Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Hocking, Emeritus Professor, Monash University

As we enter the final week of the election campaign with its scrappy debates and breathlessly seized “gotcha” moments, the impact of Gough Whitlam’s electoral reforms can be seen at every stage.

From votes for 18-year-olds, senate representation in the ACT and Northern Territory, equal electorates and “one vote one value”, Whitlam’s commitment to full franchise and electoral equity remain central to our electoral process.

No less significant is the innovative and dynamic election campaign built around the central theme “It’s Time” which propelled him into office.

“It’s Time” was the perfect two-word slogan, encapsulating the urge for long overdue change after 23 years of coalition government, and carrying that momentum into the election itself.

This was Australia’s first television-friendly, focus-group driven, thoroughly modern campaign. Its impact on political campaigning in this country was profound.

Behind the glitz of the theme song and the over 200 policies enunciated in the policy speech, a raft of celebrities and leading figures from the arts – authors, artists, actors, musicians – played a major role.

Read more:
Few restrictions, no spending limit, and almost no oversight: welcome to political advertising in Australia

Not just political star power

The presence of well-known identities at the launch in Blacktown Civic Centre lent an air of celebration – of celebrity and even glamour – to the dour set pieces that owed more to the old-fashioned stump speeches of decades earlier, still used by the outgoing Prime Minister Billy McMahon.

Led by soul singer Alison MacCallum, household names like singers and musicians Patricia Amphlett “Little Pattie”, Col Joye, Bobby Limb, Jimmy Hannan, actors Lynette Curran from the popular ABC series Bellbird, Terry Norris and Chuck Faulkner generated an immense reach for It’s Time both as a song and as a political moment.

Patricia Amphlett recalls:

The ‘It’s Time’ commercial was far more effective than anyone could have imagined. Long before Live Aid, it came as a shock to some people that popular personalities would stand up publicly and be counted for a cause.

They were not simply there for added political star power. They were there because the arts had been neglected and constrained by decades of unimaginative conservative government – and they shared a mood for change.

‘Intellectual and creative vigour’

Whitlam harnessed the deep sense of frustration of the arts community after years of “stifling conservatism” in arts policy settings. Direct political intervention in literary grants also had a stultifying effect on cultural production.

The author Frank Hardy’s successful application for a Commonwealth Literary Fund fellowship in 1968 had been vetoed by the Gorton coalition government because Hardy was a member of the Communist Party.

Whitlam was a member of the committee that had awarded Hardy the fellowship and it drove his determination to ensure arts bodies operated as autonomous decision-makers.

He brought arts policy to the fore both in the development of his reform agenda and during the election campaign.

He drew a direct link between a healthy cultural sector, national identity and a flourishing political sphere:

the relation between politics and culture is clear and real. Political vigour has invariably produced intellectual and creative vigour.

‘Refresh, reinvigorate and liberate’

The rapid elevation of cultural policy as a major area for change soon after Whitlam came to office on December 5 1972 gave voice to his pre-election commitment to the arts community “to refresh, reinvigorate and liberate Australian intellectual and cultural life”.

Just six days later, in the ninth of the 40 decisions made by the first Whitlam “duumvirate” ministry, the government announced major increases in grants for the arts in every state and the ACT and forecast a major restructure of existing arts organisations.

On January 26 1973, Whitlam announced the establishment of the interim Australian Council of the Arts. A range of autonomous craft-specific boards would sit under it – Aboriginal arts, theatre, music, literary, visual and plastic arts, crafts, film and television – with the renowned arts administrator H.C. Coombes as its inaugural head.

After years of delay, a newly appointed interim council for the National Gallery began work in 1973 on the new gallery, with James Mollison as interim director.

Read more:
James Mollison: the public art teacher who brought the Blue Poles to Australia

This was just the beginning of “a cultural sea change” in the arts.

There would be reforms in radio with Double J, later Triple J, and the first “ethnic” broadcasting in Australia through 2EA and 3EA.

The film industry was rebooted through the establishment of the Australian Film Commission, the Australian Film & Television School and Film Australia, and an increase in the quota for Australian made television and films.

The Public Lending Rights scheme was introduced to compensate authors for the circulation of their works through libraries.

Kim Williams describes the “innovative thinking” behind the close involvement of arts practitioners in policy development and administration as:

a new ground plane for empowered decision making by artists in a profoundly democratic action for the arts.

A new choice

At a time of relentless funding reductions, cost-cutting and job losses, renewal and revival is desperately needed across our most important cultural institutions.

The dire effects of this decade of neglect can be seen most starkly in the 25% staff cuts and under-resourcing of the National Archives of Australia which, as the highly critical Tune review made clear, has led to the disintegration of irreplaceable archival material including recordings of endangered Indigenous languages. The 2022 budget only continued those reductions.

We are again at a time when renewal and reinvigoration of the arts is urgently needed – yet it has scarcely featured thus far in this campaign.

The Liberal Party’s policy statements do not feature the arts. In contrast, Labor’s Arts policy, announced last night, promises a “landmark cultural policy” which would restore arms-length funding, explore a national insurance scheme for live events and ensure fixed five-year funding terms for the ABC and SBS.

There is a choice for the arts on 21 May between stasis and renewal. I’ll take the renewal, and hope it becomes a renaissance.

Read more:
Why arts and culture appear to be the big losers in this budget

Jenny Hocking receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. ‘The relation between politics and culture is clear and real’: how Gough Whitlam centred artists in his 1972 campaign – https://theconversation.com/the-relation-between-politics-and-culture-is-clear-and-real-how-gough-whitlam-centred-artists-in-his-1972-campaign-181243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Peterie, Research Fellow, University of Sydney

Some people in immigration detention could be asked to pay for their own incarceration, as part of a new border protection policy announced by the Coalition on Friday.

The government has indicated “foreign criminals” awaiting deportation will be the main targets of the policy. This is an ambiguous statement given the government’s propensity to criminalise refugees and asylum seekers. But it likely refers primarily to people whose visas have been cancelled on “character grounds” under provisions in the Migration Act. This includes many people who have no serious criminal history.

The proposal would see detainees charged $456 for each day they’re detained. With average detention times currently exceeding 680 days, the debts could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This isn’t the first time the Coalition has sought to charge immigration detainees for their time in detention. Morrison’s policy closely resembles a Howard-era scheme that was dismantled by the Rudd Labor government in 2009.

This time, however, Labor has backed the plan.

Whatever political thinking underlies the major parties’ positions, charging detainees for their incarceration is a bad move. Beyond cynical political calculation, this is a policy with no redeeming features.

Nobody is ‘free riding’ in detention

According to Immigration Minister Alex Hawke, making detainees pay for their detention is necessary to prevent “free riding”.

Hawke said on Friday:

We don’t believe foreign criminals deserve free rent, food and medical treatment while we go through the process of deporting them.

The idea that people in detention are living comfortably at taxpayers’ expense is far from accurate. Having researched immigration detention for years, I can attest that conditions in detention are far from hospitable.

People in detention endure constant surveillance and minimal privacy. Access to health care, recreational facilities, and legal support is highly limited. Detainees are regularly moved between interstate detention centres without warning or explanation. Friends and family members in the community struggle to visit. Frequent changes to internal rules breed instability, and centre guards sometimes use excessive force.

A wealth of evidence links immigration detention with psychological injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. Rates of self-harm in Australian detention centres are alarmingly high.

Read more:
Self-harm in immigration detention has risen sharply. Here are 6 ways to address this health crisis

People in detention do not choose to remain there as a lifestyle preference. If they elect to endure these conditions and fight their deportation in the courts, they typically do so because returning to their country of citizenship isn’t a viable option.

In some cases, detainees come from refugee backgrounds and fear violence or persecution in their country of origin. In others, detainees have spent years in Australia and don’t wish to abandon their lives and loved ones for a country that’s no longer “home”.

The right to appeal these deportation decisions is fundamental for justice. Yet pressuring detainees to leave Australia swiftly seems to be a key rationale for the policy change.

Read more:
New Zealanders have a right to be angry when Australia deports a 15-year-old

Recovering funds may prove impossible

Until now, the Coalition hadn’t sought to revive its previous scheme. One likely reason is because the Howard government’s measures simply didn’t work. Howard’s debt recovery program cost more to administer than it raised in revenue.

Part of the problem with a model where detainees pay is that many debtors will ultimately be deported to or resettled in a third country. This makes debt recovery difficult.

Another issue is that people in detention often have few financial resources. It’s both futile and cruel to ask people with almost nothing to pay for the privilege of being held against their will.

Speaking to these challenges last week, Hawke indicated funds would be recovered by seizing detainees’ assets in Australia. This is a troubling proposition, not least because Australia’s immigration detention system is officially administrative not punitive. That is, people in detention are not held as part of a criminal sentence. Legally speaking, detention isn’t supposed to be a punishment.

Seizing assets certainly appears punitive. It would compound the social and financial pressures detainees already face as a consequence of their incarceration. And it would impose serious collateral harm, punishing detainees’ children, partners, parents and families.

Read more:
‘People are crying and begging’: the human cost of forced relocations in immigration detention

Is this all just an election ploy?

Coming just one week before the election, the political calculation of Morrison’s policy revival is difficult to ignore. “Border protection” has traditionally been a vote winner for the Coalition, and the polls aren’t looking good for the incumbent prime minister.

In 2001, Howard famously came from behind to claim electoral victory on the back of the Tampa Crisis and the Children Overboard Affair. If last week’s Murdoch media headlines are any indication, Morrison may be hoping to achieve a similar boost through his own border rhetoric.

Read more:
Issues that swung elections: Tampa and the national security election of 2001

If the exorbitant costs of detention are a concern for the government, one viable solution would be to only use detention as a last resort.

For its part, Labor has been accused of performing an about-face on its previous position. This policy shift speaks to Labor’s apparent fear of being wedged on the issue of immigration.

Labor and the Coalition therefore head to the election with remarkably similar policies on immigration detention and border security. Both support offshore processing and boat turn-backs. And both seem intent on tightening the screws on people already suffering in Australian detention centres.

Michelle Peterie receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. ‘Futile and cruel’: plan to charge fees for immigration detention has no redeeming features – https://theconversation.com/futile-and-cruel-plan-to-charge-fees-for-immigration-detention-has-no-redeeming-features-183035

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Bekessy, Professor in Sustainability and Urban Planning, Leader, Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group (ICON Science), RMIT University

The animals and plants at risk of extinction finally made it onto the political agenda last week, as Labor and the Greens launched biodiversity policies ahead of the federal election.

Labor’s policies included new funding for the Great Barrier Reef and long-term commitments for threatened species. The Greens announced A$24.4 billion of environmental funding over the next decade. Meanwhile, the Coalition has no new election commitments to biodiversity that we could find, beyond recent budget announcements.

Protecting biodiversity isn’t just about the niceties of saving cute and cuddly animals. It’s about maintaining our health and prosperity, productive agriculture and liveable cities.

So let’s take a closer look at political party promises, and whether they’re enough to turn things around for Australia’s threatened species.

How does Labor rate?

Labor’s policy platform is spruiked as “a better future for the Great Barrier Reef and Australia’s unique environment”, and pledged an additional $194.5 million in reef protection programs.

One welcome initiative is the long-term commitment for a Saving Native Species program. It includes $224.5 million of funding to deliver a national conservation strategy, fund rangers, and deal with the backlog of 200 recovery plans that remain unwritten for species such as the greater glider and the Eltham copper butterfly.

Also welcome is funding for 1,000 full-time Landcare Rangers across the country, which can contribute significantly to land restoration, tackling weeds and feral animals.

Like the Coalition, Labor has also promised resources to bolster Landcare, the Indigenous Protected Area network, and increase the number of Indigenous Rangers.

Perhaps the biggest difference between Labor and the Coalition is the response to a 2020 independent review of Australia’s key environment law, by Professor Graeme Samuel. The review made a suite of recommendations to reform the law and protect biodiversity, but almost none have been implemented by the current government.

The extent these reforms are rolled out will determine the fate of species and ecosystems under pressure from land clearing and habitat degradation. Shadow environment minister Terri Butler said Labor would “provide a full government response to the Samuel review”.

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

Labor has also committed to establishing an Environment Protection Agency, calling it a “strong cop on the beat that is genuinely independent of the government”.

This is a significant point of difference with the Coalition, which rejected this recommendation of the Samuel review. Indeed, a lack of independence and transparency remains a weakness in the Coalition’s environmental regulation and reporting.

The elephant in the room is Labor’s plan to tackle climate change. While it’s a big improvement on the Coalition plan, it’s still consistent with a 2℃ global increase in temperature this century.

This temperature rise will likely lead to a dramatic loss of species, and drive collapse of key ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef and alpine woodlands.

What about The Greens?

The Greens commitment to $24.4 billion over the next decade is for “restoring wildlife habitat, planting 2 billion trees by 2030 and re-establishing green space in our cities, regions and suburbs”.

This is a significant step up in resources compared with the Coalition and Labor platforms. It’s also consistent with an economic analysis we conducted on the funding required to bring threatened species back from the brink.

Other welcome commitments include ending native forest logging, grants to stop pollution in the Great Barrier Reef, and implementing water recovery targets and buyback schemes in the Murray Darling Basin.

Like Labor, the Greens would also strengthen Australia’s environment laws and create an an independent watchdog to enforce them.

In terms of climate change, the Greens want to cut Australia’s emissions to net zero by 2035. This is consistent with the internationally agreed level of global warming of 1.5℃ this century, and will have a better outcome for species than under 2℃.

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

The Coalition has shown its colours

Given the Coalition has been in power for nine years, it has already shown its colours when it comes to caring for nature.

For example, it has approved the destruction of more than 200,000 hectares of threatened species habitat in the last decade, and cut funding to the environment department by over 40% since 2014.

We scoured Coalition websites, but found no new election commitments beyond the March budget announcements, which included $100 million for threatened species protection and habitat restoration, and $74 million for koalas.

A spokesperson for Environment Minister Sussan Ley told The Age last week that another term of government would see the Coalition reform national environment laws and provide greater certainty, spending $52 million on environment assessments with states and territories to cut “green tape”.

The Coalition’s climate policy is consistent with global warming of 3-4℃ this century. This would be catastrophic for biodiversity, and render tropical coral reefs functionally extinct.

Read more:
Fail: our report card on the government’s handling of Australia’s extinction crisis

What are we waiting for?

Other political parties lack specific biodiversity policies, but make relevant – though very problematic – commitments.

One Nation, for example, state “we are the only political party to question climate science” and believe “Australia should withdraw from the United Nations Paris Agreement”. Katter’s Australian Party are “pro culling flying foxes” (of which some are endangered) and “aims to eliminate crocodiles from our waterways that pose a threat to human life”.

The policies of “teal” independents generally make sense for the environment. For example, Wentworth’s Allegra Spender states: “By investing in and protecting Wentworth’s stunning natural environment we’ll protect our health, wellbeing and tourism”. Likewise, Kooyong’s Monique Ryan wants to cut emissions at least 60% by 2030.

While land clearing and native timber harvesting remain prickly issues for the Coalition and Labor respectively, saving threatened species isn’t all about politically painful decisions. Many could be saved through universally popular actions that would generate employment across the nation.

