupied a completely different ecological niche and adapted to a tropical climate?

Tam Ngu Hao 2 (Cobra Cave)

Enter a new cave found by an international (Laos–French–American–Australian) team in northern Laos in 2018, close to the famous Tam Pa Ling cave where 70,000-year-old modern human fossils were found.

The site, named Tam Ngu Hao 2 (or Cobra Cave), was found high up in the limestone mountains and contained remnants of old cave sediment packed with fossils.

The cave sediments contained teeth from giant herbivores, such as ancient elephants and rhinos that liked to live in woodland environments. The teeth were likely washed into the cave during a flooding event that deposited the sediments and fossils.

These sediments were covered by a layer of very hard rock called flowstone, which is formed by water flowing over the cave floor. The sediments and fossils were dated by this study to provide an age for the time of deposition in the cave, and by association a minimum age for the death of the animals.

A young girl’s tooth

A human tooth (a lower permanent molar) was found in the cave sediments, but we could not initially identify what species of human it came from. The humid conditions in Laos meant that the ancient DNA was not preserved.

We did however find ancient proteins that suggested the tooth came from a young, likely female, human – probably between 3.5 and 8.5 years old.

After very detailed analysis of the shape of this tooth, our team identified many similarities to the Denisovan teeth found on the Tibetan Plateau. This suggested the tooth’s owner was most likely a Denisovan who lived between 164,000 and 131,000 years ago in the warm tropics.

An ancient human hotspot

This fossil represents the first discovery of Denisovans in Southeast Asia, and shows that Denisovans were at least as far south as Laos. This is in agreement with the genetic evidence found in modern day Southeast Asian populations.

They may have been just at home in the balmy tropical climates of Laos as the icy conditions of northern Europe and the high-altitude environments of the Tibetan Plateau. This suggests the Denisovans were very good at adapting to diverse environments.

It would seem that Southeast Asia was a hotspot of diversity for humans. At least five different species set up camp there at different times: Homo erectus, the Denisovans/Neanderthals, Homo floresiensis, Homo luzonensis, and Homo sapiens.

How many of these species overlapped and interacted? Another fossil discovered in the dense network of Southeast Asian caves could provide the next clue to understanding these complex relationships.

Kira Westaway receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Leakey Foundation

Mike W Morley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

– ref. A fossil tooth places enigmatic ancient humans in Southeast Asia – https://theconversation.com/a-fossil-tooth-places-enigmatic-ancient-humans-in-southeast-asia-179290

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Arrow, Professor of History, Macquarie University

Because “women’s issues” have been in the headlines over the last year, it may seem strange they have not been more prominent in the election campaign.

Yet it is clear gender has played a crucial role in defining the choice voters will make in the 2022 election, and female voters may well prove decisive in the election outcome on May 21.

The campaign coverage has obsessively focused on Anthony Albanese and Scott Morrison’s performance on the campaign trail, rather than on their fitness to lead the nation.

Each man has offered a different model of leadership. After his success in 2019, Morrison continues to focus on wooing male voters who might vote Labor, with his blokey campaign schtick.

Albanese, too, loves a hard hat and high-vis vest, though he is equally at home holding babies and talking to women. Blair Williams described Albanese’s style of leadership as “state daddy” : a more caring and consultative masculinity.

In the opening weeks of the election campaign, neither side made an explicit pitch to women. However, Ingrid Matthews astutely observed that with its emphasis on care, Labor spoke to women, but given Australia’s history of political misogyny, especially that directed towards Julia Gillard, it was, necessarily “sotto voce”. Male voters, it seems, may still be alienated by a leader who focuses on women’s needs.

Read more:
Women have been at the centre of political debate in the past two years. Will they decide the 2022 election?

Labor, then, has tried to balance appealing to blue-collar men and holding onto the blue-collar and middle-class women who are Labor’s most fervent supporters. Labor’s promise to make gender pay equity an objective of the Fair Work Act was an important signal to these voters.

Morrison, on the other hand, has barely discussed women’s issues, unless you count the participation of trans women in sport. Preselecting the transphobic Katherine Deves was a blunt political calculation by Morrison, designed to vilify a marginalised group and dogwhistle to some outer-suburban voters. The media’s focus on Deves also served to deflect attention away from the Coalition’s failings on women.

Morrison only seemed to realise at the end of week five of the campaign just how toxic he has become for women voters. His promise to these women – “I can change” – made him sound like a bad boyfriend, begging for one more chance.

So where are the women candidates?

It is clear from this stunted, combative election campaign that our political system needs greater diversity. Many women are running in this election, but only two in ten of the major party’s female candidates are running in winnable seats. Both parties have a very long way to go before their party rooms reflect the gender, class and ethnic diversity of contemporary Australia.

Since 1999, Australia’s parliament has become less, not more representative of women: we have plunged from 15th in the world to 57th on this measure. In the early 1990s, both major parties had around 11% female MPs: now, the ALP has 47%; the LNP has just 26%.

The ALP used quotas to achieve this shift; the Coalition claims it selects candidates on “merit”. The fact some of their most “meritorious” male candidates now fear losing their seats might give preselectors pause in future.

Read more:
Quotas are not pretty but they work – Liberal women should insist on them

‘Groupies and fakes’: the teal independents

The rise of (mostly) female independent candidates has highlighted the LNP’s cultural problems with women. Faced with a government that bullied and humiliated many of the women in its ranks, and which has proved intransigent on climate change and corruption, a group of highly capable women have steadily built grassroots campaigns in formerly safe Liberal seats.

