Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kun Zhao, Research fellow, BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University

As Australians across the country prepare to vote, many will be reflecting on what can help build a prosperous and inclusive society.

Over the last five years, we have been measuring social inclusion by surveying more than 11,000 Australians on prejudice, experiences of discrimination, sense of belonging and well-being, contact with diverse groups of people, and willingness to volunteer and advocate for social inclusion.

Our findings, released today in the Inclusive Australia Social Inclusion Index 2021-22, show discrimination remains common for some groups. Australians are identifying less with their country than before and there are signs prejudice towards some groups is dropping.

Social inclusion matters. Research in 2016 found racism alone had an economic cost of A$44.9 billion per year. In 2020, The Brotherhood of St Laurence estimated 1.2 million Australians suffer “deep social exclusion”.

Our report provides a snapshot of a changing Australia and highlights areas to improve our sense of belonging, well-being, and opportunity to have a “fair go”. Here is what we learned:

Read more:
New research shows prejudice still high in Australia, but many people seeking to promote social inclusion

1. Experiences of discrimination remain common, especially for some groups

Half of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples surveyed experienced major discrimination in the past two years, such as being unfairly fired from a job. And nearly half experienced “everyday” discrimination at least weekly, such as being called names or receiving poor service.

Over time, we have also seen changes in discrimination alongside significant societal events. We are all too aware of the impact that debate around legislation such as the Racial Discrimination Act can have on members of the communities they are designed to support.

In our own data, during the time of the federal government’s same sex marriage survey in 2017, the percentage of LGBTIQ+ people who experienced “everyday” discrimination jumped from 33% to 46%. Since then, experiences of discrimination have returned to levels seen before the same sex marriage survey.

2. Australians are identifying less with their country and local communities

One emerging trend is the steady decline in Australians’ identification and feelings of belonging with their country and local community.

We measured this by asking respondents how close they felt to or identified with their local community, other Australians, and people all over the world.

While it is tempting to point to the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in influencing this, these changes go back to the start of the index in 2017.

Having a strong social identity with a group is important for taking action to benefit that group – as well as for our own well-being.

Despite identity declining with local community and Australia, it is reassuring that Australians’ identification with people all over the world has remained mostly unchanged, as this has been linked to reduced prejudice, greater empathy, and deeper humanitarian concerns.

3. People who identify with multiple minority groups are more vulnerable

By examining multiple dimensions of diversity simultaneously, our data helps shed light on intersectionality – the fact that different aspects of a person’s identity exposes them to overlapping and reinforcing forms of inequality.

We found people who identified with two or more minority or disadvantaged groups experienced greater levels of discrimination and lower well-being than those identifying with one group alone.

For example, two-thirds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were also LGBTIQ+ in our survey experienced major discrimination (such as being discouraged from continuing education) in the last two years.

4. We don’t regularly mix with some groups

A great deal of research in social psychology has pointed to contact with different groups of people as a remedy for prejudice.

Our data also showed the more contact people had with a minority group, the more they perceived that contact as pleasant.

In reality, however, many Australians had limited contact with people from minority groups.

Almost one in five (17%) of respondents reported “never” having any contact with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

One in five also said they “never” had any contact with religious minorities.

5. Positive signs of change are afoot

In addition to discrimination, we also measured people’s agreement with statements tapping into blatant or subtle prejudice, such as “If young people would only try harder they could be as well off as other Australian people”.

While religious and racial minorities remained the target of high levels of prejudice, this has dropped since the start of the index. In December 2021, 17% of people were highly prejudiced (meaning on average they “moderately” or “strongly” agreed with prejudiced statements) against racial minorities, down from 24% five years earlier.

Another promising finding in our data was the number of people willing to volunteer and take action to ensure that all people are treated equally.

At least half of respondents were “moderately” or “very willing” to speak up when they saw discrimination or validate the experiences of those who had been discriminated against.

This is important because it creates norms that prejudice is not acceptable, and amplifies the voices of minority groups.

As Australians head to the polling booth, hopefully it also means voters will be looking for policies that unite us and support those from minority and disadvantaged groups.

Read more:
Racism is still an everyday experience for non-white Australians. Where is the plan to stop this?

Kun Zhao receives funding from Inclusive Australia, a not-for-profit organisation seeking to improve inclusion in Australia.

Liam Smith, through BehaviourWorks, consults to Inclusive Australia and receives funding from them.

– ref. Are Australians socially inclusive? 5 things we learned after surveying 11,000 people for half a decade – https://theconversation.com/are-australians-socially-inclusive-5-things-we-learned-after-surveying-11-000-people-for-half-a-decade-182124

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Fuller, Charles Perkins Centre Research Program Leader, University of Sydney

We’re a society obsessed with numbers, and no more so than when managing our health.

We use smartwatches to count steps and track our daily activity, creating scores for our fitness, and monitor our heart rate and sleep quality to measure our health and well-being.

Doctors can be just as obsessed with numbers, relying on measurements and equations to create scores for our health, one of the most popular of which is the Body Mass Index (BMI).

But BMI – a measure of the relationship between your weight and height – is increasingly under scrutiny. More and more experts are questioning its accuracy and health practitioners’ fixation on using it as a single indicator of health and healthy weight.

Here’s everything you need to know about BMI – and why using it as the sole measure of your health is nonsense, starting with a quick history lesson.

Where did BMI come from, and why is it associated with health?

The concept of BMI was developed in 1832 (yes, almost 200 years ago!) by Belgian statistician Lambert Adolphe Quetelet, who was called on to create a description of the “average man” to help the government estimate obesity numbers among the general population.

Fast-forward 100 years to the United States, where life insurance companies had started comparing people’s weight to an average population weight for similar individuals to calculate insurance premiums based on a predicted risk of dying.

Annoyed by this somewhat unscientific approach, US physiologist Ancel Keys completed research with 7,000 healthy men using Quetelet’s measure, finding this method was a more accurate and simpler predictor of health that was also inexpensive.

Quetelet’s calculation was subsequently renamed BMI and adopted as a primary indicator of health, thanks to subsequent studies confirming increased risks of heart disease, liver disease, arthritis, some cancers, diabetes and sleep apnoea with increased BMI.

Read more:
Explainer: overweight, obese, BMI – what does it all mean?

Its use soon became widespread, and today, BMI is found everywhere, from the doctor’s surgery to the gym.

How is BMI measured, and what do the scores mean?

The BMI formula is simple, and easy to calculate thanks to the many free BMI calculators available online.

To calculate BMI:

1. take your weight in kilograms

2. to get your index, divide your weight by the square of your height in metres.

Your result classifies you into one of four categories describing your body weight in a single word:

• underweight – a BMI of less than 18.5

• normal – a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9

• overweight – a BMI between 25.0 and 29.9

• obese – a BMI of 30 or above.

Read more:
The numbers don’t have it: why measuring won’t lead to better health

So is BMI an accurate measure of health?

In short: no.

While BMI is an accessible and affordable way to screen a person’s health, it shouldn’t be relied on as a single measure of health.

Here’s why.

1. BMI misses a more important measure – body fat percentage

BMI is based on body weight, but a person’s disease risk is linked to body fat, not weight.

While body weight can be a proxy for body fat, there’s an important reason it doesn’t always tell an accurate story: muscle is much denser than fat.

Because BMI calculators can’t differentiate fat from muscle, people can be easily misclassified. At the extreme, BMI has classified athletes in peak fitness condition, such as sprinter Usain Bolt, as almost overweight, and American footballer Tom Brady as obese.

2. BMI does not measure body fat distribution

Numerous studies have found people with the same BMI can have very different disease risk profiles, primarily driven by where fat is distributed in their bodies. This is because not all fat is equal.

If you have fat stored around your stomach, your risk of chronic disease is much higher than people who have fat stored around their hips, because this is an indicator of how much visceral fat you have – the type of fat deep inside the belly that increases your risk of stroke, type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

In white populations, a waist circumference of more than 80cm for women and more than 94cm for men is associated with an increased risk of chronic disease, and for Asian populations it is more than 80cm for women or 90cm for men.

3. BMI does not account for demographic differences

The BMI is something none of us like – racist and sexist.

When Quetelet created and Keys validated BMI, they studied largely male, middle-aged Anglo-Saxon populations. Their method prevails, even though BMI’s calculations and classifications are used universally today.

Our bodies, by nature, have some distinct characteristics driven by our gender, including that females generally have less muscle mass and more fat mass than males. We also know muscle mass decreases and shifts around the body as we age.

Read more:
Too fat, too thin? How do you work out your ideal weight?

Research has also confirmed significant differences in body weight, composition and disease risk based on ethnicity. This includes findings from the early 2000s that found on measures for optimum health, people of Asian ethnicity should have a lower BMI, and people of Polynesian ethnicity could be healthier at higher BMIs.

This issue has led to suggested redefined BMI cut-off points for people of Asian ethnicity (where a healthy BMI is less than 23) and Polynesians (where a healthy BMI is less than 26).

So what should we be using instead?

To be clear: weight and health are related, with countless studies demonstrating people who are obese or overweight have an increased risk of disease.

But while BMI can be used as a screening tool, it shouldn’t be the only tool relied on to assess a person’s health and healthy weight.

Instead, we need to focus on measures that tell us more about fat in the body and where it’s distributed, measuring weight circumference, waist-to-hip ratios and body fat to get a better understanding of health and risk.

We also need to consider the many other ways to measure your health and likelihood of disease, including levels of triglycerides (a type of fat found in your blood), blood pressure, blood glucose (sugar), heart rate, presence of inflammation, and stress levels.

As a single measure, BMI is not a good measure of health – it lacks accuracy and clarity and, in its current form, misses measuring the many important factors that influence your risk of disease.

Although BMI can be a useful starting point for understanding your health, it should never be the only measurement you use.

Dr Nicholas Fuller works for the University of Sydney and has received external funding for projects relating to the treatment of overweight and obesity. He is the author and founder of the Interval Weight Loss program.

– ref. Using BMI to measure your health is nonsense. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/using-bmi-to-measure-your-health-is-nonsense-heres-why-180412

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eleanor Holroyd, Associate Dean International & Engagement, Auckland University of Technology

Aotearoa New Zealand’s community nurses and home and community care assistants have played a crucial yet largely invisible role in the country’s response to the global pandemic.

Across the country, personal care assistants help patients with the activities of daily living while community, district and primary care nurses’ roles include the delivery of complex nursing care and health promotion and health education.

COVID-19 highlighted that many community healthcare workers in Aotearoa had not been adequately prepared for the complexities and new demands on their roles that would emerge during a major public health crisis.

These included the need for additional reporting skills and ongoing assessment of patients’ risk and their own general mental well-being, while protecting themselves, their families and vulnerable and often isolated patients.

The effects of this are highlighted in recent pay disputes, threatened industrial action, attrition and burnout of front line care staff.

Nevertheless, the experiences of community nurses and home and community care assistants have often been overlooked or trivialised in comparison to the experiences of doctors and nurses working in hospitals.

Our research focused on understanding the particular challenges community healthcare workers in Aotearoa faced during COVID and identifying how they could be better supported in future pandemics.

We spoke with 22 community-based health care workers, 15 registered nurses working in public health, district nursing, primary care and mental health, two midwives and five home and community care assistants.

We found the workloads of community healthcare workers often increased substantially. Having become the main source of support for patients left isolated by bubble restrictions, those we spoke to went the extra mile to provide the care their patients needed.

One Māori care assistant told us how working during lockdown involved

needing to do more duties – going the extra mile. I would expect the same type of care for myself. I was brought up this way, being originally gifted as an adopted child to my aunt’s Māori family, it is natural of me to care. So, I went the extra mile. I put laboratory test results in letterboxes and got extra groceries for those living alone.

Impacts on mental well-being

Doing all this extra work for every patient amounted to many hours of extra work. This workload, coupled with pressure to protect themselves and their families, put strain on personal relationships and sometimes led to a downturn in their mental and emotional well-being, particularly during the initial 2020 lockdown.

When we interviewed community healthcare workers, many described feeling they had to enhance their work duties to be seen as “good carers” or “heroes”, particularly during lockdowns.

Caring for their patients in the community involved caring and worrying about patients and their families during the pandemic. This also had a negative impact on the carers’ families and social lives as well as their mental health.

Read more:
Nurses don’t want to be hailed as ‘heroes’ during a pandemic – they want more resources and support

Despite vigilant monitoring of their personal protective equipment (PPE), the need to safeguard family and community members generated considerable stress and anxiety. Many carers also faced personal isolation and loneliness as a result of lockdown restrictions.

A Pākehā care assistant told us:

I am a home carer for older adults with severe health issues living alone. I needed to shower and dress them as well as feeding some through tubes, plus my 16-year-old son was living with me at home. So, to keep him safe I had three bubbles – I slept in a shed to isolate him, so he was protected in his bubble, then I had all the work bubbles I needed to form with my home-based patients. I did this […] so we would be alright and would not be contaminated. And on top of that people I know looked sideways in the supermarket at me.

Undertaking extra safety protocols also increased workloads considerably, as a Pākehā nurse explained:

It’s giving of yourself and then our workloads increased so much, with extra cleaning, tracing and hygiene protocols. These took so long. That’s why nursing is so exhausting. It’s giving of yourself, then giving more at home, and in our family, and now along comes COVID-19.

Improving work conditions

Improvements for community-based healthcare workers must focus on addressing the consequences of increased responsibilities and complexity of the work during a pandemic and recognising that such work often takes place in profound isolation, professionally and personally. Professional and public recognition would go some way to reducing associated stress and anxiety.

We found the negative impacts of experiences during lockdowns often continued once restrictions had been lifted and we make several key recommendations for supporting community-based nurses, and home and community care assistants during respiratory disease pandemics.

First, we must acknowledge the crucial role they play and the stress and anxiety they endure. But at the same time we must demystify the heroism and self-sacrifice projected onto care workers.

Read more:
Overlooked and undervalued, New Zealand’s community caregivers have become the ‘invisible’ essential workers

Other improvements include the timely provision of adequate protective equipment, better remuneration and provision for time off, regular counselling, peer support groups and support with maintaining a healthy work-life balance.

Such measures must extend well beyond lockdowns because the psychological and social effects of stringent pandemic control measures can be long-lasting. While especially valuable during and after a pandemic, these measures should be considered best practice for supporting community healthcare workers at all times.

Above all, it is vital to recognise the specific contributions made by community healthcare professionals during pandemics. Rather than collapsing them into an undifferentiated category of “essential” workers, we must acknowledge these distinct contributions and anticipate them in future pandemic planning.

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

– ref. Community healthcare workers were left feeling isolated and under-appreciated during the pandemic – https://theconversation.com/community-healthcare-workers-were-left-feeling-isolated-and-under-appreciated-during-the-pandemic-180323

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Harris, Senior Lecturer in Geography, The University of Queensland

In a warmer world, rising sea levels could render many coastlines, beaches, and reef islands uninhabitable, or destroy them altogether. The 1.09℃ Earth has warmed since pre-industrial times has already heightened seas by 20 centimetres.

But curiously, research shows some coastlines and even low-lying coral reef islands are actually growing rather than eroding in the face of rising sea levels. This is happening on some beaches in Queensland and New South Wales, along with coastlines in Asia and Africa.

This goes against the general understanding of how climate change impacts the coast and has led to confusion that has been, in part, deliberately sown into public discourse by climate change deniers. So what’s going on?

To examine the phenomenon, we investigated coastal changes using historical aerial photographs and satellite records. We found the observed growth of coastlines is largely linked to the “coastal sediment budget” – the amount of sand, rocks and other sediment moving into and out of the beach over time.

Our results show just how dynamic and complex the coast is, highlighting a need for greater understanding of local coastal changes, even down to individual beaches, when making coastal management plans.

Understanding sediment budgets

To make sense of this phenomenon, we first need to understand sediment budgets. A “positive” sediment budget is when more sand comes to the beach than leaves. A “negative” budget the opposite, when more sand leaves than arrives.

Over time a positive sediment budget drives growth on the coast – and beaches expand further into the ocean.

Sea level rise, on the other hand, erodes sand from the beach and places it elsewhere on the coast. This can lead to a loss of sand from the beach – and the shoreline retreats inland.

Read more:
From enormous tides to millions of shells, here are 6 unique beaches for your summer road trip

So if sea levels are rising across the planet, why are some beaches still getting bigger?

The answer is that for growing beaches, the positive sediment budget currently has a greater impact than erosion from sea level rise. In other words, the amount of sand coming to the coast is greater than the amount lost to sea level rise.

Beaches in Queensland

We investigated change on the coast of Queensland at 15 beaches stretching from north of Cooktown to Coolangatta, using the aerial photograph record from the 1930’s to present. We also investigated shoreline change globally using the satellite record since 1984.

Despite global sea levels rising 20 centimetres over this time, every beach we investigated in Queensland was growing.

When we looked at coastal changes on at a global scale, we found large parts of entire continents, such as Africa and Southeast Asia, were also growing. This suggests that net positive sediment budgets on the coast are common.

It may be explained by two things. In natural settings, extra sand likely arrives from either deeper sediment located on the continental shelf or from rivers. Human intervention, in the form of coastal development, also drives coastal growth.

In Queensland, for example, Bucasia Beach has grown due to the natural input of sediment over time, likely from a nearby river. Meanwhile, Coolangatta Beach in the Gold Coast has grown due to human intervention that placed additional sand on the beach to mitigate and reverse trends of erosion.

At a global scale, parts of China’s coast have grown due to human development on the coast. Other regions, such as Suriname, South America, have grown due to large or fast rivers transporting enormous quantities of sediment to the coast.

These results show that sediment budgets and human intervention can be much greater drivers of coastal change than a relatively small rise in sea level.

However, this doesn’t mean sea level rise driven erosion isn’t a real risk in the future. Instead, we should ask: what happens when, as forecasted, the rate of sea level rise continues to accelerate?

What does this mean for the future?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts sea levels to reach up to 1.01 metres higher (relative to the 1995-2014 level) by 2100 if global emissions continue unabated.

