Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

Through smirks, jabs and plenty of policy disagreements, Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten took aim at one another in the first leaders’ debate of the 2019 federal election and attempted to provide voters with a sense of how their parties would govern if elected.

The two party leaders grilled one another on their stances on climate change, wage growth, border protection – and even the influence of Clive Palmer on the election. In one of the final questions, they were also prompted to say something nice about one another – and they both managed to find something positive to say.

Here’s what our leading academic experts made of it.

Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

The winner of the first debate between Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten was Australian democracy.

The reason is that two unwritten democratic norms were clearly on display:

• Mutual toleration, which means each side accepts the other as a legitimate rival for power, and

• Forbearance, which means each side recognises that there are restraints on that power.

These are not to be taken for granted in an era when these two norms have broken down in the world’s most powerful democracy, the United States, and are under perilous strain in the United Kingdom over Brexit.

It is a sign that the extreme polarisation that has gripped those two polities has not so far undermined Australian mainstream politics, even though there is hate and divisiveness at the extremes.

That is not to say the leaders’ debate was without spirit. There was plenty of aggression from Morrison and a good deal of mockery of it from Shorten.

But it showed both leaders understand a truism about Australian politics. As Judith Brett puts it in her recent book From Secret Ballot to Democracy Sausage, Australian elections are won and lost in the centre.

The temperature of the leaders’ debate was moderate. Each leader stuck to his party’s perceived policy strengths: Morrison to economic management, lower taxation and border security; Shorten to climate change, health and education.

But it was hardly game-changing.

Leaving aside the fact that 110,000 people were reported to have voted on Monday when pre-polling opened, the debate was screened live at 7pm AEST on Channel 7TWO, which is channel 137 on my set-top box when I finally unearthed it.

And it was replayed, with some audience reaction, on the main Channel 7 service at 9.45pm AEST, which is not exactly prime time.

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

Scott Morrison won the first leaders’ debate hands down. He was clearer and more articulate on all issues, and took the debate up to the opposition leader.

On the economy, Morrison emphasised the importance of building and maintaining a strong economy in order to pay for social programs. Bill Shorten pressed his case for increased Medicare funding, his dental program for pensioners and increased wages for childcare workers.

Two exchanges stood out. When discussing the Fair Work Commission’s decision to cut certain penalty rates for some workers, Morrison said it was important to abide by the decision of the “independent umpire”. Shorten, by contrast, said he would intervene. Morrison, thinking quickly on his feet, pressed for consistency: When should a government intervene? For which workers? Why have the commission if governments interfere?

Shorten was caught flat-footed and resorted to criticising Morrison for voting against overturning the penalty-rates decision eight times – and making hand gestures to that effect.

On climate change, Morrison pressed Shorten on the cost of Labor’s 45% emissions-reduction target. Shorten was evasive, though he did point out that inaction has a cost, as well, and argued persuasively for lowest-cost abatement. However, Shorten missed an easy opportunity to criticise the government for its sharp-elbowed use of so-called “carryover credits” from the Kyoto Protocol period.

Shorten looked like a man under pressure, following the Newspoll today showing his lead narrowing to 51-49.

Morrison, by contrast, was at ease and relished the opportunity to show his command of policy detail – even the opposition’s policies. Unlike Shorten, he knew the cost of a Nissan Leaf and how many pensioners will be affected by Labor’s franking-credit policy.

Shorten stumbled over key figures, the correct name of surgical procedures he plans to fund, and smiled at odd moments – just like Hillary Clinton did in the final US Presidential debate against Donald Trump.

Labor will be hoping for a different election outcome, and a better performance from Shorten in Friday’s second debate.

Join Richard Holden for an online Q&A on Tuesday from 2-3pm AEST (30th April) to discuss the economic issues raised by the leaders’ debate. Post your questions in the comments section below.

Marian Sawer, Emeritus Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition leader Bill Shorten awkwardly perched on moulded plastic chairs putting their pitches to a subdued studio audience did not make for lively viewing.

It reminded me that Australia really should follow comparable democracies like Canada and the UK and have leaders’ debates where all the parliamentary party leaders are represented. There were issues tonight that either the Nationals’ or the Greens’ leaders should have been responding to – whether about preference deals with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation or so-called death taxes.

The content of the “debate” was extraordinarily predictable: the Coalition will provide stronger economic management and border protection and cut taxes; Labor will spend more on schools, hospitals, dental care for pensioners and childcare and do something about climate change.

Morrison said people could trust him because he delivered: as social services minister he had stopped welfare dependency; as immigration minister he had “stopped the boats”. Shorten said there needed to be institutional responses to the loss of trust, such as the federal Integrity Commission that Labor has promised.

The style was also predictable, with Morrison getting in some folksy references to cars and footy, and Shorten presenting himself as more in touch with the lives of working families, their childcare costs and lack of wages growth.

Shorten came across as the more consensual leader, saying he agreed with the government on some issues. He got a round of applause when he praised Morrison for his mental health policies. He did have some digs, though, about preference deals and Clive Palmer’s digital wallpaper being sent around Australia while still not paying his workers.

All in all, not much to see except the government relying on the words “taxes” and “boats” for a Pavlovian response and Labor emphasising its commitment to do something about inequality and the costs of maintaining tax loopholes for the wealthy.

Those who voted today probably knew this already.

– ref. Morrison and Shorten take aim at one another in leaders’ debate: experts respond – http://theconversation.com/morrison-and-shorten-take-aim-at-one-another-in-leaders-debate-experts-respond-116187

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Charlton-Robb, Conservation geneticist and dolphin researcher, Monash University

For women who marry men, in 2019 this question still comes up: will you be taking your husband’s name?

It is no longer a legal requirement nor the default position for Australian women to take their partner’s name. But recent evidence suggests it’s still a common occurrence – the majority of Australian women make this choice.

As professional women, we’re interested in the question of how this decision impacts on identity and career progression.

Read more: Marriage has changed dramatically throughout history, but gender inequalities remain

The average age of women getting married in Australia is now 30, an age when career and professional identity have already been established for many of us. So name choice is not only a personal decision but can carry professional implications.

Does taking on someone else’s name change your sense of self? Professionally speaking, does a new name lessen the impact of your own hard work? What happens if, like 43% of marriages, it doesn’t work out and you are left with a name that no longer reflects your personal status?

As a scientist, your name is your “brand”; it holds your publication record and your scientific reputation. For most male scientists, the main name-related decision will be whether to use full names or initials for publications and other work.

For women, navigating a possible name change with marriage can be complicated, demanding considered and deliberate decision-making. This is true not just for science, but for most professional careers.

Here are our own stories – three unique perspectives – regarding how we worked out name choices through marriage, divorce and career progression.

Married, changed name, now divorced

Kate: As a younger bride, I had no real career established at the time of my wedding, and held the perception that a marriage is forever. I chose to change my name.

That marriage ended in divorce years later. By then I had published a number of scientific papers under my new name, and my career was well established. So I was faced with another name choice: keep and/or adjust my name, or switch back to my maiden name.

I felt the pressure to keep my ex-husband’s name for professional continuity, so decided to tack on a bit of “me” (by adding a hyphen and Robb to my married surname of Charlton). I went on to describe and name a new dolphin species, a legacy which is, and always will be, in part, stamped with my ex-husband’s name.

Some years later, I feel incredibly conflicted every time I am introduced by my ex-husband’s name, as it no longer reflects who I am, personally or professionally.

This has led to name change indecision. How do I, now well established in my career, take on yet another name, one that I can identify with, that reflects who I am now, without jeopardising my professional identity and legacy?

At the end of the day, it may appear trivial to some, but I have to be happy with who I am and with many years in my science career left. I have to be true to myself in needing my own form of name identity back.

I will be making the change: from Dr Kate Charlton-Robb to Dr Kate Robb. It is, after all, the name I identify with and want to be identified as.

Read more: Small and isolated dolphin populations are under threat

Married, later reverted to maiden name

Tara: When I got engaged, I struggled with the concept of changing my name. Just like my partner, I liked my name. It was part of my identity, my origin, and I was proud of it.

There were questions from family members whenever the subject came up. Mainly, what would we call our children, and was I worried about divorce, given my mother had divorced twice? There were never demands, just the feeling of subtle pressure from parents and grandparents to conform to tradition. Eventually I relented and took my husband’s name.

Years later I started a PhD. I would be the author of a huge body of work. Something to be truly proud of, except it bothered me that it wasn’t really going to be in my own name.

Adding to this, I was simultaneously witnessing two close friends going through stressful divorces. Despite being happily married, as a child of divorce it is sometimes hard not to hold lingering fears.

So, with the support of my husband, I commenced the process of changing back to my birth name. Together we faced the bombardment of questions, and answered with patience: “yes, we are still happily married. No, we are not getting divorced”.

Now I have a seven year career in science, and am proud of my achievements in my own name.

Never considered changing name

Valerie: I didn’t change my name when I got married. I am originally from Quebec where women don’t take on their husband’s name. Quebec law states that “in marriage, both spouses retain their respective names” (Civil Code of Quebec). Getting married there carried the expectation that I would keep my name.

My husband is from New Zealand, where either spouse can change their name when getting married. If it had been something important to me, we could have married in New Zealand instead. There was never any expectation from others for me to change my name.

I know women who are divorced and had to change their names back, while others decided to keep their ex-husband’s name as it was how they were known professionally and personally. It all seems very messy.

I didn’t think about rates of divorces or my career when I got married, although now, as I am still establishing my career, I think changing my name would be more difficult. The reality is that I never contemplated changing my name. My name is part of my identity.

Complicated and personal

Changing your last name upon marriage is a complex issue for some women. It’s a issue that can create long term, ongoing considerations.

But we do have choice. Yes, some women do change their name. But others choose to keep their maiden name, or use a hyphenated or merged name. Others keep their maiden name professionally, but take on their husband’s name legally.

We encourage women to consider all of their options, to think not just about the present but also about the future, and above all stay true to their own identity and personal preferences.

– ref. How three scientists navigated the personal and career implications of a name change with marriage – http://theconversation.com/how-three-scientists-navigated-the-personal-and-career-implications-of-a-name-change-with-marriage-114918

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

ANU marketing lecturer Andrew Hughes says this is the first election where the advertising spend and activity has been more focussed on digital.

He told The Conversation that on Monday, the first day of pre-polling, there was a surge in social media ads – the Coalition had over 230 different ads on Facebook while Labor had over 200.