The teal independents are highly accomplished, white female professionals, running against “moderate” or self-described “modern” Liberal MPs. They are not former staffers or party hacks. They have tapped a deep well of frustration about politics but have channelled it to build positive, inclusive and local campaigns.

The men of the Liberal party have responded to them with a mixture of outrage, misogyny and petulance. These women had the temerity to challenge Liberal MPs who, in the words of Alexander Downer, “could become truly great men”.

Liberal MP Jason Falinski suggested the money independents were spending on their campaigns was “immoral” because they could be directing their resources to women’s refuges. Matt Canavan even described gender equality as a “luxury” that only the teal seats, not “bogans”, could afford.

The treatment of the independents by the men in the LNP has provided a telling insight for the ways they have treated the women in their own party. It has also offered a glimpse of the ways they regard women, even ones who would normally be inclined to vote for them. Women are fine, provided they know their ‘place’.

How might women vote?

If the polls are to be believed, Australian women are waiting for this government with baseball bats in hand. The gender gap in the 2019 election was the biggest since 1987, and women have continued to desert the LNP ever since, especially after the Brittany Higgins case went public in February 2021.

Polls differ on their assessment of the women’s voting intention, but Roy Morgan puts Labor ahead of the Coalition on two-party preferred at 58-42. On the other hand, men barely differ on their support for the major parties.

Many women will continue to vote for the LNP, driven by political loyalty and economic self-interest. But if Labor wins government on May 21, it will owe much of this victory to women voters. Labor will need to reward their loyalty with policies that address their needs, and resolve factional disputes to ensure their most talented women are on the frontbench.

If the Coalition ends up in opposition, they will have to work hard to restore their standing with women. They might start by reforming preselections. Is it little wonder a political party with such a low proportion of female MPs might struggle to communicate with women? Is it little wonder the talented teal candidates didn’t seek to join the LNP?

Whoever is elected this weekend, Australian women will need to build on their organising of the last two years and insist policies promised are actually implemented. Not only have women shown they cannot be taken for granted, in their collective rage, they can demonstrate their electoral power. Women can, and must, build on this, whoever wins on Saturday.

Michelle Arrow receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She has worked as a volunteer for the Australian Labor Party during this election campaign.

– ref. Hey, guess what, guys? Women vote too – and they may decide the outcome of this election – https://theconversation.com/hey-guess-what-guys-women-vote-too-and-they-may-decide-the-outcome-of-this-election-182291

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marion Terrill, Transport and Cities Program Director, Grattan Institute

In the seat-by-seat slugfest that is the federal election, transport infrastructure is once again at the forefront. Small, hyper-local projects are a favourite of both major parties this time around. That’s even though small local projects, such as roundabouts and carparks, simply aren’t the job of the federal government, and in practice often go badly.

A better deal for taxpayers would be for whichever party wins government on Saturday to halt this spending on small local infrastructure, and focus instead on nationally significant projects that have been properly assessed by Infrastructure Australia.

There’s a big difference in what the parties are promising. The Coalition has committed an exuberant $18.1 billion worth; Labor a much more restrained $4.7 billion. In both cases, these transport promises are a pale shadow of the 2019 campaign, when the Coalition promised $42 billion worth, and Labor an eyewatering $49 billion.

The Coalition is sticking with the dominant strategy of the past 15 years, which is promising more funding to Queensland – the state where elections tend to be won and lost.

It has promised nearly $900 per Queenslander in transport funding, compared with about $500 for each person in New South Wales and Victoria. Labor hasn’t overlooked Queensland either; although its promises favour Victoria, at close to $400 per person, Queenslanders are next in line, with about $200 worth of transport spending each.

Billion-dollar projects are much less prevalent than they were last election, with just six of them promised so far (five by the Coalition, one by Labor).

Of the six, none has been assessed by Infrastructure Australia as nationally significant and worth building. Two have yet to achieve the first stage of assessment; two are early in the process of being assessed; one didn’t make it onto the list because its costs would outweigh its benefits, and one has been removed from the list because it has been fully funded – although that appears to have happened before a full appraisal was completed.

And that’s even with the newly watered-down requirement for Infrastructure Australia scrutiny: since January 1 2021, only projects that require more than $250 million in federal funding are supposed to be scrutinised, a lax threshold compared with the $100 million threshold that used to apply.

It’s prudent for potential future governments to step back from the megaproject binge of recent years. The engineering construction sector has been raising red flags for years about its capacity to deliver the existing pipeline of projects, never mind adding to it.

Even before the pandemic, employment in the sector had surged by 50%, and supply chain disruptions have made it slower, more difficult, and more expensive to source materials. What’s more, the slowing of population growth has dampened the rationale for big new projects, and strengthened the case to maintain and upgrade assets. Even so, both parties are promising more for new construction than upgrades.

In fact, the parties have gone hard for tiny projects. Two-thirds of the promised spend of the Coalition, and nearly half of Labor’s, is for projects valued at $30 million or less. For the Coalition, these include commuter car park upgrades at Panania in the electorate of Banks (NSW), Hampton in Goldstein (Victoria), Woy Woy in Robertson (NSW), and Kananook in Dunckley (Victoria). For Labor, they include upgrading the Mornington roundabout in Franklin (Tasmania), and several roundabout upgrades in Perth.