What’s more, sea level rise is getting faster. The IPCC found it rose 1.3 millimetres per year during 1901-1971, 1.9mm per year during 1971-2006, and 3.7mm per year during 2006-2018.

Read more:
Sea-level rise has claimed five whole islands in the Pacific: first scientific evidence

This increase in sea level may drive a loss of sediment to the beach that current positive sediment budgets can no longer offset. This could trigger erosion in beaches presently growing.

So it’s important coastlines presently growing aren’t seen as evidence that sea level rise does not drive coastal erosion. Nor that such coasts are free from future erosion risk.

Even if there’s enough sediment to maintain growth on the coast, hazardous erosion and inundation due to storms and cyclones can still occur.

When we seek to understand and mitigate the future impact of sea level rise on the coast we should also ask: when does coastal erosion become hazardous?

Coastal erosion is, by itself, a natural process and is only a problem when human infrastructure or livelihoods are at risk.

The sediment budget and decisions we make on the coast – where we build, where we intervene, and where we don’t – are just as critical as sea level rise in the future.

Read more:
The seas are coming for us in Kiribati. Will Australia rehome us?

Most of Australia’s coast is undeveloped and the positive sediment budget on many beaches will limit future erosion.

If we continue to leave them alone, the risk of future hazardous erosion under climate change is low. If, however, we place people and infrastructure too close to the shoreline and disrupt coastal sediment budgets, we will increase our future climate risk.

Daniel Harris receives funding from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and the Australian and New Zealand International Ocean Discovery Program Consortium.

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

– ref. Why some beaches, including in Queensland, are getting bigger despite rising sea levels – https://theconversation.com/why-some-beaches-including-in-queensland-are-getting-bigger-despite-rising-sea-levels-180964

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Hail, Adjunct Associate Professor, Torrens University Australia

The Reserve Bank’s cash rate is in the news, and in an unwelcome way for the first time in 11 years.

After a decade in which Australia’s central bank has only moved its cash rate in one direction (down) while trying to ignite inflation, it is now poised to push its cash rate up in a bid to douse those flames.

Central banks hunt in packs – partly because they face the same problems, partly because they are advised by the same sort of economists, and partly because they are, in the words of The Kinks, dedicated followers of fashion.

Inflation has spiked and central banks have pushed up their versions of the cash rate in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere. So there’s a very good chance we will too.

Apart from anything else, if we didn’t push up our rates when other countries were raising theirs, our currency would sink. So there’s mileage in running with the pack, even if we later discover the pack has been running in the wrong direction.

Fashion statements

From the 1940s to the 1970s, central banks kept interest rates low, relying on heavy financial regulation to limit borrowing, and on fixed or regulated exchange rates to control the value of their currencies.

Then came two wars in the Middle East, in 1973 and 1979, which drove dramatic increases in the price of oil, forcing inflation to spike and fashions to change.

From the early 1980s, monetarism was the fad, so central bankers set targets for growth in their money supplies, and used very high interest rates in an attempt to hit those targets.

They found high interest rates an ineffective tool, partly because governments had just deregulated financial institutions and private banks kept creating money, regardless of how high the central banks pushed up interest rates.

Monetarism, then inflation targeting

But the interest rates helped bring on recessions and mass unemployment.

These at least got inflation back down, even though the inflation genie temporarily escaped from its bottle again in the late 1980s, leading to further hikes in interest rates and another set of recessions.

By the early 1990s, it was clear targeting money supply wasn’t the answer, so the central banks shifted to targeting inflation itself.

“Why hadn’t they thought of that before?” you might ask.

All about the cash rate

In Australia, the Reserve Bank would adjust (or attempt to adjust) the so-called cash rate to speed up or slow down the economy to try and keep inflation within a target band.

The cash rate is the average rate banks pay to lend to each other overnight.

Careful readers will have noted that it is the banks themselves, rather than solely the Reserve Bank, that determine the rate, although the Reserve Bank administers the system though which the trades are made.

That’s why the Reserve Bank’s early announcements about moving the cash rate initially used words such as

the Reserve Bank proposes to operate in the domestic money market this morning with a view to reducing cash rates

By borrowing enough from or lending enough to the private banks, the Reserve Bank could almost always push the cash rate up or down to where it wanted it.

So successful was it in getting the cash rate where it wanted, and so successful did the banks know it could be, that after a while it didn’t need to trade in the market to do it.

It merely had to announce where the cash rate would be, eventually dropping words about “operating in the money market” and simply saying things like

the board decided to increase the cash rate by 25 basis points

A “basis point” is one hundredth of one per cent, meaning 25 basis points is 0.25 percentage points.

Australia’s Reserve Bank adopted an inflation target of 2-3%, “on average, over time”. Other central banks adopted different targets. New Zealand’s target was originally 0-2% and was later lifted to 1-3%. The United States, United Kingdom, European Union and Japan target 2%. Canada targets 1-3%.

Read more:
Inflation hits 5.1%. How long until mortgage rates climb?

Regardless of the exact target, and regardless of the countless times it has been missed, inflation, and expectations of inflation, have stayed low ever since.

It mightn’t be because of the interest rate adjustments, and certainly isn’t only because of them. Other candidates include insecure employment, globalisation, growing inequality and cheap energy; but central bankers like to take the credit.

In 2004, Ben Bernanke, later to become Chair of the US Federal Reserve, spoke of a Great Moderation and said that in his opinion it wasn’t just luck, but the skill of modern central bankers that had brought it about. They had finally cracked it!

Inflation tamed, til it wasn’t

You have probably heard than the last time Australian interest rates were hiked during an election campaign was in 2007, when the cash rate was lifted to what now seems a dizzyingly high 6.75%.

What you might not have heard is that two years later it was half that level, because of the 2008 global financial crisis, which had been around the corner during the election when the rate was hiked.

Read more:
What’s in the CPI and what does it actually measure?

It turned out the central bankers hadn’t cracked it. They had ignored an enormous build-up in private debt and increasingly risky financial behaviour.

For much of the time since, inflation rates have been well below central bank targets, and official interest rates have been going down, down, deeper and down.

The Reserve Bank’s cash rate target hit a record low of 0.1% during the pandemic.

But the flood of money the Reserve Bank pushed out the door by buying government bonds and lending to banks for next to nothing pushed the actual overnight cash rate down even lower, beneath 0.1%, to close to zero.

Official rates in Europe and elsewhere had been negative before the pandemic.

In much of the rest of the world what Australians call the global financial crisis was called the “great recession”, and central bankers threw everything they could at trying to restore inflation after it was over.

They failed, just as Australia’s central bank failed to restore inflation. When COVID struck, inflation had been below the bottom of the Reserve Bank target band for almost all of the previous half decade.

Read more:
Don’t look Up! has a lot to say about economics, much of it useful

This wouldn’t have been a surprise to the iconic 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes, who is said to have once compared trying to boost an ailing economy by cutting interest rates to “pushing on a string”.

Cutting rates can’t force unwilling businesses and consumers to invest and spend.

What it should tell us is that the relationship between the cash rate and inflation is more complex that the central bankers told us (and themselves) it was. Hiking interest rates far enough will almost certainly bring inflation down, but at a cost.

Rate hikes can be counterproductive

Small increases in interest rates can actually push prices up. Interest rates are a cost to businesses (and to landlords) and can be passed on in prices.

And while pushing up rates reduces the disposable income of those with mortgages to repay (putting downward pressure on spending and prices) it raises the spending power of people such as myself, with savings in term deposits, boosting our ability to spend and push up prices.

Higher interest rates are often thought to discourage business investment, but there is little evidence they do. Investments are driven more by expected sales than the cost of finance.

Read more:
Of the 4 economic wildcards between now and voting day, the first is CPI

What would bring inflation down would be a series of interest rate hikes so big it crashed property and share market prices, or so big it pushed people out of work and brought on a recession.

So the central bank pack ought to tread carefully. If inflation is driven by fossil fuel prices, supply chain disruptions, wars and (looking ahead) climate change, then showing restraint, and addressing the causes of these issues or waiting for them to pass might be a better response than pushing up rates, albeit not one in the central bank tool box.

The best bands don’t play solo

If it genuinely is excessive spending that is pushing up prices, the best tool to address that is fiscal, through budget measures that withdraw spending from the economy or push up taxes.

The March budget did the opposite, handing out a $250 cost of living bonus.

And we ought not forget that central banks and regulators have another tool they can use, which is to tighten the amount of credit by limiting how much financial institutions can lend. Higher interest rates are one of the instruments in the band, but not the only one.

Bands sound better when they are made up of several players, playing several instruments. If you are performing solo, you need to be extremely good.

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

– ref. Central banks hunt in packs. Here’s why ours ought to be wary about lifting the cash rate – https://theconversation.com/central-banks-hunt-in-packs-heres-why-ours-ought-to-be-wary-about-lifting-the-cash-rate-181465

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Portolan, PhD student, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

The term “high-maintenance” is part of everyday speech, and usually refers to a woman who places a high value on her personal image, wants or needs. Often uttered within the context of dating, the implication is the woman in question is too much hard work; an easier, more relatable mate would be preferred.

Rarely, if ever, do we come across the term “high-maintenance man”.

On dating apps, users make split-second decisions, relying on profile pictures to guide them.

In my research into dating apps and heterosexual matches, I found men sought to portray themselves as handsome, muscular – tanned, even – in their profile shots to attract more matches.

Conversely, women sought to portray themselves against a cultural idea.

Women looked to develop profiles which conveyed them as “not high-maintenance.”

Read more:
You can’t have a Hollywood meet cute on a dating app — but is that such a bad thing?

What does ‘high-maintenance’ mean on dating apps?

“High-maintenance” was a slippery and yet sticky category defined by physical and behavioural characteristics.

In her profile photos, the high-maintenance “girl” (as she was often described by the men and women in my research), was likely wearing “too much” make-up, or form-fitting clothes. She would be dressed for a party (or “going out”). She would be pouting at the camera Instagram-style, or toting an expensive handbag.

Once tarnished with the high-maintenance brush, it was difficult to be perceived as otherwise.

Behaviourally, she was perceived as difficult. She wanted things, and expected a high standard. There was a labour involved in dating her, and therefore, a financial burden.

As one male participant indicated:

There are plenty of super attractive girls on dating apps […] but I mean, I can’t afford that sort of thing. It’s too high-maintenance.

Women within my research sought to present themselves as “pretty” but “relatable”. They didn’t want to “intimidate” a potential match through their images and behaviour.

As one female participant indicated, a high-maintenance woman expected too much.

The need to appear attractive and yet not high-maintenance meant women had to conduct a balancing act.

There was a kind of effortless, pretty, nonchalance required:

My everyday look is an oversized tee and very comfy clothes, but on my profile there’s the festival picture where I’m obviously done up and there are two other photos where I’m with friends […] I did feel the pressure where you should at least look pretty, but at the same time you need to look relatable. So I guess at the same time, people aren’t intimidated to approach you.

There is that pressure that you need to look friendly enough, but pretty enough, but not too friendly at the same time. It’s a weird line.

Read more:
When it comes to dating advice, why is it always women who must improve?

Identity management

This kind of identity management is nothing new, particularly on social media. It is distinctly pervasive for girls and young women who are generally represented as having (or being) too little or too much. Too fat or too thin; too clever or too stupid; too free or too restricted.

Here, the line was between sexiness and effortlessness. Female participants felt the urge to look pretty, but also not so pretty that they might scare prospective matches off.

Physical attributes, or ways of presenting oneself, were also often conflated with personal behaviours and expectations. In effect women had to portray themselves as naturally pretty, capable, expectation-less, fun-loving, and, most importantly, easy-going.

All to ensure a man’s comfort.

Hidden behind this seemingly insignificant, even innocuous statement, was something far more sinister.

It seemed to describe the multitude of ways women reign themselves in to appease men: not complaining, not demanding too much, not expressing needs, not having expectations for emotional openness or fulfilment.

In effect, not making any of the demands, which are the necessary requirements for an intimacy based on relations of equality and mutuality.

Ultimately, the “high-maintenance” woman was too much to handle – which confirmed known stereotypes that women are expected to be quiet, subservient, opinion-less, and always amenable. That they shouldn’t be difficult.

It hardened feminine mainstays that a woman is required to smile and make nice. Not be too overt, and ultimately not take up too much space.

A certain invisibility was required, even in an online dating space.

Read more:
Looking for love on a dating app? You might be falling for a ghost

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

– ref. ‘High maintenance’ is a red flag on dating apps. Women are still expected to shrink themselves – https://theconversation.com/high-maintenance-is-a-red-flag-on-dating-apps-women-are-still-expected-to-shrink-themselves-180113

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

Labor’s confidence will be boosted by two polls showing it holding a strong lead, as Anthony Albanese carried off a well-orchestrated party launch in Perth on Sunday.

Newspoll, published in Monday’s Australian, has Labor ahead on a two-party basis by 53-47%, unchanged in a week. A Resolve poll for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age has a Labor lead of 54-46%, the same as a fortnight before.

In Newspoll, the ALP primary vote lifted a point to 38%, while the Coalition remained steady on 36%. Albanese narrowed Scott Morrison’s margin as better prime minister. Morrison leads 45% (down a point) to Albanese’s 39% (up 2 points).

The Prime Minister had a 5 point positive turnaround in his satisfaction rating, with 44% satisfied with his performance and 51% dissatisfied, for a net rating of minus 7. Albanese’s rating on satisfaction was 40% (up 2) while his dissatisfaction was 49% (down a point), with a net level of minus 9.

In the poll, 56% said it was time for a change of government.

The Resolve poll has Labor steady on a primary vote of 34%, while the Coalition has dropped from 35% to 33% on primaries. The Greens have had a big jump from 11% to 15%.

Morrison leads Albanese as preferred PM 39-33%. This compares to 38-30% a fortnight ago. Morrison’s approval is on 42% and his disapproval is 51%, giving him a net rating of minus 9. Albanese’s approval is 37% while his disapproval is 48%, for a net rating of minus 11.

The dual poll results show that halfway through the campaign, Labor’s election winning leads are holding up, although both government and opposition as well as commentators still regard the contest as volatile. There are considerable regional variations, as well as intense battles where ‘teal’ candidates are fighting Liberals.

The Newspoll of 1538 voters was done April 27-30. The Resolve poll was done April 26-30, surveying 1408 voters.

Labor has reason to be happy with its Sunday formal launch in Perth, which could easily have gone poorly given Albanese was just out of isolation and still suffering some after effects from his bout of COVID.

But he spoke well and his performance was sufficiently energetic to give his campaign momentum. His speech was carefully crafted, with some good attack lines against Scott Morrison.

“Scott Morrison just keeps on scrambling from one photo op to another, boasting that the Australian people know who he is.

“Well, he’s got that right. They don’t think – they know”.

Albanese did not have any show stopping big policy announcement, but rather several modest initiatives. But what he did announce was carefully targeted at particular constituencies and issues.

Policy Launch Commitments – An Albanese government would:

• Make gender pay equity an objective of the Fair Work Act
• Cut cost of medication on the PBS by $12.50, making the maximum cost for a script $30
• Build more electric vehicle charging stations across Australia.
• Assist low and middle income aspiring home buyers by taking equity in their houses
• Invest $1 billion into value-adding to Australian resources

He promised to make gender equity a principle in the Fair Work Act and take other action to get a fairer deal for low paid women.

The cut in the cost of prescriptions was a little larger than the one being offered by the government.

His initiative for the government to take equity in house purchases by aspiring homeowners was an acknowledgement of the affordability crisis that is on the minds of many younger Australians.

Building more electric vehicle charging stations is promoting one practical response to the issue of climate change.

And the $1 billion for value adding to Australian resources (out of a $15 billion National Reconstruction fund Labor had already annouced) speaks to the importance of undertaking more processing and manufacturing in Australia.

Albanese’s challenge over the next few days, until he is completely recovered from COVID, will be to maintain the energy level he showed on Sunday and avoid any mistakes.

But as things stand, it’s Morrison who has the more daunting challenge as he remains well behind with the finishing line now less than three weeks away, and the start of pre-polling only one week away.

Both sides will be holding their breaths for Tuesday, when we will know whether interest rates go up immediately or wait for another month. If there’s an immediate rise, that will have an impact on the thinking of some voters, although it’s hard to judge just what that impact would be.

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: Labor strongly ahead in Newspoll and Resolve, as election race enters final half – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-labor-strongly-ahead-in-newspoll-and-resolve-as-election-race-enters-final-half-182282

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

Anthony Albanese has pledged a Labor government would make gender pay equity an objective of the Fair Work Act and strengthen the Fair Work Commission’s powers to order pay rises for workers in low paid industries dominated by women.

The gender equity promise was one of five initiatives in the opposition leader’s policy speech, delivered to an audience of the Labor faithful in Perth on Sunday.

Paying tribute to care worker’s efforts in the pandemic, Albanese said they were the “arteries of our nation” and must be given “the respect and the investment they deserve”.

A Labor government would set up a care and communities sector expert panel and a pay equity expert panel to improve expertise within the commission.

Two former prime minsters, Paul Keating and Kevin Rudd, were at the launch, and Albanese was introduced by Western Australian Premier Mark McGowan. Newly-elected South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas was also in the audience.

Education spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek, a very popular Labor figure, was missing from the launch, amid commentary in recent days that she has not been prominent during the campaign. Albanese said earlier in the weekend that Plibersek would be missing because she was representing him at Sunday’s May Day rally in Sydney.

Albanese – who has just emerged from a bout of COVID – told his audience that as prime minister he would want to “work with all premiers, regardless of which party they are from. I want to bring all the states together and get things done for the whole country.”

In other announcements, Albanese said Labor would build more electric vehicle charging stations across Australia, reduce pharmaceutical charges, make it easier for people to purchase houses by having the government take partial equity in them, and invest $1 billion in a fund for value-adding to resources.

He said building more electric vehicle charging stations would close the gaps in the network.

“That means you’ll be able to drive an electric vehicle across the country. Adelaide to Perth, Brisbane to Mount Isa.