“The sheer volume of ads is probably the highest we’ve ever seen in Australian politics because of the number of ads just on Facebook alone,” he said.

He also spoke about the major parties pivoting between positive and negative ads and the effectiveness of this strategy, personal branding, and the rise of micro-targeting.

Hughes said Clive Palmer’s huge advertising spending spree seemed to be working for him – but it raised the question of the need for caps.

Also, “as that tipping point between traditional and social media goes more in favour of social media […] in the future I believe the conversation will be on how many ads Australians should be exposed to as a quantity, not by dollar value.”

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:

Bianca De Marchi/AAP

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Andrew Hughes on political advertising – and Clive Palmer – http://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-andrew-hughes-on-political-advertising-and-clive-palmer-116183

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Lavender, Lecturer, School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University

Perhaps your GP has recommended you exercise more, or you’ve had a recent health scare. Maybe your family’s been nagging you to get off the couch or you’ve decided yourself that it’s time to lose some weight.

How do you find the motivation, time and resources to get fit, particularly if you haven’t exercised in a while? How do you choose the best type of exercise? And do you need a health check before you start?

Read more: Health Check: how much physical activity is enough in older age?

Overcoming barriers to exercise

Motivation

Understanding the effect a sedentary lifestyle has on your health often hits home only after a serious event such as hearing bad news from your doctor. For some people, that’s often enough motivation to get started.

Surviving a serious illness as a result of an inactive lifestyle, such as a heart attack or stroke, can also be frightening enough to provide a great deal of motivation.

So, if you have not exercised for several years or haven’t exercised before, a it’s a good idea to get a health check with your GP before starting.

Then you need to keep motivated enough to stick with your exercise program. You can track your training or fitness level and set some achievable goals to keep going.

Lack of time

Finding the time and effort to fit exercise into your daily routine is challenging. We know being “time poor” is a common reason for not exercising. And many people such as office workers, vehicle or machine operators have low activity levels at work and don’t feel like exercising after a long day.

Read more: Time scarcity is a slippery slope to inactivity

One way to get around these barriers might be to attend a group exercise session or join a sports club. If you find exercise boring, you can encourage a friend to join you or join an exercise group to make it enjoyable. If you played sport in your youth, that might provide an option.

Having a friend to exercise with or team mates to support you gives a sense of commitment so that you have to be there and will be challenged if you fail to show up.

Resources

You don’t need to join a gym with a lot of fancy equipment to get fit. There are many YouTube videos of safe routines that you can follow and adjust as you get fitter.

This one demonstrates a 15 minute cardio exercise routine that you can do at home.

Many exercises – including squats, push ups and sit ups – don’t need special equipment. And rather than improving muscle strength with weights at the gym, you can fill milk bottles with water instead.

Yes, you’ll huff and puff. But it gets easier

You might be thinking about starting aerobic exercise like the cardio workout above, or walking, jogging, swimming or cycling. All need oxygen to provide energy over several minutes or longer.

When we perform aerobic exercise, our heart rate increases along with our breathing rate and depth. This is because this type of exercise requires oxygen to provide energy to keep going.

Read more: Health Check: what should our maximum heart rate be during exercise?

When we are not used to this type of exercise our body is inefficient at using the oxygen we breathe to generate energy for our skeletal muscles. That’s why when we start an exercise program we huff and puff more, get tired quickly and may not finish the exercise.

But if we keep exercising regularly, our bodies become more efficient at using oxygen and we become better at generating enough energy for our muscles to work.

Over weeks of regular exercise, the number and efficiency of our body’s mini-powerhouses – mitochondria – increase in each cell. This increases the energy they can supply to the muscles, exercising becomes easier and we recover faster from each session.

Read more: Explainer: what are mitochondria and how did we come to have them?

That’s why it’s important to continue and repeat exercise sessions, even after a shaky start or a few set-backs. Yes, it can be a big challenge, but aerobic exercise gets easier over time as the body gets used to providing the energy it needs.

Thinking of yoga or simple stretches? Here’s what to expect

Yoga is a great way to start an exercise program and you can perform it at various levels of intensity. Stretching and other moves improve flexibility and strength. Yoga also emphasises breathing and relaxation through meditation.

Yoga, like other forms of exercise, will be challenging to begin with. But it does get easier over the weeks as your body adapts. So, it is important to be persistent and make the exercise part of your routine with at least three sessions of up to one hour every week.

Read more: The yoga paradox: how yoga can cause pain and treat it

At the start, you may get sore muscles. While this can be uncomfortable, the soreness goes away after about a week. You can reduce this soreness by starting with low intensity and building gradually over the first month.

Once your muscles become used to the new movements, the soreness will be minimal as you progress.

Read more: Health Check: why do my muscles ache the day after exercise?

Watch your joints

We know being overweight or obese has detrimental effects on the heart, bones, joints and other organs including the pancreas, which regulates blood glucose (sugar) levels. Obesity can also affect brain health and is linked to poor cognition.

The good news is that regular exercise can help reduce these negative effects.

But if you are overweight or obese, taking up exercise can place great strain on your joints, particularly the articulating surface, the cartilage surface of bones that contact each other. So hips, knees and ankles can become inflamed and painful.

So it may be best to include exercise that reduces weight bearing, such as exercise in water or using a stationary exercise bike or rowing machine. Once you’ve lost some weight and your cardiovascular function has improved, then you can add more walking or jogging to your exercise program.

The right diet helps power you along

A healthy diet you can maintain in the long term is a very important part of any fitness routine. Not only can it help you lose weight, it can also provide the right type of fuel to power your new exercise program.

Read more: Health Check: what’s the best diet for weight loss?

Getting plenty of fibre from fruit, vegetables and whole grains will help to reduce weight and keep it off while exercising.

Sugar, especially the type found in fizzy drinks and sweets, are low in nutrients and increase the risk of diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. So cut down on refined carbohydrates like some breads and rice, sugary cereals and refined pasta since these include sugars we are trying to avoid and have had their fibre removed. Replace them with oats, carrots or potatoes.

It’s best to avoid fad diets, which tend to be restrictive and difficult to maintain. They can lead to a yo-yo effect where you lose weight only for it to return.

Read more: Food for fitness: is it better to eat before or after exercise?

In a nutshell

Once you’ve decided to start exercising, and had a medical check if needed, start slowly and build your exercise routine up over weeks and months. Make it interesting and enjoyable, perhaps by working out with a friend or group. Set some achievable goals, try to stick to them and don’t give up if you have a set back.

Weight loss and getting fit requires different approaches for different people so find what works for you and make it part of your lifestyle. Increase the intensity and frequency of your exercise gradually from a minimal three times a week for 20 minutes to longer, more intense sessions more often.

– ref. Health Check: how to start exercising if you’re out of shape – http://theconversation.com/health-check-how-to-start-exercising-if-youre-out-of-shape-114437

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Woolaston, Lawyer, Queensland University of Technology

Two small children were hospitalised in recent weeks after being attacked by dingoes on K’gari (Fraser Island).

The latest attack involved a 14-month-old boy who was dragged from his family campervan by dingoes, an incident that could have ended with much more serious consequences than the injuries he sustained.

Fraser Island, famous for its wild dingo population, was renamed K’Gari in 2017. And the number of tourists involved in negative interactions with dingoes appears to be increasing.

Read more: Why do dingoes attack people, and how can we prevent it?

The dingo, a wild dog of the Canis genus, were likely brought to Australia by Asian seafarers around 4,000 years ago.

While dingoes exist in many parts of Australia today, those on K’gari are thought to be “special” because of their genetic purity. This means they have not interbred with wild and domestic dogs to the same extent mainland dingoes have, and so are considered the purest bred dingoes in Australia.

They are legally protected because of this special status, and because they live in a national park and World Heritage Area. Unfortunately, it is precisely this protection and separation from humans that has driven much of the increase in interaction and aggression towards people.

Read more: Like cats and dogs: dingoes can keep feral cats in check

This ongoing human-dingo conflict on K’Gari shows how our laws and management practices can actually increase negative encounters with wildlife when they don’t consider the history, ecology and social circumstances of the conflict area.

Law and policy ‘naturalised’ dingoes

The island’s laws and policies, such as the international World Heritage Convention and the more local Fraser Island Dingo Conservation and Risk Management Strategy, are focused on conserving a particular human idea of “natural wilderness”.

In practice, this means the management policy focuses on “naturalising” the dingo by effectively separating them from people and the sources of food they bring.

But dingoes, although wild animals, have never effectively been naturalised on K’Gari, so our attempts to maintain their “natural” and “wild” status is not entirely accurate.

Dingoes have a long history of being close with Aboriginal people. This human-dingo relationship continued as the island was used for mining and logging, as employees also lived with dingoes. They were fed by people, scavenged scraps from rubbish tips, and fed on leftover fish offal.

It is only in the last few decades we have sought to rewild dingoes by removing all forms of human-sourced food, separating them from human settlement.

Read more: Living blanket, water diviner, wild pet: a cultural history of the dingo

Separating the animals from humans won’t work, however, when more than 400,000 tourists visit K’Gari every year, expecting to see a dingo.

International law and local management prioritise tourism, and a tourism-based economy is certainly preferable to the logging and sand-mining economies that existed before the national park was given World Heritage status in 1992.

But are such large visitor numbers in a relatively small space sustainable?

This question has been asked often, including by the Queensland government in their Great Sandy Region Management Plan.

Yet, there has been no serious consideration given to reducing tourist numbers or increasing fees, despite research suggesting visitors are willing to sacrifice some access for improved environmental outcomes and less crowding.

Such proposals have been specifically rejected by decision-makers within the Dingo Management Plan.

Read more: Dingoes do bark: why most dingo facts you think you know are wrong

So where does that leave us?

We essentially have three options:

1. if we wish to stick with the policy of dingo naturalisation and human separation, we must change our attitudes and values towards dingoes so people maintain an appropriate distance and do not inadvertently feed them. This can happen with education, fines and collaboration. While this is essentially what policies have attempted so far, there has been little effect on overall incident numbers

2. we can take the naturalisation policy to its expected endpoint and completely separate tourists and dingoes. This may mean more fencing, greater fines and fewer annual visitors so rangers can educate and manage all visitors effectively

3. we can drastically reevaluate how we value wildlife and how we place ourselves within the natural world. This would see an enormous overhaul of the regulatory framework, and would also require a deeper understanding of all the causes of conflict, other than just the immediate issue of tourism, habituation and feeding.

In practice, an effective dingo management policy would probably require a combination of all three options to maintain the pristine state of K’Gari, conserve the dingo population and improve human safety.

