Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Hepburn, Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University

Adani’s plan to manage an endangered finch was rejected last week by the Queensland government, stalling progress on the Carmichael mine.

The mine would cover much of the best remaining habitat for the endangered black-throated finch. The Queensland government required Adani to commit to gathering more accurate finch population data, limit the cattle grazing in the finch conservation area and determine food availability throughout the year, before they could approve the plan.

The rejection is one of two outstanding environmental approvals required before Adani can commence work on the mine. The second is the plan to manage groundwater-dependent ecosystems, which the Queensland government has yet to come to a decision on.

Read more: Unpacking the flaws in Adani’s water management plan

The federal government has been reported as “already approving” the finch plan. But legally, the Queensland government must determine whether the plan complies with the conditions of the environmental authority and, under the bilateral framework, the federal government must give due regard to this assessment.

What’s wrong with Adani’s plan?

Last Friday Queensland’s Department of Environment and Science decided not to approve Adani’s black-throated finch management plan because it does not fulfil certain basic requirements.

The decision is based on a detailed report from an independent expert panel.

The black-throated finch is on the verge of extinction, one of 238 threatened Australian birds.

Read more: For the first time we’ve looked at every threatened bird in Australia side-by-side

The greatest threat to the black-throated finch is habitat loss: it has disappeared from over 80% of its original range. Strong protection, and careful management, of its remaining habitat is crucial.

The finch, once found across north-eastern Australia, is now largely found on Moray Downs and surrounding properties, north-west of Clermont in central Queensland. A core part of the habitat is within the 28,000 hectare (ha) footprint of the Carmichael mine, where there are far more black finches than elsewhere due to the intact woodlands and a history of minimal livestock grazing.

It is expected the mines will disturb 50,977 ha of black-throated finch habitat, and that 34,156 ha will be completely cleared.

A total of 87 square kilometres of habitat will be destroyed through the creation of open pits, and a further 61 square kilometres may be degraded beyond repair due to the influence of underground mining on groundwater.

After habitat loss, the second greatest threat to the finch is cattle grazing, which destroys the grass seeds they need to survive. Yet Adani’s management plan for the black-throated finch involved grazing cattle on areas that are supposed to be devoted to conservation of the finch.

Instead of establishing a finch conservation reserve, the Adani plan proposed what was in effect a paddock. Providing a species management plan that effectively conserves finch habitat is a core condition of Adani’s mining licence.

State vs federal priorities

The Queensland government’s rejection of the plan brings into stark focus some of the problems with the existing environmental assessment framework.

The environmental authority for the mining licence was approved by the Federal government. The environmental management plan for the finch did not, however, address core impact concerns. And yet this is the very reason that the plan was required from the outset. The inadequacies of the plan only became apparent because of the oversight of the Queensland government.

The federal government has not been proactive despite’s its mandate under our National environment act – the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation act. In fact, a recent analysis found the federal government has approved hundreds of projects to clear black-throated finch habitat over the last 18 years.

Read more: Death by 775 cuts: how conservation law is failing the black-throated finch

There are clearly differences in priorities regarding the environment between a federal Liberal and a state Labor government. However, environmental assessment can only be effective if is not undermined by political agendas, and is grounded in scientific rigour and scrutiny.

A one-stop shop

At the federal level, any project likely to have a “significant impact” on a matter protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act must be referred to the federal environment minister.

If the minister decides the project impacts a matter of national environmental significance, he or she will then determine how to assess that project at the national level. Legislated options include: an environmental impact statement, a public environment report and public inquiry.

The federal government has entered into bilateral agreements with all state and territory governments. As a result, rather than the state and federal governments conducting separate assessment, the aim is to promote a single, focused environmental evaluation.

The Queensland government has entered into a bilateral assessment agreement with the Commonwealth government for Adani’s coal project, which effectively allows it to make an environmental assessment that the Commonwealth Minister will then take account of when deciding whether to grant approval.

This means that both the Queensland and the federal government are involved in the approval and assessment process environmental authorities and conditions, one of those being the management plan for the black-throated finch. In order to optimise outcomes they need to work together collaboratively.

Where to next?

The rejection means that Adani will now need to submit a new or revised plan that addresses the Queensland government’s concerns. In particular, Adani will need to limit cattle grazing in the conservation area, and gather more information regarding the availability of seed throughout the year.

This may take time but is critical, because in its current form, the plan does not meet the legal requirements for the Environmental Authority, which means that it cannot be approved at the state level.

Without state approval the Adani coal mine cannot proceed. The Queensland government has rigorously assessed Adani’s management plan by commissioning a report by an independent expert panel and then acting on the advice of this report.

This robust approach is crucial to the whole framework of environmental assessment. Genuine commitment to protecting endangered species and managing vital groundwater resources is vital if we want to reverse Australia’s dire trajectory of environmental decline.

– ref. Why Adani’s finch plan was rejected, and what comes next – http://theconversation.com/why-adanis-finch-plan-was-rejected-and-what-comes-next-116525

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Nyanjom, Lecturer – School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

Plato and Aristotle. Barbara Walters and Oprah Winfrey. Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. In each of these famous relationships it was the older person with more experience acting as mentor, guiding the much younger “mentee” in their career.

But changes in the modern workplace suggest we will increasingly see more circumstances in which mentors may be younger – sometimes much younger – than their mentees.

Think back to starting a new job. Even if your workplace didn’t have a formal mentorship program – pairing you with a more experienced colleague, separate to your manager, whose role was to help you succeed – it’s likely at least one person took you “under their wing” informally.

Who will do the same for the 63-year-old returning to a workplace that looks and operates differently to the one he or she left a decade ago?

Workplaces must prepare for an ageing workforce. Twenty years ago, just a quarter of Australia’s population kept working after they turned 55. Now a third do, and the proportion will continue to rise. As people stay in the workforce longer and change jobs more often, it’s increasingly likely there will be times an older colleague might benefit from mentoring.

It isn’t even necessary to be new to an organisation. Some companies that recognise the value of staying current are embracing “reverse mentoring”, in which millennials can school older executives on technology and cultural trends.

But social norms and expectations about age and experience can make it hard for someone younger to be the mentor.

So how do you get it right?

Why it matters

Generalisations about generational differences are common. Perhaps you’ve read baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) value loyalty, and gen-xers (born between 1965 and 1980) work-life balance, while millennials crave innovation and change.

Such notions are more myth than fact. Stereotyping people by their membership of an age group is no less problematic than doing it according to ethnicity or gender. It can encourage unhealthy biases and create barriers to communication and understanding.

A better term than “reverse mentoring” is “inclusive mentoring”. This takes the focus off thinking there is a “natural” age order to mentoring and puts the emphasis on simply encouraging shared learning between colleagues. Everyone has something of value to learn, or teach, in a respectful environment free from age or hierarchical biases.

The key is to be conscious of the barriers. You must be aware of the stereotypes and biases – that influence expectations and perceptions to do with age, but also of the chance that different experiences can lead to different outlooks to life.

Start out by asking your colleague about their expectations of their new role, their understanding of their tasks, their past work experience, and how they anticipate the relationship going.

It’s important to remember the essentials of mentoring practice. These remain the same. A mentoring relationship is about support, sharing knowledge and insights, and being a friend. Both mentor and mentee bring something to the table.

Five top tips

1. Understand stereotypical assumptions influence the potential success of the mentoring relationship. Tension is more likely if either of you have negative perceptions of the other based on age difference. Training in how to identify your unconscious biases might be a good idea before you start

2. open and respectful communication should be the focus. Start the conversation by clarifying the objectives of the mentoring relationship between both of you. Being clear and focused is a good basis for mutual respect

3. give yourselves adequate time to settle into the relationship. Your outlook towards life and work may be different. Give yourself time to get to know one another and to find common ground

4. be open and willing to learn. You might know more about some things, but your colleague is likely to know things you don’t. Think of the mentoring relationship as a collaborative partnership where mutual learning takes place

5. it’s OK to be apprehensive. You may feel challenged. Your colleague may feel just as uncomfortable. But with time and effort this apprehension will fade.

Becoming a good mentor, or a good mentee, isn’t automatic. It takes takes time and effort. But it is worth the effort, enriching the experience and skills of both parties, and contributing to an organisation able to compete in a changing world.

– ref. 5 tips on how to be a good mentor to someone twice your age – http://theconversation.com/5-tips-on-how-to-be-a-good-mentor-to-someone-twice-your-age-114189

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kris Gledhill, Professor of Law, Auckland University of Technology

The trial of the man accused of the murders and attempted murders in the Christchurch mosque attacks is one small but important legal process.

Another one has now started. A Royal commission of inquiry, to be led by the senior judge, Justice William Young, and an as yet unannounced second person, will look into the specific circumstances leading up to the shootings on March 15 that left, as of now, 51 people dead.

The commission will investigate whether police or intelligence services could have done more to prevent the atrocity, but its terms of reference do not allow it to look into the role of social media.

Read more: Explainer: trial of alleged perpetrator of Christchurch mosque shootings

Duty to protect life

Coroners exist to investigate the circumstances of a death and to make recommendations designed to reduce the risk of further deaths. However, mass deaths, whether in a disaster or atrocity, may call for a different process. The investigation then needs to have a focus on systematic matters.

The Inquiries Act 2013 refers to three different types of wider inquiry: a Royal commission (which is formally a matter of the Royal Prerogative), a public inquiry (established by the Governor-General) and a government inquiry (established by a minister). There is a hierarchy, with royal commissions at the top.

Recent examples of incidents that involved significant loss of life and merited a Royal commission include the Pike River coal mine explosion and the failures of buildings during the Canterbury earthquakes.

There is an important international human rights dimension. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OHCHR) 1966, binding on New Zealand since 1978, obliges the New Zealand government not to take life arbitrarily and to protect life.

This duty to protect is in focus here. The question that requires a Royal commission is whether officers of the state, most obviously in the police and intelligence services, failed in their duty to protect the victims by preventing the atrocity from occurring in the first place.

Answering this question is part of an implied further duty on the state to investigate possible fault on its part. As duties are by definition owed to someone, fixing this as part of the right to life reveals that it is owed to the families of the deceased victims, and those whose right to life was put at risk, and their families. They must be at the centre of the investigation. They have the clearest stake in needing to know whether more could and should have been done to prevent the atrocity.

Focus of the inquiry

Naturally, the desire of those most directly affected to get to the truth is a powerful tool for ensuring that an investigation is kept on track. The rest of us have an obvious interest as well, because we all want to have any necessary changes made to reduce the risk of similar atrocities occurring. But the personal interest adds to this.

The terms of reference for the Royal commission have been released, and should be interpreted in light of this international human rights obligation. But the place of the victims is not prominent. At most, paragraph 4 refers to the expectation that the inquiry will “connect with the Muslim community” in its work, and paragraph 16 has a similar reference and a note about appointing a liaison person or persons.

But nothing in the terms of reference prevents the families being at the centre of the process, and the statutory power of the commission to regulate its own process allows it to do what it considers as proper in this regard.

The scope of the commission’s investigation is a mixed bag. In paragraph 7 of the terms of reference, which sets the scope of the inquiry, the first six points are directly about the activities of the accused person. The final three, which relate to state sector agencies, are phrased as sub-points to the activities of the individual. But the investigative duty must focus on the potential failures of state officials to fulfil an obligation. It will be important that this is construed appropriately by the commission.

Paragraph 8 (relating to findings needed) and paragraph 9 (relating to recommendation to be made) suggest that defaults by state agencies and changes that should be made are central. This is reinforced by the introductory comments, which also have a suitable focus on state agency default and required changes. The problematic paragraph 7 can be interpreted accordingly.

What the commission will not do

Paragraph 13 of the terms of reference makes it clear that the commission will not investigate arms laws. Separate action has already been taken in changing New Zealand’s gun laws.

Read more: Why NZ needs to follow weapons ban with broad review of security laws

Nor will the commission investigate non-state operators such as media organisations, or the police response once alerted to the atrocity. These two limitations are unnecessarily narrow.

It may be that the response of the police was incredibly professional and appropriate. If so, that should be recorded. But if more could have been done, the commission is prohibited from even raising the thought.

As for media platforms, if part of the problem is that governments have failed to regulate the hate-filled corners of the internet, that is part of what we should know in order to protect us from similar acts.

While the government might have been concerned to delay the commission’s findings, which are due by 10 December 2019 and can be supplemented by interim findings, it would have been possible to create a timeline that required the commission to conduct an inquiry in several parts with different dates. The problematic part of paragraph 13 requires governmental reconsideration.

– ref. Explainer: how a royal commission will investigate Christchurch shootings – http://theconversation.com/explainer-how-a-royal-commission-will-investigate-christchurch-shootings-116122

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Watts, Professor of Information Law and Policy, La Trobe University

At about the same time on Sunday afternoon that former Labor prime minister Paul Keating was referring to him as a “fossil with a baseball cap”, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a re-election promise to crackdown on social media platforms and online predators, and “protect children, families and the community”.

Our government’s determination to address online safety is to be commended, but the current proposals contain few details on policy and implementation.

In reality we’re unlikely to see much improvement in online safety unless we tackle the real elephant in the room: big tech’s business model.

Read more: How big tech designs its own rules of ethics to avoid scrutiny and accountability

Four initiatives

The plan consists of four initiatives.

The first would see increased maximum penalties for existing crimes such as using the internet to menace, harass or cause offence. Penalties would also increase, and new offences created, for a range of child sex offences that rely on the internet.

The second initiative is designed to hold major social media platforms to account by enacting laws that require them to provide transparency reports relating to illegal, abusive and predatory content by their users – that is, trolling.

The third is to provide parents with tools to “make their own decisions about how their children use the internet”. It will become mandatory for online apps, games and services marketed to children to be pre-configured with the most restrictive privacy and safety defaults.

Complementary initiatives involve providing a filtered internet service that blocks sites considered unsafe by the eSafety Commissioner, and providing point of sale and point of account creation information to parents about online safety and parental controls.

The final initiative is to work with the G20 to “ensure that technology firms meet obligations regarding the prevention and protection, transparency and deterrence to stop terrorists weaponising the internet”.

Scandals and social harm

In the wake of a variety of scandals that have plagued “big tech” over the last few years – including the Facebook Cambrige Analytica controversy, and Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 US Presidential elections – governments across the world have become increasingly concerned about the social harms produced by a largely unregulated technology sector.

The Coalition’s election announcement comes soon after the passage of amendments to the Criminal Code to address live streaming of “abhorrent violent material” by social media platforms in the wake of the Christchurch massacre. It should be seen as an advance in governmental resolve to address the excesses of big tech. This is a long overdue and welcome development.

Read more: Livestreaming terror is abhorrent – but is more rushed legislation the answer?

Extra offences and tougher penalties, particularly for online-enabled sexual exploitation of children, play well in a febrile pre-election environment. The prospect of more punishment and denunciation seems like tough and determined action will be taken.

But the deterrent effect of criminalising activity and imposing harsher jail sentences is based on an assumption that people weigh up the costs and benefits of their actions whenever they make decisions – that they make rational criminal choices. This assumption is open to question where online harassment and child sex offending occurs.

Equally, there is little evidence that jail time for sex offenders serves rehabilitative objectives or that, long term, the community is safer. After all, when offenders have served their time they are released and return to the community.

Read more: Helping to rehabilitate sex offenders is controversial – but it can prevent more abuse

It’s easy – and cheap – to legislate for new offences and more incarceration. It’s harder – and expensive – to ensure the community is safer in the long term. This involves addressing causes, not effects.

Only the ‘major’ platforms

The proposed greater transparency measures appear to apply only to “major” social media platforms. Presumably, this means digital platforms that have a corporate presence in Australia – like Google and Facebook – and who can be compelled to obey Australian laws.

But there are many other sites that Australians access which have no presence, other than a cyber presence, in Australia.

Has the Coalition taken account of the fact that those who choose to propagate “illegal, abusive and predatory” content may simply switch their activities to platforms like 4 Chan, 8 Chan or reddit to avoid transparency requirements, making it harder to regulate them? How will they be made transparent?

Another challenge is how to define “illegal, abusive and predatory content”. Presumably government will provide legislative guidance about this in its proposed Online Safety Act, but it will be interesting to see how Silicon Valley corporations steeped in US first amendment free speech doctrine interpret and implement this requirement.

Read more: We need to talk about the data we give freely of ourselves online and why it’s useful

Policing is the hard bit

One of big tech’s most consistent arguments to avoid regulation is that we should rely on technology to solve technology-caused harm. The Coalition’s proposal to provide parents with controls to “make their own decisions about how their children use the internet” falls into this category.

But how are default privacy and safety settings to be policed? What will stop curious, technically-literate children simply changing the default settings behind their parents’ backs?

Likewise, the proposal to supply filtered internet services that block sites nominated by the e-Safety Commissioner seems like an invitation to find work-arounds to avoid censorship.

Read more: Sorry everyone: on the internet, you’re always the product

As commentators like Roger McNamee, Zeynep Tufekci and Tristan Harris have argued, the risks that big tech poses to society are caused by their “free” service business model.