“Together with Labor’s already announced electric vehicle discount, we’ll make it easier and cheaper for your next car to be electric.

“Imagine a future where you don’t have to worry about petrol bills”.

On pharmaceuticals, Albanese said Labor would reduce the cost of medication on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) by $12.50, making it cheaper for general patients. This would mean the maximum people paid for a PBS script would be $30, a reduction of 29%.

Someone taking one medication a month would save $150 a year. Labor’s changes to the PBS would start on January 1 next year.

The government has also just announced also a cut in the cost of medical scripts – by $10 a script.

Under Labor’s “help to buy” housing initiative, the federal government would provide an equity contribution for 10,000 aspiring home owners annually. The scheme would be available for low and middle income earners.

“If you have saved 2% of you deposit, we will contribute up to 40% of the purchase price of a new home or 30% for an existing home”, Albanese said.

He said the plan “will assist Australians to buy a home with a smaller deposit, smaller mortgage and smaller mortgage repayments.

“An Australian Labor government will help you achieve the great Australian dream of homeownership”.

Albanese also announced that as part of Labor’s proposed national reconstruction fund it would invest $1 billion in developing value-adding products from the nation’s resources.

“We will take resources like lithium and nickle – essential elements of the batteries that will power the vehicles of the future – and instead of shipping them to another country to make batteries, we’ll have what we need to make them right here”.

“We’ll bring manufacturing back home”.

Urging Australians to “vote for a better future”, Albanese said: “As your prime minister I won’t run away from responsibility. I won’t treat every crisis as a chance to blame someone else.

“I will show up, I will step up, I will bring people together. I will lead with integrity and treat you with respect”

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

– ref. Albanese pledges to make gender pay equity a Fair Work Act objective – https://theconversation.com/albanese-pledges-to-make-gender-pay-equity-a-fair-work-act-objective-182281

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

At the campaign’s halfway point in the highly contested seat of Wentworth, ‘teal’ candidate Allegra Spender has shifted – but polarised – soft voters’ views about her.

Fewer of these voters have changed their opinion of her Liberal opponent, sitting member Dave Sharma. But of those who have, more have a negative opinion of him.

This is our second round of focus group research for the Wentworth Project, sponsored by the University of Canberra’s Centre for Change Governance and The Conversation.

The research was done online on April 27-28 with 15 “soft voters” aged 30-70. All but one participated in the earlier focus group work on April 11-12; there was one replacement participant. The study was done by Landscape Research.

Focus groups are not predictive but are designed to tap into attitudes. In March, the project conducted quantitative research.

Between the two rounds of focus group work, Sharma and Spender had a face-to-face debate hosted by Sky News.

In the earlier focus group round, people were split evenly on a two-candidate basis, with eight leaning towards Spender and seven towards Sharma. They remain evenly divided now – Spender eight, Sharma seven – although three people have swapped their first preferences during the campaign.

A 34-year-old male IT worker, and a 52-year-old male government employee switched from leaning towards Sharma to leaning towards Spender. A 51-year-old woman has switched the other way. The rest of these voters have not changed their leanings.

The younger man explained his move by saying he thought Sharma was “pushing a national agenda to locals and avoiding local issues, whereas Allegra appears to be focusing more on local issues and at the same time linking them to national issues”.

The older man said acquiring a better knowledge of Spender’s education, career, and family history “has increased my level of confidence on where I think she is positioned in the political spectrum”.

The woman “switcher” had moved primarily over her concerns about the possibility of a hung parliament.

Asked which of the two main contenders had run the better campaign, these soft voters divided between those who thought Spender had done so (nine) and a smaller number who thought the campaigns were pretty even (five).

Those who believed Spender was campaigning better mentioned her visibility, intelligent answers to questions, and the way she had handled the Sky debate.

“Sharma seems to be on the defence all the time,” said a 46-year-old part time accountant.

Those who thought the campaign’s too close to call believed both candidates presented well and were visible.

Among the nearly half (seven) whose views of Sharma had changed, more had a worse opinion (five), than a better opinion of him (two).

Those who said their views of Sharma was worse than at the campaign start pointed to the lack of representation of constituents and his association with the Coalition.

“He is just another LNP party man” (older male). “I previously projected my negative views of Scott Morrison onto Dave Sharma but during the campaign it is clear that Dave Sharma is equally incompetent” (39-year-old woman).

Spender has shifted more of these soft voters, in terms of their opinion on her, and only three have the same view of her as earlier.

Seven have come to a better opinion of her, five to a worse one.

Those who have not changed had the same concerns about her – or were satisfied with what they already knew.

Her policies, background, acumen, and presentational style have won approval.

“I had an open view of Spender at the start of the campaign, and have taken notice of her presentation and engagement with the community […] my view of her has grown positively such that I am optimistic that there will be a better chance of her representing the electorate fairly and professionally,” a retired NSW public servant said.

But some are concerned at Spender’s refusal to declare her intentions if there was a hung parliament.

“My view of Spender has diminished. I watched the community debate/Q&A between her and Sharma, and it bothered me that she would not declare which policies or major party she would support if elected,” a 46-year-old university worker said.

A part time receptionist said “absolutely she should declare who she will back […] by not answering the questions I believe it looks like she is hiding something”.

The soft voters are divided on this declaration issue, whether they support Spender or Sharma.

Some see Spender’s refusal to commit as reasonable and even a sign of true independence.

“I don’t think she has to declare her support at this stage. She may need to wait until she is sitting at the table negotiating with both parties as to who makes the best sense to be aligned with. I suspect it would be Labor” (57-year-old male).

The electoral intentions of many of these soft voters are being influenced primarily by their disillusionment with the Coalition government and Morrison, or both of the major parties.

“I have a high level of dissatisfaction with the incumbent government, of particular concern is the internal discord between the Liberals and Nationals and the indifference shown to issues considered important to moderate liberals” (52-year-old male). “I’m very worried that Labor cannot seem to answer questions directly regarding their policies” (48-year-old woman). “Neither the Labor nor Liberal parties seem to have any long term plans for the country” (63-year-old female).

Policy is of primary importance to some. Key issues include trust and integrity, the economy and economic management, and climate change and the environment. Cost of living ranked low.

Figures showing a spike in inflation were released as the focus work was being conducted. But this and the prospect of interest rates rising were not seen as particularly relevant to how these people would vote – they were regarded as largely outside the government’s control.

While many had concerns about the China-Solomons pact, which has been to the fore in the national campaign, it was not generally affecting these participants’ voting intention. There was discussion about the transgender issue that has blown up around the Liberal candidate Katherine Deves in Warringah but it was seen as irrelevant to Wentworth.

Asked about the likely outcome of the election in Wentworth if a poll had been held this week, nine of these soft voters thought Spender would win, three thought Sharma would win, and three were unsure.

“Dave Sharma by a small margin. Whilst Allegra Spender has been running a good campaign, she is not as popular as the previous independent [Kerryn Phelps]” (62-year-old male). “Allegra Spender – as people are fed up with Scott Morrison and they see her as almost a Liberal” (61-year-old female). “I suspect Spender may have the edge but it’s hard to know when preferences are taken into account […] I think Wentworth will be very close” (68-year-old female).

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: Allegra Spender’s profile rises, but polarises – https://theconversation.com/the-wentworth-project-allegra-spenders-profile-rises-but-polarises-182275

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

Is there any such thing as the so-called “ethnic vote” in a country as multicultural as Australia? Do different cultural groups favour one side of politics over another? For instance, in Victoria’s most marginal seat of Chisholm, will the Hong Kong-born Liberal MP Gladys Liu be advantaged by the Chinese diaspora living in her electorate?

In the latest episode of Below the Line, hosted by award-winning broadcaster Jon Faine, we talk to Chinese media expert Wilfred Wang from the University of Melbourne to understand why there are no easy answers to these questions.

Andrea Carson asks if a negative Labor ad circulating online about Liu’s connections to China – which Prime Minister Scott Morrison called “sewer tactics” – will harm her electoral prospects.

“It’s unlikely,” Dr Wang explains, because Chinese Australians do not vote uniformly, with their support fragmented across the major parties and the Greens.

He also says there is little evidence from 2019 that Liberal election messages on the Chinese online platform WeChat played a big role in Liu’s 2019 electoral success.

“WeChat didn’t play such a vital role in shaping Chinese Australians’ votes, even for those voters from mainland China,” says Dr Wang, contradicting some of the party and media speculation at the time.

To read Dr Wang’s forthcoming article on misinformation targeting migrant communities, which is mentioned in the program, visit his author profile early next week or subscribe to our daily newsletter to be alerted as soon as it goes live.

As Simon Jackman notes, the top 10 seats with the highest proportions of non-English speakers are in Melbourne and Sydney, and he reminds us that more research needs to be done to understand these ethnic voting patterns. Anika Gauja says this is further complicated by shifts in immigration demographics, with a big influx of Indian migrants in the past decade, which both sides of politics are trying to capitalise on.

Meanwhile, Anthony Albanese has returned to the campaign trail after a week in isolation with COVID-19 – but how much of a difference did his physical absence make to communication Labor’s messages to voters? Less than the Coalition would have liked, conclude our expert panel.

Finally, Jon asks why Scott Morrison and his team have already said “yes” to a second leaders debate on May 8 (Mother’s Day) with Channel Nine, but Labor is yet to commit? What does this tell us about how the Liberal party might see its own electoral prospects?

Below the Line is a limited-edition election podcast brought to you by The Conversation and La Trobe University.

Image credit: James Ross/AAP

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

– ref. Below the Line: Will different cultural groups favour one side of politics this federal election? – podcast – https://theconversation.com/below-the-line-will-different-cultural-groups-favour-one-side-of-politics-this-federal-election-podcast-182236

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Howard, Lecturer, Monash University

“Two, four, six, eight; bog in, don’t wait”.

As children, we learn numbers can either be even or odd. And there are many ways to categorise numbers as even or odd.

We may memorise the rule that numbers ending in 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9 are odd while numbers ending in 0, 2, 4, 6, or 8 are even. Or we may divide a number by 2 – where any whole number outcome means the number is even, otherwise it must be odd.

Similarly, when dealing with real-world objects we can use pairing. If we have an unpaired element left over, that means the number of objects was odd.

Until now odd and even categorisation, also called parity classification, had never been shown in non-human animals. In a new study, published today in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, we show honeybees can learn to do this.

Why is parity categorisation special?

Parity tasks (such as odd and even categorisation) are considered abstract and high-level numerical concepts in humans.

Interestingly, humans demonstrate accuracy, speed, language and spatial relationship biases when categorising numbers as odd or even. For example, we tend to respond faster to even numbers with actions performed by our right hand, and to odd numbers with actions performed by our left hand.

We are also faster, and more accurate, when categorising numbers as even compared to odd. And research has found children typically associate the word “even” with “right” and “odd” with “left”.

These studies suggest humans may have learnt biases and/or innate biases regarding odd and even numbers, which may have arisen either through evolution, cultural transmission, or a combination of both.

It isn’t obvious why parity might be important beyond its use in mathematics, so the origins of these biases remain unclear. Understanding if and how other animals can recognise (or can learn to recognise) odd and even numbers could tell us more about our own history with parity.

Training bees to learn odd and even

Studies have shown honeybees can learn to order quantities, perform simple addition and subtraction, match symbols with quantities and relate size and number concepts.

Read more:
Can bees do maths? Yes – new research shows they can add and subtract

To teach bees a parity task, we separated individuals into two groups. One was trained to associate even numbers with sugar water and odd numbers with a bitter-tasting liquid (quinine). The other group was trained to associate odd numbers with sugar water, and even numbers with quinine.

We trained individual bees using comparisons of odd versus even numbers (with cards presenting 1-10 printed shapes) until they chose the correct answer with 80% accuracy.

Remarkably, the respective groups learnt at different rates. The bees trained to associate odd numbers with sugar water learnt quicker. Their learning bias towards odd numbers was the opposite of humans, who categorise even numbers more quickly.

We then tested each bee on new numbers not shown during the training. Impressively, they categorised the new numbers of 11 or 12 elements as odd or even with an accuracy of about 70%.

Our results showed the miniature brains of honeybees were able to understand the concepts of odd and even. So a large and complex human brain consisting of 86 billion neurons, and a miniature insect brain with about 960,000 neurons, could both categorise numbers by parity.

Does this mean the parity task was less complex than we’d previously thought? To find the answer, we turned to bio-inspired technology.

Creating a simple artificial neural network

Artificial neural networks were one of the first learning algorithms developed for machine learning. Inspired by biological neurons, these networks are scalable and can tackle complex recognition and classification tasks using propositional logic.

We constructed a simple artificial neural network with just five neurons to perform a parity test. We gave the network signals between 0 and 40 pulses, which it classified as either odd or even. Despite its simplicity, the neural network correctly categorised the pulse numbers as odd or even with 100% accuracy.

This showed us that in principle parity categorisation does not require a large and complex brain such as a human’s. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean the bees and the simple neural network used the same mechanism to solve the task.

Simple or complex?

We don’t yet know how the bees were able to perform the parity task. Explanations may include simple or complex processes. For example, the bees may have:

1. paired elements to find an unpaired element

2. performed division calculations – although division has not been previously demonstrated by bees

3. counted each element and then applied the odd/even categorisation rule to the total quantity.

By teaching other animal species to discriminate between odd and even numbers, and perform other abstract mathematics, we can learn more about how maths and abstract thought emerged in humans.

Is discovering maths an inevitable consequence of intelligence? Or is maths somehow linked to the human brain? Are the differences between humans and other animals less than we previously thought? Perhaps we can glean these intellectual insights, if only we listen properly.

Read more:
How a bee sees: tiny bumps on flower petals give them their intense colour — and help them survive

Scarlett Howard received funding from Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship, RMIT University, Fyssen Foundation, L’Oreal-UNESCO for Women in Science Young Talents French Award, and Deakin University. She is affiliated with Pint of Science Australia as the Media Manager volunteer.

Adrian Dyer receives funding from Australian Research Council

Andrew Greentree receives funding from The Australian Research Council, Defence Science and Technology Group, SmartSat CRC, The US Air Force Office of Scientific Research, The Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development, The US Office of Naval Research, and the Foundation for Australia-Japan Studies.

Jair Garcia 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. Honeybees join humans as the only known animals that can tell the difference between odd and even numbers – https://theconversation.com/honeybees-join-humans-as-the-only-known-animals-that-can-tell-the-difference-between-odd-and-even-numbers-181040

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Jensen, Associate professor, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, University of Canberra

Disinformation and foreign interference constitute a grave threat to Western democracies, particularly during elections.

Both the 2016 US election and the 2019 UK election were targeted by Russian disinformation campaigns. Already, we are seeing disinformation operations in the lead-up to the Australian federal election targeting both parties – and the election system itself.

In his annual threat assessment speech this year, ASIO director Mike Burgess said one of the most insidious things about foreign interference is that it uses our very own strengths against us:

[…] the perpetrators exploit our values, freedoms and trust, to undermine our values, freedoms and trust.

Distorting voting decisions

The threat of foreign interference and disinformation is threefold.

First, democracy depends on true information for citizens to connect their preferences to voting choices and hold governments accountable. Disinformation can distort people’s understandings of issues and candidates, so they may make choices they otherwise would not.

We’ve already seen how disinformation on COVID has influenced people’s attitudes and actions, not only when it comes to their health decisions (such as whether to get a vaccine), but also their political choices.

Disinformation about the public health threat, for example, could cause people to vote for a minor party or candidate that has made the removal of all restrictions and mandates a central political platform.

Shaping policy by influencing election outcomes

Second, the involvement of a foreign actor in disinformation further undermines democracy as it subjects our domestic politics not to the will of our people, but to that of a foreign government.

Burgess revealed in the threat assessment that ASIO had interrupted an operation involving an Australian-based individual with ties to a foreign intelligence service. This person worked to identify and promote candidates favourable to the interests of a foreign government.

Reporting by the ABC indicated the foreign government was Russia and the Australian-based person had “close links” to President Vladimir Putin’s regime.

Russia is already waging an information war alongside its war of aggression against Ukraine. It appears it has also sought to interfere in one of our elections. With Australia providing military support for Ukraine, Russia may seek to continue its efforts to covertly interfere in Australian politics in retaliation.

Undermining support for democracy

Third, disinformation and foreign interference might not target a specific party or policy, but it may seek to simply undermine support for our democratic political system. It targets trust in our democracy.

Recent examples include efforts to recycle conspiracy theories from the United States that Dominion voting machines will be used in Australia and that these machines will alter vote counts.

There is no credible evidence that Dominion machines have switched votes in the 2020 US presidential election, and Australia does not even use such machines. But this conspiracy, pushed by some supporters of former US President Donald Trump, has been imported to Australia.

The effect of such a claim could undermine trust in our electoral process and the legitimacy of a federal election.

In addition, there has been much talk about the number of pencils the Australian Electoral Commission is preparing for voters as a means to reduce the transmission risk of COVID and other infections.

Talk of ballots completed in pencils has given rise in the past to conspiracies that voting officials change the votes to insure a predetermined result. This is despite the fact most elections are observed throughout by members of multiple parties.

Nonetheless, this conspiracy may resurface during the upcoming federal election, as well.

In addition to efforts to support or oppose a party, policy, or even the legitimacy of our democracy, disinformation campaigns may seek to increase polarisation in our society by promoting a certain policy or party that reflects an extreme political view.

Polarisation makes it harder for political parties to reach agreement and for governments to enact policies or defend their actions to voters. And this, in turn, can play on the insecurities of citizens to move them to extreme political views.

Another way to undermine confidence in our political systems is to use multiple lines of disinformation and foreign interference at the same time.

We have seen evidence that the same actors promoting conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines have also promoted false claims that Ukraine is rife with US bioweapons labs. These claims have been around for a long time and there is no truth to them.

The aim of these multiple lines of attack is to move the public against the Australian government’s support for Ukraine, as well as the US.