– ref. Dingoes and humans were once friends. Separating them could be why they attack – http://theconversation.com/dingoes-and-humans-were-once-friends-separating-them-could-be-why-they-attack-115917

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James C. Murphy, PhD Student in Politics & History, Swinburne University of Technology

With taxes and health care emerging as key issues in the upcoming federal election, we’re running a series this week looking at the main issues that swung elections in the past, from agricultural workers’ wages to the Vietnam War.

Some issues electrify Australian voters. They take over elections, crowding out all other factors. We saw it in 2001 with terrorism and in 1954 with communism.

It also happened back in 1929 when Australians went to the polls, focused almost solely on arbitration.

In its early days, Australia pioneered a system of compulsory arbitration — basically a new kind of court to settle disputes between unions and employers and set wages. From the late-1800s, arbitration courts were set up in most of the Australian states, and after Federation, a federal court was established in Canberra. At first, this federal layer was designed only to deal with the most serious, nationwide industrial disputes, but it soon became a full-fledged second layer of arbitration governing all facets of industrial relations.

Most unions and employers rather begrudgingly came to accept arbitration as a kind of compromise – an institution that could make industrial disputes a little more civil and, hopefully, a little less violent.

Read more: Unions have a history of merging – that’s why the new ‘super union’ makes sense

But not all accepted the compromise. In the 1920s, the Coalition government (it was the Nationalist-Country Party Coalition back then, but they are roughly comparable to today’s Liberals and Nationals), led by Prime Minister Stanley Melbourne Bruce, made several attempts to water down the arbitration system, or at least remove one of the layers.

While unions saw the dual-layered system as an important check preventing a pro-business state or federal government from watering down hard-won protections and wages, the government believed it allowed unions to “venue-shop” until they got the result they wanted.

The Coalition also believed that high wages were putting off foreign investors and risked Australia’s economic development. Something had to be done.

The Coalition’s unpopular assault on arbitration

Initially, Bruce tried to solve the problem by asking the states to give up their courts in favour of one centralised system in Canberra. The states, then mostly governed by Labor, refused to hand over their powers to the feds.

Next, Bruce sought to change the Constitution to beef up the Commonwealth’s power to regulate industrial relations. The referendum, brought in 1926, failed to gain a majority of votes or states, with only Queensland and New South Wales voting “yes”.

Frustrated, and alarmed by a growing economic crisis and a slew of bitter strikes, the Coalition government changed direction, attempting to abolish the federal layer of arbitration. In 1929, Bruce introduced the Maritime Industries Bill, a law taking the Commonwealth out of arbitration for most industries, leaving just the state courts.

The bill did not pass. Six MPs, led by former Prime Minister Billy Hughes, dramatically crossed the floor to add an amendment requiring a popular mandate for the law, either through a referendum or a general election. Bruce told the house he considered the bill a matter of confidence and called an early election.

Read more: The state of the union(s): how a perfect storm weakened the workers’ voices

(This “hair trigger” approach to confidence has since fallen out of vogue. Losing on any old bill – or indeed, even a very important one – is no longer treated as a proxy confidence vote. See, for instance, the case of the Medevac Bill passed against the wishes of the Coalition government last year. The government continued in office.)

What happened on election day and why it still resonates today

In the 1929 election, both sides of politics insisted that arbitration was the question being answered by the electorate. Labor, under James Scullin, clearly tapped into the public mood with his argument that arbitration, though imperfect, was the best hope for progress in Australia. The Coalition lost 18 seats and with them, their majority. Scullin took Labor into government for the first time since 1917.

To add insult to injury, Bruce lost his own blue-ribbon seat of Flinders – the first time a sitting Australian prime minister lost his seat.

It would prove a rare event, not occurring again until 2007, when John Howard lost Bennelong. Funnily enough, that election, like 1929, was also largely focused on a conservative government’s fundamental reforms to the industrial relations system.

Only twice in the past century have Australians seen fit to throw a prime minister out of parliament, and both times, it was over proposed reforms to industrial relations. It’s a striking fact — one that might tempt us to question whether there is some deep continuity here. It could speak to the legacy of trade unions, which have made industrial relations a fraught area for governments, even well after the heyday of union power and organisation.

For my money, I’d say this speaks more to the basic attitude to government in Australia — what Laura Tingle, borrowing from linguist Afferbeck Lauder, dubbed “aorta politics” (as in, “they oughta fix x”; “they” being the authorities).

Read more: Cabinet papers 1992-93: the rise and fall of enterprise bargaining agreements

Very much unlike our more libertarian cousins in the US and UK, Australians have historically wanted the state to solve many of their problems. Whether or not it is a good idea, we’ve had the state irrigate farmland, deliver the mail, provide electricity, pay for our health insurance and help us buy our first home. Nowadays, Australians seem to expect it to tackle things like domestic violence and climate change.

And even today, as in 1929, we expect the state to keep the industrial peace – to prevent bosses or unions from going too far in their quest for economic power, to keep things civil.

The point here is not that arbitration or even industrial relations shall forever be a sacred cow in Australian politics. What we learn from 1929 is simply that the Australian voter does not take kindly to our governments trying to drop an issue because it is too hard. We are, it seems, a demanding lot.

– ref. Issues that swung elections: an arbitration dispute and the first ousting of a PM from parliament – http://theconversation.com/issues-that-swung-elections-an-arbitration-dispute-and-the-first-ousting-of-a-pm-from-parliament-115129

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Reza Tajaddini, Senior Lecturer in Finance, Swinburne University of Technology

There is disquiet about the French owners of the luxury brands Luis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Givenchy and Gucci giving a whopping €300 million to the rebuilding of Notre Dame Cathedral. Such largesse, critics say, could be better used for humanitarian causes.

Read more: Why are we so moved by the plight of the Notre Dame?

This is more than a rhetorical point. It is almost certain that some of the profits made by all sellers of luxury goods come from criminals who have siphoned off government funds. Rather than being spent on health, education and other social welfare programs, the money has been spent on luxury goods.

Luxury goods are used to facilitate corrupt transactions and launder dirty money. Using data for 32 high-income and emerging economies, we have found a strong correlation between luxury item expenditure and societal corruption.

Our findings confirm previous research, such as luxury car sales being substantially higher in OECD countries with higher perceived corruption levels.

We are not saying that luxury brands are doing anything criminal. Nonetheless they could make a great gift to the world by pitching in to build the institutional architecture needed to combat corruption.

Corrupt figures

Anecdotal evidence of the connection between corruption and luxury items is easy to find.

Right now, Malaysia’s former prime minister, Najib Razak, is on trial over the looting of billions of dollars from government accounts. Police raided his multiple homes and collected 280 boxes of luxury items estimated to be worth more than US$270 million. This included 12,000 pieces of jewellery worth up to US$220 million, 423 watches worth US$19.3 million and 567 handbags worth more than US$10 million.

Last year, Brazilian customs officials found luxury watches worth an estimated US$15 million in the bags of the entourage of Teodorin Obiang, vice-president of Equatorial Guinea. The son of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, president since 1979, he was convicted of corruption by a French court in 2017.

Swiss authorities seized his fleet of luxury cars, including a Koenigsegg One:1 (one of just seven built, worth US$2 million) in 2016. The same year Dutch authorities seized his US$120 million super-yacht at the request of a Swiss court.

Equatorial Guinea, meanwhile, ranks 141 out of 189 nations on the UN’s Human Development Index.

The list goes on and on. When the Viktor Yanukovych was deposed as Ukrainian president in 2014, for example, his palatial home revealed wealth far in excess of his official income. So too did the home of his attorney-general, Viktor Pshonka, which included a nest of Fabergé eggs.

Calculating the correlation

Our analysis covers all countries for which annual data on luxury spending per capita are obtainable, from 2004 to 2014. The sample includes the major emerging economies (Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa) and major high-income countries (US, Japan and Germany). Collectively the 32 sample countries represent about 85% of the world’s GDP.

We have cross-referenced these data with two corruption measures: the World Bank’s Control of Corruption Index, and Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.

Our calculations make allowances for variables such as relative wealth and spending by tourists. Greater spending on luxury goods is to be expected in richer nations and in international travel hubs such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai. We have also controlled for factors such as inequality, with demand for luxury goods increasing as the income gap widens.

Our results suggest stronger anti-corruption controls reduce luxury spending. More press freedom and information transparency help too, presumably because this increases the chance of corruption being exposed.

Conspicous consumption

In countries where paying bribes to government officials to secure government contracts or operating licences is common practice, luxury goods are often used instead of direct monetary payments. Such “gifts” do not leave a transaction trail so are less likely to result in legal action against corrupt officials.

Another explanation for the link between corruption and luxury spending is that corrupt individuals send signals about their “services” by demonstrating a lavish lifestyle beyond their official source of income. It is a form of conspicuous consumption – buying something not for its intrinsic utility but as a signal to others.

Read more: Why we are willing to pay for mega expensive things

Transparency International notes in its 2017 report Tainted Treasures: Money Laundering Risks in Luxury Markets: “For individuals engaged in corruption schemes, the luxury sector is significantly attractive as a vehicle to launder illicit funds. Luxury goods, super yachts and stately homes located at upmarket addresses can also bestow credibility on the corrupt, providing a sheen of legitimacy to people who benefit from stolen wealth.”

Cleaning up the luxury market

We agree with Transparency International that laws, policies and practices to combat this connection are underdeveloped.

Anti-corruption policies need to include monitoring luxury markets and developing regulations that increase transparency in luxury gifting.

The merits of doing so are demonstrated by anti-corruption efforts in China. In 2012 the Chinese government initiated plans to track corruption by looking at luxury goods ownership. As a result, consumption of luxury goods fell from US$93.48 billion in 2011 to US$73.1 billion in 2014.

There needs to be established global policies. The countries that host the largest luxury markets – China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and Britain – must also do more to ensure sellers of luxury goods follow due diligence and reporting requirements.

In Britain, for example, Transparency International reports that auction houses (such as Sotheby’s and Christie’s) filed just 15 of the total 381,882 suspicious transaction reports made to law enforcement authorities in one year.

In Antwerp, the largest diamond exchange in the world, suspicious transaction reports by precious stones dealers were totally lacking.

Luxury goods dealers have too little motivation to ensure those buying their trinkets and toys are not using money gained corruptly.

If the contribution of France’s luxury empires to rebuild one of Christendom’s most famous churches sparks a conversation about the problems of the luxury goods market and what can be done to to fight corruption, that will be a positive.