These very small, hyper-local projects may be important to the local community, and popular, but there’s no roundabout or car park in the land that’s nationally significant.

When the federal government encroaches on the turf of state and local government like this, it often goes badly. The commuter car parks that were cancelled in 2021 and 2022 show what can go wrong when a federal government operates outside its proper sphere: projects had to be cancelled because there were no feasible design options, feasible sites, or because the railway station was being merged with another.

Read more:
As federal government spending on small transport projects creeps up, marginal seats get a bigger share

Political parties make little secret of the fact they use transport spending to win votes. Indeed, given transport spending seems to be electorally popular, politicians may ask what’s wrong with focusing investment on electorally important states and seats? Well, there are three problems.

First, the quality of the projects promised in the heat of election campaigns is poor, with none of the billion-dollar-plus projects this time around having been positively assessed by Infrastructure Australia.

Second, government decisions should be made in the public interest, and those making the decisions should not have a private interest – including seeking private political advantage, with public funds.

And third, much of the promised spending lies outside the federal government’s proper role of funding nationally significant infrastructure, focusing instead on small hyper-local projects that are the remit of state and local governments.

Voters should demand better. Whichever party wins the 2022 federal election should strengthen the transport spending guardrails.

The government, whether Coalition or Labor, should require a minister, before approving funding, to consider and publish Infrastructure Australia’s assessment of a project, including the business case, cost/benefit analysis, and ranking on national significance grounds.

And the next federal government should also stick to its job: no more roundabouts or car parks, just nationally significant infrastructure that’s been assessed as worth building.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and Grattan uses the income to pursue its activities. Marion Terrill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any other company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

– ref. Roundabouts and car parks? The major parties are promising much on transport, but they should stick to their jobs – https://theconversation.com/roundabouts-and-car-parks-the-major-parties-are-promising-much-on-transport-but-they-should-stick-to-their-jobs-182783

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Monica Cations, Senior Research Fellow, Flinders University

There are up to 29,000 people aged under 65 living with dementia in Australia. Our new research shows people with young onset dementia experience delays to diagnosis and a faster decline in their cognitive abilities than older people with the condition.

They must also tackle a challenging maze of accessing support services across both a disability system inexperienced with their care and an aged-care system not suited to meet their needs.

Using the strengths of both sectors could prevent people with young onset dementia from falling through the cracks.

When dementia meets busy lives

People with young onset dementia (defined as any form of dementia that begins before age 65) are usually in their 50s and early 60s. They experience progressive memory loss, difficulty with planning and decision-making, personality changes, and/or language difficulties.

Many people with young onset dementia (also referred to as younger onset or early onset dementia) have dependent children, ageing parents, high-pressure jobs and significant financial responsibilities.

Dementia in younger people is also often misdiagnosed (most commonly as a psychiatric illness like depression), with a four-year average wait for an accurate diagnosis.

All this leads to much higher rates of psychological distress and poorer well-being among young people with dementia and their family members than their older counterparts.

We systematically reviewed 30 studies on Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia. Our analysis demonstrated younger people with dementia experience a faster progression of their symptoms than older people with dementia.

Studies that tracked symptoms over time showed that, while younger people generally maintained better physical health than older people while living with dementia, their thinking and language difficulties can worsen quickly.

This has an important impact on their care and support needs – and how often these needs are assessed.

Read more:
Where you live affects your dementia risk

A tipping point at 65

Because the likelihood of developing dementia rises sharply with age, most people with dementia are older than 65.

The unique needs of younger people with dementia prompted the federal government to move funding for their care and support services to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in 2016. Older people with dementia continue to be supported by the aged-care system.

This division means people with young onset dementia sit at the intersection of two complex service systems. They can access services to support their independence and community participation via the NDIS, but dementia-specific services and housing are still largely delivered by the aged-care sector.

Aged-care providers face difficulty providing tailored support services due to complex eligibility rules, and many have withdrawn their specific programs for young onset dementia.

Read more:
Genetic testing: Should I get tested for Alzheimer’s risk?

An annual NDIS review is not enough

The disability sector has little experience with delivering dementia care. Most NDIS participants are aged under 35 years and live with disabilities such as autism, intellectual disabilities and hearing impairments that remain relatively stable over their lifetime.

The sometimes rapidly progressive nature of young onset dementia means care needs can change more quickly than the standard yearly reviews offered by the NDIS. So even when people with young onset dementia receive adequate funding to suit their needs, these needs may change quickly. And there is a major shortage of disability service providers with dementia expertise with whom they can spend their funding.

This is especially true in rural and remote areas, where there may only be one or two people with young onset dementia across a large geographical area.

Strict eligibility rules about the “significance” of disability can also delay NDIS access. People newly diagnosed with young onset dementia may have mild impairments – but there are major benefits to early intervention.

Young people with dementia and their families frequently have to navigate their own care needs and educate the providers they encounter along the way. This can increase their stress.

Aged care isn’t the answer

Despite the difficulties people with young onset dementia and their families experience, our research tells us they want their care to remain in the disability system rather than revert back to the aged-care system. The NDIS philosophy of a strengths-based approach to maximise independence is valued.

The disability sector needs to be better equipped to support people with young onset dementia and others who have progressive impairments.