One single attack against a party or policy may not ultimately change many votes. But a wide-ranging set of attacks can reach a larger audience of persuadable voters and, over time, overwhelm the resistance of otherwise sceptical citizens.

At a minimum, these efforts can create confusion in the public so they do not know who to trust and what to believe.

Read more:
Disinformation campaigns are murky blends of truth, lies and sincere beliefs – lessons from the pandemic

Countering disinformation

How do we counter such threats? We have three recommendations.

First, a proactive counter-narrative needs to be found as an antidote to falsehoods and manipulation.

Political candidates have limited abilities to counter the disinformation targeting them as their responses can be cynically dismissed as strategic rather than authentic. But civil society actors and academics can point to specific operations, identify the actors and disclose their methods of manipulation.

We have seen elements of this with respect to the US strategy to rapidly declassify intelligence to counter Russian war plans in Ukraine.

Second, public statements by nonpartisan election officials to counter disinformation, as well as offering appropriate access to the way the voting process works, can provide transparency to voters. This can also counter conspiracy theories claiming people’s votes are not being fairly counted.

Finally, to the greatest extent possible without compromising their work, our intelligence agencies need to publicly disclose operations and the methods used by foreign actors to subvert our political process.

Intelligence agencies used to operate under the mantra, “the secret of our success is the secret of our success”. That is not always the case.

Michael Jensen has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Defence, Science, and Technology, and the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This research reflects solely the views of the authors.

Sascha-Dominik (Dov) Bachmann has received and is receiving funding from the Australian Department of Defence for research regarding grey zone and information operations targeting Australia. He is a Research Fellow with the Security Institute for Governance and Leadership in Africa, Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch University and is a Fellow Asia Pacific (Hybrid Threats and Lawfare) of NATO SHAPE, Belgium

– ref. Here’s how disinformation could disrupt the Australian election – https://theconversation.com/heres-how-disinformation-could-disrupt-the-australian-election-177629

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

Prime Minister Scott Morrison this week claimed Labor was planning a “sneaky carbon tax” should it win power, and Nationals senator Matt Canavan declared the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 was “dead”.

We can expect both these concepts to be thrown around a fair bit during the federal election campaign, so it’s worth getting a few things straight right now.

The safeguard mechanism is not a carbon tax

The Coalition’s claims of a “sneaky carbon tax” are a reference to Labor’s plans to tighten an existing policy known as the safeguard mechanism.

The safeguard mechanism was introduced by the Abbott Coalition government in 2016 – and it is not a carbon tax.

The mechanism was supposed to “safeguard” gains achieved through the Coalition’s then-named Emissions Reduction Fund, by ensuring the emissions cuts were not offset by increases elsewhere in the economy.

The rule applies to about 200 large industrial polluters that directly emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, in sectors such as electricity, mining, gas, manufacturing and transport.

Under the safeguard mechanism, these polluters must keep their emissions below historical levels, known as a baseline. If they exceed the baseline, polluters can either buy carbon credits to offset the excess pollution, or apply to the Clean Energy Regulator for the baseline to be adjusted.

Baseline adjustments were allowed because no overall cap was placed on the amount of emissions produced. Without a cap, the regulator has greater flexibility to make adjustments.

This flexibility has meant the safeguard mechanism is ineffectual. In fact, since its implementation, companies subject to the mechanism have actually increased their emissions by 7% overall.

Read more:
Net zero by 2050 will hit a major timing problem technology can’t solve. We need to talk about cutting consumption

So, Labor has promised to tighten the safeguard mechanism if it wins the election. This means large emitters will be less able to adjust their baselines, and gradually, their baselines will be reduced.

This approach coheres with the original purpose of the safeguard mechanism, and is supported by the Business Council of Australia and others.

Analysis suggests Labor’s policy could avoid a substantial 213 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions entering the atmosphere by 2030.

Labor has indicated that emissions-intensive industries, such as large coal and gas exporters, will not be forced to cut pollution in a way that makes them less competitive internationally.

Australia’s never had a carbon tax

Let’s be clear. No Australian government has implemented a carbon tax – and any suggestion to the contrary is inaccurate.

The spectre of a so-called “carbon tax” has haunted Labor ever since the 2010 election campaign, when then Prime Minister Julia Gillard ruled out implementing one.

Upon being returned to office, Gillard announced plans to legislate a carbon price, in the form of an emissions trading scheme.

Not all carbon pricing amounts to a carbon tax. But the Abbott-led Coalition nonetheless sought to conflate the two and accused Gillard of breaking a key election promise.

Greenhouse gas emissions, and associated climate change, come with costs. Extreme weather such as droughts and heatwaves damages crops and drives up demand for health care. Flooding, bushfires and sea level rise damages property.

Read more:
China’s demand for seaborne coal is set to drop fast and far. Australia should take note.

Carbon pricing seeks to ensure those responsible for much of these costs – large polluters – either reduce their emissions or help pay for the social and environmental damage they cause.

Labor’s emissions trading scheme required polluters to report and pay for every tonne of carbon dioxide they produced, or face a financial penalty. The scheme was a success: compliance was high and emissions reduction targets were met.

The policy, however, was short-lived. The Abbott government repealed it in July 2014.

Net-zero by 2050 is very much alive

So what of Senator Canavan’s claims this week that net-zero emissions targets were “dead” and should be scrapped?

Canavan this week told the ABC:

“[UK Prime Minister] Boris Johnson said he is pausing the net zero commitment, Germany is building coal and gas infrastructure, Italy’s reopening coal-fired power plants. It’s all over. It’s all over bar the shouting here”.

Late last year, Australia committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. That means cutting greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and then, for emissions that cannot be avoided, removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere.

Net-zero emissions by 2050 is needed avert the worst impacts of climate change. Australia is also required to meet the target under its Paris Agreement obligations.

All Australian states and territories have committed to the net-zero goal. Victoria, the ACT and Tasmania have gone further and legislated net-zero as a target.

Australia may be a long way off achieving net-zero by 2050, particularly in the absence of a robust and credible carbon price. But Canavan is wrong to suggest the goal has been abandoned globally.

Some countries have already achieved net-zero. The UK has a legally binding net-zero target by 2050 and Germany has pledged to get there by 2045.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has left countries such as Germany worried about their reliance on Russian gas, and this may see a short-term increase in fossil fuel use in Europe.

But the world remains largely committed to the net-zero target.

Just a few days ago, German finance minister Christian Lindner outlined the importance of the low-carbon transition to the nation’s energy security, describing renewable energy as “freedom energy”.

So, contrary to Canavan’s suggestion, the world’s shift to clean energy is likely to accelerate in the longer term.

Read more:
We found a hidden source of greenhouse gases – organic matter in groundwater

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

– ref. No, Mr Morrison – the safeguard mechanism is not a ‘sneaky carbon tax’ – https://theconversation.com/no-mr-morrison-the-safeguard-mechanism-is-not-a-sneaky-carbon-tax-182054

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party continues to make waves in the federal election campaign, most recently with advertisements on massive billboards pledging a “maximum 3% interest rate on all home loans for five years”. But does this promise stack up?

Keeping mortgage rates at their record lows for five years is a bold promise. Especially because – as Clive Palmer well knows – the government doesn’t set interest rates.

The key driver is the Reserve Bank of Australia, which sets the cash rate to keep inflation at a low and stable level of 2-3%. But once the cash rate is set, every other bank is entitled to lend money out at whatever competitive rate they want. They frequently diverge from the cash rate based on their cost of obtaining funding from Australian savers and from overseas.

On its website, the United Australia Party (UAP) says it would “use the power of the Constitution to put a cap on the bank home lending rate at a maximum of 3% for the next five years.” (It also promises to introduce a 15% export licence for all iron ore exports from Australia, and “pledge the proceeds from such licences to be used for the retirement of the one trillion-dollar debt mountain that Australia faces”.)

For a moment, let’s run with this 3% idea from the UAP. Imagine for a minute it held the balance of power or even had a majority in both houses of parliament.

If UAP really did intend to try and deliver on an election promise to cap interest rates at 3% for five years, what would the flow-on effects be?

Read more:
5 interview questions for the next RBA deputy governor

Mortgages just for the wealthiest

The government did control interest rates for many years, until deregulation in the Hawke years. Government control of interest rates and the banking sector made home loans very hard to get, forcing Australians to set up inefficient building societies and credit unions to skirt around the regulations.

But, say the UAP passed a law saying you can’t lift interest rates above 3% – no matter what. You will soon run into problems.

The first is that if banks can’t make a profit on mortgages – if, for example, it costs 4% to borrow and they can only charge 3% – then lending doesn’t make financial sense for them. The banks will just stop writing mortgages entirely.

Even if they can squeak a small profit margin they may only write mortgages for the wealthiest and safest Australians to lend to. Wealthy households are less likely to default and thus are cheaper for banks to lend to.

In other words, a 3% cap on interest rates would lead to a situation where either banks stop mortgages entirely or greatly restrict them. A lot of would-be home owners will not be able to get a mortgage at all.

And if you can’t get a mortgage at all, then for most of us it doesn’t matter what the rate is because you can’t buy a house in the first place. If lending dried up, the number of house buyers would plummet, which would devalue homes.

The only thing worse than a banking system that is expensive is one that is in crisis and potentially getting bailed out or going bankrupt, which might very well imperil the financial stability of the banking sector and derail the economy.

OK, how else could they ensure a 3% interest rate for people?

Apart from changing the law, another way to deliver on this commitment is by hugely increasing government spending.

Perhaps the government could pay home owners the difference between whatever their interest rate is and the promised 3%. So, say your interest rate was 4%. That’s 1% more than the promised 3%, so the government could pay that 1% difference for you, using taxpayer money.

Of course, that would be incredibly costly. Australia’s household debt is almost twice its income. Paying even a small share of the interest payments would be an enormous burden on the budget.

It would be, in effect, a subsidy for all mortgage owners; a hugely expensive giveaway to the richest people in Australia.

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

Alright then, what if we just changed the RBA’s job description?

There is a third way you could cap interest rates at 3% and that is to rewrite the RBA’s mandate and ban them from lifting the cash rate for five years.

But the reason the RBA pushes up interest rates is to help control inflation and the cost of living. That’s why there’s talk of an interest rate rise after inflation hit a whopping 5.1% this week.

Banning the RBA from pushing up rates comes with real inflationary risks. That would overheat the economy and drive up inflation. You’d see hugely higher prices at the supermarket and the fuel pump.

Perhaps you think homeowners are more deserving than renters or pensioners or anyone in the economy who doesn’t have a mortgage. But I don’t.

No free lunch

In a recent podcast interview with Michelle Grattan, independent MP Andrew Wilkie mentioned this UAP ad, saying:

In my opinion, this is the worst campaign I’ve observed, as far as the mud slinging and the dishonesty. There used to be some limits on the dishonesty of the political parties and the candidates but there seem to be no limits this election. There’s a billboard down the road from Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, promising a 3% maximum mortgage rate. I mean, they know that’s just nonsense.

Whatever your view, it’s worth remembering there is no such thing as a free lunch in the economy. If you want to make something cheaper, you have to make pay for it some other way.

You either have to pay for it from taxpayers’ money or you make the banks pay, which comes with a real risk of financial crisis.

Read more:
Game of Loans: Australia’s Reserve Bank loses its heir apparent

From 2011 to 2013 Isaac Gross worked as an economist for the Reserve Bank of Australia.

– ref. Clive Palmer’s promise to cap mortgage rates at 3% would make it much harder to get a home loan – https://theconversation.com/clive-palmers-promise-to-cap-mortgage-rates-at-3-would-make-it-much-harder-to-get-a-home-loan-182058

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah J MacLean, Associate professor, La Trobe University

Bingo, with its familiar rules, novelty number calls (“legs 11”, “two ducks swimming”) and social setting, has long had a reputation as harmless and friendly.

Also called “housie”, bingo is a game in which players mark numbers on a grid as a caller reads them out. The first person whose numbers are all called out cries “bingo” and wins. The game of chance is played in many different venues: from licensed bingo centres, to clubs like RSLs, in churches and nursing homes and, increasingly, online.

Our new research shows technological developments, large jackpots, and locating bingo in the same venue as pokies or other gambling products bring new risks to players. Bingo’s innocuous reputation is due for a rethink.

Read more:
We’re told to ‘gamble responsibly’. But what does that actually mean?

A different crowd

Around 18,000 Victorian adults play bingo at least once a year.

The game attracts a different demographic to other forms of gambling. Bingo players are often women, older, Indigenous and poorer.

Almost a third of Australian bingo players have gambling problems, although it is unclear if these problems relate to bingo or to other games.

A US study found more than a quarter of bingo players were classified as problem gamblers. But bingo has generally been overlooked by researchers, policy makers and regulators.

We conducted the first major study of bingo in Australia. We spoke with Aboriginal and Pacific Islander people in regional Victoria, older people on fixed incomes in Melbourne, and experts. We also attended bingo sessions across Victoria.

Read more:
Gambling: what happens in the brain when we get hooked – and how to regain control

‘I get lonely and bored’

People told us they liked bingo’s social connection, its relative cheapness and predictability.

As one participant said:

I’ve got no one at home […] I get lonely and bored and I just go to bingo.

The chance of winning money, escape from responsibilities and stress, and cognitive stimulation were also appealing. An older research participant told us:

You’re in another world when you’re at bingo. You have to concentrate.

A minority of study participants described harms from playing bingo, but they were significant for those experiencing them. One player noted:

I think (bingo) has a more negative effect because, just as an Indigenous community […] we have less income, we’re from poor socio-economic backgrounds.

Increased dangers

Risks associated with bingo have increased over time.

Historically, the game has been played with paper books and pens. Playing multiple games at a time requires great concentration, but experienced players can manage up to six “books” (grids) at a time.

Now, personal electronic tablets (PETs) are available in bingo centres and some RSLs. These tablets can be loaded with up to 200 games at once and automatically cross off numbers for players. Canadian research suggests tablets offer a similar gaming experience to electronic gambling machines, otherwise known as “pokies”. Fast play and flashing lights captivate players.

Tablets let people purchase and play many more games than they could on paper. One expert told us they’d seen venues where 48 “books” could be purchased via tablet, at a total cost of $600.

Read more:
Sports betting: how in-play betting features could be leading to harmful gambling – new research

Rules vary

Regulation of bingo varies across Australia. In some places, including Victoria, bingo at licensed centres must generate funds for charities.

Rule changes in Victoria have created more expensive bingo games and larger prizes. These changes include abolishing bans on rolling jackpots, removing caps on the cost of books, and allowing more people to play each session.

Licensed bingo centres now offer jackpots of up to $450,000, which may be rolling (accrued across games in one centre) or linked (merged across different centres). Large jackpots mean fewer people win and more people lose.

Several participants in our study spoke of people spending up to $1,200 to attend a “package” or multiple-game session.

The more forms of gambling a person engages in, the greater their chance of having problems. Bingo can’t legally be offered alongside pokies in licensed bingo centres in Victoria, but this is allowed in clubs and hotels.

Our research suggests that in pokie venues, bingo is a “loss leader” – to draw players in, then encourage them to move on to other forms of gambling. One person told us:

I got trouble, you know, from going to bingo because sometimes when I go to bingo […] and then I win money, and then I’m thinking of like, you know, not only the bingo. I go across to the gamble machine and I keep playing there. So instead of like, save the money to take back to the family.

In Victoria, Crown Casino stopped offering bingo under the spotlight of a Royal Commission, but previously provided free bingo with breaks where players moved to pokie machines and gaming tables.

In February, Tabcorp and Lottoland were awarded Victorian licences to operate Keno live lottery gambling until 2042, including in bingo centres. This expands the range of commercial gambling products sold in bingo venues.

Lesser of gambling evils

Bingo causes less grief than other forms of gambling. Some people describe playing bingo for hours for $20–30, making it a cheap outing.

Capping costs for games and jackpots, limiting the games that can be played on tablets and keeping bingo separate from other gambling opportunities would help retain the benefits it offers – and stop people from spending money they don’t have.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. Gamblers help can be found online or by calling 1800 858 858.

The authors would like to thank the organisations that partnered in this research: Gippsland and East Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative (GEGAC), Sunraysia Mallee Ethnic Communities Council (SMECC) and COTA Victoria. John Cox, Annalyss Thompson and Jasmine Kirirua worked as researchers on the project. We are also grateful to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and particularly Lindsay Shaw.

Sarah J MacLean is a member of the Australian Greens. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

Helen Lee has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and the Australian Research Council.

Kathleen Maltzahn has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. She is a member of the Australian Greens Victoria.

Mary Whiteside has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation

– ref. Bingo seems like harmless fun – but higher stakes and new technology are making it more dangerous – https://theconversation.com/bingo-seems-like-harmless-fun-but-higher-stakes-and-new-technology-are-making-it-more-dangerous-180678

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suze Wilson, Senior Lecturer, Executive Development/School of Management, Massey University

The war in Ukraine would test even the most hardened political operator: millions forced to flee their homes, thousands (including many civilians) killed or injured, evidence of Russian war crimes mounting.

Yet Volodomyr Zelenskyy, a relative novice head of state, has not just risen to the challenge, he has been widely praised and admired for his exemplary crisis leadership. So, what explains this prowess?

Zelenskyy’s acting experience has been credited with his ability to connect powerfully with different audiences, using facts and emotions to build support for the Ukrainian cause.

His commitment to serve his people has been called pivotal. He has been described as charismatic – although this alone is no guarantee of success, given charismatic leaders can still lead their nations to destruction.

And it’s Zelenskyy’s repeated displays of courage that seem to really strike a chord with many. This leads us into the territory of character virtues, which we argue hold the key to Zelenskyy’s abilities as a crisis leader.

Ancient wisdom for today’s world

Aristotle is credited with first proposing that virtues play a central role in forging a strength of character that can navigate and weather life’s challenges with moral fortitude and integrity.

Over the past few decades, scholars concerned with preventing unethical leadership have developed Aristotle’s insights further, using modern social scientific methods.