The need to collect more and more personal data and keep their users’ attention focused on their services by feeding them more and more content that they “like” is baked into social media corporate DNA. Companies create “filter bubbles” and “preference bubbles” that ensure popular content is succeeded by more extreme and disturbing versions of the same.

Big tech’s business model is the root cause of the harms the Coalition’s online safety package is designed to address. Although any government action to address these harms is to be encouraged and supported, the package is likely to fall short of our expectations.

– ref. Coalition plans to improve online safety don’t address the root cause of harms: the big tech business model – http://theconversation.com/coalition-plans-to-improve-online-safety-dont-address-the-root-cause-of-harms-the-big-tech-business-model-116592

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Kenny, Senior Fellow, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University

Some weeks back, Sydney Morning Herald political editor Peter Hartcher grimly characterised the election as a choice between an angry dad figure in a baseball cap and a sad sack who learned public speaking in funeral parlour.

Unkind but funny.

There has been precious little wit since in the procedural campaign dirge rolled out on either side – a rare exception being Bill Shorten’s “space invader” quip directed at Scott Morrison in last Friday night’s leaders’ debate.

It was probably focus group feedback rather than Hartcher’s astringent barb, but both leaders do seem to have modified their presentation as the campaigns have progressed.

But not much.

Image is everything – and nothing

Still tetchy and frustrated, Morrison seems to have benched the American baseball cap headwear – although not quickly enough to forestall a caustic Paul Keating attack:

Here’s the prime minister walking around with a lump of coal, coal is a fossil and the problem is the prime minister is a fossil himself. He’s a fossil with a baseball cap but he’s a fossil.

For his part, Shorten has apparently been told to smile no matter what. Such insouciance begins to look odd if it persists under verbal assault from his opponent or when confronted by an aggressive interviewer. Abnormal might be another word for it.

Amazingly, the parties’ body language experts have subtracted nothing much from nothing at all – and come up with even less. So much for politics obeying the “iron laws of arithmetic”, as John Howard was fond of saying.

Read more: ‘Fairness’ versus ‘strength’ – the battle to frame the federal election

Who was it who observed that, sincerity is everything – once you can fake that, you’ve got it made?

To call the major party campaigns risk averse makes them sound occasionally intriguing, perhaps even adventurous to a point.

They are not. Nor is their rhetoric inspiring, with neither leader seeking to invoke a national vision except inasmuch as it can be safely conveyed within an orthodox economic rationale.

Empty campaign messages

US Democratic strategist James Carville’s now-ubiquitous entreaty in Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign “it’s the economy, stupid,” has become the cold heart of modern politics – a prevailing neoliberal dictum that denudes political imagery of anything that cannot also be shown on a balance sheet.

What’s forgotten is that Carville’s supposed primacy of the economy was just one of three key messages Clinton campaigners were asked to stress, the others being “change versus more of the same” and “don’t forget health care.”

It’s uncanny how these work for Shorten now. Indeed, more of the same might well be the greatest risk in this election – more dangerous than budget blowouts, higher taxes or rising debt.

So arid has the governmental battleground become that Keating, arguably the most economically focused of Labor’s prime ministers, is looking for soul. While attending Labor’s campaign launch in Brisbane, he emphasised:

No, no, it’s about the economy “and” society. The economy is there for society. The Liberals have nothing to offer. You know, I’m surprised how threadbare their program is. If you look, there is no panorama. There’s no vista. There’s no shape…

Campaigning not to lose

Intended or otherwise, “Big Picture” Keating’s lament over the barely referenced vision thing applies to Labor also – if to a lesser extent.

The sharpest segue toward any sort of grand vision can be found in Labor’s education and training plans, which are fiscally bold – long-hand for expensive – yet mostly iterative in a pure reform sense.

Ditto for the crimping of tax loopholes such as negative gearing, franking credit cash bonuses and capital gains tax. These changes are electorally bold, and undeniably redistributive, but they are also essentially remedial rather transformative in economic reform context.

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Caroline Fisher on the spin machines of #AusVotes19

Climate change is perhaps the big values difference, but after a decade of bruising political negation on carbon emissions, Labor’s plans are substantially pared back from its ambitions of a decade ago. They are now largely those of the government, if delivered faster – no carbon tax, no cap and trade scheme, and the plan to revive Malcolm Turnbull’s national energy guarantee.

Much theorising has gone into explaining the record pre-poll turn-out, which had reached 915,000 people on Monday, vastly higher than the last federal poll in 2016.

The Coalition in particular is sweating the cause of this psephological phenomenon, amid speculation – much of it indistinguishable from wishful thinking – that voter keenness portends an electoral bloodbath for the Coalition.

This could be right, or it might be something else, such as the depressing reality of a campaign that is so dreadful to watch, it can be fully ignored once one’s duty has been discharged. The debates, for example, have been excruciating – two middle-aged men in suits trying not to lose.

Putting women front and center

Yet for all this, there have been significant optical differences between the two sides. Differences that amplify realities within each camp.

While Morrison has barely appeared before the cameras without a female Liberal candidate by his side, these women have mostly been political non-entities, unknown by voters beyond their own electorates.

The transparent aim has been to counter the hard truth that the Liberals have a women drought in their ranks – one of their own determined making.

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

Julie Bishop’s relative absence in this campaign is profound, highlighting the unpalatable fact that the government’s most popular and trusted figure has quit after being ignored as a leadership option.

The associations are unpleasant: think J-Bish and you also think Turnbull, which leads quickly to turmoil, betrayal and to Tony Abbott.

On Labor’s side, the aim has been to underline this difference as visually as possible.

By the time Shorten addressed the party faithful at his party’s Brisbane campaign launch, no fewer than four powerful female identities had sung his praises: Annastacia Palaszczuk, Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, and his wife, Chloe Shorten – otherwise known among Labor women as, “Bill’s feminist conscience”.

If that didn’t make the point strongly enough, the entire Labor alternative cabinet was on stage for the event, arranged in the familiar boy-girl-boy-girl order – its 50-50 split as obvious as the squares on a chess board.

Images aren’t everything in this election, but given the absence of charisma and paucity of inspiring vision, the leaders are relying on them to send the right message.

– ref. Look at me! Look at me! How image-conscious but visionless leaders have made for a dreary campaign – http://theconversation.com/look-at-me-look-at-me-how-image-conscious-but-visionless-leaders-have-made-for-a-dreary-campaign-116421

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hazel, Senior Lecturer, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide

Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.

Why don’t horses sit or lie down even while sleeping? – A question from Zulfiqar.

I’m glad you have asked about one of the mistakes lots of people make about horses. It’s true they do have an amazing ability to sleep standing up. But they do also sleep lying down. If you’re a horse, you need to be able to do both.

I’ll explain why.

Read more: Curious Kids: how did the months get their names?

Why should horses be able to sleep standing up?

Horses first evolved in open plains. As a prey species (one that other animals eat), they needed to be able to see quickly if another animal that might eat them (a predator) was nearby.

Being able to rest or sleep standing up meant they could get their rest, but if they saw a predator, they could quickly run away. That’s one of the reasons horses run so fast – to get away. The early horses that ran the fastest were more likely to survive.

Three legs on, one leg off

The most interesting part of horses resting standing up is how they do it. In horses there is a special arrangement of muscles and the parts that connect muscles and bones together (ligaments and tendons). This is called the stay apparatus.

The stay apparatus means that horses can stand on three legs and rest the other leg. They can change the leg they rest so all of their legs get a chance to have a break. A horse can weigh more than 500kg so their legs need a rest!

Even though they can sleep standing up, scientists think horses still need to lie down and sleep each day. Your sleep is not the same all night. Everyone goes through different stages of lighter and deeper sleep, and horses are the same.

The deeper stages of sleep are only seen in horses lying down. Both horses and humans need to go through deeper stages of sleep for our brains to work properly.

Read more: Curious Kids: is water blue or is it just reflecting off the sky?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: why don’t horses sit or lie down even while sleeping? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-dont-horses-sit-or-lie-down-even-while-sleeping-116156

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eddie Synot, Senior Research Assistant, Griffith University

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is almost two years old and now enjoys bipartisan political support. Labor’s policy, if elected, is to hold a referendum on enshrining a First Nations voice in the Australian Constitution in their first term. The Coalition, while supporting the Uluru Statement from the Heart following the report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, has budgeted for a design process to establish a model of the First Nations voice to parliament before going to referendum.

The support for the Uluru statement is a remarkable turning point in the history, and future, of the Australian nation. By issuing the Uluru statement to the Australian people, rather than to politicians, participants at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in 2017 invited all Australians to “walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future”. This invitation has been resoundingly embraced.

Read more: The Uluru statement showed how to give First Nations people a real voice – now it’s time for action

At the core of this invitation is the principle of being heard. Australians have come to understand that First Nations peoples have a political and cultural right to be heard and to determine their own affairs.

Many also understand that this power is key to addressing what the Uluru statement termed “the torment of our powerlessness”. This means a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Australia that establishes the foundations for a better future.

The establishment of this new relationship is also why it is important to enshrine these changes in the constitution before negotiating what this relationship will be.

The Australian Constitution is the foundation of the Australian nation, and it must be changed to enable a renewed relationship. Without addressing this first, any future changes implemented outside of the constitution will remain susceptible to the current arrangements that do not appropriately recognise First Nations peoples.

However, the need for constitutional change has been conflated with concerns about the need for a detailed design of the First Nations voice before a referendum, and misrepresentations of the process that is required to achieve this change. First, change the constitution. Then, negotiate the design of the voice.

Read more: The Indigenous community deserves a voice in the constitution. Will the nation finally listen?

The deferral of the detail of what the voice might be is a normal process of constitutional reform. Effective constitutional reform requires that any new addition to the constitution be explicit enough to provide for the establishment of the voice while being subject to the constitution. But it should not be so detailed that it becomes restrictive and meaningless to Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples into the future.

There already exists significant research on the future design of a body that could be the First Nations voice. This includes eight reports since 2012, including the First Nations-led Referendum Council dialogues that produced the Uluru Statement in 2017 and the 2018 report of the joint select committee.

Participants in the regional dialogues of the Referendum Council and the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in 2017 provided a clear pathway forward. This is represented by submission 479 to the joint select committee. Importantly, the submission was written by experts who advised the regional dialogues and is representative of the desires of First Nations participants.

Submission 479 detailed the insertion of a new “Section 129: The First Nations Voice” and a simple referendum question to achieve this as detailed below.

Proposed Amendment

Chapter 9: First Nations

Section 129: The First Nations Voice

(1) There shall be a First Nations Voice.

(2) The First Nations Voice shall present its views to Parliament and the Executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

(3) The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the First Nations Voice.

Referendum question

Do you approve an alteration to the Constitution that establishes a First Nations Voice?

YES / NO

This is a simple but powerful amendment. It provides recognition and the ability of First Nations peoples to negotiate with government while also respecting the place and authority of parliament and the constitution. This is, importantly, not a simple inclusion but rather a representation to the Commonwealth that is respectful of First Nations political and cultural identity and authority.

Conventional wisdom tells us that achieving constitutional reform can be difficult. But too much can be made of conventional wisdom, to the point that it stymies progress.

Read more: Lessons of 1967 referendum still apply to debates on constitutional recognition

Laws are meant to change. Section 128 of the constitution specifically provides for that ability and the successful 1967 referendum is an example of what can be achieved.

In 1967, it wasn’t the technical change to the constitution that held weight, nor was any specific detail about the future of Indigenous affairs entered into the constitution. Rather, it was the principle of “vote yes for Aborigines” that resonated.

Today, it is that same principle of respect and recognition for First Nations peoples that can deliver reform for a better future.

– ref. Constitutional reform made easy: how to achieve the Uluru statement and a First Nations voice – http://theconversation.com/constitutional-reform-made-easy-how-to-achieve-the-uluru-statement-and-a-first-nations-voice-116141

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tooran Alizadeh, Senior Lecturer in Urbanism, Sydney Research Accelerator (SOAR) Fellow, University of Sydney

The NBN was touted as dream infrastructure, and the Coalition says it is close to completing the A$50 billion national broadband network.

But Australia recently slipped three spots to place 62nd in global broadband rankings, with our average download speed of 35.11 Mbps far below the global average of 57.91 Mbps.

Labor has ruled-out a large scale upgrade of the NBN if it wins the 2019 federal election, saying flaws in the NBN are due to “six years of vandalism” by the Coalition government.

Read more: Labor will prioritise an NBN ‘digital inclusion drive’ – here’s what it should focus on

In reality it’s hard to get an accurate picture on the balance of NBN technologies that are already in place in Australia. To get around this opacity, we used the “check your address” tool on the NBN website as a way to collect data on the footprints of technologies currently or about to be in place in three Australian metropolitan cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

The data suggests around half (40-60%) of homes in the three cities only have access to very old technology: hybrid fibre-coaxial (HFC). For people in these residences, access to the so-called “fibre network” remains only a fairy tale.

Real data on the NBN

Lack of data transparency is a vexing aspect of the NBN. In our experience, NBN Co does not disclose meaningful information on service footprints in a single, usable dataset. This makes it difficult to evaluate outcomes and perform policy analysis associated with the service.

Nevertheless, our latest research has collected some data we believe was undisclosed previously.

Over December 2018 to February 2019, we used the “check your address” search function on the NBN Co website along with basic data mining techniques to extract data from a representative sample of all addresses across the three metropolitan regions of Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane.

We uncovered footprints of mixed-technology NBN, including current or planned fibre to the premises (FTTP), fibre to the node (FTTN), fibre to the building (FTTB), fibre to the curb (FTTC), hybrid fibre-coaxial (HFC), fixed wireless and satellite (Sky Muster).

Here we mainly focus on hybrid fibre-coaxial (HFC), which is the oldest technology component of the NBN. HFC is the cable network you might have connected to in the past to get Foxtel subscription TV.

Major cities rely on HFC

The three maps shown here represent the spatial presence of fibre infrastructure versus more inferior HFC/satellite NBN in three metropolitan regions of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane (In reality very few urban homes use satellite, as shown in bar graphs below).

The three maps suggest inferior NBN technology is in abundant use across all three metropolitan cities. 62% of all addresses in the greater Brisbane region, 42% of all addresses in Melbourne, and 55% of all addresses in Sydney are (or will soon be) connected to the NBN via HFC.

These figures are at odds with a recent claim by Minister for Communications Mitch Fifield that his government is rolling out “a new network” to the whole nation. For about half of the addresses in three major Australian metropolitan regions, the NBN “rollout” looks like a re-branding exercise using an old cable network.

Socioeconomic patterns of the NBN

To look at socioeconomic patterns of the NBN rollout, we used the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) socio-economic indexes for area (SEIFA) and its index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) from 2016. We then cross examined the SEIFA data (divided into ten ranked groups known as “deciles”) with the NBN data extracted via the data mining exercise (described above).

It’s clear in the graphs below that a mix of both old and new technologies are in play across the three metropolitan regions of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

The analysis did not find any clear socioeconomic patterns comparing better-off SEIFA deciles of 8-10 versus worse-off deciles of 1-3. Nevertheless, the size of HFC adoption across the socioeconomic spectrum in all three major cities is quite concerning.

The second most dominant technology in the three major cities is fibre to the curb (FTTC). This is a technology that was only added to the mix 12 months ago, as a partial solution in response to the mounting issues related to the HFC network.

If it was not for this late addition to the network, the NBN footprint may have had an even higher dominance of old HFC technology than currently. It’s also clear that the rate of FTTC adoption in greater Brisbane is well below that in Melbourne and Sydney.

An NBN upgrade is inevitable

Since the announcement of mixed-technology NBN, experts have warned against the serious shortcomings of the old HFC technology.

While these were mostly ignored initially, Bill Morrow (then CEO at NBN) later admitted that NBN speed was slowed by reliance on copper network. Supporting this, an analysis by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) revealed that the average household on the HFC network was reporting between 2 to 3.6 times more faults than those on fibre, and making between 3 and 5 times more complaints.

It’s also been reported that about 40% of the NBN is fibre to the node (FTTN) which has its own fair share of issues.

Interestingly, there have already been some partial upgrades within NBN Co’s plans, as FTTC reportedly accounts for about 12% of the national network, to serve the areas that were previously assigned to receive HFC.

Having said this, Labor’s latest announcement seems to be focusing on what can be described as “improving consumer experience” without making any commitment for more fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP), or at least more fibre.

We argue that for Australia and Australian major cities to be competitive on the global platform, an NBN update is inevitable.

– ref. Around 50% of homes in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane have the oldest NBN technology – http://theconversation.com/around-50-of-homes-in-sydney-melbourne-and-brisbane-have-the-oldest-nbn-technology-115131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Lawrence, Affiliate, Sydney Environment Institute; Honorary Associate, Macquarie University, Macquarie University

Can a uranium mine be rehabilitated to the environmental standards of a national park and World Heritage site?

That’s the challenge faced by the controversial Ranger uranium mine inside Kakadu National Park.

But our new research report found the document guiding its rehabilitation is deficient, and urgent changes are needed for the heavily impacted mine site to be cleaned up well.