Training for the disability workforce about progressive neurological conditions including dementia would be a good first step.

Beyond training, better integration of the aged and disability sectors could have mutual benefits.

The disability sector can learn and grow from the rich dementia expertise of the aged care workforce. And the aged care sector can benefit from the disability sector’s experience with delivering strengths-based and goal-directed care. Hours of testimony from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety highlight how desperately this is needed.

Flexibility in funding rules around the 65-year-old NDIS cutoff point could see co-delivered services capitalise on these respective strengths.

Flexibility could also ensure people aged close to 65 years at the time of their dementia diagnosis can make informed choices about the sector from which they will seek support. Then suitable care that can adjust to their changing needs will stop them falling through the cracks.

Read more:
Serving up choice and dignity in aged care – how meals are enjoyed is about more than what’s on the plate

Monica Cations receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council Medical Research Future Fund and the South Australian Hospital Research Foundation.

– ref. The 29,000 younger Australians living with dementia are getting lost between disability services and aged care – https://theconversation.com/the-29-000-younger-australians-living-with-dementia-are-getting-lost-between-disability-services-and-aged-care-183115

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susanne Becken, Professor of Sustainable Tourism and Director, Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University

This year, Qantas announced two plans in direct conflict. In March, Australia’s largest airline group went public with the admirable goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and a 25% reduction by 2030 by using new clean fuels, boosting efficiency and using carbon offsets. For the aviation industry, this was a watershed moment, containing world-leading detail and bold links between executive pay and improved sustainability.

But only two months later, Qantas confirmed its order for 12 new Airbus planes capable of ultra long-distance flights, making possible non-stop flights from Sydney and Melbourne to London or New York.

What’s the conflict? These long distance flights must carry substantially more fuel and, as a result, fewer passengers, making them markedly less efficient.

If the aviation industry heads down this route, it will be a backwards step in the fight against climate change. While Qantas intends these flights to be carbon neutral, this will have to involve carbon offsets given there are no other options at present.

As the world gets more serious about climate action, flights like this will come under scrutiny.

Flying the furthest comes with a carbon cost

For decades, Qantas has hoped to overcome Australia’s tyranny of distance, beginning ultra long-haul test flights as early as 1989. These tests didn’t translate into regular flights, however, leaving the door open to key competitor Singapore Airlines, which currently has the world’s top two ultra long flights.

Qantas seems determined to change that. In 2025, the carrier’s new Sydney-London non-stop flight will cover 17,800km non-stop to become the world’s longest flight.

Read more:
Blue-sky thinking: net-zero aviation is more than a flight of fantasy

While it might seem like a single flight would produce less emissions, the opposite is true.

The most efficient flights (based on fuel burned per kilometre) are those between 3,000 and 5,000km, depending on aircraft type. By contrast, non-stop ultra long haul flights produce more carbon emissions than two shorter journeys with a stop-over.

The reason is simple physics. Planes flying ultra long distances must carry lots of fuel, especially at take-off, to cover the later stages of the journey. For the new planes Qantas has ordered, it takes about 0.2kg of fuel to transport a kilo a thousand kilometres.

Given the long distance, this means it’s not a very efficient use of fuel. Not only that, but the high fuel load means there is less space for passengers.

That gives an even less favourable result based on the metric of carbon dioxide emitted per passenger-kilometre. For example, the non-stop flight from Auckland to Dubai of 14,193km produces 876kg of CO2 per person in economy class, whereas the same journey with a stop-over in Singapore would produce 772kg. Exact emission rates may differ due to flight paths, freight weight, and weather, among other issues.

So while a typical A350-900 seats between 300 and 350 passengers, Singapore Airline’s existing marathon flights using these planes can only carry half that, naemly 161 passengers. Similarly, the planned Qantas flights would have just 238 passengers, 112 to 172 seats fewer than what Airbus recommends.

As you’d expect, less passengers increases the ticket cost and makes these flights more exclusive, adding to the problem that a small wealthy elite have a disproportionately high environmental impact.

Can long-haul ever be low carbon?

Marathon non-stop flights stand in the way of a wider shift towards a low-emissions world. If airlines are serious about tackling their sector’s growing contribution to fossil fuel emissions, they must look to research into alternative fuels and technologies by programs like the EU’s Clean Sky.

These programs have shown sustainable fuels and new technologies are much better suited to shorter flights. Electric aircraft, for instance, are becoming viable for short flights in the near-term future. In Sydney, electric seaplanes will soon enter the short-hop sector, while hybrid-electric technology has the potential to support flights of up to 1500km, depending on progress in battery technology.

So what about long distance? We have two options. One is hydrogen and the other is sustainable aviation fuels.

While there is a huge amount of hype around clean hydrogen at present, the reality is green hydrogen derived from renewable electricity currently makes up just 1% of all hydrogen we produce. We would need a monumental effort to scale up to fill the demand from aviation.

Another challenge is hydrogen’s low energy density, which will restrict flying range to an estimated maximum of 7,000km by 2040.

Read more:
Reducing air travel by small amounts each year could level off the climate impact

That leaves sustainable aviation fuel as the only option for long-haul flights. The airline industry is pinning their hopes on fuels derived either from biological feedstocks (used cooking oils or oil derived from algae)
or produced synthetically.