This includes dramatically increased spending to control weeds and feral species. Restoring degraded habitats would not only help biodiversity, but also help heal cultural heritage and mitigate emissions.

Supporting Australian conservation organisations, Traditional Owners, land managers, zoos and herbaria to protect the most threatened species while bigger solutions come down the line, would also go a long way.

The science and Traditional Knowledge required to chart this path and monitor benefits are largely in place already. So what are we waiting for?

Read more:
‘Existential threat to our survival’: see the 19 Australian ecosystems already collapsing

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

Brendan Wintle has received funding from The Australian Research Council, the Victorian State Government, the NSW State Government, the Queensland State Government, the Commonwealth National Environmental Science Program, the Ian Potter Foundation, the Hermon Slade Foundation, and the Australian Conservation Foundation. Wintle is a Board Director of Zoos Victoria.

– ref. I want my vote to count for nature: how do the major parties stack up? – https://theconversation.com/i-want-my-vote-to-count-for-nature-how-do-the-major-parties-stack-up-183023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cherine Fahd, Associate Professor, School of Design, University of Technology Sydney

Review: Son of Byblos, directed by Anna Jahjah for Brave New World Theatre Company

The downstairs theatre at Belvoir might be small but the energy conjured from Son of Byblos is mighty. Written by James Elazzi and directed by Anna Jahjah, this small budget project shows how vital independent storytelling is in Australia today.

In another cross-cultural comic drama Elazzi presents the final part of a trio that included Omar and Dawn and Lady Tabouli, examining the forbidden territory of queer sexuality in a Lebanese-Australian cultural context.

A looming wedding creates a pressure cooker situation for queer cousins Adam (Mansoor Noor) and Claire (Kate Bookallil). Claire returns from Lebanon intent on marrying a guy she barely knows and who can’t speak English.

Adam tries desperately to convince her she is making a mistake, but Claire wants a family and to have kids. In her Lebanese family, she can’t if she’s a lesbian.

With his cousin turning “hetero” overnight, Adam feels abandoned. If Claire turns straight, he will be gay alone. His alienation from his family – and now Claire – has him unravelling

Adam briefly battles his way back to heterosexuality by reuniting with his ex, Angela (Violette Ayad). Angela tries to pretend that Adam isn’t gay. She is desperate to move out of home; marrying him is her only escape.

Adam, Claire and Angela have a desperate need for independence from the parental stranglehold. In their Lebanese families, heterosexual marriage is the way to freedom.

Read more:
Lady Tabouli review: a hilarious comedy about suffocating expectations

Sexual freedoms

The intensity of these domestic scenes are momentarily paused when Adam has sex with anonymous men in public toilets. These scenes play out like fragments. Dispersed throughout the story they give Adam and the audience breathing space.

With the freedom of anonymous sex Adam literally and metaphorically steps off the family stage. He takes his hetero mask off and is able to be free.

These scenes have a conceptual importance, but director Anna Jahjah doesn’t quite make enough of these moments. We are given an Adam who is hiding with his boxer shorts like a scared cat in the dark.

The sex scenes nevertheless provide poetic pause where Adam can be himself. With men sucking his cock, Adam is rescued, but only briefly.

In a playful scene of sexual freedom, Claire dresses Adam in her red engagement dress (the dress she would have worn had she been allowed to get engaged to her ex-girlfriend Kate). The beauty of this scene is in Adam’s flirtatious and camp drag performance, at distinct odds with the anger and defensiveness he displays around his father John (Simon Elrahi).

Read more:
Omar Sakr’s ‘epic, stunningly dirty’ debut novel challenges macho heterosexual myths of Arab-Australian culture

Stories of art

Elazzi demonstrates a nuanced and powerful understanding of Lebanese family life.

Carol (Deborah Galanos), Adam’s mother over salts the meals. She tries to stand up to her husband’s patriarchal rule by taking up tango. Adam fails in his attempt to core koosa (zucchini).

His father is obsessed with him being an engineer (because he thinks engineering makes money and web design doesn’t). The plastic-covered tablecloth is frantically changed when Angela, the guest, arrives unannounced at dinner.

The simple fact that these details are played out on an Australian theatre stage is significant. The woman sitting next to me turned and said: “so amazing and so unusual to hear our stories come to life like this.”

For Lebanese-Australians, there are few stories that play out in the public sphere. They are not the stories of art. The stereotypical narrative of crime, terror, war and abuse continue as dominant narratives.

Read more:
From ‘Leb bread’ to ‘Leb Kelly’, finally we’re seeing more Middle Eastern faces on TV

Despite the rhetoric of inclusivity, artists of Lebanese heritage face personal and political obstacles. Professionally, it is difficult to find a place in Australian radio, theatre and television for stories that aren’t Anglo-Australian or dumbed-down multicultural stereotypes.

On the home front, there are the challenges of persuading family and the Lebanese community that creativity is valuable, not to mention the need to be oneself if that self is queer.

Elazzi must be tough. He is a rare artist in Australian theatre prepared to take risks to write different stories that make us think and more importantly make us laugh.

Son of Byblos is at Belvoir Downstairs until May 21.

Cherine Fahd 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. Son of Byblos brings a nuanced and powerful understanding of Lebanese family life to the Australian stage – https://theconversation.com/son-of-byblos-brings-a-nuanced-and-powerful-understanding-of-lebanese-family-life-to-the-australian-stage-180954

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jess Carniel, Senior Lecturer in Humanities, University of Southern Queensland

The 66th edition of the Eurovision Song Contest was held in Turin, Italy on Saturday night. The extravaganza didn’t disappoint in delivering our annual dose of ballads, bops and politics.

The answer to the question of whether Eurovision is political is always yes, but with various qualifications. After all, can a contest of nations ever be truly apolitical?

Can culture and politics ever be extracted from each other? Isn’t all art political?

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine provides an inevitable backdrop to understanding this year’s Eurovision competition. This context infuses a more specific meaning into the standard platitudes of peace and unity that are often included as part of the show.

Host country Italy’s decision to begin the grand final with a rendition of Lennon’s Give Peace a Chance set the tone for the 2022 contest.

State politics and values politics

Eurovision claims to be apolitical. Its famous politics rule states: “the Eurovision Song Contest shall in no case be politicised and/or instrumentalised and/or otherwise brought into disrepute in any way.” In practice, it focuses mainly on direct expressions of state-based politics.

For example, Belarus was excluded last year for lyrics perceived to be mocking protesters of the Lukashenko government. (They were ultimately ejected entirely from the European Broadcasting Union – Eurovision’s organising body – for suppressing journalists’ freedom of speech.) Georgia withdrew in 2009 when the EBU rejected its entry for being a barely-concealed dig at Putin.

By contrast, performances that express values-based politics – love, peace, tolerance, acceptance, and unity – are the bread-and-butter of the contest. But this has not always been consistently applied.

Read more:
‘Walking through Europe’s door, singing’ – How Eurovision helps define Europe’s boundaries (and why Ukraine will likely win)

In 2017 (in Kyiv, no less), the EBU censured Portuguese artist (and eventual winner) Salvador Sobral for wearing a sweatshirt reading SOS Refugees to his press conferences. Sobral emphasised that it was “not a political message – it is a humanitarian and essentially human message”.

Sympathy and solidarity

There were more overt political statements made throughout the evening. Many voting spokespersons – usually those about to deliver 12 points to Ukraine – wore yellow and blue ribbons or even spoke directly about the conflict. Several performers, such as Iceland’s Systur and Germany’s Malik Harris, stuck Ukrainian flags on their instruments.

The Icelandic delegation are no strangers to flag-based political statements. In 2019, the EBU fined Iceland when artists Hatari held up scarves in support of Palestine during their televote results. The difference between 2019 and 2022 in the accepted interpretation of the rules is that Ukraine is not a “contested territory”. A similar controversy ensued when Armenian artist Iveta Mukuchyan held up a flag for Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory contested with Azerbaijan.

Ukraine’s victory has been framed by many as a sympathy vote, but this doesn’t give a full picture of their success. While political sympathy undoubtedly contributed to their ultimate success over other favourites – the United Kingdom, Sweden and Spain – it is important to acknowledge that the folk-contemporary fusion featured in winning song Stefania has already proven popular with Eurovision audiences in recent years. In 2021, the Ukrainian entry Go_A came fifth with their folk-EDM hit, Shum (and were unplaced but popular in the cancelled 2020 cohort of songs). Ukraine are also considered a strong Eurovision nation – they are the only country with an unblemished record of qualifying for the grand final.

Eurovision is often spoken of as a form of cultural diplomacy and a platform for countries to display and gain soft power. Another term used in popular culture studies, participatory culture, refers to how the public don’t simply consume popular culture but actively participate in its production, creation and meaning-making.

Eurovision and Ukraine’s landslide success in the popular vote demonstrates what we can think of as participatory diplomacy – when an audience actively participates in the cultural platform to shape their own political message in response to what is communicated to them.

A return to language diversity

This year, we saw a return to language diversity, with 11 out of the 25 grand final entries featuring languages other than English. Notably, it was the first time since 2011 that a song in French did not feature. The French entry was sung in Breton, the local dialect of France’s westernmost region, Brittany.

It was also the first time since 1994 that Lithuania entered a song completely in Lithuanian (their 2001 entry featured two Lithuanian verses in an otherwise English-language song). And, of course, the winning entry was in a language other than English for the second year running.

We can hope that this signals an era of greater optimism about the appeal of non-English songs at the contest and the power of song to transcend language barriers.

The future of the contest

Traditionally, the winning country hosts the next Eurovision. The EBU acknowledge that there will be “unique challenges” in hosting the 2023 contest. Currently, it is difficult to predict whether it will be possible to host in Ukraine itself. Should Ukraine be unable to host, it won’t be the first time that another country has stepped in to assist.

The events of this year also highlight that it might be time for the EBU to revisit its politics rule to ensure that it is applied consistently to the various conflicts its member states are involved in.

And those member states might look to Eurovision with a renewed appreciation for its diplomatic value.

Jess Carniel 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. Ukraine’s Eurovision win shows us that despite arguments to the contrary, the contest has always been political – https://theconversation.com/ukraines-eurovision-win-shows-us-that-despite-arguments-to-the-contrary-the-contest-has-always-been-political-182767

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laurie Berg, Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

If the COVID years have taught us anything about migration, it is that Australia depends on it. About 7% of our workforce holds a temporary visa. When many international students, backpackers and other temporary visa holders suddenly left during COVID, the ensuing staff shortages revealed how vital these workers are to the Australian workforce.

Responding to industry demands for workers, a new agriculture visa was created, Labor has promised an extended Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme, and international students were given unlimited work rights.

But the government elected on May 21 will inherit Australia’s dark legacy of entrenched wage theft among migrant workers.

A recent open letter signed by 14 legal service providers, churches and other advocacy organisations across Australia has called on the government to enact three key reforms to address theft of migrant workers’ wages:

1. enable migrant workers to act against exploitative employers by providing effective visa protections to whistle-blowers who report exploitation to the Fair Work Ombudsman or make claims through the courts.

2. implement an efficient, accessible, and inexpensive claims process for workers to promptly recover their wages and entitlements; and

3. extend the Fair Entitlements Guarantee to employees on temporary visas (a scheme of last resort that provides unpaid employee entitlements when an employer becomes insolvent).

Read more:
Closing the loophole: a minimum wage for Australia’s farm workers is long overdue

Theft of migrant workers’ wages is rampant

Our surveys of over 8,000 international students between 2016 and 2019 consistently found the majority were underpaid.

One in four earned less than half the minimum casual hourly wage. Nine in ten suffered wage theft in silence and took no action. Nine in ten believed many or most other migrant workers were underpaid.

A March 2022 Senate Committee examining unlawful underpayment of employees described the problem as “systemic, sustained and shameful”.

Allowed to continue

Exploitation flourishes because regulators do not routinely detect or punish labour law noncompliance. Most workers cannot pursue their employer directly because the system is stacked against them at every stage of the wage claim process.

The Employment Rights Legal Service (ERLS), which helps exploited migrant workers in NSW and coordinated the open letter, has said many migrant workers don’t complain because they fear losing their visa or job. For many, their fear is well-founded. One ERLS client, Sofia, told them:

I might quit and try and recover my wages and my power in the future but for now, my visa is my main concern and I just want to leave this stress behind me.

Sofia had submitted to her employer’s unlawful demands to repay part of her wages, and unwittingly committed a migration offence. This could result in cancellation of her visa if brought to the immigration department’s attention.

Another international student client, a cleaner, put it:

My visa is my main concern: 100%. I’m not going to risk my visa to chase my wages if there is only a chance or a hope that the government will protect me.

The Fair Work Ombudsman has an agreement with the immigration department that workers reporting exploitation likely will not lose their visa.

But the labour regulator still shares information about workers’ visa breaches with immigration and migrant workers are not assured of protection.

Few advances have been made since our 2019 report, but international students and backpackers are now returning in increasing numbers.

Thousands of foreign workers will also be brought in from the Pacific and Southest Asia to pick fruit and work in abattoirs across the country.

It is now clear previous lacklustre approaches to addressing wage theft – such as increasing funding for the Fair Work Ombudsman – have not worked.

Many businesses remain unconvinced exploitative treatment will be meaningfully penalised.

Seizing the moment

The next government needs to make a choice.

Its first option is to seize the moment while there are still relatively low numbers of migrant workers in Australia to fix the parts of the system that enable wage theft to flourish.

Meaningful reform would help repair the damage caused by Australia’s treatment of migrant workers during COVID by clearly signalling that migrant workers are valued members of the Australian community and workforce.

The second option is to continue tinkering around the edges of the problem, and consciously bring hundreds of thousands of young migrants into exploitative underpaid jobs they will likely endure in silence.

If the government opts to implement meaningful reform, it must accept that wage theft among migrant workers is systemic and not the exceptional misconduct of a few bad apple employers.

Businesses that do the right thing are forced to compete with the countless others that comfortably adopt wage theft as a business model, knowing they will evade detection or enjoy impunity.

The government must confront the reality that migrant workers cannot safely report exploitation, and enforcement mechanisms are inadequate.

Curbing forced labour and modern slavery

In 2019, a whole-of-government migrant worker taskforce made 22 detailed recommendations.

The government announced its support for all the recommendations, but has implemented almost none.

Since then, many parliamentary inquiries have echoed these recommendations and made others. These recommendations, too, have been largely ignored.

It is time for an Australian government to set its sights higher and adopt an evidence-based and systemic approach to tackling migrant exploitation, learning from approaches that are working in other countries.

If Australia is genuinely committed to ensuring labour compliance and curbing forced labour and modern slavery, it cannot afford to miss this opportunity.

Read more:
All these celebrity restaurant wage-theft scandals point to an industry norm

Laurie Berg has previously received funding from StudyNSW, Department of Treasury, NSW State government for research on international students. She is Co-Executive Director of Migrant Justice Institute, which undertakes strategic research and legal action to achieve fair treatment, enforcement of rights and access to justice for migrant workers. 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.

Bassina Farbenblum has previously received funding from StudyNSW, Department of Treasury, NSW State government for research on international students. She is Co-Executive Director of Migrant Justice Institute, which undertakes strategic research and legal action to achieve fair treatment, enforcement of rights and access to justice for migrant workers.