Kakadu has been a national park since the 1970s, but the Ranger mine, while surrounded by Kakadu, has never formally been part of the park. This classification is in the interests of resource extraction, and has failed to recognise or protect the area’s cultural and environmental values.

Kakadu National Park encompasses a precious natural heritage. It protects valuable ecosystems of outstanding value, diversity and beauty, and contains the world’s richest breeding grounds for migratory tropical water birds.

Read more: Australia’s problem with Aboriginal World Heritage

Recent diggings and studies have documented at least 65,000 years of continuous human habitation at a site on the land of the Mirarr people – this is currently the oldest occupation site in Australia.

How was the mine developed?

The boundaries of Kakadu National Park were conveniently drawn around the Ranger mine site through a series of political and administrative negotiations following the Fox Inquiry, which gave a cautious green light for the Ranger operation.

Likewise, Ranger was excluded from the requirements of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act that would have otherwise given the Mirarr people the right to say no to the mine.

Now, as the mining stops and the repair begins, mining companies and government regulators are being tested on their environmental commitment, and capacity to make meaningful change.

Read more: Treasure from trash: how mining waste can be mined a second time

But rehabilitating what is essentially a toxic waste dump is no easy task.

And the inadequacy of the Energy Resources Australia’s Mine Closure Plan – the key document guiding the rehabilitation – shows they are failing this test so far.

Problems with the Mine Closure Plan

Our new research report – jointly conducted by Sydney Environment Institute and the Australian Conservation Foundation – examines the Mine Closure Plan and finds it is seriously wanting in key areas.

These include significant data deficiencies regarding management of mine tailings (mine residue), land stability, and modelling of toxic contaminants likely to flow off site into Kakadu National Park.

The Mine Closure Plan is almost completely silent on crucial governance questions, such as the Ranger mine’s opaque regulatory processes and rehabilitation, and current and future financing – especially in relation to future site monitoring and mitigation works.

Read more: Ranger’s toxic spill highlights the perils of self-regulation

After the price collapse following the Fukushima nuclear crisis, times in the uranium trade have been tough. Coupled with a mandated end to commercial operations by early 2021, Rio Tinto has accepted the era of mining has now been replaced by the need for rehabilitation.

But the challenge for Energy Resources Australia and Rio Tinto, who own and operate the mine, is not simply to scrape rocks into holes and plant trees. It is to ensure radioactive and contaminated mine tailings are:

physically isolated from the environment for at least 10,000 years [and that] any contaminants arising from the tailings will not result in any detrimental environmental impacts for at least 10,000 years.

These are time-scales of epic proportions, yet the Mine Closure Plan says little to assure the public this can be achieved.

In fact, Energy Resources Australia concedes it won’t actually be possible to monitor and measure this over the next 10,000 years, so a model will be required instead. But this model has not been publicly released.

Rehabilitation success is determined by the mining company

And this speaks to a broader problem with the whole process: the success of the rehabilitation will be judged by criteria created by the mining company.

It is naive to assume a mining company is best placed to propose their own rehabilitation criteria, given their corporate imperative to reduce rehabilitation costs and future liabilities.

And the stakes here are very high. The rehabilitation of Ranger will be a closely-watched and long-judged test of the credibility, competence and commitment of the regulators and the mining companies.

The Conversation reached out to Energy Resources Australia and Rio Tinto for comment on this report, but they declined to provide a response.

Read more: Traditional owners still stand in Adani’s way

The Supervising Scientist Branch – a federal agency charged with tracking and advising, but not regulating, the Ranger operation – also made an assessment that should be ringing alarm bells:

[The company’s current plan] does not yet provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current plan for rehabilitation of the Ranger mine site will achieve the required ERs [Environmental Requirements].

The Supervising Scientist Branch’s disturbing initial analysis is a red flag demanding an effective response.

Australia has a long history of substandard mine closure and rehabilitation in both the uranium and wider mining sector.

There is a real need to see a better approach at Ranger, and the first step in that journey is by increasing the scrutiny, accountability and transparency surrounding this essential clean up work.

– ref. The uranium mine in the heart of Kakadu needs a better clean up plan – http://theconversation.com/the-uranium-mine-in-the-heart-of-kakadu-needs-a-better-clean-up-plan-115566

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Martin-Chew, Freelance art writer and PhD candidate, The University of Queensland

In the recent Julian Schnabel film about Vincent van Gogh, At Eternity’s Gate, Vincent asserts, “I am my painting”. The lives of certain artists are often viewed popularly through the prism of biography.

But in the contemporary art world, this perspective is not celebrated. Many art historians argue that the life of the artist should be viewed independently of the art. Indeed in Australia, suggests art historian Dr Sue Best, “This reductive [biographical] approach sheds almost no light on the art, except in some very unusual circumstances”.

Read more: Fogies, insiders and press release summarisers: art criticism in Australia

For Aboriginal artists, however, their lives and ancestry are crucial to an understanding of the work they make and its often passionately political delivery.

Urban Indigenous artists (often art school trained and resident in the city) draw on subject matter from the change and trauma that European invasion wrought on their sovereignty. Aboriginal artists who live and work outside the city also make work about their connections to place, ancestry and its extension into deep time.

In the case of Aboriginal artist Fiona Foley (Badtjala, born 1964), her life builds a contextual narrative around her artwork, offering an insight into the important issues that she explores, as an artist, Aboriginal woman, spokesperson, curator, academic and cultural leader.

In the early 1980s, for instance, Foley found an image of a young, bare-breasted Badtjala woman dated c.1899 in the archives of the State Library of Queensland. It was captioned, “Aborigine, Fraser Island”. This young woman had been photographed without the dignity or recognition of a name. The image stimulated Foley’s protective desire on behalf of her ancestor. As she explains:

She had a name, and a birth year, and a role in society. She had a day that she died. There was no information at all with the photograph. She deserved more. I thought, ‘I could recreate that image. I’d have to reveal myself similarly, to do it bare-breasted’.

Foley’s emotional and familial investment in this story fuels the power of her photograph Native Blood (1994).

Indeed, most Aboriginal artists choose subject matter that relates strongly to their Aboriginality in their artmaking. This necessarily draws on their own personal story, what Aboriginal curator Djon Mundine has described as their “history, spiritual connection”. Writes Mundine:

For Aboriginal people there was never an explicit word for art, art is a cultural expression; a history of a people; a statement through a series of life experiences of self-definition; a recounting of an untold story; the bringing to light of a truth of history.

Likewise, life-writing specialists and academics Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson suggest that “personal narrative has been a venue through which Indigenous Australians have rewritten the history of encounter and state oppression”. An understanding of the level of trauma that Aboriginal Australians experienced during colonisation and since has been expressed through life narratives and art, and is crucial to the shifting national story.

The power of Aboriginal history and personal connections is evident in the work of artists such as Judy Watson (born 1959), who creates unframed canvases that move like water, reflecting her ancestry as a Waanyi woman. Their seductive aesthetic draws the events of the past into the present.

Dale Harding (born 1982) uses stencils and sprays paint directly on the wall to echo the cave paintings and carvings from his country in Carnarvon Gorge.

Michael Cook (born 1968) explores his identity as an Aboriginal man adopted into a white family through photographs that imagine alternative histories for Indigenous Australians.

Most recently, his Invasion (2018) uses tropes from sci-fi epics to portray the fear and confusion that would follow an invasion of over-sized Aboriginal people and Australian native animals in London. (The parallell here is with the experience of Indigenous people encountering the ships and muskets of colonisers in Australia 200-odd years ago).

For Aboriginal artists, their lives and family histories lie at the heart of what they make and why. The prism of biography accommodates the broader cultural remit within which their art-making is located.

– ref. For Aboriginal artists, personal stories matter – http://theconversation.com/for-aboriginal-artists-personal-stories-matter-113029

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Starling, Postdoctoral researcher, University of Sydney

Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.

Is it true that dogs at the pound get killed if nobody adopts them? – Abhilasa, age 10, Melbourne.

First of all, animal shelters and pounds don’t always use the same rules. In Australia, most animal shelters are run by local councils, but some are run by animal rescue organisations. Different councils and different rescue organisations can have different rules about how long they can keep animals.

Those rules are in place because of resources – that means how many people and how much money and how many kennels the shelter or pound can use to look after unwanted animals. If they only have a few kennels or a few people to look after the animals or a little bit of money to pay for food and for someone to care for the animals, then they can only have a few animals at a time.

Read more: Curious Kids: how do babies learn to talk?

If the shelter or pound is not full and they have enough money to hire enough people and buy enough food to look after all the unwanted animals they have, they can choose to keep looking after those animals until they find a home. Many shelters and pounds do just that. The unwanted animals might stay there for months looking for a new home.

Pounds and shelters are not happy places for dogs to stay in for a long time, though. So everyone tries to find an unwanted dog a new home as quickly as possible.

Foster homes

If the dog needs a little extra training or a quieter home, or the pound is getting full, the people that run the pound or shelter might agree to give the dog to a rescue organisation that will put the dog in a foster home.

That’s a temporary home where the dog will live with a human family that has volunteered to care for them. The rescue organisation puts ads on the internet telling everyone they have this dog in foster care who is looking for a new home. In this way, many unlucky dogs who had owners that didn’t want them can have all the time they need to find a new home.

As a last resort

However, occasionally it’s not possible to find a dog a new home. The pound might run out of room and dogs that have been there longest have to either be taken in by another rescue, or they will be put to sleep to make room for more unwanted dogs. Many of these dogs are saved by rescues and get the time they need, but not all of them. Some of them might have health or behaviour problems that make them difficult to live with, or they might be old.

With so many dogs that need homes, the dogs that are hard to look after are the ones that it’s hardest to find a new home for. Some dogs have had a difficult life and are not safe to be around. For these dogs, life might be very hard for them still. They don’t understand how to make friends and the world is full of things that frighten them, or perhaps they are in pain a lot of the time. For these dogs, it may be a kindness to put them to sleep so they don’t have to suffer anymore. That means they are given an injection that makes them feel calm, fall asleep and then die painlessly in their sleep.

There are lots of things we can do to help reduce the number of unwanted dogs. You could consider adopting a rescue dog, or volunteering to be a foster home for unwanted dogs, or donate to rescue organisations. We can make sure our own dogs are de-sexed so they can’t have puppies. We can keep them in a fenced yard so they can’t get out and get lost or in trouble, and make sure they are microchipped so they can be returned if they do get lost.

When choosing a dog for your family, make sure you get a dog that will suit your family so that you won’t find yourself with a dog that is causing you and your neighbours a lot of trouble. Dogs that are too noisy or big or active for their families are sometimes the ones that end up unwanted.

Read more: Curious Kids: why do we have a QWERTY keyboard instead of putting the letters in alphabetical order?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: is it true that dogs at the pound get killed if nobody adopts them? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-is-it-true-that-dogs-at-the-pound-get-killed-if-nobody-adopts-them-115803

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Kaine, Associate Professor UTS Centre for Business and Social Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

Today we kick off a four-part election series on wages, industrial relations, Labor and the union movement ahead of the 2019 federal election. You can read an analysis of Labor’s living wage policy here.

Industrial relations is in the DNA of Australian politics: it is the defining policy issue that has traditionally distinguished Labor from the Coalition.

Industrial relations issues have featured prominently in recent election campaigns, with Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), WorkChoices and union governance being the subject of fierce contestation between the major parties. However, this election the policy contrast is especially evident.

While the policies of the major parties have always differed, over the past 30 years there was a neoliberal consensus on economic policy that in some respects extended to industrial relations.

For instance, the Fair Work Act implemented by the Rudd government reversed some but not all elements of Howard-era industrial relations policies. It largely maintained constraints on trade union power.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Unions likely to be more challenging for a Shorten government than boats

But this consensus is fracturing, as reflected in the policy settings of the two major parties. The Coalition has held steadfast to the idea that industrial relations and labour market issues are best left to the logic of the market. From this perspective, a strong economy enabled by low taxation and minimal government intervention results in employment and wage growth.

In contrast, and in light of the evident decoupling of economic growth and wages growth, the ALP has taken a more interventionist stance. This reflects less confidence in market mechanisms alone to solve persistent issues such as gender inequality, low pay and the proliferation of precarious work.

The Coalition’s commitments

Much of the Liberal and National parties’ policy platform focuses on what the Coalition has achieved in office. Most prominent is the focus on the Coalition’s job record, particularly its claim to have created 1.3 million jobs since it was first elected in September 2013.

The Coalition highlights recent job growth among younger workers, increased workforce participation among women and the creation of full-time jobs. This is despite persistent challenges relating to gender equality at work, unemployment and under-employment among young workers and a prevalence of insecure and non-standard work arrangements.

Very little is said explicitly about wages, job security and other “core” industrial relations issues. One explanation for this could be memories of the “WorkChoices election” of 2007 when the Howard government’s weakening of worker protections led to its removal from office.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: What was that about making Parliament House a better workplace for women?

Or it could be because of an ideological view that removing market constraints, particularly for small business, will lead to improved conditions for workers. This is a strong theme in the Coalition’s platform: it claims that lower taxes are “a critical part of our plan to deliver a strong economy and record job creation”.

The Coalition also points to its record in “tackling union lawlessness”, particularly through the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. A key aspect of the Coalition’s policy platform is to highlight Labor’s perceived weaknesses through its links with the union movement and also the potential impact of climate change policies on employment in carbon-intensive industries.

But it’s hard to see this resonating much among voters, who for the past two decades have seen unions are having much less power than big business (see below).

Voters’ perceptions of the power of trade unions and big business, Australia, 1967-2016

Labor’s commitments

Reflecting a renewed enthusiasm for policy aimed at challenging the free rein of the market, the Labor Party has announced a suite of interventionist measures. Some appear aimed squarely at amending the Fair Work Act – for example, legislating to prevent employers using agreement termination to revert to award wages and conditions, and to impose higher penalties for wage theft.

However, the bulk of Labor’s announcements relate to three themes: the problems of ongoing wage stagnation and income inequality, job insecurity and gender equity at work.

Key to the ALP’s wages policies is a commitment to develop a “living wage” to keep working people out of poverty. Details of how this will be calculated will likely be left to the Fair Work Commission.

Another headline announcement by the ALP, easier conversion from casual to permanent work, draws a connection between the prevalence of insecure forms of work and historically low wage growth.

Commitments to ensure labour hire workers receive the same pay as those who are directly employed and an undertaking to “make sure workers in the gig economy are paid properly and not used to undermine Australian wages, including by changing the legal test for sham contracting” suggest enthusiasm for a recalibration of labour market regulation away from free-market logic.

Read more: The false hope offered by talk of a living wage

This is reinforced by a broader set of policies focusing on the eradication of modern slavery, the inclusion of superannuation in the National Employment Standards and reporting requirements for CEO pay in listed companies.

Gender equity at work policy provides a stark area of contrast between the two main parties. The ALP has pledged A$400 million towards closing the gender superannuation gap, a 20% increase in pay for early childhood educators and prioritising gender equity in the Fair Work Act and in the work of the Fair Work Commission.

Linking gender equity to wage stagnation, Labor has announced it will reinstate penalty rates, the loss of which has had a disproportionate impact on female-dominated industries such retail services and hospitality.

Comparing apples and oranges

The small-target approach of the Coalition to industrial relations during this election campaign is very difficult to compare to the comprehensive suite of policies released by the ALP. This is partly a result of the inherent nature of election campaigns – the incumbent seeks to defend its record and the challenger to present a convincing agenda for change.

What the industrial relations policies of the major parties most starkly reveal is a Coalition that maintains its conviction that fiscal measures such as tax cuts are the best way to “regulate” the labour market, and a Labor Party that’s looking to curb market excesses and redress what it sees as market failures.

This provides a stark choice for voters.

– ref. How the major parties stack up on industrial relations policy – http://theconversation.com/how-the-major-parties-stack-up-on-industrial-relations-policy-116256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Peetz, Professor of Employment Relations, Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, Griffith University

If, as the polls indicate, Labor wins government on May 18, what role will the unions play?

There are two mutually exclusive, extreme views on unions and politics – sometimes argued by the same people. There are outcries about Bill Shorten’s union past, claims he has made deals that gave too much to the employer and too little to workers. And there are cries that unions will hold all the cards after the election, and wages will go up.

I argue two key points. First, unions are still relevant, and they can be quite influential at elections. Second, though, their hold over the ALP is not very strong when it is in government.

Union influence on elections

There is no doubt unions have built up their campaigning skills. This was one of their responses to the loss of institutional support they faced, especially for spreading wage increases, after the early 1990s. In the 2007 election, fought principally over climate change and industrial relations, union campaigning was critical. The Coalition government’s ‘WorkChoices’ legislation was divisive and electoral poison.

Unions’ “Your Rights at Work” campaign, according to statistical analysis, probably led to an additional swing of 1.3 to 2.0 percentage points in seats where unions ran campaigns (and possibly 5-7 more Labor seats).

Rudd may have won anyway. But while unions’ campaigning in the very close 2010 election was much less effective, Gillard may not have held on that year without them. This was because of the “sophomore effect”, in which new Labor members from 2007 built up a base of electoral support to cushion themselves against an anti-government swing.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Unions likely to be more challenging for a Shorten government than boats

By 2016, union campaigning had become more sophisticated. Although there was no WorkChoices to campaign against, they mobilised effectively in 22 seats and probably added 1.7-2.0 percentage points to the Labor vote in those seats, and swung about five seats from Coalition to Labor.

