Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Mortlock, Senior Analyst at Aon Reinsurance Solutions and Adjunct Fellow, Macquarie University

The world’s coastlines are at the forefront of climate change. That’s because they’re constantly changing, and respond quickly to changes in climate. They’re particularly important because around 70% of the world’s population live within 100km of the coast, and 90% of the world’s trade passes through ports on the coast. The global economy relies on our coastal systems functioning because of the volume of trade and commerce that takes place at or through the coastal zone.

Change and disruption do not fall evenly across the globe, however. Our new research is the first to find a group of coastal locations around the world highly vulnerable to one specific climate-driven change: stronger waves, or waves coming from a different direction, which may cause widespread coastal erosion.

These changes will affect major ports and coastal cities such as Lima, Cape Town, Durban and Mombasa, as well as broadly affecting the Pacific-facing east coasts of Peru and Chile, the Atlantic-facing west coasts of Namibia and South Africa, and the southeast coast of Kenya down to South Africa.

Many of these locations are in developing nations with low GDP, making it harder to adapt or reduce damage from these changes. While some areas will be able to respond better than others, the combined GDP of countries most affected is only about one percent of global GDP. This speaks to how climate change can act as an inequality amplifier, hitting the Global South the hardest.

What’s the link between climate change and wave strength?

Our previous work found climate change is already making waves more powerful, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere.

How? Ocean waves are generated by winds blowing along the ocean surface. If the sea surface becomes warmer, wind patterns change as well. In turn, this can alter the wave conditions across the world’s oceans.

But due to reasons such as the fact that oceans are heating at different rates in different places, wave conditions are not changing at the same rate everywhere. Some areas will be worse affected than others.

Why does this matter for humans on dry land? Because waves have shaped Earth’s coastlines for millions of years. Even small, sustained changes in waves can have long term consequences for our coasts and the people who rely on them.

That’s because waves control how much sand is moved along the coast, and where it is deposited. Changes to local wave climates could dramatically increase erosion in some areas, for instance, threatening human and natural use of the coasts as well as infrastructure and houses.

To find out where they are changing the most, we applied wave tracking algorithms to models of future wave conditions. To model ocean waves in the future, we used numerical wave models driven by atmospheric conditions such as wind and air pressure, taken from global climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Our work builds on years of research developing a method to track different wave conditions (or “wave climates”) globally. For example, the Southern Ocean wave climate is characterised by big, powerful waves with long wave periods as they circumnavigate the globe west to east.

By comparison, the wave climate of equatorial regions is typically lower energy, shorter wave period, and travels west to east. The characteristics of each wave climate is what we call their “signature” and this is what we track.

Read more:
Climate change is making ocean waves more powerful, threatening to erode many coastlines

We use data from the last 19 years to identify the signature for each wave climate, and track how they will change under different emissions scenarios by the end of the century. By comparing the differences between present and future conditions across the world’s oceans, we can identify the areas likely to see the greatest changes in wave conditions.

What about sea level rise?

Until recently, most of the focus on coastal climate change impacts has been on sea level rise, which will affect low-lying areas and cities.

In the next few decades, however, changes in wave conditions are likely to be more important than sea level rise along millions of kilometres of the world’s sandy coastlines.

By itself, sea level rise does not cause erosion. Waves do. As the sea rises, waves can expand the reach and eat away at the beach and beyond. The net effect of wave power increasing and sea level rise will vary locally, however, because changes in wave conditions can either boost or dampen the effect of sea level rise on the coast, depending on how much sand is available and where it is moved to.

Cutting carbon emissions makes a difference

Our modelling explored two scenarios. The first was a high emissions future world with little to no carbon emissions reduction, leading to global temperatures rising by over 4℃ by the end of the century compared to pre-industrial levels.

The second was a low emissions scenario, where global warming is kept below 2℃ by 2100, which requires deep and immediate reduction in global carbon emissions.

We found reducing emissions can have a significant impact on how much wave conditions change in the future. By keeping warming under 2℃, we found there would be almost no change in wave conditions for many of the coastal locations which we identified as particularly at risk in a 4℃ world.

It is still not too late to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, but the window of opportunity is closing fast. We hope this research will help direct funding for coastal adaptation and resilience to the areas which will need it most.

Read more:
Climate change may change the way ocean waves impact 50% of the world’s coastlines

Thomas Mortlock is affiliated with Aon, Australia.

Adrean Webb receives funding from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.

Nobuhito Mori receives funding from JSPS KAKENHI (19K15099, 19H00782) and Integrated Research Program for Advancing Climate Models (TOUGOU Program: JPMXD0717935498) supported by MEXT of Japan.

Rodolfo Silva receives funding from CEMIE-Océano, CONACYT-SENER Sustentabilidad Energética project.

Tomoya Shimura receives funding from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.

Itxaso Odériz 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. Climate-fuelled wave patterns pose an erosion risk for developing countries – https://theconversation.com/climate-fuelled-wave-patterns-pose-an-erosion-risk-for-developing-countries-184064

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louis Lignereux, TBA, University of Adelaide

The Black Summer bushfires of 2019-20 pushed a host of threatened species closer to extinction, including the critically endangered Kangaroo Island dunnart. And as our research released today shows, feral cats posed a second lethal threat to the species in the weeks after the disaster.

The Kangaroo Island dunnart is a mouse-sized marsupial found only on the western end of the island. Bushfires in January 2020 burnt more than 98% of its habitat. The dunnart population was thought to be about 500 before the fire; its current numbers are being surveyed but are thought to have since declined even further.

Cat predation has caused the extinction or near-extinction of several native species around the globe. Our results confirm for the first time that feral cats prey on the dunnart and did so directly after the bushfires.

The findings underscore the importance of acting immediately to protect threatened species from predators in the wake of catastrophic natural events.

Analysing feral cat diets

Before the Black Summer fires, the Kangaroo Island dunnart’s habitat was fragmented due to land clearing and other pressures. Feral cats on the island were also suspected of contributing to the species decline, but this had not been proven.

A federally funded feral cat eradication program has been in place since 2015, and aims to make Kangaroo Island free of feral cats by 2030.

A 2020 study estimated there were between 1,000 and 2,300 feral cats on Kangaroo Island. We set out to determine whether cats threatened the dunnart.

We analysed the diet of feral cats humanely euthanised immediately after the 2019 bushfire. We accessed the stomach contents and digestive tracts of 86 cats captured between February and August 2020.

The cats were not killed for our study, but as part of the national feral cat control program and were euthanised in accordance with South Australia animal welfare laws. They were caught in unburnt areas where dunnarts and other species that survived the fire would likely have sought refuge.

We identified 263 distinct prey items in the cats’ stomachs and digestive tracts. They comprised:

• 195 mammals
• 46 birds
• 10 reptiles
• 12 arthropods (invertebrates such as beetles).

Among them, the introduced house mouse represented the most significant proportion, being part of the diet for 47 cats.

We found the remains of eight Kangaroo Island dunnarts in seven different cats. Three dunnarts were readily identifiable as they were nearly whole carcasses. Five more were identified based on hair features.

We observed dunnart tissue in both the stomach and large intestine of one cat, suggesting it had recently preyed on at least two individuals.

Read more:
From Kangaroo Island to Mallacoota, citizen scientists proved vital to Australia’s bushfire recovery

Our results confirm for the first time that feral cats prey on Kangaroo Island dunnarts and were efficient hunters of this species directly after the fires.

Our results provides only a small snapshot of what the feral cat had eaten. That’s because once the prey is fully digested (between 27 and 36 hours after being caught) we cannot analyse it. So the cats may well have recently consumed more prey than we could identify.

Safe to say, the cats present a substantial threat to the dunnart. We also found the remains of the endangered southern brown bandicoot in a male cat’s stomach. This endangered species is likely the last out of eight native bandicoot species still living in the wild in South Australia.

Read more:
Australian endangered species: Kangaroo Island Dunnart

Saving the most vulnerable

The Kangaroo Island dunnart is emblematic of challenges faced by threatened species across the world – especially those confined to increasingly fragmented habitats, coping with the catastrophic consequences of climate change and preyed on by introduced species.

Species already compromised can easily slide into extinction after disasters such as the Black Summer fires – the likes of which are predicted to become more frequent as the world warms and dries.

After such events, we must act immediately to protect vulnerable species from invasive predators. These measures can mean the difference between survival and extinction.

But prevention is better than cure, and we should not wait until after a catastrophic event to protect our most threatened fauna.

Read more:
I’m searching firegrounds for surviving Kangaroo Island Micro-trapdoor spiders. 6 months on, I’m yet to find any

Louis Lignereux receives funding from Human Frontier Science Programme (Grant RGP0062/2018)

– ref. This critically endangered marsupial survived a bushfire – then along came the feral cats – https://theconversation.com/this-critically-endangered-marsupial-survived-a-bushfire-then-along-came-the-feral-cats-185133

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nimish Biloria, Associate Professor of Architecture, University of Technology Sydney

If you’re anything like me, you’re increasingly working from home, one that was built before energy efficiency measures were introduced in Australia.

With temperatures along the east coast plunging and power bills skyrocketing, heating (and cooling) our homes is an energy intensive, expensive affair.

Almost 8 million homes across Australia lack sufficient insulation, use sub-par heating and cooling equipment, or are badly designed.

Indeed, these 8 million pre-energy rated homes account for 18% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. And research finds 26% of Australians across all housing types can’t stay warm at least half of the time during winter.

Retrofitting this housing stock to be more energy efficient is essential to successfully meet Australia’s target of cutting emissions 43% by 2030, while finding comfort in our future of intensifying climate extremes.

My research into net-zero emissions retrofitting identifies three broad categories that must be considered when retrofitting existing homes to be more climate friendly:

1. visual comfort: the sufficient quality, quantity and distribution of light

2. thermal comfort: determined by the temperature, humidity, air flow and a person’s physical condition

3. energy consumption: the amount of energy we use, and the energy used in manufacturing, transporting, constructing, maintaining, and removal of materials to build our homes.

1. Visual comfort

It’s vital to understand how much sunlight the outside and interior of your home is exposed to. One can, accordingly, re-organise interior functions based on the demand for lighting, heating or cooling needs.

During summer, spaces used often during the day, such as your home office, could benefit from being in places that receive less direct sunlight, so are cooler. In winter, consider moving your home office set up to a room with higher levels of direct sunlight, where it’s warmer.

This will naturally reduce the amount of energy needed to cool or heat these rooms while allowing for comfortable working conditions.

Other ways we can find more visual comfort include modifying the size of windows and skylights to let in more sunlight. To diffuse harsh lighting, consider adding screens, sun baffles, overhangs, or pergolas over windows.

You can also replace your lights with LEDs equipped with linear controllers and motion sensors in places where lights tend to be left on. LEDs use around 75% less energy than halogen light bulbs.

2. Thermal comfort

Older Australian homes are incredibly draughty, and a lot of the energy we spend cooling or heating our homes escapes outside due to poor insulation. Retrofitting to improve your home’s natural ventilation can reduce the number of times you need to switch on the heater or air conditioner.

Sealing outside and internal surfaces until they’re airtight is crucial. Different surfaces – whether walls, floors or ceilings – require different methods, types and thicknesses of insulation.

Read more:
If you’re renting, chances are your home is cold. With power prices soaring, here’s what you can do to keep warm

Walls, for instance, require a “blow-in” method. This can involve installing cellulose foam or glasswool (made from fibreglass) into the wall, via a small hole through the wall cavities (for cellulose foam) or laying glasswool batts in wall cavities. Floors, on the other hand, can require insulation panels fitted between timber or steel supports or foam boards.

Also important is to choose materials and methods that maximise insulation while minimising thermal bridging. A thermal bridge is a weak point where heat is lost, such as wall intersections, connecting points of mounting brackets, and even penetration points of electric cables.

Between ten and 35% of the energy we spend cooling or heating our homes escapes through single glazed windows and doors. Installing double or triple glazed windows and doors will go a long way to keep temperatures more stable inside.

It’s worth noting the energy performance rating systems on measurement labels, which are often attached to window and door units you can buy in stores.

Ultimately, a combination of improved natural ventilation and mechanical ventilation (such as air conditioners as fans) can result in considerable energy savings – up to 79% in some instances.

3. Energy consumption

While the above strategies will result in significant energy savings, it’s also vital to consider the energy required to produce and manufacture retrofitting materials. Consider using salvaged or recycled materials where possible, or choosing locally made products which avoid emissions associated with transport.

Effectively installing solar panels can offset this “hidden” carbon. Let’s say you’ve done all you can to lower your home’s carbon footprint – you’ve rolled out insulation, installed double glazed windows and made the most of sunshine.

Read more:
Stop removing your solar panels early, please. It’s creating a huge waste problem for Australia

You can then calculate the energy you still use to heat or cool your home. This number will determine how many rooftop solar panels you should install to break even, rather than simply installing as many panels that can fit.

This will not only save you money, but also minimise waste. Researchers estimate that by 2047, Australia will accumulate 1 million tonnes of solar panel waste.

It’s worth opting for solar panels with micro-inverters, which capture optimal energy performance per panel while allowing you to add more panels in future if needed.

Another option is to use air-source heat pumps, which absorb heat from outside and bring it inside (like a reverse air conditioner). These can take the form of mini-split heat pumps for individual rooms, or multi-zone installations.

They can sense indoor temperature, and operate at variable speeds and heating or cooling intensity, which means their energy performance is very efficient. My research finds well-planned use of such systems can reduce the energy used for heating by 69% and cooling by 38%.

It’s well worth the effort

These retrofitting ideas might seem expensive, or take too much time. However, they’ll often save you money in the long run as energy prices become increasingly uncertain.

You can look to Every Building Counts, an initiative by the Green Building Council and the Property Council of Australia, which provides practical plans for emission reduction.

Australia can also learn from ongoing efforts by the Energiesprong network in the Netherlands. This network is industrialising energy efficiency with prefabricated retrofitting building elements.

Some initiatives include lightweight insulated panels that can simply be placed in front of existing walls of homes. These panels are precisely fitted after carefully laser scanning a facade and robotically cutting openings to match existing homes. Harnessing contemporary technology is vital for a speedy net-zero transition.

Read more:
Biden just declared heat pumps and solar panels essential to national defense – here’s why and the challenges ahead

Nimish Biloria has received funding in the past from organisations such as The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications: Smart Cities and Suburbs Program, Transport for New South Wales, HMI Technologies, Leigh Place Aged Care, and the City of Sydney

– ref. Keen to retrofit your home to lower its carbon footprint and save energy? Consider these 3 things – https://theconversation.com/keen-to-retrofit-your-home-to-lower-its-carbon-footprint-and-save-energy-consider-these-3-things-175921

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jess Harris, Associate Professor in Education, University of Newcastle

Every student in every school in Australia has experienced unprecedented disruptions to their schooling over the past three years. On top of the disruptions and stress of COVID-19 lockdowns, isolation from their schools, their friends and (for many) their extended families, tens of thousands of Australian families have also seen their communities ravaged by fires and floods.

Kids have had to spend lunchtimes indoors to avoid the smoky haze and ash falling on their playgrounds. They have been rescued from their rooftops by boat and helicopters. Lives have been lost and communities devastated.

Our research on post-crisis schooling and the impacts of COVID-19 found the disruptions to schooling had significant impacts on the well-being of teachers and students, whereas academically the kids were OK.

And yet schools and teachers are still under pressure to make sure students don’t “fall behind” academically. This concern has often overshadowed trickier questions like “how are they coping?” In Australia, we have just one professionally trained school counsellor for every 750 students.

What did the research find?

Reading results of year 3 and 4 students in 2020 were not significantly different from students who did the same tests in 2019. The picture was more complex in mathematics – some students achieved more and some slightly less than their 2019 peers. Overall, though, students have continued to progress at the same rate.

However, teachers’ morale and feelings of self-efficacy dropped substantially in 2020.

And disruptions to schooling and home lives have had a massive impact on the well-being and mental health of students. Mental health support services, such as Kids Helpline, reported increases in calls of up to 28% in Victoria while they endured repeated lockdowns.

Teachers from all levels of schooling reported seeing decreased engagement and increases in poor behaviour and student anxiety. One teacher told us:

And even the engagement, their concentration levels really, really dropped off a lot. […] they can’t sit still for more than a minute and, like I said, normally before COVID they were fine. They were able to participate in class discussions. And all of a sudden now, engagement […] they can’t sit still anymore. They’ve always got to be up. Focus and concentration floats in and out […] routine is gone, it’s not there anymore.

How can we support communities under pressure?

Natural disasters like fires and floods can traumatise children, particularly when their communities have been hit repeatedly. While children often show resilience immediately following natural disasters like bushfires, studies show up to one in five students report moderate to severe symptoms of trauma six to 12 months after the event.

Kids across the country have lost their homes and their schools. Many students, particularly those in the flooded Northern Rivers region of New South Wales, are living in temporary accommodation and going to “pop-up classrooms”. Sometimes these are in a different town, adding up to two hours of travel time for students and families. That’s stressful and exhausting for kids and families suffering from trauma.

Following repeated national emergencies, children need opportunities to talk about their experiences. It helps them to respond, recover and build resilience.

As a key part of the community, schools are uniquely placed to support children and their families in times of crisis. Calls for mental health literacy programs in schools offer one part of the solution. However, this is a complex issue that requires both immediate and ongoing responses.

Invest more in support services

On average, there’s only one professionally trained school counsellor to deal with the needs of students for every two schools in Australia – and there are far fewer counsellors in regional areas. Students are waiting more than four weeks to see their school counsellor. Schools and communities are desperate for this urgent and critical support.

Most teachers and school staff have limited training in how to understand impacts of trauma on student learning and behaviour, and in effective teaching practices for students who have experienced trauma. Departments need to invest in ensuring all teachers have these skills to support our kids in the years to come. The immediate solution can’t rely on our already overworked teachers.

Access to professional support for the mental health and well-being of our children is paramount. The current funding of $62.4 million a year provided for school chaplains, who do not require specialist training in psychology, could be re-allocated to ensure adequate and appropriately trained support for all children, particularly those who have lived through the most recent crises. While school chaplains reported increases in student mental health issues, family conflicts and behavioural issues in 2021, they made less than 15% of referrals in schools to other supports.

Schools are pillars of their communities. In the current crisis in the Northern Rivers, principals and teachers have again responded with unparalleled community spirit. But they need more support.

Established crisis communication plans can help principals, teachers, students and their families stay connected and feel some sense of control over their own lives. A strategic approach to setting up public and mental health hubs within schools for the whole community is essential for building resilience and getting kids ready to learn.

This article is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

Jess Harris received funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation, the Department of Education and Training (Victoria) and the NSW Department of Education for the research. This article is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is about escaping cycles of disadvantage. The series is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. After years of COVID, fires and floods, kids’ well-being now depends on better support – https://theconversation.com/after-years-of-covid-fires-and-floods-kids-well-being-now-depends-on-better-support-184848

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Edwards, Associate Professor in Management and Business, The University of Queensland

The past year has been awash with suggestions countries such as Australia are experiencing a “great resignation” as workers previously loyal to their employers quit their jobs and look for others elsewhere.

