Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Libby Porter, Professor of Urban Planning, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

The Victorian government has announced it is seeking heritage listing for parts of the Eastern Freeway in Melbourne. We heard this news on Wednesday as we sat under a grandfather tree in solidarity with Djab Wurrung people whose cultural heritage is being threatened by the same government.

A Major Road Projects Victoria proposal to extend the Western Highway will destroy sacred Djab Wurrung trees and places. They have been protecting these trees for more than a year, but faced eviction – from their own Country – by today’s deadline. All this is happening as the government is conducting treaty negotiations across the state.

What kind of world do we live in when freeways are valued as of greater cultural significance than the practice of the oldest living culture in the world? Threatening to evict Djab Wurrung while proposing heritage status for the Eastern Freeway is a surreal perversion of law, heritage and community value.

These matters raise important questions about how cultural heritage value is determined and by whom. They also attest to the continued power of roads and transport infrastructure in a climate-changing world.

Scorning an ancient cultural heritage

The proposal to expand the Western Highway has been around for decades. The on-Country presence of Djab Wurrung people was sparked when it became clear the new duplicated section between Buangor and Ararat would destroy their sacred trees, which include an important directions tree and birthing site.

This is not merely about protecting individual trees – some of which are up to 800 years old. It’s about the way those trees relate to each other, the landscape, Djab Wurrung people and their law, which have been here for thousands of generations.

Victoria supposedly has a legislative system for protecting this Aboriginal heritage. The government asserts that it has followed the “due process” of this system in relation to the Djab Wurrung trees. The fact that Djab Wurrung Elders and leaders have been protesting on site for the past 15 months raises serious questions about what constitutes “due process”.

Many concerns have been raised about a flawed system. At the very least, it has been exposed as a blunt instrument clearly not sensitive enough to cope with these complexities.

Not only is the government unwilling to negotiate on Country in good faith, Djab Wurrung people are being actively silenced and criminalised. One of the leaders, Zellanach Djab Mara, was recently held on remand for 26 days on a charge of driving without a licence, which his supporters saw as a move to “get him off Country”. A magistrate later said Zellanach’s time in custody was too long for a minor offence.

But Djab Wurrung people will not be silenced. More than 500 people arrived at the camp on Wednesday in solidarity. The campaign has gained international media attention and more than 130,000 people have signed a petition.

Celebrating 50 years of freeway culture

Melbourne’s Eastern Freeway certainly has history, a notorious one. Traversing Wurundjeri Country, its construction caused massive destruction of Wurundjeri places and heritage. It also displaced working-class communities in inner Melbourne, triggering one of Australia’s most significant anti-freeway campaigns.

Tony Birch has written eloquently about the scar the Eastern Freeway created psychologically and geographically. The damage included:

[…] obliteration of a vital section of the river at its confluence with the Merri Creek, a once majestic waterway winding its way into the north across Wurundjeri land.

But these are not the histories the government seeks to honour by heritage-listing the Eastern Freeway. These histories are silenced in favour of bridge design. Just like the concurrent attempt at erasing Djab Wurrung heritage. Listing the Eastern Freeway would assert that the destruction such roads create is something we collectively value as heritage.

Heritage in an upside-down world

Both these decisions expose just how upside-down and perverse our way of collectively cherishing place and heritage has become. And both advance a transport system that continues to encourage high-carbon mobility, despite Victoria’s legislated commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

A viable and cheaper route for the Western Highway duplication is available, just as a viable alternative to the Eastern Freeway once existed.

Road safety is vital, certainly. But surely it would be better achieved by reducing freight traffic on roads, rather than enabling everyone to drive faster. Freight rail offers an alternative solution to some of the key issues that advocates of the Western Highway project use to justify it.

It is possible to have highway safety and efficient mobility at the same time as protecting sacred places and actual cultural heritage through genuine processes.

Proposing a freeway for heritage listing is a clear statement of a government willing to cherry-pick what counts as heritage. As Djab Wurrung Traditional Owner and former state MP for Northcote Lidia Thorpe asserts:

The protection of high cultural and natural values must be part of any treaty process, rather than brazenly destroying those values while the treaty process is under way.

A way forward

We call on the Victorian government to immediately establish a respectful dialogue with Djab Wurrung people by accepting their invitation to come to Country and talk with Elders and leaders in good faith. To do so the threat of eviction must be immediately withdrawn. As Zellenach said to us while we were at camp, “no one can effectively negotiate while under duress”.

If the Victorian government is serious about Treaty, this is the opportunity to demonstrate understanding of what respectful recognition of Indigenous sovereignty looks like.

The world is watching.

Marianne (Ria) Jago at the Victorian Women’s Legal Service is a collaborator on this article.

We wrote this article on Djab Wurrung Country at the invitation of Djab Wurrung people to help protect their Country. We pay respects to Djab Wurrung Elders past, present and emerging and the sovereign Aboriginal peoples on whose lands we each live and work.

– ref. What kind of state values a freeway’s heritage above the heritage of our oldest living culture? – http://theconversation.com/what-kind-of-state-values-a-freeways-heritage-above-the-heritage-of-our-oldest-living-culture-122195

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

Former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer, who has died aged 73 of cancer, leaves a political and personal legacy as a man of courage, conviction and congeniality.

The support that Fischer as National Party leader gave was crucial in John Howard’s success in achieving his ground-breaking gun control measure after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

While the issue tested Howard, for Fischer it was extraordinarily tough. Howard recalls: “He never tried to talk me out of it but he made it plain how difficult it was going to be in certain parts of the bush”.

Fischer remained resolute despite the fury of many among his party’s base, where hostility lingered for years.

When Fischer became leader in 1990, with the Coalition in opposition, quite a few observers doubted the party’s choice. (They included this writer; Fischer delighted in recalling that misjudgement.)

He defied the sceptics, managing his party and the Coalition relationship to the benefit of each, despite the challenges, which included not just gun control but the Wik issue, constant sniping from the Queensland part of the party, leadership rumblings, and the electoral threat posed by One Nation.

“The boy from Boree Creek” was born in the Riverina, and educated at Boree Creek Public School and then at Xavier College in Melbourne. He was conscripted in 1966 – subsequently saying his birthday being selected in the ballot proved a “great door opener” – and he served in Vietnam.

His long parliamentary career spanned state and federal politics. In 1971 he entered the NSW parliament; in 1984 he won the federal seat of Farrer.

Grahame Morris (who became Howard’s chief of staff) remembers as a young country reporter covering Fischer’s appearance at a hall in the town of Grong Grong, in his first state campaign. The speech seemed to take forever, because Fischer had a dreadful stutter – which in later years he managed to control, although it left him with an unusual speech pattern.

“That a fellow [who started] with a pronounced stutter became deputy prime minister and an effective communicator is remarkable,” says Morris, a friend of Fischer over decades.

Cabinet colleague Peter Reith said once, “You don’t so much listen to what Tim has to say as imbibe it”.

In the Howard government Fischer was trade minister, a powerful economic bastion for the National party in those days. But his time in office was limited. He stepped down from his party’s leadership (and the ministry) in 1999, largely driven by family factors – Harrison, one of his two young sons, was autistic.

When he went to tell Howard of his decision, the PM tried to talk him out of it. Fischer, feeling he was losing the argument, played his winning card – revealing he had already told a journalist on a VIP flight from New Zealand earlier in the day. He left parliament in 2001.

The citation when Charles Sturt University awarded him an honorary doctorate in 2001 captured much about his personality: “Tim’s life has been about dogged adherence to goals. It has also been about risk-taking, grabbing opportunities and perseverance.”

The highlight of a busy post-politics career was serving as Australia’s first resident ambassador to the Holy See, a post to which he was appointed by Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd.

Among a myriad of interests and activities, including writing several books, Fischer’s special passion was trains, which saw him leading tours at home and abroad and, while at the Vatican, organising the Caritas Express, a steam train trip from the Pope’s platform to Orvieto in Umbria .

Last month Fischer was among those aboard a one-off passenger train, raising money for the Albury Wodonga Cancer Centre trust fund, that travelled to tiny Boree Creek, where a park was named for him. “It’s nice to be going home, on a special train,” he said.

– ref. Tim Fischer – a man of courage and loyalty – dies from cancer – http://theconversation.com/tim-fischer-a-man-of-courage-and-loyalty-dies-from-cancer-122188

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Jensz, Research associate professor, University of Münster

Donald Trump is not the first US President to make an offer of buying Greenland from Denmark – but he might be the last.

Home of some 56,000 people and around 80% covered by ice, Greenland is culturally connected to Europe – but physiographically it is a part of the continent of North America.

The USA has purchased from the icy northern territories before. In 1867, they bought Alaska for US$7.2 million from Russia, who established settlements there in the late eighteenth century.

Then (as now) no local Indigenous people were consulted in the transaction.

A long history of American colonialism

The history of settler colonialism in North America includes numerous land purchases, including with Indigenous peoples, such as the 1737 Walking Purchase which tricked the Delaware Indians out of more than double the amount of land than they expected, purchased only for “goods”.

America has successfully purchased land from other European countries, including over two million square kilometres of North America from France in 1803 in the Louisiana Purchase for US$15 million.

The United States has also purchased Danish colonies before. In 1917, Denmark sold the Danish West Indies (US$25 million) to the United States, which the Americans promptly renamed the United States Virgin Islands. This isn’t even the first time a US president has tried to buy Greenland – President Harry Truman offered to buy it from Denmark in 1946 for $US100 million.

America has also gained territory by force of arms, such as when Spain ceded the Philippines to the USA after the Spanish-American War with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in December 1898. And they have opportunistically annexed territories after they suffered internal political turmoil, such as in the case of the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 in the years after Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown.

A Dano-Norwegian colony

Trump believes he can simply purchase Greenland from Denmark. Put bluntly, this is impossible, although the mistake is perhaps an easy one to make for someone with a colonial era mindset and only a passing familiarity with the region.

For the last two centuries, Greenland has predominately been a Danish colony, and, as the example of Alaska demonstrates, colonies were often sold and exchanged by imperial powers. Truman’s offer in 1946 was when Greenland was a Danish colony.

Leaving aside its Viking past, the colonial period for Greenland began in 1721, when the Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede established a mission and began trading near present-day Nuuk, placing Greenland under joint control of the Dano-Norwegian monarchy. At the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Greenland became a sole colony under Denmark.

It remained a Danish colony until 1953, after a referendum sparked by Danish discomfort with the United Nations’ oversight of the relationship between Denmark and Greenlanders. Greenland was formally incorporated into the Danish Realm as an autonomous territory without consultation with Greenlanders.

The reality was that Greenland was still a colony in all but name.

Striving for recognition

Greenlanders continued striving for political recognition and autonomy from their former colonisers. The Greenland Home Rule Act in 1979 in was a step towards this autonomy, establishing Greenland’s own parliament and further sovereignty.

In 2008, the country hosted a referendum to support or oppose the Greenland Self-Government Act. Passing with 75% of the vote, it declared Greenlanders are a distinct people within the Danish Realm.

Politically, this placed the Greenlandic parliament on an equal basis with the Danish parliament – although this relationship is not always an easy one. Some aspects of Greenland’s politics are still under Danish control, such as foreign policy, security and international agreements.

But under the current laws, Greenlanders have the right to self-determination, and any agreement to purchase Greenland – no matter who made it – would have to be agreed upon by Greenlanders.

‘Greenland is Greenlandic’

Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, has dismissed Trump’s claims that Denmark essentially owns Greenland, stating that “Greenland is Greenlandic.”

Unlike in the Alaskan purchase of the nineteenth century, the agreement of Greenlanders would be essential for any “large real estate deal” that stripped them of their land and sovereignty.

Kim Kilesen, the Prime Minister of Greenland, has empirically stated that Greenland is not for sale. And if it was, he would be the one to ask – not Denmark.

Greenland is not Denmark’s to sell.

– ref. Greenland isn’t Denmark’s to sell: some essential reading for Trump on Colonialism – http://theconversation.com/greenland-isnt-denmarks-to-sell-some-essential-reading-for-trump-on-colonialism-122193

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Prudence Flowers, Lecturer in US History, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University

As the abortion decriminalisation bill gradually makes its way through the NSW parliament, opponents have been increasingly drawing on their long relationship with the right-to-life movement in the United States to lobby against the measure and try to push for more restrictive amendments.

This has been a trend in the anti-abortion movement in Australia for a while now. Activists have adopted some of the most successful elements of the US movement’s rhetoric and tactics in recent years in an effort to influence the debate in Australia.

The Australian public is strongly pro-choice. In a 2018 survey of NSW residents, 73% supported full decriminalisation of abortion. A 2015 poll, also conducted in NSW, indicated that 87% believe a woman should be able to have an abortion, with only 6% opposing abortion in all circumstances.

The Australian right-to-life movement is tiny compared to the US, but their views have an outsized place in the abortion debate because of their vocal political and religious allies.

Less understood is their successful borrowing from the examples and experiences of international right-to-life movements, particularly in the US.

Adopting rhetoric and lobbying techniques

American abortion opponents have long positioned themselves as leaders in a global cause. They pursue both a national and international agenda, seeking to sharply limit access to abortion around the world, with the ultimate aim of banning the procedure.

At an international level, they advance this goal via measures such as the “global gag rule”, which prohibits international NGOs that receive American aid from providing advice, counselling, or information about abortion.

Read more: Here’s why there should be no gestational limits for abortion

Australia is a part of this transnational network. Protest groups that target local abortion clinics, such as Helpers of God’s Precious Infants and 40 Days for Life, are chapters of US organisations. And for decades, even groups without direct ties to the US have hosted prominent American opponents of abortion, seeking to learn from their example.

In 2015, Right to Life Australia made the controversial choice to invite prominent anti-abortion activist Troy Newman of Operation Rescue for a national lecture tour. He ultimately had his visa cancelled and was deported, in part because his writings have questioned why abortion doctors are not executed.

There have been some efforts to foster the polarised and divisive US style of abortion politics here, too. Religious historian Marion Maddox says that under Prime Minister John Howard, conservative politicians tried to import the “family values” rhetoric and policies of the US Republican Party on issues like abortion and gay rights.

As decriminalisation efforts have progressed in Australia, these overseas connections have become quite explicit.

After South Australia Greens MP Tammy Franks introduced a decriminalisation bill in that state’s Legislative Council last year, her staffers received verbally abusive phone calls and threats of rape from Canadian abortion opponents. According to her staff, all members of the Legislative Council were then spammed with over 4,000 right-to-life emails, which they suspected came from the US.

Earlier this year, anti-abortion activists from the US, including the chair of 40 Days for Life, also brought their lobbying efforts directly to Adelaide. They met with several MPs to discuss ways they might assist in the fight against a bill to fully decriminalise abortion in the state.

Late termination of pregnancies

The current decriminalisation debates in Australia have included a new focus on specific measures aimed at partial restrictions on abortions – a strategy that has been very successful in many US states.