In 2019, unions are continuing to campaign, this time in 16 seats. The campaign is more focused on wages than in 2016. It will likely be more effective, though the additional impact it has in 2019, on top of that in 2016, may not be as noticeable.

Still, with polls tight, it is feasible that they could be the difference between a Shorten and a Morrison government.

Union influence on the ALP

The influence of unions on the ALP is always stronger when Labor is in opposition. The formal ties between the unions and ALP are strong, and this matters a lot in opposition. Unions account for defined proportions (typically, half) of voting blocs at Labor state conferences. From time to time, union officials’ next career move ends up being in a state or federal parliament.

But in government, Labor is influenced by many other groups. Power is centralised within Cabinet and its sub-committees, party conferences matter little, and lobbyists and corporates flock to Parliamentary offices and Canberra cafes and cocktail parties to have their say. Union power is very diluted.

Even Gough Whitlam, Labor Prime Minister from 1972 to 1975 and not someone from a union background, lamented the greatest economic failure of his government was to not have a closer relationship with the union movement, because of the impact its distance had on wages inflation over those years.

Partly in response to that failure, the closest relationship between a Labor government and unions occurred with the 1983-96 Accord. Union membership was still high, but the Labor government was heavily influenced by other forces. Even the then powerful Amalgamated Metal Workers Union could not prevent its vision for an Australia Reconstructed being swamped by the bureaucrats’ preference for the emerging market liberal policy ideas.

By the time of the Rudd-Gillard governments, unions had a smaller share of the workforce, and there was no prospect of a revived Accord. When the government negotiated the Fair Work Act with both unions and employers, it gave roughly equal weight to both sides’ interests.

Despite their role in the 2007 election victory, unions’ influence on those governments was limited.

Unions and the 2019 federal election

The unions’ current “change the rules” campaign covers a broader set of issues than are encompassed by Labor promises. Perhaps the biggest potential area for controversy is on the scope for multi-employer bargaining.

Once upon a time, wage determination in Australia was mostly done at a multi-employer level. But wages were settled not through direct bargaining between the parties but by award decisions of the tribunal (in those days called the Arbitration Commission).

In the early 1990s, the then Labor government and ACTU leadership agreed that wage fixing would shift from a predominantly multi-employer, award basis to exclusively single-employer, bargaining-based methods. Replacing awards with bargaining was part of modernising IR, and making parties take responsibility for their own decisions.

But replacing predominantly multi-employer with exclusively single-employer bargaining produced a fundamental shift of power to corporations that persists to this day. At the time, its significance was lost to most unions, but it has become increasingly apparent since then and now dominates union thinking. That power shift is why employers are keen to maintain the status quo.

Yet even the OECD now sees merit in multi-employer bargaining, as wage coordination across sectors is “associated with better employment outcomes”. Labor’s policy supports some easing of the restriction where enterprise bargaining is failing, but the details are not fleshed out.

If the unions were sold or sold themselves short in these later Accord negotiations, a similar thing happened in the negotiations over Julia Gillard’s Fair Work Act. By then, unions had no more bargaining power with Labor than employers.

The Labor government wanted to be seen to be reintroducing balance after the excesses of John Howard’s WorkChoices. The unions prioritised abolishing individual contracts that undercut award conditions (the Australian Workplace Agreements) and reintroducing protections against unfair dismissal. The employers prioritised maintaining the majority of the provisions on industrial action and bargaining.

Although the outcome met neither side’s best hopes, both got what they prioritised. The details were altered in procedures enabling employers to use the Fair Work Commission to thwart industrial action or terminate agreements. But they remained largely in place. In the end these have turned out to be critical in minimising the power of workers to obtain wage increases.

These laws about industrial action aren’t the only factors that have led to the current wage stagnation. Other factors have been critical, including

• the decline of unions in the face of opposition from employers and governments
• the growing power of the finance sector to dictate corporate behaviour
• the resultant spread of corporate models (such as contracting and franchising) that separate profit centres from the formal employers of workers and thereby minimise accountability for breaking labour laws
• the growth of underemployment as a reserve source of labour.

After the election

As Labor nears the 2019 election, many of its stated policies are aimed at boosting wages for the lowest paid. Ultimately, though, doing something more substantial about stagnant wages requires policies that deal with the imbalance of power between capital and labour that developed over the past three decades.

We can expect a lot of furious activity, publicly and behind the scenes, by both unions and employer associations, in the period after the election if Labor wins.

Read more: ALP urges Fair Work Commission to give “substantial” minimum wage increase

The unions that will be of greater importance will depend on the issues involved: examples include United Voice and the Australian Services Union on low paid workers, the Community and Public Service Union on public service bargaining issues, the Nurses and Midwives Association on health issues, and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, United Voice, and many others on multi-employer bargaining.

On climate change, different unions will be pushing very different agendas, and there are even differences within unions.

In all cases, unions will have to counter the well-resourced lobbying by corporate groups, the market liberal inclinations of bureaucrats, and the nervousness of politicians.

The outcomes will ultimately determine whether workers generally have much of a chance of gaining real wage increases over the medium and longer term.

– ref. If Labor wins the 2019 federal election, what role will unions play? – http://theconversation.com/if-labor-wins-the-2019-federal-election-what-role-will-unions-play-116343

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Director, Health Program, Grattan Institute

The major parties’ manifestos for the 2019 federal election present voters with starkly contrasting health policies. These policies are shaped and constrained by the overall themes presented by the party leaders, but have some unique elements.

Liberal – money in your own hands

The Liberal campaign has two main messages: standing on the government’s claimed record as good economic managers, and offering significant tax cuts in the long-term. The tax cuts are marketed as giving people the power to make their own choices about how the money should be spent.

In health care, this spending-light approach has led to a focus on re-announcing existing policy, and spending down the Medical Research Future Fund with research announcements popping up every other day.

The Future Fund announcements have attracted good publicity for the government, even though they do not represent any increase in research funding, just a change in how the available funding is to be used.

The re-announcement approach can probably best be seen in the Liberal’s policy on youth mental health and suicide prevention, where the five-page policy concludes:

The Coalition’s plans for youth mental health and suicide prevention will not place additional costs on the Budget.

Throughout his term as health minister, Greg Hunt has highlighted new drugs being added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in formulaic ministerial media releases such as new listings of drugs for cancer, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and spinal arthritis.

He has sought to contrast the Coalition’s approach – where the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee about listing a new drug has always been followed – to that of the previous Labor government, which deferred some listings after the global financial crisis.

Read more: The Coalition’s report card on health includes some passes and quite a few fails

Minister Hunt has continued this focus during the campaign. In a unique approach, he used much of his time in the National Press Club health debate last Thursday to tell stories about new Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listings. It is an old political aphorism that “all politics is local”. Minister Hunt was presenting the message that all politics is personal.

The personal stories and the real impact a new listing can have were quite touching, helping to humanise the minister and presenting the government as really caring for individuals in need.

Of course, drugs being listed on the PBS is part of the routine business of government, and Labor has committed to listing the same drugs. The difference is in the way the government chose to inject these stories into the political debate. The message was: vote for us and we will look after your individual needs and care for you as an individual, because we are the party that supports innovation in pharmaceuticals.

This focus on individuals is very much in the Liberal tradition, harking back to the “forgotten people” meme of the Menzies era.

Read more: Budget 2019 boosts aged care and mental health, and modernises Medicare: health experts respond

The only significant spending announcement by the Liberals in this campaign was to reduce the co-payment thresholds for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from 60 to 48 scripts for pensioners and health care card holders, and from an annual cap of A$1,550.70 to A$1,470.10 for other patients.

This is a good policy which Labor has now matched.

Labor – cost of living needs to be addressed

Labor’s campaign on health is quite different from the Liberals. A key overarching theme is the cost of living. The Labor message is: wages have flat-lined, but prices keep going up, and Labor will fix that.

Labor’s policies on childcare and minimum wages fit within this general theme. So does shadow minister Catherine King’s approach to health policy.

Labor has made health a centrepiece of its campaign, with five big announcements.

The first big announcement was to promise billions of dollars to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people with cancer and to expand funding for public hospitals.

The cancer announcement played extremely well, tapping into concerns that opposition leader Bill Shorten had picked up in his “listening tour” of dozens of town hall meetings throughout Australia since the last election.

The cancer policy includes:

• new items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule to encourage bulk billing by cancer specialists
• a guarantee that new drugs will be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
• expansion of cancer outpatient services in public hospitals.

Read more: Labor’s cancer package would cut the cost of care, but beware of unintended side effects

The second big-ticket health promise was to restore the share of the cost of public hospital funding growth met by the Commonwealth to 50%, up from 45% now.

The cut from 50% to 45% was announced in Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s 2014 budget. Labor has identified the impact of that cut on every public hospital in the country.

The third big promise was to reduce the out-of-pocket costs of dental care. As the 2019 Filling the Gap Grattan Institute report showed, more than 2 million Australians miss out on dental care each year because of cost.

The promised Labor scheme is for seniors only. Importantly, though, the policy commits Labor to introducing a universal dental care scheme in the long-term.

Read more: Too many Australians miss out on timely dental care – Labor’s pledge is just a start

The fourth big health promise, announced during the official campaign launch on Sunday, was extra funding for public hospitals to improve emergency services.

A fifth health initiative does not involve specific spending but also addresses cost of living — a cap of 2% on private health insurance premium increases for the next two years while the Productivity Commission reviews the private health sector.

Together, these policies will not only help address cost of living pressures; they will reshape the health sector significantly.

The dental announcement especially is transformative, addressing a major gap in Australia’s public funding of health care.

The new bulk-billing item for cancer care could also have a major effect.

And the Productivity Review of private health could lead to a major shake-up of that sector.

Read more: Labor’s 2% cap on private health insurance premium rises won’t fix affordability

The bill for Labor’s health policies is big: more than A$8 billion over the next four years.

Where’s the money coming from?

Labor’s answer is to close what it calls tax loopholes for multinationals and wealthy people; taking from the very rich to give to ordinary Australians.

Different prescriptions

Health policy was a significant feature of the 2016 election, when Labor’s so-called Mediscare campaign tapped into voter concerns.

This time Labor is front-footing health policy, fitting neatly into its overall campaign meme of addressing cost of living pressures.

The Liberal campaign is not a big spending one, and so re-announcements of previous commitments and an innovative personalisation of the benefit of new drugs are being used to present the Liberals’ health credentials.

– ref. What are the major parties promising on health this election? – http://theconversation.com/what-are-the-major-parties-promising-on-health-this-election-116427

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Lim, Lecturer in environmental and sustainability law, University of Adelaide

We are witnessing the loss of biodiversity at rates never before seen in human history. Nearly a million species face extinction if we do not fundamentally change our relationship with the natural world, according to the world’s largest assessment of biodiversity.

Last week, in the culmination of a process involving 500 biodiversity experts from over 50 countries, and 134 governments negotiated the final form of the Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Read more: Radical overhaul needed to halt Earth’s sixth great extinction event

IPBES aims to arm policy-makers with the tools to address the relationships between biodiversity and human well-being. It synthesises evidence on the state of biodiversity, ecosystems and natures’ contributions to people on a global scale.

The IPBES Global Assessment provides unequivocal evidence that we need biodiversity for human survival and well-being. To stem unprecedented species decline the assessment sets out the actions governments, the private sector and individuals can take.

Importantly, a whole chapter of the Global Assessment (about one-sixth of the assessment) is dedicated to examining whether existing biodiversity law and policy is adequate. This chapter also outlines ways to address the vortex of biodiversity decline.

If we are to halt the continued loss of nature, then the world’s legal, institutional and economic systems must be reformed entirely. And this change needs to happen immediately.

What makes IPBES Assessments special?

IPBES is the biodiversity equivalent to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Assessments are a fundamental part of IPBES’s work.

IPBES Assessments review thousands of biodiversity studies to identify broad trends and draw authoritative conclusions. In the case of the Global Assessment, IPBES authors reviewed more than 15,000 publications from scientific and governments sources.

Read more: Of bunyips and other beasts: living memories of long-extinct creatures in art and stories

Governments and stakeholders give feedback on the draft text, and experts respond meticulously to the thousands of comments before revising and clarifying the draft. A final summary of key findings is then negotiated with member states at plenary meetings – these meetings concluded on Saturday.

What did the Global Assessment find?

Human activity severely threatens biodiversity and ecosystem functions worldwide. About 1 million species are facing extinction. If nothing changes many of these could be gone within just decades.

But nature is vital to all aspects of human health. We rely on natural systems, not only for food, energy, medicine and genetic resources, but also for inspiration, learning and culture.

The report also reveals the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem function is much less pronounced on lands managed by Indigenous peoples and local communities. It also recognises the significant role of Indigenous knowledge, governance systems and culturally-specific worldviews which adopt a stewardship approach to managing natural systems.

The report identified agriculture, forestry and urbanisation as the number one reason for biodiversity loss in land-based ecosystems and rivers. In the sea, fishing has had the greatest impact on biodiversity and is exacerbated by changes in the use of the sea and coastal lands.

This is followed closely by:

• the direct use of species (primarily through harvesting, logging, hunting and fishing)

• climate change

• pollution

• the invasion of non-native species.

These factors are aggravated by underlying social values, such as unsustainable consumption and production, concentrated human populations, trade, technological advances, and governance at multiple scales.

The Global Assessment concludes that current biodiversity laws and policies have been insufficient to address the threats to the natural world.

Read more: Maybe we can, but should we? Deciding whether to bring back extinct species

What’s more, if nothing changes, neither the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Targets nor the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals are likely to be met.

And yet, the Global Assessment has an optimistic outlook. It emphasises that if the world’s legal, institutional and economic systems are transformed then it is possible to achieve a better future for biodiversity and human well-being in the next 30 years.

But this is only possible if reform happens immediately, as incremental change will be insufficient.

What must be done?

The Global Assessment puts forward these next, urgent steps:

• we need to redefine human well-being beyond its narrow basis on economic growth

• engage multiple public and private actors

• link sustainability efforts across all governance scales

• elevate Indigenous and local knowledge and communities.

The report also recommends strengthening environmental laws and taking serious precautionary measures in public and private endeavours. Governments must recognise indivisibility of society and nature, and govern to strengthen rather than weaken the natural world.

What can I do?

Produce and consume sustainably

Individuals can make meaningful change through what we produce and what we buy. Our food is an important starting point. You could, for instance, choose local or sustainably produced meals and reduce your food waste.

Champion the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and local communities

Indigenous and local communities need to be included and supported more than ever before. The Global Assessment provides clear evidence that lands managed by Indigenous and local communities are performing better in terms of biodiversity. Still, these lands face serious threats, and Indigenous communities continue to be marginalised around the world.

Provoke governments to do better

Current biodiversity laws and policies don’t adequately address the threats to the natural world. The report recommends the world include biodiversity considerations across all sectors and jurisdictions to prevent further degradation of natural systems. We have an important role in rallying our governments to ensure this occurs.

Read more: 5 periods of mass extinction on Earth. Are we entering the sixth?

We are losing biodiversity at record-breaking rates. The majesty of the natural world is disappearing and with it that which makes life worth living. We are also undermining the capacity of the Earth to sustain thriving human societies. We have the power to change this – but we need to act now.

– ref. ‘Revolutionary change’ needed to stop unprecedented global extinction crisis – http://theconversation.com/revolutionary-change-needed-to-stop-unprecedented-global-extinction-crisis-116166

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mandy Freund, PhD Researcher, University of Melbourne

The pattern of El Niño has changed dramatically in recent years, according to the first seasonal record distinguishing different types of El Niño events over the last 400 years.

A new category of El Niño has become far more prevalent in the last few decades than at any time in the past four centuries. Over the same period, traditional El Niño events have become more intense.

This new finding will arguably alter our understanding of the El Niño phenomenon. Changes to El Niño will influence patterns of precipitation and temperature extremes in Australia, Southeast Asia and the Americas.

Some climate model studies suggest this recent change in El Niño “flavours” could be due to climate change, but until now, long-term observations were limited.

Read more: Explainer: El Niño and La Niña

Our paper, published in Nature Geoscience today, fills this gap using coral records to reconstruct El Niño event types for the past 400 years.

What is El Niño?

El Niño describes an almost year-long warming of the surface ocean in the tropical Pacific. These warming events are so extreme and powerful that their impacts are felt around the globe.

During strong El Niño events, Australia and parts of Asia often receive much less rainfall than during normal years. The opposite applies to the western parts of the Americas, where the stronger rising motion over unusually warm ocean waters often results in heavy rainfall, causing massive floods. At the same time many of the hottest years on record across the globe coincide with El Niño events.

The reason for such far-reaching influences on weather is the changes El Niño causes in atmospheric circulation. In normal years, a massive circulation cell, called the Walker circulation, moves air along the equator across the tropical Pacific.