– ref. Australia is bringing migrant workers back – but exploitation is still rampant. Here are 3 changes needed now – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-bringing-migrant-workers-back-but-exploitation-is-still-rampant-here-are-3-changes-needed-now-182761

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janine Mohamed, Distinguished Fellow and CEO, The Lowitja Institute

The Close the Gap 2022 report calls on governments to make “large-scale systemic reforms to truly empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.” This is a call to recognise and support self-determination and leadership.

It is no accident that the very first recommendation of the Close the Gap Campaign Report 2022 is for the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and particularly for a Voice to Parliament.

The Uluru Statement is described as a “gift to all Australians” by one of its architects, Pat Anderson, the long-term chair of the Lowitja Institute.

The Uluru Statement is foundational for change in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and well-being. Therefore, it must be core to the promises made by all parties in the lead-up to the federal election and beyond. Yet it has been sidelined by the Coalition government so far, and is at risk of being abandoned at the coming federal election.

Read more:
Victoria’s prison health care system should match community health care

Transforming power

At this federal election, change that tinkers at the edges is not good enough.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need the system – the health and education systems in particular but, also the Australian political system – to listen and respond to Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. To be free of racism. To hear our Voice.

The full implementation of the Uluru Statement, and its call for Voice, Treaty and Truth would be a huge step forward. This would be an opportunity to address the health inequity between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians.

Recognition of the distinct identities and cultures of Indigenous Australia is vitally important for the health and well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. For our peoples, culture is key to understanding our health and well-being, shaping the connection between self to Country, kin, community and spirituality. Moreover, it is important for the collective pride of all Australians.

A Voice to Parliament would provide the basis for a better social contract – where both Aboriginal and non-Indigenous people know where they stand. This is an opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to work together on equal ground to find solutions to problems affecting both Aboriginal and non-Indigenous people.

The Voice to Parliament could help ensure calls from community to address issues such as climate change, the COVID pandemic, escalating mental health issues, deepening chronic health conditions, and other crises are heard and acted on by government.

As we await the full implementation of the Uluru Statement, Lowitja Institute is calling on the next federal government to invest in robust, equitable, transparent, and culturally safe health systems that meet the needs of our peoples.

We have identified five key priorities the federal government needs to address:

1. Embed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research leadership

Governments need to invest in:

• research into the impacts of systemic racism in health systems led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and researchers

• a long-term National Anti-Racism Framework, including monitoring and reporting on experiences of racism and the impacts of systemic racism in health systems

• a feasibility study for a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research Ethics Committee to embed ethical frameworks that are based in our own cultural laws and lore.

2. Implement the social and cultural determinants of health

We are calling on governments to support strengths-based approaches to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy by:

• investing in initiatives that strengthen cultural authority, including traditional community governance and nation building, such as Aboriginal community controlled health organisations

• investing in cultural safety and cultural determinants training for the healthcare workforce to address and eliminate racism.

3. Invest in data governance and infrastructure

In line with the government’s commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, we are calling on governments to invest in:

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led data at the local level that is owned and accessed by our peoples, with the principles of data governance and sovereignty that respects our right to data ownership, management, collection, dissemination and analysis

• national digital infrastructure, such as an Indigenous Well-being Index, to measure the socioeconomic well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Not unlike Canada’s Community Wellbeing Index, this would streamline access to Indigenous health data and analysis for research and policy sectors, and most importantly for our own communities to make informed decisions for our future.

Read more:
How can Aboriginal communities be part of the NSW renewable energy transition?

4. Commitment to workforce development

We are also calling on governments to:

• invest in infrastructure to develop both the expertise and workforce of Indigenous health researchers, including through additional research projects and scholarships, and

• increase support and investment in workforce development to support the growth of the Aboriginal community controlled organisations and community-led health services.

5. Action to address climate change

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a huge stake in the climate crisis.

Read more:
Indigenous peoples across the globe are uniquely equipped to deal with the climate crisis – so why are we being left out of these conversations?

Not only because it is already disproportionately affecting the health and well-being of our peoples, but also because our knowledges and cultural practices hold solutions to the climate crisis. We are intimately connected to Country. Our local knowledges are precious, and we must be part of the conversation when it comes to climate adaptation and mitigation planning.

A Voice to Parliament can provide an avenue for this wisdom to be formally recognised.

It’s time to step up

The Uluru Statement from the Heart provides the blueprint for the political transformation this nation requires. The federal government must embrace, respect and respond to its calls for self-determination, and walking together. This is a vital step to close the gap in health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

We must work together if we are to transform our political systems. We need non-Indigenous people to walk behind and with us on this journey, to know when to stand up and when to step back. Now is the time to step up and call for change.

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. The Uluru Statement must be core to promises made by all parties in the lead-up to the federal election – https://theconversation.com/the-uluru-statement-must-be-core-to-promises-made-by-all-parties-in-the-lead-up-to-the-federal-election-182296

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Bateson, Clinical Associate Professor, Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, University of Sydney

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are small T-shaped plastic devices containing either copper or a low dose of progestogen hormone. Lasting five to ten years, they provide highly effective contraception and are chosen by increasing numbers of users of all ages from adolescence to perimenopause.

The main device sold in Australia is the Mirena Hormonal IUD, which is also used to manage heavy periods and can be part of hormonal menopause therapy. While insertion is usually well tolerated, it can also cause discomfort and pain, or severe pain for a small number of women. So it’s important to know what to expect during and after the procedure, and what pain relief options are available.

Read more:
Don’t want to take a contraceptive pill every day? These are the long-acting alternatives

What happens during an IUD insertion procedure?

The procedure lasts about ten minutes. Once positioned on the clinic bed, the doctor (either a GP or gynaecologist) or nurse performs what’s called a bimanual examination by inserting gloved fingers into the vagina while the other hand is on the lower abdomen to check the size, position and shape of the uterus.

An instrument called a speculum is then inserted into the vagina to allow the cervix to be seen. This is usually not uncomfortable or painful, though some conditions may make it more difficult, including vaginismus (an involuntary tightening of the pelvic muscles during vaginal penetration) and vaginal dryness. These can usually be treated before insertion to reduce discomfort.

The speculum is generally in place for around two to five minutes. To ease the insertion, most practitioners place an instrument called a tenaculum on the cervix to steady the uterus and straighten the cervix. This can sometimes cause a quite sharp pain, which usually settles in a few seconds.

A small fine instrument called a sound is passed through the cervix to measure the length of the uterus, and the IUD is then placed at the top of the uterus. This part of the procedure can cause cramping pain and make some people feel a bit lightheaded.

Lastly, the threads attached to the bottom of the IUD are shortened, so they gently wind around the cervix. The speculum is removed and the IUD insertion is complete.

Why do some people experience more pain than others?

Despite many online reports of severe pain from insertion, a study (with partial funding from the manufacturers) which surveyed more than 1,800 women from 11 European countries having a hormonal IUD inserted found the majority experienced mild or moderate pain. Severe pain was experienced by 15.5% of those who had never given birth, 4.5% of those who had caesarean sections and 1.9% of those who had vaginal deliveries.

Overall, the pain during insertion of a Mirena IUD in 413 women in Brazil, of whom one-third had never given birth, was rated at around 4.4 to 6.6 out of ten, where ten is the worst pain possible. Apart from having given birth, other predictors of experiencing greater levels of pain include having painful periods and fear of pain, although people without risk factors may nevertheless experience pain and people with risk factors may remain free of pain.

Read more:
For women, even a small co-pay for contraception can be a big deal

There is also some evidence the newer hormonal IUD (brand name “Kyleena”), which is slightly smaller than the Mirena IUD, is easier to insert and causes less pain. A recent community study of Kyleena insertion showed that around two-thirds of those who had never given birth experienced no or mild pain while around 8% experienced severe pain.

What pain relief options are available?

Evidence-based recommendations for reducing insertion pain are limited but more research is underway. Most practitioners recommend taking an anti-inflammatory medication an hour before insertion. Stronger pain relief may be considered for those with particularly painful periods, a history of endometriosis or severe worries about the procedure.

An anti-nausea tablet can be helpful if there is vomiting with menstruation. Application of a local anaesthetic spray or cream to the cervix can decrease insertion pain, although this will add to the cost and time of the procedure and may not be offered by all practitioners.

Read more:
Why women aren’t getting long-acting contraception when they need it most

The “green whistle” Penthrox inhaler, an anaesthetic drug used in ambulances for trauma-related pain, is also being trialled.

Less commonly, some people choose to have their IUD inserted under twilight sedation which means staying in a day surgery or hospital for around four hours. While some family planning services offer sedation at low cost, it is not universally available due to long public hospital waiting lists or costly private clinic fees.

Being aware of this option and its pros and cons is important to help informed decision-making. Sedation risks, extra time off work and costs need to be balanced against the evidence that most people tolerate the procedure without sedation, experiencing mild or moderate pain. As local anaesthesia has proven benefits for IUD insertion-related pain relief, finding a practitioner who routinely offers this option can be important.

What to expect after the procedure

After insertion, people are asked to stay at the clinic for around 20 minutes and while most will be able to get home themselves, it’s better to arrange to be picked up or to catch a taxi in case there is pain that is not settling. Once home, hot packs and over-the-counter analgesics such as naproxen, ibuprofen or paracetamol can be helpful, and taking it easy for a day or two is usually advised.

Although intermittent cramps can last for a few months as the IUD “settles in”, our own clinical experience has shown this is particularly around menstruation.

But if pain is getting worse, is not helped by simple analgesics, or accompanied by a smelly or profuse vaginal discharge or fever, it is essential to seek medical advice.

An ultrasound would be organised and if the IUD is shown to be in the correct position, and there is no evidence of an infection, it would become a personal choice whether or not, or for how long, to persist. Around 11.5% of Mirena users and 17.5% of copper IUD users who have the IUD removed early cited pain) as part of their decision for premature IUD removal.

Knowledge is power

Seeking out credible information about the IUD insertion process from family planning websites, and talking to your doctor or nurse about what to expect during the procedure, including the available pain relief options, is essential. This can help overcome the anxiety that may come about from relying solely on online scare stories.

Deborah Bateson has attended advisory committees for Bayer and provided professional training for clinicians which have been sponsored by Bayer as part of her role as Medical Director of Family Planning NSW. She has never received any personal remuneration for these activities.

Kathleen McNamee’s employer, Sexual Health Victoria, has receives funding from Bayer Australia and New Zealand to train and support doctors and nurse in IUD insertion. She has not received any personal remuneration for these activities.

– ref. Considering an IUD but worried about pain during insertion? Here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/considering-an-iud-but-worried-about-pain-during-insertion-heres-what-to-expect-179831

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate C. Prickett, Director of the Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families and Children, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Urgent and bold – transformative even – budget decisions are needed if we are to get serious about the cost of living crisis and what it means for families and children living in or on the edge of poverty.

Our supposedly resilient economy, with its low unemployment, has clearly missed the memo on high inflation, housing costs and plummeting real wages.

Goods that all people typically need – such as food, housing and petrol – have seen New Zealanders spending an extra NZ$4,000 to $5,000 a year on the basics. In short, people are feeling the pinch.

And while it has been higher spending households that have experienced the largest increase in the cost of living (6.9% in the past year), lower spending households and beneficiaries – families least able to fund the rising costs – were not far behind (6.0%).

Failing to keep up

Understandably, then, the cost of living crisis has been dominating media headlines and political talking points. And while much of it appears aimed at the middle class, the crisis is surely having an impact on those with the least resources.

Indeed, although we do not have child poverty figures for the past year, there was an indication this crisis and the pandemic years have started to take their toll: declines in child poverty have slowed in the past year on multiple indicators.

In fact, one of the primary poverty measures we examine has risen: the proportion of children living in households with less than 50% of the median disposable household income (before housing costs are considered). This highlights again the disproportionate burden of the housing crisis on low-income families.

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

Even recent increases in welfare payments have not been enough to stem these trends. Recent modelling suggests a majority of families receiving benefits will still not meet their household costs.

Furthermore, benefits have just switched from being pegged to inflation to being indexed to wage growth. Wage growth typically outpaces inflation, but not this year. What was meant to be (and should be in future) a good thing for family budgets is having an unintended negative effect.

Modest poverty targets

Of course, it’s not all about the pandemic or the economy. The government has the tools to change the child poverty calculus. Indeed, the 2017 Labour-led government came to power on a bipartisan mandate to reduce, if not eliminate, child poverty.

The landmark Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018 brought in shortly after Labour came to power, supported almost unanimously across political party lines, mandated the government set both intermediate (three year) and long-term (ten year) child poverty targets.

One telling sign of the government’s appetite for eliminating child poverty with this week’s budget can be seen in its second intermediate poverty target (covering the 2021-2024 period). Released in June last year, it was set amid uncertainty about the extent of the economic impact of the pandemic, and in the middle of a housing affordability crisis.

In fact, the policy brief recommending the new targets acknowledged the pandemic might unravel some of that earlier progress.

Read more:
Even if next week’s budget avoids the issue, it’s time New Zealand seriously considered a wealth tax

Even with this uncertainty, however, the new targets Labour set rested on an assumption of a consistent and modest downward trend towards the long-term poverty target.

This suggests we’ll see a correspondingly modest approach to poverty reduction in the budget, in line with the past three years, which child poverty experts have decried as being not enough.

That uncertainty, coupled with high inflation and slipping real wages (fuelled by stressed supply chains and the war in Ukraine), means those families doing it tough now will likely keep doing it tough.

Bold policy moves needed

Big and brave policy moves are needed – and fast. Policies that redistribute support to those who need it most during these uncertain times are not unprecedented.

The US — the perennial social policy punching bag — set an example of what a sweeping attempt to alleviate poverty might look like during this pandemic with a series of stimulus payments and child tax credits in 2021. The child poverty rate halved from 10.5% in 2019 to 4.9% in 2021.

Read more:
The pandemic’s disproportionate impact on women is derailing decades of progress on gender equality

The US example, however, also sent a warning: when those tax credits expired in January 2022, the child poverty rate jumped back up to 12.1%.

Working For Families (WFF) tax credits are one existing avenue for delivering income support for families. But a comprehensive review of the programme now under way will be too late to significantly influence this budget.

Watch those projected trends

Furthermore, the limited scope of that review, and already proposed changes to WFF, suggest a modest redistribution of tax credits from higher earning families to the lowest. And this will be mostly for families already in work rather than those without employed adults.

Various options for investing more in WFF, and redistributing tax credits more progressively, were presented to key ministers ahead of this year’s budget. The most generous option showed changes to WFF would lift 17,000 children out of poverty – a mere 1% drop on the poverty rate (before housing costs) from 2020-21.

It’s not to say this change to WFF wouldn’t help families — it would. But it falls short of what’s needed to meet the modest child poverty targets that were set, even before the full impact of the current economic climate is reflected in current and future poverty rates.

When the budget is released on Thursday, keep an eye on the child poverty projections. Anything short of a serious correction of current trends will signal the need for big, bold and urgent policy change in next year’s budget.