Read more:
How Zelenskyy emerged as the antithesis of Putin and proved you don’t need to be a strongman to be a great leader

Recently, we drew on this knowledge to examine crisis leadership and how character virtues guided 12 heads of state through that first, tumultuous wave of COVID-19. We’ve used the same approach to analyse Zelenskyy’s leadership.

We closely examined an extended filmed interview with Zelenksyy by The Economist. Being unscripted and more spontaneous than his pre-prepared speeches, it offered a clearer insight into his character.

We found all seven of the key character virtues – humanity, temperance, justice, courage, transcendence, wisdom and prudence – evident in Zelenskyy’s responses to the interviewers’ questions.

Character virtues in action

The virtue of humanity relates to care, compassion, empathy and respect for others. Zelenskyy demonstrates this primarily through his focus on protecting Ukrainians from Russian aggression, but it even extends to his enemy’s suffering.

Zelenskyy expresses concern that Putin is “throwing Russian soldiers like logs into a train’s furnace”, and laments that the Russian dead are neither mourned nor buried by their own side.

This refusal to simply give way to hate and anger when speaking of his enemies also reflects a second virtue, temperance – the ability to exercise emotional control.

Read more:
Why Zelenskyy’s ‘selfie videos’ are helping Ukraine win the PR war against Russia

Zelenskyy’s modesty also reflects this virtue – in the interview he shrugs off praise for being an inspirational hero, preferring to keep to the main issues. Temperance serves to maintain emotional equilibrium, thus enabling Zelenskyy to make difficult decisions in a level-headed manner.

The virtue of justice means acting responsibly and ensuring people are treated fairly. It involves citizenship, teamwork, loyalty and accountability. Zelenskyy speaks of his “duty to protect” Ukrainians and to “signal” with his own conduct how others should act. By remaining in Ukraine, he becomes a role model of this virtue while simultaneously demonstrating the virtue of courage.

Zelenskyy’s own courage has been widely noted, but we observed that he also repeatedly acknowledges that of his fellow citizens, thereby encouraging them to act with virtue.

A formidable opponent

By expressing the seemingly unshakeable hope that Ukrainians will secure victory because of their courage, Zelenskyy demonstrates the virtue of transcendence – the optimism and faith that a cause is meaningful, noble and will prevail.

Zelenskyy’s views about what motivates other countries display his wisdom. In the interview he demonstrates a broad strategic perspective and insight into the varying interests that shape other nations’ responses to the war. This helps him craft his appeals to allies, and to Russia, which then have a greater chance of resonating.

Read more:
Vladimir Putin, the czar of macho politics, is threatened by gender and sexuality rights

The final virtue, prudence, complements that wisdom. It involves an ability to gauge what is the right thing to do and is something of a meta-virtue, guiding the choice of which other virtues are needed from moment to moment. We found repeated instances of Zelenskyy demonstrating just that, weaving together multiple virtues in his responses to questions.

Our analysis of his leadership indicates Zelenskyy possesses strength of character and emotional, intellectual and moral clarity about what is at stake. This explains his effective crisis leadership to date. Despite the clear military mismatch between Russia and Ukraine, Putin has taken on a formidable opponent.

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 value of virtue: 7 reasons why Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s crisis leadership has been so effective – https://theconversation.com/the-value-of-virtue-7-reasons-why-volodymyr-zelenskyys-crisis-leadership-has-been-so-effective-182041

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joyleen Christensen, Senior lecturer, University of Newcastle

Everything Everywhere All At Once, a sci-fi action comedy, manages the surprising feat of paying homage to martial arts cinema classics while also delivering a strange and completely fresh, genre-bending film.

Written and directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (collectively known as “the Daniels”), Everything Everywhere All At Once is a delirious adventure blending a heartwarming examination of personal and family crisis with a wild sci-fi storyline, and some of the most amusingly bizarre fight scenes to ever grace the screen.

Taking inspiration Jackie Chan’s kung fu comedies, the film’s fight scenes combine fast, free-flowing martial arts with slapstick humour.

The Daniels have acknowledged the film was originally conceived of as a vehicle for Chan. However, after seizing upon the idea of flipping the gender of its unlikely hero, the directors decided to hand the reins to Michelle Yeoh, who has enjoyed a resurgence in popularity after starring in two recent hits, Crazy Rich Asians and Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings.

Into the Michelle Yeohniverse

Although never professionally trained in martial arts, Malaysian-born Yeoh achieved fame in 1990s Hong Kong action films such as Yes, Madam! and Jackie Chan’s Supercop. An ex ballerina, renowned for doing most of her own stunts, Yeoh typically relies on on-set fight training for her action scenes.

In Everything Everywhere All At Once, this meant Yeoh was teaming with brothers Andy and Brian Le for the most outlandish fight of her career – a scene where Yeoh’s character must fight a pair of butt plug-armed henchmen.

The self-taught Le brothers drew Hollywood’s attention via the popular Martial Club YouTube channel where, along with friend Daniel Mah, the brothers recreated fight scenes from classic Hong Kong kung fu films.

Working with stunt coordinator, Timothy Eulich, to choreograph a number of Everything Everywhere All At Once’s fight scenes, the Le brother’s encyclopaedic knowledge of kung fu cinema is credited by Eulich as helping shape the film’s approach to action.

Everything Everywhere All At Once

Caught up in shattering disappointment over what her life has become, laundromat owner Evelyn Wang (Yeoh) gets a welcome reprieve from her drab reality when she is drawn into a cosmic battle and given the ability to travel through the multiverse.

Skipping between alternate lives she could have led, Evelyn draws upon the memories and skills of her other selves, including a Teppanyaki chef and an opera singer. In a nice nod to Yeoh’s own position as a globally-recognised star of films such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, one of Evelyn’s most significant alternate selves is a famous, martial arts-trained actress.

Evelyn discovers she is the multiverse’s only chance at salvation and, as various evil beings hunt her and her family, she is forced to engage in frequent battles, using whatever objects are close at hand as weapons.

Read more:
From Bruce Lee to Shang-Chi: a short history of the kung fu film in cinema

Everything is a weapon

The combination of an unlikely hero being forced to fight – typically with impromptu weapons – before revealing a startling degree of martial arts proficiency is the key ingredient of numerous Jackie Chan action comedies, especially those made for English-speaking audiences after Chan relocated to the USA in the 1990s.

Drawing inspiration from Buster Keaton’s silent-era physical comedies, Chan’s films eschew traditional action genre rules. The most obvious divergence is that Chan’s characters rarely enter a fight armed with anything other than natural ability. Chan forsakes outright hostility for demonstrations of acrobatic martial skill combined with humour.

Each set of Chan’s iconic fight scenes are filled with a suite of potential weapons. For example, Chan’s confrontation with a gang of punks in Rumble In The Bronx, starts with Chan on a pool table. The actor uses everything from a fridge, to a television, a set of speakers, a shopping trolley and even a pinball machine, as weapons.

In The Spy Next Door, Chan is trapped in a kitchen and, after first slamming a fridge door into a thug, Chan repeatedly beats the man over the head with pots and pans. Though it sounds violent, the tone of the scene is more Looney Tunes than Dirty Harry.

Everything old is new again

The scene is a homage to the 1976 Hong Kong Hui Brothers’ comedy, The Private Eyes. In the original film, an inept private eye finds himself battling a villain in the kitchen of a restaurant. The ridiculous nature of the fight escalates as the opponents move from pans and colanders to a gourd-slicing swordfish, a shark jaw, a sausage nunchuck, and a wok that is tossed like a boomerang.

Everything Everywhere All At Once features a similar throwback to that iconic scene – this time swapping the sausages for dildos to make a pair of impromptu tonfa batons. Another standout scene features Evelyn’s husband, Waymond (Ke Huy Quan) expertly wielding a fanny pack to take down an entire group of thugs.

Everything Everywhere All At Once is a fresh addition to the comedy martial arts canon.

Despite the existential premise of the film – and the surprising depth of the relationship dramas – the execution of action is skilful. More significantly, the action doesn’t take itself seriously and the humour doesn’t stop when the action starts.

Joyleen Christensen 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. Butt plug duels and fanny pack stunts: how Everything Everywhere All At Once fits into the canon of comedy-martial arts films – https://theconversation.com/butt-plug-duels-and-fanny-pack-stunts-how-everything-everywhere-all-at-once-fits-into-the-canon-of-comedy-martial-arts-films-181480

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Barton, Chair in Global Islamic Politics, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

We are fated, whether we like it or not, to live in interesting times, having entered, as one prominent observer puts it a “decade of living dangerously”.

He is speaking of the very high probability of entering into some form of open military conflict with China, most likely precipitated by a sharp escalation in Beijing’s efforts to reunify Taiwan with the mainland.

Even without this particular acute threat, we face enormous dangers on multiple fronts. Climate change is fast reaching the point of constituting an existential threat. There is still time to avoid this nightmare scenario, but it is going to take enormous effort and unprecedented cooperation. It will require sustained levels of good governance.

Read more:
IPCC says the tools to stop catastrophic climate change are in our hands. Here’s how to use them

Unfortunately, we are living at a time when good governance cannot be taken for granted. Threats to democracy and open society are more acute than they have been in decades. The rise of populism, and the corruption of clinical institutions and traditions previously taken for granted, threaten a sharp contraction of democracy and constructive cooperation, both within nations and across the global community.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a reminder of how quickly the world can fall apart and peace evaporate. Fortunately, Ukraine was ready for what much of the global community was dismissing as an exaggerated threat. And, as it turns out, Vladimir Putin’s Russia – corrupted, hollowed out and delusional – was not ready. What should have been a devastatingly formidable military was reduced to a pathetic facsimile of what Russian national myth and Western assessment had proclaimed.

The great lesson of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is that powerful leaders, particularly populist autocrats surrounded by the structures of a one-party state and accountable only to a circle of sycophants, choose to pursue an irrationally dangerous course contrary to all reasonable self-interest.

Read more:
Morrison, Dutton go hard on national security – but will it have any effect on the election?

In late 2021 and early 2022, there was a high level of consensus among military analysts that Russia was preparing for war. There was also a similar level of consensus among political experts of international relations that Putin was bluffing. All rational calculations pointed to the risk of war, both to the leader and to his nation, to be so enormously great that it made no sense to initiate conflict.

Sadly, the military analysts studying satellite imagery and the rapid escalation of military build-up on the borders of Ukraine proved to be correct. Thankfully, they had greatly overestimated Russia’s military preparedness and underestimated both the political will and defensive capacity of the people of Ukraine.

Could the same not be true of China? Is it not foolish to talk up threats of war and make inevitable what is avoidable? Or were Defence Minister Peter Dutton’s extraordinary comments – on Anzac Day, of all days – about the need to prepare for war with China, however distasteful and reckless, founded on reasonable assessment?

Wishful thinking would have it that talk of war involving China is a confected threat manufactured by vested interests and hawkish assessments. There is far too much at stake, however, to fall back on wishful thinking. “Peace in our time” is exactly what we should be working for, but we can’t achieve it simply by proclaiming it.

The problem with Dutton’s comments lies not in the assessment of the risk, but in how the government responds to it. In the midst of a tightly contested federal election campaign, with the Coalition on the back foot, there is a great temptation to resort to fearmongering in the name of national security to shore up votes.

In the words of former US President Theodore Roosevelt, we need to “speak softly and carry a big stick”. The concern with what Dutton is doing is not that his analysis is wrong, but that his response to the threat is reckless and counterproductive. We are neither carrying a big stick nor speaking softly.

It was Kevin Rudd who coined the phrase a “decade of living dangerously”. He uses it in his new book, The Avoidable War: The Dangers of a Catastrophic Conflict Between the US and Xi Jinping’s China.

Rudd makes a compelling and cogent argument that any form of war involving China and the United States is likely to be devastatingly costly. It would also risk cascading consequences that could dangerously transform the world we live in.

Avoiding conflict with China, he argues, will not be easy. If nothing changes, we are on a trajectory to disaster.

Rudd sets out ten scenarios for possible conflict with China. Only one of the ten ends well.

Yet, as is the case with the looming threat of catastrophic global warming, disaster is not inevitable. War with China is very likely, but avoidable if we take the threat seriously and act now.

The path to avoiding war with China, Rudd argues, is to work to achieve a system of managed strategic competition that is mutually beneficial to both China and the US. This would present a compelling alternative to an inevitable slide to war.

At one level, this requires making preparations for war such that China judges the risks of acting now to be unreasonably high. Beijing is not yet ready to escalate military pressure on Taipei. It judges that it needs another five or ten years to prepare.

Part of what is required in avoiding war is to constantly shift the calculus, so the risk of immediate action and the uncertainty of victory remain intolerably high.

Deterrence, backed by considerable and steadily increasing capacity, is an essential part of the response required to avoid a hot war. But so, too, is making the case for avoiding the descent into a new Cold War.

The truth is, both China and America have more to gain from strategic competition than they do from a further deterioration of relations to the point at which war becomes a live option.

Read more:
The Morrison government wants a ‘khaki’ election. How do the two major parties stack up on national security?

China’s rise, although not without problems, has so far been a net good for the world. It can continue to be good. Australia has enjoyed decades of peaceful growth and prosperity driven by the rise of Asia and led by the transformation of China.

Constructively managed competition with China is not only essential to avoiding war, it has the potential to enable both an effective, cooperative response to the challenge of climate change and the global need for improving good governance.

A great strength of Australian approaches to defence and security, historically, has been sensible bipartisanship. There is too much at stake with national security to let short-term self-interest distort and distract.

Greg Barton receives funding from the Australian Research Council. And he is engaged in a range of projects working to understand and counter violent extremism in Australia and in Southeast Asia that are funded by the Australian government.

– ref. Peter Dutton says Australia should prepare for war. So how likely is a military conflict with China? – https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-says-australia-should-prepare-for-war-so-how-likely-is-a-military-conflict-with-china-182042

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mathew Doidge, Senior Research Fellow, University of Canterbury

With the weight of Russian military might bearing down on it, Ukraine applied to join the European Union (EU) on February 28. While the Russian invasion provided the immediate pretext, membership had been on the Ukrainian political agenda since the Orange Revolution of 2004–2005.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s request was a symbolic act. It was a claim for Ukraine’s European identity to be acknowledged, and a turning away from Russia towards the West. It recognised the EU as representing a set of values and ideals which Ukraine claimed to share, in contrast to the regime of Vladimir Putin.

Zelenskyy also wanted to set Ukraine on a path taken by eight Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) almost two decades earlier. May 1 is the 18th anniversary of the “big bang” enlargement of the EU, when Czechia (also known as the Czech Republic), Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, alongside Cyprus and Malta, were welcomed into the Union.

The stabilisation and transformation of the CEECs through the 2004 enlargement has been one of the most significant successes of European integration. The underlying intention has always been to promote peace and stability on the European continent, preventing a return to the conflict that produced two world wars.

Reflecting on the first eastern enlargement on its 18th anniversary can help us understand Ukraine’s desire for membership.

The return to Europe

When the Iron Curtain fell, an air of celebration spread across Europe. For Eastern states, the physical barrier denying them their European identity was gone. In the words of former Czech president Václav Havel:

[W]hat has triumphed is the realistic hope that together we can return to Europe as free, independent and democratic nations.

As that early elation began to subside, however, the challenges became clear. By the early 1990s, tentative transitions toward democracy and market economics were taking place, but the CEECs were experiencing increasingly severe economic hardship. There were concerns that public support for the reform process would waiver, risking instability and conflict.

With increasing uncertainty surrounding the future of the CEECs, Western states – chiefly Western Europe – saw a need to reinforce the transition process. Initial arms-length solutions, with the Eastern states seen as external EU partners, soon fell by the wayside. Pressure mounted to fulfil the promise enshrined at the launching of European integration: that membership was open to all European states.

For the CEECs, the symbolic attraction of being part of the EU was immense: accession provided a practical expression of the aspiration expressed by Havel and others for a return to Europe, an aspiration from which they would not resile.

Read more:
West must beware the language of appeasement and see Russia’s war on Ukraine for what it is

The result in 1993 was a commitment to accession from EU leaders, and the outlining of membership criteria which would frame the transition process. Enlargement became the primary tool through which principles of democracy, the rule of law and free market economics were established in the CEECs. Convergence with their European partners was fostered, peace and stability were pursued.

This entailed a significant commitment on the part of the EU. Enlargement required addressing changes to the delicate balance between member states that defines the way the Union operates.

It also involved significant financial costs to facilitate the political and economic convergence of the eastern states. By 2003, the CEECs had received more than €16 billion in pre-accession support, and by 2020 more than €200 billion under a range of instruments designed to reduce EU regional disparities.

Stabilisation and transformation

In the three decades since 1993, and the 18 years since their accession, the CEECs have converged significantly with their western counterparts, a process that has led from uncertainty to stability.

Sustained economic growth has seen CEEC economies collectively expand almost sixfold since 1990, accompanied by improvements in life expectancy at birth (now between five and eight years greater compared to 1990) and infant mortality (declining on average from almost 13 per 1000 live births to fewer than three).

Read more:
How Russia’s fixation on the Second World War helps explain its Ukraine invasion

Politically, democratisation was largely consolidated and stabilised, notwithstanding recent backsliding in Poland and Hungary. The transition to full democracy remains incomplete – all eight CEECs were listed in the 2021 Democracy Index as “flawed democracies” (as was the US).

But compared to other former Eastern Bloc states, they have performed well, ranking in the Democracy Index’s top seven (with Hungary 10th) out of 28 states in the central and eastern European region.

EU membership has established democracy as a baseline expectation against which the CEECs may be held to account by fellow member states (as with Poland and Hungary) and, more importantly, by their own people.

Symbolic value

The EU’s values and ideals (including democracy, human rights and the rule of law), and its perception as a region of peace, prosperity and stability, have made it a major pole of attraction for the former Eastern Bloc states, including Ukraine.

This pull has arguably been strengthened by the successful integration of the eight CEECs. They have since been followed by Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, and Croatia in 2013, with five more states at various stages along the same path: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia.