Last year, newspaper articles aside, there was little evidence for this in Australia, although substantial evidence in the United States where the term came from.

In the US, so-called “quit rates” hit a record high in 2021, while in Australia the proportion of workers switching jobs fell to its lowest point in half a century.

Writing in November, University of Melbourne economists Mark Wooden and Peter Gahan pointed out that in the US, COVID had made public-facing jobs unsafe, which may have contributed to people quitting these roles en masse.

Quit rates hadn’t climbed in US finance or information technology jobs.

Read more:
Australia’s ‘great resignation’ is a myth — we are changing jobs less often

In Australia, where border closures, mask mandates and vaccination mandates made public-facing jobs safer, job-switching continued its long-term decline.

Until now. The annual February mobility survey published by the Bureau of Statistics in May shows an uptick in the proportion of workers switching, from a record low of 7.5% to 9.5%.

One way to look at the uptick is to say Australia has the highest switching rate since 2012. If records only went back to 2012, we could say Australia had the highest switching rate on record.

But here’s the thing. The US records only go back to December 2000. If they went back further, US quit rates might be seen to be on the same sort of long-term slide as Australia’s. We just don’t know.

In Australia’s case, recent job mobility rates over the last decade or two have been extraordinarily low compared to historical job mobility levels. For all we know this is the case in the US as well.

At one point the late 1980s, almost one in five Australian workers changed jobs in a year. These days, even after the latest uptick, it is one in ten.

The uptick might be little more than a rebound from a specific historic low caused by lockdowns and border closures.

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

We can be sure that the uptick in job switching is not due to an uptick in retrenchments. Australia’s retrenchment rate (the number of people who are retrenched in a year as a proportion of the number employed at the start of that year) fell to a 50-year low in February.

Another thing we know is that there are more job vacancies (and more job vacancies per unemployed persons) than ever before in Australia.

There were 423,500 unfilled jobs in February, and 563,300 unemployed, meaning there were only 1.3 unemployed people chasing each vacant job, the slowest ratio in records going back to 1980.

More job vacancies for each unemployed person than ever before

This is likely to mean that more people will be tempted to switch jobs soon.

They might even be doing it, meaning the uptick will continue when the figures are updated next February. Watch this space.

Read more:
An extra 60,600 Australians found work in May. Here’s why wages aren’t moving much

Martin Edwards 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. Australia isn’t experiencing the great resignation yet, but there has been an uptick – https://theconversation.com/australia-isnt-experiencing-the-great-resignation-yet-but-there-has-been-an-uptick-184384

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

On Thursday Anthony Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen formally updated Australia’s international commitment for its proposed climate change action. It’s now a 43% reduction in emissions by 2030, in line with the policy Labor took to the election.

They were watched by representatives of the business sector, relieved at the prospect of greater policy certainty, which will in turn pave the way for more confidence for investment in energy.

At a news conference later, Bowen declared forcefully: “Today, Australia turns the climate corner.”

Well, yes and no. The Albanese government promises a more progressive climate and energy policy, in tune with the needs of the inevitable transition to a decarbonised economy.

But at this precise moment, it might seem less like we’re around the corner than that getting off the old road is looking even more complicated than imagined.

The Albanese government is blaming the energy crisis engulfing eastern Australia on the Coalition’s failure to put in place policy to ensure adequate and timely investment in renewables.

That’s correct, but it’s not the whole story. The energy system has been recently hit by some unforeseen challenges, including the Ukraine war.

Then, as regulators tried to deal with the situation with a price cap, the power producers acted to advance or maintain their commercial interests. All this led to the Australian Energy Market Operator taking over the system on Wednesday.

The Albanese government is doing what it can, by working with the states and by backing AEMO.

But regardless of having a more rational policy than existed before, the government is still sounding rather betwixt and between about the role of gas and coal in the next few years of the transition.

Any notion the “climate wars” are over is misplaced optimism – the opposition will exploit the immediate problems to ensure they are kept ablaze.

Read more:
This 5.2% decision on the minimum wage could shift the trajectory for all

Long-term policy thinking is vital. But, politically, the public very often think short-term, and their thinking can change on a dime.

Looking at its political position this week, the government would be delighted.

The Essential poll published this week had approval for the job Albanese is doing leaping 17 percentage points between May and June, to 59%. His disapproval declined 23 points to 18%.

When people were asked whether Australia was headed in the right direction or was on the wrong track, 48% thought it was going in the right direction (up 8 points) and only 27% said the wrong track (down 15 points).

These results partly reflect the sheer relief at the dispatch of the Morrison government and in particular Scott Morrison himself. But whatever the mix of drivers, the big question is how strong a political shield the Albanese government will have as it faces a huge buffeting in coming months.

Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe doesn’t often emerge into the TV lights. When he appeared on the ABC on Tuesday night, it was to predict Australia’s inflation rate would hit 7% by year’s end. Lowe also repeated he expected the official interest rate would rise to 2.5%.

A day later the government had some welcome news when the Fair Work Commission handed down its 5.2% increase in the minimum wage, marginally above the latest 5.1% inflation figure. The increase, however, was smaller for awards, and inflation is already running ahead. While the commission didn’t think the rise a risk for the economy, critics claimed it will hit small businesses as well as feed into inflation.

Meanwhile, there were signs of storm clouds abroad. In the United States the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rates by 75 basis points, in a major hit against an inflation rate of 8.6%. Fears are mounting of a US recession, with severe consequences for other countries.

Internationally, the weekend meeting between Defence Minister Richard Marles and his Chinese counterpart was a welcome sign that, after the change of government, China is interested in a thaw in a relationship that’s been dysfunctional for years.

But the Chinese are adept at games and Albanese’s response – essentially saying, show us you’re serious by taking off trade restrictions on our exports – was exactly right.

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

A less welcome sign was that the people smugglers are testing the new government, with several boats from Sri Lanka intercepted since the election.

There’s no doubt about the government’s determination to prevent boat arrivals. But it also has to be careful about signals.

It did absolutely the right thing in allowing the “Biloela” Sri Lanka family to return to their Queensland town. And in due course they should be given permanent residency.

But for Albanese to be photographed with them was more problematic. It seems a nice, harmless gesture, reinforcing the contrast with the Morrison government’s heartless treatment of the family. But the picture is fodder for the people smugglers’ advertising.

Former Labor operative Cameron Milner, writing in The Australian this week, pointed to optics on another front, with a warning to Albanese – whose trips so far have been fully justified – about the need to stay at home.

A few weeks ago it would have seemed an excessively long bow to suggest the situation the government faces has parallels with that confronting the Whitlam government in the wake of the international oil shock. But while the particulars are different, the magnitudes can be compared.

Mega crises require flexibility. But be too flexible and that can came back to bite.

For example, as the budget approaches there’ll be more calls for the government to scrap the Coalition’s highly expensive stage three tax cuts, now estimated to cost the budget more than $200 billion between 2024-25 and 2031-32. They were legislated years ago, when the budgetary situation was benign rather than in deep deficit.

But Albanese will turn a deaf ear, because he knows that to break his word would create more problems than delivering the tax cuts will. It would trash trust in his word, and that would undermine his government.

This can be cast as a choice between best-practice policy and “safe” politics. Usually, a leader should opt for good policy, even if it involves a U-turn. But in this instance Albanese would be wise to stick with his political lens, given a U-turn would drive a hole in his credibility.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Everything, it seems, is conspiring to test the Albanese government – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-everything-it-seems-is-conspiring-to-test-the-albanese-government-185218

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeff Borland, Professor of Economics, The University of Melbourne

The rate of unemployment remained steady at 3.9% between April and May.

That Australia has now managed to keep a rate of unemployment below 4% for three consecutive months is extraordinarily good news.

It gets better. While the unemployment rate didn’t improve, the labour market did, substantially.

The number of Australians in jobs climbed by 60,620 between April and May – a very large 0.5%. The proportion of the working age population in employment climbed to a new record high of 64.1%.

Hours of work also grew strongly, by 0.9%. What makes that growth especially noteworthy is that it happened at the same time as a much larger number of workers than usual were off work with COVID and flu.

More sick leave, yet more hours worked

In May, an outsized 780,500 workers spent reduced time on the job due to illness, injury or sick leave, compared to an average of only 373,000 in the same month over the previous five years. About half of the extra workers taking time off in 2022 didn’t work at all in the survey week.

Which raises an interesting question. With such an unusually large number of jobs created, why didn’t the unemployment rate fall?

Read more:
How we invented ‘unemployment’ – and why we’re outgrowing it

The reason is that the number of people wanting to work also rose, pretty much exactly in line with the rise in employment. Strong employment drew more people into the labour force.

On average, an extra 45,000 people have found work per month over the past six months.

The proportion of the population in work is now not only ahead of where it was before COVID, but also ahead of where it would have been had the pre-COVID trends continued.

Most wages don’t get adjusted often

Another interesting question is why, if things are so good, wage growth has scarcely lifted. The wage price index grew just 2.4% in the year to March, up from 2.3% in the year to December.

One answer is that Australia’s wage-setting institutions create a built-in delay between labour market changes and wage changes.

Workers covered by awards, whose pay is adjusted via the Fair Work Commission’s minimum wage decision, make up 23% of all employees.

Workers whose pay depends on multi-year enterprise agreements make up 35.1%.

As happened this week, award wages are adjusted to reflect labour market conditions, but only once a year; and other wages less often.

Another answer is that after a decade of not needing to pay wage increases to hire and retain staff, employers may be finding it difficult to adjust to changed conditions.

Read more:
This 5.2% decision on the minimum wage could shift the trajectory for all

Contributing to this might be uncertainty about whether – in an environment where shortages in some occupations are due to low immigration – there’s much point in paying more, given that borders will reopen.

The low rates of wage growth over the past decade, and especially since COVID, have come with a substantial cost – to equity and to the living standards of workers.

Silver lining

There is, however, a silver lining. Australia’s low wage growth places us in a much better situation to avoid stagflation – the double-whammy of high inflation and high unemployment.

The onset of high inflation in Australia has caused policy-makers to seek to restrain economic activity – as evidenced by the Reserve Bank’s decision at its June meeting to lift its cash rate 0.5 points.

There is a risk these moves will push unemployment back up.

Read more:
There’s one big reason wages are stagnating: the enterprise bargaining system is broken, and in terminal decline

Our low wage growth though should make it easier to bring inflation under control. With the need to restrain economic activity therefore being lessened, we have a better chance to avoid higher unemployment.

This is a much better situation than in the US, where both price and wage inflation have taken off.

In the US, leading commentators now believe there is little chance inflation can be tamed without a substantial rise in unemployment.

Things are also very different to the last time Australia faced the challenge of stagflation, during the 1970s and early 1980s.

Back then, wage inflation was a major source of price inflation – initially through large wage increases granted to workers in the early 1970s, and then via a system of quarterly wage indexation which linked wages directly to increases in prices in near real-time. Things are different today.

Jeff Borland receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. An extra 60,600 Australians found work in May. Here’s why wages aren’t moving much – https://theconversation.com/an-extra-60-600-australians-found-work-in-may-heres-why-wages-arent-moving-much-184929

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tina Soliman Hunter, Professor of Energy and Natural Resources Law, Macquarie University

You can thank Margaret Thatcher for the gas supply crunch Australia’s east coast has been plunged into. As UK prime minister, Thatcher led the charge to kick the government out of the economy and allow the market to rule. In Australia, governments took up the idea with enthusiasm through deregulation and privatisation. But when the market fails, what happens? The state has to step in, again and again.

Putting the interests of citizens first requires state leadership over market rule. We saw this clearly yesterday when Australia’s national electricity market operator, AEMO, moved to suspend the wholesale electricity market. This radical move allowed the government entity to manage pricing and control of power plants and prevent rolling blackouts.

To see the truth of this, look west. While energy on Australia’s east coast has been in the hands of the market for decades, Western Australia has learned from previous crises. In the 1980s, the isolated state – which is not part of the national electricity market or the eastern gas region – decided to reserve 15% of all gas produced from the north west shelf for domestic use. Since then, WA has championed state intervention through its DomGas policy to ensure continuous supply of gas for its gas power stations and industry.

As the east coast energy crisis worsens, one thing is clear. Any solution has to involve government action. It’s time for governments to take back power – in more ways than one.

Letting the market lead is risky

State intervention has shielded West Australians from the east’s energy crisis. “The gas belongs to Australian citizens through their governments,” as former Western Australian premier Colin Barnett has said.

West Australian-style intervention came, in part, from necessity. The state lacks the east coast’s large coal reserves. The issue became urgent after the 2008 Varanus Island pipeline explosion, where the state suddenly lost almost a third of its gas supply. To compensate, the state government was able to maintain availability through its legislated domestic gas requirements.

Read more:
Australia’s National Electricity Market was just suspended. Here’s why and what happens next

Paying homage to the market has got us into this mess. State and federal governments moved to privatise state assets throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, governments have largely refused involvement in energy availability.

When Queensland’s coal seam gas was being developed in the 2000s, the state government let the market lead. That led to major waste, when the three successful consortia spent more than $A32 billion on separate pipelines, ports and processing facilities before a molecule of gas was produced. That meant all gas extracted was committed to overseas export contracts to be able to secure investment – leaving none for domestic use.

Imagine if the Queensland government had required coordination and multi-company participation, just as WA did when developing the gas resources of the Northwest Shelf. With government leadership, companies could have been able to use shared infrastructure – and gas could have been reserved for domestic use.

There’s no single silver bullet – but we do have three immediate solutions

Where is the market today? Suspended by AEMO to ensure consumers and manufacturers have power. Reliance on the market meant we have no gas available for the east coast because producers had to secure long-term contracts with foreign buyers to make their projects viable. Ahead of the transition towards hydrogen, the east coast still relies on gas for manufacturing and industrial uses.

As we wrote in 2018, there is no silver bullet to achieve energy security and overcome this crisis. But there are three linked solutions, which, as a package would provide short to medium term relief.

1. Short-term, we need to transport Western Australia’s abundant gas to the east coast. It is deeply ironic a country handsomely endowed with gas and the world’s largest LNG exporter is suffering from critical shortages because of our geography. In the short term, that means shipping liquefied natural gas (LNG) from WA ports to to east coast ports. In these ports, LNG can be loaded onto special ships, where LNG can be stored, regasified as needed, and injected into the existing gas pipelines. This is what Finland has turned to since deciding to cut all supply of Russian gas in May.

2. Medium-term, we need to connect the west’s gas pipeline network with the northern and eastern gas pipeline network. Five years ago, we recommended a pipeline be built as a solution to what we saw was an inevitable energy crisis on the east coast. In addition, this pipeline will let us transport hydrogen in the future. For years, it has been seen as too difficult – not technically, but commercially, since most pipelines are privately owned. Here, too, the government should step up and build it given the importance of energy security.

3. Medium-term, we also need legally binding gas reservation policies. At present, there are no legally binding conditions for eastern state gas projects requiring producers to reserve a percentage of gas for the domestic market. While the planned Narrabri gas project in NSW has been suggested as a solution to the energy crisis, this won’t work. That’s because while Narrabri still requires secondary approvals, there are no legal requirements to reserve gas. Narrabri is also controversial, as it poses multiple threats to the environment and surrounding community.

Never waste a good crisis

Once the immediate crisis is over, we should look west again. Western Australia has given the east a blueprint on how to handle energy crises and the clean energy transition.

In 2022, as east coast states reel from fossil fuel price spikes, what’s WA doing? They’ve committed to quitting coal power before 2030 and ruled out any new gas-fired power stations on the south-west grid after 2030. The state government will keep intervening in the energy market by directing billions of dollars into renewable energy and storage to ensure an orderly energy transition. In a similar approach to Germany, Western Australia will implement a “just transition” program allowing workers to be retrained or re-employed.

To make sure this never happens again, governments involved in the national electricity market should step up and claw back control foolishly given to the market for far too long.

Tina Soliman Hunter has received funding from ACOLA and the AIEN. She is a member of the Education Board of AIPN, and a member of the Board of the Aberdeen Branch of the Society of Petroleum Engineers

Madeline Taylor has received funding from ACOLA and the AIEN. She is a Climate Councillor for the Climate Council.

– ref. Want a solution for the energy crisis gripping Australia’s east? Look west – https://theconversation.com/want-a-solution-for-the-energy-crisis-gripping-australias-east-look-west-185124

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mohiuddin Ahmed, Lecturer of Computing & Security, Edith Cowan University

After 27 years, Microsoft has finally bid farewell to the web browser Internet Explorer, and will redirect Explorer users to the latest version of its Edge browser.

As of June 15, Microsoft ended support for Explorer on several versions of Windows 10 – meaning no more productivity, reliability or security updates. Explorer will remain a working browser, but won’t be protected as new threats emerge.

Twenty-seven years is a long time in computing. Many would say this move was long overdue. Explorer has been long outperformed by its competitors, and years of poor user experiences have made it the butt of many internet jokes.

How it began

Explorer was first introduced in 1995 by the Microsoft Corporation, and came bundled with the Windows operating system.

To its credit, Explorer introduced many Windows users to the joys of the internet for the first time. After all, it was only in 1993 that Tim Berners-Lee, the father of the web, released the first ever public web browser (aptly called WorldWideWeb).

Providing Explorer as its default browser meant a large proportion of Windows’s global user base would not experience an alternative. But this came at a cost, and Microsoft eventually faced multiple antitrust investigations exploring its monopoly on the browser market.

Still, even though a number of other browsers were around (including Netscape Navigator, which pre-dated Explorer), Explorer remained the default choice for millions of people up until around 2002, when Firefox was launched.

How it ended

Microsoft has released 11 versions of Explorer (with many minor revisions along the way). It added different functionality and components with each release. Despite these improvements, it lost consumer trust due to Explorer’s “legacy architecture”, which involved poor design and slowness.

It seems Microsoft got so comfortable with its monopoly that it let the quality of its product slide, just as other competitors were entering the battlefield.

Even just considering its cosmetic interface (what you see and interact with when you visit a website), Explorer could not give users the authentic experience of modern websites.

On the security front, Explorer exhibited its fair share of weaknesses, which cyber criminals readily and successfully exploited.

While Microsoft may have patched many of these weaknesses over different versions of the browser, the underlying architecture is still considered vulnerable by security experts. Microsoft itself has acknowledged this:

… [Explorer] is still based on technology that’s 25 years old. It’s a legacy browser that’s architecturally outdated and unable to meet the security challenges of the modern web.

These concerns have resulted in the United States Department for Homeland Security repeatedly advising internet users against using Explorer.

Explorer’s failure to win over modern audiences is further evident through Microsoft’s ongoing attempts to push users towards Edge. Edge was first introduced in 2015, and since then Explorer has only been used as a compatibility solution.

What Explorer was up against

In terms of current market share, more than 64% of browser users use Chrome. Explorer has dropped to less than 1%, and even Edge only accounts for about 4% of users.

What has given Chrome such a leg-up in the browser market?

Chrome was first introduced by Google in 2008, on the open source Chromium project, and has since been actively developed and supported.