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

– ref. The cost of living crisis means bolder budget decisions are needed to lift more NZ children out of poverty – https://theconversation.com/the-cost-of-living-crisis-means-bolder-budget-decisions-are-needed-to-lift-more-nz-children-out-of-poverty-181466

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Dello-Iacovo, Casual academic, UNSW Sydney

Like Earth, planetary bodies such as the Moon, Mars, asteroids and comets contain substantial deposits of valuable resources. This has caught the attention of both researchers and industry, with hopes of one day mining them to support a space economy.

But setting up any kind of off-Earth mining industry will be no small feat. Let’s look at what we’re up against.

In-situ resource utilisation

When you think of off-Earth mining, you might imagine extracting materials from various bodies in space and bringing them back to Earth. But this is unlikely to be the first commercially viable example.

If we wanted to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon, as NASA has proposed, we would need to resupply astronauts living there. Resources such as water can only be recycled to an extent.

At the same time, resources are extremely expensive to launch from Earth. As of 2018, it cost about A$3,645 to launch one kilogram of material into low Earth orbit, and more to launch it higher, or onto the Moon. It’s likely materials mined in space will be used in space, to help save on these costs.

Harvesting materials required on-site is called “in-situ resource utilisation”. It can involve anything from mining ice, to collecting soil to build structures. NASA is currently exploring the possibility of constructing buildings on the Moon with 3D printing.

Mining in space could also transform satellite management. Current practice is to de-orbit satellites after 10–20 years when they run out of fuel. One lofty goal of space companies such as Orbit Fab is to design a type of satellite that can be refuelled using propellant collected in space.

Even for low-Earth orbit satellites, the energy required to reach them from the Moon is less than that needed to reach them from Earth.

Read more:
Thousands of satellites are polluting Australian skies, and threatening ancient Indigenous astronomy practices

What resources are out there?

When it comes to off-Earth mining opportunities, there are a few resources that are both abundant and valuable. Some asteroids contain vast amounts of iron, nickel, gold and platinum group metals, which can be used for construction and electronics.

Lunar regolith (rock and soil) contains helium-3, which may become a valuable resource in the future if nuclear fusion becomes viable and widespread. British company Metalysis has developed a process which could extract oxygen from lunar regolith.

Ice is expected to exist on the Moon’s surface, at permanently shadowed craters near its poles. We also think there’s ice beneath the surface of Mars, asteroids and comets. This could be used to support life, or be broken down into oxygen and hydrogen and used as propellant.

Read more:
The Moon’s top layer alone has enough oxygen to sustain 8 billion people for 100,000 years

How would we mine in space?

My (Michael’s) PhD thesis involved testing how exploration techniques would operate on the Moon and Mars. Our other work has included economic modelling for ice mining on Mars, and computer modelling on the stability of tunnels on the Moon.

Some proposals for off-Earth mining are similar to mining on Earth. For instance, we could mine lunar regolith with a bucket-wheel excavator, or mine an asteroid using a tunnel boring machine.

Other proposals are more unfamiliar – such as using a vacuum-like machine to pull regolith up a tube (which has seen limited use in excavation on Earth).

Researchers from the University of New South Wales Sydney and the Australian National University propose using biomining. In this, bacteria introduced to an asteroid would consume certain minerals and produces a gas, which could then be harvested and collected by a probe.

Huge challenges persist

Our work at UNSW’s Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research involves finding ways to reduce risks in a space resources industry. Needless to say, there are many technical and economical challenges.

The same launch costs that have so many eager to begin off-Earth mining also mean getting mining equipment to space is expensive. Mining operations will have to be as light as possible to be cost-effective (or even feasible).

Moreover, the further something is from Earth, the longer it takes to reach. There is delay of up to 40 minutes when sending a command to a Mars rover and finding out whether it was successful.

The Moon only has a 2.7 second delay for communications, and may be easier to mine remotely. Near-Earth objects also have orbits similar to Earth, and occasionally pass by Earth at distances comparable to the Moon. They’re an ideal candidate to mine as they require little energy to reach and return from.

Off-Earth mining would need to be mostly automated, or remotely controlled, given the additional challenges of sending humans to space – such as needing life support, avoiding radiation, and extra launch costs.

However, even mining systems on Earth aren’t fully automated yet. Robotics will need to improve before asteroids can be mined.

While spacecraft have landed on asteroids several times and even retrieved samples – which were returned to Woomera in South Australia, during the Hayabusa 1 and 2 missions – our overall success rate for landing on asteroids and comets is low.

In 2014, the Philae lander sent to comet 67P/Churyumov/Gerasimenko famously tumbled into a ditch during a failed landing attempt.

There are also environmental considerations. Mining in space may help reduce the amount of mining needed on Earth. But that’s if off-Earth mining results in fewer, and not more, rocket launches, or if the resources are returned to and used on Earth.

Although collecting resources in space might mean not having to launch them from Earth, more launches may inevitably take place as the space economy grows.

Then there’s the question of whether proposed mining techniques will even work in space environments. Different planetary bodies have different atmospheres (or none), gravity, geology, and electrostatic environments (for example, they may have electrically charged soil due to particles from the Sun).

How these conditions will affect off-Earth operations is still largely unknown.

But work is underway

While it’s still early days, a number of companies are currently developing technologies for off-Earth mining, space resource exploration, and for other uses in space.

The Canadian Space Mining Corporation is developing infrastructure required to support life in space, including oxygen generators and other machinery.

US-based company OffWorld is developing industrial robots for operations on Earth, the Moon, asteroids and Mars. And the Asteroid Mining Corporation is also working to establish a market for space resources.

Michael Dello-Iacovo is affiliated with the Animal Justice Party and Sentience Institute.

Serkan Saydam receives funding from ARC, ACARP, CRC-P, ESA, Australia – Korea Foundation. He is affiliated with UNSW Sydney (Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research) and School of Minerals and Energy Resources Engineering, International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) Commission on Planetary Rock Mechanics, Society of Mining Professors, and the Fellow member of the AusIMM, member of AaEe, Engineers Australia, Australian Geomechanics Society, and AIAA.

– ref. Humans have big plans for mining in space – but there are many things holding us back – https://theconversation.com/humans-have-big-plans-for-mining-in-space-but-there-are-many-things-holding-us-back-181721

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Strangio, Professor of Politics, Monash University

Today we are running two longer articles looking at the men who are vying to be the next Australian prime minister. You can read Michelle Grattan’s profile of Scott Morrison here.

Karen Middleton’s 2016 biography of Anthony Albanese concludes with a speech he made that year, on the 20th anniversary of his election to parliament.

“I’m patient”, he told his clapping audience, “I’m patient — I’m a Souths fan”. The South Sydney Rabbitohs are the Rugby League club Albanese supports, which for the greater part of his adult life was notorious for its competitive under-performance.

The audience realised, of course, that in proclaiming his long-suffering dedication, Albanese was really alluding to his political vocation and his other underachieving “tribe” — the Labor Party.

Albanese’s journey in Labor politics has indeed been long and arduous. He was still a boy when he began accompanying his mother and grandparents to local branch meetings of the Labor Party; he remembers handing out for Gough Whitlam in 1972 when only nine. He formally joined the ALP as a teenager. Up to his ears in student Labor politics as an undergraduate, upon leaving Sydney University he went to work for the elder statesman of the New South Wales left faction, Tom Uren. By his mid-20s he was assistant secretary of New South Wales Labor, and won the seat of Grayndler for the ALP in 1996 on his 33rd birthday.

Even his path to leadership has been unusually slow. One has to go back to the middle of last century for an opposition leader who was older (56) and who had served for longer in the parliament (23 years) when first elected to that position.

His wait for the chance to become prime minister has been of far longer duration than most of Australia’s recent national leaders. Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison averaged only around a decade between entering parliament and attaining office. For Albanese, it will be a quarter of a century if Labor wins Saturday’s election.

To continue the slow burn theme, if Albanese is to be believed, his ambition for leadership formed late. Those who reach leadership positions are typically consumed with an aspiration for the top job from early in their parliamentary careers — if not before. They are fuelled by a sense of their own prime-ministerial destiny.

Albanese is different. On his telling, it was only in 2013, on the defeat of Rudd’s second government, that he first entertained thoughts of becoming leader. Until then he had contented himself with the role of “counsellor and kingmaker”.

And still he had to wait. Despite winning a comfortable majority of the rank-and-file vote, he narrowly lost the leadership to Bill Shorten in 2013 because several of his left faction Caucus colleagues defected to support Shorten. Albanese then had to stay his hand in 2016 when Shorten’s better-than-expected performance at that year’s election insulated him from a leadership contest. When Shorten seemed poised for victory in 2019, Albanese must have figured his chance to be party leader had passed. But then came “Morrison’s miracle” and Albanese emerged as the only candidate to succeed Shorten within a demoralised Labor caucus.

Read more:
The story of ‘us’: there’s a great tale Labor could tell about how it would govern – it just needs to start telling it

Playing the long game has also been the hallmark of Albanese’s leadership over the past three years. Beginning with “listening tours” of the regions where Labor badly faltered in 2019 — most notably in Queensland — it has been painstaking and unglamorous graft.

As journalist Katharine Murphy has observed, to his detractors his approach has been akin to a campaign of “attrition”. Those critics have harped on the theme of his leadership being a small target and his program prosaic. This is not how Labor wins office, they have insisted. Drawing on a sample size of three — the number of times Labor has claimed government from opposition since the end of the second world war under the leaderships of Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Rudd — the critics have argued the template for Labor success is a bold, transformative reform program and a charismatic, popular leader. Under Albanese, they complain, Labor has neither.

One can quibble at the edges of the critics’ reading of history. Though Whitlam unquestionably heralded an expansive reform program in 1972, the Labor Party was sufficiently concerned about his image that it launched an unprecedented advertising blitz to humanise him in the eyes of the public.

When Hawke won in 1983, Labor’s program for government was all but subsumed by the leader’s messianic appeal as encapsulated in the slogan, “Bob Hawke Bringing Australia Together”.

Rudd’s victory in 2007 was on the back of a campaign in which Labor selectively staked out policy differences with the Coalition. The nerdy Rudd painted himself as more of a fiscal conservative than John Howard, and was reassuringly perceived as a kind of youthful version of the prime minister. In short, the idea of Labor relying on larger-than-life platforms and leaders to win government is exaggerated.

This is not to deny that under Albanese, Labor is running on a considerably less daring agenda than it did in 2019. Indeed, it is an irony — or confirmation that ideological tags count for nothing in the contemporary Labor Party — that the right faction’s Shorten campaigned on an aggressively redistributive program spiced by “class war” rhetoric about the “big end of town”. In contrast, the left faction’s Albanese has abandoned those redistributive measures and has been emollient in his language towards business.

The plan to curb franking credits was first to go under Albanese, followed by the dumping of plans for changes to negative gearing, capital gains and, most recently, family trusts. As well, Labor has announced that in government it will not repeal the third tranche of the Coalition’s tax cuts that benefit high income earners. Simultaneously, Albanese has portrayed himself as a friend of aspiration. He believes, he says, in an Australia “where nobody is held back and nobody is left behind”.

To be fair to Albanese, it makes sense Labor changed tack from 2019. The party’s review of that defeat blamed it on “a cluttered policy agenda that looked risky and an unpopular leader”. In a speech to the National Press Club on the release of that review, Albanese indicated he had got the message: “too many people were confused or even frightened by our policies”. Elsewhere, he has pointedly noted none of Labor’s past successful opposition leaders campaigned on increases in taxes.

If there is a playbook to Albanese walking away from the Shorten program, then it is from the other side of politics. In 1996, heeding the lesson of John Hewson losing the unlosable election three years earlier on a radical neoliberal manifesto headlined by a new tax (the GST), John Howard renounced the GST as well as other contentious policies from Hewson’s Fightback! program. Howard determinedly narrowed the points of difference with Prime Minister Paul Keating, driving the latter to distraction.

Albanese has been unabashed about his strategy of not rejoining the battles of 2019, declaring he has no intention to “relitigate the past”. To those who cavil that Labor has abandoned its ideals by dropping the redistributive policies he has been equally blunt: “One of my Labor principles is for Labor to win elections”. Paul is there a link for this pls? This might not be as caustic as Whitlam’s famed put-down of the Labor hard left: “Only the impotent are pure”, but the point is fundamentally the same. To change the nation, Labor first has to win at the ballot box.

The abandonment of the Shorten-era revenue measures has curtailed Labor’s scope for campaign initiatives. According to the Coalition, Albanese is like a thief in the night, trying to steal his way into office on a meagre policy program. This is largely unfair. Beginning at a leisurely pace, Albanese gradually accelerated the roll out of policies.

Labor entered the campaign proposing, among other things, major investments in aged care, childcare and social housing, manufacturing renewal, greater support for TAFE and universities, an upgrade of the electricity grid, a national anti-corruption commission and implementation of the Uluru Statement. During the campaign, this program has been buttressed by further promises in areas like health, housing and pay equity for women workers.

Another conclusion of Labor’s review of its 2019 election campaign was that there was an absence of a clear narrative binding together the party’s policies. Albanese too has struggled in that space. In the second half of 2021, he seemed to be feeling his way there by talking about the reconstructive role of government following the crisis of the pandemic. This was potentially redolent of a great Labor reformist era (post-war reconstruction) and a sharp contrast to Morrison’s “can-do capitalism” mantra. Yet his prosecution of the case for the transformative power of government has remained inchoate.

Albanese’s predilection, as exposed on the hustings, for wandering into verbal marshes has not helped either in providing coherence of theme. But the lack of a compelling story line also goes back to the abiding caution of his approach.

The party’s policy on a 2030 carbon emissions reduction target is an illustration. This is another area where Labor kept its powder dry, delaying the release of its target until after the Glasgow Climate Change Conference. When Albanese finally announced a reduction target of 43%, it was almost as if the policy dare not speak its name. He declared it “a modest policy. We do not pretend it is a radical policy”. Hardly the inspirational stuff of “the great moral challenge of our time”.

Read more:
Labor’s 2030 climate target betters the Morrison government, but Australia must go much further, much faster

Making amends for the disappointment of 2019 brings us squarely to the subject of leadership. If Shorten was a millstone on Labor’s vote, a perusal of opinion poll leadership ratings indicates Albanese, though not popular, has not been subject to anything like the antipathy that dogged his predecessor.

In the first half of this year, his leadership ratings edged into positive territory and, unusually for an opposition leader, he was nipping at the heels of the incumbent on the question of preferred prime minister. This was a good place to be.

Probably the most consistent take-out from the leadership polling over the past three years, however, is that Albanese has not made a major impression on the public. The relatively high number of respondents who have nominated “don’t know” when asked to rate his performance has been an indicator of this. The pandemic is one reason Albanese remained indistinct in the electorate’s mind. For stretches of the past parliamentary term, and particularly during 2020, he struggled for oxygen.

Yet undoubtedly the tepid response towards Albanese is also a function of the fact he has bent over backwards to be a non-threatening rather than arresting figure. For someone once styled as a warrior of the left, there has been nothing remotely incendiary from him.