Read more: 500 years of drought and flood: trees and corals reveal Australia’s climate history

Warmer waters during El Niño events disrupt or even reverse this circulation pattern. The type of atmospheric disruption and the climate impacts this causes depend in particular on where the warm waters of El Niño are located.

The new ‘flavour’ of El Niño

A new “flavour” of El Niño is now recognised in the tropical Pacific. This type of El Niño is characterised by warm ocean temperatures in the Central Pacific, rather than the more typical warming in the far Eastern Pacific near the South American coast, some 10,000km away.

Although not as strong as the Eastern Pacific version, the Central Pacific El Niño is clearly observed in recent decades, including in 2014-15 and most recently in 2018-19. Over most of the last 400 years, El Niño events happened roughly at the same rate in the Central and Eastern Pacific.

By the end of the 20th century, though, our research shows a sudden change: a sharp increase of Central Pacific El Niño events becomes evident. At the same time, the number of conventional Eastern Pacific events stayed relatively low, but the three most recent Eastern-type events (in 1982-83, 1997-98 and 2015-16) were unusually strong.

Using coral to unlock the past

Our understanding of the new Central Pacific flavour of El Niño is hindered by the fact that El Niño events happen only every 2-7 years. So during our lifetime we can observe only a handful of events.

This isn’t enough to really understand Central Pacific El Niño, and whether they are becoming more common.

That’s why we look at corals from the tropical Pacific. The corals started growing decades to centuries before we began routinely measuring the climate with instruments. The corals are an excellent archive of changes in water conditions they experience as they grow, including ocean changes related to El Niño. We combined the information from a network of coral records that preserve seasonal histories.

At a seasonal timescale, we can see the characteristic patterns of past El Niño events in the chemistry of the corals. These patterns tell us which El Niño is which over the last 400 years. It is in this continuous picture of past El Niños obtained from coral archives that we found a clear picture of an unusual recent change in the Pacific’s El Niño flavours.

This extraordinary change in El Niño behaviour has serious implications for societies and ecosystems around the world. For example, the most recent Eastern-Pacific El Niño event in 2015-2016 triggered disease outbreaks across the globe. With the impacts of climate change continuing to unfold, many of the hottest years on record also coincide with El Niño events.

Read more: Australia moves to El Niño alert and the drought is likely to continue

What’s more, the Pacific Ocean is currently lingering in an El Niño state. With these confounding events, many people around the world are wondering what extreme weather will be inflicted upon them in the months and years to come.

Our new record opens a door to understanding past changes of El Niño, with implications for the future too. Knowing how the different types of El Niño have unfolded in the past will mean we are better able to model, predict and plan for future El Niños and their widespread impacts.

– ref. El Niño has rapidly become stronger and stranger, according to coral records – http://theconversation.com/el-nino-has-rapidly-become-stronger-and-stranger-according-to-coral-records-115560

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Future Urban Mobility, Swinburne University of Technology

More shared spaces, safer streets and fewer cars in the city are all part of a newly released ten-year plan by the City of Melbourne. This evening, Town Hall will consider the ambitious draft transport strategy that would boost pedestrian, cycling and tram access across the CBD’s Hoddle Grid.

A significant amount of on-street parking and road space would be reallocated to walking, cycling and greenery. Some “little” streets would be converted to shared zones that give priority to pedestrians, with reduced speed limits. Variable parking pricing would be trialled and congestion charging not be ruled out.

The strategy recognises the role of technology in delivering community benefits. It supports trials of shared mobility (all types of conveniently accessible rental vehicles) and tech-enabled seamless travel solutions (people using mobility as a service, typically via an app and single payment platform, when they need it).

The result of these digital technology-driven mobility shifts is a lower proportion of people owning vehicles.

Read more: For Mobility as a Service (MaaS) to solve our transport woes, some things need to change

The strategy also foresees transport in the city will be emissions-free by 2050. On-demand travel and deliveries by air could be in the mix of solutions.

While the plan might seem radical, these policies are sensible, comprehensive and crucial to the city’s future. They’re aligned with best practice in leading global cities.

Some cities have far more aggressive policies and emissions reduction targets. Around the world, 15 cities are already starting to ban cars altogether from urban centres.

Melbourne’s transport strategy “refresh” follows a year of reviews and public consultation (you can see the public responses here).

There will be implementation challenges, which the draft strategy acknowledges. It notes the need to provide access for people with disability.

The plan also includes ongoing access for commercial vehicles, delivery vans and emergency services.

Read more: Four ways our cities can cut transport emissions in a hurry: avoid, shift, share and improve

Responding to travel trends

The new strategy recognises that Melburnians’ travel habits have changed and will continue to adapt to modern-day urban living. This includes recent trends towards increased use of public transport and active travel options such as cycling and walking.

Today, walking accounts for about 90% of all travel in the Hoddle Grid, yet pedestrians are allocated only 24% of street space.

Across Melbourne since 2003, the growth in public transport use has been around three times the growth in private transport use. Over this time the growth in car use has been slower than population growth.

Growth in private and public transport passenger kilometres in Melbourne since 2003

More than 900,000 people move into, within and through the municipality each day, the strategy notes. This is expected to climb to 1.4 million people a day in 2036. The city’s streets and places would need to adapt to support these changes.

Read more: The battle to be the Amazon (or Netflix) of transport

Another policy in the draft strategy is to reduce through-traffic. Around 43% of cars coming into the city are heading for a destination beyond the Hoddle Grid. Spencer Street, King Street and William Street carry most of that traffic.

The strategy calls for the city council to work with government to contain through-traffic to freeways and arterial roads. Removing non-essential vehicle trips can free up space to make streets safer and more efficient. It also improves access for emergency vehicles, on-road public transport and deliveries.

Rethinking transport priorities

The draft strategy represents a call for action to overcome unsustainable transport practices. For Melbourne to thrive, the transport priorities need to be rearranged to meet travel demand, emissions targets and citizens’ changing needs.

In adopting this approach, the strategy reflects the changing landscape and emerging trends of urban mobility, as well as community expectations.

The draft strategy gives priority to policy solutions that will improve liveability and promote a safe and healthy city. These focus on active modes of transport, integrating transport and land use, investments in pedestrian-oriented initiatives, optimising use of scarce space and encouraging public transport.

The strategy also looks to overcome barriers to urban innovation. It points to the need for more agile regulation to support emerging modes of travel such as dockless bikes and e-scooters.

Read more: Banning ‘tiny vehicles’ would deny us smarter ways to get around our cities

What’s the next step?

Councillors will consider the draft strategy at a Future Melbourne Committee meeting today. If endorsed, it will be released for further public consultation and feedback for six weeks.

The strategy will require a shift in travel behaviour. Whether the public embraces or objects to the new policy directions remains to be seen. The details will be critical.

Many would be excited by this vision and would want certain policies rolled out today, not by 2030. Others might be sceptical and some would still want to drive into the inner city, even if other attractive travel options are made available.

If well executed and implemented, the strategy’s proposals will improve liveability and access to the city. Together with some state government projects, such as Melbourne Metro, these policies will help to modernise the city’s infrastructure to meet the needs for smart and sustainable growth and jobs.

– ref. Move away from a car-dominated city looks radical but it’s a sensible plan for a liveable future – http://theconversation.com/move-away-from-a-car-dominated-city-looks-radical-but-its-a-sensible-plan-for-a-liveable-future-116518

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andreas Ortmann, Professor, UNSW

Today we kick off a four part election series on wages, industrial relations, Labor and the union movement. In the first, University of NSW professor Andreas Ortmann examines Labor’s proposal to have the Fair Work Commission award a so-called “living wage” instead of a minimum wage. You can read a comparison of Labor and the Coalition’s industrial relations policies here.

If elected, Labor has promised to ask the Fair Work Commission to substantially increase the minimum wage, at present pegged at A$18.93 per hour or $719.20 per week.

It says the intervention is justified because under current rules, the commission is required to set a minimum that is a bare safety net, rather than a minimum that someone could use to live properly. This was a change introduced by the Howard government.

Labor’s change will take place “over time,” taking into account the capacity of businesses to pay, and the potential effects on employment, inflation and the broader economy.

It will only apply to the minimum wage, not to other award wages.

The first step will be for the Fair Work Commission to determine what a living wage should be. In doing so, the Commission will consider submissions from community organisations, business representatives and unions. The Commission will also take into account Australia’s social wage (the amount of tax people pay, and any family tax benefits or other transfers they receive)

The second step will be for the Fair Work Commission to consider the time frame over which the increase should be phased in, taking into account the capacity of businesses to pay, and the potential impact on employment, inflation and the broader economy. It will be the Fair Work Commission’s responsibility to determine a fair and responsible phasing in of a living wage.

The idea makes sense as part of an election strategy that responds to concerns about stagnating real wages growth as well as the impact of the Fair Work Commission’s penalty rates decision, the well-documented problem of wage theft, and the related problems of a growing gig economy and a growingcasuals labour market segment.

What’s happening to the land of the fair go?

There is considerable evidence to back up the perception that Australia is no longer the land of the fair-go that it once was perceived to be.

Exhibit A: According to a recent Reserve Bank bulletin, the share of Australian income going to labour has drifted from its height of above 60% in the 1970s down towards 50%. At the same time the share of factor income going to the owners of capital has climbed from 25% towards 40%. (The remainder is classified as “gross mixed income” which has remained fairly stable.)

Exhibit B: Over the past half-decade, wage growth has done little more than keep up with inflation.

Exbibit C: Inequality is increasing, a point recently acknowledged by the Productivity Commission. At the top it seems to be driven more by the seeking of favours than by productivity, a point persuasively argued by Gigi Foster and Paul Frijters.

What happens when you push up minimum wages?

There is debate in the academic literature about the effects of lifting minimum wages. The basic claim is that, as for most things, the higher the price of a worker (the worker’s wage) the less of the thing (the worker) an employer will use.

This may not be a bad thing for workers, a point many people do not seem to grasp. If the percentage wage increase brought about by a higher minimum wage was bigger than the percentage drop in quantity demanded for labour that followed, it might still be worthwhile from the workers’ point of view.

As it happens, there is considerable real-world evidence suggesting that when minimum wages are increased, the quantity demanded for labour doesn’t fall much if at all. I recently reviewed the extensive academic literature on the minimum wage. It got a jolt in the mid-1990s with the massively-cited study by Card and Krueger who found a fairly big jump in the New Jersey minimum wage had no effect whatsoever on employment in the New Jersey fast food industry.

While not everyone likes the conclusion, the literature that has followed over the next three decades has overwhelmingly confirmed that employment effects of higher minimum wages are nonexistent or minimal at worst. It also suggests that in some circumstances, higher minimum wages might actually help employers by cutting turnover.

Australia current minimum wage appears to be in the zone where a further increase would cause few problems.

Of course, there’s more to work than supply and demand. Work is where most of us spend much of our lives. It gives us meaning, allows us to feel valued, and gives us the means to make the most of the leisure time it leaves over.

Unless work is fairly paid, crime for example might become attractive.

Where did the idea of a living wage come from?

In 1907, three years after the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court had been formed, its first president Henry Higgins used an application for tariff protection from the maker of Sunshine harvesters as a test case to determine not merely what was the minimum that their workers should get, but what each needed to support a wife and three children in “frugal comfort”.

His test was “the normal needs of the average employee regarded as a human being living in a civilised community”. After interviewing workers and their wives, he arrived at the sum of 42 shillings per week.

Read more: How the old idea of the living wage has been embraced by the political establishment

Although it was challenged (and lost) in the High Court, the idea of the legislated minimum being a living wage rather than a bare minimum became the Australian standard, until the WorkChoices Act introduced by Prime Minister John Howard in 2005, which specified instead that it should be a “safety net”

It seems hard to argue that in light of Exhibits A – C that the current minimum wage of $18.93 is a living wage.

Could it work?

The mechanism that Labor has proposed should ensure the move to a higher minimum wage is not too disruptive. Slightly more disruptive might be its promise to restore Sunday and public holiday penalty rates cut by the Fair Work Commission in 2017.

But unless it also address other issues including wage theft, increased underemployment and the related problem of an increasing casualisation of labour, as well as tax concessions for negative gearing and capital gains that benefit high earners at the expense of low earners it won’t have done enough.

Work is changing. Automation is likely to destroy 14% of of our current jobs in the next 15 to 20 years; another one third are set to change radically. Union membership has fallen from more than half of the workforce to about one sixth leaving the future for many workers uncertain and their ability to ask for wage rises handicapped.

Read more: Australian politics explainer: the Prices and Incomes Accord

In the 1980s, Australia’s Hawke government negotiated an Accord with the trade union movement in order to ensure predictable but not inflationary wage rises.

Between 1967 and 1977, West Germany adopted a program known “concerted action” to achieve the same sort of thing.

While neither were lasting successes, the idea of building trust between parties that have conflicting interests has potential. In some ways it is similar to the process that the Fair Work Commission currently uses to determine annual adjustments of minimum wages and awards. A lot can be achieved when people think they are being listened to and think the process is fair.

To work, it needs trade unions respected and taken into the tent as representatives of workers. Bill Shorten is in a good position to do it.

Read more: The false hope offered by talk of a living wage

– ref. Bill Shorten’s promise of a living wage is both realistic and necessary. But it’s not enough. – http://theconversation.com/bill-shortens-promise-of-a-living-wage-is-both-realistic-and-necessary-but-its-not-enough-116153

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Crosby, Professor, Monash University

Every first Tuesday of every month but January the Reserve Bank Board meets to decide whether to adjust interest rates. It announces its decision at 2.30 pm eastern time.

It ought to be an easy decision. Officially, the bank aims for a target inflation rate of between 25 and 3% “on average over the cycle.”

It’s has been the way the Reserve Bank Act has been interpreted since the early 1990s, with the view being that keeping inflation low is the best way it can support sustainable economic growth.

With inflation now showing no overall price rise (0%) over the first three months of this year and only 1.3% over the past twelve months, it would seem incumbent upon the bank to cut rates – now – to get inflation back up.

But, for what it’s worth, here are the reasons I think it shouldn’t, at least not now.

Rate cuts don’t do what they did

First, interest rate cuts normally do their work by encouraging people to spend, which then feeds through intro price rises. However, it has long been understood by economists that at very low rates, further interest rate cuts may have only limited effects. With household debt already high, it is doubtful that a further cut will encourage people to borrow even more in order to spend more.

Of course another reason not to cut rates is the fact that an election will take place in 11 days time. It’s a difficult one for the bank. It quite rightly wants to be seen as independent. Cutting rates ahead of an election runs the risk of making it look as if it is trying to help the government, although ironically, at the moment a rate cut might help the opposition by putting beyond doubt its argument that the economy is weak.

All in all I think it would be better for the bank to wait a month until after the election, given that the need for a cut isn’t urgent.

House prices are still too high

A third reason not to cut rates is that the rate cuts we have had have distorted asset prices. House prices might have fallen, but the prices are still well above levels that would prevail if interest rates were normal. To cut rates now risks reigniting house prices.

The main reason why I think we shouldn’t have a rate cut is that we rely much too heavily on monetary policy (which is interest rates).

The main reason wage and economic growth is low because productivity growth is low. Lower interest rates will do little to lift it. The policies that might lift it have been few and far apart in the election campaign, but it is what we need, and it is difficult. The Productivity Commission came up with a list in the first of its five-yearly productivity reviews. It’s key points were better health care, a better education system, taxes on unused land, better planning, and a properly functioning energy market and industrial relations system.

There are better ways to lift incomes

Instead, we run to the monetary policy teat at the first sign of economic weakness because it is easy and comfortable and has delivered before.

It is time also to reassess the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% inflation target. Weak consumer demand, demographic change and global competition might have created a new normal, meaning a target of 1-3% or even 0-3% might be more realistic.

Economists tend to dislike a zero inflation target because of the risk of missing and bringing on deflation, but inflation volatility has been low enough in recent years to make 1-3% target pretty safe and to stop us running to the bank each time things look weak.

Read more: Vital signs. Zero inflation means the Reserve Bank should cut rates as soon as it can, on Tuesday week

– ref. On rate-cut Tuesday, here are four reasons why the Reserve Bank shouldn’t jump – http://theconversation.com/on-rate-cut-tuesday-here-are-four-reasons-why-the-reserve-bank-shouldnt-jump-116590

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Batty, Professor of Creative Writing, University of Technology Sydney

Why do we tell stories, and how are they crafted? In a new series, we unpick the work of the writer on both page and screen.

Set against the political backdrop of Australia’s refugee policy and the racism it generates, Mark Grentell’s The Merger (2018) uses the genre of the sports film to explore – and ultimately challenge – the attitudes around this hotly contested topic.

Adapted from a comedy play of the same name, written by and starring Damian Callinan (also in the film), The Merger draws on the tropes we expect of the sports film – world, character, structure, theme – to tell a poignant, and important, tale of how a struggling Aussie Rules footy team (The Roosters) in an equally struggling town (Bodgy Creek) learns to accept people for who they are and what they can offer a community.

Structurally, a hallmark of the sports film is its dramatic shape as a rites-of-passage rite of passage?. A protagonist faces a problem and grows out of it, becoming a new person who is able to prove their value to the world. The dramatic goal of winning a game or tournament represents triumph for the protagonist, and the team or town.