In recent weeks, several high-profile politicians, including former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, have erroneously claimed that NSW is making abortion legal up to birth. Liberal MP Peter Dutton and former Liberal candidate Warren Mundine have further suggested that the proposed gestation limit is “too late”.

Read more: After 119 years, NSW is set to decriminalise abortion. Why has reform taken so long?

In reality, the gestation limit in the NSW bill is modelled on legislation passed in Queensland in 2018. It allows abortion up to 22 weeks, and after that with approval from two doctors. This is a lower cut-off than the laws in Victoria and the ACT.

The NSW bill is also more restrictive than the law in comparable Western countries. The gestation limit in Britain is 24 weeks, with access available after that point for reasons of severe foetal anomaly or life-threatening risk to the mother. In the US, Roe v Wade prevents outright bans on abortion before foetal viability (interpreted as 24 to 28 weeks), while Canada has no upper gestation limit.

This focus on “late-term abortions” emerged as a strategy in the US almost three decades ago.

By the early 1990s, American right-to-lifers had failed in their primary goal of overturning Roe v Wade. So, they refocused their energies, seeking first to outlaw a comparatively rare technique they dubbed “partial-birth abortions”. More recently, they have sought to prevent terminations after 20 weeks using the medically contested notion of foetal pain.

Focusing on later terminations allows opponents of abortion to insist that the foetus possesses unique rights and subjectivity that override those of the pregnant person. Further, the gestational point at which an abortion becomes “late” is contested and ever-shifting terrain, allowing for opponents to push for a lower and lower limit.

When discussing these types of terminations, opponents also rely on emotive, inaccurate, and often disturbing language and imagery.

Yet, only 1% to 3% of abortions in Australia occur after 20 weeks, the majority of which are performed for reasons of severe or fatal foetal anomalies.

Sex-selective abortions

In Queensland, South Australia, and NSW, opponents of abortion have also raised the spectre of sex-selective abortions.

This concern also originates from outside Australia. In the 2000s, the US right-to-life movement began framing abortion as a form of discrimination, warning of abortions conducted on the grounds of sex, race, or disability. Eight states subsequently banned sex-selective abortions.

In the 2010s, this approach received further amplification after The Telegraph published a series of articles insisting the practice was rife in the UK and that pro-choice feminists had turned a blind eye to a generation of “lost girls”.

Read more: A concise history of the US abortion debate

In an attempt to appeal to critics in her own party, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has expressed a willingness to ban “gender selection” abortions in NSW, though it appears unlikely the bill’s supporters will agree to an amendment.

Studies in the UK, US, and Australia have found no conclusive evidence that such abortions are occurring.

Rather, these campaigns work to stigmatise and vilify abortion care providers by accusing them of committing gendered acts of violence. And they suggest that medical professionals need to subject certain immigrant communities to more stringent forms of monitoring and surveillance.

The subtle impact of these tactics

Collectively, these more covert right-to-life strategies have been part of a massive erosion of abortion rights in the United States.

In an Australian context, they work in more subtle ways. They prevent abortion being treated as just another type of health care, one of the explicit goals of the current decriminalisation campaigns.

They require doctors to assess and judge a pregnant person to see if they really want an abortion. And they inject uncertainty and attach further stigma to the work performed by abortion care providers.

Unable to wind back the clock on decriminalisation, Australian activists still insist abortion is a problematic and exceptional procedure. And they are drawing from the US right-to-life movement to shape how it is culturally, medically, and legally understood in Australia.

– ref. How the US right-to-life movement is influencing the abortion debate in Australia – http://theconversation.com/how-the-us-right-to-life-movement-is-influencing-the-abortion-debate-in-australia-121974

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Hansen, Chief of Staff, The Conversation

With the advent of online ancestry DNA testing, and advancements in genetic screening for various medical aliments, we’re able to know more than ever about the genes that make us who we are.

But is there a point to knowing we’re 25% Irish? And is there a point to knowing we could one day be struck down with a disease we’re unable to prevent?

We asked five experts if we should consider a DNA test.

Four out of five experts said yes

Here are their detailed responses:

If you have a “yes or no” health question you’d like posed to Five Experts, email your suggestion to: alexandra.hansen@theconversation.edu.au

None of the authors have any interests or affiliations to declare.

– ref. Should I get my DNA tested? We asked five experts – http://theconversation.com/should-i-get-my-dna-tested-we-asked-five-experts-120664

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Galligan, Associate professor, University of Southern Queensland

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au.

How was maths discovered? Who made up the numbers and rules? – Bianca, age 12, Strathfield, Sydney.

We are all born with a brain that understands maths. So are animals, to some extent, but perhaps algebra would be a bit difficult for a giraffe – that is a long stretch.

Throughout history, different cultures have discovered the maths needed for tasks like understanding groups and relationships, sharing food, looking at astronomical and seasonal patterns, and more. There are probably forms of mathematics that were understood by people we don’t even know existed.

Many indigenous cultures worked with different time, measurement, and number ideas suited to their needs and had amazing ways of expressing these ideas. But there are some things that are very common, like counting.

There was an explosion of discovery of mathematics in different cultures at different points in time.

The Greeks didn’t really use algebra the way we do now, but they were amazing with geometry. I am sure you have heard of Pythagoras, but do you know of the woman mathematician Hypatia? She was an amazing teacher and writer skilled at making difficult concepts easy to understand.

Unfortunately, she was killed for her ideas.

Not everyone had the number zero

The Romans were great engineers but they had a terrible number system. It didn’t even have zero.

The number system used in ancient India had zero, but it was known by other very old cultures like the Mayans in Central America and the Babylonians (from ancient Iraq). And ancient Arab mathematicians not only knew about zero but also really spread the idea of algebra after the 9th century (the word comes from a text by a famous mathematician called al-Khwarizmi).

People in the Middle Ages in Europe thought fractions were the hardest maths EVER! One 11th century monk reportedly said:

After spending months working hard and studying, I finally grasped this thing called fractions!

And in the 16th century, people thought negative numbers were pretty evil. They had other names for these numbers, like “absurd” or “defective”.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why do we count to 10?

Numbers and patterns have always been there, waiting to be discovered

There are so many number systems! The ones you know were developed over centuries and we are still making up more now. But much of our maths is based on one system called “base 10”, which works on patterns of one to ten (that probably has its roots in the fact that humans have 10 fingers to count on). It’s also called the decimal system.

But there are lots of other systems, like base 2 (also called the binary system), or base 16 (also called the hexadecimal system).

It sounds complicated but they’re just different ways of organising numbers. Numbers have always been there, waiting to be discovered and so were different ways of organising them.

And over time humans in various cultures have noticed patterns that emerge in numbers, and developed mathematical systems around them.

Breaking the rules

There are plenty of other rules in mathematics, but they are based on recognising patterns and wondering if something works that way all the time. Let’s look at these two equations:

3 x 2 = 6

2 x 3 = 6

You’ve probably learned that it doesn’t matter if you multiply three by two or two by three – you always get six, right? That’s a mathematical “rule” called the “commutative law for multiplication” (“commute” means to move around).

But what if there were some maths worlds where that didn’t happen? Well, there is a certain type of maths, called “matrices”, that was discovered in the 19th century, where you get a different answer, depending on which way you multiply.

Why would anyone want to do that? It turns out that this type of maths is really useful in many different areas, including airline travel and engineering.

You may even end up being a famous mathematician that discovers more maths, creates more rules, or makes up some more names.

About 100 years ago, a mathematician called Edward Kasner was trying to think up a name for a huge number: 1 with one hundred zeros after it. He asked his nine-year-old nephew, Milton Sirotta, who suggested “googol”.

So, Bianca, why not think of a name for a new number? Or look around at some shapes and ask yourself what you might name it?

Read more: Curious Kids: who came up with the first letters?

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

– ref. Curious Kids: how was maths discovered? Who made up the numbers and rules? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-was-maths-discovered-who-made-up-the-numbers-and-rules-121509

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Baumann, Casual Academic, School of Social Sciences & Psychology, Western Sydney University

Many of us do not need to hear any more warnings from the IPCC, David Attenborough or climate activists like Greta Thunberg. We have seen enough to be convinced that limitless economic growth and the globalisation of high-consumption lifestyles have brought our planet’s life-support systems to the brink of collapse.

In response to today’s urgent ecological and social problems, we often hear calls from sustainability advocates about the need to “downshift” away from consumer lifestyles, to practise permaculture and to embrace simpler ways to live. When these movements scale up, the argument goes, we will “degrow” our economies to a sustainable scale.

Read more: Life in a ‘degrowth’ economy, and why you might actually enjoy it

Important though these analyses and perspectives are, they almost always leave something critical out of the conversation. There is a very powerful reason we are currently unable to move toward a simpler and sustainable society: the costs of securing access to land for housing often mean only the relatively affluent can afford such “green lifestyles”.

In response to this problem, we offer some ideas to show how public land could be used for sustainable forms of community-led development.

The property system makes simple living hard

Recognition of the need for system change is growing. But those arguing for high-impact societies to downshift toward cultures of sustainable consumption need to acknowledge a fundamental problem more clearly: simply keeping a roof over our heads can demand an energy-intensive lifestyle and a dependence on market growth.

Why? Having to buy or rent a home in capitalist societies like Australia has huge implications for most of us. It affects what we do for work, how much we work, our need for a car, etc. And, if you can barely afford land or your own home, putting solar panels on the roof, working part-time or growing your own organic food all become very unlikely.

In short, securing the basic need for housing is putting people in more and more debt. This often means any attempt at “dropping out” of market consumerism first involves a whole lot of “dropping in”. The consequences of this reality are anything but simple, local and sustainable.

Read more: The suburbs are the spiritual home of overconsumption. But they also hold the key to a better future

A different type of land and housing opportunity is needed for reasons of sustainability and equity. Central here is the recognition that access to land, just as with air and water, is not a market product. It is a human right and should be recognised as such.

Even discussing land reform in terms of “affordable housing” still frames land as a market commodity. These discussions often rely on notions of charity and welfare to increase access to land when it really should be available as a right.

But in a nation where simply abolishing negative gearing appears to be politically unpalatable, it would be pragmatic, as a first step, to explore less controversial but still effective policy approaches.

Pointers to rethinking how we govern land

There are many conceptions of property, which means we do not simply have to choose between free market capitalism and state socialism. In Singapore, for example, more than 80% of residents live in state-provided housing.

Societies can govern access to land in an infinite variety of ways. Each way distributes or concentrates wealth and power in progressive or regressive ways.

Read more: A century of public housing: lessons from Singapore, where housing is a social, not financial, asset

One policy deserving of attention involves attempting to transcend the “welfare” framing of existing uses of public housing. Already, secure access to public land has empowered some residents to participate in programs such as community food gardens, resources repair/share programs, housing management, maintenance and, in the UK, even housing construction.

In New South Wales, 50,000 public housing residents have converted many hectares of land in social housing areas into gardens growing vegetables, fruit and flowers. In Victoria, more than 20 public housing estates have established community gardens.

If these self-selecting residents could be better supported and validated, their status in society (and how they might conceive of themselves) could move from being regarded as “social dependants” to “pioneers of a new economy”. By showing that access to public land can help with the emergence of local and sustainable community economies, such experiments could be the cultural driver of a broader policy rethink of how we govern land.

For example, more public land could be made available for housing construction collectives, where people participate in building their own homes under the guidance of experts. Australia could seek inspiration from Senegal, where 14,000 ecovillages are being developed.

In governing land we are limited only by our imaginations. Currently, a chronic lack of imagination is being shown. It is time to experiment with new frameworks that can increase access to land and thereby empower more people to explore lifestyles of reduced consumption and increased self-sufficiency.

Read more: Farming the suburbs – why can’t we grow food wherever we want?

The first step is recognising the obstacle

We call on the simple living, permaculture and degrowth movements – and the sustainability movement more generally – to better recognise the obstacle that access to land presents to achieving their goals. More energy and activism should be dedicated to envisioning, campaigning for and experimenting with alternative property and housing arrangements.

Our purpose is not to dismiss the importance of the various downshifting movements. We need as many people as possible pushing against the tide of consumerism and showing that low-impact living can be good living.

These social movements will help create the culture of sufficiency that is needed to support a politics of sustainability. But any such politics must include more empowering and creative land policies.

– ref. Access to land is a barrier to simpler, sustainable living. Public housing could offer a way forward – http://theconversation.com/access-to-land-is-a-barrier-to-simpler-sustainable-living-public-housing-could-offer-a-way-forward-121246

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Borroz, PhD candidate in international business and comparative political economy, University of Auckland

India’s Chandrayaan-2 spacecraft has settled into lunar orbit, ahead of its scheduled Moon landing on September 7. If it succeeds India will join a very select club, now comprising the former Soviet Union, the United States and China.

As with all previous Moon missions, national prestige is a big part of India’s Moon shot. But there are some colder calculations behind it as well. Space is poised to become a much bigger business, and both companies and countries are investing in the technological capability to ensure they reap the earthly rewards.

Last year private investment in space-related technology skyrocketed to US$3.25 billion, according to the London-based Seraphim Capital – a 29% increase on the previous year.

The list of interested governments is also growing. Along with China and India joining the lunar A-list, in the past decade eight countries have founded space agencies – Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

Of prime interest is carving out a piece of the market for making and launching commercial payloads. As much as we already depend on satellites now, this dependence will only grow.

In 2018 382 objects were launched into space. By 2040 it might easily be double that, with companies like Amazon planning “constellations”, composed of thousands of satellites, to provide telecommunication services.

The satellite business is just a start. The next big prize will be technology for “in-situ resource utilisation” – using materials from space for space operations. One example is extracting water from the Moon (which could also be split to provide oxygen and hydrogen-based rocket fuel). NASA’s administrator, Jim Bridenstine, has suggested Australian agencies and companies could play a key role in this.

Read more: Australia: well placed to join the Moon mining race … or is it?

All up, the potential gains from a slice of the space economy are huge. It is estimated the space economy could grow from about US$350 billion now to more than US$1 trillion (and as possibly as much US$2,700 billion) in 2040.

Launch affordability

At the height of its Apollo program to land on the Moon, NASA got more than 4% of the US federal budget. As NASA gears up to return to the Moon and then go to Mars, its budget share is about 0.5%.

In space money has most definitely become an object. But it’s a constraint that’s spurring innovation and opening up economic opportunities.

NASA pulled the pin on its space shuttle program in 2011 when the expected efficiencies of a resusable launch vehicle failed to pan out. Since then it has bought seats on Russian Soyuz rockets to get its astronauts into space. It is now paying SpaceX, the company founded by electric car king Elon Musk, to deliver space cargo.

SpaceX’s stellar trajectory, having entered the business a little more than a decade ago, demonstrates the possibilities for new players.

To get something into orbit using the space shuttle cost about US$54,500 a kilogram. SpaceX says the cost of its Falcon 9 rocket and reuseable Dragon spacecraft is about US$2,700 a kilogram. With costs falling, the space economy is poised to boom.