That Albanese has journeyed a long way from his pugilistic younger days is a sign of maturity. But the charisma he displayed as a firebrand student politician has also leached away. He presents as a slightly rough-hewn, inoffensive type, workmanlike rather than exceptional. One senses he is more visceral than cerebral, with reserves of emotional intelligence. Colleagues testify that authenticity and decency are his defining attributes: a shorthand way of saying he is the antithesis of Morrison.

Altogether, Albanese’s is an unusually modest persona for an aspiring prime minister, which goes with his insistence he never had a sense of entitlement to leadership. At the same time, there is a core of resilience and self-belief. His inner strength is rooted in his hard scrabble backstory to which he routinely harks back. This is the story of being brought up as the only child of a single mother and invalid pensioner in council housing. His mother’s struggles are the lodestar of his political vocation.

In another way, though, Albanese was blessed as a child. Like past Labor luminaries, Whitlam, Hawke and Keating, he was the recipient of maternal special investment: what he remembers is his mother’s “absolute unconditional love” for him.

While he might not have believed it was his destiny to be prime minister, his mother harboured that ambition for him. Middleton’s biography records that she “believed he could go far — as far as a person can go in the Australian political system”.

What sort of prime minister can we expect Albanese to be if he wins power on Saturday? He has referenced Hawke and, to the gall of Liberals, even invoked Howard as prime ministers he will take a leaf from. The gold standard of modern Labor prime ministers, it is hardly surprising that Albanese looks to Hawke as a role model. He says that, like Hawke, he will govern by consensus, bringing business, unions and civil society together.

The transactional business of forging networks of support is second nature to Albanese: a craft he mastered as a left faction operative in the hostile environment of the right dominated New South Wales Labor Party.

There is evidence of his capacity for wrangling a middle ground. As leader of the House of Representatives during Gillard’s prime ministership, he was integral to the functioning of Labor’s minority government by closely liaising with the crossbenches. Gillard later remarked: “Albo is a very persuasive person. He’s good at talking people into things”.

While Albanese’s leadership style over the past three years has largely escaped analysis, it is notable he has mostly kept Labor united in common purpose. The walking away from the redistributive policies of the Shorten era required extensive consultation to work through the changes within the parliamentary party and beyond.

In the end, the result was achieved with surprisingly little rancour. Albanese’s collaborative abilities are also attested to by the strong leadership team he has assembled around him. In addition to his deputy, Richard Marles, and Labor’s talented shadow treasurer, Jim Chalmers, that leadership group includes Katy Gallagher, Mark Butler, Kristina Keneally, Penny Wong and Tony Burke.

Read more:
Could the 2022 election result in a hung parliament? History shows Australians have nothing to fear from it

Like all Labor leaders since Rudd, Albanese insists he has learnt the lessons of the dysfunction of that period of government. He will observe “proper” processes allowing genuine debate in Cabinet. Albanese’s team approach is a welcome contrast to the Coalition side, with Morrison giving the impression of running the show himself. If elected, Albanese’s ability to orchestrate consensus will hold him in good stead for tackling thorny policy challenges of which there will be many ahead.

Still, questions linger about whether Albanese has the stuff to be a substantial prime minister. Although a gifted transactional politician, does he boast the erudition and imagination to meaningfully shape the nation? He has demonstrated a flinty pragmatism over the past three years, but less certain is whether he has the driving sense of purpose required to achieve hard-fought reform.

And, like the best leaders, has he the ability to modulate his approach? Can he switch to a more dynamic galvanising mode of leadership or will the circumspection that has defined him in opposition shackle him in government? On the other hand, just maybe his unassuming leadership will provide for a dogged but conscientious form of government that suits Australia’s purposes.

With Labor enjoying a substantial lead in the opinion polls, Albanese’s patience looks set to be rewarded on Saturday. If the polls are right, on two-party preferred terms, the ALP is on track to achieve at least as handsome a victory as when the party won office in 1972, 1983 and 2007. Albanese will have defied the critics and bent the template of how the ALP wins government from opposition. Non-heroic in leadership style, he will nonetheless be celebrated as a Labor hero.

But there remain gnawing fears in the Labor camp that a low primary vote, fickle preference flows and a patchy swing might yet deny them majority government. Should a hung parliament result from Saturday’s contest, Albanese’s persuasive capacities will be tested immediately in wooing the crossbenchers. The probability is that in any negotiations he will have a stronger hand than Morrison because of an edge in numbers and the fact he is unencumbered by the same baggage as the prime minister.

It will be a final minor delay in Albanese’s protracted journey to the political summit.

Paul Strangio 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 the polls are right, he may soon be the next Australian prime minister. So who is Anthony Albanese? – https://theconversation.com/if-the-polls-are-right-he-may-soon-be-the-next-australian-prime-minister-so-who-is-anthony-albanese-177617

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

Today we are running two longer articles looking at the men who are vying to be the next Australian prime minister. You can read Paul Strangio’s profile of Anthony Albanese here.

Revealing insights into Scott Morrison’s political character and tactical approach are coming through as the prime minister finds himself on the ropes towards the end of this campaign.

In last Wednesday’s final debate between the two leaders, when they were asked to speak to the other’s strengths, Morrison praised Albanese’s never forgetting where he came from – but then launched, unwisely, into why his opponent was unfit to be prime minister.

When he sensed he’d misjudged with the jibe, he quickly reached for an excuse, suggesting he “must have misunderstood the question”.

On Friday and Saturday, with polling continuing to show Labor in a winning position, he held out the promise of a reshaped Scott.

He said on Friday “Australians know that I can be a bit of a bulldozer” and pledged some change if re-elected. The following day he declared, “I will seek to […] explain my motives and my concerns and empathise a lot more”.

It was a brazen bid, but would it be believed by an electorate deeply sceptical about him? Or would he be seen as the chameleon willing to say anything in the moment?

Morrison’s prime ministership is the story of a leader who has lost, to an extraordinary degree, community trust as well as personal support within his party.

The PM who in 2019 clawed his way to victory, against expectations, to become the hero who delivered the “miracle” win for the government, is now widely seen among many Liberal MPs as a major drag on their vote.

He’s become so disliked in the city seats where moderate Liberals are under siege from “teal” independents that he can’t campaign in those electorates.

In March 2020, Roy Morgan conducted a survey of Australians asking respondents to name, unprompted (with no list), any politicians they trusted and any politicians they distrusted. This research measures not just trust or lack of trust, but also the far more toxic measure of distrust. The March 2020 survey found that only 8% of respondents trusted Morrison while more than twice the percentage of respondents, at 17%, distrusted him. When the survey was repeated in March 2022, Morrison’s unprompted trust had fallen to just 6% of respondents, with the unprompted distrust level increasing to 25% – more than four times the percentage of respondents who trust him.

Morrison was the most distrusted politician in both surveys.

The most common reason for distrust in both years was telling lies, being dishonest or misleading – this reason for distrust increased from 35% of the reasons for distrust in Morrison in March 2020 to 46% in March 2022.

As prime minister, Morrison has been non-ideological, totally focused on winning, ruthless, transactional, controlling. It’s “always tactics” rather than strategy, says a source who’s observed him closely in government.

A Liberal who has dealt extensively with him says: “He’s completely unencumbered by belief and values – which makes him so effective. His beating heart is a focus group.”

Morrison might be “unencumbered by belief” but he’s well endowed with self-belief, bolstered in considerable part by his Pentecostal faith.

In 2021 he recounted, in a video speech to a Christian audience, how when visiting a photographic gallery late in the 2019 campaign he was looking for a sign from the Lord.

“And there right in front of me was the biggest picture of a soaring eagle that I could imagine and of course the verse hit me […]. The message I got that day was, ‘Scott, you’ve got to run, to not grow weary, you’ve got to walk, to not grow faint, you’ve got to spread your wings like an eagle to soar like an eagle.’”

As this campaign draws to its challenging close, Morrison – who says he prays every day – might be again looking for a sign.

On his way to the prime ministership, Morrison positioned himself adroitly in the coups against predecessors Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. His henchmen in his small, tight factional group looked to his advancement. Morrison himself wore gloves, giving him superficial deniability, although the evidence suggested otherwise.

Turnbull, in his autobiography A Bigger Picture, describes a dinner in December 2014 when Morrison felt Abbott “would have to go by the middle of 2015 if his performance didn’t improve. […] He was closely in touch with the key figures at News, he told me, and said they were getting ready to dump Abbott.”

In both coups, there were indications of tactical voting by the Morrison allies to promote change, while Morrison himself could stay “loyal”.

Before the 2019 election, Morrison successfully projected his “ordinary Joe” personal story – Sharks-tragic, curry-cooking dad from The Shire. Sean Kelly writes in The Game: A portrait of Scott Morrison: “When he became prime minister, we did not know much about him. Quickly, he set about helping us to know him […] We were given just a few details; we were given them over and over again.”

The family motif is central in the Morrison story. Wife Jenny is mobilised – literally as his better half, because people like her – when he’s trying to smooth away trouble. His mother Marion was flown interstate to make an appearance at a rally on Mother’s Day.

Morrison is arrogant, and naturally reluctant to admit error, but started to do so, to a limited degree, when tactics required. Asked by Anthony Albanese during the second campaign debate about his infamous “it’s not a race” claim on the vaccine rollout, he said: “It was a race, Anthony, and we shouldn’t have described it in those terms”. While the dominant narrative has been his dodging of personal responsibility, now, when lauding the Coalition’s achievements, he admits that the government, and he, didn’t get everything right.

His dodging responsibility was dramatised during the 2019-20 bushfires, when the Morrison family went on a December holiday to Hawaii. This incident has become totemic in defining him negatively in the public mind.

Not only was the trip’s timing misjudged, but the Prime Minister’s Office shrouded it in in secrecy and lied to the media about it. Trying to justify himself, Morrison delivered the line that would hang around his neck for the rest of the term, “I don’t hold a hose, mate”.

From then on, his critics repeatedly accused him of refusing to accept personal responsibility for mistakes and problems, especially the delays and other failures in the vaccine rollout and the shortage of RATs.

In a symbolic gesture when he became leader, one of Morrison’s first acts was to take his team to Albury, where Robert Menzies and other Liberal party founders had met. Paying homage to Menzies is a ritual for Liberal leaders.

But Morrison is a long way from Menzies in his thinking. A notable example is their views on education. Menzies respected learning and culture, and greatly expanded Australia’s university system. Morrison is dismissive of intellectuals and the humanities, and sees universities in large part as education factories to turn out job-ready workers.

Morrison has accelerated the trend, that began under John Howard and continued under Tony Abbott, of taking the Liberal party away from its earlier middle class base, to pitch to outer suburban male “tradies”.

The rise of the “teal” independents, fighting especially on issues of climate change and integrity, is in part a reaction to this. These candidates, mostly professional middle class women and including two from Liberal “royalty” (Allegra Spender and Kate Chaney), are also a contrast to Morrison’s “blokey” pitch.

Judith Brett, emeritus professor of politics at La Trobe University, says that “under Menzies, the ‘moral middle class’ saw its vote in terms of its perception of the national interest, not simply self interest. The teal independents are all running on national policies – climate change, integrity – not hip pocket issues.”

Morrison has increasingly alienated many female voters. Their antipathy is not just driven by the scandals involving politicians and bad behaviour at parliament house. Women know they are not Morrison’s primary constituency and the polling suggests they respond in kind. In counterpoint, Morrison has been anxious to find and run female candidates.

An analysis last week by the Australian Financial Review of its Ipsos polls found Morrison’s approval, “which was 44% among women at this same time of the 2019 election campaign, now averages just 29% over the past three polls”.

Just as women voters are secondary to male voters in Morrison’s sights, so too inner city Liberal electorates have been relegated as he pitches to the outer suburbs and ethnic voters.

Morrison has appeared willing to cut loose the moderate Liberals in the “leafy” seats. This was notable in his captain’s pick of Katherine Deves as candidate for Warringah (held by independent Zali Steggall) who had posted offensive comments about trans people. Morrison believed her crusade to protect women and girls in sport from trans competitors would resonate in areas with high ethnic populations.

One politically strange aspect of Morrison’s behaviour has been the contempt with which he has treated his home-state NSW Liberal party, of which he was once state director.

His factional ally Alex Hawke frustrated for months the party membership’s aspirations for rank-and-file preselections, because Morrison wanted to install his favoured candidates, in what was seen as some long-term ploy to boost his numbers.

Eventually he got his way: candidates for a clutch of seats were chosen by a committee he headed. But this triggered a party crisis, as well as giving the candidates little time to establish themselves with voters. There’s now deep anger among many NSW party members, making it difficult for the party to muster enough volunteers to help during the campaign, especially in Warringah.

Morrison’s attitude to the NSW party is typical of his wider desire for control. Ministers such as Peter Dutton chafe at the Prime Minister’s Office’s interference, as it attempts to drive the government’s messaging.

Morrison eschews transparency and accountability. The government fought, unsuccessfully, legal proceedings brought by crossbench senator Rex Patrick, as it tried to keep the minutes and other documents of the national cabinet immune from freedom of information requests. It argued (ludicrously) that the national cabinet was a committee of the federal cabinet.

Even after the defeat, Morrison’s department has blocked attempts to get additional material, beyond the documents in the case. Patrick says: “The prime minister’s conduct is an affront to the rule of law. He’s usurped the judgement to satisfy his secrecy addiction.”

Morrison regards the public service as part of the “Canberra bubble”, there to deliver but not to free range with its advice. His choice for head of his department, Phil Gaetjens, who was his chief of staff when Morrison was treasurer, is viewed by the bureaucracy as basically a political operative.

The widespread push for a national integrity commission has run foul of Morrison’s deep animosity towards the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption. He’s been highly critical of its inquiry into Gladys Berejiklian’s conduct, and condemns ICAC as a “kangaroo court”. In turn, he has been on the receiving end when an ICAC commissioner, Stephen Rushton, labelled those who used that term “buffoons”‘. Morrison refuses to compromise on his restrictive model for a federal commission, which has been widely criticised.

The PM is a media manipulator par excellence. He and his office are intimately tied into the Murdoch media, and particular journalists. They use The Australian and the News Corp tabloids to place exclusives and deploy dirt. His communications chief Andrew Carswell was formerly with the Daily Telegraph. Sky haranguer Paul Murray is a personal friend.

The Morrison camp sidelines the ABC to the maximum extent possible, despite its chairwoman, Ita Buttrose, being the PM’s choice. During the campaign Morrison refused to do a debate on the ABC, and mostly avoided its programs, although he has a 7.30 interview on Monday night. It is not just a matter of alleged bias. Being against the ABC is part of the culture wars.

Morrison argues the election isn’t a referendum on the government, but he regularly reprises its record of successfully handling the pandemic, saying some 40,000 deaths were prevented.

Undoubtedly, the government’s early closure of Australia’s international border was a crucial and correct decision that saved many lives.

But on the health side, it was the premiers who were often forward-leaning, whether in pushing hard for the initial shutdown (Victoria’s Daniel Andrews, and NSW’s Berejiklian), shutting schools, or closing their own borders. Morrison was routinely in favour of keeping things as open as possible.

He denounced Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk over her tough border policy. He joined Clive Palmer’s court case against the Western Australian government over its border closure (although the federal government subsequently withdrew, realising how much support premier Mark McGowan had).