In The Merger, Troy (Callinan) – a disgraced local blamed for the town’s decline (he led a protest to close down the timber mill, leading to mass job losses) – is drafted in by naïve teenager Neil (Rafferty Grierson) to help The Roosters improve their game – literally and, as we come to learn, morally.

As in many sports films, Troy – who functions as the protagonist of the story and also the team’s mentor – is a former brilliant footy player, meaning he has both the credibility and respect (albeit lost) of someone who knows how to do things. This allows him to give advice that, while falling on deaf ears initially, will eventually save the day.

Troy is also given a chance for redemption – a second go at saving the town he allegedly destroyed. Not surprisingly, Troy’s character arc sees him invited back into the community. A mirror to the core thematic story of accepting refugees, this storyline sees Bodgy Creek’s residents understand and forgive his past and value him for who he is now.

The structural and thematic connection between Troy and Neil is important to note here. The son of “leftie” Angie (Kate Mulvany) – whose father-in-law, Bull (John Howard), happens to be The Roosters’ president (and a racist) – Neil is young, naïve and innocent. To him, Troy is just a man who has the skills The Roosters need – so why are people being so nasty to him?

Thematically, then, just as we are asked to consider the perspectives of refugees, Neil also sees Troy for what he is – no baggage, no prejudice.

A dramatic quest

Structurally, Neil provides the initial “call to adventure” for Troy, willing him into the story. Archetypally, this is an expected part of a film’s structure, setting the story in motion with a dramatic question or challenge – in this case, to come back to the sport.

Read more: Are you monomythic? Joseph Campbell and the hero’s journey

Neil’s mother runs a local refugee centre, and it is through this that The Merger’s story really begins. A grant scheme to employ refugees is suggested as a way of finally getting the clubhouse fixed up. (It’s condemned with asbestos – a nice thematic nod to the notion of poison and rot.) Here, the film’s title is used to punctuate the dramatic question of the story. The community is forced to think hard about the benefits of taking the refugee grant – do you want to merge, or do you want to fold?

In terms of story world, the setting of Bodgy Creek is important. A former award winning “tidy town”, it is now brimming with rubbish and morale is at an all-time low. Here, world is used purposely to reflect the film’s central theme – a place where people have given up on not only themselves, but also on each other.

This is typical of the sports film, where the team or town as world is in dire need of a change – that will be brought about by sport. Even if the final tournament isn’t won, the act of training for it and bonding – the team or town uniting as one – will triumph.

Narrative need for change

In screenwriting terms, this represents the narrative demand that something has to change – people, places, attitudes, values. In the sports film, the team and its desire for success (plot) reflects a deeper need for meaning and renewed hope (theme).

This is especially important for The Merger’s political context of refugees being settled in Australia, where footy – and by association, the town (its only hope lies in the team) – acts as a vehicle for bringing the characters together and teaching them (and the audience) about respect and reciprocity.

The sports film requires a range of characters to explore these tensions, which is why team members are used to give differing perspectives and attitudes. The openness and kindness of Troy, Angie and Neil in The Merger is contrasted by club president Bull, a racist and traditionalist who only learns to “see properly” through the team’s eventual success.

Loutish antagonist Carpet Burn (Angus McLaren) also represents the nasty, bigoted views of many Australians towards refugees. His character arc comes when he realises new (refugee) player Sayyid (Fayssal Bazzi) is a better player than him, and that if he wants the team to succeed, they need to join forces.

In all honesty, this conflict is a weak aspect of the film. There are not enough story beats (moments of physical and emotional character change) to warrant the arcs of Bull and Carpet Burn. They change too easily, not pushed dramatically enough for an audience to feel this shift is justified. But the sentiment is there, and we know what the film is trying to say.

With echoes of the British film Grow Your Own, which also tackles ideas of immigration, racism and perceived threats to “traditional” life, The Merger uses the tropes of the sports film to explore – in an entertaining and thus palatable way – contemporary attitudes towards refugees in Australia.

Perhaps a hallmark of many Australian films, mateship triumphs as we see the team and its players unite for the benefit of footy. Attitudes and beliefs are swept aside in favour of what, for many, lies at the core of a “fair go” Australian life.

– ref. Inside the story: The Merger – a sports film as a vehicle for social change – http://theconversation.com/inside-the-story-the-merger-a-sports-film-as-a-vehicle-for-social-change-115702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alfio Leotta, Senior Lecturer, Victoria University of Wellington

The ocean rushes below as suddenly the LOUDSPEAKERS BLARE out Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries.

So reads the screenplay for the 1979 war movie Apocalypse Now. It describes the sequence in which a squadron of American helicopters blasts Wagner while attacking a Viet Cong village during the Vietnam War.

The scene would become one of the most iconic in cinema history – acknowledged, celebrated and parodied in countless subsequent films.

On the occasion of the film’s 40th anniversary, director Francis Ford Coppola has now unveiled Apocalypse Now: Final Cut.

Apocalypse Now and film history

Apocalypse Now’s contribution to cinema history is not limited to the helicopter attack sequence. In 2004, this memorable monologue uttered by Robert Duvall as Lt. Colonel Kilgore was voted the best-ever film speech by a survey of 6,500 movie buffs.

You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

The epic scale of the production, shot on location in the Philippines jungle, and Coppola’s operatic direction that brought together spectacular cinematography, a hypnotic soundtrack and brooding performances, make Apocalypse Now a major cinematic landmark.

On its initial release 40 years ago, the film received mixed reviews. It was honoured with the Palme D’Or at Cannes but failed to win the Best Picture Academy Award. With time, it gradually acquired the status of a classic film. This was further reinforced in 2001 with the release, to much acclaim, of the extended version, Apocalypse Now Redux.

This year marks another major turning point in the film’s history with Coppola’s release of Apocalypse Now: Final Cut. The film, which premiered at the 2019 Tribeca Film Festival in New York, has been described as “a new, never-before-seen restored version of the film … remastered from the original negative in 4K Ultra HD”.

Read more: Apocalypse now: our incessant desire to picture the end of the world

John Milius: from Nirvana Now to Apocalypse Now

Apocalypse Now is usually considered to be Coppola’s magnum opus, alongside The Godfather Part I and II. As producer, director and co-writer, he is regarded as the auteur of the film. In Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse (1991), his wife Eleanor Coppola’s documentary about the making of it, discussion of Apocalypse Now has tended to glorify Coppola as a genius filmmaker able to overcome all sorts of obstacles to bring his masterpiece to light.

Most contemporary viewers might not be aware of the major contribution another, less known figure made to the film. John Milius, credited as co-writer of the film, was responsible for creating some of its most iconic moments, including the helicopter attack sequence. He also wrote some of the film’s most memorable lines, including “I love the smell of napalm” and “Charlie don’t surf”, and even the title itself.

Although most contemporary film viewers have forgotten him, in the early 1970s Milius was a central figure of the so called “New Hollywood”, a moment in American cinema history characterised by an anti-establishment, innovative approach to filmmaking. During this period, Milius achieved international fame as creator of cinematic icons such as Dirty Harry (1971) and Jeremiah Johnson (1973).

Read more: Big Wednesday: four decades between surfing and myth making

It was Milius who had the idea, during his studies at the University of Southern California Film School in the 1960s, of making a film loosely based on Joseph Conrad’s 1899 novella Heart of Darkness. Milius thought the Vietnam War, which was raging at the time, would provide the perfect setting for an adaptation of Conrad’s story. Before him, a number of filmmakers, including Orson Welles, had tried and failed to adapt Heart of Darkness. Milius was intrigued by the possibility of making history by being the first to succeed.

Milius came up with the title of the film before actually writing the screenplay. He said the title Apocalypse Now emerged out of his own contrarian spirit and rejection of the hippy culture that was increasingly gaining terrain in late 1960s California. In Milius’s words:

I had the title, Apocalypse Now, because the hippies at the time had these buttons that said Nirvana Now. I loved the idea of a guy having a button with a mushroom cloud on it that said Apocalypse Now. You know, let’s bring it on, full nuke.

Milius envisions the Vietnam hell

Milius wrote extensive notes and recorded stories of returning Vietnam veterans, but did not write the screenplay until contracted to do so in 1969. During this period, he discussed the project at length with fellow USC student George Lucas, who was interested both in the Vietnam War and in directing the film. In 1969, Coppola, who had studied film at the University of California Los Angeles and was a close friend of both Milius and Lucas, established independent production company American Zoetrope, which would fund a number of innovative projects, including Apocalypse Now.

Read more: How science fiction and fantasy can help us make sense of the world

According to the original arrangement, Lucas would direct the film while Milius would write the screenplay. The story was conceived as a journey into the horrors of the Vietnam War and was influenced by Milius’s passion for the classics of world literature, particularly Homer’s Odyssey and Dante’s Inferno.

While writing the screenplay, Milius imagined a soundtrack that would include Wagner and The Doors. Milius’s idea to use Wagner for the helicopter attack was inspired by real events, as American troops sometimes played rock and roll music from loud speakers during the Vietnam War as a way of intimidating the enemy. The Doors, who had written several songs about the madness of the war, provided another major source of inspiration.

In Milius’s original screenplay, rogue American Colonel Kurtz (played in the film by Marlon Brando) is a big fan of Jim Morrison and his band. In one of the sequences of the original script, Kurtz orders his soldiers to blast Light My Fire by The Doors on big speakers as their compound is attacked by the North Vietnamese army. Eventually, Coppola never shot the scene featuring Light My Fire, but used extracts of another Doors hit, The End, in both the opening and closing sequences of the film.

Milius and Coppola: clashing auteurs

Originally, Milius and Lucas envisioned Apocalypse Now as a pseudo-documentary shot on location in 16mm and black and white. They were interested in emulating the realist aesthetic of films such as Gillo Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers (1966) and The Anderson Platoon (1967), a documentary about the Vietnam War directed by one of Milius’s favourite filmmakers, Pierre Schoendoerffer. Milius and Lucas intended to bring cast and crew to Vietnam where they would intersperse a mix of scripted and improvised scenes of performers interacting with real soldiers and events.

But eventually, Lucas abandoned the project to direct Star Wars (1977) and was replaced by Coppola, who radically changed the original approach to Apocalypse Now. He envisioned a large-budget spectacular production.

After Coppola completed revisions of the screenplay in 1975, Milius spoke out about the two filmmakers’ conflicting creative visions. Milius was particularly critical about Coppola’s attempt to transform Apocalypse Now into an anti-war film and accused the San Francisco-based director of rejecting the creative input of his collaborators. In a 1976 interview Milius claimed:

Francis Coppola has this compelling desire to save humanity when the man is a raving fascist, the Bay Area Mussolini.

Milius’ legacy

But a comparison between the 1969 and 1975 versions of the screenplay dispels the myth promoted by Milius that Coppola completely rewrote it. More importantly, the final film version was far from what Milius contemptuously defined as “an anti-war movie”. Many scenes and lines created by Milius remained virtually untouched and Coppola retained Milius’ key themes, in particular the conception of war as simultaneously exciting and horrific, the ultimate expression of man’s “inherent bestiality”.

Later in his career, Milius changed his opinion of the film, expressing appreciation of Coppola’s revisions and describing the director as “a genius on a par with Orson Welles”.

For their work on Apocalypse Now, Milius and Coppola received a nomination for best screenplay at the 1979 Academy Awards. In the 1980s, Milius went on to direct films such as Conan the Barbarian (1982) and Red Dawn (1984), but a combination of commercial flops and health problems would lead to the gradual decline of his career in the 1990s and 2000s.

Milius is now considered a minor figure in film history. For creating many of the ideas behind Apocalypse Now, however, he should be remembered as a major contributor to one of the most influential stories ever told on the big screen.

– ref. Apocalypse Now turns 40: rediscovering the genesis of a film classic – http://theconversation.com/apocalypse-now-turns-40-rediscovering-the-genesis-of-a-film-classic-113448

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

University of Tasmania political science professor, Richard Eccleston, says a lack of a coherent energy policy could count against the Coalition in the island state.

“The party which seems to offer the more compelling commitment to climate change and renewable production will probably be well placed to capitalize on that [Tasmania’s environmental interests].”

Eccleston told The Conversation the volatile seats of Braddon and Bass could won by the Liberals.

However he says Lyons should be a “safe Labor hold” after to the controversy over the Liberals’ now-dumped candidate Jessica Whelan.

On the Senate, Eccleston says there will be an impact from the minor parties, with fisherman Craig Garland – who attracted a big vote at the Braddon byelection – “a name to watch”. But he doesn’t think Jacqui Lambie will be successful. Lambie, who resigned from the Senate in the citizenship crisis, is trying to make a comeback.

“She’s clearly got a profile but I think she’ll be struggling to get a seat at a half-Senate election.”

New to podcasts?

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

Image:

Facebook

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Richard Eccleston on the electoral mood in Tasmania – http://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-richard-eccleston-on-the-electoral-mood-in-tasmania-116613

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gary Sacks, Associate Professor, Deakin University

Last week Labor pledged to consider serious steps to improve Australian diets and tackle our obesity epidemic. This would form part of a A$115.6 million plan from the Opposition to address preventable illness.

This is the first time one of the two major parties in Australia has included such a strong focus on nutrition as part of its election commitments.

Key elements of the preventive health package include promises to consider making the health star rating food labelling scheme mandatory, together with food reformulation targets for manufacturers.

But these aren’t concrete commitments. Rather, they are actions the party said it would consider as part of its preventive health pledge.

Firmly committing to these measures, and taking action on them, is crucial as we face a growing obesity crisis in Australia.

Read more: Election stays on tax and health battlegrounds

What are food reformulation targets?

Packaged foods and drinks available in Australia include many products with excessive levels of saturated fats, added sugar, and salt.

Almost half of all packaged food and drinks available in our supermarkets are classified as “discretionary”. These are foods that are not necessary as part of a healthy diet, and are recommended to be consumed only in small amounts.

There have been no significant improvements in the overall healthiness of packaged foods in Australia over the past two years. This indicates that is has not been an effective strategy to leave it up to food manufacturers to voluntarily reduce nutrients of concern.

A growing number of other countries have already legislated to reduce levels of either saturated fats, added sugar or salt in the food supply. A prominent example is South Africa, where mandatory salt-reduction targets were introduced across a range of food categories in 2013. Several countries have banned trans fats from being added to foods.

Read more: The ten things Australia needs to do to improve health

Labor has said mandatory reformulation targets will be on the cards if the industry does not voluntarily take steps to reduce unhealthy ingredients. With no good evidence that food manufacturers are systematically doing so, there is an urgent need for policy change.

Restricting the levels of harmful components such as fats, sugars and salt from the foods we eat would help Australia keep pace with other countries already taking serious action in this area.

Importantly, mandatory implementation of health star ratings would complement food reformulation targets for packaged foods.

What is the health star rating system?

The health star rating is a front-of-pack labelling system that rates the overall nutritional profile of packaged food. Each product is assigned a rating from ½ a star to 5 stars. The system provides a quick, standard way to compare similar packaged foods.

Australian governments first endorsed the health star rating scheme in 2014 for voluntary implementation. About a third of packaged foods in Australian supermarkets now display the health star rating.

Read more: Food labels are about informing choice, not some nanny state

Consumers have the right to know about the healthiness of the foods they buy. Some food manufacturers have put the health star rating on all of their products. But many food manufacturers have elected only to display the health star rating on their healthier products.

The health star rating system will work best for consumers when it’s displayed on all packaged foods. Mandatory implementation would ensure that. It would also ensure a “level playing field” for manufacturers.

If the system were to continue to be voluntary, it’s hard to imagine how implementation would increase much beyond current levels, unless powerful incentives were put in place. Simple encouragement to increase implementation is unlikely to be sufficient.

So this proposed policy, too, needs unambiguous commitment over mere consideration.

What difference would these policies make?

Unhealthy diets and obesity are leading contributors to poor health in Australia. Some 35% of the energy Australian adults consume every day comes from discretionary foods. The proportion is even higher for children.

Recent modelling shows mandatory implementation of the health star rating system would result in substantial reductions in diabetes, heart disease and stroke. The policy is also likely to be highly cost-effective. This is because it is likely to reduce government health-care costs and deliver large health benefits over the long term.

Mandatory reformulation targets are also likely to be excellent value for money.

A welcome focus on prevention

Australia currently spends far less on preventive health (as a proportion of total expenditure on health) than most other comparable countries.

Labor’s election commitment would go some way to addressing this substantial preventive health spending gap. The commitment is particularly commendable for having multiple elements, for being coordinated across different sectors, and for being evidence-based.

The proposed policies with respect to obesity are consistent with best-practice recommendations from the World Health Organisation as well as consensus recommendations from key health groups in Australia.

The commitments also address major gaps in Australia’s obesity prevention efforts when compared with international benchmarks.

Read more: Industry winning the fight against better food labelling

Labor’s announcement indicates a willingness to address one of the most critical issues influencing the health of Australians.

The challenge for Labor, should it win the election, will be to follow through with effective action. A common political road to prevention policy is that strong initial plans are met with forceful opposition from commercial vested interests (such as the processed food industry). Politicians then buckle to the pressure, and minor ineffectual policy changes are the result.