Read more: How SpaceX lowered costs and reduced barriers to space

Choosing a niche

As the space economy grows, it’s likely different countries will come to occupy different niches. Specialisation will be the key to success, as happens for all industries.

In the hydrocarbon industry, for instance, some countries extract while others process. In the computer industry, some countries design while others manufacture. There will be similar niches in space. Governments’ policies will play a big part in determining which nation fills which niche.

There are three ways to think about niches.

First, function. A country could focus on space mining, for instance, or space observation. It could act as a space communication hub, or specialise in developing space-based weapons.

Luxembourg is an example of functional specialisation. Despite its small size, it punches above its weight in the satellite industry. Another example is Russia, which for now has the monopoly on transporting astronauts to the International Space Station.

Second, value-adding. A national economy can focus on lower or higher value-add processes. In telecommunications, for example, much of the design work is done in the United States, while much of the manufacturing happens in China. Both roles have benefits and drawbacks.

Third, blocs. Global production networks sometimes fragment. One can already see the potential for this happening between the United States and China. If it occurs, other countries must either align with one bloc or remain neutral.

Aligning with a large power ensures patronage, but also dependence. Being between blocs has its risks, but also provides opportunities to gain from each bloc and act as an intermediary.

Read more: The economic reasons why Australia needs a stronger space industry

The first space race, between the Soviet Union and the United States, was singularly driven by political will and government policy. The new space race is more complex, with private players taking the lead in many ways, but government priorities and policy are still crucial. They will determine which countries reach the heights, and which get left behind.

– ref. India has it right: nations either aim for the Moon or get left behind in the space economy – http://theconversation.com/india-has-it-right-nations-either-aim-for-the-moon-or-get-left-behind-in-the-space-economy-121497

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Camellia Webb-Gannon, Lecturer, University of Wollongong

Last weekend, the Indonesian police took 43 West Papuan students into custody for allegedly disrespecting the Indonesian flag during an independence day celebration (an allegation the students deny).

Police stormed the students’ dorm and used teargas to force them out, while bystanders and officers called them “monkeys”, a derogatory term for ethnically Melanesian Papuans.

West Papuans have long been cast by Indonesians as primitive people from the Stone Age, and this racist treatment continues to this day. West Papuan author Filep Karma described the extent of racism against West Papuans in his 2014 book, As If We Are Half-Animal: Indonesia’s Racism in Papua Land, saying he often heard Indonesians call West Papuans monkeys.

This latest episode of discrimination builds on more than five decades of racism, torture, summary executions, land dispossession and cultural denigration of West Papuans by Indonesian security forces.

Read more: Finding a dignified resolution for West Papua

After the students were detained last weekend, riots erupted in the cities of Manokwari and Jayapura. Thousands of people turned out to protest against the mistreatment of the students and, more broadly, the mistreatment of West Papuans by the Indonesian authorities. Many protesters waved the nationalist Morning Star flag, an act punishable by a 15-year jail sentence (Indonesia is not just sensitive about how West Papuans treat the Indonesian flag – the state prohibits them from flying their own.)

In response to the deteriorating security situation, Indonesia has deployed more troops to the region.

Widodo’s promises haven’t changed much

When the politically moderate Indonesian President Joko Widodo came to power in 2014, West Papua observers had high hopes he might broker peace in the region, much the same way the government of his predecessor, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, was able to quell a long-running separatist conflict in Aceh.

However, Widodo has not been capable of controlling the Indonesian military in West Papua. He also doesn’t seem to realise that economic development is not the solution to ending the armed resistance in the region – West Papuan leaders want a political resolution, not an economic one.

Part of Widodo’s development agenda in West Papua has been to commence building a Trans-Papua Highway to facilitate movement of goods and people across the astoundingly rugged terrain in the region.

Read more: Papuans and Jokowi are hostage to Indonesian politics

But in December, West Papuan guerrilla forces attacked Indonesian workers constructing the highway, killing several dozen. There’s deep resentment among West Papuans toward Indonesian migrant workers, who they believe are taking their jobs and land and disrupting Papuan life in the region.

Violence by the Indonesian military and police against West Papuans has also increased during Widodo’s presidency. According to the International Coalition for Papua, a human rights organisation, more than 6,400 people were arrested for political activism in 2015 and 2016. The group has also documented more than 300 victims of torture or maltreatment and 20 victims of extra-judicial killings for those years.

In addition, local journalists continue to face harassment from security forces, while foreign journalists are still denied entry to West Papua. Preventable diseases and malnutrition have also had devastating effects throughout the region.

In 2017, Widodo finally reached out to West Papuans offering dialogue – a process West Papuans had been requesting since at least 2008. However, the leaders of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) decided it was too little, too late.

A new independence referendum

West Papuans are now calling for a UN-supervised referendum on independence from Indonesia.

In 1969, seven years after Indonesia invaded West Papua, the United Nations oversaw a referendum in which West Papuans were to decide on independence or official integration with Indonesia. Indonesia handpicked less than 1% of the Papuan population to vote and threatened them with violence should they make the “wrong” decision.

The result has been a lengthy, often brutal colonial occupation of Papuans and their land.

Independence advocates have the support of at least seven Pacific island nations – as well as a number of MPs in New Zealand – as they pursue the possibility of a new referendum on decolonisation through the United Nations.

Through revived links with global Black Power and Indigenous movements in the Pacific and beyond, as well as the mass connectivity afforded by social media, Papuans are enjoying levels of solidarity from around the world they have never before experienced.

While independence is still unlikely for West Papua, it would be foolish to rule it out. Timor Leste, South Sudan and Kosovo have shown us that right to self-determination is one that is still honoured, even if infrequently.

Read more: All the ingredients for genocide: is West Papua the next East Timor?

Why does West Papua matter?

Why should the world care about this little-known decolonisation movement?

The answer is simple: In the post-Rwandan genocide world, the international community has committed to a moral and political “responsibility to protect” people whose states are unable or unwilling to ensure them safety, or are perpetrating crimes against them.

The United Nations “responsibility to protect” mandate means that UN members are required, under international law, to protect anybody at risk of

genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

It is time the world lives up to its responsibility to demand that state-sanctioned violence against West Papuans stop, no matter how bad relations with Jakarta become. Ultimately, lives are worth more than politics.

– ref. Riots in West Papua: why Indonesia needs to answer for its broken promises – http://theconversation.com/riots-in-west-papua-why-indonesia-needs-to-answer-for-its-broken-promises-122127

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Klein, Professor, UNSW

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has confirmed that Australia will lend military support to protect shipping in the Middle East.

The commitment has been long expected, with Australia sending a frigate, an aircraft and some headquarters staff as part of a US-led coalition in the Strait of Hormuz, amid deepening tensions between the US and Iran.

So what is this conflict about, what is Australia’s involvement, and what are the risks associated with it?

What is the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow body of ocean connecting the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Its width varies, but at its narrowest is 39km. It is the main passage for transporting oil from the Middle East out into the Indian Ocean and beyond; a fifth of the world’s oil is shipped through this strait. This includes 15-16% of crude oil and 25-30% of refined oil that is destined for Australia.

Iran and Oman border the Strait of Hormuz. As the littoral states, they have sovereignty over the waters in the Strait of Hormuz, but that sovereignty is subject to navigational rights enjoyed by all states. Ships from all countries have the right to move continuously and expeditiously through these waters without interference from either of the coastal states.

What is the conflict between Iran and the US about?

The primary concern in relation to the Strait of Hormuz at the moment is interference with commercial shipping. The United States has accused Iran of attacks against tankers and has destroyed an Iranian drone.

In recent weeks, Iran has seized the Stena Impero, a British-flagged commercial tanker, as well as a US drone. It also boarded but released a Liberian-flagged, British-owned vessel. These actions have heightened concerns about navigational rights through the strait and the consequences for global oil supply.

This is all against a backdrop of heightened tension between Iran and the United States, resulting from American sanctions against Iran and its abandonment of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. It is the latest rift in a relationship that has been fraught for decades, punctuated by events like Iran taking over the US embassy and holding hostages in 1979, the United States backing Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, and Iran’s development of a nuclear program in the 1990s.

Shipping has previously been threatened within the Persian Gulf and along the Strait of Hormuz, especially during the Iran-Iraq war. This conflict was also known as the Tanker War because of the threats to commercial ships transporting oil out of the Gulf. It resulted in the United States and other neutral states providing naval escorts and conducting convoys to protect shipping.

What is Australia’s involvement?

Australia has announced it will be joining an “International Maritime Security Construct” that is focused on ensuring the freedom of shipping lanes and commercial navigation.

This international presence is intended to respond to incidents and threats as they occur during passage through the strait. The prime minister has announced that Australia’s involvement is limited in terms of time and resources and emphasised the importance of de-escalation.

A legal difficulty for Australia is that this sort of convoy relies on a doctrine that is associated with the law of naval warfare, and so would usually only apply if there is an armed conflict between states. Australia is instead maintaining the view that its warships are also exercising their navigational rights through the Strait of Hormuz.

The new mission is cast as an enhancement of previous contributions to counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations. However, these operations have been directed at non-state actors, rather than the naval forces of another country. Iran may claim that their presence constitutes an unlawful threat of the use of force.

The previous UK foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, characterised Iran’s actions as “state piracy”. He advocated for “European-led maritime protection mission(s) to support safe passage of both crew and cargo”.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson instead decided to join the US-led mission. In joining this effort, Australia has emphasised the importance of its multilateral nature. This matters when it is recalled that the oil tankers concerned are typically flagged to a wide variety of states, are owned by nationals from other states, might be chartered by companies from different states and are frequently crewed by nationals from diverse states.

As a result, far more countries than just Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have stakes in these issues.

How does it affect the global oil trade?

The prospect of oil tankers being seized in the Strait of Hormuz will likely increase the insurance premiums on shipping. In addition to seizing ships, Iran has threatened to close the strait.

Concerns also exist that Iranian military forces might hinder passage, or might go so far as mining the strait. Any of these scenarios poses a risk to global oil supply and even the prospect of these actions causes a jump in crude oil prices.

What might happen from here?

Ultimately, Iran shares an interest with the United States and other countries in maintaining navigational rights for commercial shipping. So much is evident in Iran’s own response to the British Royal Navy seizing one of its vessels off Gibraltar.

Given that over 90% of the world’s traded goods are carried by ship, every country has a strong reciprocal interest in ensuring freedom of navigation. Iran is using one of the main political tools it has at its disposal to exert pressure in response to current US policies.

Preventing escalation should be the prime concern of all actors and would be the most mutually beneficial outcome.

– ref. Infographic: what is the conflict between the US and Iran about and how is Australia now involved? – http://theconversation.com/infographic-what-is-the-conflict-between-the-us-and-iran-about-and-how-is-australia-now-involved-121490

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melanie J Woodfield, Clinical Psychologist and Health Research Council Foxley Fellow, University of Auckland

Parenting young children is one of the most stressful times in a parent’s life. Toddlers and preschoolers are learning how to independently regulate their emotions. And parents are developing their ability to be both warm and firm – the ideal parenting combination.

It’s no wonder so many parents are uncertain about how to best respond to their child’s challenging behaviour.

Time out is a parenting strategy that is often misunderstood and misused, with a plethora of conflicting information online, often highlighting the potential harms.

Read more: Evidence-based parenting: how to deal with aggression, tantrums and defiance

Yet the evidence shows it can be effective for children aged two to eight years – when used occasionally, calmly, briefly and when the process is pre-planned and understood by both parent and child.

Even UCLA professor of psychiatry Dan Siegel, the author of No Drama Discipline who is widely believed to be anti-time out, supports the technique.

What’s the theory behind time out?

A parent’s attention is everything to a child. Whether this attention involves loving gazes or that glare they get at Grandma’s house, it’s all attention.

Any human behaviour that is reinforced or rewarded will usually increase in frequency. If you wear a particular pair of shoes, and these are admired or commented on by people you respect, you’ll probably wear them again.

Often when a child acts up, parents accidentally reward this by providing more attention: “I told you not to do that! Stop! Come on, you know not to do that to your sister …”

Yet children may receive less attention for “positive” behaviours that warrant praise (“Great sharing with your sister”, “Thanks for asking nicely”).

Time out can turn this pattern of interaction on its head.

How do you do time out?

Time out involves the deliberate, brief and pre-arranged withdrawal of parent attention when the child hasn’t complied with a clear and reasonable instruction.

This withdrawal of attention should have been pre-planned, with the child and parent both knowing what’s happening ahead of time.

Parents need to first make sure their instruction is clear and developmentally appropriate. (“Please put the Lego in the box”). Give the child a chance to comply, perhaps count to five (internally).

Then repeat the instruction, calmly telling the child what the consequence will be. This isn’t a threat, it’s stating what will happen and giving the child another chance to comply – they may not have heard the first time. (“If you don’t put the Lego in the box you will need to go to the time out chair”.)

Give the child another few seconds to comply after this warning. Then, calmly move them to the pre-arranged spot, which can be a chair or a cushion or similar.

Say something clear like, “stay on the chair until I say you can get off”. The time period should be three to five minutes for young children.

When they are reasonably calm, go over and say “you’re sitting quietly, are you ready to put the Lego in the box?”

If yes, they do it and the time out is over – time for re-connection!

If no, “stay on the chair until I say you can get off” and the time out starts again. The parent, not the child, decides when time out finishes.

Parents need a plan for what they’re going to do if the child gets off the chair, such as using the child’s bedroom as a “back up” time out spot. And both parent and child need to have talked about this ahead of time.

Similarly, if the child refuses to go to time out, decide ahead of time on the response. With children under about seven, parents can gently move them to the chair.

Children over about seven need another, hands-off approach such as loss of privileges like screen time until they have completed the time out.

What not to do

If you’re thinking about using time out there are some important traps to avoid and situations where it’s not appropriate:

• don’t use time out for children under two (or those who have a developmental level under this age) – the strongest evidence base is for children two to eight

• don’t threaten time out and fail to follow through – this makes it less effective

• keep things calm, fair and predictable, and limit time outs to three to five minutes. Prolonged time out is not necessary for learning

• try to avoid statements that conflate judgements of the child and their behaviour. What they did (or didn’t do) is not OK, but the child isn’t “bad”. They’re loved and lovable. Statements like “you’re angry, I can’t be with you right now, get out of my sight” aren’t helpful

• don’t overuse time out as a parenting strategy – it should only be used very occasionally. Parents should first opt for strategies that help children understand and work through their feelings, or redirect the child’s attention.

Read more: ‘Making up games is more important than you think’: why Bluey is a font of parenting wisdom

What’s going on with your child?

Children often push back when a limit is set. If they’re calmly told to sit on a time out chair, for example, it’s unlikely they’ll pleasantly thank their parent for the fair and reasonable consequence.