More than one French icon is on the line.

– ref. It’s the luxuries that give it away. To fight corruption, follow the goods – http://theconversation.com/its-the-luxuries-that-give-it-away-to-fight-corruption-follow-the-goods-113553

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tanya Latty, Senior Lecturer, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney

You’d think it would be a simple piece of biological accounting – how many distinct species make up life on Earth?

But the answer may come as a bit of a shock.

We simply don’t know.

We know more accurately the number of books in the US Library of Congress than we know even the order or magnitude – millions and billions and so on – of species living on our planet, wrote the Australian-born ecologist Robert May.

Read more: Trapdoor spider species that stay local put themselves at risk

Current estimates for the number of species on Earth range between 5.3 million and 1 trillion.

That’s a massive degree of uncertainty. It’s like getting a bank statement that says you have between $5.30 and $1 million in your account.

So why don’t we know the answer to this fundamental question?

It’s hard to count life

Part of the problem is that we cannot simply count the number of life forms. Many live in inaccessible habitats (such as the deep sea), are too small to see, are hard to find, or live inside other living things.

New species are discovered on almost every dive, says David Attenborough.

So, instead of counting, scientists try to estimate the total number of species by looking for patterns in biodiversity.

In the early 1980s, the American entomologist Terry Erwin famously estimated the number of species on Earth by spraying pesticides into the canopy of tropical rainforest trees in Panama. At least 1,200 species of beetle fell to the ground, of which 163 lived only on a single tree species.

Assuming that each tree species had a similar number of beetles, and given that beetles make up about 40% of insects (the largest animal group), Erwin arrived at a controversial estimate of 30 million species on Earth.

Many scientists believe the 30 million number is far too high. Later estimates arrived at figures under 10 million.

In 2011, scientists used a technique based on patterns in the number of species at each level of biological classification to arrive at a much lower prediction of about 8.7 million species.

All creatures great and very, very small

But most estimates of global biodiversity overlook microorganisms such as bacteria because many of these organisms can only be identified to species level by sequencing their DNA.

As a result the true diversity of microorganisms may have been underestimated.

After compiling and analysing a database of DNA sequences from 5 million microbe species from 35,000 sites around the world, researchers concluded that there are a staggering 1 trillion species on Earth. That’s more species than the estimated number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

But, like previous estimates, this one relies on patterns in biodiversity, and not everyone agrees these should be applied to microorganisms.

It’s not just the microorganisms that have been overlooked in estimates of global biodiversity. We’ve also ignored the many life forms that live inside other life forms.

Most – and possibly all – insect species are the victim of at least one or more species of parasitic wasp. These lay their eggs in or on a host species (think of the movie Aliens, if the aliens had wings). Researchers suggest that the insect group containing wasps may be the largest group of animals on the planet.

What do we mean by species?

A more fundamental problem with counting species comes down to a somewhat philosophical issue: biologists do not agree on what the term “species” actually means.

The well-known biological species concept states that two organisms belong to the same species if they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. But since this concept relies on mating, it cannot be used to define species of asexual organisms such as many microorganisms as well as some reptiles, birds and fish.

It also ignores the fact that many living things we consider separate species can and do interbreed. For example, dogs, coyotes and wolves readily interbreed, yet are usually considered to be separate species.

Other popular species definitions rely on how similar individuals are to one another (if it looks like a duck, it is a duck), their shared evolutionary history, or their shared ecological requirements.

Yet none of these definitions are entirely satisfactory, and none work for all life forms.

There are at least 50 different definitions of a species to choose from. Whether or not a scientist chooses to designate a newly found life form as a new species or not can come down to their philosophical stance about the nature of a species.

The cost of species loss

Our ignorance about the true biodiversity on our planet has real consequence. Each species is a potential treasure trove of solutions to problems including cures for disease, inspirations for new technologies, sources of new materials and providers of key ecosystem services.

Yet we are living in an age of mass extinction with reports of catastrophic insect declines, wide-scale depopulation of our oceans and the loss of more than 50% of wildlife within the span of a single human life.

Our current rate of biodiversity loss means we are almost certainly losing species faster than we are naming them. We are effectively burning a library without knowing the names or the contents of the books we are losing.

So while our estimate of the number of species on the planet remains frustratingly imprecise, the one thing we do know is that we have probably named and described only a tiny percentage of living things.

Read more: Squid team finds high species diversity off Kermadec Islands, part of stalled marine reserve proposal

New species are turning up all the time, at a rate of roughly 18,000 species each year. For example, researchers in Los Angeles found 30 new species of scuttle fly living in urban parks, while researchers also in the US discovered more than 1,400 new species of bacteria living in the belly buttons of university students.

Even if we take the more conservative estimate of 8.7 million species of life on Earth, then we have only described and named about 25% of life forms on the planet. If the 1 trillion figure is correct, then we have done an abysmally poor job, with 99.99% of species still awaiting description.

It’s clear our planet is absolutely teeming with life, even if we cannot yet put a number to the multitudes. The question now is how much of that awe-inspiring diversity we choose to save.

– ref. How many species on Earth? Why that’s a simple question but hard to answer – http://theconversation.com/how-many-species-on-earth-why-thats-a-simple-question-but-hard-to-answer-114909

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Mills, Hon Senior Lecturer, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney

Australians’ enthusiastic uptake of early voting is changing the traditional election campaign in largely unexpected ways. Candidates are spending less time campaigning in the community and more time at pre-polling stations. Parties are announcing their more attractive promises earlier. Party volunteers are being exhausted by long weekday shifts on the hustings. And many voters are casting their votes with incomplete knowledge.

Starting today, hundreds of pre-poll voting centres will open in every electorate around the country for the federal election. They’ll operate on weekdays for the first week, weekdays and Saturday in the second week, and weekdays in the third week running up to May 18. So this federal election will have, in effect, 17 election days – on 16 of those, the campaign will still be in full swing.

There has been little consideration of the implications of allowing voting to run concurrently with campaigning. Our research suggests it is causing substantial changes to the structure and content of campaigning.

Why do we have early voting?

Voters, it seems, like the convenience of early voting and the flexibility of fitting it in around work, travel, family and other commitments. And the queues, theoretically at least, will be shorter.

At the same time, election administrators feel obliged, given compulsory voting, to make it as easy as possible for voters to do their duty. This logic seems unassailable. Tasked with the enormous project of running an election smoothly and accurately, election officials also like how early voting spreads their workload over a longer period.

But after interviewing party officials and candidates about their experience of early voting in the 2017 Western Australian state election and New South Wales byelections, it became clear to us that those actually running for office have a much more nuanced view of this voting innovation.

On one hand, they accept the democratic desirability of early voting. They see, too, that it can make campaigning more efficient. As one Greens party official put it:

The voters come to you, rather than you coming to the voters.

As a result, many candidates now stand at pre-poll centres for the entire period, meeting voters, hoping to impress them in the final moments before they vote. This means they are spending less time in the community, meeting commuters and shoppers and doorknocking residents in their homes.

But there are too many pre-polling centres, and too many voters, for candidates to do the job alone. Parties need an army of volunteers to press how-to-vote cards into the hands of early voters. This in turn requires, in the words of the same Greens official, a “massive logistical operation” involving “a huge volunteering engagement and coordination effort”. Officials and candidates from Labor, Liberals and Nationals agreed with this analysis.

Extending the voting period stretches everyone. The traditional election-day effort has been upgraded to a sustained process of recruitment, mobilisation and training of volunteers who are rostered on to as many shifts as they can offer.

Who benefits most from early voting?

Early voting is not a level playing field. Recruiting and organising volunteers for three weeks is more of a challenge for smaller parties and independents than for the major parties. Larger parties with the luxury of enthusiastic volunteers can use early voting as a means of keeping them engaged for longer. Likewise, incumbent MPs are more available to stand at pre-poll centres all day than, say, a minor party candidate with a job and other non-campaign commitments.

Our research also revealed other important campaign changes. Early voting means early policy announcements. Parties, we were told, all want to “get our policies out” before pre-polling starts. In WA (and in the more recent NSW state election), both the Liberals and Labor held their policy launches on the Sunday before early voting opened.

Fine. But parties still hold back on providing the nitty-gritty of costings until late in the campaign. This may amount to releasing unpopular revenue measures in the final days of campaigning, and then claiming a mandate for them if they win. So early voters almost certainly cast their vote with incomplete knowledge of what the parties and candidates are offering. Gaffes and scandals late in the campaign may also become less electorally damaging.

And there are no democracy sausages at the pre-poll centres; early voting is less a celebration of democracy than a queue-avoiding chore.

In previous federal elections, pre-polling has run for nearly three weeks. In NSW and Victorian state elections, there are just two weeks of pre-polling. In WA, there were three full weeks.

How much time is enough to promote electoral participation without exhausting the parties and subverting the very concept of a campaign? Is 17 election days too many?

Our respondents in WA all felt three weeks was too long. Submissions to the federal parliamentary committee reviewing the 2016 federal election expressed similar views. Voices for Indi – the campaign organisation behind independent Cathy McGowan – suggested one week would be enough.

On the other hand, Unions NSW – whose members have become prominent campaigners in recent election campaigns, especially on industrial relations – argued in its submission that pre-polling plays a crucial role in breaking down barriers to electoral participation by shift and weekend workers and those with a disability. It argued that proposals to “remove or limit” pre-polling could be motivated by political parties “more concerned with their ability to staff pre-poll booths than the accessibility of the electoral system for all voters”.

The committee recommended pre-polling be “restricted” to no more than two weeks.

But the Coalition government rejected that recommendation. It took the side of the union movement rather than the political parties when it legislated late last year for a three-week period for pre-polling.

This means that, for the time being at least, candidates and campaign volunteers will spend long hours trying to buttonhole those who choose to vote before election day. Let’s hope someone buys them a democracy sausage or two along the way.

– ref. Three weeks of early voting has a significant effect on democracy. Here’s why – http://theconversation.com/three-weeks-of-early-voting-has-a-significant-effect-on-democracy-heres-why-115909

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lee, Associate Professor of History , UNSW

With taxes and health care emerging as key issues in the upcoming federal election, we’re running a series this week looking at the main issues that swung elections in the past, from agricultural workers’ wages to the Vietnam War.

In the 1949 federal election, a Liberal-Country Party Coalition led by Robert Menzies defeated the Australian Labor Party, ending Ben Chifley’s four years as prime minister. Menzies also dashed expectations that Labor had established itself as the “natural party of government” following decisive victories in 1943 and 1946.