We can’t afford that now – our health depends on it.

– ref. Labor’s election pledge to improve Australian diets is a first – now we need action, not just ‘consideration’ – http://theconversation.com/labors-election-pledge-to-improve-australian-diets-is-a-first-now-we-need-action-not-just-consideration-116425

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hamilton, PhD Candidate in Zoology, University of Tasmania

Tasmanian devils have a reputation as a fearsome animal – most of the time this is undeserved. When it comes to the mating season, however, it’s a fair judgement. Between February and April, mating can be incredibly aggressive, with male and female devils prone to biting one another both during and after the act.

That could be deadly for the devils, according to new research published online in the journal Behavioral Ecology.

Unfortunately, biting drives the spread of devil facial tumour disease (DFTD) a transmissible cancer that has been afflicting the species since the mid-1990s.

Read more: Survival of the fittest? Perhaps not if you’re a Tasmanian devil

DFTD is highly unusual for a cancer because it can transfer between individual devils and grow in its new host.

The fact that devils regularly bite one another around the mouth means tumour cells can easily transfer from an infected devil to an open wound on a healthy devil. This makes the buildup of wounds in devils extremely important to our understanding of this disease.

When devils mate

In our study, we examined the accumulation of bite wounds in a population of wild devils in northwest Tasmania.

We found males were much more likely than females to pick up high numbers of bite wounds. But these wounds appear to be related to the amount of time males spent in mating season interactions with females, as opposed to fights with other males (as we had previously thought).

In the mating season, after male devils have mated with females, they spend an extended period either confining the female in a den, or closely following her to make sure other males are unable to mate with her.

During our study we found this behaviour could go on for up to two weeks in the wild. The process is known as “mate guarding” and is relatively common in the animal kingdom.

We found the longer males spent engaging in mate guarding behaviour, the more bite wounds they received. This would seem to put successful males, who mate with a high number of females, in the firing line when it comes to acquiring DFTD.

But no pattern of sex bias in DFTD prevalence has ever been observed in the wild.

So how does this fit with our study on the increased vulnerability in males?

Disease transfer

A crucial unknown in the DFTD transmission process involves directionality – which way the deadly disease is passed on by a devil. There are two possibilities:

1. an infected devil bites an uninfected animal, transferring tumour cells (from its teeth or saliva) directly into the wound it causes

2. an uninfected devil bites into tumours on an infected animal, and cells transfer into an open wound inside the biter’s mouth.

The reality is likely to involve a combination of the two.

Our results indicate that most disease transmission occurs during extended mating season interactions, when females appear to be causing high numbers of wounds to their mates.

If DFTD can transfer in either direction during these encounters, then both the males receiving the wounds and the females causing them would be equally at risk of acquiring the disease.

Future of the devil

We have highlighted mating season encounters between the sexes as crucial transmission points for the spread of DFTD. The behaviour of male devils appears to be driving patterns that support transmission of the disease.

This information is important for potential disease management options, as it pinpoints males in good condition – who are likely to be reproductively successful – as targets for management interventions, such as vaccinations.

Most importantly, these results add one more piece to the puzzle of rapid evolution in the Tasmanian devil, in response to the strong evolutionary pressure DFTD is placing on this iconic species. With almost 100% mortality once devils reach breeding age, any advantage an individual devil might have to survive a little longer and reproduce should – over time – spread through the population.

The species has already shown remarkably rapid shifts in their life history and genome, while some are able to mount an immune response and recover from the tumours.

DFTD is spread through biting so we can expect strong evolutionary pressure for devils to become less aggressive towards each other over time.

With these new results, we can now pinpoint for the first time who (healthy, successful males) and when (guarding females after mating) the intense selection pressure on aggressive behaviour in devils will operate.

Read more: Could Tassie devils help control feral cats on the mainland? Fossils say yes

Ultimately, devils will solve the DFTD problem themselves by evolving resistance, tolerance and changing their behaviour. One of the best things we can do is let evolution take its course, giving a helping hand along the way via well guided management actions.

– ref. Sexual aggression key to spread of deadly tumours in Tasmanian devils – http://theconversation.com/sexual-aggression-key-to-spread-of-deadly-tumours-in-tasmanian-devils-116271

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Miragliotta, Senior Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash University

The Greens are not expected to be the beneficiaries of a supposed surge in support for minor parties and independent candidates at this election. Since June 2017, Newspoll has rarely recorded the Greens’ primary vote much above 10%. And since October 2018, its vote has seemingly stagnated at 9%.

Relative to most other campaigns at this election, the Greens have had a strong run. They have avoided candidate debacles and contained the factional infighting that has blighted the Victorian and New South Wales divisions.

The party’s policy agenda contains strong appeals to its base (climate change and immigration) but also speaks to some of the concerns of Labor’s traditional working-class voter (industrial relations, education and health).

Read more: Shorten distances himself from Green overtures on climate policy

But the Greens seem quite circumspect. They are not strongly pushing for a formal coalition with Labor, nor are they talking up the prospects of a minority government. Party leader Richard Di Natale says he remains:

very confident that some time in the not-too-distant future majority governments will be the exception rather than the rule.

However, he is only talking about a “constructive” relationship with Labor.

Why are the Greens low-key?

When Di Natale was asked at the National Press Club on Wednesday about the party’s stalling electoral prospects, he struggled to articulate a reason. In the end, he countered that a single-digit outcome was likely “pessimistic”. Rather, he said:

I think we’ll continue to grow. Our trajectory has been characterised by consolidation in periods of rapid growth. And I’m sure one’s on the way very soon.

Federal voting data support Di Natale’s assessment about the arc of the party’s electoral performance. As the table below shows, the Greens’ primary vote in the House of Representatives (solid black line) and in the Senate (solid red line) has been broadly trending upwards since 1998.

But when you compare the party’s support at the state and territory level, then it becomes apparent that the strength of the Greens’ vote is mixed. The Greens poll consistently strongly in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and the ACT. However, in the case of the ACT, the territory’s constitutional status means the Greens are unable to convert their support into Senate representation.

In other states, the party has experienced some difficulty in gaining a comfortable footing, even if it does manage to elect senators. South Australian voters support non-major party candidates but have tended to prefer other vehicles, such as the now (mostly) defunct Australian Democrats and more recently the Nick Xenophon Team (now Centre Alliance).

A similar pattern is apparent in Queensland, but in this case much of the momentum for minor parties is behind right-tending parties, such as Katter’s Australia Party, the United Australia Party and One Nation. In NSW, the party’s support tends to run hot and cold.

What does this mean?

The degree of electoral support for minor parties (and independents), such as the Greens, is typically contingent on the electoral health of the major parties and the number of other non-major parties in the field.

An electorally diminished Labor is generally helpful for boosting the Greens’ primary vote. For example, at the 2010 federal election, the collapse in Labor’s primary vote (-5.40%) coincided with a spike in the Greens vote (+3.97%).

If Labor’s electoral malaise presents an opportunity for the Greens then a Labor recovery can limit the Greens’ growth prospects. In 2016, as Labor showed signs of electoral recovery (+1.34%), the Greens were able to achieve only modest growth in their primary vote. Although the Greens did increase their share of the vote (+1.58%), it was not enough to return it to their 2010 levels.

Even then, the 2013 election suggests there might be limits to the Greens’ ability to profit from swings against Labor. At this election, both parties suffered a swing against them, an outcome attributed to the parliamentary alliance/agreement that the two parties entered into following the 2010 election. What this suggests is that disgruntled Labor voters are probable but not “sure bets” for the Greens.

What might the Greens expect from the 2019 federal election?

It’s important to acknowledge that the above analysis frames the Greens’ gains and losses in relation to Labor’s electoral performance, which is only a part of the story. But it does point to the fact that the Greens’ ability to achieve a double-digit share of the national vote might depend on Labor crashing out, which is not supported by the polling in 2019.

Nevertheless, even if the Greens attain only a 9% share of the primary vote, this is likely to result in them retaining some of the six Senate vacancies they are defending. According to election analyst William Bowe:

Senate contenders will need something approaching 6% to be competitive, and around 8% to feel entirely confident.

Moreover, most analysts agree that Adam Bandt will retain Melbourne. His prospects were further strengthened when his Labor opponent quit after historical social media posts came to light.

Read more: Poll wrap: Labor’s Newspoll lead falls to 51-49 on dubious assumptions as Palmer and Coalition do a deal

And while high-profile Greens challengers, such as Julian Burnside in Kooyong, are not expected to win the lower house seats they are contesting, they do complicate the contest, particularly in those seats where there is no incumbent. Major party candidates in most inner metropolitan seats can never feel entirely relaxed when a high-profile Greens candidate enters the race.

Given that the Greens’ underlying primary vote is stable, even if not spectacular, it should be sufficient to ensure the Greens are returned as important players to the Senate.

– ref. Greens on track for stability, rather than growth, this election – http://theconversation.com/greens-on-track-for-stability-rather-than-growth-this-election-116295

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chelsea Mullens, PhD candidate in the School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne

In Avengers: Endgame, the highly-anticipated 22nd film in the Marvel franchise, Earth’s mightiest heroes contend with the repercussions of supervillain Thanos wiping out half of all life in the universe with the snap of his fingers.

But did he need to? Not exactly. When setting the events of Endgame in motion during Avengers: Infinity War, Thanos said:

It’s a simple calculus. This universe is finite, its resources finite. If life is left unchecked, life will cease to exist. It needs correction.

Thanos turns half of all life into dust. But according to the study of resource management and geography, population reduction does not necessarily solve the problem of resource scarcity.

Read more: Avengers: Endgame exploits time travel and quantum mechanics as it tries to restore the universe

‘Relative abundance’

When Thanos snapped his fingers, he performed what 18th century scholar Thomas Robert Malthus called a “positive check” on the population. Positive checks, like Thanos’s snap, increase the death rate to reduce population to a sustainable level.

Malthus argued that population collapse and environmental degradation occurred when there were too many people and not enough food. This is when positive checks – such as famine, plague, war, and natural disaster – would occur.

However, he argued that, once population size fell, strain on the environment eased, and population would increase to suit the amount of available resources .

Thanos assumed that halving population size would solve resource over-exploitation. But according to Malthus, as resources suddenly become abundant, the population of 3.5 billion people at the start of Endgame would inevitably grow again.

Read more: A country can never be too rich, too beautiful or too full of people

The politics of distribution

Thanos also overlooked the influence of social, political, and economic processes on access to resources – known as the “distributional” argument for explaining resource scarcity.

Average global supply of food exceeds the minimum dietary energy requirement globally, which shows that the world can produce enough food, but that food isn’t reaching everyone who needs it. Uneven access – rather than overpopulation – is the problem.

When explaining his reasoning, Thanos noted that the snap would be “at random, dispassionate, fair to rich and poor alike”.

However, removing half of everyone who is rich and poor doesn’t address the underlying reasons for wealth inequity. The disparities which created inequitable distribution of food and other resources will persist, and the same patterns of resource use and access are likely to continue.

Read more: How to feed a growing population healthy food without ruining the planet

Similarly, a “political ecology” perspective argues that those with the greatest economic and political power often get to control how the environment is used, and how resources are distributed, typically at the expense of disadvantaged groups.

We see this in the ongoing civil war in Yemen, where fighting has blocked aid shipments, food prices have doubled, and food has been stolen by those with greatest access to resources.

Food insecurity and hunger among marginalised populations can occur even within affluent, industrialised societies.

In some Indigenous communities in Australia, for example, traditional diets and methods of food production and gathering have been replaced with processed foods popular on globalised markets, which often offer lower quality diets. To counter such detrimental forces of globalisation, many Indigenous communities are shifting focus back to traditional practices.

Creating paradise?

In Endgame, our heroes find that the underlying challenges which created the conditions for resource overuse persist. There might be whales in New York Bay because there are fewer ships, as Captain America notes, but Hawkeye (the archer and one of the original Avengers) is still fighting systems that generate injustice and exploitation in Tokyo.

Today, there are plenty of scholars working alternative solutions to resource scarcity, imagining a world that is sustainable for everyone.

Instead of halving the population, for example, Thanos could have created a universe built on local food production.

Or, he could have made each planet in the universe a series of circular economies, which minimise waste by maintaining, reusing, recycling, and remanufacturing resources.

All energy could have instantly been produced by low carbon sources within sustainable energy grids and power infrastructure.

Or the universe could have been reshaped to exist within the safe and just space for humanity, in which we would exert enough pressure on the earth for everyone to live free of poverty, while keeping resource use within planetary boundaries to prevent overexploitation of those resources.

Surely this could get us closer to the paradise Thanos envisioned than a terrified planet with half as many people and just as many issues.

– ref. Avengers: Endgame and why a smaller population doesn’t guarantee paradise – http://theconversation.com/avengers-endgame-and-why-a-smaller-population-doesnt-guarantee-paradise-116070

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steinar Ellingsen, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, Communication and Media, University of Wollongong

Over the past decade the profits of 160-odd regional and rural publications that make up the former Fairfax business division known as Australian Community Media (ACM) have fallen steeply.

In 2012 the division made a A$169 million profit. In 2018 it was A$67.5 million.

Nine Entertainment Co acquired the division with its $3 billion takeover of Fairfax Media last year. It has been keen to get rid of it ever since.

There are grounds for some optimism about the long-anticipated sale. It may signal better fortunes for regional publishing. But any optimism must be tempered by ongoing concerns about the viability of the local news business model.

What’s in the deal?

ACM’s new owner is a 50:50 partnership between real estate advertising mogul Antony Catalano and Thorney Investment Group. They are paying Nine A$125 million for the 160-odd mastheads and 130 associated websites. The deal involves Nine getting $10 million of advertising space, and content and printing sharing arrangements for a period of time.

Thorney Investment Group has established itself over the past 25 yeas as one of the most profitable investors in Australian property and resources. Its foray into local news may appear somewhat peripheral to its general investment profile, despite an ongoing investment in Domain, Fairfax’s real estate brand, which was listed as a separate entity on the Australian Stock Exchange in 2017.

Catalano, on the other hand, has a long and colourful history with Fairfax’s real estate classifieds business. He is expected to chair the new company.

A one-time property editor at The Age, he was made redundant in 2008 and went on to found, with the backing of major real estate brokers, the free property magazine The Weekly Review.

The magazine took off, winning business away from The Age’s real estate pages. In 2011 Fairfax bought half of Catalano’s Metro Media Publishing business for A$35 million. It bought the other half in 2015 (for A$72 million). It then merged the business with Domain, putting Catalano at the helm.

He left his role with Domain in January last year, just two months after its successful listing on the Australian Stock Exchange. Reportedly his resignation came amid complaints of a party-boy culture in the Domain workplace.

Catalano’s successful bid for Domain is a particular coup. He attempted to thwart Nine’s takeover bid of Fairfax at the 11th hour by proposing to buy 19.9% of Fairfax shares.

Bidding against him and Thorney were private equity giants Anchorage Capital Partners and Allegro Funds. Seven West’s regional TV affiliate, Prime Media Group, and News Corp were also rumoured to have been interested.

Changing priorities

A few months ago Crikey labelled ACM’s impending sale a “blueprint for disaster” regardless of who won the bid, describing closures and consolidation of some local papers as “almost certain”.

Catalano, on the other hand, has talked up the potential of the larger daily regional mastheads. These include The Canberra Times, The Newcastle Herald, The Border Mail (based in Albury), The Illawarra Mercury (in Wollongong), The Ballarat Courier, The Examiner (in Launceston), and the Bendigo Advertiser. Between them, these papers reach about half ACM’s total audience of up to eight million people.

Catalano says he is looking to invest “aggressively” in these areas.

Read more: Why restoring accuracy will help journalism win back credibility

Without offering much detail, he has intimated there were ways to monetise ACM’s audience that didn’t happen under Fairfax, due to it having “bigger priorities in the face of very significant structural decline in the newspaper business”.

“Under us, it’s our only priority,” he said.

However, when pushed on whether there would be efficiencies, including redundancies and closures, he conceded there was likely to be some “consolidation” in print operations.

Such consolidation might echo Fairfax’s 2017 merger of six Western Sydney suburban newspapers into a single North West Magazine.

The state of local journalism

It would be naive to be overly hopeful about a new dawn for regional newspapers given the broader context of the Australian news industry.

According to the journalists’ union, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, at least 3,000 journalism jobs have been lost since mass redundancies began about seven years ago. Cutbacks, the union says, have seen “rural and regional audiences lose their “voice” and their access to local information”.

At the regional daily with the largest readership, The Newcastle Herald, the editorial staff has been cut from about 100 to less than 24.

Read more: What a local newspaper means to a regional city like Newcastle

Workloads have escalated in consequence. Veteran journalist and union rep Ian Kirkwood told ABC’s Media Watch that journalists, perhaps once expected to produce one or two news stories a day, were now required to produce six, including headlines and photographs.

The New Beats study, a comprehensive longitudinal study of redundancies in Australian journalism since 2012, calculates the total revenue of Australian newspapers fell from A$6.2 billion in 2007-08 to A$3 billion in 2016-17.