Being open source means the software is publicly available, and anyone can inspect the source code that runs behind it. Individuals can even contribute to the source code, thereby enhancing the software’s productivity, reliability and security. This was never an option with Explorer.

Moreover, Chrome is multi-platform: it can be used in other operating systems such as Linux, MacOS and on mobile devices. It was supporting a range of systems long before Edge was even released. Meanwhile, Explorer has mainly been restricted to Windows, XBox and a few versions of MacOS.

Under the hood

Microsoft’s Edge browser is using the same Chromium open-source code that Chrome has used since its inception. This is encouraging, but it remains to be seen how Edge will compete against Chrome and other browsers to win users’ confidence.

We won’t be surprised if Microsoft fails to nudge customers towards using Edge as their favourite browser. The latest stats suggest Edge is still far behind Chrome in terms of market share.

Also, the fact Microsoft took seven years to retire Explorer after Edge’s initial release suggests the company hasn’t had great success in getting Edge’s uptake rolling.

What’s next?

Web browsers play a vital role in establishing privacy and security for users. Design and convenience are important factors for users when selecting a browser. So ultimately, the browser that can most effectively balance security and ease of use will win users.

And it’s hard to say whether Chrome’s current popularity will be sustained over time. Google will no doubt want it to continue, since web browsers are significant revenue sources.

But Google as a corporation is becoming increasingly unpopular due to massive data gathering and intrusive advertising practices. Chrome is a key component of Google’s data-gathering machine, so it’s possible users may slowly turn away.

As for what to do about Explorer (if you’re one of the few people that still has it sitting meekly on your desktop) – simply uninstall it to avoid security risks. Even if you’re not using Explorer, just having it installed could present a threat to your device. No one wants to be the victim of a cyber attack via a dead browser!

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. Goodbye Internet Explorer. You won’t be missed (but your legacy will be remembered) – https://theconversation.com/goodbye-internet-explorer-you-wont-be-missed-but-your-legacy-will-be-remembered-185130

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roger Dargaville, Senior lecturer & Deputy Director Monash Energy Institute, Monash University

If you aren’t a long term energy policy news junkie, you’d be forgiven for thinking today’s crisis arrived fairly suddenly.

Indeed, Liberal leader Peter Dutton is framing it as a recent catastrophe, saying it was caused by Labor “transitioning into renewables too quickly […] they are spooking the market.”

But this crisis hasn’t come out of nowhere.

We arrived at this moment thanks to a series of policy decisions under previous governments – state and federal – that left Australia’s energy system ill-equipped to cope with the demands placed on it.

Here are five key policy moments that in part led to the power crisis engulfing Australia today.

Read more:
Australia has met its renewable energy target. But don’t pop the champagne

1. Privatisation of the electricity sector

The 1990s saw a trend towards privatisation of government owned assets, with the logic that industry would run the assets more efficiently.

The Kennett government in Victoria had a strong policy to privatise generators and transmission assets, with South Australia and New South Wales also privatising energy assets.

However, the actual focus of industry is not to be efficient but to maximise shareholder profit (which may involve being more streamlined, but not necessarily). And so the the primary role of the energy sector to provide general benefits to Australian residents and businesses has been lost.

Read more:
Want electricity reform? Start by giving power back to the states

2. The Gladstone gas terminal agreements

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports began from the Gladstone LNG gas terminal in Queensland in 2015, during the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison era, connecting the eastern states’ domestic gas markets to the international price.

But the journey began long prior, with construction of this terminal beginning in 2010 (in the middle of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era). It involved years of strategy discussion, policy design and agreements.

These agreements, forged between industry and various state (especially the Beattie Queensland Labor government) and federal governments (going as far back as the Howard era), created an LNG export industry.

Unlike Western Australia, there was no domestic reserve for gas set up as part of the agreements. So on the east coast, we are now exposed to international gas prices.

Of course, in the lead up to creating the LNG export industry, federal governments perhaps could not have been expected to predict Russia’s invasion of Ukraine over a decade later, driving up gas prices.

But the decisions made around the Gladstone gas agreements allowed Australian gas to be shipped offshore and have led to extremely high gas prices domestically.

3. Axing the price on carbon, watering down the renewable energy target

Under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the then-Coalition government removed the price on carbon created by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. This was arguably one of the most backward steps in the efforts to reign in Australia’s carbon emissions and did nothing to incentivise renewable energy production.

It also tried very hard to scrap the renewable energy target (RET) – eventually settling for just watering it down significantly.

The RET required energy retailers and large customers to ensure a share of their energy was derived from renewable sources.

An earlier form of the target was established in 2001 by the Howard Coalition government. The Rudd Labor government increased the target’s ambition in 2009.

In 2015 the Abbott Coalition government dramatically reduced the target, and it was was easily met in 2019. Since then, there has been no additional hard incentive to build more renewables.

The reason renewables are still being built now is because they are cheaper than coal.

Investment would continue at a more rapid pace, except that getting transmission connection agreements – which allow renewable energy producers to get their power into the grid – is quite difficult (more on that later).

4. An effective stop on investment in wind farms in Victoria

In 2011, the Victorian Baillieu state government effectively put a stop to wind farm investment by creating a 2km exclusion zone around existing homes. As researchers Lisa Caripis and Anne Kallies wrote in The Conversation in 2012, these laws

effectively give the owners of any dwelling within 2km of a proposed wind farm the power to decide whether or not the development should proceed.

This decision, combined with the reduced RET, really slowed down investment in renewables.

These laws were reformed in 2015 by the Andrews government in Victoria.

Read more:
Victorian wind farm laws: a blow to Australia’s clean energy future?

5. Lack of investment in transmission infrastructure

This is not so much a policy moment, but a lack of one.

Transmission infrastructure is the wires, poles and other bits of the system needed to get electricity from power producers to households and businesses.

Most major transmission projects in Australia connecting coal, gas and hydro projects to the grid have been built by governments and then later privatised. Under the current privatised system, getting new transmission lines built is a complex process.

Renewables generation projects are often built at smaller scales in remote locations and new transmission infrastructure is needed to connect them to the grid.

Many renewable energy projects currently cannot connect to the grid because transmission infrastructure can’t securely absorb the extra capacity.

Both federal and state governments have failed to enact policies encouraging investment in transmission projects that can serve renewables generation. This has set the system up for the failure we’re seeing today.

Read more:
What is the electricity transmission system, and why does it need fixing?

A tough job ahead

Of course, other policy decisions have also led to today’s crisis. For example, there’s been limited government policy encouraging the construction of batteries and pumped hydro in order to store renewable energy produced at times of lower demand.

The exception here is, of course, the tax payer funded Snowy 2.0 scheme, recently revealed to be running over time and over budget.

Without government intervention, it seems unlikely an orderly transition to renewables can be achieved.

Roger Dargaville receives funding from the RACE for 2030 CRC and the Woodside Monash Energy Partnership.

– ref. 5 policy decisions from recent history that led to today’s energy crisis – https://theconversation.com/5-policy-decisions-from-recent-history-that-led-to-todays-energy-crisis-185207

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danny C Price, Senior research fellow, Curtin University

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
– Carl Sagan (Cosmos, 1980)

This phrase is the standard that astronomers will be applying to a curious signal captured with China’s “Sky Eye” telescope that might be a transmission from alien technology.

An article reporting the signal was posted on the website of China’s state-backed Science and Technology Daily newspaper, but was later removed. So have astronomers finally found evidence of intelligent found life beyond Earth? And is it being hushed up?

We should be intrigued, but not too excited (yet). An interesting signal has to go through a lot of tests to check whether it truly carries the signature of extraterrestrial technology or is just the result of an unexpected source of terrestrial interference.

And as for the deletion: media releases are normally timed for simultaneous release with peer-reviewed results – which are not yet available – so it was likely just released a bit early by mistake.

An eye on the sky

Sky Eye, which is offically known as the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST), is the the largest and most sensitive single-dish radio telescope in the world. A engineering marvel, its gargantuan structure is built inside a natural basin in the mountains of Guizhou, China.

The telescope is so huge it can’t be physically tilted, but it can be pointed in a direction by thousands of actuators that deform the telescope’s reflective surface. By deforming the surface, the location of the telescope’s focal point changes, and the telescope can look at a different part of the sky.

Read more:
China completes world’s largest radio telescope – raising hopes of finding new worlds and alien life

FAST detects radiation at radio wavelengths (up to 10 cm) and is used for astronomical research in a wide range of areas. One area is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, or SETI.

SETI observations are mainly done in “piggy-back” mode, which means they are taken while the telescope is also running its primary science programs. In this way, large swaths of the sky can be scanned for signs of alien technology – or “technosignatures” – without getting in the way of other science operations. For special targets like nearby exoplanets, dedicated SETI observations are still carried out.

The hunt for alien technology

Technosignature searches have been ongoing since the 1960s, when the American astronomer Frank Drake pointed the 26-metre Tatel telescope toward two nearby Sun-like stars and scanned them for signs of technology.

Over the years, technosignature searches have become far more rigorous and sensitive. The systems in place at FAST are also able to process billions of times more of the radio spectrum than Drake’s experiment.

Despite these advances, we haven’t yet found any evidence of life beyond Earth.

FAST sifts through enormous amounts of data. The telescope feeds 38 billion samples a second into a cluster of high-performance computers, which then produces exquisitely detailed charts of incoming radio signals. These charts are then searched for signals that look like technosignatures.

With such a large collecting area, FAST can pick up incredibly faint signals. It is about 20 times more sensitive than Australia’s Murriyang telescope at the Parkes Radio Observatory. FAST could easily detect a transmitter on a nearby exoplanet with a similar output power to radar systems we have here on Earth.

The trouble with sensitivity

The trouble with being so sensitive is that you can uncover radio interference that would otherwise be too faint to detect. We SETI researchers have had this problem before.

Last year, using Murriyang, we detected an extremely interesting signal we called BLC1.

However, it turned out to be very strange interference (not aliens). To uncover its true nature, we had to develop a new verification framework.

With BLC1, it took about a year from when it was initially reported to when peer-reviewed analysis was published. Similarly, we may need to wait a while for the FAST signal to be analysed in depth.

Professor Zhang Tongjie, chief scientist for the China Extraterrestrial Civilization Research Group, acknowledged this in the Science & Technology Daily report:

The possibility that the suspicious signal is some kind of radio interference is also very high, and it needs to be further confirmed and ruled out. This may be a long process.

And we may need to get used to a gap between finding candidate signals and verifying them. FAST and other telescopes are likely to find many more signals of interest.

Most of these will turn out to be interference, but some may be new astrophysical phenomena, and some may be bona fide technosignatures.

Read more:
A mysterious signal looked like a sign of alien technology — but it turned out to be radio interference

Stay intrigued

Will FAST’s extraordinary signals meet the burden of extraordinary evidence? Until their work is reviewed and published, it’s still too early to say, but it’s encouraging that their SETI search algorithms are finding curious signals.

Between FAST, the Breakthrough Listen initiative, and the SETI Institute’s COSMIC program, the SETI field is seeing a lot of interest and activity. And it’s not just radio waves: searches are also underway using optical and infrared light.

As for right now: stay intrigued, but don’t get too excited.

Danny C Price is Australian Project Scientist for the Breakthrough Listen initiative.

– ref. Did a giant radio telescope in China just discover aliens? Not so FAST… – https://theconversation.com/did-a-giant-radio-telescope-in-china-just-discover-aliens-not-so-fast-185165

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brady Robards, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Monash University

What you say and do on social media can affect your employment; it can prevent you from getting hired, stall career progression and may even get you fired. Is this fair – or an invasion of privacy?

Our recent research involved a study of 312 news articles about people who had been fired because of a social media post.

These included stories about posts people had made themselves, such as a teacher who was fired after they came out as bisexual on Instagram, or a retail employee let go over a racist post on Facebook.

It also included stories about posts made by others, such as videos of police engaging in racial profiling (which led to their dismissal).

Racism was the most common reason people were fired in these news stories, with 28% of stories related specifically to racism. Other forms of discriminatory behaviour were sometimes involved, such as queerphobia and misogyny (7%); workplace conflict (17%); offensive content such as “bad jokes” and insensitive posts (16%); acts of violence and abuse (8%); and “political content” (5%).

We also found these news stories focused on cases of people being fired from public-facing jobs with high levels of responsibility and scrutiny. These included police/law enforcement (20%), teachers (8%), media workers (8%), medical professionals (7%), and government workers (3%), as well as workers in service roles such as hospitality and retail (13%).

Social media is a double-edged sword. It be used to hold people to account for discriminatory views, comments or actions. But our study also raised important questions about privacy, common HR practices and how employers use social media to make decisions about their staff.

Young people in particular are expected to navigate social media use (documenting their lives, hanging out with friends, and engaging in self-expression) with the threat of future reputational harm looming.

Read more:
Doxxing, swatting and the new trends in online harassment

Are all online posts fair game?

Many believe people just need to accept the reality that what you say and do on social media can be used against you.

And that one should only post content they wouldn’t mind their boss (or potential boss) seeing.

But to what extent should employers and recruiting managers respect the privacy of employees, and not use personal social media to make employment decisions?

Or is everything “fair game” in making hiring and firing decisions?

On the one hand, the capacity for using social media to hold certain people (like police and politicians) to account for what they say and do can be immensely valuable to democracy and society.

Powerful social movements such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter used social media to call out structural social problems and individual bad actors.

On the other hand, when everyday people lose their jobs (or don’t get hired in the first place) because they’re LGBTQ+, post a photo of themselves in a bikini, or because they complain about customers in private spaces (all stories from our study), the boundary between professional and private lives is blurred.

Mobile phones, emails, working from home, highly competitive employment markets, and the intertwining of “work” with “identity” all serve to blur this line.

Some workers must develop their own strategies and tactics, such as not friending or following workmates on some social media (which itself can lead to tensions).

And even when one does derive joy and fulfilment from work, we should expect to have some boundaries respected.

Employers, HR workers, and managers should think carefully about the boundaries between professional and personal lives; using social media in employment decisions can be more complicated than it seems.

A ‘hidden curriculum of surveillance’

When people feel monitored by employers (current, or imagined future ones) when they use social media, this creates a “hidden curriculum of surveillance”. For young people especially, this can be damaging and inhibiting.

This hidden curriculum of surveillance works to produce compliant, self-governing citizen-employees. They are pushed to curate often highly sterile representations of their lives on social media, always under threat of employment doom.

At the same time, these very same social media have a clear and productive role in revealing violations of power. Bad behaviour, misconduct, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry, harassment, and violence have all been exposed by social media.

So, then, this surveillance can be both bad and good – invasive in some cases and for some people (especially young people whose digitally-mediated lives are managed through this prism of future impact) but also liberating and enabling justice, accountability, and transparency in other scenarios and for other actors.

Social media can be an effective way for people to find work, for employers to find employees, to present professional profiles on sites like LinkedIn or portfolios of work on platforms like Instagram, but these can also be personal spaces even when they’re not set to private.

How we get the balance right between using social media to hold people to account versus the risk of invading people’s privacy depends on the context, of course, and is ultimately about power.

Read more:
As use of digital platforms surges, we’ll need stronger global efforts to protect human rights online

Brady Robards receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Darren Graf 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. Who really gets fired over social media posts? We studied hundreds of cases to find out – https://theconversation.com/who-really-gets-fired-over-social-media-posts-we-studied-hundreds-of-cases-to-find-out-182424

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Castan, Associate Professor, Law Faculty, Monash University

Last week the Victorian government demonstrated its commitment to build an equal relationship with First Peoples. A new bill has been tabled in the Victorian parliament to advance the Victorian treaty processes.

In 2018, legislation was enacted that required the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and the Victorian government to work together to establish a Treaty Authority.

The new bill further affirms the Assembly and the Victorian government’s agreement and commitment to establish a Treaty Authority and support its operations.

The new Treaty Authority will be the first of its kind in Australia, placing First Peoples’ culture at the heart of its practices.

Read more:
Queensland’s ‘Path to Treaty’ has some lessons for the rest of Australia

What is the Treaty Authority and how will it work?

The significant power difference between the government and First Nations people means there needs to be a way to establish equal footing for treaty negotiations.

The Treaty Authority serves that role as an institution independent of parliament and government.

Negotiations may well be long and complex. The authority will oversee treaty negotiations and if the parties cannot agree on particular matters or the appropriate process, it will act as an independent umpire to help resolve the issue.

The new authority will respect First Peoples’ culture with a focus on dialogue. Talking through problems to achieve agreement, rather using than a combative approach, is at the core of the treaty process.

Assembly co-chair and Nira illim bulluk man Marcus Stewart said the Treaty Authority

will be guided by Aboriginal lore, law and cultural authority that has been practised on these lands for countless generations.

This is a significant development in Australian legal institutions and processes. It addresses well known problems with the adversarial nature of native title determinations, where traditional owners must sue the government to prove their title.

This new public law process appropriately recognises the standing of Indigenous cultural approaches.

In another important development, the Treaty Authority will have guaranteed government funding, which it controls and manages. This will ensure the authority can perform its functions long-term.

In the past when governments set up bodies to assist First Nations, there were problems with sustainability, because the body did not have the resources to function. It is encouraging to see the commitment at this early stage, to continuous funding and First Nations’ control.

The Treaty Authority will be comprised of independent members who are all First Peoples, who will be selected after a public call for nominations.

Read more:
Voice to Parliament design report still doesn’t meet international human rights standards

The Treaty Authority recognises the right to self-determination

Indigenous rights expert Professor Megan Davis explained

before Indigenous Australia can participate in the Australian democratic project on just and equal terms, the unresolved issues of the colonial project and the psychological terra nullius of Australia’s public institutions must be finally dealt with.

The Treaty Authority will be a public institution that grapples with this problem of “psychological terra nullius” – the exclusion of First Nations peoples in politics and law.

It forms part of the broader work to provide just and equal participation by First Peoples in our democratic institutions. It complements the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, and the Yoorrook Justice Commission, which address voice and truth respectively.

All of these institutions are part of the overarching treaty process in Victoria.

Treaty is one important way of realising Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination.

Self-determination means the right of a people to make decisions about their own governance and way of life.

Self-determination for Indigenous peoples is also a requirement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and other international human rights law.

By drawing on First Nations’ “law, lore, and cultural authority” in order to support the treaty process, the Victorian Treaty Authority is demonstrating an innovative approach to realising First Peoples’ right to self-determination.

Navigating a way to treaty

Victoria is only one Australian jurisdiction currently navigating treaty processes. Queensland, the Northern Territory, South Australia, and Tasmania are all embarking on pathways to treaty.

And the new Albanese government is working to deliver on its commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart’s call for Voice, Treaty, and Truth at the federal level.

Each of these processes should properly be informed by respective First Peoples in each area.

For all jurisdictions, the Victorian approach demonstrates the potential for transformative institutional reform, in and beyond government.

Self-determination must be led by sovereign First Nations people and grounded in Indigenous culture and law. International human rights law requires it. And justice alone demands the state, in all its guises, enters into proper relations with the First Nations of this land.