Prior to the 1949 election, Labor had led Australia successfully through the second world war. The popular mood was solidly behind its agenda of full employment and social welfare.

Read more: Australian politics explainer: Robert Menzies and the birth of the Liberal-National coalition

The Chifley government only began to encounter troubled waters in 1947. Its bid to nationalise the private trading banks swung popular opinion behind the Liberal Party. But after the High Court’s invalidation of bank nationalisation, the fortunes of the Labor Party revived. A Gallup poll in April 1949 showed a narrow lead for Labor and presaged a tight contest at the end of the year.

Historians have tended to attribute Menzies’ eventual victory to issues like bank nationalisation and the differences between the major parties over how to handle the Australian Communist Party. While these were undoubtedly factors in the election, the decisive issue was something else: petrol rationing.

Petrol rationing and the ‘sterling area’

In the 1940s, Australia was a loyal member of the British Commonwealth, as well as of a monetary and trading group known as the “sterling area”. Australia and other members of the group pooled their external reserves in London and rationed “hard currencies” like the American dollar. The sterling area was a system that helped British Commonwealth countries get through the second world war.

After the war, Australia continued to import most of its goods from Britain, with the exception of essential items such as petrol and news print. Petroleum, sourced overwhelmingly from US producers, could only be purchased with dollars. But Australians could not secure enough dollars to meet all their petrol needs. This meant that Canberra had to go to the British Treasury every year to ask for extra dollars – a situation that soon became unsustainable.

Britain was virtually bankrupted by the second world war. In an effort to avert a financial crisis, British leaders convened a meeting of Commonwealth finance ministers in July 1949 and asked the group to impose restrictions on dollar imports for the common good.

Read more: Liberal Party ads from the 1940s speak today’s political language

To meet the British government’s request, Chifley had to overcome a major hurdle: the High Court’s invalidation of federal petrol rationing regulations. Menzies himself had introduced the rations as a wartime measure in 1940. But in June 1949, the High Court ruled that the rationing of petrol could no longer be justified in peacetime. To work around the court ruling, Chifley had to secure the agreement of the states. Once he did, petrol rationing was again in force across the country.

But by that time, Australians were hooked on petrol. In 1949, about one in every 10 Australians had a car in the garage. When rationing came back into effect, it sparked a national crisis. Motorists suddenly found it harder to fuel up than at any time during the war.

The 1949 election and its consequences

Following an electoral redistribution in 1948, the size of the House of Representatives had increased from 74 to 121 seats. A September 1949 Gallup poll estimated the Chifley government still had enough electoral fat to withstand a 3% swing against it in the enlarged House.

It was not enough. In the campaign speeches in November 1949, the Chifley government stood on its record. Menzies, meanwhile, pledged to do away with petrol rationing, in part by drawing on defence oil reserves held in Australia.

This bold, some might say reckless, move by Menzies was precipitated by Arthur Fadden, leader of the Country Party, who had earlier promised in his own campaign speech to eliminate petrol rationing. Fadden would later write:

I am inclined to think that petrol rationing was the rock on which the government finally foundered.

Opinion polls taken after the election confirmed Fadden’s assessment. The Coalition swung 6.61% of the popular vote to its side. Of the voters who switched allegiances, 60% said they considered petrol rationing when casting their votes. At the election on December 10, Menzies’ Coalition won 74 seats to the ALP’s 47 – a sizeable majority.

Read more: Menzies, a failure by today’s rules, ran a budget to build the nation

After the Coalition victory, Menzies followed through on his campaign promise and brought an end to petrol rationing. And the economy began to look up. The Korean War ushered in a boom in the early 1950s. A massive increase in Australian wool exports, as well as other raw materials from British Commonwealth countries, helped bring about a revival in the fortunes of the sterling area.

So, the gamble by Menzies and Fadden on petrol rationing proved lucky. Far from confirming the ALP as the “natural party of government”, as would be the case in New South Wales from 1941 to 1965, the 1949 election actually began a period of more than two decades of Liberal-Country Party rule.

– ref. Issues that swung elections: Petrol shortages and the dawn of the Menzies era – http://theconversation.com/issues-that-swung-elections-petrol-shortages-and-the-dawn-of-the-menzies-era-115130

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Siew Lim, NHMRC Early Career Fellow/ Monash Health dietitian, Monash University

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are more likely to be overweight or obese and their symptoms worsen the heavier they are.

What causes this weight gain? How can losing weight help? And how can women shed the extra kilos to improve what they describe as distressing symptoms?

Read more: Explainer: what is polycystic ovary syndrome?

PCOS is the most common hormonal disease in women of childbearing age. Symptoms include irregular periods, or signs of high male hormone levels, such as excessive hair growth or severe acne.

Women find it distressing to deal with these symptoms as they feel their feminine identity is challenged. They also report a lack of support from health professionals and peers, and worry about long-term risks, such as developing type 2 diabetes.

Women with PCOS are two to three times more likely to be overweight or obese (having a body-mass index of 25 kg/m² and above) compared to women without the condition. And they gain more weight a year (260g more) than women without PCOS of the same age. Many women with PCOS also have trouble losing weight or keeping it off.

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

Does weight gain make PCOS symptoms worse?

Heavier women with PCOS tend to have worse symptoms. The question is whether gaining weight worsens symptoms or PCOS itself causes women to gain weight.

To prove gaining weight worsens PCOS symptoms, we need studies in which women are made to gain weight and their symptoms monitored for changes. We doubt if such a study has been done because of ethical issues relating to the potential harm to participants. That’s not to mention the challenges in recruiting women for a study where they would gain weight. So we need to look for other forms of evidence.

An observational study in Finland found an increase in BMI in women from the age of 14 to 31 was associated with greater likelihood of having irregular periods, excessive hair growth or being diagnosed with PCOS.

Read more: In defence of observational science: randomised experiments aren’t the only way to the truth

And when women with PCOS lost weight through lifestyle changes such as eating less or increasing physical activity, a Cochrane review showed a reduction in male hormones and excess hair growth.

Given the above evidence, we could conclude that weight gain is likely to make PCOS symptoms worse.

Does PCOS cause weight gain or stop you losing weight?

Many women with PCOS say they find it very hard to lose weight, but we don’t fully understand why that is.

Women with PCOS have the same metabolic rates as women without PCOS. They eat a few more calories (about 200 kilojoules a day, or the equivalent of one cube of cheese) than women without PCOS. This could lead to putting on an extra 2-3kg over a year.

Women with PCOS may have different levels of hormones that control appetite, and the high levels of male hormones could increase cravings for high-fat foods.

But when provided with similar levels of support, women with and without PCOS lose the same amount of weight.

Looking beyond PCOS, all women of childbearing age seem to put on small but persistent amounts of weight. Women, on average, gain up to 600g a year from the age of 18. Women who are married or partnered, start work or have children are more likely to gain weight.

The reasons women gain weight could relate to challenges maintaining a healthy lifestyle due to lack of time, energy, motivation and supporting family and friends.

These reasons tend to be similar for women with and without PCOS. However, women with PCOS may face additional challenges as they describe ongoing stress living with PCOS symptoms such as unpredictable periods.

Read more: How to choose the right contraceptive pill for you

Women with PCOS also have higher levels of anxiety and depression and lower quality of life, all of which may compromise their ability to adopt a healthy lifestyle.

Recent focus groups we conducted revealed women with PCOS reported “a lifetime of yo-yo dieting” with repeated cycles of weight loss followed by weight regain. Often these cycles result in an overall weight gain over the years.

What should I do if I have PCOS?

Instead of going on unsustainable diets, which could lead to weight cycling and a sense of defeat, aim for small (and therefore sustainable) changes in diet and exercise.

Find something you enjoy. Set yourself the overarching goal to maintain your weight and improve your health, whatever that is now.

Keeping track of your weight by weighing yourself regularly (say, once a week) can help. If you have regular medical appointments, having your doctor monitor your weight changes between visits can also help you maintain your weight.

If you are 25 years old now, simply holding on to your current weight would be equivalent to permanently losing more than 20kg when you are 50. We know that is next to impossible. Staying the same weight is a far more achievable goal, and just as beneficial.

– ref. Weight loss improves polycystic ovary symptoms. But don’t wait until middle age – start now – http://theconversation.com/weight-loss-improves-polycystic-ovary-symptoms-but-dont-wait-until-middle-age-start-now-113449

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jen Jackson, Education Policy Lead, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

Labor’s proposed A$4 billion reform to the childcare subsidy on Sunday confirms that early childhood is a key policy issue this election. This is on top of Labor’s previous announcement of 15 hours of funded preschool for every Australian three-year-old.

The latest announcement will no doubt be welcomed by families balancing the costs of childcare against the benefits of participation in paid work. In 2015, the Productivity Commission estimated around 165,000 Australian parents would like to work more, but were prevented due to poor accessibility or affordability of suitable childcare.

Read more: Bill Shorten promises $4 billion for child care, benefitting 887,000 families

Under Labor’s proposal, families on incomes up to A$174,000 with children under five would be better off on average by A$26 a week, or A$1,200 a year per child. Most families earning up to A$69,000 would get their childcare free. Currently, they receive a subsidy of 85%. Labor’s proposal would save them up to A$2,100 annually per child.

The current subsidy gradually tapers down as earnings increase. The lowest subsidy available is 20% for the highest-earning families, before it cuts out at A$351,258. Families on incomes above A$174,000, under Labor’s plan, would continue to receive the same level of support as under current arrangements.

The current subsidy was introduced as part of the Coalition’s major childcare reforms (worth A$3.5 billion) in 2018, which included a means-tested subsidy and removal of annual caps. The reforms benefitted an estimated one million lower-income families – but also left around 280,000 families worse off, including families with neither parent in work.

ANU modelling had predicted that while the reforms would benefit low-income families, the activity test would mean families not working or studying would be at risk of missing out.

Read more: Childcare funding changes leave disadvantaged children with fewer hours of early education

This is where early childhood policy gets complicated. Policies can be motivated by different goals. The Coalition reforms were aimed at encouraging parental workforce participation. Labor’s proposal for the childcare subsidy seem similarly motivated.

But parents are not the only beneficiaries of childcare subsidies. Quality childcare also benefits children’s learning. Many childcare programs for four-year- olds (and increasingly, three-year-olds), incorporate preschool. For children of all ages, Australian childcare providers must provide a play-based learning program, guided by the national framework.