Read more:
Defending Europe: How cultural identity shapes support for Ukraine and armed resistance against Russia

That the EU has been able to turn this attraction into the (albeit imperfect) consolidation of democracy and economic transformation in Eastern Europe – and in doing so building towards the underlying goal of regional peace and stability – must be acknowledged.

More than that, after the war of 1939–1945 that gave rise to European integration, and remembering more recent conflicts just beyond the Union’s borders – and now in Ukraine – the EU’s contribution to peaceful transformation, recognising the aspirations of the people of eastern Europe, should be celebrated.

Understanding the successful integration of the CEECs into the Union also helps us understand Ukraine’s motivation for membership. It is about placing a stake in the ground, claiming an identity and a heritage, and building toward a peaceful and prosperous future.

Mathew Doidge receives funding from the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union. He is affiliated with the European Studies Association of Australia and New Zealand (ESAANZ).

Serena Kelly receives funding from the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union. She is affiliated with the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs and the European Studies Association of Australia and New Zealand.

– ref. Understanding Ukraine’s symbolic fight to return to Europe, as the EU marks 18 years since its ‘big bang’ enlargement – https://theconversation.com/understanding-ukraines-symbolic-fight-to-return-to-europe-as-the-eu-marks-18-years-since-its-big-bang-enlargement-181146

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Scott, Professor of health economics, The University of Melbourne

Rising out-of-pocket costs for health care is an important issue the major parties have not yet substantially addressed during the election campaign.

We heard just this week how health-care costs are rising faster than other costs of living pressures.
Health-care costs are also rising faster than wages. The rising cost of specialists’ fees, in particular, are a concern. So, many Australian families are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up.

Earlier this year, a major consumer survey found 30% of people with chronic conditions were not confident they could afford needed health care if they became seriously ill; 14% could not pay for health care or medicine because of a shortage of money.

Read more:
Inflation hits an extraordinary 5.1%. How long until mortgage rates climb?

Out-of-pocket costs are rising

Out-of-pocket health-care costs cover a range of expenses not covered by Medicare or private health insurance, such as doctors’ fees for consultations and surgery.

Only 35.1% of specialist consultations were bulk billed in 2020-21 compared with 88.8% of GP services.

For private (multi-day) hospital care in 2019-20, 43.7% of separations (hospital admissions that include procedures and operations) had no hospital or medical out-of-pocket cost.

Out-of-pocket costs are rising, Medicare statistics show.

There is ample evidence out-of-pocket costs reduce access to, and use of, health care. This more strongly affects people who need health care the most.

For instance, access to timely specialist care in Australia depends on your income and ability to pay.

Although richer people use more specialist care, on average, it is less-affluent people who have higher need for health care. Yet it is less-affluent people who have to wait to see a specialist in a public hospital.

High doctors’ fees have other consequences. They may provide skewed incentives to doctors, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Doctors may also flock to high-earning specialties while we have a shortage of GPs (who are paid half as much as specialists).

Read more:
Specialists are free to set their fees, but there are ways to ensure patients don’t get ripped off

What do the major parties promise?

Health policies announced by the major parties ahead of the federal election do not necessarily translate into lower out-of-pocket health costs, or focus on the most pressing issue.

The Coalition has promised to lower the safety net threshold for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This announcement, made in this year’s federal budget, would make medicines cheaper or free for people who need multiple scripts a year.

But this is an area where out-of-pocket costs have been falling for some time compared with other areas of spending. So any announcement may have been better targeted at areas where out-of-pocket costs are growing more quickly.

In any election there is always a focus on access to GPs and bulk billing. This includes Labor’s proposal for new urgent care centres, which would provide bulk billed services to take the pressure off emergency departments.

However, neither of the major parties are doing anything about the continuing and much larger increases in specialists’ out-of-pocket costs.

Read more:
Labor’s urgent care centres are a step in the right direction – but not a panacea

Can informed patients make a difference?

The Coalition introduced a price transparency website in 2019 that provides estimates of out-of-pocket costs for private hospital care, with plans for doctors to voluntarily upload their fees. Some private health insurers also have such websites.

However, these websites rely entirely on consumers doing the “leg work” by shopping around to reduce their out-of-pocket costs. The assumption is that by providing consumers with more information, they will make better choices. But this is too simplistic because information can difficult to get and understand, and these websites don’t include data on the quality of care.

Our review on price transparency websites in health care shows they may not work for consumers. Not all consumers can or want to use them. There’s also the risk doctors could use these websites to see what other doctors are charging and increase their fees.

It could be better if these websites were used by GPs when referring patients to specialists. Patients can also be encouraged to ask about the out-of-pocket cost when booking an appointment or during the visit.

But this does not help patients who are usually in a vulnerable position, who want care quickly, do not have the information or time to shop around, and might think the care they receive will be affected if they ask about cost.

Read more:
Doctors’ fees shouldn’t just be transparent, they should be fair and reasonable

Can doctors make a difference?

Doctors set their own fees and many use the Australian Medical Association fee schedule as guidance. They decide what fee to charge, whether to bulk bill, or whether to use gap cover provided by private health insurers for private hospital care.

At the moment it would require a brave politician to directly control doctors’ fees given the constitutional protections they have and the way Medicare and private health insurance were designed to provide subsidies to patients, not to directly pay doctors.

However, something the major parties can address is “bill shock”. Patients don’t always know the doctor’s fee before they visit, and in some circumstances don’t know in advance how much a procedure will cost.

If care involves many tests, visits and procedures over time by different doctors, then there will be a bill for each. This shifts all the financial risk to patients, something private health insurance was designed to handle.

At a minimum, doctors’s fees and out-of-pocket costs need to be bundled together and published as an upfront quote or range for the expected course of care. This is something that could be addressed by one of the major parties.

What next?

Addressing rising out-of-pocket health costs is a complex area linked closely to broader reform of the health-care system, which neither major party has promised to do anything about.

Without such reforms we’ll see Australians prioritising spending on food, housing and petrol over health care, in the current climate.

But Australia cannot afford to allow this to happen. As we have witnessed during the pandemic, an unhealthy population is not only bad for individuals, it’s bad for us all.

Anthony Scott receives funding from a research grant awarded by the Medibank Better Health Foundation on out of pocket costs and price transparency.

– ref. Rising out-of-pocket health costs are a worry. But the major parties have barely mentioned it – https://theconversation.com/rising-out-of-pocket-health-costs-are-a-worry-but-the-major-parties-have-barely-mentioned-it-181595

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

Australia is losing more biodiversity than any other developed nation. Already this year the charismatic and once abundant gang gang cockatoo has been added to our national threatened species list, the koala has been listed as endangered and the Great Barrier Reef suffered another mass bleaching event.

The Australian public consistently rates the loss of our unique plants and animals as a key concern. Indeed, in a recent poll of 10,000 readers of The Conversation, “the environment” was identified as the second-biggest issue affecting their lives, behind climate change at number one.

The Coalition has been in government since 2013. So what has it done about the biodiversity crisis? Unfortunately, the state of Australia’s plants, animals and ecological communities suggests the answer is – not nearly enough.

In fact, as the extinction crisis has escalated, protection and recovery for threatened species has declined. Poor decisions are contributing to the problem, rather than solving it.

The sorry state of Australia’s biodiversity

Australia has formally acknowledged the extinction of 104 native species since European colonisation, but the true number is likely much higher.

Threatened bird, mammal and plant populations have, on average, halved or worse since 1985. Species recently thought to be safe – such as the bogong moth, gang gang cockatoos, and even the iconic koala – are being added to the global and national threatened species lists following drought, catastrophic fires and habitat destruction.

Today, 19 ecosystems show clear signs of collapse. This includes the Great Barrier Reef, savannas, mangroves, tropical rainforests, and tall mountain ash forests. These losses have profound ramifications for clean air and water, productive agriculture, pollination, and well-being.

Biodiversity is a crucial part of Australia’s national identity and Aboriginal culture. It delivers billions of dollars in tourism revenue and underpins most sectors of our economy.

It’s important for our health, too. COVID lockdowns recently brought the critical role of nature to our well-being into sharp focus, with thriving biodiversity shown to deliver avoided costs to the healthcare system.

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

Ignoring key recommendations

A 2018 Senate inquiry into the extinction crisis of Australian animals (fauna) concluded that native fauna was declining. It found biodiversity protection was under-resourced and failing, and Australia urgently needs an independent environmental regulator.

In 2022, the federal Auditor-General reviewed the government’s implementation of Australia’s threatened species legislation, finding:

limited evidence that desired outcomes are being achieved, due to the department’s lack of monitoring, reporting and support for the implementation of conservation advice, recovery plans.

The national Threatened Species Strategy focuses on 100 species and a few iconic places. But more than 1,800 species and ecosystems are threatened with extinction.

And economic analyses indicate we currently spend about around 7% of the targeted A$1.6 billion per year required to halt species loss and recover nationally listed threatened species.

These findings were reinforced in 2020 by a major independent review of Australia’s environment law – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

The review by Professor Graeme Samuel made 38 recommendations, but almost none have been implemented. They include establishing an Environment Assurance Commissioner, rigorous national environmental standards and resourcing compliance and enforcement of environmental regulations.

Failure to protect what we have

Land clearing is a key threat to Australian wildlife, yet the government has not made meaningful progress to halt it.

The hectares cleared in New South Wales over the last decade have tripled, and a staggering 2.5 million hectares have been cleared in Queensland between 2000 and 2018.

Read more:
A Victorian logging company just won a controversial court appeal. Here’s what it means for forest wildlife

Worryingly, more than 7.7 million hectares of threatened species habitat have been cleared since the EPBC Act came into force (between 2000 and 2017), including 1 million hectares of koala habitat.

Invasive species – such as cats, foxes, rabbits, deer and buffel grass – continue to wreak havoc on many of our most endangered species.

Cats alone kill 1.7 billion native animals each year and threaten at least 120 species with extinction. While feral predator control has received some focus, the effort still falls well short of what’s required.

Lack of transparency and accountability

Official reviews have consistently found the federal government’s approach to protecting biodiversity lacks transparency and accountability.

Questions have also been raised about the federal government’s delay in releasing its five-yearly State of the Environment Report ahead of the election.

And investigations have raised serious concerns about how the government handled decisions regarding grasslands illegally destroyed by a company part-owned by a government minister.

A key advisor to the government recently labelled a major scheme to promote forest restoration as carbon credits as environmental and taxpayer “fraud”.

A federal integrity commission, if it existed, could have explored these cases.

The government also continues to back activities that cause damage to biodiversity, including the fossil fuel and forestry industries.

Read more:
The Morrison government wants farmers to profit from looking after the land – but will anyone want to pay?

On agriculture, the government is pursuing a “biodiversity stewardship” policy, to financially reward farmers for protecting wildlife.

But ongoing approval of unsustainable land management practices, particularly land clearing (of which agriculture is responsible for the lion’s share) will likely overshadow any stewardship gains.

So what’s needed to prevent future extinctions?

Labor has not yet revealed its full suite of environment policies. This week it told Guardian Australia it will release more details before the election, and has called on the government to release the State of the Environment report.

So what policies are needed to reverse the biodiversity crisis? The answer is: spend more and destroy less.

Just two days of Coalition election promises (estimated at $833 million per day) would fund recovery for Australia’s entire list of threatened species for a year.

Read more:
5 big ideas: how Australia can tackle climate change while restoring nature, culture and communities

Systems for protecting biodiversity need stronger legal mandates and less discretion for ministers to override decisions about project approvals, species listing and other matters.

Biodiversity should be integrated into key aspects of government practice. For example, it makes no sense to invest in protecting koalas while simultaneously approving koala habitat clearing.

And we need investment in every threatened species, not just a hand-picked few.

Finally, transformative policies are needed to support the substantial opportunities to enhance and restore biodiversity. This includes:

• using nature to help mitigate climate change
• green recovery of the economy post-COVID
• finding ways to farm profitably while enhancing biodiversity
• designing cities where people and nature can both flourish.

The fate of nature underpins our economy and health. Yet in the election campaign to date, there’s been a deafening silence about it.

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.

– ref. Fail: our report card on the government’s handling of Australia’s extinction crisis – https://theconversation.com/fail-our-report-card-on-the-governments-handling-of-australias-extinction-crisis-181786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Schuster, Senior Lecturer, School of Archaeology and Anthropology; Director, Australian National Centre for Latin American Studies, Australian National University

The floods that devastated parts of southeast Australia last month revealed, yet again, this nation’s growing insurance problem. Assessment of the damage was agonisingly slow, and rising premiums meant many victims were completely uninsured.

The disaster was part of a global trend towards localised, sudden and intense weather known in the insurance industry as “secondary perils”. These events, such as thunderstorms, hail, bushfires, drought, flash floods and landslides, are less severe than single, huge catastrophes such as a massive earthquake or cyclone.

But they can happen frequently – and still leave a big damage bill and displace thousands of people.

Australia is among the most exposed countries in the world to extreme weather resulting from climate change. That means we need to think seriously about how to manage the financial risk of secondary perils.

A new type of cover known as “weather index insurance” may be a piece of the puzzle. The insurance uses automatic payments to make the process easier for both victims and insurers. It’s been deployed as far afield as remote parts of Paraguay and Mongolia – and could work for Australia, too.

What is weather insurance?

Traditional insurance is paid out based on an assessment of damage caused by an event. Often, disaster victims must make detailed inventories of everything lost or damaged before they can make a claim. And the sheer number of claims can leave people waiting months or years for their money.

On the other hand, weather index insurance, sometimes just called weather insurance, is paid when an index is reached, such as a certain flood level. In the case of farmers facing drought, low rainfall can also trigger a payment.

The insurance is being trialled around the world – most commonly, among farmers in remote parts of developing countries.

After an extreme weather event, it can be hard for insurance assessors to make the long trip out to the steppes of Mongolia or floodplains of Bangladesh to assess the damage to farms.

But technologies such as remote sensing and satellites can tell an insurance company when extreme weather has occurred.

The payments are rapid and automatic; as soon as a weather event is recorded, the policyholder is paid.

The payment occurs regardless of whether a farmer’s crop survives. This gives the farmer an incentive to make the best decisions to ensure the crop doesn’t fail. If it survives, the farmer still receives the insurance payout as well as the crop revenue.

Insurers hope weather insurance will help them expand their markets to remote communities.

The weather index is linked to specific crops and their growing conditions. This way, the insurance company can predict the level of losses.

Read more:
Victims of NSW and Queensland floods have lodged 60,000 claims, but too many are underinsured. Here’s a better way

Global trials show promise

Having insurance can make poorer farmers more creditworthy, thereby increasing their access to loans.

In Ethiopia, a successful weather index insurance project was found to have benefited farmers. Speedy payouts meant policyholders didn’t have to sell valuable livestock to cope with a disaster. In some cases, farmers reinvested insurance payouts in their herds.

In Australia, research supports the viability of weather index insurance. It was recently rolled out to a small number of farmers, but is yet to be widely adopted.

Australian insurance providers are also offering weather policies overseas. CelsiusPro, for example, has worked with the World Bank and other aid organisations to bring such insurance to communities in the Pacific

Read more:
After the floods comes underinsurance: we need a better plan

A note of caution

Weather index insurance is not a magic bullet, and should be adopted with caution.

For instance, the weather index is tied to the growing conditions of one plant. This can lock farmers into specialising in a single crop – exposing them to new risks such as volatile market prices, and scuttling their diversification strategies.

And payouts are not guaranteed. During an El Niño year in Paraguay, sesame farmers suffered flooding and then drought. But the conditions fell just short of the index in most areas and those farmers didn’t get a payout.

What’s more, the data gathered by insurers may not match what’s actually happening on the ground. Research in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, found a sizeable gap between environmental and weather indices measured by remote sensing, and the experience of policyholders.

Improving data and monitoring often requires substantial investments – from both governments and insurers – in infrastructure and technology such as weather stations, climate models and communications systems.

In Paraguay, local communities have shouldered much of the burden of obtaining good weather data. They help maintain meteorological equipment, provide valuable on-the-ground feedback and contribute to crop science, but are often not compensated for these efforts.

And in developing countries, coping with weather disasters is often a collective effort. Individual insurance policies can reinforce inequalities and erode a community-based response.

Finally, high premiums and low trust from farmers have limited uptake of weather insurance to date.

All this means weather insurance alone is unlikely to create a safety net against extreme weather risks.

What next?

In 2020, more than 70% of global insured losses from disasters were due to secondary perils.

They included the Black Summer bushfires in Australia, and a freak hailstorm in Canberra which caused an estimated A$1.65 billion in damage.

Weather indexed insurance is yet to be tested on property insurance. But the agonising wait for a payout in the recent floods in southeast Australia suggest bold new solutions are needed.

Some research has also found merit in weather insurance at a regional or national scale.

Australia’s high exposure to extreme weather should mean all insurance options are on the table – especially those that are inclusive and don’t relegate high-risk communities to the outcast pool of “uninsurables”.

Read more:
Seriously ugly: here’s how Australia will look if the world heats by 3°C this century

Caroline Schuster receives funding from and Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE170101406).

– ref. A new type of insurance pays out as soon as extreme weather hits – and we could try it in Australia – https://theconversation.com/a-new-type-of-insurance-pays-out-as-soon-as-extreme-weather-hits-and-we-could-try-it-in-australia-181244

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liza McDonough, Research Scientist, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation

Dry land isn’t really dry. It’s saturated with truly vast volumes of groundwater, hidden in the spaces of the earth we walk on. How much? Recent estimates put it at almost two trillion Olympic swimming pools of water stored in the upper 10 km of continental crust.

Groundwater has been hugely beneficial to us for use in agriculture or as drinking water. As the world warms and waterways dry up, this extraction will only increase. But there’s a hidden problem. We used to think the organic matter in groundwater didn’t react when brought up. Sadly, the reverse is true. Our new research published in Nature Communications has found when groundwater – especially from deep down – is pumped to the surface, it brings with it dissolved organic matter preserved from long ago. Once sunlight and oxygen hit this matter, it can easily turn into carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, that means groundwater is likely to be yet another source of planet-heating greenhouse gases, and one which is not included in our carbon budgets. How large? We estimate up to the same amount of dissolved organic carbon as that pumped out by the Congo River each year, the world’s second largest by volume.