Melissa Castan receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Kate Galloway and Scott Walker 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 new Treaty Authority between First Peoples and the Victorian government is a vital step towards a treaty – https://theconversation.com/a-new-treaty-authority-between-first-peoples-and-the-victorian-government-is-a-vital-step-towards-a-treaty-184739

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

The election of a record number of independents to the House of Representatives will undoubtedly increase pressure on parliament to change how it operates. Already the newly elected independent member for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel, has called for more resources for two key institutions, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) and the Parliamentary Library.

The younger of the two, the PBO, was created in 2012 to provide “independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals”. In practice, it focuses heavily on the last of those tasks – assessing the financial implications of new plans. And it won’t have escaped the independents’ attention that its findings are rarely out of step with the views of Treasury.

What this means, says Daniel, is that “backbenchers of all shades struggle to get the quality of information and objective advice they need to make decisions based on their merits and on the evidence”. She wants to see a broader, US-style body producing forecasts and other economic research independent of Treasury and the government.

This isn’t just a federal problem. Australia’s two other PBOs – in Victoria and New South Wales – also have a much narrower focus than their overseas counterparts.

Federally, two of three items on the PBO’s “about” page concern costings (the first explicitly; the second via a post-election compilation of election commitments) and the third relates to public education. In Victoria, according to a parliamentary committee, “policy costings are a key legislative function of the office” despite being “not widespread” in other OECD countries.

Read more:
We’re about to have Australia’s most diverse parliament yet – but there’s still a long way to go

The NSW PBO is even more tightly focused: parliament’s website describes its work as providing “costings of election policies in the lead-up to NSW general elections”. Reflecting successive NSW governments’ belief that costings only matter before elections, it operates only one year in four. (The NSW system’s pluses and minuses are discussed in the PBO’s 2015 post-election report.)

Best practice?

Many of the PBOs’ counterparts overseas have much broader mandates and more influence on public policy. The most important by far, as Daniel implies, is the US Congressional Budget Office, whose reports and advice to Congress have had a major impact on budgetary policy in the United States. The CBO produces economic forecasts, research papers and fiscal analysis across all areas of government.

The Netherlands has an even older institution, the Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. Dating back to 1945, its role takes in budget projections and forecasting. Across the North Sea in Britain, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility prepares the economic forecasts that accompany the government’s budget, evaluates the government’s performance against fiscal targets, analyses fiscal sustainability and risks, and – yes – provides costings of tax and welfare measures.

The most striking contrast is with the Canadian PBO, which had a habit of criticising government, especially when led by the independently minded economist Kevin Page. That came at some peril – the government slashed its budget and changed its reporting lines – but the body was always supported by parliament.

Australia’s federal PBO has a narrow focus primarily because the public service convinced parliament to keep it that way. Treasury resisted any notion that another body should have a role in economic forecasting, and so the legislation expressly prohibits the PBO from preparing economic projections or budget estimates.

The Business Council of Australia was an early advocate for a more powerful PBO. In its 2011–12 budget submission, based on a research report I wrote that included a survey of international practice, it argued unsuccessfully for a broader remit.

Since then, the PBO has largely been captured by the bureaucracy. Headed by a career public servant, it is part of the “official family”. Its research and statements don’t come even close to challenging official orthodoxies.

If parliament wants a more independent federal PBO it has power to act. The PBO reports to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which also approves its work plan. The JCPAA has traditionally been a staunch defender of the legislature’s right to question ministers and public servants. But it has retreated from that position as parliament has become more polarised. The arrival of a record number of independents could reverse the trend and strengthen parliament’s role.

And the Parliamentary Library?

Judged by its independence from government, the Parliamentary Library is a much better performer. Established in 1901, it has been part of the Commonwealth’s institutional furniture from the first parliament. Its long history of rigour and independence gives it a solid basis on which to keep offering MPs information that doesn’t necessarily follow the government line.

The library’s record is a good illustration of what is known as path dependence: the way an institution is established and works in its early days has a huge influence on how it continues to operate. Having set out on a path of impartiality and rigour, the library has maintained it. But that doesn’t mean it would knock back that extra funding Daniel has called for.

Stephen Bartos 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. The teal independents want to hold government to account. That starts with high-quality information – https://theconversation.com/the-teal-independents-want-to-hold-government-to-account-that-starts-with-high-quality-information-184559

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pamela McCalman, PhD Candidate and Midwife, La Trobe University

While Australia is one of the safest places in the world to give birth, First Nations women are three times more likely to die in childbirth than other Australian women (17.5 vs 5.5 per 100,000 women from 2012-2019).

And First Nations infants are almost twice as likely to die in the first month of life (16% vs 9% per 1,000), with preterm birth the biggest cause of mortality.

The causes of these gaps in life expectancy are complex and stem from colonisation, including:

• racism and lack of cultural safety in hospitals and from healthcare providers

• pregnant First Nations women avoiding antenatal care for fear of child protection services taking their children. This is a legacy of the “stolen generations” with continuing high rates of child removals

• closures of regional and remote birthing services requiring more First Nations women to leave home and travel long distances to give birth, often alone. Some women opt to give birth without a midwife, which can have significant issues for mother and baby.

Ensuring First Nations children are born healthy and strong is the second Closing the Gap target – a critical foundation for “everyone enjoying long and healthy lives”. A much needed step to guarantee this is to increase First Nations health workers, particularly midwives and nurses.

Read more:
Does the pre-election budget address ways to realistically ‘close the gap’ for Indigenous people?

Addressing the health impacts of colonisation

Before colonisation, in some First Nations, new parents were supported using principles of “Grandmothers” law. This is traditional childbearing knowledge held by senior community women. Children’s development was nurtured through extended kinship and community care.

These holistic care systems have been disrupted and western maternity services are informed by research conducted “on” First Nations people instead of in collaboration with or by First Nations people. This has led to a focus in the medical literature on the “five Ds” – disparity, deprivation, disadvantage, dysfunction and difference, rather than evidence reflecting the strengths of First Nations people and culture.

This is reflected in Australia’s policies, health and education systems which reinforce the legitimacy of “western” knowledge over First Nations knowledges. This leads to ongoing failures to improve First Nations people’s health and maternity services.

Western maternity services are often too busy and task-orientated with rigid structures not suited to providing holistic women-centred maternity care that enables flexibility for cultural birthing practices.

The “Birthing in Our Community” study showed culturally-safe models which enable care from a known midwife throughout pregnancy, birth and up until six weeks after birth, can significantly improve health outcomes for First Nations women and babies.

This research found women were approximately 50% more likely to attend the recommended number of antenatal visits, 38% less likely to give birth prematurely, and 34% more likely to be “exclusively” breastfeeding when they leave hospital.

The key to this success was leadership and care provision that included First Nations midwives. Similar improvements in access for women have been reported from similar models including the Baggarrook Yurrongi program, Waminda South Coast Birthing on Country program, and Waijungbah Jarjums program.

Read more:
The Uluru Statement must be core to promises made by all parties in the lead-up to the federal election

The vital role of First Nations nurses and midwives

First Nations midwives and nurses foster a sense of cultural safety and trust in maternity services for First Nations women. In addition to western midwifery training, First Nations midwives draw on cultural and community knowledge systems, including understanding the importance of including key family members and cultural practices specific to that community.

First Nations nurses and midwives currently represent 1.1% of the workforce. If we want to close the gap in outcomes and ensure a culturally safe birthing experience for First Nations women, we need a much bigger proportion of First Nations midwives.

Read more:
First Nations children are still being removed at disproportionate rates. Cultural assumptions about parenting need to change

How can we increase the number of First Nations midwives and nurses?

Universities need to increase their proportion of First Nations students by:

• providing better support for First Nations students from application through to graduation

• implementing all 32 recommendations from the Gettin em and keepin em report into First Nations nursing education, which includes integration of First Nations health issues into core midwifery curricula and having streamlined application and enrolment
  procedures

• promoting scholarships to attract students.

Maternity services need to increase the number of First Nations midwives employed, through:

• implementing the government’s woman-centred care strategy to ensure Australian maternity services are equitable, safe, woman-centred, informed and evidence-based; that women are the decision-makers in their care; and maternity care reflects women’s individual needs

• directing cadetship and graduate midwife programs at First Nations nurses

• supporting midwifery career development, leadership roles, and representation at all levels of governance.

Both universities and maternity services need to:

• improve cultural safety, as per the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workforce strategic plan

• ensure midwifery academics undertake cultural safety training as part of professional development

• regularly assess health providers’ behaviours and parent experiences to ensure cultural safety training results in a culturally safe workplace.

Now is a great time for First Nations people to think about a midwifery career. Let’s work towards a future where every pregnant First Nations woman has access to a First Nations midwife, so they and their baby can have the best possible start in life.

Pamela McCalman receives funding from the Lowitja Institute.

Catherine Chamberlain receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Fellowship and project funds), the Ian Potter Foundation and the Medical Research Future Fund. She is a member of the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia.

Machellee Kosiak is affiliated with Rhodanthe Lipsett Indigenous Midwifery Charitable Fund
http://indigenousmidwives.org.au
First Nations woman, Wiradjuri and Ngunnawal
Midwifery lecturer -The Away from Base Bachelor of Midwifery Programme Australian Catholic University.

Member of Research Project -Birthing in our Community

– ref. First Nations mothers are more likely to die during childbirth. More First Nations midwives could close this gap – https://theconversation.com/first-nations-mothers-are-more-likely-to-die-during-childbirth-more-first-nations-midwives-could-close-this-gap-182935

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

Addressing the first meeting of Labor’s new caucus, Anthony Albanese held out the prospect of “back-to-back premierships”. But a second-term in government isn’t a given, he implied – it is something Labor will have to earn. Does he really believe Labor might not be re-elected?

Not since 1931 has any government failed to win a second term. So predictable has the victory become that political commentators routinely refer to the “reluctance” of voters to despatch a government after just one term. Given the historical record, one journalist has even argued Albanese’s focus should be on a third term.

Predictably, Peter Dutton was having none of it. His plan, he told his troops, was to limit Labor to just one term. To anyone looking at the Coalition’s numbers, this may have sounded fanciful. Yet, some observed, this may not have been a bad election for the Coalition to lose. Labor has often won office only to be buffeted by economic forces beyond its control – after 1929, obviously; but also after its 1972 and 2007 wins. With declining economic growth in the United States and China, perhaps 2022 will prove to be no different.

Governments seeking a second term lose votes

What happens to electoral support for governments seeking a second term is rather different from what we might imagine if all we knew was that they almost always win.

Since the war, seven governments have sought a second term. Three were led by Labor prime ministers (Gough Whitlam, 1974; Bob Hawke, 1984; Julia Gillard, 2010), and four by Liberal prime ministers (Robert Menzies, 1951; Malcolm Fraser, 1977; John Howard, 1998; Malcolm Turnbull, 2016).

On every occasion, the government’s two-party vote went backwards. In the 1950s and in the 1970s and 1980s this loss of votes wasn’t particularly large: 0.3 percentage points (1951), 1.0 (1974), 0.9 (1977) and 1.4 (1984) – an average of 0.9. But since the late 1990s, the loss of votes has been greater: 4.6 percentage points (1998), 2.6 (2010) and 3.1 (2016) – an average of 3.4.

The contrast between the two periods is even sharper if we think of prime ministers rather than parties seeking second terms. In 2013, when Gillard sought a second term, Labor’s two-party vote declined by 3.6 points. In 2022, when Morrison sought a second term, the Coalition’s two-party vote declined by 3.3 points. In all the other elections, the prime minister seeking a second term was the same prime minister who had secured a first term.

It’s governments seeking third or fourth terms that have sometimes gained votes

Why might postwar governments have always been returned on their first attempt? Is it because the swings against them have been more muted at the end of their first term than at the end of their second or third terms?

For Labor, yes. Labor governments have shed 1.7 percentage points, on average, after their first term; after their second, the average figure is 4.0 points.

Read more:
Confused polling distorts the debate on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament

However, for the Coalition, the contrary is true. At the end of their first terms, Coalition governments have shed an average of 2.2 percentage points. But at the end of their second terms, having increased their vote on two occasions, their average loss has been just 0.7 points. And at the end of their third terms – again, having twice increased their vote – they have actually gained a point.

On this evidence, the idea that voters are reluctant to throw out first term governments is mistaken.

So why do governments win second terms?

Governments fail to fall at the end of their first term because of the margins by which they are elected in the first place.

Elected in 1996 with a 40-seat majority, the Howard government hung on in 1998 despite a swing of 4.6 points that should have seen it lose. In 2010, Gillard survived because of the size of Rudd’s 2007 win, though she now headed a minority government. In 2016, Turnbull survived by the narrowest of majorities, saved by the size of Abbott’s win.

The idea that close results reflect voters’ “ambivalence” is a category mistake: electorates aren’t “ambivalent” even if some voters are. The view that close elections show that voters think neither side “deserves” to govern is another category mistake. Very likely, most voters think one side or the other deserves to govern. It’s just that those who think the Coalition deserves to govern are matched, more or less, by those who think Labor deserves to do so.

Labor get a second term?

If the swings endured by first term governments in 2010 or 2016 – or the swing endured by a first term Morrison government – are any guide, the chances of an Albanese government being returned as a majority government are low.

Although Labor won 51.9% of the two-party vote, it would take only small swings – 0.2 percentage points in Gilmore (New South Wales) and 0.8 in Lyons (Tasmania) – for it to lose its majority.

How many other seats could it afford to lose and still govern in minority? A two-party swing of 3.1 percentage points – the smallest swing suffered by any of the last three first-term governments – could see the government lose eight seats to the Coalition, leaving Labor with 69 seats and the Coalition with 66. A swing of 4.6 points – the biggest swing suffered by any of these three governments – could see it lose another four: Labor 65, the Coalition 70. Because the electoral pendulum is not a perfect predictor, these are estimates.

Read more:
It’s been called the worst job in politics. Can Peter Dutton buck the trend?

Were the Coalition to win back a few of the seats won narrowly by the “teal” independents, then Labor’s position would become even more precarious. It might be able to count on the four Greens plus Andrew Wilkie to claim the support of 70 MPs. But if the Coalition won 72 or 73 seats and a bigger vote share (primary and two-party) than Labor, it might be better placed than Labor to strike an agreement with the remaining independents. Where Labor would need almost all eight or nine independents to form a minority government, the Coalition might need only three or four.

Other possibilities could weaken Labor’s position even further: a loss of a seat or two to the teals or to the Greens; or the Coalition’s winning back a seat or two from the Greens. If either of these things happened, Labor’s hold on government might be beyond saving.

The last one-term Labor government was a casualty of the Great Depression. Having secured 48.8% of the first preference vote and 46 of the 75 seats in the House in 1929, Labor managed only 37.7% of the vote and 18 seats in 1931 – even if we include the breakaway party, Lang Labor.

Will economic circumstances come to the aid of the non-Labor parties again?

Murray Goot 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. Governments usually win a second term. But could the new Labor government be an exception? – https://theconversation.com/governments-usually-win-a-second-term-but-could-the-new-labor-government-be-an-exception-184845

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tin Fei Sim, Senior Lecturer, Curtin Medical School, Curtin University

With Australians learning to live with COVID and resuming international travel, cases of influenza are steadily rising.

Getting a flu shot reduces your chance of catching the flu caused by four flu virus strains covered by the vaccine, and reduces the risk of severe complications and hospitalisations.

An annual flu vaccine is recommended for adults and children six months and older – unless you have a history of anaphylactic reactions to the vaccine or your doctor advises against it.

There are different brands and types of flu vaccines. So when booking in for your shot, your health provider will discuss the best option for you.

What are the options?

If you’re over 65, you’re likely to be offered an “adjuvanted” (Fluad Quad) vaccine. Those aged over 60 can also access the high-dose vaccine (Fluzone High-Dose Quad).

If you want to avoid vaccines made with eggs, you can ask for a cell-based vaccine (Flucelvax Quad).

But for most other Australians, there isn’t much of a difference between brands – Vaxigrip Tetra, Fluarix Tetra, Afluria Quad, FluQuadri, Influvac Tetra – aside from their suitability for different age groups.

GPs and pharmacists will generally stock one or two of these brands or whichever their state or territory governments supplies.

Read more:
Should I get the 2022 flu vaccine? And how effective is it?

Unlike in previous years, all eight flu vaccines available this year are “quadrivalent”, meaning each vaccine protects against four strains of flu viruses.

The strains are predicted to be the most commonly circulating strains, based on trends observed in the Northern Hemisphere winter.

Flu vaccines are “inactivated”, which means they don’t contain live viruses and can never give anyone the flu.

Over 65s

For people 65 years and older, “adjuvanted” or immune-boosting (Fluad Quad®) or high-dose vaccines (Fluzone High-Dose Quad®) are recommended, as older people tend to have weaker immune systems.

Vaccines work by activating a person’s own immune system. The “adjuvanted” vaccine activates a stronger immune response and is therefore more effective at preventing the flu in older age groups than the standard vaccines.

High-dose vaccines deliver a higher dose than standard flu vaccines and are also more effective than the standard vaccines at reducing transmission and preventing severe disease in older age groups.

Adjuvanted vaccines are free for over-65s under the National Immunisation Program.

If you’re 60 or over, you can choose a high-dose vaccine, although you may have to pay for it, depending on local government programs.

Cell-based vaccines don’t use eggs

The flu vaccines are either egg-based or cell-based. Traditionally, flu vaccines were egg-based, meaning the flu viruses were grown in fertilised hens’ eggs.

But people with egg allergies can safely get the egg-based flu vaccine. The amount of egg protein left in each vaccine at the end of the production process is less than 1 microgram, much less than the estimated amount of 130 micrograms required to cause an allergic reaction.

In recent years, newer medical technology has led to the production of cell-based flu vaccines. Here, the virus is grown in host cells. So people who wish to avoid egg products may choose a cell-based vaccine instead.

Currently, Flucelvax Quad is the only cell-based flu vaccine approved for use in Australia and is also suitable for children from two years of age.

Read more:
Flu vaccine won’t definitely stop you from getting the flu, but it’s more important than you think

Some studies have shown cell-based vaccines are better at triggering the body’s immune response.

This is because the viruses used to make cell-based vaccines are more similar to circulating wild flu viruses – and the closer it resembles the real thing, the more effective it is.

However, Flucelvax Quad isn’t currently funded under the National Immunisation Program, so you’ll need to pay yourself, even if you’re eligible for a free vaccine under the national program.

When is the best time to get vaccinated?

It takes seven to 14 days for our body to respond to a vaccine. Once you receive the vaccine, your body starts to recognise the four strains of flu viruses and starts to develop an immune response over the course of about two weeks.

Once this occurs, when you come into contact with one or more of these four strains of viruses, your body’s own immune response will be able to protect and prevent you from getting sick.

The flu season typically peaks in Australia between July to September. The vaccine will provide the highest level of protection for three to four months. So late May to early June is generally the best time to get it.

For people travelling overseas, your doctor or pharmacist can advise you on what’s best for you based on where and when you’re travelling.

The flu vaccine can also be given at the same time as most other vaccines, including COVID vaccines. It’s also safe – and recommended – in pregnancy.