That’s why childcare and preschool services are all known as early childhood education and care: whenever children are being cared for, they are also learning. Even a nappy change offers opportunities to support children’s learning, as skilled educators use playful, caring interactions to help young children develop skills like communication, trust and well-being.

Educators can also help families recognise these opportunities, so learning continues at home. Children in low-income households often have fewer opportunities to learn, due to factors such as stress and limited resources for investment.

By supporting access to quality early childhood services, governments can help families learn everyday ways to enhance their children’s learning.

Read more: Both major parties are finally talking about the importance of preschool – here’s why it matters

To maximise benefits for children, all early childhood services need skilled, professional staff. Labor’s promised wage increase of 20% over eight years for early childhood educators addresses an issue that has been in the too-hard basket for too long.

Research has shown many Australian early childhood educators are paid so little they are financially dependent on others in their households — ironically while enabling financial independence for other working women.

Low wages place downward pressure on the quality of early childhood programs. Educators’ qualifications are lowest in low-income communities, where families cannot afford to meet the costs of higher wages. Government subsidies can help to break the link between educators’ wages and families’ ability to pay fees, so the best educators can reach the children who most need them.

Of course, the devil is in the detail when it comes to policy implementation. Labor has not specified how the wage increases will be delivered, instead committing to further consultation with the sector. Big questions remain about how government subsidies – to parents or educators – will be absorbed into a sector with for-profit and not-for-profit providers.

Close monitoring of the impact on childcare costs will be essential. Labor’s plan includes asking the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate “excessive” childcare fees. But can support for families be increased without stimulating an increase in fees? Can educators be supported to earn a fair wage, while keeping prices fair for families?

There is much to be gained by engaging with these questions. When parents are working, the economy benefits. When children are learning, everyone benefits, as the impact of early learning lasts throughout school and beyond. Countries like Sweden and Finland show what may be possible when parents’ and children’s needs are prioritised equally.

We owe it to Australia’s children to keep these issues on the election agenda.

– ref. Labor’s childcare plan: parents, children, and educators stand to benefit, but questions remain – http://theconversation.com/labors-childcare-plan-parents-children-and-educators-stand-to-benefit-but-questions-remain-116143

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Zyngier, Adjunct associate professor, Southern Cross University

It’s often claimed private schools outperform public schools. In recent days, a media report revealed the Liberal Party candidate for the Melbourne seat of Macnamara had previously written in support of public funding of private schools. The report said the candidate, Kate Ashmor, wrote a newspaper letter in 2001 in which she said:

I was only able to attend a private school via a heavy subsidy due to the income restraints of my parents, and I firmly believe that I would never have achieved the high VCE score I did if it hadn’t been for my private school education.

But our analysis of MySchool data and Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) results between 2014 and 2018 shows public schools have similar, or even better, VCE results than private schools with similar rankings of socioeconomic status. And these public schools achieve the results with far less funding per student.

Returns on investment

Those who argue in favour of public funding for private schools claim private schools are more efficient and academically outperform public schools.

The conservative side of politics believes there is no equity problem to address in Australian education. The current federal government relies on conservative researchers’ evidence denying any causal link between socioeconomic status and student academic outcomes.

Read more: What the next government needs to do to tackle unfairness in school funding

Our analysis compared the results of 229 private and 278 public schools. Schools with fewer than 20 students at Year 12 were excluded, as were select-entry public schools. The analysis compared both VCE results and school-based data including funding details available from MySchool and individual school websites. The analysis took into account the socioeconomic status of the schools, using the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA).

The ICSEA is a scale that allows a comparison of the levels of educational advantage or disadvantage students bring to their academic studies. The average ICSEA across all Australian schools is 1,000.

In Victoria the average ICSEA is 1,031, while in Tasmania and the Northern Territory the average is less than 1,000. Schools above that figure are deemed more advantaged than those below. The school with the highest ICSEA in Victoria is Presbyterian Ladies’ College in Burwood (1,210).

There are 38 other private schools at the top of the rankings before the first public non-selective school, Princes Hill Secondary (1,156). In Victoria 318 schools are above 1,000, while those below average include only eight non-government schools, either Islamic or Catholic. The lowest ICSEA among these eight is 926 while the lowest public school ICSEA is 876.

What we found

Even excluding select-entry schools, public schools equal or outperform private schools with similar ICSEA rankings. Table 1 (below) shows Victorian schools’ VCE results for similar or “like” private and public schools, their median scores and percentage of 40+ scores, (only 9% of students will get a score on or above 40), total government (federal and state) funding per student as shown on the MySchool website, and Year 12 fees found on individual school websites.

When it comes to Year 12 funding, private schools on average outspend public schools by almost A$8,000 per student to achieve a similar result. The average Year 12 fee in public schools is A$753 compared to A$12,374 in private schools.

Almost 50% of funding is from federal and state funds for independent schools and 80% or more for Catholic schools. The School Resource Standard (SRS) is an estimate of how much funding a school needs to meet the educational needs of its students.

In 2018, the SRS was A$13,764 for secondary students across Australia. More than half of Victorian public schools currently receive less than the SRS.

Socio-economic status and academic achievment

Conservative commentators claim socioeconomic status has little impact on student academic performance. This is contrary to peer-reviewed research.

This analysis of the 2014-2018 VCE results demonstrates school performance is strongly correlated to the socioeconomic index of the school. The higher the ISCEA generally, the better the school performs in VCE. Postcodes “don’t equal destiny”, however, as there are some exceptions in public schools as shown in Table 1.

For example, Narre Warren South P-12 College, with more than 55% of children from non-English-speaking backgrounds and 81% of its enrolment from disadvantaged homes, outperforms most private schools with a median study score of 32 (including 32 for English and 36 for Physics). Almost 11% of its study scores are over 40%.

What about money?

Can we imagine how much better our public schools could be with the extra resources that would be available if governments transferred the A$13.7 billion spent on private schools to their public counterparts?

Spending more money on students and school buildings, well-being centres, international campuses, playing fields, equestrian facilities, rowing sheds, music centres and swimming pools seems to make no difference at all when students have similar social and economic backgrounds.

A new review of research studies shows strong evidence of a positive causal relationship between school funding and student achievement and that certain school resources that cost money have a positive influence on student results. As well, more equitable allocation of funds between schools increases equity in student outcomes.

Spending growth for private schools has outstripped spending growth for public schools over the past decade, according to the Productivity Commission. Annual funding for government schools rose about 23% to A$42 billion, while funding for private schools jumped 42% to A$13 billion.

Read more: FactCheck: does Victoria have Australia’s lowest rate of public school funding?

When all other things are held equal, it seems the only factors that could be making the difference to the VCE results are the teachers and students in public schools who are defying expectations and labels. The best-performing education systems worldwide are those that combine equity with quality. They give all children opportunities for a quality education.

– ref. Public schools actually outperform private schools, and with less money – http://theconversation.com/public-schools-actually-outperform-private-schools-and-with-less-money-113914

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Thompson, Senior Research Fellow, Transport, Health and Urban Design (THUD) Research Hub, University of Melbourne

Globally, road crashes kill 1.3 million people a year and injure nearly 50 million more. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have been identified as a potential solution to this issue if they can learn to identify and avoid situations leading to crashes.

Unlike human drivers, these vehicles won’t get tired, drive drunk, look at their phone, or speed. What’s more, AVs will reduce congestion and pollution, increase access to public transport, be cheaper, improve mobility for people with disabilities, and make transport fun again. Right?

Well, that’s what the brochure says.

Read more: Driverless cars really do have health and safety benefits, if only people knew

Rightly or wrongly, billions of dollars are being poured into autonomous vehicle research and development to pursue this autopia. However, barely any resource or thought is being given to the question of how humans will ultimately respond to the AV fleet. In a city full of autonomous cars, how might our behaviour and use of city streets change?

In one scenario, people could act on the knowledge that these vehicles will stop any time someone chooses to step in front of them, bringing traffic to a halt.

Humans (and animals) will adapt

O⁠n⁠e⁠ ⁠o⁠f⁠ ⁠h⁠u⁠m⁠a⁠n⁠s’⁠ ⁠g⁠r⁠e⁠a⁠t⁠ ⁠s⁠t⁠r⁠e⁠n⁠g⁠t⁠h⁠s⁠⁠ is our⁠ ⁠a⁠d⁠a⁠p⁠t⁠a⁠bility⁠. We quickly ⁠⁠l⁠e⁠a⁠r⁠n⁠ ⁠t⁠o⁠ ⁠m⁠a⁠n⁠i⁠p⁠u⁠l⁠a⁠t⁠e⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠d⁠ ⁠e⁠x⁠p⁠l⁠o⁠i⁠t⁠ ⁠o⁠u⁠r⁠ ⁠e⁠n⁠v⁠i⁠r⁠o⁠n⁠m⁠e⁠n⁠t⁠.⁠ A future road environment saturated with autonomous vehicles will be no different.

⁠F⁠o⁠r ⁠e⁠x⁠a⁠m⁠p⁠l⁠e⁠, think about why you don’t walk out in front of traffic or drive through stop signs. Because other cars could injure or hurt you, right?⁠ ⁠

But autonomous vehicles promise something new. They are being designed to “act flawlessly”.

There are two elements to this: the first is not making mistakes, and the second is compensating for the occasional errors and misjudgements that fallible humans make. Autonomous vehicles promise alignment with Asimov’s First Law of Robotics:

A robot may not injure a human.

Read more: After 75 years, Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics need updating

Now imagine crossing a road or highway in a city saturated by autonomous cars where the threat of being run over disappears. You⁠ ⁠(⁠o⁠r⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠y⁠ ⁠o⁠t⁠h⁠e⁠r⁠ ⁠mildly i⁠n⁠t⁠e⁠l⁠l⁠i⁠g⁠e⁠n⁠t⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠i⁠m⁠a⁠l⁠)⁠ might quickly learn that ⁠⁠oncoming traffic poses no threat at all. Replicated thousands of times across a dense inner city, this could produce gridlock among safety-conscious autonomous vehicles, but virtual freedom of movement for humans – maybe even heralding a return to pedestrian rights of yesteryear.

A simple example of how this might happen comes from game theory. Take two scenarios at an intersection where pedestrians and vehicles negotiate priority to cross first. Each receives known “pay-offs” for behaviour in the context of the other’s action. The higher the comparative pay-off for either party, the more likely the action.

In the left-hand scenario below, the Nash equilibrium (the optimum combined action of both parties) exists in the lower left quadrant where the pedestrian has a small incentive to “stay” to avoid being injured by the manually driven car, and the driver has a strong incentive to “go”.