This problem is set to increase, as over-extraction of accessible groundwater forces us to hunt for the deeper water, which has much more of this greenhouse gas-producing organic matter. We must include this unexpected greenhouse gas source in our carbon budgets.

So how can groundwater be a greenhouse gas source?

Groundwater can remain underground for millions of years, with its chemical composition based on the rocks or earth it’s surrounded by. During this time, the dissolved organic matter degrades very slowly. That’s because it’s dark down there and there’s no way of replenishing oxygen that would usually be dissolved into the water from the atmosphere.

Read more:
Groundwater: depleting reserves must be protected around the world

Our bores and pumps are one way groundwater comes into the daylight and air. But at present, natural flows account for much more. Every day, groundwater seeps out of the world’s coastlines at a rate of 13 times the water in Sydney Harbour. By contrast, all the world’s bores pump up around five Sydney Harbours a day. (The Australian unit of measurement, a Sydharb, represents 500 gigalitres).

To figure out what happens when this old water emerges, we collected some of the oldest dissolved organic matter in deep groundwater analysed to date. This organic matter had been dissolved in the groundwater for more than 25,000 years.

We found that long term exposure to dark, oxygen-depleted deep groundwater environments meant molecules were preserved which were usually broken down by sunlight or greenhouse gas-producing microbes when exposed to oxygen.

Carbon, oxygen and hydrogen-containing molecules make up the dissolved organic matter in groundwater. Some of these molecules can be broken down by microorganisms, while sunlight is enough for others to turn into new molecules or converted to carbon dioxide.

Using global estimates of dissolved matter in groundwater, we estimated how much was brought to the surface by bores or flowing out to sea. Each year, that’s around 12.8 million tonnes.

What does this mean for our carbon budget?

Now we know groundwater is a carbon source, we have to factor it in to the way we deal with climate change. To accurately predict future climate change scenarios and the speed we need to move at, we need to know all sources and removal pathways of carbon to and from the atmosphere.

Read more:
Ancient groundwater: Why the water you’re drinking may be thousands of years old

At present, groundwater as a carbon source is ignored in global carbon budget estimates. That needs to change, especially as we know groundwater will be used in ever-greater volumes in the future as waterways and lakes begin to dry out due to climate change.

This is even more pressing, given Australia’s population is expected to hit almost 40 million within the next 40 years. Supporting this growing population means more groundwater for farming, industrial and home use.

Despite the vast volumes of groundwater in the earth’s crust, most of it is very hard to extract. Many artesian basins close to the surface are already being tapped, and in many places, over-extraction of groundwater is a real problem. Wells are already running dry in some agricultural areas.

As the easy water runs out, we may be forced to keep boring down to extract deeper, older water. These ancient waters have more of the organic molecules which can turn into carbon dioxide once we bring them up. To us, that suggests groundwater as a carbon source is set to grow and we must begin to include it in carbon budgets.

Liza McDonough receives funding from the Australian Government and The Australian Research Council. She has also received funding from the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory USA to undertake dissolved organic matter analyses.

Andy Baker receives funding from The Australian Research Council (ARC)

Martin Sogaard Andersen receives funding from The Australian Research Council (ARC), Commonwealth Government and NSW state agencies.

– ref. We found a hidden source of greenhouse gases – organic matter in groundwater – https://theconversation.com/we-found-a-hidden-source-of-greenhouse-gases-organic-matter-in-groundwater-179957

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Scott, Professor of Politics and Policy, Deakin University

Housing is expensive in Australia. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Higher quality, more affordable housing is a matter of policy choice.

A key problem is Australia’s housing market is too skewed towards treating housing as a financial asset, rather than a basic human need.

There is almost a universal consensus among economists, for example, that negative gearing favours the interests of investors to the detriment of others, but both major parties are scared to change the policy.

One way to break the policy stalemate is to consider policies shown to have worked in other countries. To facilitate this, the Nordic Policy Centre – a collaboration between The Australia Institute and Deakin University – has published an overview of housing and homelessness policies in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland.

Of particular note among the wide range of housing policies in these nations is the prominence of housing cooperatives, which assist both renters and those wanting to own a secure, high-quality home.

Why Nordic countries?

Why look at the Nordic countries?

One reason is their relative success in tackling homelessness.

Finland is the world leader in this. There, the number of people experiencing homelessness has fallen from more than 16,000 people in the late 1980s to about 4,500 people in 2020. This represents a homelessness rate of less than one per 100,000 (Finland’s population is about 5.5 million) compared with nearly five per 100,000 in Australia.

Homelessness, granted, is more complicated than just the cost of housing. It involves family and relationship trauma, physical and mental health issues, and substance use.

The Finns’ achievement is due to a range of policy responses including strong outreach services.

But underpinnning these responses is the Finnish government’s “Housing First” principle, adopted in 2007, which says people have a right to decent housing and to useful social services. It’s a seemingly simple concept, but radically inclusive compared with how other countries deal with the homeless.

Read more:
We identified who’s most at risk of homelessness and where they are. Now we must act, before it’s too late

Vibrant cooperative sectors

In Australia, housing cooperatives might conjure up images of small hippie communes. This is an unfair characterisation, borne of the fact the sector is so tiny and unknown.

All up, cooperative housing comprises less than 1% of the Australian housing sector, with about 200 housing cooperatives mostly focused on providing affordable rental housing.

In Nordic countries, however, housing cooperatives are a mainstream option for both renters and owners.

Sweden’s cooperative sector amounts to 22% of total housing stock. Norway’s represent 15% nationwide, and 40% in the capital, Oslo. In Denmark, more than 20% of the population lives in cooperative housing.

How cooperative housing works

Cooperatives take a variety of forms. But the key features are that they are democratically organised and exist to serve a real economic or social need of their members.

Rental housing cooperatives exist to provide housing, not accrue wealth. They pool common resources to own and manage affordable rental accommodation. Tenants are generally required to become members and encouraged to be actively involved in decision-making, management and maintenance. Any revenue from rents is reinvested in new housing projects or upgrading older buildings.

In Denmark, rental cooperative housing – known as Almenboliger – plays a critical role in providing affordable housing for a range of people, including the elderly and those with disabilities. Its non-profit orientation as well as supportive government policies – such as lower-interest loans – enable cooperatives to reduce construction costs and offer lower rents.

In Norway, national law allows 10% of units in a housing cooperative complex to be bought or used by local government authorities to house people who can’t afford alternatives. Housing cooperatives in Oslo have been vital for securing decent housing for immigrants and for older people.

A path to home ownership

Just as important in terms of lessons for Australia is that Nordic housing cooperatives also play a big role in helping people buy a home.

So-called “equity-based” housing cooperatives in Sweden, Norway and Denmark help reduce the cost of home ownership. This generally involves the cooperative building or buying an apartment or unit block, then allowing members to buy individual homes, while the cooperative retains ownership of common areas.

Members own their individual dwellings and co-own and manage shared spaces with other co-op members. The structure is similar to strata title in Australia, with individual ownership of some parts of a property and shared ownership of others. The big difference is strata title is often “investor-owned”, while a housing cooperative is “user-owned”.

The result is that members can buy a home for about 20% less than what it would cost them otherwise.

More collaboration needed

Not everything the Nordic countries do can be replicated in Australian conditions. But one thing we can certainly learn is the importance of collaboration between different tiers of government and civil society organisations.

Australia’s superannuation funds, for example, have the means to invest in low-returning, but very safe, affordable housing assets. Government policies should support them doing this through cooperative structures that help to fill the gap between market and state.

Read more:
As home prices soar, we have an inquiry almost designed not to tell us why

There’s no quick fix. Emulating any Nordic housing policy achievements will take decades. Finland’s critical organisation for tackling homelessness, for example, was established in 1985.

But better housing options are there in plain sight, waiting for policy makers and other stakeholders to take them. If they want to.

The authors acknowledge and thank Rod Campbell for his assistance in preparing this article.

Heather Hoist is Victoria’s Commissioner for Residential Tenancies. She writes here in a personal capacity.

Sidsel Grimstad is chief investigator on an Australian Research Council and housing co-operative sector funded project, Articulating Value in Housing Co-operatives (2021-2023).

– ref. More affordable housing with less homelessness is possible – if only Australia would learn from Nordic nations – https://theconversation.com/more-affordable-housing-with-less-homelessness-is-possible-if-only-australia-would-learn-from-nordic-nations-182049

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joyleen Christensen, Senior lecturer, University of Newcastle

Everything Everywhere All At Once, a sci-fi action comedy, manages the surprising feat of paying homage to martial arts cinema classics while also delivering a strange and completely fresh, genre-bending film.

Written and directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (collectively known as “the Daniels”), Everything Everywhere All At Once is a delirious adventure blending a heartwarming examination of personal and family crisis with a wild sci-fi storyline, and some of the most amusingly bizarre fight scenes to ever grace the screen.

Taking inspiration Jackie Chan’s kung fu comedies, the film’s fight scenes combine fast, free-flowing martial arts with slapstick humour.

The Daniels have acknowledged the film was originally conceived of as a vehicle for Chan. However, after seizing upon the idea of flipping the gender of its unlikely hero, the directors decided to hand the reins to Michelle Yeoh, who has enjoyed a resurgence in popularity after starring in two recent hits, Crazy Rich Asians and Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings.

Into the Michelle Yeohniverse

Although never professionally trained in martial arts, Malaysian-born Yeoh achieved fame in 1990s Hong Kong action films such as Yes, Madam! and Jackie Chan’s Supercop. An ex ballerina, renowned for doing most of her own stunts, Yeoh typically relies on on-set fight training for her action scenes.

In Everything Everywhere All At Once, this meant Yeoh was teaming with brothers Andy and Brian Le for the most outlandish fight of her career – a scene where Yeoh’s character must fight a pair of butt plug-armed henchmen.

The self-taught Le brothers drew Hollywood’s attention via the popular Martial Club YouTube channel where, along with friend Daniel Mah, the brothers recreated fight scenes from classic Hong Kong kung fu films.

Working with stunt coordinator, Timothy Eulich, to choreograph a number of Everything Everywhere All At Once’s fight scenes, the Le brother’s encyclopaedic knowledge of kung fu cinema is credited by Eulich as helping shape the film’s approach to action.

Everything Everywhere All At Once

Caught up in shattering disappointment over what her life has become, laundromat owner Evelyn Wang (Yeoh) gets a welcome reprieve from her drab reality when she is drawn into a cosmic battle and given the ability to travel through the multiverse.

Skipping between alternate lives she could have led, Evelyn draws upon the memories and skills of her other selves, including a Teppanyaki chef and an opera singer. In a nice nod to Yeoh’s own position as a globally-recognised star of films such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, one of Evelyn’s most significant alternate selves is a famous, martial arts-trained actress.

Evelyn discovers she is the multiverse’s only chance at salvation and, as various evil beings hunt her and her family, she is forced to engage in frequent battles, using whatever objects are close at hand as weapons.

À lire aussi :
From Bruce Lee to Shang-Chi: a short history of the kung fu film in cinema

Everything is a weapon

The combination of an unlikely hero being forced to fight – typically with impromptu weapons – before revealing a startling degree of martial arts proficiency is the key ingredient of numerous Jackie Chan action comedies, especially those made for English-speaking audiences after Chan relocated to the USA in the 1990s.

Drawing inspiration from Buster Keaton’s silent-era physical comedies, Chan’s films eschew traditional action genre rules. The most obvious divergence is that Chan’s characters rarely enter a fight armed with anything other than natural ability. Chan forsakes outright hostility for demonstrations of acrobatic martial skill combined with humour.

Each set of Chan’s iconic fight scenes are filled with a suite of potential weapons. For example, Chan’s confrontation with a gang of punks in Rumble In The Bronx, starts with Chan on a pool table. The actor uses everything from a fridge, to a television, a set of speakers, a shopping trolley and even a pinball machine, as weapons.

In The Spy Next Door, Chan is trapped in a kitchen and, after first slamming a fridge door into a thug, Chan repeatedly beats the man over the head with pots and pans. Though it sounds violent, the tone of the scene is more Looney Tunes than Dirty Harry.

Everything old is new again

The scene is a homage to the 1976 Hong Kong Hui Brothers’ comedy, The Private Eyes. In the original film, an inept private eye finds himself battling a villain in the kitchen of a restaurant. The ridiculous nature of the fight escalates as the opponents move from pans and colanders to a gourd-slicing swordfish, a shark jaw, a sausage nunchuck, and a wok that is tossed like a boomerang.

Everything Everywhere All At Once features a similar throwback to that iconic scene – this time swapping the sausages for dildos to make a pair of impromptu tonfa batons. Another standout scene features Evelyn’s husband, Waymond (Ke Huy Quan) expertly wielding a fanny pack to take down an entire group of thugs.

Everything Everywhere All At Once is a fresh addition to the comedy martial arts canon.

Despite the existential premise of the film – and the surprising depth of the relationship dramas – the execution of action is skilful. More significantly, the action doesn’t take itself seriously and the humour doesn’t stop when the action starts.

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

– ref. How Everything Everywhere All At Once fits into the canon of comedy-martial arts films – https://theconversation.com/how-everything-everywhere-all-at-once-fits-into-the-canon-of-comedy-martial-arts-films-181480

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Dyer, Associate Professor, RMIT University

What makes us want things we like? We know things that offer potential rewards, including food, sex, addictive drugs, and even certain artworks, can inspire desire in us – but why?

The French Enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot pointed out a central conundrum:

Desire is a product of the will but the converse is also true: will is a product of desire.

Neuroscience has solved part of the mystery, by identifying a system that drives wanting in mammals involving specific brain regions. Desire may help an animal to survive, for example by wanting to experience pleasure from nutritious food.

Now, as we discuss in a paper in Science, new research by Jingnan Huang at Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University and colleagues has found evidence of a similar wanting system in honeybees.

A common currency for driving wanting

What do we mean when we talk about “liking” and “wanting” things? Well, for neuroscientists, “liking” means the pleasurable feeling we get when we consume some reward. “Wanting”, on the other hand, means being motivated to reach the reward.

We know a bit about what happens in our brains and those of other mammals such as rodents when we want a reward. It involves dopamine, a kind of chemical called a neurotransmitter that enables communication between neurons in our brains.

To understand how the process works for non-mammals, Huang and colleagues looked at what happens in the brains of bees when presented with the prospect of a reward.

As the German scientist Karl von Frisch showed in the 1920s, honeybees use a symbolic dance language to communicate the location of rewarding flowers to hive-mates.

Other bees who observe this “waggle dance” are enticed to leave the hive and forage to collect nectar or other nutrition.

Huang and colleagues measured dopamine levels in the brains of the dancing and observing bees. They discovered that dopamine surges for performers and watchers at the beginning of the waggle dance, dropping off by the time the dance concludes.

Dopamine levels were higher when watching the dance than when the bees were actually feeding. These fluctuations show it is the expectation of wanting the sweet reward of nectar that chemically motivates the honeybees to forage.

Read more:
Long-lost letter from Albert Einstein discusses a link between physics and biology, 7 decades before evidence emerges

A wanting system in a miniature brain

In spite of having fewer than a million neurons in their brains, honey bees demonstrate complex behaviours and are cable of solving problems like detecting flower scents and colours.

Other research shows bees can learn symbols to represent numerical quantities, or can learn to perform maths tasks like arithmetic.

Huang and colleagues also showed that providing higher dopamine concentrations to some test bees increased their motivation and improved their capacity to learn flower signals like scent.

How to motivate pollinators

Honeybees and other bee species native to the different regions of the world are among the most important pollinators of many commercial and wild plant species. By carrying pollen from one flower to another of the same species, bees ensure cross pollination which often results in higher number of seeds and fruit size.

Therefore bees are of important economic value by pollinating valuable crops such as almonds, citrus and various species of vegetables.

Queen bees can modulate dopamine pathways of young bees to capture their attention and motivate them to complete specific tasks. A better understanding of the effects of dopamine on the wanting system of honeybees may open the door to a more efficient and sustainable use of honeybees for many tasks including agricultural and neuroscience.

Read more:
150 years ago, Charles Darwin wrote about how expressions evolved – pre-empting modern psychology by a century

The new research on honeybees also supports an idea raised by the famed English naturalist Charles Darwin 150 years ago, in his book The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. He proposed that liking and disliking things was so helpful to animals that it might form the basis for wanting mechanisms in humans and other animals.

This idea, alongside the presence of a wanting system in honeybees suggests that a precursor of the mammalian wanting system may have developed very early in the evolutionary history of animals. It may also provide a biologically plausible explanation for why we want what we like.

Adrian Dyer receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

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

– ref. Why do we want what we like? New evidence from bee brains offers clues – https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-want-what-we-like-new-evidence-from-bee-brains-offers-clues-181482

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

Philip Lowe mightn’t be a household name but the Reserve Bank governor finds himself catapulted right into the centre of this election campaign, in which events are proving more important than policies.

The very large inflation spike has economists declaring vehemently that the bank should put interest rates up on Tuesday, rather than waiting until June, after the election.

Both sides of politics accept the necessity and inevitability of rates rising soon. Lowe and the bank are independent and non-political, but they would also be aware a decision to hold off the increase for another month could be seen as political.

If rates do go up on Tuesday, what impact will that have on the election?

No-one can be sure. Like a number of issues in this election – notably the Solomons-China security pact and climate change – cost of living, including higher interest rates, would cut both ways.

Some voters, under increasing financial pressure, would take out their frustration on the government.

But there is a Labor fear that if rates go up next week, that could present an opportunity for Scott Morrison. The government could use it to exploit the “uncertainty” theme at the core of its campaign, reinforcing the message that change would be a leap into the unknown in scary times.