Read more:
Should I get the flu shot if I’m pregnant?

What are the side effects?

People may experience cold and flu-like symptoms for up to 24–48 hours after getting the vaccine. This shows the body’s immune response is kicking in and the vaccine is working.
You can take over-the-counter pain medications such as paracetamol or ibuprofen to relieve these symptoms.

Other common side effects may include local injection site reactions such as redness, mild swelling and tenderness. This should subside within 48 hours without any treatment. Applying ice or a cold pack can help.

Some people may develop more severe reactions, including anaphylaxis (a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction) in extremely rare circumstances. This is also why your doctor or pharmacist recommends waiting on-site for 15 minutes after vaccination for monitoring.

If you’ve had a severe reaction to any vaccine in the past, it’s important to tell your doctor or pharmacist.

Read more:
As flu cases surge, vaccination may offer some bonus protection from COVID as well

Tin Fei Sim is affiliated with Curtin University and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.

– ref. Which flu shot should I choose? And what are cell-based and ‘adjuvanted’ vaccines? – https://theconversation.com/which-flu-shot-should-i-choose-and-what-are-cell-based-and-adjuvanted-vaccines-184325

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra McEwan, Lecturer: Law, CQUniversity Australia

An e-petition against greyhound racing to the Tasmanian parliament reached a record number of signatures last week, with 13,519 people demanding the state government end public funding of the industry. The previous record in Tasmania was 11,699 signatures, for an e-petition supporting end-of-life choices.

It is clear that public opposition to greyhound racing isn’t going away. In May 2021, a petition opposing greyhound racing in the Western Australian parliament attracted similar support. A second petition to ban greyhound racing in WA opened in March 2022.

Yet, recent history doesn’t bode well for the success of these petitions. Despite over a decade of public outcry and animal cruelty revelations, greyhound racing is still legal in all Australian states and territories, except the ACT.

It seems governments are doggedly committed to providing financial support to an industry that is arguably out of step with community values, and has struggled to make ends meet on its own. Let’s take a closer look at government support of greyhound racing.

Government support for greyhound racing

The greyhound racing industry was put under the spotlight in 2015 after ABC Four Corners revealed instances of using live baits, such as possums and piglets, to train greyhounds.

This led to public protests and a New South Wales Special Commission of Inquiry in 2016, which found the industry had lost its social licence. Among its disturbing findings was that of the 97,783 greyhounds bred in NSW over 12 years, up to 68,448 dogs were killed.

Yet, these developments were not enough to effectively ban the greyhound racing industry in NSW.

Following a hugely contentious legislative turnaround in which greyhound racing was reinstituted after being banned, the NSW government contributed A$500,000 in prize money to the inaugural Million Dollar Chase in 2018. This is considered the richest greyhound race event in the world.

Read more:
New South Wales overturns greyhound ban: a win for the industry, but a massive loss for the dogs

Queensland’s government followed suit. In 2019 it pledged an extra $4.1 million to the state’s greyhound racing industry in prize money for 2019-2020, and to build a $39 million racing venue in southeast Queensland.

Apart from generous financial support to the greyhound racing industry and public opposition to the industry, other issues continue to attract debate.

These include calls for mandatory collection and publication of birth, death, and injury data, and a ban on exporting greyhounds. In 2021, the integrity unit of Greyhound Racing Victoria investigated alleged illegal export of greyhounds, involving greyhounds being flown to the United Kingdom and then rerouted to China.

Is it really benefiting the economy?

Any claimed economic benefits of the greyhound racing industry, and justifications for government support, require scrutiny. Let’s take Tasmania as an example. This month, Tasracing chief executive Paul Eriksson told the Mercury:

while there were other costs associated with the industry, including track maintenance, administration and welfare, it ultimately generated economic benefits to the state of $53.2m and supported 433 full-time equivalent workers.

The figures Eriksson quotes are consistent with those presented in a 2021 economic impact evaluation on the size and scope of the Tasmanian racing industry by consulting business IER.

But how reliable are these estimates? The IER report used Input-Output (I-O) methodology, which focuses on industry spending. It is used to estimate the direct and indirect impacts of an industry according to the value added, income and employment created.

Read more:
Be suspicious of claims the mining industry creates non-mining jobs

Although widely used, the I-O methodology has significant limitations, such as restrictive assumptions about supply and demand to the industry.

For the greyhound racing industry, on the demand side, medium-term projections point to a decline due to falling greyhound racing day attendances and animal welfare concerns. In terms of the labour force contribution, greyhound racing represents only 0.19% of the Tasmanian labour force (433 full-time equivalent jobs).

Transitioning the industry

Only the ACT has successfully banned greyhound racing, as of April 30 2018. Compared to other states, the ACT greyhound racing industry was a soft target for reform, due to is size.

In 2017, only 70 Canberra residents were actively participating in greyhound racing (owners, breeders and trainers). And only around [52 racing greyhounds] were based in the ACT.

Australia’s situation sits in stark contrast to the United States, where only two dog tracks remain across the country after a track in Iowa closed last month.

Greyhound racing’s popularity is highest in regional areas where it, for example, provides an important opportunity for social connection. Government financial support seems to lie in the industry’s role as a social hub and as a key form of recreation.

Rather than contributing prize money, governments could instead consider supporting other forms of recreation that fulfil similar community functions – ones that avoid overbreeding dogs, gambling, and that encourage positive well-being outcomes.

Decisions about what this might look like ought to be the result of community consultation at a local level.

The future of Australia’s greyhound racing lies in the balance of government willingness to provide ongoing support using taxpayer money. But this cannot be taken as a given in our changing and unpredictable political landscape.

Read more:
Greyhound pups must be tracked from birth to death, so we know how many are killed

I own a rescue greyhound.

Jayanath Ananda 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. Greyhound racing: despite waning public support, governments are spending big to keep the industry running – https://theconversation.com/greyhound-racing-despite-waning-public-support-governments-are-spending-big-to-keep-the-industry-running-184849

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Mitchell, Associate Professor Health and Societal Outcomes, Macquarie University

NAPLAN scores can tell us about a child’s learning, but can they also help us to support learners who have had a serious injury or a long-term chronic illness like asthma or epilepsy?

Children who spend time in hospital for these reasons miss out on time in class and are at risk of performing below the national minimum standard (NMS) in numeracy and literacy as measured by NAPLAN. A serious injury or chronic illness can have a cumulative effect, resulting in lower educational performance, non-completion of high school, and potentially limiting their social, educational and later employment opportunities.

Knowing these risks in advance means parents and educators can plan to support children before the shock of poor school or NAPLAN results.

Read more:
Every teacher needs to be a literacy teacher – but that’s not happening in most Australian schools

Serious injury, asthma, mental health, epilepsy and diabetes impact more than a million children each year. More than 100,000 end up in hospital.

We compared their NAPLAN results with kids of the same age and gender who lived in the same area but who had not been hospitalised for those conditions. We found spending time in hospital for these conditions did set back learning, with the exception of type 1 diabetes.

What did the study find?

Injury

About 70,000 people under the age of 16 are hospitalised with an injury each year in Australia. This can disrupt their ability to attend school or concentrate and learn.

Recovery from injury can be unpredictable. Some young people may fully recover. Others experience ongoing difficulties at school.

Compared to matched peers, students who had been hospitalised with an injury had a 12% higher risk of not achieving the NMS in numeracy on NAPLAN and a 9% higher risk of not achieving the NMS in reading.

Asthma

Around 460,000 young people have asthma in Australia. If asthma is not adequately controlled, it can have a wide-ranging impact on their lives, including on their performance at school.

Our analysis of 28,114 young people hospitalised with asthma showed a difference between the sexes. Young males’ risk of not achieving the NMS was 13% higher for numeracy and 15% higher for reading compared to matched peers. In contrast, females hospitalised with asthma showed no difference.

Mental illness

Around 14% of young people experience a mental illness in Australia that can affect their health, relationships and school life. In our study of 7,069 young people hospitalised with a mental illness, young males had almost twice the risk of not achieving the NMS on NAPLAN for both numeracy and reading compared to their peers. Young females had a 1.5 times higher risk of not achieving the NMS for numeracy and those with diagnosed conduct disorder had twice the risk of not achieving the NMS for reading.

Read more:
The transition into adolescence can be brutal for kids’ mental health – but parents can help reduce the risk

Epilepsy

Across the country, about one in 200 children are living with epilepsy. Epilepsy can affect attention, concentration and memory, all which can be a barrier to performing well at school.

Our study of 2,383 young people hospitalised with epilepsy found young males and females had a three times higher risk of not achieving the NMS on NAPLAN for both numeracy and reading compared to peers.

Type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes was the exception and showed no adverse impact on school performance. In Australia, an estimated 6,500 young people have type 1 diabetes. Our analysis of 833 young people hospitalised with type 1 diabetes did not find any difference in achieving the NMS in numeracy or reading on NAPLAN compared to matched peers.

This finding is likely explained by improved glucose control and type 1 diabetes management. It is also possible that school assessments, such as NAPLAN, do not capture everyday difficulties that students with diabetes experience.

Read more:
What parents can do to make a child’s chronic illness easier

How can we support these students’ learning?

It is essential that we identify students who are likely to need learning support because of an injury or chronic illness. Supports can include online learning options, flexible programming or mobilising peer support to enable sharing of class notes and homework activities.

Monitoring students’ progress when they return to school will help to identify ongoing learning support needs.

There are also ways to manage symptoms and enhance performance at school. With asthma, for example, a comprehensive asthma management plan, using medication to manage symptoms, and healthcare co-ordination between GPs, hospitals and community services can all reduce the chance of ending up in hospital. For epilepsy, learning to identify seizure triggers, lifestyle and medication management are key.

Improving teachers’ understanding of symptom management for chronically ill or injured students is important too. For example, a New South Wales program, Aiming for Asthma Improvement in Children, encourages self-paced training for school staff on asthma management and first aid, along with resources for managing asthma in schools. For epilepsy, Strong Foundations provides advice on the skills children with epilepsy need to manage in the classroom and playground.

Early identification and recognition that an injured or chronically ill student may need learning support at school and at home are critical to ensure they are not left behind academically.

Rebecca Mitchell has received funding from the NHMRC, the MRFF, the ARC, and various state and federal government departments for past projects. This research was funded by a philanthropic donor to Macquarie University.

Anne McMaugh has received funding from the Australian Research Council for past projects. This research was funded by a philanthropic donor to Macquarie University

– ref. Time in hospital sets back tens of thousands of children’s learning each year, but targeted support can help them catch up – https://theconversation.com/time-in-hospital-sets-back-tens-of-thousands-of-childrens-learning-each-year-but-targeted-support-can-help-them-catch-up-184313

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Lycett, NHMRC Early Career Fellow, Centre for Social and Early Emotional Development, Deakin University

Since 2001 our research group has asked 2,000 Australians every year how they’re doing. Are they satisfied with their standard of living, their relationships, purpose in life, community connectedness, safety, health and future security?

We’ve asked them through good times and bad, through wars and global financial downturns, fires and floods. And now through years of pandemic – the worst economic crisis in a generation, and the worst health crisis in a century

Using an internationally regarded methodology, we combine their subjective ratings across seven life areas into a single score out of 100. These results form the basis of the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index, a collaborative partnership between Deakin University and mutual company Australian Unity.

Our latest results may surprise you. Over the pandemic Australians’ average subjective well-being has barely deviated from remarkably stable levels maintained over 20 years.

That doesn’t make for an exciting graph. But it is significant.

It shows that while well-being is, on average, quite high, it won’t get any better by just continuing along the same path.

This is where our survey gets more interesting. Beneath the headline result is a more pronounced story – of notable differences in people’s subjective well-being based on their circumstances and life experience.

In these differences lie important lessons about the need to look beyond averages as a measure of a nation.

Why is average well-being so stable?

First, though, it’s worth understanding why the national average score is relatively high, and so stable. This pattern is consistent with life satisfaction scores across most OECD countries.

It reflects both biological and situational factors.

At the biological level it is thought that humans have evolved to maintain a relatively optimistic and happy mood. This is controlled by homeostatic mechanisms like those that maintain an optimal body temperature.

But like body temperature, well-being can be undermined by situational factors. In particular, it declines without sufficient levels of three key resources: enough money, connection with others, and a sense of purpose.

Because not everyone has equal access to these resources, inequities drive very different patterns of well-being in disadvantaged groups.

Well-being by living arrangements

Our second graph shows subjective well-being levels by living arrangements. These are perhaps our most predictable results. Those living alone, in share houses and single parents have the lowest scores overall. But there are also less intuitive results, with the well-being of those living alone and single parents increasing significantly in 2020.

Perhaps because these groups are more likely to be socially isolated, the effects of lockdowns had less impact. But the more obvious reason is likely to do with income, as our next graphs show.

Well-being by occupation

Year in, year out, certain groups show lower levels of subjective well-being. Most evident are those who are unemployed. But in 2020 this group reported considerably better well-being – nine percentage points higher than 2019.

There are three possible explanations. First, the composition of the unemployed cohort changed due to pandemic-related job losses. Second, the stigma of being unemployed was reduced.

The third reason, however, seems most obvious. In 2020 the JobSeeker payment was doubled from $550 to $1,100 a fortnight. For those struggling to even pay for necessities such as rent and food, this would have been a huge relief.

Read more:
The economy can’t guarantee a job. It can guarantee a liveable income for other work

However, in 2021, the JobSeeker payment was cut back to about $620 a fortnight. At the same time well-being for those who were unemployed fell. To a level lower than in 2019 in fact.

This is consistent with economic theory of loss aversion – that people feel losses more deeply than gains in income.

Losing really hurts

Our next graph demonstrates this loss-aversion effect. Those who lost income during the pandemic reported lower well-being than the national average. But those whose household income increased during the pandemic reported well-being levels identical to those whose income remained the same.

Marginal diminishing gains

Our final graph shows well-being levels by income. The largest well-being increases were in the lowest-income households in 2020. Well-being for those on the highest incomes didn’t change.

Thus, governments allocating more money to people who already have their financial needs met is unlikely to improve subjective well-being. On the other hand, lifting people out of poverty is likely to make a big difference to their well-being.

Read more:
Our top 1% of income earners is an increasingly entrenched elite

The importance of measuring well-being

These results show why it is important to look past headline figures, such as GDP or national averages, to judge whether policies and programs are actually contributing to well-being and societal progress.

This is why countries such as New Zealand, Scotland, Wales, Iceland and Finland are now incorporating well-being measures into their budgets and policy frameworks. Like the OECD, these countries have recognised that improving the well-being of society, particularly of disadvantaged groups, is a core marker of societal progress.

We’d like to see Australia do the same.

Kate Lycett receives research funding from the NHMRC, government partners and industry partners Dyson and Australian Unity. She has previously worked on the Australian National Development Index.

Craig Olsson is currently supported by funding from the NHMRC, ARC and industry partners Australian Unity and the Victorian Department of Education and Training.

Delyse Hutchinson receives research funding from the NHMRC, ARC and other research council grants, in addition to industry partner Australian Unity.

Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz receives research funding from the NHMRC and ARC, in addition to industry partner Australian Unity.

robert.cummins@deakin.edu.au has received research funding from Australian Unity and numerous other sources including research council grants.

Sarah Khor was previously funded on a Research Training Stipend by the Australian Government.
She is a member of the Australian Psychological Society.

Mallery Crowe and Tanja Capic 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. 5 charts on Australian well-being, and the surprising effects of the pandemic – https://theconversation.com/5-charts-on-australian-well-being-and-the-surprising-effects-of-the-pandemic-183537

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony O’Donnell, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, School of Law, La Trobe University

When Labor leader Anthony Albanese couldn’t quote Australia’s unemployment rate in the first week of the election campaign, many said it didn’t matter: the Australian Bureau of Statistics figure was “meaningless”; “fudged”; “manipulated”; and didn’t count all those who had registered for JobSeeker.

The truth is the official measure of unemployment does what it says on the box. It counts those without any work who are available to work and looking for work.

The result of an astonishingly large survey of 26,000 households covering 50,000 people each month, there’s little reason to question its accuracy.

But there are good reasons to question why the bureau does it in the way it does.

“Unemployment” as we have come to understand it is a fairly new concept.

As I outline in my book, Inventing Unemployment, before the second world war censuses tended to divide the population differently – into breadwinners and dependants.

A breadwinner who wasn’t employed would be recorded as a breadwinner rather than unemployed (with their usual occupation noted).

That’s probably because until the 20th century, irregular work was the norm.

Late-19th-century Sydney had no extensive manufacturing. Work such as wool washing, tanning, meat preserving and loading sea cargo was seasonal and tied to rural rhythms.

Even in more stable occupations, many workers were little more than or sub-contractors or day labourers, their work intermittent.

Unemployment as we know it

The 1947 census introduced three distinct categories: employed, “unemployed” and “not in the labour force”. To be “unemployed” you had to describe yourself as willing and able to work, but without work.

Carried into the quarterly labour force surveys which started in the 1960s and continue monthly to this day, the change enabled the creation of an unemployment rate, which is the number of unemployed divided by the total of the number of employed and unemployed, which is called the “labour force”.

The categorisation made more sense by then as work was becoming full-time and ongoing. Being “unemployed” (workless but in the workforce) had come to be seen as unusual and worthy of government support. The Curtin Labor government introduced unemployment benefits in 1945.

Read more:
Memories. In 1961 Labor promised to boost the deficit to fight unemployment. The promise won

The changes were in line with International Labour Organisation recommendations which themselves followed changes in the United States which in 1937 had asked all non-workers who’d expressed a desire to work whether they were able to work and were actively seeking work.

The context was United States President Franklin D Roosevelt’s determination to fight unemployment through job creation schemes. The advantage of the new measures was that they gave a measure of immediate unmet demand for work.

Excluding both those who were unwilling to work at present and those who had any work at all yielded a measure of the minimum number of jobs needed. Policy drove the definition rather than the other way around.

Messy by design

But the definitions were messy. Labour markets confound easy distinctions between working and not working, and there’s no particular degree of desire for work that clearly distinguishes the “unemployed” from “not in the labour force”.

Looking back, what was exceptional about the post-war decades is that most of the time the new definitions were easy to apply. If you were in work, the chances were you were in full-time work; if you weren’t in full-time work the chances were you weren’t working at all, and that you were either wanting work or none.

And the idea of the “labour force” summed up fairly stable social categories: men who entered at 15 years and were expected to work or look for work for 50 years, and women who also entered in their mid-teens only to permanently withdraw upon marriage or childbirth.

Not now. As social researcher Monica Threlfall points out, whereas once the labour force was an identifiable category,

today it is more like an unbounded space that a variety of people of different ages enter, leave and re-enter at a variety of rates.

When the headline monthly unemployment rate changes, what has moved is often not the numerator – the number of unemployed – but the shape-shifting denominator, which depends on whether people define themselves as looking and available for paid work at the particular time they are asked.

And the main questions don’t pick up underemployment. Australia has one of the largest part-time work forces in the OECD, which is why the Bureau of Statistics also asks workers whether they would like more hours, and reports the answers alongside the unemployment rate.