However, in the scenario on the right, the autonomous vehicles has a desire to act flawlessly and pose no threat to the pedestrian at all. While this might be great for safety, the pedestrian can now adopt a strategy of “go” at all times, forcing the AV to stay put.

Read more: Why autonomous vehicles won’t reduce our dependence on cars in cities

Can this potential problem be overcome?

One solution might be to ⁠p⁠r⁠o⁠g⁠r⁠a⁠m⁠ ⁠⁠a⁠l⁠g⁠o⁠r⁠i⁠t⁠h⁠m⁠s⁠ into vehicles ⁠t⁠h⁠a⁠t⁠ make them ⁠o⁠c⁠c⁠a⁠s⁠i⁠o⁠n⁠a⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠,⁠ ⁠p⁠u⁠r⁠p⁠o⁠s⁠e⁠f⁠u⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠,⁠ ⁠r⁠u⁠n into⁠ ⁠people, animals or other vehicles⁠⁠. Although this would maintain a level of fear and caution in the population, l⁠e⁠g⁠a⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠d⁠ ⁠m⁠o⁠r⁠a⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠⁠ ⁠it is hard to see how this would be ⁠a⁠c⁠c⁠e⁠p⁠t⁠a⁠b⁠l⁠e⁠.

Another option could be infrastructure separating autonomous vehicles from vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. But the cost and reduction in amenity this would create would be enormous. Further, this type of solution could be applied now, negating much of the need for AV software and technology development in the first place.

A final, duplicitous idea is to simply turn off the safety systems that cause so-called “erratic vehicle behaviour” (i.e., slowing down to avoid hitting people). This is reported to have occurred when a self-driving Uber struck and killed a pedestrian in Arizona last year. However, if this is the solution, you then have to ask, “What is the transport problem autonomous vehicles are actually trying to solve?”

Read more: Why driverless vehicles should not be given unchecked access to our cities

It won’t happen overnight

In the scenarios above most of the fleet are autonomous vehicles, and humans adapt to their consistently safe behaviour. However, the complete transition to autonomous vehicles will not occur overnight and might create new crash situations that are, so far, poorly understood.

For example, we are developing simulations of interactions between vulnerable road users and a mixed fleet of autonomous vehicles and human-driven cars. These models show how inconsistencies between the behaviour of manual and autonomous vehicle types could even lead to more crashes during the transition.

The future for AVs under threat?

As AV technology rolls on, and the marketing hype surrounding them continues to draw attention and burn up investment dollars, it should be remembered that humans and animals are still going to behave how we always have by continually adapting and exploiting weaknesses in our environment.

Part of the promise of autonomous vehicles is their proposed safety through deference to human life. But, if the point of transport systems is to enable efficient movement of people and goods for the benefit of society, this strength of AVs might prove to be their ultimate weakness as a viable mass transport mode.

– ref. Nothing to fear? How humans (and other intelligent animals) might ruin the autonomous vehicle utopia – http://theconversation.com/nothing-to-fear-how-humans-and-other-intelligent-animals-might-ruin-the-autonomous-vehicle-utopia-114504

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Expect to hear a lot about tax during the coming leaders’ debates.

Which is why it’s important to get two things straight.

The first is that you can’t argue against a tax by pointing out that it will take money from people.

By all means, use that as an argument against taxes in general. It’s true – taxes take money from people. But to oppose better taxing capital gains or tightening up on dividend imputation refunds because they will take money from people is to leave unexplored the more important question of whether those particular tax measures are better or worse than the alternatives.

You can’t escape that question by just saying that all taxes are bad – that we ought to collect less. For any amount of tax collected, the next most important question is the way in which it is collected.

Low tax and high spending can be the same thing

And the second thing we ought to get straight is that talk about one side of politics being “low tax” and the other being “high tax” tells us next to nothing.

To see this, consider Bill Shorten’s childcare policy announced on Sunday. Labor has promised to spend A$1 billion a year in subsidies to cut the cost of childcare for every family with a combined income of up to $175,000 and to make it free for working families earning up to $69,000.

But what if, instead of subsidies, it had promised to deliver the $1 billion via tax rebates, to be paid to parents on proof of their use of childcare?

The effect would be same, although the method of payment would be more complicated.

Childcare would be just as supported, and just as supported from the public purse, but one policy would be called “big spending”, while the other would be called “low tax”.

Take the quiz

Here’s a quiz: is the Private Health Insurance Rebate a tax break (and counted in the budget as a contribution toward lower taxes and smaller government) or is it a spending measure (and counted in the budget as boosting the size of government)?

What about the Family Tax Benefit? Or the film industry tax rebate or the seniors And Pensioners Tax Offset or the Low Income Tax Offset or the existing Child Care Rebate?

It’s okay. You’re not expected to know. The answer varies from case to case. The point is that it is silly to claim that tax cuts are good and government spending is bad when in many cases each could be easily classified as the other.

The signature measure in the April budget is a case in point. It’s a tax offset of up to $1,080 per person to be paid out with tax returns after July 1. It’ll push billions into the economy, just as the Rudd government’s cash bonuses during the global financial crisis did. But Rudd’s payments were categorised as spending; these payments will be categorised as tax cuts, which means they will keep down the tax-to-GDP ratio.

Which means it is silly to talk about the tax-to-GDP ratio, as the government insists on doing.

That speed limit, where did it come from?

Labor was keen enough to do it while it was in office, boasting in its final budget in 2013 that its tax-to-GDP ratio was lower than in the Howard years, and lower than it had been before the global financial crisis, as if that was an achievement to be proud of. It wasn’t. The ratio was lower than during the mining booms because fewer tax dollars were rolling in, and it was lower than before the financial crisis because the economy was weaker.

The Coalition has hardened the tax-to-GDP ratio into a target. As treasurer, Scott Morrison spoke last year of “a speed limit on taxes in our budgets, that requires that taxes do not grow beyond 23.9% of our economy”.

Why 23.9%? Well, in the Coalition’s first budgets it wasn’t a target at all, merely an operating assumption used by the treasury for long-term forecasting. As it explained in the 2017 budget papers:

A tax-to-GDP “cap” assumption is adopted for technical purposes and does not represent a government policy or target. It is based on the average tax-to-GDP ratio over the period from the introduction of the GST and to just prior to the global financial crisis.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann have begun talking about 23.9% as if it’s a commitment, a pledge, even though even though it would be hard to keep if the economy picked up (and probably unwise to keep), and even though it is fairly meaningless given the ease with which changes in spending can be classified as changes in tax and the other way around.

Treasury makes pretty clear what it thinks about the measure in the back of Budget Paper 1. That’s where it sets out the history of the important budget measures and its forecasts for the future. You won’t find the tax-to-GDP ratio in the first two tables. Instead, it details “revenue to GDP”, which is a much more relevant measure because it includes income from all sources – fees as well as taxes, and income from Future Fund earnings which are revenue too.

Think like treasury

Early in his time as time as shadow treasurer, Labor’s Chris Bowen bought into tax-to-GDP debate, challenging the Coalition to keep the ratio below such and such per cent. He isn’t doing so now.

It’d be wise to ignore talk of the tax-to-GDP ratio in the coming leaders’ debates

Focus instead on what they’re planning to do and how they are planning to pay for it. You’ll get a handle on how to vote.

Read more: It’s the budget cash splash that reaches back in time

– ref. Election tip: 23.9% is a meaningless figure, ignore the tax-to-GDP ratio – http://theconversation.com/election-tip-23-9-is-a-meaningless-figure-ignore-the-tax-to-gdp-ratio-115432

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Camilla Nelson, Associate Professor in Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Women have been sharing personal stories of sexual assault, abuse and harassment for – well – centuries. But in October 2017, when #MeToo went viral, there was a shift in the way these stories were received.

Suddenly, women were listened to with respect – that is, without the usual accompaniment of blame, insult, judgment and scepticism, followed by an unseemly rush to defend #NotAllMen.

#MeToo: Stories from the Australian Movement is an anthology of Australian writing that explores this moment. Edited by Natalie Kon-yu, Christie Nieman, Maggie Scott and Miriam Sved, it includes the voices of 35 Australian women through essays, personal stories, pictures and even poetry.

It attempts to redraw the lines, in the words of the book’s editors, between sexual assault and other forms of behaviour: “The line between ‘a bit of fun’ and harassment.” It does so by refracting these behaviours through the “prism of women’s experiences”.

This is a brave book. It wades into all the difficult areas – veering between bad sex, humiliating youthful experiences, and things that are clearly wrong and criminal.

It tackles the toxic cultural practices that foster an environment in which gendered violence is more likely to occur – the dense web of attitudes that entrench unequal power relations, the treatment of women as objects, the rise of “rape culture”.

As Sarah Firth artfully points out in “Start Where You Are”, a gem of a graphic essay included in this anthology: the cry “smash the patriarchy” carries the unhelpful connotation that “patriarchy” is something that is easily identified and taken down. The accompanying illustration ironically features a character dreaming about taking an axe to a statue of a 17th century Cavalier, with a plaque helpfully labelled “MEN R #1”. Of course, it’s not that easy. This is why change is hard.

The problem of speaking out

In a standout opening essay, Kath Kenny writes about the difficulties faced by women who “choose” to speak out about sexual harassment. She deftly critiques the media’s requirement that each woman speak individually as a victim – and only as a victim.

As Kenny points out, in a world in which women make up less than a quarter of media subjects interviewed or reported on, often featuring as victims when they do, being positioned as a victim means that you’ll never be consulted as an “expert”. And that carries a real cost.

Individualised stories can be dismissed as anomalies, extremes and aberrations. They fail to threaten the social structures that allow abuse to continue. These stories, Kenny argues, “only get us so far”.

Read more: #MeToo has changed the media landscape, but in Australia there is still much to be done

Even where women choose not to speak publicly, they can still be made to “pay”. Take, for example, journalist Ashleigh Raper, who alleged that then-NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley put his hands inside her underpants at a function in 2016. Raper chose not to make a complaint, but when the matter was raised in NSW parliament, the story became subject to intense media scrutiny – it was no longer her own.

Actress Eryn Jean Norvill made a private complaint against Geoffrey Rush to the Sydney Theatre Company, but allegations of his inappropriate behaviour were published by the Daily Telegraph without her involvement. Kenny writes that both women were “outed, mercilessly vilified and accused of inventing malicious lies”.