Instead, they’ll protest. Shouting, threatening, pleading (“but I was going to do it!”) and defiance are all possibilities.

It’s important to remain silent, even if what they say while they’re on the chair is rude, hurtful or humorous – again, your attention is likely to reinforce this, and it will escalate.

Don’t enter into any discussion about how fair or unfair the consequence was. The child needs to know ahead of time that the parent is going to stay silent until the time out is finished.

Read more: Reward or punishment: finding the best match for your child’s personality

But once it’s over, have all the discussion in the world. You might say something like, “That felt really unfair to you – you wanted to finish the Lego and I asked you to clean up”.

This can serve several functions: the child feels understood by their parent, it validates their feelings (though not their actions), and models how to calmly articulate and express when something feels unfair.

It also invites the child to draw close for a cuddle or a time of closeness, and this is important after a time out. Learning happens when children are calm.

Some parents need extra help

Most children show age-appropriate (and developmentally normal) defiance. But some children may have long-running challenging behaviour that’s impacting on their own safety, or the family’s well-being.

This may be due to the child’s developmental needs, temperament, experiences, or complex factors within their relationships with loved ones. Or perhaps their parent or caregiver is themselves experiencing depression, anxiety, or another factor that makes parenting more challenging.

In these situations, parents may need need the support of a professional or a structured parenting program such as Incredible Years, Triple P or Parent-Child Interaction Therapy. Reassuringly, my recent study suggests even where parents have a significant mental health issues, parent training programs can remain effective.

Parents and caregivers aren’t robots, rationally computing the best strategy to use in the moment and calmly dispensing a technique. How they think and feel – both generally and in the moment – impacts on their parenting decisions and effectiveness.

Thankfully, we don’t need to aim for perfection. We just need to be good enough.

Read more: Stop worrying about screen ‘time’. It’s your child’s screen experience that matters

– ref. Time out shouldn’t be your go-to parenting tool but can be useful if it’s well planned – http://theconversation.com/time-out-shouldnt-be-your-go-to-parenting-tool-but-can-be-useful-if-its-well-planned-110700

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

Australia will commit a frigate, an aircraft and some headquarters staff to an American-led freedom of navigation operation in the Middle East.

Scott Morrison, announcing the long-expected commitment at a Canberra news conference on Wednesday, stressed this was an international mission, but so far the United Kingdom is the only other country to have signed up.

Under questioning, the Chief of the Australian Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, said the operation would be United States-led. But Campbell avoided spelling out in detail the rules of engagement in the event of being involved in an incident, other than referring to legal obligations.

Iran has seized ships in recent months, amid escalating tensions.

This week, an Iranian oil tanker was released after being detained by the British overseas territory of Gibraltar on suspicion of taking oil to Syria. The US tried unsuccessfully to have Gibraltar extend the vessel’s detention.

Morrison said Australia had made very clear both to the US and the UK “that we are here as part of a multinational effort”.

“This is a modest, meaningful and time-limited contribution …to this international effort to ensure we maintain free-flow of commerce and of navigation,” he said.

“Australia will defend our interests, wherever they may be under threat, we will always work closely with our international allies and partners.”

Read more: Morrison looking at details for commitment to protect shipping

Morrison emphasised that the safety of shipping lanes was vital to Australia’s economic interests.

The government had been concerned over incidents in the Strait of Hormuz, he said. “30% of refined oil destined for Australia travels through the Strait. It is a threat to our economy.”

The Australian contribution will be

• a P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft for one month before the end of 2019;

• an Australian frigate in January 2020 for six months; and

• ADF personnel to the International Maritime Security Construct headquarters in Bahrain.

One complication for Australia in finalising the commitment was the fact there was no Australian frigate in the area, with the next deployment not due until January.

Australian ships participate in counter-piracy and counter-terrorism operations in the Middle East.

The Americans were very pressing in their request to Australia to join the force, including in public statements during the recent AUSMIN talks.

Morrison has emphasised Australia wants to see the de-escalation of tensions in the area and separates its commitment to the freedom of navigation operation from America’s other activities in relation to Iran.

– ref. Australia to send naval and air assistance to protect Middle East sea lanes: Morrison – http://theconversation.com/australia-to-send-naval-and-air-assistance-to-protect-middle-east-sea-lanes-morrison-122187

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Beeson, Professor of International Politics, University of Western Australia

Populism and environmentalism are words seldom seen in the same sentence. One is associated predominantly with nationalists and charismatic leaders of “real people”, the other with broadly-based collective action to address the world’s single most pressing problem.

Differences don’t get much starker, it would seem. But we are increasingly seeing the two strands combine in countries around the world.

Exhibit A in support of this thesis is the remarkable growth and impact of Extinction Rebellion, often known as XR.

When I finished writing a book on the possibility of environmental populism little more than six months ago, I’d never even heard of XR. Now it is a global phenomenon, beginning to be taken seriously by policymakers in some of the world’s more consequential democracies. Britain’s decision earlier this year to declare a climate emergency is attributed in part to 11 days of Extinction Rebellion protest that paralysed parts of London.

Read more: UK becomes first country to declare a ‘climate emergency’

Greta Thunberg, the remarkable Swedish schoolgirl who has rapidly become one of the world’s leading climate activists, is another – rather inspiring – example of a rising tide of popular opinion demanding political leaders take action before it is too late. It is also a telling indictment of the quality and imagination of the current crop of international leaders that schoolchildren are taking the lead on an issue that will, for better or worse, define their future.

It is striking that so many prominent figures in international politics are not just buffoonish, self-obsessed and ludicrously underqualified for the positions they hold, but are also rather old.

I speak as an ageing baby boomer myself, and a childless one at that. My rather ageist point is that I simply don’t have the same stake in the future that young people do, who have perhaps 70 or 80 years yet to live.

The world will be a very different place by then. Without action on climate change, it could be positively apocalyptic. A “progressive” variety of bottom-up, populist political mobilisation of precisely the sort that XR is developing could encourage even the most obdurate elders to take note.

Even if there’s merit in the point that younger leaders might take climate change more seriously than leading members of the gerontocracy such as Donald Trump, does this make the redoubtable Ms Thunberg a populist? Not if we subscribe to the views of some of populism’s more prominent critics.

Read more: The pathologies of populism

Political scholar John Keane described populism (in The Conversation, as it happens) as “a recurrent autoimmune disease of democracy”, and a “pseudo-democratic style of politics”.

He’s got a point. The idea one person is uniquely capable of representing the otherwise inarticulate and neglected will of the people is highly implausible, not to say potentially dangerous.

History is replete with examples of things going badly wrong under the leadership of messianic megalomaniacs. There is a growing number of populists and demagogues in our own time, and many – especially among the young – are losing faith in democracy.

Read more: Australians’ trust in politicians and democracy hits an all-time low: new research

When democracies can be captured by powerful vested interests and even the most compelling scientific evidence can be deliberately undermined and discredited, such scepticism is understandable.

But there is also a “progressive” version of populism championed by some on the Left (if such labels actually mean anything anymore) as a potential way forward. The anti-globalisation movement and the re-emergence of radical politics in Europe are seen as positive examples of this possibility. However, given the demise of Syriza (the Coalition of the Radical Left) in Greece, the collapse in support for Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, and the disappearance of the Occupy movement, such claims look increasingly unpersuasive.

Read more: In defence of left-wing populism

And yet there are two features of climate change activism that make it different from normal politics, if such a thing exists any longer.

First, climate change transcends class, race, nationality, gender and religion – even if you don’t believe it’s actually happening, it will affect all of us (although it will disproportionately weigh on poorer nations, and the poorest within those nations). The good news is even some of the more conservative groups in our society are beginning to accept the evidence, if only of their own eyes.

Read more: Farmers’ climate denial begins to wane as reality bites

Second, the unambiguous impact of climate change is only a foretaste of what’s to come. Things are going to get a lot worse, as Australia’s strategic thinkers are beginning to recognise.

It is not clear whether the climate change movement is popular enough, however, as our recent federal election showed. Although it’s unlikely any of our major political parties will go the polls offering ambitious policies in the foreseeable future, eventually the climate will change politics everywhere. The only question is in what way.

Political pressure is one thing; meaningful change is quite another. The scale of the transformation needed in the way we collectively live and organise economic activity is formidable and frankly unlikely – especially in the very short time available to take collective action on an historically unprecedented scale. Policy change on this scale will inevitably create winners and losers.

What is to be done? Enlightened populism is – or could be part of – the answer. If our leaders are too dim, compromised or gutless to act, we have to keep nagging them until they do – or vote for someone who might.

Indeed, democracies are still fortunately positioned in this regard, and we should take advantage of that.

Read more: China succeeds in greening its economy not because, but in spite of, its authoritarian government

A “lucky country” like Australia could actually play a leadership role by championing a Green New Deal and retrofitting the entire economy along sustainable lines. (If we were serious, it would also mean closing down the coal industry.)

While climate activists might conceivably pressure governments to act, it might be harder to win over the average voter. These are big issues. Unlikely as it might sound, the necessary counterpart of environmental populism is a micro-level engagement with the large numbers of people who either don’t know or don’t care.

Beyond lip service, we need to mobilise truly popular support for change. Now is a good time to start.

– ref. Can environmental populism save the planet? – http://theconversation.com/can-environmental-populism-save-the-planet-120768

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Mathews, Professor, School of Law, Queensland University of Technology

Victoria’s Court of Appeal today delivered one of the most significant judgments in Australian legal history, dismissing Cardinal George Pell’s appeal against convictions for five child sex offences.

Given Pell’s seniority in the Catholic Church as a former Vatican treasurer, the case is also of worldwide significance. The appeal involved complex legal principles. Here is what you need to know to understand the judgment.

What happened before this appeal?

In December 2018, a jury unanimously found Pell guilty of five sexual offences against two 13-year-old boys, committed while Archbishop of Melbourne. As detailed in the sentencing remarks of County Court Chief Judge Kidd in March 2019, Pell was found guilty of one count of sexual penetration of a child aged under 16 through forced oral sex, and four counts of an indecent act with or in the presence of a child aged under 16.

The first offences were committed in the sacristy of St Patrick’s Cathedral after mass in December 1996. The final offence was committed against one of the boys around one month later. Both victims were choirboys and recipients of choral scholarships at an elite school.

Read more: We knew George Pell was guilty of child sex abuse. Why couldn’t we say it until now?

Pell was sentenced to six years’ prison with a non-parole period of three years and eight months.

In reaching a verdict, the jury relied on detailed evidence of one of the victims about what Pell said and did, and when and where it happened. The other victim began using heroin at age 14 and died of a heroin overdose in 2014, aged 31. This man’s death prompted the surviving victim, aged in his early 30s, to approach police in 2015.

Is it normal for survivors of child sexual abuse to delay disclosure?

Yes. Survivors often disclose only after a significant delay and are reluctant to tell legal authorities. Australia’s Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that, for those in private interviews, 57% first disclosed as adults and it took an average of 31.9 years to disclose.

A 2013 study of 487 men whose mean age of onset of abuse was 10, found the mean age when first telling was 32.

Is it a problem that the prosecution relied on the complainant’s evidence?

No. Child sexual abuse typically is inflicted in secret, without other evidence, so prosecutions often depend heavily on complainant testimony. The law recognises this: evidence does not have to be corroborated, and the judge must not warn the jury it is dangerous to act on uncorroborated evidence.

Juries make judgments based on the complainant account’s credibility, consistency, detail and truthfulness, and responses and demeanour in cross-examination.

What did Pell argue in the appeal?

There were three grounds of appeal. Two were procedural or technical: the plea of not guilty was not made in the presence of the jury panel; and the defence was not permitted to play a “visual representation” of part of its argument in its closing address.

Essentially, both arguments claimed a “substantial miscarriage of justice”. The court unanimously rejected these arguments.

But the main argument was that the jury’s verdict was “unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence”. Pell’s appeal argued it was not open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, based solely on the word of the complainant.

It also argued that it was not possible for Pell to have been in the sacristy either at all, or by himself; it was not possible for the boys to have been in the sacristy unnoticed; and the robes he wore made it impossible to offend in the way claimed.

What was the Court of Appeal required to do when considering this argument?

The law is complex, and whether a verdict is “unreasonable” depends on legal technicalities, not intuitive instincts. Four legal principles need to be understood here.

First, and most important, there is a very high threshold for a court to overturn a jury’s guilty verdict for being unreasonable (see, for example, M or Baden-Clay). This is because, in Australian law, the jury is the constitutional tribunal of fact responsible for deciding guilt or innocence. A verdict will only be overturned in exceptional circumstances showing a clear miscarriage of justice.

Second, the test is whether, on the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused was guilty.

To win the appeal, the appellant must show the guilty verdict was not open to the jury. It is not sufficient for the court to find a jury might have had reasonable doubt. The evidence must mean no reasonable jury could have returned a guilty verdict; it must have “obliged” them to reach a not guilty verdict.

Third, the appeal court does not retry the case – again, because the jury is the tribunal of fact. The court must independently assess the evidence, but to determine whether the guilty verdict was open to the jury; not simply whether the court itself has a doubt.

Fourth, if a complainant is credible and reliable and the account is detailed, consistent and plausible, it is difficult for an appeal to succeed. On plausibility, courts have accepted that sexual offending can be brazen, influenced by the abuser’s arrogance, power and belief the child will not make a complaint.

What did the Court of Appeal say about this?

The judges rejected it by a majority of two to one. They found the guilty verdicts were reasonable, because they were open to the jury on the whole of the evidence.

The court said there was nothing about the evidence that meant the jury must have had reasonable doubt. It was not enough that one or more jurors might have had a doubt. Moreover, the court did not itself have such a doubt.

The complainant was found to be compelling, clearly not a liar or fantasist, and a witness of truth. He did not embellish the evidence or tailor it to the prosecution. He adequately explained things he could not remember and his explanations had a ring of truth.

What can happen now?

Pell can seek special leave to appeal to the High Court. If the High Court denies permission, the matter is finalised; if given, it will later deliver a final judgment.

Read more: The Catholic Church is investigating George Pell’s case. What does that mean?

Save for a successful appeal in the High Court, Pope Francis will likely expel Pell from the priesthood. The family of the second survivor is suing him and or the church for civil damages, as may others. Pell will remain in jail.

It is exceptionally difficult for survivors of child sexual abuse to bring successful criminal complaints, especially against powerful offenders. This judgment may encourage other courageous survivors to make complaints.

Yet many systemic reforms are still required to better facilitate prosecutions of child sexual offences.

– ref. George Pell has lost his appeal. What did the court decide and what happens now? – http://theconversation.com/george-pell-has-lost-his-appeal-what-did-the-court-decide-and-what-happens-now-118054

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Professor Tim Bentley, Director of Research, professor of Work and Organisation, Massey University

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the workplace can be a positive force for improving mental health.