It also measures “discouraged workers”, people who are available for and wanting work but have given up the search and so aren’t counted as “unemployed”.

The only way to really understand whether we are succeeding or failing in providing paid work is to take all three measures together – unemployment, underemployment and the count of discouraged workers.

Messier by the month

What this total tells us will be quite different to the count of the number of Australians on unemployment benefits.

After tracking each other closely, the number of “unemployed” and the number on unemployment benefits has diverged over the past 25 years and that divergence became even more pronounced during COVID.

Australian experts Peter Whiteford and Bruce Bradbury point out most unemployed people aren’t on benefits, and increasingly unemployment benefits are available to people who are not unemployed.

Read more:
How can more people be on unemployment benefits than before COVID, with fewer unemployed Australians? Here’s how

These days unemployment benefits are available to people not seeking paid work but engaged in voluntary work, study, or providing home schooling.

And people who once would not have been considered unemployed – such as single parents and people with disabilities – are now put on unemployment benefits and required to search for work in order to get them.

After holding together for decades, the post-war administrative and legal construction of unemployment is failing us. We’re outgrowing it.

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

– ref. How we invented ‘unemployment’ – and why we’re outgrowing it – https://theconversation.com/how-we-invented-unemployment-and-why-were-outgrowing-it-183545

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Buchanan, Professor, Discipline of Business Information Systems, University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney

Barely a month ago Anthony Albanese was derided as a “loose unit” for endorsing a 5.1% increase in the minimum wage.

His rationale was, with 5.1% inflation, the incomes of the lowest-paid Australians at least shouldn’t be going backwards.

Now the Fair Work Commission’s expert panel, which reviews the minimum wage each year, has announced a 5.2% increase.

A “loose” decision? No. The reasons for lifting the pay of workers on the minimum wage by $40 a week are laid out in a long document. The essence is this: even with rising inflation, the economy is strong. If we can’t lift wages to stop the lowest paid going backwards in these conditions, when will they ever rise?

Reasons for the rise

The economic factors considered by the expert panel include:

• real wages have fallen by about 2.5% over the past two years
• economic growth is strong and appears set to continue
• employment and vacancies are growing
• unemployment and underemployment are falling
• productivity has returned to steady growth of 1–2% a year
• profits increased by 25% in the past year.

While precise estimates are difficult, the minimum wage increase will affect about 2% of Australian workers. The sectors most impacted will be retail and hospitality.

However, the Annual Wage Review also decides pay rates for those on awards. This is about 23% of Australian employees (19% of males, 27% of females). To these workers the panel has granted a 4.6% pay rise.

This will help workers in aged care, disability care and other forms of non-government provided (but predominantly government-funded) care work.

Indirect impacts

For the majority of workers – about 35% of whom are covered by an enterprise bargaining agreement and 38% on over-award payments or individual contracts – the decision’s impact will be indirect, though potentially significant.

Read more:
There’s one big reason wages are stagnating: the enterprise bargaining system is broken, and in terminal decline

Wage setting involves a combination of both market and institutional forces.

The lower bound of wages is set by the social security system – unemployment benefits, aged pensions and the like. The upper bound is set by profitability in the most prosperous enterprises.

Institutional forces such as employers’ policies, unions, labour laws and customary notions of “the going rate” – as well as the level of supply and demand for workers with particular skills – shape the ultimate outcome within these upper and lower bounds.

Read more:
How market forces and weakened institutions are keeping our wages low

This is where the expert panel’s decision is significant. It has implicitly challenged the strictures placed on wage increases by both federal and state governments over the past decade.

Protecting a principle

The panel’s decision follows a long-standing principle of Australian wages policy – pursued at least since the 1990s, when enterprise bargaining became the primary basis for wage increases.

This principle holds that some workers don’t and never will have the capacity to bargain effectively with their employers. They need to be protected. As the decision states:

We agree with the RBA’s assessment and remain of the view that moderate and regular increases in minimum wages do not result in significant disemployment effects.

This point doesn’t apply just to the lowest paid.

Reading the nation

Most Australians are concerned about the cost of living.

After more than a decade of stagnant wages, people are looking for new directions. Albanese’s election campaign recognised this, and pushed the issue constantly.

Read more:
Wages and women top Albanese’s IR agenda: the big question is how Labor keeps its promises

When Scott Morrison derided Albanese as a loose unit for endorsing a $40-a-week pay rise for the lowest paid, he fundamentally misread the national mood.

The Fair Work Commission’s expert panel has not.

This decision is a welcome continuation of its role to protect the lowest paid. It could well contribute to moving Australia to a trajectory of higher, but sustainable, wages growth.

John Buchanan 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. This 5.2% decision on the minimum wage could shift the trajectory for all workers – https://theconversation.com/this-5-2-decision-on-the-minimum-wage-could-shift-the-trajectory-for-all-workers-185117

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joel Gilmore, Associate Professor, Griffith University

Australia’s energy market operator has just suspended the National Electricity market. That means instead of the price for wholesale electricity being set competitively, the market operator (AEMO) sets fixed prices and will take a greater role in directing which power stations generate energy and when.

This is the first time the market has been suspended across all states, and reflects the depth of the price and supply crisis plaguing Australia’s biggest electricity grid.

How did we get here?

All electricity on Australia’s east coast is traded through the National Electricity Market (NEM), a wholesale market where generators are paid for the electricity they produce. Prices are set by an auction between generators held every five minutes.

Prices typically average around $A80/MWh (per megawatt hour), but can vary between -$1000/MWh (where generators actually pay to stay online) and $15,100/MWh. Retailers buy the energy from this auction and manage the price risk on behalf of households and energy-using businesses.

Over the past week, wholesale prices surged due to two main factors: high coal and gas prices (driven by the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and roughly 25% of coal power stations being out of action. The coal power stations are unavailable because of maintenance as well as the sudden exit of 3,000 MW of power due to breakdowns (unplanned outages).

This led AEMO to trigger a pricing “safety net” and capping prices at $300/MWh (much less than the normal cap of $15,100/MWh).

Unfortunately, $300/MWh is currently less than the cost of generating power from gas power stations and possibly even some coal power stations. Some generators subsequently withdrew their availability from the market, leading to further shortfalls.

The low price cap also meant there were weaker price signals as to when power stations with limited “fuel” should use it. This includes some diesel generators as well as batteries and hydro.

Read more:
If the opposition wants a mature discussion about nuclear energy, start with a carbon price. Without that, nuclear is wildly uncompetitive

All this makes it much harder for AEMO to operate the market. On Tuesday, AEMO was forced to direct power stations when to run and when not to run. This intervention applied to roughly 20% of demand yesterday, or 5,000 megawatts.

AEMO has now decided suspending the market will make it simpler to operate the grid during this crisis. Generators will now provide their availability and AEMO will tell generators when to run to ensure secure supply. Market prices are then fixed at the average of the past 28 days for that hour of the day – between $150/MWh and $300/MWh across the day.

If generation costs are higher, power station owners will be able to apply for additional compensation, which will be later recovered from consumers.

Although this is the first time it has been done nationally, AEMO has previously suspended the market in individual states such as in South Australia this year when control systems failed.

What’s likely to happen next?

AEMO will continue to monitor the system, and will restart the market when it is appropriate.

This has been a perfect storm of factors – high input costs, significant capacity being unavailable, and a cold snap with high demand. It’s not clear any market would have been able to handle these extreme conditions unless the generation in the market is more modern and less susceptible to breaking down.

What this does point to is that, longer-term, it may be time to buy some insurance for the energy market, as energy ministers have proposed. This would help manage periods like this when so much capacity is unexpectedly offline.

Although coal owners are advocating for additional payments, it’s clear this would not have helped avoid the current crisis. As AEMO CEO Daniel Westerman pointed out, coal plant reliability is “slowly declining”.

This crisis shows we need to make sure we have modern new plant (like batteries and gas turbines), not ageing coal power stations. We also need reserves for when coal unexpectedly breaks down and for other extreme events. This means investing in new flexible capacity which is ready for when we need it.

What does it mean for energy users?

These extreme prices in the National Electricity Market will ultimately impact on energy consumers, particularly larger energy users. Households are already being hit by up to a 20% rise in bills next month due to the very high cost of coal and gas.

Given the stresses on the grid, however, it’s sensible for Australians on the east cost to conserve energy if safe to do so, particularly during the peak hours of 5-8pm.

Read more:
If you’re renting, chances are your home is cold. With power prices soaring, here’s what you can do to keep warm

Joel Gilmore is an Associate Professor at Griffith University and General Manager Energy Policy & Planning at Iberdrola Australia, which develops renewable projects and batteries.

Tim Nelson is an Associate Professor at Griffith University and the EGM, Energy Markets at Iberdrola Australia, which develops renewable projects and batteries.

– ref. Australia’s National Electricity Market was just suspended. Here’s why and what happens next – https://theconversation.com/australias-national-electricity-market-was-just-suspended-heres-why-and-what-happens-next-185136

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dennis B Desmond, Lecturer, Cyberintelligence and Cybercrime Investigations, University of the Sunshine Coast

Once the purview of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, facial recognition is now being used to identify consumers in Australian stores.

If you’ve seen the movie Minority Report, you’ll remember how Tom Cruise’s character John Anderton is identified through iris recognition to perform his duties, and later tracked with it when he’s a wanted man. When he replaces his eyes to evade identification, Anderton is bombarded with advertisements targeting his new assumed identity.

This once-futuristic idea from a movie could soon be a reality in our lives. An investigative report published by consumer magazine Choice reveals three major retailers (out of 25 queried), Kmart, Bunnings and The Good Guys, have admitted using facial recognition technology on customers for “loss prevention”.

The companies say they advise consumers of the use of the technology as a condition of entry. But do consumers really know what this entails, and how or where their images could be used or stored?

What is facial recognition and why do we care?

We’ve grown accustomed to our phones and cameras using facial detection software to put our faces into focus. But facial recognition technology takes this a step further by matching our unique identifying information to a stored digital image.

Facial recognition has come a long way. It was initially used in 2001 to identify relationships between gamblers and employees in Las Vegas casinos, where there was suspected collusion.

The United States government would eventually use the same technology to identify the 9/11 hijackers. It’s now widely adopted by law enforcement and intelligence communities.

Currently, software such as Clearview AI and PimEyes are being used in highly sophisticated ways, including by Ukrainian and Russian forces to identify combatants in Ukraine.

But what is this technology doing in Bunnings?

As with its early use in casinos, Kmart, Bunnings and The Good Guys told Choice their facial recognition software is used for “loss prevention”.

Images captured on store surveillance devices and body cameras could be used to identify in-store individuals engaged in theft, or other criminal activities. Real-time identification could allow law enforcement to quickly identify shoppers with unpaid tickets, outstanding warrants, or existing criminal complaints.

Bunnings chief operating officer Simon McDowell told SBS News the technology was used “solely to keep team and customers safe and prevent unlawful activity in our stores”. Both The Good Guys and Kmart told news outlets they were using it for the same reasons, in a select number of stores – and that customers were notified through signage.

Choice confirmed there were some signs disclosing use of the technology – but reported these signs were small and would be missed by most shoppers.

The news has stoked shoppers’ fears of how their image data may be used. As in Minority Report, images captured in a store could theoretically be used for targeted advertising and to “enhance” the shopping experience.

It’s likely images and video collected through standard in-store surveillance are either matched immediately against a remote database using specialised facial recognition software, or analysed against a database of tagged and catalogued images later on. Ideally, the images would be encoded and stored in a file that’s readable only by the algorithm specific to the device or software processor.

Potential for misuse

We have already seen online retailers use this tactic through cookies and linking our purchase history on electronic devices.

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

We have also seen companies correlate our social media profiles and our other online experiences across various websites. Australian stores employing facial recognition could use collected information internally to track:

• the number of visits by a person
• the times of those visits
• pattern or behavioural analysis (such as a consumer’s reaction to pricing or signage) and
• associations with other shoppers (such as friends, family and anyone else with them).

Retailers could also use this identity data to extract information from social media, where most people have images of themselves uploaded. They could then perform risk analysis based on the credit and financial reporting access of that specific shopper.

Externally, the images and associated consumer information could be merged with financial, economic, social and political data already collected by commercial data aggregators – adding to the already massive data aggregation market.

Current Australian privacy laws require retailers to disclose what data are being collected, retained and protected, as well as how it might be used outside of a loss prevention model.

A Bunnings spokesperson told The Guardian the technology was being used in line with the Australian Privacy Act. Choice has reached out to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to determine whether the use of the technology is indeed consistent with the Privacy Act.

Read more:
Shadow profiles – Facebook knows about you, even if you’re not on Facebook

What to do?

While the retailers highlighted in Choice’s investigation state consumers must agree to the collection of their images as a condition of entry, the reality is the collection, retention, and use of their images are not usually disclosed in any explicit way.

As far as data collection in retail settings goes, there should be a precondition for all stores to make sure consumers are made aware of:

• the specific information that is collected while they are visiting
• how it might be aggregated and combined with other relevant information from third parties
• how long the images or data will be retained, retrieved, or accessed and by whom, and
• what security precautions are being used to secure the data.

Furthermore, as with their online shopping experience, consumers should be given the option to opt-out of such data collection.

Until then, consumers may try to avoid collection by donning hats, sunglasses and face masks. But considering the rate at which facial recognition technology is advancing – and how large the personal data market has already grown – retail cameras may soon be able to see through these disguises, too.

Dennis B Desmond previously received funding from the United States Department of Defense.

– ref. Bunnings, Kmart and The Good Guys say they use facial recognition for ‘loss prevention’. An expert explains what it might mean for you – https://theconversation.com/bunnings-kmart-and-the-good-guys-say-they-use-facial-recognition-for-loss-prevention-an-expert-explains-what-it-might-mean-for-you-185126

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carsten Rudolph, Associate Professor for Cybersecurity, Monash University

Leaders of several Pacific nations met in Fiji last week to strengthen ties and promote unity in the region.

The Pacific faces numerous challenges, such as the threat of climate change and major powers jostling for influence in the region. Against these adversities, Pacific countries have shown determination to preserve their own (and the region’s) identity and sovereignty.

One less-appreciated aspect of Pacific security is cybersecurity. Some cyber threats are financially motivated, such as ransomware or phishing attacks, but others aim at critical infrastructure. Still other attacks threaten society and democratic processes through spreading misinformation and disinformation.

We are working with Pacific governments to assess their current cybersecurity situations – and make recommendations for a path forward.

An broader idea of security

In 2018, the 18 member states of the Pacific Islands Forum signed the Boe Declaration on Regional Security. After noting climate change as “the single greatest threat”, the declaration lays out an “expanded concept of security” which includes cybersecurity.

The declaration set the scene for cybersecurity as a shared priority for the region. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has raised the stakes even further, as online services and remote work have rapidly increased.

Cybersecurity will be necessary to enable continued economic development amid natural disasters, changes in the global security situation, and worldwide economic upheavals.

Security and sovereignty

The countries of the Pacific depend on fragile undersea cables for broadband internet access. Bringing government processes online, modernising digital infrastructure, and promoting e-commerce will introduce further security risks.

At the same time as securing their digital spaces, Pacific nations may wish to maintain sovereign control of their data. Often, digitisation means data is controlled outside the country.

Read more:
Undersea internet cables connect Pacific islands to the world. But geopolitical tension is tugging at the wires

Introducing digital currencies and mobile payments may also reduce a country’s control over money-related policies.

Working with overseas suppliers for cybersecurity may mean the country has to hand over the keys to sensitive data, networks, and systems.

Cybersecurity assessments

At the invitation of Pacific island nations, we and our colleagues at Monash University and the Oceania Cyber Security Centre (OCSC) are working to help countries understand and strengthen their cybersecurity situation.

Using the University of Oxford’s Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model for Nations (CMM) and our own research, we help countries assess their current situation, identify their priorities and determine how to strengthen local capacity and sovereign capability.

These assessments are a crucial first step. Each nation is different.
Tailored approaches to cybersecurity that consider the local culture, context and preservation of national sovereignty are needed.

Mapping the way forward

So far, eight of these reviews have been conducted in the Pacific. Seven of these where conducted by the OCSC. Worldwide, more than 87 nations have worked through similar reviews.

In the Federated States of Micronesia, for example, the OCSC completed an assessment in collaboration with the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity in 2020.

After the assessment, we worked with the Federated States of Micronesia in 2021 to co-develop a National Cybersecurity Roadmap. The roadmap sets a path to build local capacity and sovereign capability to protect the country’s national interests and citizens who are most at risk from cyber harms.

Read more:
Fight for control threatens to destabilize and fragment the internet

In 2019 we conducted an assessment in Vanuatu. Since then, Vanuatu has strengthened its cybersecurity in several ways, including:

• incident response and advisories through national cybersecurity emergency response teams
• development of cybersecurity awareness resources and campaigns
• providing cyber risk management and best practice guidance for businesses
• establishing the Cybercrime Act 2021
• an invitation to accede to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.

Frameworks and funding

We and our colleagues are in the process of developing a regional framework for island state cybersecurity. It will help Pacific countries build effective emergency response teams, strengthen cyber resilience, and ensure data sovereignty.

As well as assistance with assessments and planning, Pacific nations will also need funding – including from countries like Australia – to address their own identified priorities.

As the Boe Declaration underlines, we are all on the journey to developing digital resilience. If we work together, the whole Pacific family can strengthen regional security while maintaining sovereignty.

Read more:
What skills does a cybersecurity professional need?

Carsten Rudolph works for Monash University and is the Research Director for the Oceania Cyber Security Centre OCSC.

James Boorman is Head of Research and Capacity Building at the Oceania Cyber Security Centre and an affiliate of Monash University.

Monica Whitty works for Monash University.

– ref. Cybersecurity in the Pacific: how island nations are building their online defences – https://theconversation.com/cybersecurity-in-the-pacific-how-island-nations-are-building-their-online-defences-185046

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cynthia Faye Isley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Australian Centre for Housing Research, University of Adelaide

If you’re feeling the cold this winter, you’re not alone. About a quarter of all Australians have trouble keeping their homes warm enough in winter. That figure is likely to soar this year, due to poor quality housing and the rapidly escalating energy crisis.

Renters are particularly at risk, but our research has shown many home owners are in the same boat as well. We’ve collected data over the last few years on how many Australians have cold homes, find it difficult to stay warm, and can’t afford their heating bills.

What counts as cold? The World Health Organization recommends a minimum home temperature of 18℃ for health and wellbeing. About a fifth of Australian renters, for example, have cold homes. Our current research has shown this applies to home owners as well, with 26% of people across all housing types unable to stay warm at least half of the time during winter.

Australia’s energy crisis is likely to see soaring rates of energy poverty, meaning being unable to keep your home warm or cool enough. Here’s why this is such a problem – and what you can do about it.

Cold homes affect our health

If you’re cold at home, you have a higher risk of developing respiratory problems and high blood pressure. People in the coldest homes face a higher risk of dying in winter. Cold can have a flow-on impact on our health system, which is is already struggling.

Read more:
Energy poverty in the climate crisis: what Australia and the European Union can learn from each other

Australia’s south-east has had the coldest start to winter in decades. Melbourne hasn’t been this cold this early since 1949, while Sydney hasn’t seen these temperatures in early June since 1989.