The sustainability of these fuels depends on the feedstock, the production process (which, again, will demand large amounts of renewable energy) and a detailed understanding of impacts on the atmosphere from any gases emitted. That suggests these fuels will likely be expensive, with volumes hard to secure to fully replace fossil fuels. Even so, these fuels will have to be part of aviation’s future.

New ways of travel

The way we think about flying is changing, with climate impact front of mind for many travellers.

In response, some countries have begun to ramp up their focus and infrastructure spending on rail travel, to encourage new travel patterns. The growing regenerative tourism movement – which emphasises deeper engagement with place and people – signals there is real potential to shift mass travel away from far-and-fast destinations to close-and-deep.

The role of flying in tourism is already changing, and it will change more in coming years. You can already glimpse this in the trends towards more climate-friendly travel closer to home. Soon, electric and hybrid planes will encourage shorter flights in a carbon-constrained world.

As for ultra long-haul flights, it is difficult to picture how these are compatible with the goal of net-zero emissions.

Susanne Becken receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is also a member of the Air New Zealand Sustainability Advisory Panel.

Paresh Pant 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. Bucking the trend: Is there a future for ultra long-haul flights in a net zero carbon world? – https://theconversation.com/bucking-the-trend-is-there-a-future-for-ultra-long-haul-flights-in-a-net-zero-carbon-world-183212

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Roy, Lecturer in Education, University of Newcastle

The 2022 election campaign has not exactly been a policy fest. And one critical area we have heard very little about is schools.

This is surprising and concerning. Not only have schools and students weathered two years of disruptions under COVID, but the sector faces serious issues, including a drop in student performance, teacher retention, inequity particularly for marginalised groups and ongoing funding issues dating back a decade.

There has been speculation the Coalition is hesitant to campaign on schools because education minister, Alan Tudge is currently in career limbo (and has been limiting his public appearances).

Meanwhile, Labor’s education spokesperson, Tanya Plibersek, appeared to be initially frozen out of the campaign, although in the past couple of weeks has been more visible.

Read more:
Here’s what the major parties need to do about higher education this election

Politics aside, what are the major parties offering?

The Coalition, ALP, and The Greens are all pledging a similar investment in mental health and well-being services, and support for respectful classrooms, particularly regarding violence against women. The largest difference between them is an (ongoing) ideological divide when it comes to the curriculum. Meanwhile, the big issues go ignored.

The Coalition

The Coalition is focusing its efforts on “raising school standards” and “improving the quality of teacher training”.

This includes creating a one-year diploma for initial teacher education. Given the current demands on accreditation bodies, this might create administrative burden. It would also need schools to shoulder a greater responsibility for “on-the-job” training.

The Coalition also has a focus on traditional skills such as literacy, numeracy and STEM, with a clear focus on what the LNP terms “traditional classrooms”, which one can assume to be of students seated in rows with a single classroom teacher. There is an emphasis on Christian and ANZAC content and phonics for reading.

It also includes specified teaching methods through explicit instruction, which is the teacher standing at the front providing information for students to learn rather than explore or discover.

They also have pledged A$61.4 million to continue the school chaplaincy program.

Read more:
If only politicians focused on the school issues that matter. This election is a chance to get them to do that

The Labor Party

Labor’s headline policy is to offer students with an ATAR score over 80 up to $12,000 a year to study education.

This is part of the party’s bid to improve teacher standards, although it has been criticised by experts who say it implies the current teacher workforce is not up to scratch, which could be interpreted as quite insulting.

Like the Coalition, it also offers no significant investment or policy to address current staffing shortages or teacher workloads – this is presumably being left to the states to “fix”.

Labor has promised $440 million for building upgrades, improving air quality and mental health support. The ALP also made a $6 million commitment to e-safety in schools. In terms of the curriculum, the ALP provide little detail – they do not detail teaching methods or content.

The Greens

The Greens have pledged $49 billion to fully fund public schools to the Gonski model. At the moment, public schools are funded to only 90% of their recommended school resource standard.

Read more:
Still ‘Waiting for Gonski’ – a great book about the sorry tale of school funding

Like Labor, they also promise $400 million for infrastructure, with an additional $224 million to improve air quality post COVID.

Uniquely, the Greens also have made a commitment to close segregated school settings, but have not costed this. Segregated settings are where particular groups of students are taught separate to mainstream students, such as schools for children with a disability. The United Nations and multiple research studies have highlighted significant issues with this segregated settings.

One Nation and the United Australia Party

One Nation have very little policy detail available on education. In one paragraph, they say they want to focus more on traditional values and teaching methods. Then they say they don’t want to see “Western, white, gender, guilt” shaming in the classroom but students should be taught the benefits of a “free-thinking” society.

Similar to One Nation, the United Australia Party has just a few sentences of education policy, which is to remove HECS debt and inject $20 billion into education, although how this money can be used is left unspecified.

The bigger picture

Overall, the critical issues facing education have been left to the states to deal with.

There is new funding available, but neither the Coalition nor Labor are offering significant change from what we are currently doing in schools.

Both are looking at initial teacher education and thus the quality of teachers to improve results (which is highly denigrating to current teachers and does not support the current system).

But much more change is required. It’s important to note that additional funding over the past decade has not changed Australia’s educational decline. Tinkering with the curriculum has also not changed the decline, and neither have previous attempts to so called improve “teacher quality”.