But many workers are exposed to work environments that are damaging to their psychological health and leave them burnt out. As the nature of work changes – including technological advancements, reduced job security, and blurred work/non-work boundaries – psychosocial harm is likely to increase.

Despite their popularity, many wellness initiatives directed towards “stressed” workers simply help people to cope a little longer with a toxic and damaging environment. The underlying risks remain.

The New Zealand Workplace Barometer (NZWB) seeks to understand the causes of psychosocial risks – factors that encompass mental, emotional, social and spiritual dimensions of what it means to be healthy.

We have found that more than a quarter of employees experience depression, but that a strong psychological safety climate is the most effective way to manage mental health at work.

Read more: Are you burnt out at work? Ask yourself these 4 questions

Why we need a workplace barometer

Psychosocial risk factors include aspects of work design, the organisation and management of work, and work relationships. Evidence from New Zealand and elsewhere shows that these factors considerably increase the risk of negative psychological, physical or social outcomes, including work-related stress, burnout or depression.

Despite these findings, there has been no comprehensive approach to understanding or preventing these risk factors in New Zealand before the introduction of the NZWB in 2018.

Its primary aim is to produce information on the prevalence, nature and impacts of psychosocial risk factors in the New Zealand workplace so organisations can improve worker health by attacking any problems at their source. But the NZWB also has an important engagement function, working closely with industry.

Participating organisations receive individual reports to monitor their performance over time and benchmark against other organisations. They also receive advice on how to improve their risk profile. This engagement has motivated preventive action and the inclusion of psychosocial risks in workplace health and safety policies and initiatives.

Key findings from year one

The NZWB is underpinned by the theory of psychosocial safety climate (PSC). This reflects the balance of concern management shows for workers’ psychological health versus their productivity. It is a strong predictor of stress-related illness.

Findings from the NZWB’s initial year of data draw on a sample of 25 organisations and 1,409 individual workers. We found that workplace mental health had a debilitating influence on the lives of study participants. More than a quarter felt depressed much of the time and a half said depression affected their work or non-work lives to some extent. Worryingly, these problems made life “very or extremely difficult” for nearly 8% of our sample.

The costs to organisations were also considerable. People who reported the highest psychological distress had up to 3.5 times more days off work than those with the least level of stress.

As expected, the psychosocial safety climate was significantly related to health outcomes, with lower reporting of depression, psychological distress and physical health issues associated with higher PSC. These findings are critically important in understanding how mental health and stress-related illnesses might be addressed by improving workplace conditions.

Also worth noting is that the psychosocial safety climate had a powerful impact on organisational outcomes such as work engagement and leave intentions of workers. This provides further incentives for organisations to build a strong psychosocial safety climate.

Read more: Go home on time! Working long hours increases your chance of having a stroke

Workplace bullying

Workplace bullying prevalence has remained persistently high in New Zealand compared to other countries. Our study found 12.2% of respondents were targeted with at least two negative behaviours weekly over the a period of six months.

Although this figure is somewhat lower than the rate of between 15-18% found in previous New Zealand studies by the Healthy Work Group, bullying remains a concern. Our study found a strong relationship between bullying, mental health and organisational outcomes.

Interestingly, given the changing nature of how employees communicate and interact at work, we found that the prevalence of cyber bullying was relatively low. Just under 3% of our sample experienced this emerging risk.

The prevalence of sexual harassment was approximately 3%, although women experienced higher rates (4%). This mode of workplace ill-treatment should get further attention.

Inclusion has not previously featured as a variable of interest in major studies of workplace health. We found that workers’ perception of inclusion is a powerful predictor of a number of psychosocial risks, including job stress, work engagement, workplace bullying and depression.

This finding suggests the need for greater attention to diversity and inclusion within organisations as this will enhance workers’ experience of work. It appears to be a protective factor.

The workplace can be a positive influence on worker mental health, but achieving this means paying attention to the work environment itself and not just helping staff to build resilience to cope with highly stressful and poorly led workplaces. The NZWB seeks to understand the deep causes of workplace mental health and offers positive solutions to enhance individual and organisational outcomes.

It is our hope more New Zealand organisations will join the free programme in 2019, as a first step towards building a strong psychosocial safety culture and address key hazards in the workplace.

– ref. NZ workplace study shows more than quarter of employees feel depressed much of the time – http://theconversation.com/nz-workplace-study-shows-more-than-quarter-of-employees-feel-depressed-much-of-the-time-118989

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

Alan Jones’s political power is to a large extent based on a self-fulfilling prophecy: politicians believe he can shift votes, so they pay homage to him, which adds to the impression that he can shift votes.

This perception of power, in turn, gives him actual power.

Yet the author and social researcher Rebecca Huntley is reported as saying:

Fifteen years of research and I haven’t found Alan Jones to be that much more influential with voters than ABC Radio or The SMH. He is only powerful because politicians think he is.

So if evidence that he actually shifts votes is hard to find, how did this phenomenon develop?

Developments in media-political relations over the 34 years that Jones has been broadcasting give some pointers.

He was a pioneer in what has become known as the outrage industry. He rants and raves in extraordinarily fluent broadsides, captivating in their aural power and – to a listener of a certain type – intoxicatingly persuasive.

This listener is typically in the autumn of life and living in the western suburbs of Sydney, where a tough life has bred cynicism about politicians, bureaucrats and big companies.

Read more: Outrage, polls and bias: 2019 federal election showed Australian media need better regulation

Early on, Jones tapped into this sentiment, becoming the champion of what he called “Struggle Street”, although he himself lived in an apartment overlooking Circular Quay and the Opera House.

His ratings rose and so did his perceived capacity to win over the hearts and minds of Struggle Street.

By the late 1990s, companies that were on the nose with the public, like Telstra and some of the banks, began to see that he might be able to change public attitudes towards them, if his commentary about them could be made to look like his honestly held opinion.

In fact these commentaries were paid for, but this was not disclosed to the audience, and so in 1999 Jones, along with several other high-profile talkback hosts, were caught up in what became known as the cash-for-comment scandal.

Despite adverse findings against him by the regulator at the time, the Australian Broadcasting Authority, belief in his power to sway audiences remained undiminished.

A few weeks after these findings were announced, he hosted an event for then Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, and dined with the NSW Labor Premier, Bob Carr, to discuss matters of government policy.

The following week, Carr sent his Police Minister-designate, Michael Costa, to discuss policing policy with Jones.

At Radio 2UE, where Jones was then working, the revenue generated not just by conventional advertising but by the cash-for-comment arrangements, had made Jones’s position there impregnable.

And when he switched to 2GB in 2002, he became an instant rainmaker for his new station, and equally impregnable there, free of management constraints and therefore in a position to play favourites and create enmities with whomever he chose.

His core audience – those on “Struggle Street – were then given special attention by the prime minister, and came to be known as “Howard’s battlers”.

For the entirety of his prime ministership, from 1996 to 2007, Howard made a point of cultivating Jones, and became a favourite. A former colleague of Jones, Mike Carlton, has been quoted as saying that there was allegedly an operative in Howard’s office dedicated to working on what were called “Jones issues”.

Whether this was true or not, Howard became a regular guest on the Jones program, saying it gave him a chance to speak directly to the Australian people rather than having his message filtered by sceptical journalists.

A prime ministerial imprimatur of this kind is calculated to increase perceptions of political power.

Then, just as Howard was departing office in 2007, the phenomenon of social media was gaining momentum in Australia.

It turbo-charged the outrage industry, and Jones was skilled up to take advantage of this new libertarian free-for-all.

He had already been found in 2005 to have breached the radio industry code of practice by inciting violence against people of Middle Eastern ethnicity in a series of incendiary broadcasts leading up to the race riots at Cronulla that year.

But as usual, the broadcasting regulator, now called the Australian Media and Communications Authority, contented itself with entering into a “dialogue” with 2GB.

Then, in 2012, he gave encouragement to the idea that Julia Gillard should be put in a chaff bag and dumped at sea. Once more there were no consequences.

And now, in 2019, he is encouraging Scott Morrison – already known as the 2GB Prime Minister – to shove a sock down the throat of the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

Three strikes, but still not out.

Finally, however, there is a sign the 2GB management might have begun to ask themselves whether Jones has outlived his profitability.

They have warned him that one more rant like that and they will terminate his contract.

It cannot just be that a swag of big advertisers have abandoned the Jones program. This has happened in the past when he has committed some atrocity, but they drift back after the hue and cry has died down.

Read more: Sexist abuse has a long history in Australian politics – and takes us all to a dark place

However, last year Jones cost the station A$3.75 million in defamation damages, plus millions more in legal costs after he wrongly and persistently accused the owners of a quarry in the Queensland town of Grantham of causing the deaths of local people who died in the 2011 floods.

At the time of writing, Macquarie Media, which owns 2GB, is being purchased by Nine Entertainment, which already owns the Nine TV network and the big mastheads of the old Fairfax company, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review.

It may be that this takeover will add a reputational dimension to the assessment of Jones’s value to shareholders.

If Jones does finally come to grief, it will be because of considerations like these, not because of any damage he does to the social fabric.

– ref. It will be money, not morality, that finally turns the tide on Alan Jones – http://theconversation.com/it-will-be-money-not-morality-that-finally-turns-the-tide-on-alan-jones-122051

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria Bargh, Associate Professor, Victoria University of Wellington

New Zealand’s government statistician resigned last week, following the release of an independent review of the 2018 census.

The census was the first to be carried out online, but its 83% response rate fell short of the 94% target and was 9% lower than the previous census. Māori responses dropped 20% on the previous census.

While the census data won’t be released until next month, Te Mana Raraunga, the Māori data sovereignty network has raised concerns about how the “digital first” strategy might have contributed to an “unprecedented … low response rate” from Māori.

While taking part in a census takes more time than voting in an election, we argue that participation would increase if people had more than a digital option. Our analysis of voter participation in local iwi (tribal) elections shows that maintaining other voting options encourages participation.

Census collection rate for Māori ‘appalling’

Stats NZ announced last month that the individual collection response rate for Māori was 68%. Te Mana Raraunga described this as “appalling” and highlighted it was far lower than the 85.5% for the 2013 census. It is also lower than the total New Zealand population, at 83.3%.

The low response rate of Māori not only raises concerns about online-only voting approaches, but also has considerable constitutional implications, as census data is used to determine the number of Māori electorates.

Read more: New Zealand elections: Māori seats once again focus of debate

Internationally, declining voter turnout is of considerable concern in many liberal democracies. Various causes are hypothesised, including electoral systems, age, ethnicity and costs. In New Zealand, Māori voter turnout is significantly lower than non-Māori in general and local government elections.

Over the past three years, we have investigated whether these trends can be discerned in the voter turnout for iwi governance entities. Hundreds of iwi entities have been established through settlements that have resulted from Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Read more: Explainer: the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi

Voting options to increase participation

Iwi governance entities represent their people politically. There is no central database of iwi election data and they are not under any obligation to share their data other than to their members. That responsibility varies according to iwi constitutions or trust deeds. The collection of data about iwi voter turnout is therefore a manual and challenging task.

Most iwi hold regular elections, usually every three years, and most follow a first past the post system where electors have one vote and the candidate with the most votes wins. There are a few variations where voters have as many votes as there are vacancies, but still the candidate with the most votes wins.

There are two main features influencing iwi elections from the data we have analysed. The first relates to location. Regionally based iwi tend to have a high proportion of members living away from home, and it is a challenge to keep members engaged in iwi voting. It is a common restriction on candidates to live within the areas they are standing in.

The next feature influencing iwi elections is the voting method. The conduct of iwi elections tends to be outsourced to private companies that specialise in election services. Most iwi use postal voting or a combination of postal and internet voting.

While local authorities and the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs continue to debate the benefits and risks of internet voting, including to increase voter turnout, many Māori governance entities have been using a combination of postal and online voting for more than a decade.

The use of internet voting has been increasing as iwi see it as an option to reduce costs, particularly for large iwi and for those with a high portion of members living overseas. Many iwi don’t have the resources to manage their tribal registers, and out-of-date physical address details pose an issue when postal voting only is offered. But the results of trials internationally are mixed on whether internet voting increases turnout.

Read more: Here’s how we can get more people to vote in elections

Benefits and concerns about online voting

Political scientists Nicole Goodman and Leah Stokes argue that in local elections in Ontario, Canada, results show that under particular conditions “internet voting can increase turnout by 3.5 percentage points”. Other research suggests internet voting does not guarantee increased voter turnout, and may simply make voting more convenient for those who already tend to vote: older, wealthier, already engaged constituents.

The other issue around online voting is whether it is more or less effective on its own or in combination with other options. A Canadian study recommends caution around online-only voting methods. Where the option for paper ballot voting has been removed, the research shows that a “digital divide” replicates societal inequalities. They argue that:

Absent a paper option, there is evidence that some electors with poor access and digital literacy might be less likely to vote, though the effect is delayed until after the first election after paper is eliminated. … Our results suggest that the elimination of paper ballots may indeed be disenfranchising some electors on the basis of the digital divide.

Research with First Nations communities in Canada has shown an appetite for internet voting. More than 80 First Nations now use online voting and see benefits to enhance local participation, self-determination and governance.

But while internet voting promises potential benefits, its implementation does not always yield the intended results in Canadian Indigenous communities. Concerns also exist around internet access, security and the impact on culture.

Māori governance entities that have been using online voting for many years may feel the temptation, for cheaper costs, to move to online-only voting. They should resist the temptation and keep as many options as possible open for their people to support their participation. The challenge remains how to resource these multiple options.

– ref. Bungled NZ census highlights need for multiple voting options to raise Māori participation – http://theconversation.com/bungled-nz-census-highlights-need-for-multiple-voting-options-to-raise-maori-participation-121831

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rosemary Stanton, Visiting Fellow, School of Medical Sciences, UNSW

Research Checks interrogate newly published studies and how they’re reported in the media. The analysis is undertaken by one or more academics not involved with the study, and reviewed by another, to make sure it’s accurate.

You might have seen headlines recently claiming eating chicken reduces a person’s risk of breast cancer.

These reports were based on a new study published in the International Journal of Cancer this month which examined the links between breast cancer and consumption of red meat and poultry.

It found women who ate chicken had a lower risk of developing breast cancer than those who ate red meat.

As with all observational studies, this research cannot show cause and effect. The correlation between eating chicken and a lower risk of breast cancer may have more to do with consuming large quantities of red meat than it does with chicken having any protective qualities.

The study

Over almost eight years, researchers followed 42,000 women aged 35-74 involved in the Sister Study in Puerto Rico and the United States. The Sister Study, funded by the US National Institutes of Health, is currently tracking a large cohort of women with view to better understanding the causes of breast cancer.

Some 1,536 cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed among the cohort over the eight-year period. The researchers considered this alongside information on participants’ meat consumption habits, gathered through a series of standardised questionnaires.

An analysis of the women’s diets showed those who consumed the most red meat (beef, veal, pork, lamb, game meats) had a 23% higher risk of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer than those who consumed small amounts.