What many well-publicised #MeToo cases in Australia have in common is that the men involved have sued or threatened to sue for defamation. It’s not much of a leap to conclude that the reputational interests of the cashed up and powerful are better protected by law than those alleging harassment.

This is the problem addressed by Alison Croggon in her “Backgrounder” on the Geoffrey Rush case, which focuses on the ways in which the legal action failed to expose the true nature of power relations in the already highly insecure theatrical profession.

These include, Croggon writes, “disempowering mechanisms of denial, such as the suggestion that harassment isn’t harassment … the notion that it wasn’t serious or that the victim invited it”. And, she adds, “We’ve seen all of these claims at work in the trial”.

Read more: Geoffrey Rush’s victory in his defamation case could have a chilling effect on the #MeToo movement

The ‘double-bind’

This anthology includes outstanding contributions from women of colour. Shakira Hussein writes powerfully about the double-bind that confronts all women of colour who “campaign against sexism in our communities, only to find our words used to stigmatise our collective identity”.

Eugenia Flynn confronts the multiple oppressions that face Indigenous women. She writes, “misogyny and predatory sexual behaviour are all part of the intergenerational trauma passed down and cycled around Indigenous communities”. But when exposed to the “blinding whiteness of Australian media” the pain is made worse, endowed with what Flynn calls an “almost pornographic” quality.

What Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women need, writes Flynn, is “self-determined solutions to the violence created by colonisation”.

Elsewhere, Fleur McDonald paints a horrifying portrait of domestic violence in rural communities, Kerri Sackville takes a despairing look at mid-life dating, Ginger Gorman wades into the world of online misogyny, and Nicole Hayes writes about carving out space in the male dominated world of AFL.

Read more: Not everyone can say #MeToo and we need to tackle the causes of sexual violence

In yet another standout contribution, Greta Parry questions the way wives of men who are “outed” for sexual misconduct are asked to “somehow make amends” for the behaviour of their partners, and come to be defined by that conduct, in ways that men are not.

There’s an uncomfortable sense throughout the book that women will face repercussions for speaking out. Comments sections will undoubtedly fill with people who opine on why it’s difficult to distinguish rape from sex, who allege that a footballer’s career is more important than a young woman’s right to safety, or worry that feminists are trying to stamp out sex, flirting and lacy underwear.

But as “the backlash begins in earnest” speaking out remains necessary because, in the editors’ words, “We can’t rely on men to change the world”.

– ref. Thirty-five voices, one movement: a new book examines #MeToo in Australia – http://theconversation.com/thirty-five-voices-one-movement-a-new-book-examines-metoo-in-australia-116053

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

Ahead of the first pre-pollers voting on Monday – and then switching off from the campaign noise – Labor will dangle more big bait, this time on child care.

Bill Shorten flagged the initiative on Friday, saying that “in the very near future, we’ll be announcing new plans to cut the cost of long day child care. And we will announce … a new national push for pay equity, starting with early childhood educators”.

The policy is both pitching to parents, and forming part of the ALP commitment to finding ways to lift wages, especially for the low paid.

Labor mapped out its early campaign weeks to focus on issues of very specific concern to voters. It started with health, featuring its big cancer package, and moved to wages. It will broaden into cost of living, and building for the future on various policy fronts.

While the ALP has handled the presentation of its issues in a very ordered fashion, the same can’t be said of its approach to one of the campaign’s formalities – the leaders’ debates.

The debate over debates

Shorten gave the impression of being dragged to the two now bedded down – in Perth on Monday (sponsored by the West Australian) and Brisbane on Friday (sponsored by News Corp outlets).

Morrison agitated for more; with Shorten pushed on Friday, Labor proposed a third be hosted by the National Press Club.

Morrison is confident on his feet and feels he has nothing to lose by multiple encounters. Shorten should have set out a debates’ proposal early on, rather than appearing to be on the defensive.

One might have expected the Labor leader to be enthusiastic for debates – he prides himself on all those town hall meetings. But he’s now risk averse and, as election favourite, knows debates potentially hold more pain than gain for him.

More broadly, in recent years leaders’ debates have lost a lot of their significance, falling victim to competitive pressure between media outlets. As has been often argued, we should have a “debates commission” to ensure at least two face offs are run as major set piece occasions, not owned by any media organisation.

The deal that’s “no deal”

Apart from the debate about debates, Friday’s campaign argy bargy centred on the Liberals’ preference deal with Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, due to be announced by Palmer on Monday.

Morrison displays his usual chutzpah over this rather tawdry trade.

On the murky matter of preferences, the Prime Minister would prefer to hide behind the party organisation, an unconvincing line blown apart when he issued his edict about the Liberals putting One Nation behind Labor.

In particularly awkward timing, Morrison was in Townsville – where Palmer’s nickel workers were dudded in 2016 – when he had to field questions about the preference deal.

As one questioner succinctly put it: “Nowhere in the country knows better than Townsville the devastation and how that can be wrought by Clive Palmer. How can you look voters in this city in the eye and say they should direct their preferences to him, especially in the Senate?”

That is a question to which there is no answer that can sound half way good.

Morrison’s message for the locals was “Vote for Phil Thompson, the LNP candidate. That’s where you should put your vote and that’s the vote I’m interested in.”

Never mind that this ignores the point that voters must allocate preferences and the Liberals are saying allocate them in Palmer’s direction.

Morrison insisted there were “no policy deals that were being done with minor parties” in preference talks.

It was really all a matter of Palmer believing “Labor’s tax policy would be devastating for the Australian economy.”

As far as Morrison was concerned, “ I’m interested in forming a government on the other side of this election. I’m going make sure I do everything I possibly can to ensure that we’re able to form that government”.

He was dismissive of a warning from former Western Australian premier Colin Barnett (still stung by his preference deal with One Nation) that preferencing a discredited Palmer could alienate soft voters, as well as the Chinese.

Both sides now

The preference issue seemed easy pickings for Labor – except it had had a dalliance itself with the big man.

Shorten said there had been “no formal negotiations”, but Anthony Albanese unwisely went further.“Not once have we been talking to Clive Palmer about preferences because we understand it’s a recipe for chaos”.

Palmer immediately blew the whistle on that, revealing Queensland senator Anthony Chisholm had put out feelers. Chisholm, as a former Queensland ALP state secretary, would know quite a lot about such things.

It took the gloss off Labor’s attack on a deal it wanted to cast, in the colourful wording of Penny Wong, as “a marriage of convenience between an ad man and a con man”.

– ref. View from The Hill: Palmer flypaper sticky for both sides – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-palmer-flypaper-sticky-for-both-sides-116096

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gavin Mudd, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering, RMIT University

One day before calling the election, the government approved the controversial Yeelirrie uranium mine in the remote wilderness of Western Australia, about 500km north of Kalgoorlie.

The Tjiwarl Traditional Owners have fought any uranium mining on their land for the last 40 years, and the decision by the government wasn’t made public until the day before Anzac Day.

This region is home to several of Australia’s deposits of uranium and not only holds cultural significance as part of the Seven Sisters Dreaming Songline, but also environmental significance.

Read more: An end to endings: how to stop more Australian species going extinct

If the mine goes ahead, groundwater levels would drop by 50cm and wouldn’t fully recover for 200 years. And 2,422 hectares of native vegetation would be cleared.

I visited the site 16 years ago and, like the rest of the Western Australian outback, there’s a wonderful paradox where the land appears barren, but is, in fact, rich with biodiversity.

Native animals living in underground water, called stygofauna, are one such example of remarkable Australian fauna that aren’t obvious at first glance. These animals are under threat of extinction if the Yeelirrie uranium mine goes ahead.

Stygofauna are ecologically fragile

Most stygofauna are very tiny invertebrates, making up species of crustaceans, worms, snails and diving beetles. Some species are well adapted to underground life – they are typically blind, pale white and with long appendages to help them find their way in total darkness.

In 2016, the Western Australian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advised against building the Yeelirrie uranium mine because it would threaten the stygofauna species there, despite the proposed management strategies of Cameco Australia, the mine owner.

Stygofauna are extremely local, having evolved in the site they’re found in. This means individual species aren’t found anywhere else in the world.

EPA chairman Tom Hatton said:

Despite the proponent’s well-considered management strategies, based on current scientific understanding, the EPA concluded that there was too great a chance of a loss of species that are restricted to the impact area.

Yeelirrie has a rich stygofauna habitat, with 73 difference species recorded.

And to get to the uranium deposit, the miners need to dig through the groundwater, a little like pulling the plug in the middle of the bathtub. Stygofauna have adapted to living at different levels of the water, so pulling out the plug could dry out important parts of their habitat.

Stygofauna are also susceptible to any changes in the chemistry of the groundwater. We simply do not know with confidence what mining will do to the groundwater chemistry at Yeelirrie in the long term. Various wastes will be backfilled into former pits, causing uncertainty for the welfare of surrounding stygofauna.

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

The approval conditions suggest that the mine should not be allowed to cause extinction – but if this does happen, nothing can be done to reverse it. And there would be no penalty to Cameco either – which has said it can’t guarantee such a condition can be met.

So are the economic benefits worth wiping out a species?

Short answer: no. But let’s, for a moment, ignore these subterranean animals and look at whether the mine would be beneficial.

Yeelirrie is one of Australia’s largest uranium deposits – and yet it has a low grade of 0.15% (as uranium oxide). This refers to the amount of uranium found in rock. For comparison, the average grade of uranium mines globally is normally 0.1 to 0.4% of uranium oxide (with some higher and others lower).

And Cameco’s Cigar Lake and McArthur River mines in Canada have typically been 15-20% of uranium oxide. Despite such rich ore, McArthur River was uneconomic and closed indefinitely in early 2018.

What’s more, the future of nuclear power is not bright. According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, the number of nuclear reactors under construction around the world is at its lowest point in a decade, as renewable energy increases. The amount of nuclear electricity produced each year is flat. And nuclear’s share of global electricity is constantly falling behind renewables.

Read more: Electric cars can clean up the mining industry – here’s how

But, in any case, we don’t yet know enough about these stygofauna to warrant their extinction. They could, for instance, have untold benefits to medical science, or perhaps have wider environmental and cultural significance.

And, ethically, what right do we have to wipe out a species? They have evolved and survived just like us. At the end of the day, there are much safer, cheaper, more ethical and cleaner ways to generate electricity to boil a kettle.

– ref. It’s not worth wiping out a species for the Yeelirrie uranium mine – http://theconversation.com/its-not-worth-wiping-out-a-species-for-the-yeelirrie-uranium-mine-116059