Genuine solutions would include an increase to teacher wages, relieve administrative workloads, and allow teacher to focus on planning and teaching within reasonable time requirements and greater support to disadvantaged students.

In other words, it needs a significant reappraisal of the schooling system and conditions for students and staff.

Read more:
Planning kids? You should know the major parties’ parental leave policies before you vote

David Roy has and continues to work with and consult politicians in Education across all parties, without prejudice.

– ref. Kids don’t vote but teachers and parents sure do – what are the parties offering on schools? – https://theconversation.com/kids-dont-vote-but-teachers-and-parents-sure-do-what-are-the-parties-offering-on-schools-182597

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sue Richardson, Adjunct professor, Flinders University

You would be forgiven for being unsure about whether the buying power of wages was rising or falling. On one hand, Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese says wages are going backwards.

On the other, Prime Minister Scott Morrison points to “better wages” over his government’s term in office.

To get at the truth, we need to appreciate that prices fluctuate more rapidly than wages do and that underlying economic forces drive the longer term growth in real wages.

These two factors have produced real growth in wages over the past 10 years, but a fall over the past year.

Buying power

The best way to measure changes in the buying power of wages is to examine changes in their “real” value, measured by changes in wages in relation to changes in prices, usually measured by the consumer price index.

The real value of the award rates of pay determined by the Fair Work Commission, including the minimum wage, climbed in all but but one of the ten years between 2011 and 2020, at an average of slightly more than 1% per year.

But the buying power of an award wage fell 2.5% during the last 12 months, because of the unexpected, large rise in consumer prices of 5.1%.

This increase in consumer prices easily eclipsed the most recent – July 2021 – increase in award wages of 2.6% increase in award wages.

The high inflation was caused in part by the impact on fuel prices of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which no one could have anticipated inflation fluctuates much more than wages do in the short run.

Read more:
Inflation hits 5.1%. How long until mortgage rates climb?

Most workers (about three-quarters) are paid at more than award wages.

One measure of what has happened to them is average weekly ordinary time earnings of adults who work full-time, excluding overtime.

This too has grown in real terms over the past decade, by about as much as award rates. And it too has fallen in real terms over the past year, because of the sharp rise in inflation.

Another measure is the Bureau of Statistics’ wage price index which measures the hourly pay for the job, regardless of who is doing it. This is the key cost measure for employers.

Many employees get pay rises through promotions or switching employers. By design, the wage price index does not capture that, and so has grown more slowly.

Even the wage price index has grown faster than inflation, by 4% over the past 10 years, until the last year, when the sudden jump in inflation pushed it behind.

Cost to employers

For employers, the labour cost of delivering a unit of output depends both on how much the worker produces in an hour (known as productivity), and how much the worker is paid for that hour (the wage).

Over the past decade, the Bureau of Statistics’ measure of labour productivity has climbed 12%, while real wages (as captured in the wage price index) have grown only modestly.

This has resulted in a 6% decline in the Bureau’s measure of real unit labour costs, and in the share of national income that goes to labour rather than to capital.

It’s not clear why this happened, but there are suspects.

One is that the total income per person, available to be shared between wages and profits, stagnated for much of the past decade, being no greater by the end of 2018 than it was in 2011.

The recent rise in export prices has boosted national income, but much of it has accrued to the mining sector in the form of profits. The wages share of mining income is only 14%, compared with 55% for the rest of the economy.

The result has been an increase in the share of national income going to profits and a slide in the proportion going to wages.

Other sources of downward pressure on wages growth include high rates of immigration, especially of temporary workers such as students, tight caps on wage increases for state and federal government employees, increased outsourcing to low-wage countries, and declining union membership.

Low union membership not only reduces the power of unions to bargain for higher wages, it also reduces their ability to ensure that the conditions set by the Fair Work Commission are met by employers.

Declining union power

This is of particular concern at a time when there is a large, new, vulnerable group in the workforce: temporary migrants dependent on employers to retain their visas.

As of May 2022, there are signs that wage growth is at last likely to increase, which will be quite an achievement in the midst of COVID.

Read more:
Despite record vacancies, Australians shouldn’t expect big pay rises soon

The signs include low unemployment and underemployment; a record high number of Australians employed, and employed full-time; record high vacancy rates; and robust household spending and profits.

The biggest immediate beneficiaries appear to be younger workers and older workers, and women. There is ground to make up.

Sue Richardson 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. Are real wages falling? Here’s the evidence – https://theconversation.com/are-real-wages-falling-heres-the-evidence-182171

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Carroll, Senior Research Fellow, Victorian College of the Arts, The University of Melbourne

Almost all governments today support some funding towards promoting their international political and economic agendas through cultural activities overseas: commonly referred to as part of “cultural diplomacy” or “soft power”.

Cultural diplomacy is not new. Julius Caesar brought gladiatorial performance to Britain, not so subtly suggesting Rome’s power. James Cook presented gifts to the Pacific island chiefs – albeit insubstantial ones in return for the highly prized objects he received, now in European collections.

The British Council was established in 1934 to stem the force of Soviet cultural diplomatic success. The Japan Foundation was founded in 1972 to create a more sophisticated view of a Japan emerging from the second world war.

Australia’s efforts have always been paltry.

We have never had an international cultural agency, and the Federal government avenues we do have for supporting international artistic projects, the Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australia Council, have shrinking funds.