By contrast, the women who consumed the most poultry (lean chicken, turkey, duck, goose, quail and pheasant) had a 15% lower risk than those who consumed the least poultry.

The effects were particularly striking in post-menopausal women.

Read more: Research Check: is white meat as bad for your cholesterol levels as red meat?

Notably, neither the red meat group nor the poultry group necessarily ate only one or the other. So it’s likely women eating a lot of poultry were eating less red meat, while women who ate less poultry included more red meat in their diets.

The researchers predicted breast cancer risk would be reduced even further if the women who ate a large amount of red meat switched to poultry.

They accounted for many confounding factors including obesity, age, income, education level, total energy intake, percentage of energy from fat, consumption of vegetables, fruit and dairy products, how long the women breast-fed their infants and their use of hormone therapy.

Even considering all these factors, there was still a significant relationship between invasive breast cancer and a high consumption of red meat.

Limitations

The Sister Study involves women with no previous diagnosis of breast cancer themselves, but all have sisters who have had breast cancer. Since some cases of breast cancer have a genetic component, we should remember this group may have greater susceptibility to breast cancer than the general population.

Unfortunately, the study did not identify any women who avoided all meat, so it doesn’t tell us if a vegetarian diet would have further reduced the risk of breast cancer.

Read more: Three charts on: Australia’s declining taste for beef and growing appetite for chicken

Red meat and cancer

Previous studies looking at red meat and breast cancer have reported conflicting results.

One large British report found a small increase in breast cancer with processed meat, but not fresh red meat.

Another major review confirmed the processed meat results and found only a very small increase in breast cancer related to fresh red meat.

Other studies have looked at poultry consumption and breast cancer. None have found significant correlations with breast or other cancers. Several have found inverse relationships similar to those seen in this study.

Red meat has more definite links with the risk of certain cancers. The World Cancer Research Foundation recommends limiting red meat (beef, lamb, pork, goat) to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. At this stage, it has not extended this advice to breast cancer.

Health concerns about red meat intake also lie in its links to heart disease, which are supported by research evidence.

It’s about quantity

It is useful to look at the quantity of meat consumed by those with the lowest incidence of breast cancer in this study. It was small – no more than 340g of red meat a week, or equivalent to about two average-sized red meat portions a week.

By contrast, the highest incidence of breast cancer occurred in those with a weekly consumption of 775g or more.

The greatest benefit, according to the researchers’ modelling, appeared in women who substituted lean poultry for red meat.

Read more: Confused about your cancer risk from eating meat? Here’s what the figures mean

Adding a small amount of red meat to a plant-based diet is unlikely to cause health problems. In modest quantities, red meat can actually make a valuable nutritional contribution, adding iron, protein and vitamin B12.

But problems with red meat relate to the quantity consumed – more is not better.

Sustainability concerns around the methods of red meat production also relate to the quantities consumed. Earlier this year, the Eat-Lancet Commission’s healthy reference diet for sustainable food systems recommended a 50% reduction in global consumption of red meat.

So while this new research doesn’t provide enough evidence to suggest eating chicken is protective against breast cancer, women who currently consume a lot of red meat may find it useful to know poultry is an acceptable alternative.

Blind peer review

The analysis presents a fair, balanced and accurate assessment of the study. In this study, the researchers looked at the impact of consumption of different types of red meat and white meat, and the way the meats were cooked, on the rates of breast cancer.

The researchers showed red meat consumption (which in this study included beef, lamb, veal, pork and game meat) increased the risk of invasive breast cancer, while consuming poultry (including chicken, turkey, ducks, goose, quail, pheasant/game birds) reduced the risk of invasive breast cancer. There was no association shown between the way the meat was cooked and breast cancer risk. – Evangeline Mantzioris

Read more: How to get the nutrients you need without eating as much red meat

– ref. Will eating chicken reduce your risk of breast cancer? – http://theconversation.com/will-eating-chicken-reduce-your-risk-of-breast-cancer-121628

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Associate Professor Ralph Brougham Chapman, Director, Environmental Studies, Victoria University of Wellington

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

First, let’s accept climate change is happening and will have major negative impacts on New Zealand. Second, let’s also accept that even if New Zealand did absolutely everything possible to reduce emissions to zero, it would still happen, i.e. our impact on climate change is negligible. Third, reducing our emissions will come with a high financial cost. Fourth, the cost of dealing with the negative impacts of climate change (rising seas etc), will also come at a high financial cost. Based on the above, would it not be smarter to focus our money and energy on preparing New Zealand for a world where climate change is a reality, rather than quixotically trying to avert the unavoidable? – a question from Milton

To argue that we should not act to reduce emissions because it is not in our interests to make a contribution to global mitigation is ultimately self-defeating. It would be to put short-term self-interest first, rather than considering both our long-term interests and those of the wider global community.

Our options on climate are looking increasingly dire, since we as a global community have postponed combating climate change so long. But in New Zealand – and indeed in any country – we should still do as much as we can to reduce the extent of climate change, and not, at this stage, divert significant resources away from mitigation into “preparing for” it.

Starting with the physics, it is clear that climate change is not a given and fixed phenomenon. It is unhelpful to say simply that “it is happening”. How much heating will occur will be determined by human actions: it is within humanity’s grasp to limit it.

Any significant action taken over the next decade in particular will have high payoffs in terms of reducing future warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in effect says emission cuts of 45% or more over the next decade might just avert catastrophic change. Inaction, on the other hand, could condemn humankind to experiencing perhaps 3℃ or more of heating. Each further degree represents a huge increase in human misery – death, suffering and associated conflict – and increases the threat of passing dangerous tipping points.

Climate outcomes are so sensitive to what we do over the next decade because eventual heating depends on the accumulated stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We are still adding to that stock every year, and we are still raising the costs of cutting emissions to an “acceptable” level (such as that consistent with 1.5℃ or 2℃ of heating).

Read more: Climate explained: will we be less healthy because of climate change?

Limiting future warming

Under President Obama, a report was published which pointed out that every decade of delay in making cuts in emissions raises the cost of stabilising within a given target temperature (e.g. 2℃) by about 40%.

Each year’s emissions add to the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, even though some of the gases are absorbed into oceans, trees and soils. Until we can get global emissions down close to zero, atmospheric concentrations will rise. When the Paris agreement was adopted in 2015, it was expected that government pledges at the time might limit heating to under 2℃, conceivably 1.5℃ degrees, if pledges were soon strengthened. It is now even more vital to cut emissions, as it reduces the risk of even higher, and nastier, temperatures.

What of New Zealand’s role in this? New Zealand is indeed a small country. Like most groups of five million or so emitters, we generate a small fraction of global emissions (less than 0.2%). But because we are a well respected, independent nation, with a positive international profile, what we do has disproportionate influence. If we manage to find creative and effective ways to cut emissions, we can be sure the world will be interested and some countries may be motivated to follow suit.

Just as we notice Norway’s effective promotion of electric vehicles, and Denmark’s success with wind power, so too can New Zealand have an outsized impact if we can achieve breakthroughs in mitigation. Reaching 100% renewable electricity generation would be a significant and persuasive milestone, as would any breakthroughs in agricultural emissions.

Read more: Climate explained: why plants don’t simply grow faster with more carbon dioxide in air

Reducing emissions makes economic sense

In economic terms, mitigation is an excellent investment. The Stern Review crystallised the argument in 2007: unmitigated climate change will cause damage that would reduce worldwide incomes by substantially more than the costs of active mitigation. Since then, further research has underlined that the cost of damage through climate change will be much greater than the costs of mitigation. Put in investment terms, the benefits from mitigation vastly exceed the costs.

Mitigation is one of the best investments humanity will ever make. Recent findings are that increasing mitigation efforts to ensure that warming is limited to 1.5℃, rather than 2℃ or more, will yield high returns on investment, as damage is averted. We also now know many energy and transport sector mitigation investments, such as in electric vehicles, generate good returns.

So why haven’t we invested enough in mitigation already? The answer is the free rider problem – the “I will if you will” conundrum. The Paris agreement in 2015 is the best solution so far to this: essentially all countries globally have agreed to cut emissions, so relatively concerted action is likely. Given this, it is worthwhile for New Zealand to act, as our efforts are likely to be matched by the actions of others. In addition, of course, we have an ethical duty to future generations to cut emissions.

The fact that New Zealand is a small country with limited emissions is irrelevant to these arguments. We must play our part in the global push to cut emissions. The reality is that it is worthwhile to mitigate, and we are committed to doing so. In this situation, it makes no sense to move mitigation resources away to preparation for climate change. We do of course need to plan and prepare for the impacts of climate change, in myriad ways, but not at the expense of mitigation.

– ref. Climate explained: why we need to cut emissions as well as prepare for impacts – http://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-we-need-to-cut-emissions-as-well-as-prepare-for-impacts-122030

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Salvatore Babones, Associate Professor, University of Sydney

Australia’s leading universities are now looking to India in search of new sources of international students. This comes amid worries they may have reached a “China max” – no more room for growth in Chinese students and numbers at risk of falling.

The question of whether India is a potential solution is something I looked at for my latest report published today for the Centre for Independent Studies.

My research found Chinese students currently make up about one in ten students at Australian universities. They’re about 40% of the total international student intake. But that’s after a rapid period of growth that slowed dramatically in 2018 and has now come to a virtual standstill.

From a business perspective, investing so much in one portfolio is risky, and universities need to diversify where they’re getting their income to ensure a stable economic future.

Read more: What we know about why Chinese students come to Australia to study

Eyes on Indian students

UNSW last year opened a new centre in Delhi as part of its India Ten Year Growth Strategy. The University of Sydney’s 2018 annual report talked of this year appointing an “in-country team” in India to “recruit high-calibre students”. The ANU’s 2017 annual report talked of “scoping” an India office.

The University of Queensland has an India-focused approach to increasing international student revenue. That comes as no surprise as last year, UQ Chancellor Peter Varghese delivered an India Economic Strategy report to the Australian government.

In one of his recommendations (6.1.1) he says Australia should:

Make India a priority market as part of the global refresh of Australia’s education brand.

The latest annual reports of these four universities (UQ, UNSW, ANU and Sydney) show they draw more than 30% of their student bodies from overseas.

With international students paying several times the tuition of domestic ones and the China market now appearing to be tapped out, India is widely seen as the next major source of “cash cows”, as ABC put it in a recent Four Corners investigation on universities and the billions of dollars they make from foreign students.

More Indian students heading overseas

India is in fact the world’s second-largest source country for international students, and although it trails China by a wide margin, the country is growing fast.

Australia’s universities seem to believe they can replicate their wildly profitable China expansion in India. But they’re wrong.

My research shows India is still far too poor to become the next “cash cow” for Australian universities.

There are around 24 million adults in China with incomes over A$50,000 a year, according to calculations based on data from the World Inequality Database. That compares to just three million for India.

That makes the potential Indian market for Australian degrees roughly one-eighth the size of the Chinese market.

In fact, every province of China is richer than every state or territory of India with the exception of the tiny tourist enclave of Goa (population 1.5 million), according to data from each country’s statistical service.

The lure to Australia

Recent scholarships, targeted at Indian students might be attempts by Australian universities to diversify their international student profiles away from a total reliance on China.

But while subsidising Indian students may reduce the concentration of Chinese students in their courses, it will do nothing to reduce their financial dependence on China. In fact, it will increase the proportion of their net income derived from China. Which brings us back to the problem of “China max”.

Some Australian universities I looked at draw between 13% and 23% of their revenues from Chinese student enrolments.

Read more: Australia has too few home-grown experts on the Chinese Communist Party. That’s a problem

I’ve identified a number of risk factors that could adversely affect the number of Chinese students in Australia. By far the most serious are the macroeconomic factors – such as any slowing of China’s economy and fluctuations in the value of the Australian dollar – that could lead to a sudden and severe fall in Chinese enrolments at Australian universities.

Many investors will tell you that to reduce risk, you should seek to limit your exposure to any one investment (in this case, one source country of foreign students) to no more than 5% of your portfolio. Something akin to the phrase “don’t put all your eggs in one basket”.

Australian universities need to take steps to reduce their over-reliance on international students for sources of funding, and within that revenue stream, to reduce the reliance on one or two source countries.

– ref. Australian universities can’t rely on India if funds from Chinese students start to fall – http://theconversation.com/australian-universities-cant-rely-on-india-if-funds-from-chinese-students-start-to-fall-122052

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jen Couch, Senior Lecturer – Youth Work and International Development, Australian Catholic University

One of the biggest challenges young people of refugee background face in their new country is finding safe, affordable and appropriate housing. Yet this is central to social inclusion and to a young person’s ability to settle successfully in Australia.

In the first longitudinal study of the lives of young homeless refugees I looked at 25 such people in Melbourne. They shared with me their experiences of being homeless and their pathway out of it over a five-year period. For a majority of them, their homelessness ended through a connection made by a member of their own cultural community.

Young refugees are at high risk of homelessness – “at least six to 10 times higher” than for Australian-born young people, a 2002 study estimated. (This is the most recent available study on this.)

Read more: Youth homelessness efforts get a lowly 2 stars from national report card

Insecure housing is, in turn, one of the most significant predictors of mental health problems among refugees.

The beginnings of homelessness

Family breakdown is a well-documented pathway into homelessness for all young people.

Read more: Family break-up raises homelessness risk, and critical period is longer for boys

But for young refugees there are specific circumstances that complicate family relationships and cause tension.

Participants talked about living in severely overcrowded housing, moving constantly and often being expected to help other family members negotiate a new language, culture and systems. This required them to step up into “adult” roles.

Congolese male, age 17, homeless 18 months, said:

It was very very hard. You think before you come that the moving is over. But then in the first two years we moved six times.

At one point we all slept in the car, five of us. I just kept moving schools and I had no friends. I had no lunch at school because we had no kitchen.

South Sudanese male, 18, homeless two years, said:

Eventually we got a house, but after a while my dad started going crazy. And then he got fired from his job. There was no food in the house and once again, we were hungry.

I quit school. I got a job and started trying to take care of my brothers. And it didn’t work. We lost the house and started moving.

Little knowledge of available help

Once young people left home, their options were limited. Most did not know about homelessness services. Many did not even identify as being homeless – they saw homeless people as old, male and rough sleepers.

Read more: What’s in the name ‘homeless’? How people see themselves and the labels we apply matter

Very few tried to access youth refuges and shelters. Those who did said they were afraid and did not feel comfortable.

Private rental was unattainable for nearly all, due to cost, discrimination and a lack of rental history. Consequently, all young people found couch surfing was their only housing option.

Afghani male, 17, homeless two years, said:

After I left, I slept in all kinds of places. My school expelled me for not attending and didn’t even look to see that I was sleeping all over Melbourne.

And after that, now, I just move around and around. No school. No Work. No family. No home.

Young women reported a fear of sleeping rough. This led to several staying in inappropriate and exploitative environments because no suitable housing options were available to them.