Double trouble: cold weather and the energy crisis

If you’ve been hit by the recent cold snap, chances are you’ll have been reminded how cold your home can get. This is not a surprise given how badly existing homes and new housing perform in keeping an even temperature.

The cold has made many people doubly worried, because the energy required to heat our leaky, poorly insulated homes is about to get very expensive.

Early results from our survey of over 350 Australians found 25% of people were experiencing shortages of money to the point they will be unable to adequately heat their homes. One third of our respondents said energy was unaffordable. Some reported making trade-offs, such as skimping on food or healthcare to pay energy bills.

These people are experiencing energy poverty, where a household is unable to properly heat or cool their home or face significant financial difficulty doing so.

While data about energy poverty in Australia is patchy, we know around 180,000 households in Victoria had persistent bill payment issues as of 2018, and 45,000 households were consistently unable to heat their homes.

Energy price increases hit lower income households hardest

Lower income households are more at risk from the cold. That’s because they’re more likely to live in homes that are in poor condition and hard to heat. One quarter of low income households told us they struggle to stay warm. Insulation may be a key factor, with 25% of our respondents reporting their rental properties did not have insulation.

Insulation matters, because heat escapes homes through single-pane windows, or poorly insulated walls and ceilings. As a result, poorly insulated homes cost more to heat.

This makes life harder for low income renters, given they have little control over insulation or other home modifications. Worse still, heaters that are cheap to buy are often the most expensive to run.

While an efficient reverse cycle air conditioner would save money and heat the space better over the longer term, it is often difficult for renters to negotiate installation with property managers or landlords – especially given the intense competition for rentals at present in many cities. That can mean renters will suffer in silence, unwilling to ask for something that will make their lives better.

What can renters do?

Low income renters face real threats from energy poverty this year. While we need systemic change to improve the outlook for Australia’s renters, there are low-cost DIY ways to improve how your house retains heat this winter.

The first step: check your current heating appliances are working efficiently. Many people don’t clean the filters on their reverse cycle air conditioners. This makes them less efficient, and can drive up energy bills.

Poorly sealed windows and doors make it hard to stay warm.

Using thermal curtains, and keeping them closed makes a big difference. Putting a piece of plywood or even a scarf between the curtain rail and the wall to make a DIY pelmet also helps keep the heat in. If you have single glazed windows, consider window films as a way to improve performance for a fraction of the cost of double glazed windows.

Sealing the cracks around windows, under doors and around the wider home is also important. Silicon or expanding foam can be used for gaps and cracks. Draughts under doors can be stopped with door seals or door snakes.

Read more:
10 ways to keep your house warm (and save money) this winter

Close the doors to your bathroom, laundry and other rooms not in use to keep the heat where you need it most. Hanging a blanket over a doorway can also be a cheap way to seal off a room and concentrate heat.

It’s also worth checking what rebates and concessions your state government or council is offering. These might include energy efficiency improvements or extra help with heating costs. If you’re renting, your home must meet minimum standards, so make sure you check what you are entitled to as these vary by state.

Everyone deserves a warm home. Our health and well-being depend on it. Building new, energy efficient homes is only part of the answer. We also have to make our 10.8 million existing dwellings warmer.

Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. She is on the Board of Habitat for Humanity SA.

Lyrian Daniel receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Trivess Moore has received funding from various organisations including the Australian Research Council, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Victorian Government and various industry partners. He is a trustee of the Fuel Poverty Research Network.

Cynthia Faye Isley 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. If you’re renting, chances are your home is cold. With power prices soaring, here’s what you can do to keep warm – https://theconversation.com/if-youre-renting-chances-are-your-home-is-cold-with-power-prices-soaring-heres-what-you-can-do-to-keep-warm-184472

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aileen Kennedy, Lecturer in Health Law, University of New England

The Australian Capital Territory government has released a consultation draft law to protect the rights of intersex people.

If passed, the bill would ban deferrable medical interventions on children with intersex traits until they’re old enough to decide treatments for themselves. There will be exceptions for emergency and urgently necessary procedures. The bill will criminalise unnecessary medical interventions, and create an independent body to determine whether other proposed procedures are urgently necessary.

Following the consultation period, a bill is likely to be introduced into the ACT parliament later this year. The ACT is the first Australian jurisdiction to move ahead with such laws. It delivers on long-standing community demands, and recommendations by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

So far, only a handful of jurisdictions such as Malta, Portugal, Germany and Iceland have passed similar reforms, making the ACT a global leader.

What are intersex traits?

Innate variations of sex characteristics include a wide range of traits affecting chromosomes, sexual anatomy or hormones. They’re also referred to as “intersex” traits or “differences of sex development”. For example, these include people born with both testicular and ovarian tissue, and people born with atypical genitalia.

Because these characteristics are stigmatised, children with intersex traits are at risk of medical interventions in early childhood.

In some situations, the presence of a visible intersex trait at birth can raise questions about sex assignment. In these situations, some Australian doctors consider surgical options to be an acceptable factor in determining sex assignment. This presumes sex assignment for children with visible intersex traits must always be reinforced by early irreversible surgeries. In countries like Australia, this frequently leads to female assignment, on the basis it’s easier to construct female-typical anatomy than male-typical anatomy.

Early surgeries are aimed at changing appearance or function in line with social and cultural norms for female and male bodies.

For example, in Australia, girls with intersex traits have been subjected to cosmetic surgeries to “enhance the appearance” of their genitalia.

Infant boys may undergo surgeries to ensure they’re able to urinate “appropriately” – that is, while standing.

Read more:
Intersex children in New Zealand are routinely undergoing unnecessary surgery – that needs to change

Sterilising surgeries have been performed to reinforce sex assigned or observed at birth, and gender identity. For example, in one case, the sterilisation of a pre-school child was justified by reference to her long, blonde hair and enjoyment of Barbie toys, and prior surgery that had according to the judge “enhanced the appearance of her female genitalia”.

Some surgeries are performed in the belief they can improve bonding between parents and child, produce certainty about future identity, or reduce risks of stigma.

There’s poor evidence for such medical interventions, and they’re often grounded in gender stereotypes.

They’re also poor substitutes for psychological and social support.

Early surgeries can cause lifelong harm, including impaired sexual function and sensation, shame, and a need for ongoing interventions or treatment.

Until now, the law has been complicit in supporting early interventions before a child is old enough to express their own preferences.

Building on a long history

The intersex movement has been challenging such interventions for decades, in Australia and internationally. It has won allies and increasing recognition from human rights institutions.

The ACT government made a commitment to reform in 2019. It builds on a 2017 intersex community declaration known as the Darlington Statement.

It also responds to a 2013 Senate committee report, statements to Australia by UN Treaty Bodies, and international norms expressed in the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.

It implements recommendations of a landmark 2021 report by the Australian Human Rights Commission on promoting health and bodily integrity for people born with variations of sex characteristics.

If the law passes, families and their clinical teams will be able to develop individual treatment plans for their children, or rely on general treatment plans.

General treatment plans are intended to facilitate access to low-risk treatments, or treatments that preserve options for the future. An example might be surgery for undescended testes, to relocate testes in the scrotum to help to preserve future fertility.

All treatment plans will be evaluated by a panel of experts in medicine, ethics, human rights, psychological and social support, people with intersex traits and parents of children with intersex traits. This is intended to provide accountability and transparency, while protecting the privacy of people undergoing treatment.

The laws will provide a detailed definition of “consent to treatment” for the first time in the ACT. In line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, it represents an important shift towards supported decision-making, in place of substitute decision-making where parents or carers make decisions about treatment.

Supported decision-making processes respect that we all need information, resources and support in order to make informed decisions for ourselves. Some people, including youth, may need access to additional supports to work through such information to reach a balanced and authentic decision.

The reforms have been developed through consultation with community as well as clinical, ethics, human rights and legal experts. They are part of a package aimed also at improving access to peer support for individuals and families.

Read more:
Will things be better for LGBTIQ+ people under Labor? Here’s what the new government has promised

Where to next?

The Victorian government has committed to similar reforms. The New South Wales government has acknowledged a need to respond to these developments in its first LGBTI Health Strategy.

All Australian jurisdictions should engage in legislative reform programs.

The federal government must proactively support these reforms and ensure national consistency. It should act to improve information and peer support access for parents and individuals. Reforms by states and territories need to be underpinned by changes to paediatric Medicare codes, and support for development of national standards of care that affirm human rights.

More can also be achieved through meaningful inclusion of accurate information about intersex traits in schools to reduce stigma, and promote better understanding amongst youth and future parents.

Aileen Kennedy Is a Director on the Board of Intersex Human Rights Australia (IHRA)

Alice de Jonge is a director on the board of Intersex Human Rights Australia (IHRA).

Morgan Carpenter is the executive director of Intersex Human Rights Australia, a national charity which is funded by foreign philanthropy and a service contract with the Victorian Department of Health. He has been contracted to the ACT government in connection with this legal reform project.

– ref. ACT releases Australian-first draft law to protect intersex children from irreversible medical harm – https://theconversation.com/act-releases-australian-first-draft-law-to-protect-intersex-children-from-irreversible-medical-harm-184566

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Dinmore, Research Fellow, University of South Australia

Economies are forever changing and the loss of some industries or businesses is part of that transformation. But change often comes at great cost for workers, many of whom are already vulnerable.

The stories of retrenched workers give us important insights into the often complex effects of job loss. To find out more about these experiences, we interviewed 28 workers made redundant from the auto sector around South Australia and Victoria over the past five years, as part of a larger research project about disadvantaged communities.

Our paper, published in the journal Regional Studies, Regional Science, reveals how economic change interrupts careers and life plans, casting people into new worlds of precarious work and long, indefinite journeys in search of security.

The stories of these automotive workers are not unique; they reflect the experiences of many workers in Australia who have faced retrenchment and redundancy as industries and businesses have closed.

Read more:
What the departure of Toyota, Holden and Ford really means for workers

Bad jobs are easy to find

Since being retrenched, many of our interviewees have struggled to find a job that is secure, safe and pays a decent wage.

Bad jobs – with undesirable hours and low pay – are easy to find, and many are forced to take them. Many are also shocked by what they find at their new workplaces – poor safety standards, toxic cultures and boring or “disgusting” work. These included jobs as diverse as food processing, cleaning, warehousing, chicken killing and grout manufacturing.

As one worker who’d been made redundant three years before told us:

I got a job as a prefabrication supervisor […] And that was absolutely horrible, horrible, horrible […] just the safety stuff, you know, like they talked a lot of safety, but there was never much action […] just a bullying culture.

Another left a processing job with a food company after just two days, saying:

I couldn’t do that job. It was absolutely disgusting. It was hot. They were arrogant towards you.

Workers often left jobs quickly, or struggled through while looking for something else. The result was a high level of employment instability, as people cycled through multiple jobs searching for one they could tolerate long term.

‘It really, really scarred me’

Workers at the bottom of the labour market often experience demanding or demoralising recruitment processes for casual positions through labour hire agencies. These workers are made to feel feel they can’t afford to be choosy:

So labour hire, I just pretty much I just said yes to everything. And that’s the way, that’s the work in labour hire. If you start saying no, then you go to the back of the list.

Casual jobs often serve as a kind of probation, but there are no guarantees:

I couldn’t see a future. Yeah. So I would just continue to look around […] because I couldn’t see them taking me any further than casual.

One worker who had already experienced bad employers described the difficult choice she faced:

I would like [to leave this job and look for something] permanent. But I really don’t want to go into another workplace like [company name], it really, really scarred me.

Workers want their old lives back – even if that’s not the “real world” any more. As one put it:

I just think there’s a lot of work out there that, there’s just bits and pieces, and it doesn’t really support someone to have a proper job or be able to afford a decent life […] I’ve probably had maybe six, seven, eight jobs since [the closures]. And none of them have been that good. And I mean, I’ve hated most of them.

A new world of precarious work

In many established sectors, workers once enjoyed good working conditions – often over decades of employment in what they believed were “jobs for life”. Job loss thrust them into a new world of precarious work very different from what they’d known.

Many were downhearted about this new reality:

It’s just very, very dodgy […] it’s sad, really sad to think that there’s, like, these places out there. And there’s so many of them and they’re operating the way they do and, and nobody’s really controlling any of it.

Some never stopped longing for a job that made them feel the way their old job did:

I just miss [my old firm], I miss their way of working. Building up you as a person, as a team.

Even those who had adjusted to their new working lives admitted that you needed to be willing to do anything:

[T]here is work out there […] Too many people are too choosy, that’s the problem […] I didn’t give a shit what sort of work I did […] There’s money in shit.

Better jobs – not just more jobs

At the start of the pandemic, the nation’s leaders talked about “building back better”.

For those living on the margins of our workforce and those made redundant through processes beyond their control, “building back better” means finding ways to create better – not just more – jobs.

Australian workers want security, decent conditions and job satisfaction, not a choice between one “shit” workplace and another.

Most of all, they want work they can build their lives around. If we don’t listen to the voices of those living on the fringe, the problems we know all too well today will haunt our communities into the future.

Read more:
Australia’s choice: pay for a car industry, or live with the consequences

This story is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is about escaping cycles of disadvantage. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

Andrew Beer receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. ‘I couldn’t see a future’: what ex-automotive workers told us about job loss, shutdowns, and communities on the edge – https://theconversation.com/i-couldnt-see-a-future-what-ex-automotive-workers-told-us-about-job-loss-shutdowns-and-communities-on-the-edge-180884

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Robinson, Associate Professor Podiatry, Charles Sturt University

If you’ve been spending a lot of time at home in ugg boots, not doing so much exercise and stacking on the coronakilos over the past two years or so, you may have noticed something strange going on with your feet.

They may not fit back into leather shoes. Or if you do manage to squeeze them in, your shoes feel really stiff and look set to give you blisters.

What’s going on? Have your feet expanded? Is this permanent? Do you need to buy new shoes?

Read more:
What is toe jam? From harmless gunk to a feast for bugs

Can your feet really widen?

Our feet are flexible structures and adapt over time to our footwear – or lack of shoes.

That’s what happened during COVID lockdowns and long periods of being at home, when many people swapped regular shoes for comfortable options such as thongs, slides and ugg boots. Our feet responded by spreading out and becoming wider.

That wasn’t a big surprise for podiatrists like us, health professionals who specialise in looking after people’s feet.

We’ve long known that people who walk barefoot – or wear wide shoes that give the foot plenty of room to spread out – have a much wider
front of the foot (forefoot) than people who wear narrow shoes.

That’s because the lack of pressure from shoes allows the five, long metatarsal bones in each of your feet to align normally; each metatarsal head (end of the metatarsal bone) takes the load as you walk.

Once your forefoot becomes wider, it stays like this unless you force it to adapt by wearing narrow shoes.

How much wider a foot becomes, if given the space, depends on how elastic your ligaments are. Some people are “hypermobile” and have very “loose” joints because their ligaments are more stretchy.

Some people have described this as “Flintstone feet” or “ugg boot foot”.

What else is going on?

Being less physically active and leading a more sedentary lifestyle while at home for long periods may have also led to weaker core muscles.

Core muscles are the ones around our buttocks, hips, abdomen and lower back. They are particularly important in controlling the position and function of our legs and feet.

If you lose core fitness, your legs can rotate internally (your knees face each other), causing your feet to roll in (or pronate).

As this happens, your feet can become flatter, changing their shape to become longer and wider.

Read more:
Core strength: why is it important and how do you maintain it?

How about the coronakilos?

Many of us have also put on coronakilos (also known as COVID kilos or quarantine kilos) during the pandemic. In fact, one in three Australians gained weight during this time.

An increase in body weight creates more force on the feet. If your feet have a normal or low arch, your feet will become flatter (will pronate more), creating increased pressure, particularly under the mid-foot.

So if you put on weight, your feet can become longer and wider.

Read more:
COVID kilos: why now is the best time to shed them

Why won’t my work shoes or boots fit?

We’ve seen how, over time, our feet adapt to our shoes (or lack of shoes). But shoes can also adapt to our feet. This depends on what the shoes are made of.

Leather shoes are flexible and gradually mould to the shape of your feet. That’s because they absorb sweat from our feet and soften. But when we take a break from wearing them, the leather gradually dries and they harden.

So if you haven’t worn leather shoes or boots for a while, you need to “wear them in” again to soften them and avoid blisters.

If you’ve been storing your shoes in a hot, dry environment, the leather will also gradually dry out and your shoes will feel much tighter when you next wear them.

Shoes made from synthetic materials and textiles or vegan leather made from polyurethane, recycled plastic, cactus or mushrooms tend to keep their shape, even when you don’t wearing them for some time.

Read more:
Vegan leather made from mushrooms could mould the future of sustainable fashion

Any tips for my feet?

Getting back into your work shoes might take a bit of time, particularly if your feet have changed shape during the past two years.

It’s unlikely you’ll need new shoes unless they are damaged from drying out, you have put on a significant amount of weight, or your shoes were very narrow or a size too small pre-pandemic.

Here are some suggestions to build foot strength and ensure your shoes don’t damage your feet:

• make time to exercise your feet and ankles. You can try this conditioning program or watch these videos of foot strengthening exercises

• focus on your core strength to improve your posture when sitting, standing and walking. Here’s a ten-minute workout for beginners

• visit a shoe store to measure your feet accurately. Some 63-72% of the population are wearing shoes the wrong length or width

• invest in a pair of good quality shoes, runners or work boots and look after them well, rather than buying lots of cheap footwear that might cause foot deformity and a lifetime of pain.

Caroline Robinson is affiliated with the Australasian Council of Podiatry Deans and the Australian Podiatry Association.

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

– ref. What did COVID do to my feet? How to fit back into shoes after wearing ugg boots at home and piling on the kilos – https://theconversation.com/what-did-covid-do-to-my-feet-how-to-fit-back-into-shoes-after-wearing-ugg-boots-at-home-and-piling-on-the-kilos-182129

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

The Fair Work Commission has announced a rise in the minimum wage of 5.2% or $40 a week, taking it to $812.60 a week or $21.38 an hour.

The rise will take effect on July 1.

The increase is slightly above the increase the government had publicly supported for the minimum wage, which was 5.1%, the rate of inflation.

But award minimum wages will be increased by less – 4.6%, with a minimum rise of $40 a week. This means workers on award minimum wages above $869.60 will get a 4.6% rise, while those earning less will receive a $40 increase. The 4.6% will cut in at trade level.

Only the lowest paid 2% of workers are on the national minimum wage, while a further 23% receive the minimum award rates.

For workers generally the award increases will also take effect on July 1, except for those in aviation, hospitality, and tourism where the increases will take effect on October 1 because of what the commission describes as “exceptional curcumstances” in these industries.

The 5.2% rise is above the latest inflation number of 5.1%. But workers face further substantial rises in inflation in coming months.

Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe said on Tuesday inflation is likely to increase to 7% by the end of the year.

Employers argued for smaller increases, and the Master Grocers Association and Restaurant & Catering Australia argued for no increase, while the ACTU wanted a 5.5% increase.