The federal government’s economic response to the pandemic was strong; JobKeeper kept many businesses and workers afloat (although design flaws meant a good deal of waste).

Morrison is not shy of playing politics against some on his own side. At various times during the bushfires and the pandemic his office briefed against Berejiklian. During the fires, in a (leaked) text Berejiklian called him “a horrible horrible person” who was more concerned with politics than people.

When the NSW environment minister Matt Kean irritated him over climate change, the PM declared slightingly “most of the federal cabinet wouldn’t even know who Matt Kean was”. Current NSW premier Dominic Perrottet is no fan – Morrison swore at him during a dispute when Perrottet was treasurer. In the campaign, Perrottet has not hesitated to stand up for ICAC.

The attacks on Morrison’s character have been particularly devastating politically, because of where they have come from, the terms in which they’ve been cast, and the fact they are documented.

French President Emmanuel Macron declared unequivocally Morrison lied to him over the submarine project. A Barnaby Joyce text (sent to a third party after the Brittany Higgins rape allegation and before Joyce returned to the Nationals’ leadership) described Morrison as “a hypocrite and a liar”, who “I have never trusted”. Morrison “rearranges the truth to a lie”, Joyce said in the text. Turnbull said: “Scott has always had a reputation for telling lies”.

It’s hard to recall any recent prime minister who has been “nailed” so comprehensively by credible figures on the “character” issue.

Leaving aside pandemic management, the Morrison government goes to this election with a limited record and an even slimmer fourth term agenda.

Under pressure from moderate Liberals and the Biden and Johnson administrations, Morrison forged a deal with the Nationals to embrace the target of net zero emissions by 2050. But the Coalition’s climate policy remains weaker than those of various states, and Australia is still seen internationally as a laggard.

Morrison had a crack at trying to get business-union consensus on some modest industrial relations reform but little came of it when a limited package went to parliament.

In defence and foreign affairs, Morrison negotiated the AUKUS agreement with the United States and Britain, a major achievement that will also (eventually) bring nuclear-powered submarines. But the government’s Pacific “step up” has been less than successful, with a China-Solomon Islands agreement a substantive problem, and a political challenge in the campaign.

Like Labor, Morrison is not putting forward any ambitious plan for the future. His approach to governing is managerial.

He’s running hard on the government’s economic record. He can point to an unemployment rate of 4%, set to go lower, and an economy that’s come out of the worst of the pandemic in much better shape than those of most other countries.

His central election mantra is the risk of change. But the headwinds against him are strong. Any government seeking a fourth term is up against an “it’s time” factor. One with a leader such as Morrison is heavily burdened.

Morrison notes that since Howard “I’m the first prime minister that has been able to stand for election at the last election and then stand for election again”.

Normally, the end of the prime ministerial “rotisserie” would be seen as a good thing. But a few Liberals would reckon they’d be better off if there’d been a chance to put their leader on the spit in the last year.

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. ‘His beating heart is a focus group’: what makes Scott Morrison tick? – https://theconversation.com/his-beating-heart-is-a-focus-group-what-makes-scott-morrison-tick-182940

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Hensher, Henry Baldwin Professorial Research Fellow in Health System Sustainability, University of Tasmania

The rapid development and deployment of COVID vaccines has been one of the greatest achievements of the pandemic.

However, Australia risks relying on COVID vaccines from two main companies – Pfizer and Moderna – and that’s a problem.

While the need for COVID vaccines is not going away anytime soon, we need to shape the market to drive more competition for better access to improved vaccines.

Here’s what Australia needs to do to break free from an effective duopoly dominating the local market, especially when many of us are likely to need boosters.

Read more:
COVID vaccination recommendations evolve over time. Who is due for which dose now?

How did we get here?

When COVID finally broke out at scale in Australia late last year, the vaccines (and high levels of adult vaccination) worked extremely well to reduce deaths and severe illness.

Since January 1 this year, there have been more than 5.9 million confirmed COVID infections nationwide, but about 5,300 deaths.

Yet current vaccines aren’t 100% effective at protecting against infection; new viral variants (and sub-variants) continue to emerge; protection via vaccination and prior infection wanes quite quickly, meaning reinfection is becoming more common and booster shots may remain part of the landscape for some time to come.

Meanwhile, vaccine inequity remains an unresolved problem. This has led to a situation where rich countries, such as Australia, are giving booster shots where some poorer countries don’t even have enough vaccine for first doses.

Read more:
How Australia’s fickleness on COVID vaccines is perpetuating global vaccine inequity

Pfizer and Moderna, but not much else

In a recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia, we outline the need to break free from the handful of powerful players still dominating Australia’s COVID vaccine market.

While the number of approved COVID vaccines is growing around the world, Australia largely still relies on only two, namely vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The AstraZeneca and Novavax vaccines are only rarely used as boosters if no other vaccines are suitable.

More than 95% of Australian adults have received two doses of COVID vaccine already. So future requirements are primarily for boosters and child vaccines. Australia, therefore, continues to face an effective duopoly.

The power of patents

This effective duopoly further reinforces the already considerable power these manufacturers hold via the intellectual property rights to their vaccines.

These vaccine patents are protected by the World Trade Organization under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (or TRIPS). This prevents international competitors from replicating patented technologies.

These patent rights allow companies to earn higher profits (or “economic rents”) than if their technologies were freely available to allow open competition.

The intellectual property dimensions of COVID vaccines have been controversial.

Pfizer and Moderna have continued to make extraordinary profits from COVID vaccines.

Yet Moderna found itself in dispute with the United States government, conceding US government employees had directly developed several technologies key to the Moderna vaccine (not to mention years of publicly-funded basic research).

Moderna has also resisted sharing the formulation of its vaccine to allow key middle-income countries to manufacture it.

Meanwhile, Pfizer has negotiated advantageous and secretive vaccine contracts with governments, shifting liability and risk onto governments and controlling nations’ ability to redistribute stock between themselves.

High-income countries have consistently resisted or watered down calls for a TRIPS waiver, which would have allowed global sharing of manufacturing technologies.

Critics argue the opponents of a TRIPS waiver are largely concerned about avoiding setting any precedents that might allow the profits of Big Pharma to be limited in future.

Read more:
Why a leaked WTO ‘solution’ for a COVID patent waiver is unworkable and won’t make enough difference for developing countries

What should Australia do next?

In Australia, the reality that current COVID vaccines only partially prevent transmission leaves us dependent on this effective duopoly for ongoing boosters. Boosters also remain mandated for people in many occupations.

Australia can escape this captive vaccine market in three steps.

1. Approve more vaccines

Australia needs to expand the supply of new COVID vaccines by actively assisting a wider range of manufacturers to bring their products to the Therapeutic Goods Administration for approval. This would increase competition for boosters and stimulate the development and supply of more effective “sterilising” vaccines (ones that prevent viral transmission).

Meanwhile, Australia must extract maximum value from all existing vaccine contracts, and insist upon full freedom to transfer supplies to our regional neighbours.

2. Push for patent reform

Australia should use its influence to vigorously drive a TRIPS waiver at the World Trade Organization. It should also explore strategic options with a coalition of partners to consider how the current global intellectual property regime could be rapidly reformed or, if necessary, circumvented.

Read more:
3 ways to vaccinate the world and make sure everyone benefits, rich and poor

3. Set up domestic, not-for-profit capability

Australia should institute an economic “mission” to establish publicly-owned, not-for-profit vaccine and essential pharmaceuticals research, development and manufacturing infrastructure and capability in Australia. This would serve domestic and wider regional needs for COVID and beyond.

Sadly, the Australian government’s recent agreement with Moderna for the company to establish mRNA manufacturing here is not such an example. It may risk entrenching existing power. The agreement is also still secret.

Read more:
New facility to be built in Victoria to produce mRNA vaccines

In an increasingly insecure world of growing disruptions – ecological and health crises, fracturing supply chains and heightened military tensions – Australia can provide a safe and resilient vaccine and pharmaceutical manufacturing capability to protect the health of Australians and our neighbours.

However, old models that privilege shareholders, via excess profits and intellectual property protection, will not deliver this new vision.

Sithara Dona, an associate research fellow at Deakin University, co-authored the research mentioned in this article.

Martin Hensher has received an honorarium from Novartis SA (Brazil) for a lecture delivered to the Novartis Access 2021 conference. He is a member of the South Australian Health Performance Council and a board member of Glenview Community Services, Tasmania (a not-for-profit aged care provider).

– ref. Australia risks relying on Pfizer and Moderna for its COVID vaccines. 3 ways to break free – https://theconversation.com/australia-risks-relying-on-pfizer-and-moderna-for-its-covid-vaccines-3-ways-to-break-free-182147

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Crowley, Adjunct Associate Professor, Public and Environmental Policy, University of Tasmania

Labor might be leading in the national polls, but a hung parliament after the May 21 election remains a distinct possibility.

So-called “teal” independents, whose blue conservatism is tinged with green concern for climate change, may well join Greens MP Adam Bandt and current independents on the lower house crossbench. Under that scenario, any minority government would need their support.

With the support of advocacy group Climate 200, the teals are campaigning on issues relevant to their electorates and raising funds locally. But high on their agendas is a strong, science-based response to the climate crisis.

A weekend report by Nine newspapers suggested most independents seeking a lower house seat would not strike a formal power-sharing deal with either the Coalition or Labor. This would leave a major party in minority government negotiating with the crossbench on every piece of legislation it wants to pass.

Almost all the 12 independents who were polled nominated climate change as a key priority they would seek progress on in any negotiations with a minority government.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison claims the election of more independents to parliament would lead to “chaos”. But, as the experience of the Gillard Labor government shows, minority government can break intractable policy logjams.

Climate policy U-turn

The Gillard minority government reversed years of climate policy failure by delivering carbon pricing and other reforms. This came at the behest of the Greens and with the support of independents Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor.

Carbon pricing prompted Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to fall for the first time.

But from 2013, under successive Coalition governments, climate policy hit reverse. Renewable energy targets diminished. Carbon pricing was abandoned and is now considered a political poisoned chalice.

The past decade of majority government has left Australia isolated on the world stage for its lacklustre climate efforts.

Read more:
Polls show a jump in the Greens vote – but its real path to power lies in reconciling with Labor

Major parties forced to the negotiating table?

Heading into the election, neither major party’s climate policy is aligned with the emissions reduction ambition of the global Paris Agreement.

The Coalition’s policy is consistent with 3℃ to 4℃ of global warming by 2050. Importantly, it has failed to ramp up its 2030 emissions target from the paltry figure adopted by the Abbott government – of 26% to 28% on 2005 levels.

Labor has a steeper 2030 emissions reduction target of 43% on 2005 levels. It is based upon reputable modelling but falls somewhat short for being consistent with 2℃, not 1.5℃, of global warming.

Neither major party would relish re-negotiating its climate policy with teal independents and the Greens. But consensus and policy action, on climate and other big issues, is possible under minority government.

As Tony Windsor this month pointed out, the Gillard minority government passed more legislation than any other, aside from John Howard’s in its final term. Former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie also insists minority government can work.

And former Coalition Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull this month hailed the rise of the teal independents, who would sit on the cross bench, calling it “direct, democratic action from voters. People power, you might say.”

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

What the teals and Greens are offering

Climate change is a front-and-centre concern for the Greens and teal candidates, and any minority government would need to negotiate with them to form government and to manage their agendas.

Polls suggest independent teal MP Zali Steggall will be easily re-elected in the previously blue-ribbon Liberal seat of Warringah. She will reintroduce her ambitious climate change bill, likely with the support of any other elected teal MPs and most of the crossbench.

This bill is modelled on the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act. It provides a means of coordinating climate policy action in line with the legislated targets of net zero emissions by 2050, and at least 60% emissions reduction by 2030.

Steggall’s “5 Steps to Net Zero” comprise:

• passing the climate change bill

• getting to 80% renewable energy by 2030

• cleaning up transport and getting to 76% new vehicle sales being electric by 2030

• halving industry emissions

• regenerating and future-proofing agriculture by rolling out 8 million hectares of tree planting and soil carbon storage, and investing in low-carbon agriculture practices and technologies.

The Greens would replace coal and gas with renewables, and ban political donations from the fossil fuel industry. The party would fund households and small business to transition to renewables, implement a coal export levy and eventually phase out thermal coal exports.

The Greens want Australia to reaching net zero emissions by 2035 (compared to the government’s goal of 2050) and to reach 100% renewable energy by 2030.

Shifting the needle

The fate of effective national climate policy in Australia – policy that actually reduces emissions – now rests largely on the mix of members in the next parliament and the actions they support.

A majority Coalition win at the election would consign Australia to another term of climate inaction, leaving the state and territory governments the only ones making progress.

If a minority Coalition government eventuates, the Greens won’t offer it support. If any teal independents did, we can expect them to cross the floor on climate policy to support any workable proposal from Labor that had the numbers to succeed.

Labor, the Greens and Steggall’s plans share common ground. But if Labor forms minority government, it will be pressured to accelerate the phase out fossil fuels and to steepen its 2030 emissions reduction target in line with the science.

One thing is clear: in the event a major party forms minority government after the election, it better be prepared to shift the needle in favour of more effective climate policy.

Read more:
Labor’s 2030 climate target betters the Morrison government, but Australia must go much further, much faster

Kate Crowley 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. No, Mr Morrison. Minority government need not create ‘chaos’ – it might finally drag Australia to a responsible climate policy – https://theconversation.com/no-mr-morrison-minority-government-need-not-create-chaos-it-might-finally-drag-australia-to-a-responsible-climate-policy-181706

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Charlesworth, Professor, School of Management, RMIT University

Aged-care workers are notoriously underpaid for the level of skill, responsibility, and judgement they exercise. Even employers acknowledge it.

The aged care royal commission found low wages, poor conditions, lack of training and poor career pathways to be the principal causes of substandard care.

The Fair Work Commission is now considering a claim by unions to increase award rates in aged care by $5.40 to $7.20 an hour, to an average of $29 an hour.

That will go some way to alleviating the situation. But it won’t fix the deeper problem that has led to rampant underpaying of caring work for decades.

The problem is that heavily-feminised occupations are undervalued.

In residential aged care, 86% of the workers are women.

Labor is promising to do something about the underpayment of heavily-feminised occupations more generally, pledging at its campaign launch to make gender pay equity an objective of the Fair Work Act.

It says it will also set up two new expert panels within the Fair Work Commission backed by research units to advise on equal remuneration cases; one specialising in the care and community sector, and the other specialising in gender pay equity.

Women’s work is undervalued

In a Queensland judgement in 2009, Industrial Relations Commissioner Glenys Fisher said it went back to the “nature of care work being seen as an extension of “women’s work in the home; an inherent part of mothering.

Care work was predominantly performed by women who put notions of vocation and the commitment to service “over and above the industrial needs of the community services workers themselves”.

Women in care industries had been awarded low wages that “would not have been endured” by workers in the electricity and rail industries.

Enterprise bargaining benefits men

Up until the 1990s wages and conditions for most workers were set by industrial awards. Changes to awards were argued by union and employer representatives but decided by state and federal industrial relations commissions.

Breakthroughs, such as minimum standards for the termination of employment and the right to carers’ leave, were achieved through “test cases” whose results flowed through to awards.