They described unromantic and unwanted relationships, often with men older than them, that they entered into because of a lack of free choice and as a last resort.

South Sudanese female, 18, homeless three years, said:

With him at least I had somewhere to sleep. I was alone here, because I hadn’t been in Australia long and I had no idea where I could go. Where was I to go? I had no home.

Read more: ‘Just a piece of meat’: how homeless women have little choice but to use sex for survival

Ways out of homelessness

By the time the study ended in 2017, 23 of the 25 people had found a way out of homelessness. But one young person had taken their own life. Another was in jail.

For nearly two-thirds of the young people in this study, the transition out of homeless occurred through a connection made by a member of their own cultural community.

Liberian female, 20, homeless 18 months, said:

I met a Liberian lady on the train. She said, ‘Call me if you need anything.’ The first thing I said was, ‘I don’t know you and I hope one day I can give you something back, but right now I need some money for food.’

She came that day with three bags of food. She helped me so much and without her I would still have nowhere to live.

All young people who were helped in this way said one of the things they valued most was that they did not need to demonstrate and point out their resilience; it was just taken for granted.

Ethnic community members were far more likely to adopt a family-focused approach and try to reconnect the young people with their families.

This highlights the importance of these communities in supporting newly arrived people. With good knowledge of, and linkages to, other networks, they can help other community members get access to available supports and services and so play an effective role in supporting positive settlement.

Far from just providing housing, community support can increase young people’s agency, belonging, social connection and participation.

– ref. ‘We all slept in the car, five of us’. Young refugees talk about being homeless in Australia – http://theconversation.com/we-all-slept-in-the-car-five-of-us-young-refugees-talk-about-being-homeless-in-australia-121559

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Sheil, Visiting Senior Fellow in History, UNSW

The results of the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics biennial survey of income and wealth met have met with an uneven response, perhaps in part due to a slipshod press release.

Released with the data on July 12, it was headed: “Inequality stable since 2013-14”.

It began:

Income inequality has remained stable in Australia while income growth has been slow, according to new information released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today.

Oddly, the press release didn’t include data to back up its conclusion. That was left for reporters and analysts to find, diving into the trove of more detailed information assembled by the bureau, from which a somewhat different picture emerged, particularly for wealth.

Writing for the ABC, Stephen Long and Michael Janda noted that average (mean) household wealth has been climbing quickly whereas typical (median) household wealth has not, implying that the rich are getting richer much more quickly than Australians in the middle.

Read more: Inequality is growing, but it is also changing as Australia’s super rich evolve

They also noted an increase in the so-called Gini coefficient, commonly used by the bureau and others to measure inequality.

And they noted that the “ultrawealthy” were probably under-counted in the survey, as is to be expected in essentially voluntary random surveys.

In the Sydney Morning Herald and Age, Shane Wright and Eryk Bagshaw tracked the trends since 2003-04, when the bureau began its income and wealth survey.

Examining “quintiles” (which divide Australia’s households into five equally sized groups, in this case from least wealthy to most wealthy), they found an increasingly divided society.

Their captions read: “The wealthiest 20% have left the rest behind” and “The rich are getting richer”.

Both sets of journalists were right not to accept the bureau’s sunny headline.

According to the bureau’s own data, over the four years since 2013-14, the top 20% of households increased their share of the nation’s private wealth from 62.1% to 63.4%. Their share was 59% in the first survey back in 2003-04.

The wealth share of every other quintile fell.

The share of the second wealthiest quintile fell from 20.5% to 20.4%; the share of the middle quintile from 11.4% to 11.1%; the share of the second poorest quintile from 5.1% to 4.5%; and the share of the bottom quintile from 0.9% to 0.7%.

That is not a picture of stable inequality.

It is more reasonably described as a picture of gradually increasing inequality, of the kind we would expect given the underlying dynamics of modern Australian capitalism.

Unchecked, things will get worse

In the absence of deliberate redistribution, the inequalities associated with accumulated wealth tend to increase over time.

Unless actively restrained, the trends identified (but not publicised) by the bureau suggest that Australia will become increasingly unequal.

Yet there is more to the story than correctly describing the data presented.

There is also what’s missing. The survey does not present a figure for total household wealth. This means we don’t know how much wealth it didn’t find.

An increasing amount of wealth is missing…

We will get a good idea in about a year when the bureau reconciles its income and wealth survey with the Australian National Accounts.

Previous reconciliations suggest that wealth missed is growing.

The gap between wealth identified in the survey and the national accounts climbed from about 5% in 2013-14 to 8% in 2015-16. That 2015-16 figure amounts to A$626 billion, which is a lot of missing wealth – considerably more than the total wealth of the poorest 40% of households.

Read more: Inequality in the OECD is at a record high – and society is suffering as a result

The discrepancies appear to be associated with understatements of the value of property assets, loans, shares, trusts, and other equities of the type mainly held by wealthy Australians.

…and the ultrawealthy are invisible

The bureau’s released data ignores the distribution of wealth at the very top.

The data is reported in quintiles (fifths) and percentiles a decile apart, but inequality is likely to be growing the fastest at the very top where the data isn’t reported.

The so-called P90/P10 ratio provides a clue. This is the ratio of the wealth of the households 10% from the top of the wealth distribution and the wealth of the households 10% from the bottom. In other words, it compares the quite rich with the quite poor.

Read more: Don’t believe what they say about inequality. Some of us are worse off

The latest survey shows that the wealth of a household 10% from the top is 71 times the wealth of a household 10% from the bottom, up from 52 times in 2013-14, and 45 times when the survey began back in 2003-04.

It means the gains of households at the halfway point of the top 20% have been bigger than those of the top 20% as a whole, suggesting increasing inequality within the top 20%, which is likely to more extreme within the top 1%.

We really need to know

Statistics are windows on change. Despite our criticisms, the bureau’s biennial income and wealth survey gives us the best view of inequality we’ve got, but large areas remain foggy.

In research for the Evatt Foundation, we have used data from the Bureau of Statistics, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and national accounts to estimate that, for the first time in more than half a century, the richest 10% of households own more than half of Australia’s private wealth.

Read more: There’s a reason you’re feeling no better off than 10 years ago. Here’s what HILDA says about well-being

The Evatt Foundation’s results seem to stand up well, but governments should really be producing better data themselves.

Inequality and its harmful effects on economic output and stability are growing. We owe it to ourselves to find out by how much.

– ref. What the Bureau of Statistics didn’t highlight: our continuing upward redistribution of wealth – http://theconversation.com/what-the-bureau-of-statistics-didnt-highlight-our-continuing-upward-redistribution-of-wealth-121731

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Lee, Senior Lecturer in Literary and Cultural Studies, Curtin University

This story contains spoilers for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

While promoting Once Upon a Time in Hollywood at the Cannes Film Festival, filmmaker Quentin Tarantino was asked why Margot Robbie’s character – murdered actress Sharon Tate – was given so few lines. An “angry-looking Tarantino”, as reported the ABC, curtly replied: “Well, I just reject your hypothesis.”

Tate’s implied lack of voice and Tarantino’s refusal to address the extreme violence against women in the film has renewed discussions about his representations and treatment of women on screen.

The #MeToo movement and cancel culture have shifted the way we consume media. So what does this mean for Tarantino and his depictions of violence?

25 bloody years on the big screen

Tarantino found instant acclaim with his debut Reservoir Dogs in 1992. Two years later, Pulp Fiction solidified his cult status. Over his 25-year career, he has directed nine films spanning western to blaxploitation to samurai. Across genres, his films are united by the protagonist’s quest for justice and bloody vengeance.

Tarantino is notorious for his stylised and hyperreal violence: macabre, shocking, and comical. When Pulp Fiction first came out, I was a first-year undergraduate studying and making films. I revelled in Tarantino’s approach to storytelling and the film’s originality.

Tarantino was the new King of Cool, and Pulp Fiction heralded a new era of filmmaking. Discussions about the violence mainly revolved around the subject of style and Tarantino’s brand of humour.

25 years later I’m analysing Tarantino again. But now it’s in the context of one of the largest social activist movements in contemporary history.

Contemporary controversies

Tarantino has come under the #MeToo spotlight mainly because of his close partnership with Miramax and The Weinstein Company, both co-founded by Harvey Weinstein (currently facing multiple counts of rape and sexual assault)link, and the distributors of most of Tarantino’s films.

Read more: What the Harvey Weinstein case tells us about sexual assault disclosure

The controversy, however, goes deeper than guilt by Weinstein-association: Tarantino has admitted being a knowing bystander. In a 2017 interview, Tarantino said: “There was more to it than just the normal rumors, the normal gossip. It wasn’t secondhand. I knew [Weinstein] did a couple of these things.”

Tarantino also faced allegations of misconduct by Uma Thurman, who rose to fame in Pulp Fiction and starred in Kill Bill: Volumes 1 & 2.

In 2018, Thurman spoke about a car crash during the filming of Kill Bill: Volume 1 which caused long-term neck and knee injuries. Despite airing her concerns about safety, Tarantino convinced her to perform the stunt.

Tarantino has since admitted his wrongdoing.

This is an example of the hypocrisy in Hollywood: Kill Bill was about female empowerment, but its star was being coerced by the director and pressured by the studio.

Read more: Rape is a plot device in western literature, sold back to us by Hollywood

Days after Thurman’s interview, an audio recording resurfaced from 2003 where Tarantino defended director Roman Polanski’s sexual abuse of a 13-year-old victim in 1977. Polanski was 43 at the time.

Tarantino can be heard saying: “she was down with it. [ … ] I don’t believe it’s rape. I mean not at 13. Not – not for these 13-year-old party girls.”

Alongside the era of #MeToo we have seen a rise in “cancel culture”, where questionable views and actions of influential figures are called out, and audiences are encouraged to withdraw support. Calls for “cancelling” Tarantino are growing.

He may be a groundbreaking filmmaker still breaking records at the box office – but is this enough for us to overlook his indiscretions?

What happens in the cinema, stays in the cinema?

Should we stop watching films connected with problematic individuals? What do we gain from cancelling the works of Tarantino, Polanski, Woody Allen and Bryan Singer from our collective consciousness?

Should judgement of a movie be separate to our judgement of the people who create them? Can we judge a movie separate to our judgement of the people who create them?

During a screening of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood my mind drifted to these matters.

I wondered if Tarantino still had the same admiration for Polanski as he did in 2003; whether he still holds those skewed ideas about rape.

I was irritated that Emile Hirsch was cast as Jay Sebring – Tate’s close friend and former lover. Hirsch plead guilty to assaulting a female studio executive in 2015.

At a time when abusers are being publicly denounced on social media, did Tarantino have any reservations about this casting choice? Was it even an issue for him?

Despite these questions, I could not suppress my laughter and gasps of gleeful shock at the spectacle of violence in the film’s climax.

And it is violent. The most striking death is when one of the female members of the Manson Family is maimed in the face by a can of dog food, before being fried with a flamethrower.

Over the course of the film, my thoughts continually wandered between the story on screen to the story off screen. Real world politics kept intruding into my viewing experience.

To boycott, or not to boycott

I left the cinema ruminating on the confusing range of emotions and responses I had, ready to unpack how the baggage of Tarantino’s opinions and treatment of female characters and cast members have influenced the way I read Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Boycotting a film can send a strong message – not least of all to the studio’s bottom line. But there is also benefit to viewing these films, and using them as talking points for why we find them problematic.

Watching Tarantino now, I still have immense respect for the artistry of his films and their aura of detached coolness. They captured the zeitgeist of a Generation X that was desperate for something different.

But knowing some of the troubling issues surrounding a production and the filmmaker has added another layer of awareness and critique. It has given the films a different sort of relevance for the times. The questions I ask don’t look the same as those I asked before.

Tarantino isn’t making cinema in the same world as he once was – but then again, I’m not watching it in the same world, either.

– ref. Tarantino has a questionable record in the #MeToo context, so should we boycott his new film? – http://theconversation.com/tarantino-has-a-questionable-record-in-the-metoo-context-so-should-we-boycott-his-new-film-121985

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bradley L Garrett, Research Fellow, University of Sydney

A small plane looped through the tranquil and cloudless Sydney sky today, spewing engine-heated liquid paraffin from its exhaust, creating puffy tracers. As people all over the city watched from rooftop bars, beach towels or their office windows, the plane scrawled the words “save unborn”, “choose life” and a crucifix across the sky.

The message, along with another on Sunday that said “choose life”, was commissioned by pro-life advocates amid legislation being debated to remove abortion from the New South Wales criminal code.

This was not the first time conservative political messages have been scrawled across the sky in the city. Many Sydneysiders will recall a similar incident in 2017, when opponents of the marriage equality bill scrawled “Vote No” in the air using crowd-sourced money from a GoFundMe campaign.

Marriage equality supporters then raised their own funds for a counter-message, but the only skywriting pilot in Sydney refused to draw it. Campaigners instead used the money to hire a helicopter to tow a 10-metre rainbow flag across the horizon at Bondi Beach.

Once the domain of gauche advertising and endearing marriage proposals, it seems our urban skies are increasingly becoming a partisan battleground.

So what are the laws surrounding the use of the sky for political purposes?

Skywriting: legal graffiti

Battles over free speech in the sky predate both social media and drone technology.

Almost 20 years ago in Southern California, the city of Huntington Beach attempted to pass legislation to ban aircraft towing graphic images on banners of aborted babies over its beaches. The city eventually dropped the efforts for fear of lawsuits.

In Australia, most forms of public messaging, such as TV, radio, and billboard advertising are heavily regulated – messages must be vetted and approved by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

Yet after the “vote no” skywriting appeared in Sydney, authorities came to the conclusion it was impractical to monitor political skywriting, putting it in the same category as graffiti.

A 2018 Act states:

Due to the nature of skywriting, compliance with the authorisation framework would be impractical […] As such, section 321D of the Electoral Act does not apply in relation to electoral matter if the matter forms part of a communication that is graffiti or skywriting.

The difference, of course, is that graffiti is illegal. No one has ever been prosecuted for skywriting offensive or political speech, though the United States Navy was forced to issue a public apology in 2017 after one of their pilots drew a giant penis in the sky over Washington state during a training exercise.

In short, you are as free to write anything in the sky as you are to post it on the internet – provided you have a plane, or a pilot willing to relay your message.

There’s little regulation in our ‘atmospheric commons’

Skywriting companies are seeing a surge in business for two reasons. First, in the age of Instagram, physically ephemeral statements can endure in the virtual realm.

This was a lesson learned early on by graffiti writers. Even if a piece is “buffed” by authorities, its presence on the internet will remain, making the effort worth the risk for writers hoping to be noticed.

In the context of skywriting, which can cost thousands of dollars, virtual legacy justifies the expense.

Read more: Where has Melbourne’s political graffiti gone?