The Albanese government said in its submission low income workers should not go backwards. In the election campaign, Albanese said he would “absolutely” support an increase for the lowest-paid to match the 5.1% inflation rate.

The commission said the most significant changes since last year’s decision had been the sharp increase in the cost of living and the labour market’s strengthening. “The sharp rise in inflation impacts business and workers,” it said.

“The low paid are particularly vulnerable in the context of rising inflation.”

“The panel accepted the need for moderation in order to contain the inflationary pressures arising from our decision,” the commission said.

It acknowledged the increases would mean a real wage cut for some workers on awards and some, though minor, compression of relativities.

“The panel concluded that given the current strength of the labour market the increases it has decided to make will not have a significant adverse effect on ‘the performance and competitiveness of the national economy’”.

The Commission is required by the Fair Work Act to take into account “the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment growth”.

Read more:
Lifting the minimum wage isn’t reckless – it’s what low earners need

Reserve Bank Governor Lowe told the ABC that the 7% expected inflation was “a very high number and we need to be able to chart a course back to 2-3% inflation”.

On interest rates, Lowe said it would be “reasonable” for the cash rate to reach 2.5%. But how fast that was reached or indeed, if it were reached, would be “determined by events”.

He said inflation would peak in the December quarter and start to come off “by the first quarter next year”.

“By the time we get into the second half of next yer, inflation will clear be coming down. But in the first quarter, we’ll see lower rates of headline inflation.”

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. Fair Work Commission gives a 5.2% – $40 a week – increase in the minimum wage – https://theconversation.com/fair-work-commission-gives-a-5-2-40-a-week-increase-in-the-minimum-wage-185119

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

The new Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act, due to take effect from July 1, will be a once-in-a-generation chance to reset New Zealand’s public health system. It’s a welcome effort to protect, promote and improve the health of all New Zealanders, reduce health disparities (in particular for Māori) and give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

These aims align with the international legal framework of human rights and the rights of Indigenous peoples. Yet New Zealanders will continue to miss out, as the new act fails to explicitly incorporate the right to health.

This would have provided another (legal) mechanism to hold the government and its various health authorities accountable for their actual delivery on those noble objectives.

The act will set out a series of obligations and expectations for health providers and consumers, which are to be applauded. But how can we know if these new initiatives are delivering without a clear understanding of the basic rights of individuals?

After all, those obligations are based on and informed by everyone’s right to fair and equitable treatment in the health system. What can be done if the obligations are not met?

Health as a human right

The failure to include the right to health may derive from a view that this is not a “real” right. Various reasons are advanced to support such a view, but they can be refuted.

For starters, the right to health is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (thanks in part to the efforts of the then New Zealand prime minister, Peter Fraser). It became a legally binding obligation when the United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966.

The right is also contained in human rights law instruments relating to race, women, children, persons with disabilities and Indigenous peoples. Aotearoa New Zealand has agreed to protect and respect the rights contained in each of these legal instruments.

Read more:
COVID-19, risk and rights: the ‘wicked’ balancing act for governments

One argument in Aotearoa New Zealand is that the specialist decision-making involved in complex and expensive economic and social policy is (perhaps understandably) the purview of the government and not the courts.

Nonetheless, the courts do retain a scrutinising role in such matters. The explicit incorporation of the right to health in the legislation would have further facilitated this role.

Cost shouldn’t be an insurmountable hurdle

Cost is another reason given for not enshrining a right to health. It’s a legitimate concern, too, especially as the financial burdens that accrued to the district health boards seem to have been a significant factor driving the law change.

This logic only takes us so far, however. The massive costs that go into an effective court system are not an argument for not upholding the right to a fair trial, for instance.

And international law actually allows countries a fair amount of leeway in upholding the right to health. Subject to their available resources, they must show progress is being made in implementing health rights.

Read more:
Should we be forcing people with severe mental illness to have treatment they don’t want?

It’s also argued that the right to health is too vague; that it’s impossible for the courts, for example, to determine its legal meaning. But this can also be countered.

To begin with, the right to health doesn’t mean the right to be healthy. What it does mean is that everyone has freedoms and entitlements to ensure they can enjoy “the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”.

4 key elements to health

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights breaks these rights and obligations down even further into four key elements:

1. availability: countries must have sufficient functioning public hospitals and other medical facilities, goods and services, as well as programs

2. accessibility: everyone must be able to access health facilities, goods and services without discrimination – accessibility doesn’t just mean physical access, to a hospital (for example), it also means health care must be affordable

3. acceptability: for example, health care must be sensitive to cultural beliefs, as well as age and gender

4. quality: for example, the right to skilled medical personnel, scientifically approved drugs and hospital equipment.

Courts have a role in health

As with all human rights, the rights to equality and non-discrimination underpin the right to health. New Zealand’s Human Rights Act also prohibits discrimination on a variety of grounds.

Understanding the right to health in this way can lead to improved healthcare practices, as well as practical and constructive efforts to ensure a more robust and effective health system. This would seem to be in accordance with the aims of the new act.

This doesn’t mean the battle to recognise New Zealanders’ right to health is totally lost. The presumption must remain that parliament didn’t intend the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act – like any legislation – to be contrary to international law and New Zealand’s international obligations.

We must believe that the courts, where possible, will uphold those rights. But the failure to incorporate the right to health denies the ultimate recipients of health care – the people themselves – a clear legal mechanism to uphold their right to health.

It also serves to limit the accountability of the government and its new health entities for the kinds of failures that led to the need for new legislation in the first place.

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

– ref. A major new law aims to ‘improve the health of all New Zealanders’ – so why doesn’t it include the basic human right to health? – https://theconversation.com/a-major-new-law-aims-to-improve-the-health-of-all-new-zealanders-so-why-doesnt-it-include-the-basic-human-right-to-health-184842

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sora Park, Associate Dean of Research, Faculty of Arts & Design, University of Canberra

Should journalists always treat an issue even-handedly? Our research reveals that when it comes to climate change, many Australians would prefer they didn’t. For general news, people want news outlets to reflect a range of views so they can make up their own mind about an issue. However, when it comes to news about climate change, four in ten say news outlets should pick a side.

That’s according to new research that surveyed 2,038 Australians about their news consumption in relation to climate change. The Digital News Report: Australia 2022 survey was conducted by the University of Canberra between January 21 and February 16 2022.

There is a divide driven by political orientation on how people think news outlets should be reporting on climate change. More than half (51%) of those who identify as left-wing and 42% of those who identify as centre of politics say news outlets should take a clear position. In contrast, only 24% of right-leaning audiences say so.

Read more:
The number of climate deniers in Australia is more than double the global average, new survey finds

In fact, the majority of those on the right (66%) are in favour of news remaining impartial and leaving it up to people to decide. Revealingly, however, those who identify with the centre are not on the same page as those on the right. Only 41% of those who identify with the centre support impartiality on climate change.

These differences may partly be explained by varied levels of concern and where people get news about climate change.

Concern about climate change is becoming increasingly polarised across the political spectrum. On the left, 81% express concern, but only 32% of right-leaning consumers do. There is a disconnect on climate change between people who identify with the centre of politics and those who identify with right-wing beliefs, particularly among those with higher incomes and in urban areas.

While more than a third (38%) of right-wing consumers regard climate change as a “not very” or “not at all” serious problem, centrists are more concerned, attentive to climate change news and willing to see journalists take a clear position on the issue. This may help understand the success of teal independents in the 2022 federal election, many of whom campaigned on climate action in traditionally centre-right urban electorates.

Read more:
Is this the end of the two-party system in Australia? The Greens, teals and others shock the major parties

News consumers in regional areas remain less concerned about climate change than those in cities, despite extreme weather events and bushfires disproportionately affecting regional areas. This may reflect the fact that higher proportions of older and more conservative Australians live in the regions.

It must be stressed the survey was in the field after a mild summer and before the severe floods in Queensland and News South Wales. This is possibly why the proportion considering climate change as a serious problem dropped by three percentage points. from when? Now, three in four (76%) Australians regard climate change as a serious issue.

Encouragingly, rather than relying on celebrities and political parties, people go to experts and traditional news outlets for news about the climate crisis. The most popular sources of climate change news are scientists, experts and academics (50%), documentaries (33%) and major news outlets (27%).

There seems to be a small but important minority of Australians who have disengaged from the issue entirely. One in five Australians say they don’t pay any attention to climate change news.

Again, we see a steep political divide in whether people pay attention to climate change news. Almost one-third (29%) of right-wing consumers are disengaged from climate change news, while 97% of left-wing consumers access news about climate change. This polarisation has persisted and widened since 2020.

When it comes to reporting about climate change, Australians want less focus on individual responsibility (16%) and more attention on what governments and large companies should do about it (42%). Younger generations and left-wing Australians are particularly keen on both of these things.

The issue of climate change turned out to be serious enough to convince many to vote against traditional two-party lines, reshaping the political landscape and placing action on climate change as a spotlight issue for the incoming Labor government.

Digital News Report: Australia is produced by the News & Media Research Centre (N&MRC) at the University of Canberra. It is part of a global annual survey of digital news consumption in 46 countries, commissioned by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. YouGov conducted the survey in January and February 2022. In Australia, this is the eighth annual survey of its kind produced by the N&MRC.

Sora Park receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Community Media and Google News Initiative.

Kerry McCallum receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the ACT Government, and Australian Community Media.

Kieran McGuinness has received funding from Google News Initiative and the Australian Communications & Media Authority.

– ref. Climate change the issue on which Australians do not want both sides of the argument: new research – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-the-issue-on-which-australians-do-not-want-both-sides-of-the-argument-new-research-184172

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Culum Brown, Professor, Macquarie University

Why do frilled sharks look more like sea snakes? – Will, age 6, Darlington, Western Australia

Hi Will. Thanks for this question!

Frilled sharks are very strange looking sharks. You’re right – they look much more like an eel or a sea snake than a shark.

Both are quite long and skinny, with adults growing to about two metres. You’ll find frilled sharks have their fins a long way back towards their tail, which adds to their weird shape. They’re certainly not very sharky looking!

A ‘living fossil’

Frilled sharks are considered “living fossils”, because they haven’t changed for about 80 million years! They get their name from the frilly gills on their throats, which look a bit like lace. They have six pairs of gills which they use to breathe under water.

There are two species of frilled shark. Both might look like sea snakes, but they’re actually very different up close. For one, frilled sharks have gills to breathe under water, while sea snakes have to come to the surface to breath air into their (one) lung – but they’re amazing at holding their breath.

Also, frilled sharks have fins, and snakes have no arms or legs at all. And snakes have a bony skeleton, whereas shark skeletons are made of cartilage (like what you’ve got in your nose).

And while both have loads of sharp and pointy teeth, sea snakes are highly venomous – and frilled sharks are not.

Life as a frilled shark

Frilled sharks are rarely seen in the wild, so we don’t know that much about them. Although they are occasionally caught in fishing nets since they like to live in places with lots of fish.

During the day frilled sharks rest on the bottom of the ocean, but as night approaches they swim close to the surface to chase prey such as octopus, squid and fishes. While swimming, they bend their body like an eel.

Their mouth is full of needle-like teeth that they use to grab their prey, which they swallow whole!

Baby frill sharks hatch in an egg inside their mother’s tummy and keep growing until they are ready to be born. This takes about three and a half years, which is more than four times longer than a human baby takes, and possibly the longest of any animal.

A large female can have up to 15 babies, or “pups”, which are about 50cm long when they are born. Scientists think frilled sharks live for about 25 years, but no one knows for sure.

What about sea snakes?

Sea snakes are found in warm, shallow waters around coral reefs near Australia and New Zealand. They’re closely related to venomous land snakes in Australia.

Snakes have a funny history if you look a long way back in time, because their ancestors originally lived on the land and looked a bit like a goanna. On the other hand, the ancestors of frilled sharks were always in the ocean.

Snakes’ ancestors then started to live in the water, where they got their snakey shape: they lost their legs and arms and began to swim like eels.

Eventually they came back to live on land, and to this day most snakes still move on land the same way they used to in the water – slithering from side to side.

But at some point, sea snakes decided to go back to live in the water again, where they still slither around today. I guess they couldn’t make up their minds!

Read more:
Curious Kids: Do sharks sneeze?

Culum Brown 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. Curious Kids: why do frilled sharks look more like sea snakes? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-frilled-sharks-look-more-like-sea-snakes-184741

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

The Liberal-National Coalition government has been defeated, but the legacy of its nine-year onslaught on the ABC remains.

That onslaught consisted of relentless accusations of left-wing bias, a succession of pointless and enervating inquiries, punitive funding cuts, and the use of the ABC for target practice in the Coalition’s interminable climate and culture wars.

The government also joined with News Corporation in a pincer attack on the ABC. But worst of all, it stacked the board.

The Turnbull and Morrison governments routinely appointed to the board people not recommended by the independent merit-based selection process introduced by the Abbott government in 2013, in what turned out to be a piece of rank window-dressing.

Even so, when Scott Morrison took over from Turnbull as prime minister, he wasted no time in using an appearance on ABC television to warn the ABC board to “expect a bit more attention from me” if it didn’t “do better”.

In fact, the board was already stacked with people appointed by Turnbull’s communications minister, Mitch Fifield, outside the independent merit-based system.

Documents obtained at the time by The Guardian Australia showed Fifield had directly appointed five of the eight members then on the board, some of them having been rejected by the nominations panel. Fifield’s appointments included Vanessa Guthrie, chair of the Minerals Council of Australia, a fossil fuel lobby group.

On top of this, to replace chair Justin Milne, Morrison parachuted in his own captain’s pick for chair, Ita Buttrose, disregarding three recommendations from the merit panel.

In May last year, Morrison’s communications minister, Paul Fletcher, appointed three further members to fill vacancies on the board. Two of those – Peter Tonagh and Mario D’Orazio – were recommended by the independent nominations panel and one – Fiona Balfour – was not.

The net effect of these comings and goings is that the minister directly appointed three of the seven current non-executive directors – Buttrose, Balfour and Joseph Gersh – outside the nominations process.

A fourth, Peter Lewis, was recommended by a politically loaded panel, including News Corp columnist and former board member Janet Albrechtsen and former Liberal minister Neil Brown, after Lewis had produced a report showing how the Abbott government could cut the ABC’s funding.

None of this is to question the integrity of the individuals appointed – in fact, Buttrose has been a robust defender of the ABC. But it raises legitimate questions about how well equipped they are for the job.

For example, does the board as a whole have the guts to stand up for the ABC’s editorial independence, or even a decent understanding of what the term means? The backgrounds of its members, aside from staff member Jane Connors, do not suggest they have any experience of what it is like to do the heavy lifting in journalism, where editorial independence really counts.

Buttrose, Tonagh and Lewis have a ton of experience in corporate media management, and Buttrose of course was a journalist, but not of the kind that makes programs for 4 Corners.

Investigative journalism exposes the journalists doing it to a degree of sometimes personal risk and often severe political and legal pressure. It is essential they have a rock-solid belief that the organisation they work for has their backs. As the founding editor of The Sydney Morning Herald’s investigative unit in 1984, I can personally attest to this.

Read more:
As News Corp goes ‘rogue’ on election coverage, what price will Australian democracy pay?

The ABC’s journalists would be entitled to harbour doubts about this after the board announced in May it was appointing an ombudsman to oversee the complaints system.

Not only is this yet another layer of bureaucracy on top of an onerous complaints system already in place, but worse by far is that the ombudsman will report directly to a board that has been politically stacked.

Given most of the complaints that cause trouble for the ABC come from politicians or well-connected people with partisan political interests, that amounts to an outright betrayal of editorial independence.

The decision to appoint an ombudsman was based on a recommendation by a former Commonwealth ombudsman, John McMillan, and Jim Carroll, an experienced commercial television executive, who carried out a review of the complaints process. However, they did not recommend the direct reporting line to the board.

This board decision had all the hallmarks of a pre-emptive buckle, the cutting witticism coined long ago by a radio producer to describe the way ABC management reacts to threats and pressure, real or anticipated.

In this case it had the desired effect. A month after the ombudsman proposal had been announced, an attempt by Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg to set up a Senate inquiry into the ABC’s complaints system was abandoned.

The decision to review the complaints system was taken in the aftermath of an earlier external review into a complaint about a three-part television series called Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire. The ABC’s complaints unit rejected the complaint, but this decision was vociferously challenged by a group of people anxious to protect the legacy and reputation of the deceased former premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran. One segment in part three of this series contained an unjustifiable implication that Wran was an associate of an organised crime figure, Abe Saffron, who the program alleged was connected with the fire.

Read more:
How Ghost Train Fire exposed remarkable police corruption, yet also failed ABC’s high journalistic standards

The review was conducted by distinguished political scientist Rodney Tiffen of the University of Sydney and the celebrated investigative journalist Chris Masters.

They found against that one segment but were otherwise generous in their praise of the series.

The ABC accepted the praise but rejected the negative finding.

Shortly afterwards, in October 2021, the board established the complaints system review by McMillan and Carroll.

The upshot is that ABC journalists are now working in an environment where, if their story generates a complaint, it can end up in the hands of an ombudsman appointed by, and answerable to, a board, four of whose members have been either appointed by ministerial fiat outside the independent merit-based system or by a politically loaded panel.

Former ABC Melbourne broadcaster Jon Faine has described the existing complaints process as:

a burdensome sledgehammer that chews up work time on sometimes vexatious and often trivial […] things.

The process is also prone to being bypassed by powerful people who get in the ear of senior managers, leading to investigations outside the system.

McMillan and Carroll say their anecdotal impression is the ABC often resists criticism, particularly of high-profile programs. Doubtless there is truth in this. The self-serving reaction to the Ghost Train Fire report is an example.

However, a simple solution would be to have someone with substantial expertise in investigative journalism seconded to the complaints unit to deal with complex cases like that.

There are many ways to destroy a media institution, but weak boards and uncertain editorial direction are two of the most effective. Look at the Fairfax newspaper company. For more than 150 years it seemed impregnable. Then in 1987, a Fairfax scion, “young” Warwick, privatised the company. It could not sustain the ensuing $1.6 billion debt and its bankers had it auctioned off.

Then a succession of purblind boards and senior management left it mortally exposed to the digital revolution that gutted its classified advertising revenue. Journalistically it struggled to harmonise its print and online content, staff were laid off in droves, and the shrunken remains were absorbed into the Nine Entertainment organisation.

At the ABC a reset is necessary but will take time. The recent appointment as news director of Justin Stevens, a journalist with real runs on the board, encourages the belief that at least the journalists in his division will be given a safe place in which to do good journalism.

However, the big test for the ABC is whether the board as a whole can engender confidence in its willingness to defend the ABC’s editorial independence and send the message to senior management and all ABC journalists that this a place where journalists can do good work without having to look over their shoulder to see if the corporation has their back.

In 2021 I unsuccessfully applied for a position on the ABC board.

– ref. Battered by 9 years of Coalition government, the ABC now has a hard road of repair ahead – https://theconversation.com/battered-by-9-years-of-coalition-government-the-abc-now-has-a-hard-road-of-repair-ahead-184637