But from the early 1990s onwards enterprise bargains became the main way wages and conditions were lifted. Most agreements were hammered out between the unions and employers in each enterprise and approved by the commissions.

Read more:
If governments were really concerned about tax and the cost of living they would cut the cost of childcare

So-called modern awards have continued to exist, but have been stripped back to a bare minimum of “safety net” standards. For workers relying on these awards, wages and conditions have stagnated.

Enterprise bargaining helps most the workers with strong unions prepared to take industrial action. Construction workers are an example. Care workers, less keen on threatening industrial action, have been left behind.

This week’s walk out by aged care workers in Queensland and South Australia and Western Australia was unusual.

The Fair Work Commission recognised in 2011 that residential aged care enterprise agreements gained workers little, finding they paid 5–10% above the award, but were often accompanied by conditions that had “an offsetting effect”.

The industry practice of on-call rostering, where even part-time workers get fewer hours and less regular work than they want, means many aged care workers live below the poverty line.

Read more:
50 years after ‘equal pay’, the legacy of ‘women’s work’ remains

As well, “care industries” such as childcare and aged care are funded by a dominant federal government purchaser that funds mainly non-government providers to deliver services on their behalf.

It means even employers who would like to pay their workers more have trouble finding the funds.

Labor’s proposals are a start

Labor’s proposal should give the Fair Work Commission a greater understanding of the distinctive nature of care-sector employment and the importance of awards in providing decent pay and working conditions.

Labor has also promised to fully fund any pay increases awarded by the Commission in the aged care work value case.

The Coalition has so far limited its promises to a aged care funding model it says will also cover the costs the Fair Work Commission’s decision.

Both Sara Charlesworth and Elizabeth Hill receive funding from the Australian Research Council. They are the co-convenors of the Work+Family Policy Roundtable. Sara has provided expert evidence for the Health Services Union claim in the current aged care work value case

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

– ref. Labor’s pledge to properly pay women and care workers is a start, but it won’t be easy – https://theconversation.com/labors-pledge-to-properly-pay-women-and-care-workers-is-a-start-but-it-wont-be-easy-182853

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

When he mounted the stage as a warm-up speaker at Sunday’s Liberal launch, Josh Frydenberg received a reception beyond the obligatory enthusiasm required of the handpicked party faithful at these affairs.

“Wow – I wish I got that reception in Kooyong,” the deputy Liberal leader and treasurer quipped.

Frydenberg, fighting a desperate battle to survive against the teal invasion in his Melbourne seat, had already been on ABC Insiders with a defence of Scott Morrison, and various government policies, that wouldn’t do him much good with his local voters.

It might have been all hands to the wheel for launch day, but the Brisbane gathering failed to project the image of a party on the verge of defying the odds to score a triumph.

Morrison’s message was that he and the government had seen the country successfully through the pandemic, and now he had plenty of ideas for the future.

He’d already told us he won’t be such a bulldozer if he wins again, though it’s unlikely people will be convinced we’d get the purring engine of a Mercedes.

In his overlong Sunday speech (about 50 minutes) with too much detail, Morrison thanked his audience for their patience, “but as you can see, I’ve got a big plan. I’m seeking a second term because I’m just warming up.”

Outlining the government’s achievements during COVID, Morrison said: “Not everything went to plan but, you know, when it didn’t, and while others were criticising, we just worked feverishly to turn it around and make up the ground. What followed was the largest economic and public health response in Australia’s history.

“We now stand on a different edge […] One where fear doesn’t dominate, but aspiration. […] We stand on the edge of a new era of opportunity.”  

The launch’s policy centrepiece – allowing first home buyers to access up to 40% of their superannuation, to a maximum of $50,000 – is likely to be popular.

It acknowledges housing affordability as a big issue with many people, and also contrasts with Labor’s offering of the government taking a slice of ownership to help some people into homes.

There’s been a good deal of pressure to allow first home buyers to access their super. When the government allowed people to dip into this asset to cushion them through the pandemic that was welcomed by many.

But there is the counter argument that it is desirable to keep super savings intact for their purpose – to provide for retirement. The government’s partial answer is that the money (with a portion of any capital gain) would have to be put back into super if the house was sold.

And critics will point to another issue. By helping on the demand side, the scheme may drive prices higher. The central problem is on the supply side, but solutions to that lie mainly with state governments rather than the federal government.

Morrison did unveil a modest measure on supply – reducing from 60 (which is coming in July 1) to 55 the age at which “downsizers” can make contributions to superannuation of up to $300,000 per person from the proceeds of a sale.

Pensioners would also have longer (two years instead of one) to restructure their assets after selling their home, without affecting their pension.
 
The opposition immediately matched the empty nesters and pensioner initiatives.

But Labor predictably rejected the plan for dipping into super. Former prime minister Paul Keating denounced it, as a “frontal assault” on the superannuation system.

“The superannuation taxation concessions exist solely to produce a retirement income for people. Its key is preservation. Accumulated funds preserved to age 60 so working people secure the power and benefit of compounding,” Keating said in a statement.

The government immediately circulated Labor’s 1993 election housing policy, which undertook to “allow all home buyers to fund up to 49% of the deposit for a home from their accumulated superannuation savings.”

What’s old is new again, as often happens with political promises.

.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Scott Morrison tells Liberal launch ‘I’m just warming up’, as he pitches on home ownership – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-scott-morrison-tells-liberal-launch-im-just-warming-up-as-he-pitches-on-home-ownership-183100

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

The battles in the most high-profile teal seats have become nail-biters, not least because some “soft” voters in these previously safe Liberal heartland electorates are leaving their decisions until very late.

In the third and final round of our Wentworth Project focus group research, done May 11-12, more than half – eight of the 15 participants – had not definitely locked in their voting intention. Of the seven who were very certain, six were for independent Allegra Spender and one for Liberal incumbent Dave Sharma.

The previous few weeks had done little to move voters towards Sharma or the Morrison government. Rather, support had moved towards Spender.

On a two-candidate basis, Spender received nine votes and Sharma six. This compared to a two-candidate breakdown in the first round, done early in the campaign, of eight leaning towards Spender and seven towards Sharma.

“Soft” voters – who’d not firmly decided their vote or were considering switching – were recruited for the three rounds of focus group research. There was only one replacement, between the first and second rounds. The work, sponsored by the University of Canberra’s Centre for Change Governance and The Conversation, was done by Landscape Research.

Focus group research is not predictive, but rather a deep dive into attitudes.

While some of our Wentwoth voters were still hesitating about their final choice, people were sure about one thing – Spender had run a better campaign than Sharma.

Half way through the campaign, in the second round of research, nine of the 15 participants thought Spender had done the better job in the campaign and five judged the two campaigns pretty even. But in the penultimate week before the May 21 election, Spender was seen, hands down, as having the superior campaign. All bar one person said so.

Spender has gained momentum and there is a mood for change. She is “out and about everywhere,” (female disability support worker, 51). “Every time I see Dave Sharma he’s doing something cringeworthy […] everyone must have seen that Indian home diner on Oxford street. I think it was completely staged” (male fraud analyst, 30).

A retired female health worker found it “quite a powerful thing when you see all these [Spender] posters on people’s fences because that’s very much standing up and saying ‘this is the person I support’”.

“She’s gone to the trouble of engaging a lot of the volunteers for social and very publicly-visible gathering, […] and I think that pulls people together and they talk. It’s a very subtle way of infiltrating the community” (retired female state public servant, 68).

Sharma is still in the fight but only has a week to shore up waverers or change the minds of those who are only somewhat sure they’ll vote for Spender.

Some voters seemed to have little awareness their vote for Spender and the loss of the seat could help deliver government to Labor.

The concept of minority government and the need for crossbench support to guarantee supply was poorly understood. When explained, these soft voters and switched Liberal-turned Spender voters put the independent on notice.

Eleven of the 15 want her, if she wins, to support a Coalition government for supply in the event of a hung parliament. They indicated they would feel betrayed if she supported Labor. “If she was to do that, I won’t be overly impressed” (a male Spender voter, 52).

But the spectre of a hung parliament, coupled with Spender refusing to say who she would support, is an ongoing concern for some, and is having an impact on the way they are thinking about voting.

“That’s what’s making me wonder whether I should maybe just throw my support behind Dave, because it worries me that if it is going to be a hung parliament it’s going to be Labor and Greens with independents backing them, so it’s a Labor-Green government which is exactly what happened under the Gillard government” (female part-time receptionist, 48).

Some agreed with the proposition the Coalition was already a minority government, with the Liberals having to negotiate with the Nationals and different factions within the Liberals.

“They’re pretty much hamstrung by the extremes that they have in the Liberal and National party which is making it hard for them to get a lot of their legislation through” (female health worker, 63).

The national campaign is seen as close and something of a race to the bottom in a policy free zone. These voters were divided on who between Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese has run the better campaign so far, with seven giving it to Morrison and the Coalition and eight to Albanese and Labor.

“[The Liberals] have had fewer slip ups and a consistent message about the economy,” (male IT worker, 34). “I sort of feel like Albanese is more sincere but less polished and I think that works for him” (male insurance worker, 57).

With polls pointing to a Labor win, some welcome the prospect of change, but others have concerns about Labor’s ability to manage the economy. “Higher costs, higher inflation, higher interest rates.” (semi-retired male, 70).

While confident a returned Coalition would be a plus for economic management, some fear a win would empower Morrison to continue without changing his ways.

“I’m concerned about the underlying religious influence and the Nationals’ influence – they are overly conservative” (retired female state public servant, 68).

These Wentworth voters hope a Coalition loss would be seen as a big wake up call. There is a strong intent to punish the Liberal party because they feel the moderate Liberals aren’t being listened to.

They believe responsibility for a Liberal loss would be squarely at Morrison’s feet and he must bear the brunt of the fallout. They also consider what the Liberal party needs to do to make itself more relevant to voters.

“For me it’s about taking ownership and accountability. You know, during COVID was a key example where Scott Morrison just kept blaming the states. You need to be a leader and you need to stand up” (female part time accountant, 39).

“The buck has to stop with him as leader” (male insurance worker, 57).

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. The Wentworth Project: ‘Soft’ voters say Spender out-campaigning Sharma but some still weighing decision – https://theconversation.com/the-wentworth-project-soft-voters-say-spender-out-campaigning-sharma-but-some-still-weighing-decision-183096

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

A Newspoll, conducted May 10-13 from a sample of 1,532, gave Labor a 54-46 lead, unchanged from the previous week’s Newspoll. Primary votes were 38% Labor (down one), 35% Coalition (steady), 11% Greens (steady), 6% One Nation (up one), 3% UAP (down one) and 7% all Others (up one).

53% were dissatisfied with Scott Morrison’s performance (down two) and 42% were satisfied (up one), for a net approval of -11, up three points. Anthony Albanese’s net approval dropped five points to -11. Morrison led as better PM by 43-42 (44-42 the previous week). Newspoll figures are from The Poll Bludger.

This Newspoll will be the second last of the election campaign. The final pre-election Newspoll will be released online next Friday night, the evening before the election, and there are likely to be other national polls released late next week. This Newspoll was released two days earlier than usual.

This poll was taken after the widely criticised leaders’ debate on May 8. The shouting and interrupting appears to have damaged Albanese. It didn’t hurt Morrison as his ratings were already poor, and people had formed an opinion of him.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Labor widens leads in Newspoll and Ipsos, as pre-polling starts

The leaders’ debate on Wednesday was more civilised. Half the fieldwork in this poll would be after this debate and half before.

Despite Albanese’s ratings slide, Labor retains a large Newspoll lead with just one week remaining before election day. Even if Newspoll is understating the Coalition by three points, as occurred in 2019, Labor would still lead by 51-49 – probably enough to win in a minority government.

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

If Newspoll and other polls are accurate this time, Labor will win a large majority of House of Representatives seats. I believe high inflation (5.1% in the 12 months to March) is a key reason for Labor’s large poll leads.

Economic data out next week includes the March quarter wage price index (to be released Wednesday) that will show how nominal pay has changed, and the April jobs report (out Thursday).

YouGov MRP poll: Labor 80 House seats, Coalition 63, Others eight

The Poll Bludger reported Wednesday that YouGov conducted Australia’s first ever MRP poll (multi-level regression with post-stratification) for The Australian. This used a large national sample of almost 19,000, and aims to forecast the results in each electorate using demographic modelling.

The Poll Bludger said this model performed well in the 2017 UK general election, correctly forecasting that the Conservatives would lose their majority. However, it understated the Conservatives at the 2019 UK general election.

Data for this poll was collected over three weeks, from April 14 to May 7. The long fieldwork period means this poll could be missing recent gains for Labor.

Results for all seats can be viewed at The Australian (no paywall). The overall prediction is that Labor would win 80 of the 151 House of Representatives seats (up 11 from the post-redistribution 2019 results), the Coalition would win 63 (down 13), and there would be eight Others (up two). This would be a Labor majority of nine.

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

The Poll Bludger said that the 11 seats Labor is projected to gain are Bennelong, Lindsay, Reid and Robertson in NSW, Chisholm and Higgins in Victoria, Brisbane in Queensland, Swan and Pearce in WA, Boothby in SA and Bass in Tasmania.

The six existing elected crossbenchers are expected to hold their seats, with Kooyong and Goldstein in Victoria gained by “teal” independents. I don’t count Craig Kelly, as he was elected as a Liberal in Hughes before defecting to the UAP.

Some seats are tied at 50-50, and these cases are shaded to indicate which party is ahead. Bennelong and Lindsay are very close for Labor, with Longman (Qld), Ryan (Qld) and Sturt (SA) just remaining with the Coalition, while Corangamite (Vic) is a potential Labor loss.

While the Greens are shown as winning just their one existing seat of Melbourne, they are only one point behind Labor on primary votes in both Brisbane and Ryan. If they passed Labor, they would gain Brisbane on Labor preferences and Ryan would be close.

Last week’s Morgan narrowed due to methods change

A Morgan poll, conducted May 2-8 from a sample of 1,401, gave Labor a 54.5-45.5 lead, a one-point gain for the Coalition since the previous week. However, Morgan switched to using 2019 preference flows instead of respondent preferences as the headline figure.

Had 2019 preferences been used in the previous poll, Labor would have led by 54-46, so this poll was a 0.5-point gain for Labor by that method. By respondent preferences in the current poll, Labor led by 56-44, a 0.5-point gain for Labor.

Primary votes were 35.5% Labor (up 0.5), 34% Coalition (down one), 13% Greens (steady), 4% One Nation (up one), 1% UAP (steady), 8.5% independents (down one) and 4% others (up 0.5).

Seat poll: Kooyong

The ABC’s Raf Epstein tweeted Tuesday that a Redbridge poll of Kooyong in May for the campaign of independent Monique Ryan gave current Treasurer Josh Frydenberg 40.5%, Ryan 32.3%, the Greens 8.4%, Labor 6.7% and UAP 5.2%. Ryan’s vote has jumped from 17.5% in March, but at the expense of Labor and the Greens.

Redbridge says Ryan is ahead after preferences, but her lead is within the margin of error. The narrow lead for Ryan in Redbridge contradicts a 59-41 lead for her in a uComms poll taken April 12.