The New Beats researchers say the “market failure of regional journalism” is that local advertising is simply insufficient to make a local newspaper financially viable. How Catalano is going to change that, given his stated opposition to paywalls, is an open question.

But given the unrelenting bad news faced by newspaper newsrooms over the past decade, it’s no surprise journalists are hoping for the best. The ABC reports that sources within the Canberra Times regard the deal as the best of available options. The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance has expressed cautious optimism, tempered by concerns investment in the larger regional mastheads will come at the expense of smaller publications.

Only time will tell whether it is the hopes or the fears that are the most prophetic.

– ref. After a dark decade for Australia’s regional newspapers, a hopeful light flickers – http://theconversation.com/after-a-dark-decade-for-australias-regional-newspapers-a-hopeful-light-flickers-116359

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Farmer, Researcher, University of Melbourne

Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.

What is brain freeze? – Question from the students of Ms Young’s Grade 5/6 class, Baden Powell College, Victoria.

Australia had one one of its hottest summers on record this year (thanks, climate change, thanks a lot). Many of us probably gobbled up an ice cream and perhaps too quickly.

After doing this, you may have been unlucky enough to get an intense squeezing or stabbing sensation on your forehead, your temples or the back of your head. This is brain freeze, also known as an “ice cream headache”.

“So” you say, feeling smart, “brain freeze is just a kind of headache! I already know all about those”.

You are, of course, correct. But brain freeze is a bit weird. While it’s true that you do put ice-cream inside your head to eat it (your mouth is technically part of your head), you don’t typically put it into the parts of your head that hurt when you experience brain freeze. To put ice-cream into your forehead or temples would be a very weird surgical procedure that I do not advise you to try at home or anywhere else. It’s also hard to imagine a situation in which it would be medically necessary so it seems unlikely that it would be available on Medicare.

So why do your forehead and temples (or even the back of your head) hurt when you put ice cream in your mouth too fast?

There are several different ideas as to why, but the answer definitely has something to do with what happens when we cool down the roof of our mouth.

When you cool down the roof of your mouth, the coldness is picked up by nerve cells that live there and whose job it is to detect cold. This information about coldness is sent to your brain via a nerve. When the roof of your mouth is very cold, these cells (and so this nerve) will be very active.

Now, this nerve also contains information from other cells, including the ones that detect cold and painful stimuli from other parts of your head, including your very face.

It may be (we’re honestly not sure) that when the cells that sense cold in the roof of your mouth are very active, this somehow also activates the bits of the brain that are usually activated by the face cells. As a result, the cold fools your brain into thinking that your forehead hurts.

Another possibility is that, as delicious icy treats quickly cool down our tongues and mouths, it actually cools the blood in blood vessels that supply blood to your head. These blood vessels respond by changing how much blood flows into your brain. Only a few scientists have actually tried to measure this, and those that have don’t even agree about whether there is more or less blood going into your head. Everyone, however, agrees that it hurts.

It may be some combination of these two things: that activation of nerves causes a change in how much blood is going into your head. It might even be both things together!

Why don’t we know how brain freeze works?

Here’s the thing about science: “what is brain freeze” is a fantastic question for a curious scientist to ask, but to get the answer, scientists need to convince other people (politicians, other scientists and members of the public) that they should be given the time and money to answer that question.

Unfortunately, the availability of time and money are not as boundless as the curiosity of scientists.

The result of all this is that sometimes, simple and beautiful questions like “what is brain freeze?” don’t get as much attention as other questions that might seem more pressing.

Instead, these beautiful questions fall away, like a scoop of ice cream loosened by an enthusiastic but careless scientist who may not have the time or resources to investigate brain freeze in the lab, but excitedly discusses it with a friend over an ice cream anyway. My advice? Stay curious. Eat ice cream. Slowly.

Read more: Curious Kids: If Australia is at the bottom of the world, why are we the right way up?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

Read more: Curious Kids: If Australia is at the bottom of the world, why are we the right way up?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: what is brain freeze? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-is-brain-freeze-112774

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

Jumping beyond May 18, we know a good deal more about how a Shorten government ministry would look than the shape of a re-elected Morrison government.

A rash of ministers quitting politics at the election has left some significant holes to be filled if the Coalition managed to hang on.

This would provide opportunities for up-and-comers, but it raises a lot of questions about who’d be responsible for what. And that’s leaving aside the need to reshuffle some incompetents.

The loss of cabinet minister Kelly O’Dwyer means we don’t know who’d fill the key portfolio of jobs and industrial relations. Morrison would also be in search of a minister for women, a post held by O’Dwyer. Michaelia Cash second time round perhaps?

Indigenous affairs, which has been the responsibility of Nationals Senate leader, Nigel Scullion, would be vacant, as would human services and digital transformation, the outgoing Michael Keenan’s patch.

Read more: View from The Hill: Shorten presents the ‘case for change’ in sleek launch

Morrison has already nominated Linda Reynolds as defence minister if he wins – she’d replace Christopher Pyne, another retiree.

It was a promise driven by politics – Morrison wanted to promote a woman. When Steve Ciobo, who held defence industry, announced he was quitting, he stepped down from the ministry immediately, unlike most departees, who stayed until the election.

This enabled Morrison to elevate Reynolds from a parliamentary secretary into the defence industry job and cabinet (with the defence portfolio promise for later, if there was a later).

Morrison could then boast a record number of women (seven) for a federal cabinet.

If he wanted to retain that number he’d have to find another woman to replace O’Dwyer. One possibility would be Sussan Ley, now a parliamentary secretary, who previously served in cabinet (but is now fighting for her seat of Farrer against an independent challenger).

In a new Morrison government there would once again be women in both foreign affairs and defence, as was the case when Julie Bishop was foreign minister and Marise Payne defence minister. Payne would stay in her present foreign affairs post.

Pyne’s job of leader of the house, very important in managing tactics, would have to be filled. Maybe Christian Porter? (We can assume, in the event of a government win, it would be likely attorney general Porter and home affairs Minister Peter Dutton would have kept their seats.)

Read more: Up close and personal: Morrison and Shorten get punchy in the second leaders’ debate. Our experts respond.

If the Coalition hung on, presumably Michael McCormack would survive as Nationals leader, and consequently as deputy prime minister, despite the pressure he has been under.

The most obvious elevation to a Morrison cabinet would be Arthur Sinodinos, a one time cabinet minister who has only recently returned to parliament after a long illness.

Reshuffles are always unpredictable but it would be outrageous if environment minister Melissa Price were not moved. In the campaign she had been gagged and kept in the political equivalent of a dark room. One option would be to bring energy and environment together again under one minister.

A question mark is whether Morrison would give a cabinet spot to Tony Abbott (again assuming Abbott survived). Abbott would want defence – but that has been promised.

A notable feature of the campaign is that Morrison has had fewer frontbenchers at his appearances than has Bill Shorten. This is a function of gaps, poor performers, and the difficult fights some ministers are having in their seats, which are keeping them tied down.

A Liberal prime minister selects their frontbench team, with the exception of the Nationals, who are chosen by their own leader. The number of spots going to the Nationals depends on the proportion of seats they have. Portfolios are allocated by the PM, with some of those going to Nationals automatically, and others a matter of negotiation.

In Labor the factions get their allocations according to their proportions in the caucus, and choose their people. Shorten would have leeway to secure the odd “captain’s pick” in the factional line up.

If she wasn’t chosen on the right’s factional ticket, there’s no doubt Shorten would want Kristina Keneally in his ministry. She’s had a prominent role as “bus captain” in the campaign, and at press conferences.

The Labor leader chooses the portfolios. Shorten has already announced Pat Dodson would be his minister for Indigenous affairs (now he’s shadow assistant minister).

Read more: VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on candidate troubles – and pre-polling

The reason we know more about a post-election Labor ministry is that most of its occupants are already “shadowing” the jobs they’d hold. Chris Bowen pointed out recently that half of the shadow cabinet had been in the same roles for the past six years.

But while most “shadows” would slot into similar roles in office, there’d be some shuffling at the edges.

For example, who would be put in charge of home affairs? Defence spokesman Richard Marles would be an obvious choice, though he mightn’t want the switch.

Bowen has produced some interesting statistics about how experienced a Labor cabinet would be. If Labor were elected, “we would come into government with the most experienced incoming cabinet in 50 years,”‘ he told the National Press Club.

“When the Hawke government was elected, there were three cabinet ministers that had sat at the cabinet table previously. When the Howard government came to power in 1996 there were also three with prior cabinet experience.

“And with Labor’s victory in 2007, there were just two cabinet members who could draw on their experience sitting around the cabinet table.

“If Labor forms a government 16 out of 21 of us in the cabinet would have served at the cabinet level before.”

– ref. View from The Hill: Lots of ministry spots to fill if Morrison wins, while many Shorten ministers would return to a familiar cabinet room – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-lots-of-ministry-spots-to-fill-if-morrison-wins-while-many-shorten-ministers-would-return-to-a-familiar-cabinet-room-116589

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

The appointment of David Anderson as managing director and editor-in-chief of the ABC is something of a relief.

It is an important early signal of how the new ABC chair, Ita Buttrose, is giving effect to her promise of bringing stability to the ABC after the chaotic events of last September in which the broadcaster lost both its chair, Justin Milne, and managing director Michelle Guthrie.

While nothing is known about the alternative candidates, quite a bit is known about Anderson.

Read more: Ita Buttrose’s appointment as new ABC chair a promising step in the right direction

He has 30 years’ experience with the ABC. Before being appointed acting managing director after Guthrie’s sudden sacking, he was responsible for all ABC radio music and broadcast television networks and for its on-demand products and services.

He seems to be well-regarded inside the organisation. The director of news, Gaven Morris, tweeted “order restored”. The comedian Shaun Micallef posted a YouTube video clip from one of his sketches, the making of which required human ballast to tilt the set on an angle. Anderson, he said, came down from his office and lent his heft to the task.

It can be safely anticipated that the ABC’s critics will see in this a cosy insiders’ choice designed to ensure the organisation remains self-referential in outlook and impervious to conservative influences.

It will be entertaining, in a droll kind of way, to see if epithets such as “the ABC collective”, “Trotskyite” and “sheltered workshop” get another run as they did when Russell Balding replaced Jonathan Shier after the latter’s chaotic reign came to an abrupt end in 2001.

Anderson’s appointment has many echoes of Balding’s. Balding too was an insider – he had been general manager of finance. He too was appointed following a chaotic reign and abrupt departure. He, too, was seen as a safe pair of hands who would restore stability, as indeed he did.

Like Balding, Anderson also inherits an ABC facing acute financial pressures and a recent history of hostility from the federal government.

However, a structural problem that was central to the way the Milne-Guthrie debacle played out is yet to be fixed.

That problem is the combining of the roles of managing director and editor-in-chief in the one person. Guthrie was hopelessly ill-suited by experience and inclination to be editor-in-chief. Anderson, whatever his other qualities, has no journalistic experience either.

Read more: ABC inquiry finds board knew of trouble between Milne and Guthrie, but did nothing

Mark Scott, who was editor-in-chief at the then Fairfax newspapers before being appointed managing director of the ABC, was exceptionally well qualified for both jobs. He has been reported as saying the chief executive of the broadcaster needs to embrace the editor-in-chief role. Scott said:

The chief executive is responsible for everything that goes to air and you cannot have a structure where finally the chief executive is not responsible.

While this is true, in most media organisations it is achieved differently. The editor-in-chief answers to the board through the chief executive; the board and chief executive answer to the shareholders – or, in the ABC’s case, to the government.

Moreover, under a structure like that, the editor-in-chief is not a board member and therefore is not a party to board decisions with the associated requirements of board solidarity.

In these two important ways, the editor-in-chief is shielded from becoming compromised, enabling him or her to make news decisions independent of corporate interests. It is called editorial independence and is the cornerstone of good journalism.

Read more: ABC inquiry finds board knew of trouble between Milne and Guthrie, but did nothing

Strong editorial leadership founded on independence liberates editors and journalists at every level to tell stories that matter to the public interest without looking over their shoulders fearful of politically inspired retribution.

There has never been a time in Australia’s modern history when there was a greater need for an editorially robust ABC.

In December 2018, Fairfax newspapers were swallowed up into the Nine entertainment conglomerate, with consequences for their editorial quality that are yet to be seen.

Fairfax controlled about 20% of metropolitan daily newspaper circulation in Australia.

News Corp, which controls about two-thirds of this circulation, has morphed into a hybrid of news service and political propaganda machine, its usefulness as a news provider declining in proportion as its propagandising mission has grown.

Fairfax’s regional newspapers were acquired last week by a former Fairfax journalist and corporate executive, Antony Catalano, along with a financial backer in the form of Thorney Investment Group.

While that provides Australia with some sorely needed diversity in media ownership, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on journalism at the national level.

Without a strong ABC news and current affairs service, the fourth estate of Australia’s democracy would be severely diminished.

The appointment of a new chair and a new managing director means that two of the three salient features of the ABC’s post-Milne landscape are in place.

The third is the composition of the board as a whole. The surviving members came out badly from the majority report of the Senate inquiry into political interference in the ABC, which was published in April.

The report found that the catalogue of events leading up to the sacking of Guthrie and the resignation of Milne “may give rise to the perception that the ABC Board had not been sufficiently active in protecting either the ABC’s independence from political interference or its own integrity”.

What, if anything, Buttrose does about that remains to be seen.

– ref. David Anderson’s appointment as ABC managing director is a relief and will further steady the broadcaster – http://theconversation.com/david-andersons-appointment-as-abc-managing-director-is-a-relief-and-will-further-steady-the-broadcaster-116540

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emil Jeyaratnam, Data + Interactives Editor, The Conversation

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety begins hearings on residential aged care facilities, or nursing homes, in Sydney today.

The standards of nursing homes in Australia have been in the public eye since the Oakden Aged Mental Health Care Service in Adelaide became embroiled in an elder abuse and neglect scandal, sparking reviews, inquiries and investigations across the sector. This was the most prominent of a series of incidents of abuse and negligence that eventually led to the establishment of a royal commission.

So what are the challenges facing nursing homes and why are they under so much strain?

How many Australians use aged care services?

In the 2017-18 financial year, more than 1.2 million Australians accessed some form of aged care service:

Residential care is the most resource-intensive category of aged care, providing higher level care to older Australians with complicated medical needs, those in the last years of life, and people who can no longer live independently in their own homes.

Read more: Don’t wait for a crisis – start planning your aged care now

How old are residents?

A large proportion of aged care residents are 90 and over. This reflects the increasing preference of older Australians to remain in their own homes longer, and only moving into residential care when home care is no longer adequate.

Why aren’t you guaranteed a place?

Australia has a relatively large proportion of older people, with more than 15% of the population aged 65 years or over, which has resulted in strong demand for aged care places.

In 2017-18, almost a quarter of a million Australians (241,723) were approved for residential aged care, but just over 207,000 places were available. This left a shortfall of 34,581 places.

The aged care provision ratio

The supply of home care packages and residential care places is determined using the aged care provision ratio. The ratio will increase from its current target of 113 subsidised care places for every 1,000 people aged 70 and over to 125 places by 2021-22.

Minimum staffing levels

A 2015 survey by Bentley’s Chartered Accountants estimated that residents received an average of 2 hours and 48 minutes of care per day. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation recommends residents receive 4 hours and 18 minutes of care per day.

The aged care industry does not currently have regulation related to minimum staffing levels, with the exception of a small number of publicly owned aged care homes Victoria.

Read more: Want to improve care in nursing homes? Mandate minimum staffing levels

The workforce and skills shortage

The Productivity Commission estimated in 2011 the workforce will need to grow to about 980,000 by 2050 to meet the demand of aged care consumers. (And the population projections this estimate is based on have increased substantially since then, so this number may end up being significantly higher).

But providers are already finding it difficult to adequately staff nursing homes, with 64% of residential care facilities reporting shortages in 2016. And with employee costs representing 70% of the total expenses for residential care providers (an increase from 67% of total expenses in 2015-16), there is concern that residents will not be given proper care.

Residential care providers and their financial viability

There were 210,815 operational residential care places as at June 30 2018, an increase of about 24,500 places in the last five years. Over that time, the number of providers has decreased from 1,034 to 886, mainly due to consolidation.

While profits (before tax) have almost doubled since 2012-13, only 68% of providers reported a net profit in 2016-17 (compared to 69% in 2015-16). A survey of more than 970 residential care facilities found 45% of facilities had negative earnings (before tax) in 2018, an increase from 33% in 2017.

Funding for residential aged care

Residential aged care facilities require government funding as well as resident contributions to operate.

Government contributions accounted for 67.3% (A$12.4 billion) of total provider funding in 2017-18, the majority (89%) of which is made up of the basic care subsidy.

The subsidy is calculated for each resident based on their needs using the aged care funding instrument (ACFI). To care for a resident with high needs the provider will receive a larger subsidy.

– ref. Nearly 2 out of 3 nursing homes are understaffed. These 10 charts explain why aged care is in crisis – http://theconversation.com/nearly-2-out-of-3-nursing-homes-are-understaffed-these-10-charts-explain-why-aged-care-is-in-crisis-114182