In the 2000s, I was a member of DFAT’s Australia Indonesia Institute. Our small fund supported almost all the official cultural engagement between the two countries, and even it decreased before our eyes. It didn’t surprise me when leading curator Jim Supangkat asked me in Jakarta: “Where have all you Australians gone?”

Read more:
Cultural intelligence key to future of Australia-Indonesia relationship

‘Regionally inactive’

In 2021/22, in admittedly difficult COVID times, just one cultural project – the Ubud Writers Festival – was funded through the Australia Indonesia Institute’s tiny A$450,000 allocation for all people-to-people projects between us and our so-important neighbour.

It does not help that the Australia Indonesia Institute, like most of the DFAT bilateral agencies with these precious country colleagues, now has no specialist arts person on its board.

Most Commonwealth government funding and capacity in the area is allocated to individual applicants by the federal arts agency, the Australia Council.

The application forms for funding from DFAT, bilateral agencies like the Indonesia Institute, and the Australia Council are particularly onerous, as is the ensuing reporting of how funds are spent. There are smarter ways all round.

Read more:
Why is ‘values’ the new buzzword in Australian foreign policy? (Hint: it has something to do with China)

The diminishing role of Australia’s cultural diplomacy has been known for a long time, but there has been a change recently of senior arts and diplomatic figures speaking out.

Former Ambassador to China, Geoff Raby writes in his 2020 book on our general relations with China that:

over the last two decades, Australia has been seen to be regionally inactive. [To change that] active engagement with China in cultural diplomacy should be another essential element of Australia’s statecraft.

Carrillo Gantner’s 2022 book, eloquently titled Dismal Diplomacy, written from his 40 years working particularly in cultural projects with China, pleads for better and more sophisticated relations all round.

In 2018, John McCarthy, former Ambassador to Indonesia (and other places) wrote public diplomacy has “always been the poor relation in Australian foreign policy implementation”:

Canada spends more on public diplomacy than Australia spends on the whole of its foreign service. Excluding public broadcasting, France spends an estimated A$1.9 billion, Germany A$1.6 billion, the UK A$350 million, and the Netherlands A$100 million. Australia spends A$12 million, of which, in most years, our Indonesia program will receive about A$1 million.

Cultural diplomacy comes under the umbrella of the broader public diplomacy described by McCarthy.

The Australia Council’s International Engagement Strategy has had an annual budget over the last five years averaging $2.7 million, while DFAT’s Australian Cultural Diplomacy Grants program currently has an allocation of $400,000. There are other programs here and there that loosely come under the cultural diplomacy tag, so let us average up this figure to around $5 million.

Comparisons are hard for specific cultural activity because each country includes different areas, but Australia’s contrast with the specialist Goethe-Institut and British Council are stark. The Goethe-Institut has had fairly stable funding of A$400 million per annum over recent years, and the British Council A$320 million.

On these figures, they spend A$4-5 per capita on cultural engagement and diplomacy, and we spend 20 cents.

Another calculation is through activities. The Arts and Cultural Program described in the Japan Foundation’s recent annual report counts audiences of over five million attendances for 2,300 events it has “organised or supported”.

We are nowhere in that ballpark.

‘How to win friends’

As Jo Caust writes in her recent paper, “support for the arts is not primarily a question of economics. It is a question of values.”

Assessment of the importance of international activities is a bigger issue than straight numbers.

The appreciation of the British Council merited debate recently in the House of Commons, concluding the program provided the United Kingdom with

an object lesson in how to win friends and influence people. […] We intend to continue to ensure that global Britain is a world leader for soft power.

There is an argument Australia needs cultural diplomacy more than others.

We carry the stain of our settler founding, increasingly clearly articulated. The racist White Australia Policy rescinded relatively recently (in 1966) is well known by our neighbours. Our position in the region has always been debatable, something sensed by our neighbours as much as known. Are we in “in” or “out” of Asia? To many, we have a confused cultural identity: one that needs all the help it can get.

We can look to the German and Japanese examples, equally recognising their need to be proactive in their international imaging after events of the last 100 years. They have created serious, professional, cultural diplomatic agendas.

Australia’s cultural diplomacy should be done better, more effectively and with more confidence. The best way forward is to give the running to a central, nuanced, specialist body well equipped to tackle it.

We’d all be better served.

Read more:
Here’s how to reset New Zealand’s cultural diplomacy in the Pacific

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

– ref. ‘Where have all you Australians gone?’ Australia’s shrinking role in cultural diplomacy – https://theconversation.com/where-have-all-you-australians-gone-australias-shrinking-role-in-cultural-diplomacy-181485

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hall, Senior Lecturer in Social Sciences and Public Policy, Auckland University of Technology

Until now, the government’s approach to climate action has largely been about getting the policy architecture right. This work is vital, but it’s more about rearranging possible futures, less about emissions reductions in the near term.

The newly released Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) was supposed to shift gears, to get real about urgent climate action – and it partially achieves this, but only partially.

Budget 2022 will reveal some extra expenditure, but most of the $2.9 billion of climate-relevant funding was confirmed alongside the ERP. It exhibits a sensitivity to the electoral constraints on transformation, less so a sense of realism about what decarbonisation actually demands.

There are significant steps forward. Resourcing for Māori involvement in climate policy is long overdue. Integration of education and social support measures is also helpful.