NT chief minister resigns

Labor’s NT chief minister Michael Gunner resigned on Tuesday, and was replaced on Friday by Natasha Fyles after a meeting of Labor’s NT parliamentary caucus. Fyles was elected unopposed.

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

– ref. Labor retains large Newspoll lead but Albanese’s ratings fall; special poll gives Labor clear House majority – https://theconversation.com/labor-retains-large-newspoll-lead-but-albaneses-ratings-fall-special-poll-gives-labor-clear-house-majority-182858

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Clark, Deputy Engagement Editor, The Conversation

An existential moment for the Liberal party? Another female leader for Labor? In this episode of our election podcast Below the Line, our expert panel talk us through what might happen to the major parties if they do not win government.

Led by award-winning broadcaster Jon Faine, the panel talks through the potential configurations of the next federal parliament, including the possible balance of power in both chambers.

Polling expert Simon Jackman analyses the latest voter surveys and tells us why a Labor victory still looks very likely at this stage. Anika Gauja maps the key contests in the Senate and the likelihood of minor parties and independents holding decisive votes.

Andrea Carson scores the final leaders’ debate and argues that Channel Seven’s format gave voters a better look at policy issues than the previous debate on Channel Nine. Some 811,000 Australians tuned in to watch Wednesday night’s event, but Faine wonders whether voters have heard enough about the issues they truly care about.

“The debate’s range of topics was still pretty narrow,” says Carson. “I think it was noted for what wasn’t debated rather than what was,” says Faine, who lists tax reform, industrial relations and Indigenous affairs as important but missing policy issues.

The panel also contemplates the Liberal party’s future if key moderates lose their seats, and whether it will move further to the right. Gauja lists the likely names to lead Labor if Anthony Albanese suffers a shock defeat on May 21.

Below the Line is brought to you by The Conversation and La Trobe University. It is produced by Courtney Carthy and Benjamin Clark.

Image credit: Lukas Coch/AAP; Mick Tsikas/AAP

Disclosure: Simon Jackman is an unpaid consultant on polling data for the Climate 200 network of independent candidates.

– ref. Below the Line: What might happen to the major party that loses the election? – podcast – https://theconversation.com/below-the-line-what-might-happen-to-the-major-party-that-loses-the-election-podcast-183033

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Principal Fellow (Hon), Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne

In 2020, the year Vincent Namatjira was awarded the Archibald for his double portrait with Adam Goodes, I was also impressed by the painting hanging next to it, Blak Douglas’ (aka Adam Hill) Writing in the Sand. It was both passionately political and visually very clever, incorporating the speech that the 12-year-old Dujuan Hoosan gave to the United Nations.

One of the many unwritten rules of the Archibald is that the winner is often an artist who has exhibited an outstanding (non-winning) work in previous years.

But this year, Blak Douglas’s winning portrait is the standout entry, head and shoulders above the rest.

It is not just the subject that makes it significant and topical, although that helps. Karla Dickens, a Wiradjuri woman, lives in Bundjalung Country in northern New South Wales.

When the prize was announced, Dickens described herself as “a grumpy white sperm whale in muddy water ready to rip the leg off any fool with a harpoon who comes too close”.

The people of Lismore and surrounding districts have every reason to be enraged at the politicians who come with platitudes instead of help. The people are left to wade through muddy waters with leaky buckets. Dickens herself harboured three homeless families in the immediate aftermath of the floods.

Douglas has painted Dickens standing under a dark grey sky patterned with 14 stylised clouds, symbolising the 14 days of continuous rain that brought the floods.

Douglas’s style owes a great deal to commercial art. The subject is outlined in black for emphasis, even the mud forms a pattern. Dickens stands full frontal, scowling at the viewer, uncompromising in her anger at the folly that has led to this mass destruction. Her feet are concealed by mud, the kind of sludge that still fills and stinks the houses as people try to survive.

I can’t think of a more timely painting, as it so effectively encapsulates the current mood of the country.

In his acceptance speech, Blak Douglas noted he has spent “20 years of taking a risk” before he stood on the winners podium with a prize of $100,000. He reminded the gathering of media and patrons that, especially in recent years, the lives of artists are both hard and uncertain. Not all are winners.

Read more:
The Archibald 2022 finalists: sitters speaking up to power; artists speaking back to the canon

The Wynne Prize

Nicholas Harding, who has been awarded the Wynne Prize is not an Indigenous artist, but his painting, Eora, also references Australia’s Aboriginal heritage.

The subject is based on the Narrabeen Lakes walk, north of Sydney. It is one of the largest works exhibited. Harding’s characteristic impastoed surface evokes the lush vegetation of the land before the colonists came to fell the trees and kill the ferns.

Interestingly the painting was not painted for the prize but as a commission for two private collectors who are long-term admirers. Harding is a nine time finalist in the Wynne, and says the decision to enter was “a last minute thing”.

His hesitation is understandable as every year, even being hung can be a bit of a lottery.

Read more:
From gum trees to cities to sweeping deserts: how 125 years of the Wynne Prize traces Australia’s shifting relationship to our landscape

The Sulman Prize

The Archibald and the Wynne are judged by the Trustees of the Art Gallery of NSW. Not so the Sulman Prize, which was established as a bequest of Sir John Sulman – one of the Gallery’s most conservative trustees. The brief is for a “subject or genre painting”, but over the years that distinction has become meaningless.

Because it is judged by a different person every year, its outcome is less predictable.

It is worth noting that this year, 69% of the Sulman entries were by artists who had never before been hung. This is in marked contrast to the Archibald (27%) and Wynne (50%) finalists.

As is common practice this year’s judge, Joan Ross, was a previous winner and is also an Archibald finalist.

The winner is unusually a duo – Claire Healy and Sean Cordeiro – who formed their artistic collaboration when they were undergraduate students. Over the last 20 years they have created installations both large and small, including at the Venice Biennale.

Raiko and Shuten-doji is painted on a piece of an army surplus helicopter, so that the Japanese legend of the warrior Raiko and the demon Shute-doji can be viewed through the lens of military conflict. But then they turn it back into a kite: a playful thing.

Joanna Mendelssohn has received funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. ‘I can’t think of a more timely painting’: Blak Douglas’s Moby Dickens is a deserving winner of the 2022 Archibald Prize – https://theconversation.com/i-cant-think-of-a-more-timely-painting-blak-douglass-moby-dickens-is-a-deserving-winner-of-the-2022-archibald-prize-179771

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

Scott Morrison has acknowledged his style has alienated people, describing himself as “a bit of a bulldozer” and suggesting Australians would see a change of “gears” if he is re-elected.

The admission – though he qualified it by defending his approach in the circumstances he has faced – reflects the extent to which the prime minister’s character has damaged the government’s brand.

In “teal” seats especially, Liberal incumbents have been reporting voters saying they don’t have anything against the local MP but they don’t like Morrison. But the anti-Morrison sentiment has been coming through much more widely and his colleagues see him as a drag on the Coalition vote.

Morrison was asked at a news conference in Melbourne whether part of his problem was that he kept telling people what they should know rather than listening.

He insisted he had listened but went on: “Over the last three years, and particularly the last two, what Australians have needed from me going through this pandemic has been strength and resilience.

“Now, I admit that hasn’t enabled Australians to see a lot of other gears in the way I work.

“And I know Australians know that I can be a bit of a bulldozer when it comes to issues.

“But over the last few years that’s been pretty important, to ensure we’ve been able to get through some of the most important things that we’ve had to do and land some really big security agreements.”

But, he said, after the election “I know there are things that are going to have to change with the way I do things.”

He said this was “because we are moving into a different time.

“We are moving into a time of opportunity. And working from the strong platform of strength that we’ve built and saved in our economy in the last three years, we can now take advantage of those opportunities in the future.”

Anthony Albanese had a blunt comment on Morrison’s bulldozer self-description. “A bulldozer wrecks things. A bulldozer knocks things over. I’m a builder. If I’m elected prime minister, I will build things in this country.”

Albanese said the PM was saying “if you vote for Scott Morrison, I’ll change.”

“Well, if you want change, change the government,” the opposition leader said.

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

– ref. Morrison confesses to being a ‘bulldozer’, suggests he’ll change ‘gears’ – https://theconversation.com/morrison-confesses-to-being-a-bulldozer-suggests-hell-change-gears-183030

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

Scott Morrison has acknowledged his style has alienated people, describing himself as “a bit of a bulldozer” and suggesting Australians would see a change of “gears” if he is re-elected.

The admission – though he qualified it by defending his approach in the circumstances he has faced – reflects the extent to which the prime minister’s character has damaged the government’s brand.

In “teal” seats especially, Liberal incumbents have been reporting voters saying they don’t have anything against the local MP but they don’t like Morrison. But the anti-Morrison sentiment has been coming through much more widely and his colleagues see him as a drag on the Coalition vote.

Morrison was asked at a news conference in Melbourne whether part of his problem was that he kept telling people what they should know rather than listening.

He insisted he had listened but went on: “Over the last three years, and particularly the last two, what Australians have needed from me going through this pandemic has been strength and resilience.

“Now, I admit that hasn’t enabled Australians to see a lot of other gears in the way I work.

“And I know Australians know that I can be a bit of a bulldozer when it comes to issues.

“But over the last few years that’s been pretty important, to ensure we’ve been able to get through some of the most important things that we’ve had to do and land some really big security agreements.”

But, he said, after the election “I know there are things that are going to have to change with the way I do things.”

He said this was “because we are moving into a different time.

“We are moving into a time of opportunity. And working from the strong platform of strength that we’ve built and saved in our economy in the last three years, we can now take advantage of those opportunities in the future.”

Anthony Albanese had a blunt comment on Morrison’s bulldozer self-description. “A bulldozer wrecks things. A bulldozer knocks things over. I’m a builder. If I’m elected prime minister, I will build things in this country.”

Albanese said the PM was saying “if you vote for Scott Morrison, I’ll change.”

“Well, if you want change, change the government,” the opposition leader said.

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

– ref. Head Morrison confesses to being a ‘bulldozer’, suggests he’ll change ‘gears’ – https://theconversation.com/head-morrison-confesses-to-being-a-bulldozer-suggests-hell-change-gears-183030

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brian Vandenberg, Research Fellow, Monash University

Gambling and homelessness are clearly linked. Australians over 50 are particularly vulnerable. They have high rates of regular gambling, and are the fastest-growing age group of Australians experiencing homelessness.

Data from homelessness services across Australia reveals older service users have the highest rates of gambling problems.

Until now, little attention has been given to the issue. For example, there’s no mention of gambling in any current state or territory homelessness strategy. This is a startling oversight, especially given Australia ranks highest globally for gambling losses per capita, according to 2016 data.

To better understand this issue, myself and a research team at Monash University studied how gambling and homelessness are linked in older adults.

We found gambling and homelessness often occur together, but the problem is generally hidden and not well measured in Australia. So it’s often overlooked by policymakers and service providers.

Higher rates of harmful gambling

We reviewed the international research on how commonly gambling and homelessness occur together, and explored the possible reasons for this in older Victorians.

Research suggests up to 60-80% of the general population gambled in the past year in countries including Australia (64%), New Zealand (86%) and the United States (82.2%). But studies find less than 30% of people experiencing homelessness report any gambling.

However, the prevalence of harmful gambling is higher in people experiencing homelessness (10–20%) compared to the general population (approximately 1–7%). Harmful gambling is repetitive gambling resulting in recurring harms. These include financial problems, addiction, and mental health issues.

This paradox – of lower rates of past-year gambling among people experiencing homelessness but higher rates of harmful gambling – was evident across the dozen countries we examined.

The body of research we reviewed also shows the rate of experiencing periods of homelessness is disproportionately high in people who gamble harmfully.

On average, around one in six people who gamble harmfully experience housing problems or periods of homelessness.

Two-way relationship

To more deeply understand the relationship between gambling and homelessness in older age, we interviewed 48 workers in health care, financial counselling, gamblers’ help and homelessness services across Victoria. We looked for reasons why gambling and homelessness often occur together and what can be done to prevent the harm.

We found experiencing homelessness into older age is often accompanied by gambling. We also found gambling can contribute to older adults becoming homeless.

However, the link between gambling and homelessness in older age is often complex and indirect. Frequently, it depends on personal circumstances and societal factors outside an individual’s control.

For example, a key factor is the isolation and hardship of homelessness for older adults. This makes gambling seem attractive.

Often added to this is a mix of individual vulnerabilities, including early life adversity, substance use, mental health disorders, and relationship breakdown.
The fact that gambling is readily available also contributes, along with poverty and housing insecurity.

This aligns with previous research showing gambling during homelessness is sometimes motivated out of desperation and in the hope of financial gain.

Studies also show the psychological effects of poverty, such as chronic stress, can create a feedback loop of behaviours and economic decision-making that reinforces disadvantage. For example, in our research we heard basic necessities such as shelter, food and medications were sometimes forgone because an individual had lost all of their money gambling. As one participant, who works for Gambler’s Help, said:

[…] They become that desperate that even if they have $20 left, that they can use on food, they’d rather put that in there to double it up or make some sort of jackpot.

For some people, gambling also contributes to becoming homeless for the first time in their lives at an old age. As another Gambler’s Help worker said:

[…] I’ve come across people who specifically blame their entire homelessness on gambling and basically say “I’m homeless because I gamble”. It’s pretty much just as straightforward as that.

Often, those who experience homelessness for the first time later in life have had significant, rapid losses from high-intensity gambling such as online betting or pokies.

Major life events and changes can also trigger harmful gambling in older adults, including bereavement, job loss, or relationship difficulties. Recognising these as potential markers for increased risk of gambling and homelessness in older age is important for prevention.

We found the design of high-intensity gambling products, especially pokies, and the conduct of gambling operators and creditors, can accelerate financial harm from gambling.

What can be done?

Moves signalled by Victoria’s regulators to introduce new pre-set time and loss limits on Crown Casino pokies may be a step towards preventing harm.

There’s also a need for developing and testing interventions on an individual level for people who are experiencing homelessness and gamble. However, this can be challenging, because gambling is often hidden in older homeless adults, in part because of the stigma and shame that surrounds it. This can hinder service providers’ attempts to effectively identify gambling issues and offer help.

A related challenge is that homelessness services sometimes neglect tackling gambling issues because they lack the capacity to respond, or view it as a lower priority for older homeless adults with many other pressing needs.

The recent Victorian parliamentary inquiry into homelessness acknowledged more should be done to measure how many people gamble and experience homelessness. The inquiry’s final report echoed our call to expand routine screening and early detection of gambling issues in the homeless population.

The state government’s response to the inquiry is now overdue.

Meanwhile, cuts to JobSeeker and the coronavirus supplement have seen a jump in people seeking help for homelessness nationally. And gambling losses have risen sharply since gambling venues re-opened.

It’s time to strengthen policies and improve services that can prevent and reduce the substantial but avoidable harm from gambling and homelessness in older age.

Brian Vandenberg receives funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

– ref. Gambling and homelessness in older age: hidden and overlooked, but preventable – https://theconversation.com/gambling-and-homelessness-in-older-age-hidden-and-overlooked-but-preventable-177066