The Coalition would be helped in prosecuting its case by the fact rates have been rising internationally, so blame can’t credibly be sheeted locally. Second, Anthony Albanese’s rating with voters on economic management is very low. In this week’s Australian Financial Review Ipsos poll, 48% picked Morrison as “having a firm grasp on economic policy” while only 31% said that of Albanese.

Focus group research backs the point about Labor’s potential vulnerability. Simon Welsh, from the (Labor-leaning) firm of RedBridge, says that for some time a group of voters has been “pivoting” away from issues of Morrison’s character and leadership towards economic issues and cost of living. This “pivot” started around the time petrol prices escalated, and has continued since.

“If there is a rate rise next week it will add more fuel onto economic concerns,” Welsh says. “People don’t have confidence that there is a plan from Labor on the economy and interest rates. Their confidence in the Liberals is based on a ‘generic brand’ of them as better money managers.”

Even if the Reserve Bank stayed its hand next week, the shadow of the certain later rise would hang over the rest of the campaign.

With the six-week march to May 21 at the halfway mark, the next week will be crucial for Albanese, as he returns from COVID isolation to the trail.

This is a really risky time for him. Labor has mainly managed the absence
(aside from some virtual interviews) of its leader as well as it could. Apart from deputy leader Richard Marles struggling to explain past statements on China, opposition frontbenchers have held up their end.

Shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers appeared on top of his portfolio; finance (and campaign) spokeswoman Katy Gallagher looked very solid, shadow foreign minister Penny Wong sounded authoritative. Campaign spokesman Jason Clare has become a bit of a star.

There have been questions as to why Tanya Plibersek isn’t doing more, and talk of her (and some others) being “frozen out”. Albanese and Plibersek (both from the left) are not close, but both camps play down the suggestion she’s not busy. In 2019 she was more prominent, but she was deputy leader and her education portfolio more central in Labor’s pitch.

While it was better for Albanese, if he was going to get COVID, to contract it early, he’s now returning at a very challenging time, with Labor’s formal “launch” in Perth on Sunday. Not only will his performance be minutely scrutinised, but there’s a lot of travel involved.

Albanese said on Thursday: “It’s been a difficult week […] My doctor tells me I have to take things easy, particularly in the first few days to not do the 16 and 20-hour days that I was doing.” (He shouldn’t have been doing 20-hour days anyway, but that’s another story.)

Morrison won’t hesitate to exploit any sign Albanese has been slowed by COVID. He noted pointedly on Thursday, “He’s had a pretty quiet week. I remember when I was in iso, I had a very busy week attending QUAD summits and doing all those sorts of things.”

The PM was also pressing to have the remaining debates quickly. “It’s time to make up for some lost time. I’m happy to do two debates next week. Seven and Nine have both offered me two debates next week.” (Labor has its own ideas.)

Albanese still has a great deal of work to do if he’s to convince undecided voters he is a reliable alternative. At the same time, he has to ensure his campaign is paced to match how well he is feeling. It could be a difficult balance.

A feature of this election is that it has multiple fronts. Apart from the national campaign, there are regional battles, the individual seat contests, and almost a separate election revolving around the “teals”. This latter has become a defining feature of election-2022.

Teals start facing steep mountain. They need to reach at least second position on primaries to have a potential win, which means reducing the vote of their Liberal opponent to under 45% and polling about 30% themselves. The lower the Liberal vote and the higher their own, the better the chance.

Sources with an overview of their campaigns suggest several teals are in this position or on the cusp. The question is whether they will hold their ground or see their support slip in the final weeks, as “soft Liberal” and undecided voters firm up their thinking.

Although we don’t know how the teal story will end, we do know that it is frightening the hell out of the Liberals in the firing line.

Nowhere is the ground war more intense and, on the Liberal side, desperate, than in Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s electorate of Kooyong, where money and signage apparently have no limits for incumbent or challenger, because the stakes are huge. The loss of the seat once held by Robert Menzies would have immense practical and symbolic implications for the Liberal party.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Managing post-COVID a delicate balance for Anthony Albanese – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-managing-post-covid-a-delicate-balance-for-anthony-albanese-182166

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

University of Canberra Professional Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics.

They canvass the elevation of cost of living pressures in the election battle, with the big spike in inflation and interest rates set to rise as early as next Tuesday (and no later than next month). Meanwhile national security has played into the campaign, but in a way that has had the government on the back foot, warding off criticism it hadn’t done enough to prevent the Solomons-China security pact.

The climate debate is running again, with division within the Coalition, the teals nipping at Liberal heels, and the government trying to raise a scare about Labor’s policy.

Michelle and Caroline also discuss Albanese’s week in “iso” and Labor’s campaigning when the leader was on his sickbed.

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

– ref. VIDEO: Inflation, Solomons and ‘Albo’s iso’ dominate campaign’s third week. – https://theconversation.com/video-inflation-solomons-and-albos-iso-dominate-campaigns-third-week-182146

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucyna Kedziora-Chudczer, Program Manager / Adjunct Research Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology

Will the big storm on Jupiter ever go away? — Edgar Nuttall, age 5, Brisbane

Hi Edgar! Thank you for such a unique question.

Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar neighbourhood, and its weather is very wild. We have beautiful images of Jupiter which show striped, stormy clouds covering the whole planet.

In fact, Jupiter is covered with storms. Some are only small, but some are so big they could cover all of Earth.

The largest of these storms is the famous Great Red Spot — which I see you already know about. This spot is actually a cyclone, similar to hurricanes and cyclones here on Earth.

It is made of powerful winds blowing in circles, a bit like tea swirling in a cup when you stir it. These winds are more than five times faster than any hurricane winds on Earth.

The Great Red Spot is like the grandfather of Jupiter’s storms. It has been roaming for many, many years – but recently we’ve seen it get smaller.

Does that mean it will one day go away? Well, not necessarily.

Stormy stripes

Jupiter looks like a giant, stripy ball that spins very fast. The light-coloured stripes are clouds with rising air, while the dark-coloured stripes are clouds that are sinking.

When you see dark and light stripes next to each other on Jupiter, you’re actually seeing winds blowing in opposite directions. When this happens, they can spin up big cyclones, kind of like how pushing a beach ball with one hand and pulling it with other will make it spin.

Humans have been watching the Great Red Spot for at least 200 years and it has been blowing strong winds almost this whole time.

Like all storms, it can change from day to day. Sometimes it looks round, sometimes like an egg. Its colour can also change from brownish-red to pale red. Sometimes it looks almost white.

But recently, scientists have noticed the enormous cyclone shrinking. About 100 years ago, the Great Red Spot was almost three times larger than it is today.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why are some planets surrounded by rings?

Why is it shrinking?

To understand why it’s shrinking, it helps to first understand why cyclones shrink (and eventually stop) on Earth.

On Earth, cyclones often form above deep, warm oceans before moving onto the hard land or cooler water. When a cyclone’s winds rub against the hard land, the winds slow down (and therefore the cyclone slows down).

Cyclones on Earth are also hit by other weather and winds around them, which can makes the cyclone “flake” away within a few days.

But Jupiter doesn’t have a hard, rocky surface like Earth. And even though the air in Jupiter’s clouds is freezing, the air towards the inside is very hot. This hot air gives storms plenty of energy to rage on for months, or even years.

So even while the Great Red Storm is shrinking, it can actually still get a bit taller as it does. And it has plenty of energy to keep spinning.

We can also see it “flaking” away at the edges as it slams into other storms and winds around it. But astronomers still don’t know if this will make it go away entirely. Some think it might one day break up into many smaller storms.

Recently, the Juno space probe (which has been flying around Jupiter since 2016) took many beautiful pictures of Jupiter’s storms while flying by the planet. We may learn something new from these images.

Until then, we may as well admire the Great Red Spot as it rages on.

Lucyna Kedziora-Chudczer 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. Curious kids: will the big storm on Jupiter ever go away? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-will-the-big-storm-on-jupiter-ever-go-away-180573

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Hogg, Lecturer in Psychology, Charles Sturt University

“Therapy-speak” advice on relationships and dating is widely available outside of the psychotherapist’s office. Much of this advice places responsibility on women for managing their emotional reactions to problematic dating and relationship experiences.

The advice women are given about dating, relationships, and finding love largely falls into three categories.

1. How to not attract emotionally unavailable men

Instagram is full of relationship advice that tells women to take responsibility for their “healing”. It advises them on attachment styles, co-dependency, and emotional wounds, as well as how to deal with avoidant and narcissistic partners. Such advice varies in quality from patronising and exploitative, to nuanced and compassionate. Some of this advice is helpful, much of it is not.

One example that falls in the latter category is the cliché that in order to find love, you must first love yourself. Psychiatrist and trauma expert, Dr Bruce Perry, notes that in reality you cannot love yourself unless you have been loved, noting, “the capacity to love cannot be built in isolation.”

“Loving yourself” is valued by modern society if it helps you to get ahead. Constant self-improvement is what matters in a performance-focused society that positions people as objects of enhancement and optimisation. Neoliberalism assumes women’s lives are shaped by deliberate choices for which they, as individuals, are responsible. Little attention is paid to the contexts that constrain women’s choices.

Being responsible for self-love and self-healing only furthers the responsibility that women already shoulder for their health, well-being, careers, and relationships.

2. How to get a man to commit

Women are instructed on how to develop “a huge advantage over other women” in the “battle” to “get him to put a ring on it”. For example, dating coach Benjamin Daly tells his 500,000 Instagram followers that his book reveals “the secret to getting any man begging for commitment”.

Not only are women encouraged to strategise their dating moves, they must also self-monitor to avoid emasculating men, with authors encouraging women to observe the rules of traditional femininity and let men “lead”.

The strategies underpinning such advice are, at best, confusing. To quote author, Emily Brooks, “We are told to lean in at work, but wait for him to call”. It’s OK to hustle at work, but don’t overreach in your relationships.

The dating advice outlined in this category pits women against each other, polices women’s femininity, and reinforces a performance-centric framework of thinking about intimate relationships.

3. How to navigate toxic behaviours online

Online dating, while positive in some respects, is a minefield for toxic male behaviour.

This behaviour varies from rejection violence, where women are confronted with violence when turning down a man’s advances, to unsolicited graphic images, to more subtle forms of damaging behaviour. These include but are not limited to lovebombing, where men bombard women with attention in order to gain control, and breadcrumbing, where a person leads someone on but remains noncommittal.

These behaviours are not exclusive to male dating app users, but advice around how to handle such behaviour is largely directed at women.

Read more:
From ghosting to ‘backburner’ relationships: the reasons people behave so badly on dating apps

Why are these trends a problem?

Modern dating advice often implies women can and should fix themselves, and their relationships. This creates feelings of shame, and is particularly harmful advice for the vulnerable women in our communities.

Telling women to love themselves before they can have a relationship is at best, nonsensical, and at worst, cruel, especially for those who have suffered the mental violence that accompanies sexual assault and domestic violence.

As of 2021, 23% of women in Australia, a total of 2.2 million women, had experienced sexual assault, with women eight times more likely than men to experience sexual assault by an intimate partner. In 2020, Australia recorded its most dangerous year for domestic violence.

One in six Australian women have experienced sexual or physical violence at the hands of a former or current partner, while one in four women have experienced emotional abuse; over a quarter of the women in Australia.

Lowered self-esteem and a diminished sense of self-worth are just some of the psychological effects of sexual, physical, and emotional violence that may make “self-love” difficult.

Women need safety more than dating advice

Teaching women how to react effectively to emotionally dysfunctional behaviour may help women to cope, but it doesn’t address the fundamental issue of intimate interpersonal relationships: safety.

Rather than upskilling women to deal with the harm they risk in dating men, the self-help industry should focus on male behaviour – not the reactions of women to this behaviour. Women need safety more than they need advice.

Read more:
Clementine Ford reveals the fragility behind ‘toxic masculinity’ in Boys Will Be Boys

We need to redirect the focus to male behaviour

The most important dating advice the self-help industry can offer is for a male audience: do not harm the women around you.

Mateship is revered in Australia, yet male friendships are often devoid of vulnerability, openness, intimacy, and self-disclosure. This likely has to do with toxic expectations around masculinity that may manifest in emotional suppression and masking of distress, misogyny and homophobia. Research has found male attitudes towards masculinity, feminism, and homophobia are predictive of date-rape-supportive attitudes and self-reported histories of sexual coercion.

Rather than teaching women how to respond to dangerous dating behaviours, the self-help industry should examine what men are taught about dating and relationships. The self-help industry could play an important role in educating online dating app users about how to avoid perpetrating harassment, discrimination, and sexual violence.

“Teaching” women how to deal with the men they’re dating is not the solution to the problems of modern dating and relationships.

Rachel Hogg 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. When it comes to dating advice, why is it always women who must improve? – https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-dating-advice-why-is-it-always-women-who-must-improve-180877

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Ward, PhD candidate, University of Sydney

The election campaign is well underway and the ABC is barely registering as an issue. Why is that, when according to the Morrison government’s own figures, the ABC’s real funding will continue to decline over the next three years?

Not that the government acknowledges this.

“The evidence is clear,” communications minister Paul Fletcher declared in February. “The Morrison government has provided strong and consistent support to the ABC.”

This is a breathtakingly misleading statement.

Read more:
The ABC’s budget hasn’t been restored – it’s still facing $1.2 billion in accumulated losses over a decade

Accumulated losses

Two of us, Michael Ward and Alex Wake, have tracked the Coalition government’s support several times on this site, most recently in February, writing that the ABC’s budget hasn’t been restored – it’s still facing A$1.2 billion in accumulated losses over a decade.

Ward has also conducted research on how much the ABC has lost and will continue to lose in aggregate over the course of a 12-year period. Ward used a number of public financial sources to build the data sets behind the tables and figures in this article, including ABC portfolio budget statements, a 2014 Budget paper, and a 2022 Budget Strategy Paper. He also used Australian Parliamentary Library reports and ABC answers to Senate Questions on Notice in 2018 and 2021.

The evidence is clear: but for a series of decisions made over the nine years of the Coalition government, the ABC would have far more funding at its disposal.

The Morrison government has been neither a strong nor consistent supporter of the ABC. Yes, the ABC benefits from deals with Google and Facebook under the government’s news media bargaining code, but the government initially excluded the ABC from the code and the deals are for a limited period.

As the below table shows, decisions by the Coalition government since 2013 have left the ABC far worse off financially.

There was the axing of the Australia Network, (a service providing soft power diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region) announced in May 2014, at a cost of $186 million.

There was the simultaneous 1% reduction of ABC funding, which has since cost the ABC $72 million.

There have been “efficiency” savings of $353 million, beginning in November 2014.

There have been cuts to tied funding initiatives totalling $122 million, announced in May 2017. (“Tied funding” means grants tied to a specific purpose or project.)

And, since 2019, there has been a freeze on indexation for ABC funding that has cost the broadcaster $84 million.

By 2025–26, we project these all decisions will leave the ABC $1.3 billion worse off.

Meanwhile, the government has sought to trumpet the slightest reprieves and slenderest funding increases as evidence of its commitment to the public broadcaster.

Fletcher’s declaration in February, alongside his announcement of the government’s plans for the ABC’s next triennial funding period, was entirely in this vein.

The government reversed its freeze on indexation for ABC funding and increased the ABC’s operational funding by a total of $38.3 million between 2022-23 and 2025-26.

The budget papers , released on March 29, stagger the funding increases by 0.7% in 2022–23, 2.0% in 2023–24, and 1.6% in 2024–25. This is an average 1.5% annual increase over the next three years.

But those same budget papers predict inflation to be 3%, 2.75% and 2.75% over the same period. And already the first prediction has needed to be increased to 5.1% after the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the latest Consumer Price Index figures on Wednesday.

What this means is that the modest increases in nominal funding will be outpaced by inflation, leaving the ABC worse off in real terms.

The government’s strategy of anaesthetising the ABC’s funding as an election issue appears to be working because few in the media are talking about it. But they should be.

Reductions over the past nine years have already led the ABC to significant job losses and programming changes. Remember when each state and territory had its own edition of 7.30 on television on Fridays? That level of scrutiny has been sorely missed during the global pandemic when we have all been reminded how important state and territory government services are.

In real terms, analysis of Budget papers and a Parliamentary Library report show ABC operational funding has declined by 12% since the Hawke Labor government. The table below compares average annual funding for each government since 1971.

This historical comparison shows that, barring changes to the plans of whoever is in government, ABC funding in 2025–26 will be at its lowest level in real terms in 45 years.

As we (Matthew Ricketson and Patrick Mullins) show in our book, Who needs the ABC?, the environment in which the ABC operates is profoundly different to that of two decades ago. Apart from sustained Coalition government hostility, the ABC is under almost continuous attack from sections of the commercial news media.

Yet the ABC does more now than it ever has, running six television channels, more than 60 capital city, local, and digital radio stations, four national radio services, a vast array of online resources, and live music.

On funding, one side, the Coalition, is clearly associated with an overall reduction in ABC funding.

The ABC is too important a national cultural institution for voters to be denied a clear picture of how it is being treated by the government, and by the Labor opposition. For its part, the opposition has promised to move funding agreements beyond the electoral cycle, to five years, and to reverse the indexation decisions of 2019.

As we have noted, though, this will not restore the funding lost over the past nine years. Both major parties should commit to restoring ABC funding.

Read more:
Is the latest ABC inquiry really just ‘business as usual’?

Michael Ward is a Ph.D. candidate in media and communications at the University of Sydney. From 1999 to 2017 he worked for the ABC, including as a senior executive contributing to funding submissions.

Alexandra Wake was a senior journalist with the ABC, and did her last shift with ABC Radio Australia in 2015.

Matthew Ricketson last year conducted paid in-house feature writing training sessions for journalists in the ABC’s Asia Pacific Newsroom. He is the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance’s representative on the Australian Press Council.

Patrick Mullins has received funding from ArtsACT and the Museum of Australian Democracy.

– ref. No-one is talking about ABC funding in this election campaign. Here’s why they should be – https://theconversation.com/no-one-is-talking-about-abc-funding-in-this-election-campaign-heres-why-they-should-be-181948