In this sense, the ERP process is itself a minor victory. For years, policy scholars and public sector mandarins have championed the ideal of joined-up government, without ever doing much in practice. Consequently, the ERP is unique, even unprecedented, by taking a whole-of-government approach, weaving together all core government departments in a 340-page report.

Time to be decisive

Some of the best bits of the ERP play to this interconnectedness. Nature-based solutions – that is, enhancing natural ecosystems to address multiple challenges – emerge as a strong connective theme, not only between various sectors, but also across the National Adaptation Plan and Biodiversity Strategy/Te Mana o te Taiao.

The same can be said for planning and infrastructure which is explicit about the overlapping opportunities to reduce emissions across multiple sectors.

Similarly, the rising theme of the “bioeconomy” sheds new light on the importance of forestry, not only as a supplier of timber and carbon removals, but also as feedstock for bioplastics and biofuels to substitute crude oil.

Read more:
Without a better plan, New Zealand risks sleepwalking into a biodiversity extinction crisis

But instead of investments to make this happen, the ERP promises a bioeconomy and circular economy strategy that won’t be complete until 2025. This is the overriding character of the document, where a large proportion of “actions” begin with the words “explore” or “investigate”, or lapse into research, baseline setting and elongated work programmes.

Even well-established ideas, such as congestion charging, are deferred. The government has investigated this policy for more than a decade, but the ERP only confirms it is “considering progressing legislative changes to enable congestion charging”.

The ERP was the moment to be decisive, one way or the other. The failure to do so leaves a lingering suspicion that the ERP’s new slew of pledges may face a similar fate.

Acceptability over ambition

So there are plans, and plans for plans, but still a shortfall of strategy. Energy sector policy, for example, takes a technology-neutral approach rather than narrowing down on priorities, such as geothermal energy, where Aotearoa is known to have natural advantages, expertise, and potential for global impact.

Such opportunities are already identifiable, even in the absence of a central energy strategy (due in 2024). Research, development and deployment take time, so strategic decisions need to be made now, rather than backloaded for later this decade.

The proposal of “climate innovation platforms” might provide the vehicle for strategic innovation, but only if properly resourced. The ERP gives an air of compromise, tending toward acceptability over ambition.

Fortunately, though, the proposed policy mix – along with an improved Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – will take us quite some way.

Emissions pricing in the ERP

The NZ$69 million Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) fund is being topped up with nearly $680 million, a ten-fold increase, to accelerate industrial decarbonisation.

In transport, this includes $350 million for cycleways and public transport, $40 million to decarbonise the bus fleet by 2035, $20 million to decarbonise freight transport, and $20 million for a vehicle social leasing scheme trial.

Agriculture is also the beneficiary of $710 million from ETS auctioning revenue for agri-tech and research – arguably unfairly, given that agriculture currently sits outside the ETS.

Read more:
With seas rising and storms surging, who will pay for New Zealand’s most vulnerable coastal properties?

Dependence on cars

Overshadowing these initiatives is the scrap-and-replace scheme, aimed at subsidising people into electric vehicles (EVs), and already a lightning rod for controversy. The empirical record for scrappage schemes elsewhere, such as the US Cash for Clunkers programme, tends to conclude that emissions reductions are minimal despite the high investment.

Given that replacement cars must be EVs and hybrids, the New Zealand scheme may produce more emissions reductions than previous schemes did. However, the high price of EVs may mean that, even with high subsidies, low-income households cannot easily cover the difference.

Read more:
Will the budget be another missed opportunity to get more New Zealanders out of their cars?

Also, the scheme risks perpetuating the dependence on cars that makes transport mode-shift so elusive. Indeed, the $569 million committed to scrap-and-replace is far larger than the $350 million committed to cycleways and public transport.

It is hard to resist the conclusion that a scrappage scheme – for all the flak it will receive from efficiency-minded economists – was perceived as more politically palatable than getting people out of cars.

Read more:
IPCC report: how New Zealand could reduce emissions faster and rely less on offsets to reach net zero

The political challenge

The ERP is projected to drive enough change to meet New Zealand’s 2030 Paris Agreement pledge. But part of this effort will involve the purchasing of emission reduction credits on international carbon markets, at potentially high prices.

A high reliance on paying for other countries to reduce their emissions reflects a hangover in the New Zealand government’s thinking, dating back to the Kyoto Protocol era. Deferring hard choices now by “planning more plans” might reduce the risk of backing the wrong technologies, but deferral is not without its risks either.

It speaks to the longstanding problem of treating climate change as merely a scientific, technical problem. This implies that, like any puzzle, climate action will benefit from further discovery, analysis and evaluation.

For elected and unelected officials alike, this is irresistible, because commissioning further research and strategy is a way of appearing serious, even prudent, while also avoiding vital decisions and associated responsibilities. The slow-moving quality of the climate crisis, in contrast to the fast-moving pandemic, increases the window for dawdling.

But climate action was always fundamentally about politics. The ERP practices the arts of acceptability but neglects the art of the possible – of making ambitious commitments and bringing the people along.

David Hall is affiliated with the Forestry Ministerial Advisory Group.

Melody Meng and Nina Ives 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. Air of compromise: NZ’s Emissions Reduction Plan reveals a climate budget that’s long on planning, short on strategy – https://theconversation.com/air-of-compromise-nzs-emissions-reduction-plan-reveals-a-climate-budget-thats-long-on-planning-short-on-strategy-181478