The second reason for the interest in skywriting is that there is very little regulation over what happens in what University of NSW researcher Adam Fish and I have called our “atmospheric commons”. This refers to the space above our cities occupied by flights, kites, balloons, skydivers, skywriters and buzzing drones.

Legislation around such atmospheric interventions is unclear and hard to enforce, as we saw last year when tens of thousands of passengers at Gatwick Airport in London were grounded by a couple of rogue drones.

The combination of new technologies and increasingly militant political activities may lead to a more restricted and regulated urban atmosphere above our heads in the future, what geographer Jeremy Crampton has described as an “enclosure” of vertical urban life.

In research from last year, physical geographer Karen Anderson and I suggest the catalyst for increasing regulation will likely be commercial, rather than activist, drone use. The reason for this is simple – companies like Amazon who want to use airspace for commercial drone business have far more power to lobby government.

What’s more, new forms of “skytyping” are emerging that are computer controlled, punched out by multiple aircraft like old dot matrix printers.

The messages are written at more than 3000 metres, triple the height of traditional skywriting. Letters can be created up to 300 metres tall and over eight kilometres long that endure for hours.

Read more: Not all graffiti is vandalism – let’s rethink the public space debate

Once drones are developed that can carry 30 gallons of paraffin oil, perhaps every still blue day will descend into a computer controlled shouting match in the sky.

Whether we view this as a democratisation of freedom of expression or a gateway into uncontrollable celestial vandalism remains a matter of opinion. That is, until legislation catches up with an age where the ephemeral never really vanishes.

– ref. Free speech or sky vandalism? Here’s what the law says about skywriting in Australia – http://theconversation.com/free-speech-or-sky-vandalism-heres-what-the-law-says-about-skywriting-in-australia-122054

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Howard, Deputy Section Editor: Arts + Culture

You might picture a book club around your neighbour’s coffee table, or over beers at the local pub – but what if it took place in Parliament House?

This is the question being asked by Books Create Australia as they open up nominations for their inaugural parliamentary book club. Anyone can nominate an Australian book written in the last five years to their MP or Senator, and one book will be picked for all participating representatives to read.

From fiction to essays to poetry, we asked our experts for their recommendations.

Portable Curiosities

For this crowd, I’d recommend Julie Koh’s Portable Curiosities (UQP, 2016). It’s a sharp and funny collection of stories that expanded my sense of what it is to be Australian. On the assumption that parliamentarians skew demographically to my (Anglo, male, privileged, economically secure) demographic, they too deserve a bit of satirical poking with Koh’s delicate and sharp instruments.

What would it be like to be a young, poor, bright woman born of Asian immigrants in our wealthy but extremely expensive cities? Many thousands are living exactly that, and millions are living parts of it. Koh provides a dark yet joyous window on that world. It wouldn’t do our representatives any harm to look through it for a bit.

Recommended for: our Anglo, male parliamentarians.

-Robert Phiddian, English Professor

A Sand Archive

Gregory Day’s A Sand Archive (Pan Macmillan Australia, 2018) deals with perhaps the most crucial issue we face – environmental management – in lyrical mode. FB Herschell is an engineer concerned about how to maintain the Great South Road against the constant shifting of the sands on which they are built.

He selects marram grass to stabilise the dunes, but further research reveals that marram, an introduced species, harms the dunes, seabirds, and native plants. His appeals to reverse this, and all his evidence, fail to shift the local council, but the writings he leaves put on record the value of the environment, and the capacity of scientific investigation to help it heal.

Recommended for: Minister for the Environment Sussan Ley

–Jen Webb, Director of the Centre for Creative and Cultural Research

#MeToo: Stories from the Australian movement

Given the fact violence towards women is a national crisis, I would recommend #Me Too: Stories from the Australian movement (Pan Macmillan Australia, 2019), an anthology I co-edited. This book gives an overview of the problem of violence towards women and non-binary people in Australia. Through a myriad of different and diverse voices it points to the insidiousness of sexual violence and traces the roots of this problem to the everyday sexism which still permeates Australian culture. The book also offers ideas about how we might find a way through this crisis and into a more equitable and safer Australia.

Recommended for: Prime Minister Scott Morrison

–Natalie Kon-yu, Lecturer in Literature and Gender Studies

The Natural Way of Things

In Charlotte Wood’s The Natural Way of Things (Allan & Unwin, 2015), women who accuse men of sexual harassment or are themselves accused of illicit or improper sexuality are imprisoned and isolated in an outback prison. It’s like an Australian version of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.

Because it reads like a dystopian fantasy, it might be easy to dismiss the novel as “unrealistic”. But it is ruthless in its analysis of the way contemporary news media and gossip cycles still demonise and sexualise women. The novel explores the very different ways women resist or accommodate to their treatment; but it is really about the structures of patriarchy, influential far beyond the confines of the nuclear heterosexual family.

Recommended for: any male politician who says he is sympathetic to women because he is married to one or has daughters.

–Stephanie Trigg, English Literature Professor

Writing to the Wire

I must acknowledge a possible conflict of interest here by noting that I have a poem in this anthology, but Writing to the Wire (UWA Publishing, 2019) is an extraordinarily powerful collection of poems by and about maritime asylum seekers. The anthology includes poems by senior and emerging Australian poets, and work by those who “would like to be Australians”, as the book’s blurb puts it. As the editors write in their introduction, Writing to the Wire is a little like “bashing your head against a brick wall [but also] very much a book of hope”.

Three years later, the editors and the contributors to this anthology — not to mention those indefinitely detained by the Australian government — are still hoping.

Recommended for: the whole parliament.

-David McCooey, Writing and Literature Professor

Hearing Maud: A Journey for a Voice

Hearing Maud (UWA Publishing, 2019) by Jessica White is a beautifully told story about two people living nearly one hundred years apart, and their experience of deafness. The first is the author herself, Jessica White, who suffered significant and permanent hearing loss following an illness at the age of four. The other is Maud Praed, the daughter of the Australian writer Rosa Praed (1851-1935). Jessica looks into the life of this forgotten daughter of a largely forgotten writer and finds haunting parallels with her own situation. The story is an insider’s account of hearing impairment but, more than this, reminds everyone — not least legislators and policy makers — that what we call disability has an interior life.

Recommended for: Minister for Families and Social Services Anne Ruston and the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Stuart Robert

*–Tony Hughes-D’aeth, English and Cultural Studies Professor *

Dark Emu

In Dark Emu (Magabala Books, 2014), Bruce Pascoe amasses a cogent case that Indigenous Australians farmed their land, lived in villages, built houses, harvested cereals and built complex aquaculture systems – and how settler Australians wilfully misunderstood this.

Occupying the western Sydney fringe, Ed Husic’s electorate of Chifley has the rare distinction of a border that follows an important waterway (South Creek) and contains significant colonial-Darug contact sites. Western Sydney is home today to Australia’s largest Aboriginal population; the Aboriginal Land Council is the largest non-government land holder; and some 46 Indigenous organisations are working to sustain their community.

Recommended for: Ed Husic, MP for Chifley

–Heidi Norman, Social and Political Sciences Professor

hope for whole: poets speak up to Adani

It’s hard to go past The Swan Book (Alexis Wright) for its testimony regarding the climate crisis and the NT intervention, and Jess Hill’s new book See What You Made Me Do on the endemic of domestic abuse. But I’m settling on hope for whole: poets speak up to Adani (Plumwood Mountain, 2018) featuring many of Australia’s finest poets. Anne Elvey and Plumwood Journal: An Australian Journal of Ecopoetry and Ecopoetics hosted Poets Speak up to Adani Day of Action in 2017, an event during which poets poemed protests at Adani for 12 hours. The resulting anthology is even more pertinent post-Federal election, and the recent diplomacy fail in Tuvalu.

Recommended for: all parliamentarians who support the mine or seem soft on climate action.

–Meera Atkinson, Creative Writing Lecturer

No Friend But the Mountains: Writing from Manus Prison

Reading expands our capacity for empathy. It forces us to exercise our ethical imagination by putting ourselves into somebody else’s situation; particularly somebody who may be unlike us in the way they think, speak, or feel, or in the situations that they face. No Friend But the Mountains (Pan Macmillan Australia, 2018), Behrouz Boochani’s work of prose poetry, sent out in text messages from Manus Island, bears witness to death, torture and traumatic deprivation. It asks its reader not to treat the fresh hell it narrates as an anomaly but to understand “Manus Prison” as part of a system of oppression and injustice that is far larger, and ongoing. But to learn from Boochani’s text, the reader must give themselves to the work, and read with generosity.

These values may be of assistance to all members of the parliamentary book club.

–Camilla Nelson, Media Professor

– ref. What should politicians be reading at parliamentary book club? Our experts make their picks – http://theconversation.com/what-should-politicians-be-reading-at-parliamentary-book-club-our-experts-make-their-picks-122049

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

It was a key plank of what was dubbed the most significant package of private health insurance reforms in more than a decade. From April 1 this year, private health insurers have been permitted to offer a youth discount – lower premiums for people under 30.

But the early signs are not good. New data released today by the private health insurance regulator show 7,000 fewer young people (25 to 29 year olds) were insured on June 30, 2019 than three months earlier when the new discount regime started.

In the three years to June 30, 2018, an average of about 2,100 young people dropped private health insurance every month. For the first six months of this year, the decline was 1,700 a month.

Read more: Premiums up, rebates down, and a new tiered system – what the private health insurance changes mean

So the new policy may have stemmed the bleeding, but young people are still leaving private health insurance. This does not augur well for the future of private health insurance.

It’s time to consider a bold option to encourage young people to stay in private health insurance, which reduces their premium costs based on their likelihood of getting sick.

Lower health risks but the same costs

As we pointed out in a recent Grattan Institute working paper, the industry fears a death spiral where young and healthy people drop out of insurance, forcing up premiums for everyone left, then more young and healthy people drop out, premiums go up again, and the cycle continues.

Australian private health insurance is based on community rating. This means insurers must charge all consumers the same premium for the same product: they are not permitted to discriminate based on health risk (such as age, gender, health status, or claims history); and they cannot refuse to insure an individual.

Community rating is designed to enable higher-risk people to take out private health insurance, by forcing lower-risk people to cross-subsidise them. It means lower-risk people have to contribute more than what their expected use would require.

But faced with a higher-than-fair premium, low-risk people – typically the young and the healthy – make an economically rational decision to drop their private insurance. Hence the death spiral.

Discounts don’t cut it

Australia already has a so-called lifetime community ranking, under which people who take out private health insurance after their 31st birthday pay higher premiums – an additional 2% per year for each year they defer taking out insurance.

The April 1 changes introduced a reverse scheme, under which people can get a discount of 2% for each year they join before they turn 30, up to a maximum discount of 10%.

But even with the full 10% discount, a 25 year old will still be paying significantly more than they would with a risk-rated premium.

Read more: Going to the naturopath or a yoga class? Your private health won’t cover it

So the relentless downward trend continues. In the year to June 2019, the number of 25 to 29 year olds with private health insurance dropped 28,000, about 6%. The previous year it was also 6%. The year before that it was 5%.

In fact, for every quarter for the last four years there has been fewer 25 to 29 year olds insured at the end of each quarter than at the beginning of the quarter.

Although it may be too early to declare the new youth discount policy a complete failure, the government and industry need to consider bolder policies.

A better way to attract young people

Community rating may have had its day, given that under Medicare, everyone who needs health insurance automatically has it through the public system.

It’s time to consider shifting to risk rating, starting with people under 30. A risk rating based on age could halve young people’s private health insurance premiums and encourage more Australians to stay in private health insurance.

People aged 25 to 29 use health care much less than the rest of the insured population. In 2018-19, the average benefit payments for that group were A$708 per member compared to A$1,363 per member for the whole population.

If there were no cross-subsidies from 25 to 29 year olds, their premiums would be 52% of the average, community-rated premium.

This would dramatically reduce premiums for young people and increase the attractiveness of private health insurance.

As 25 to 29 year olds only comprise 4% of the insured population, adjusting premiums for this group is unlikely to have a measurable impact on premiums for other people with insurance in the short run, and may have a long run benefit if it attracts people aged 30 to 39 into insurance.

Under this reform, funds would have to manage the transition from a risk-rated premium for a 29 year old to a community-rated premium for a 30 year old.

This might involve full risk rating for 25 year olds and a blended approach – partial risk rating – for people over 25, so that the rate for 29 year olds does not involve too big a jump to a community rated premium at age 30.

But if developing a phasing-in plan is beyond insurers’ skill set, then private health insurance is in even more dire straits than the trend data reveals.

Read more: Do you really need private health insurance? Here’s what you need to know before deciding

– ref. Youth discounts fail to keep young people in private health insurance – http://theconversation.com/youth-discounts-fail-to-keep-young-people-in-private-health-insurance-121803

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carly Osborn, Visiting Research Fellow, University of Adelaide

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au.

What makes us cry? – Claudia, age 7.5, Victoria.

Hi Claudia. Thank you for this very sensible question.

As you know, crying is something everyone does sometimes. Sometimes we get teary because our bodies are trying to clean a bit of dirt out of our eyes. But that’s not really crying, is it? Crying has something to do with our emotions.

There’s a connection between the part of our brain that feels emotions, and the ducts in our eyes where tears come out – so when we have a big feeling, we cry.

Doctors of medicine could tell you more about that. But I’m a doctor of another subject – the history of emotions. I learn about why people cry for different reasons, and it’s my job to compare today with a long time ago.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why do tears come out of our eyes when we cry?

In Australia today, most kids cry when they’re feeling sad, whether they’re boys or girls. But once those kids become teenagers, boys seem to cry less often than girls do. This isn’t because boys have different brains or tear ducts than girls. It’s mostly because many Australian boys think crying is a bit embarrassing.

Maybe they’ve been told boys don’t cry, or teased by their friends if they cry at school.

In fact, it is very normal for boys to cry. And crying hasn’t always been seen as embarrassing or uncool.

The history of crying

About 500 years ago in England, crying was seen as really cool! One of the most famous stories at the time was about King Arthur.

He was a great hero, and a lot of boys wanted to be like him. According to books and poems written at the time, King Arthur cried a lot. Crying showed everybody he had very strong, true feelings. Back then, people thought this made him a great man, and the lords and ladies in his court cried in public too.

Crying around the world

Why we cry can also depend on where we live, and what our family is like.

If you live in a country where it’s normal to express a lot of feelings in public, such as America, you are more likely to cry about things.

If you live in a country where people don’t usually make a big show of how they feel, you probably won’t cry as much, even if you’re feeling sad on the inside.

For example, in Japan, for a long time people tried not to cry. But lately in Japan, people are changing their minds about crying. Books and movies that are very sad are becoming popular. There are even crying clubs, where you can watch a sad movie with other people, have a good cry, and go home feeling better because you let out a lot of big feelings!

The same goes for families: if everyone at your house likes to share how they’re feeling, and isn’t embarrassed about crying or laughing or shouting or dancing, then you’ll probably cry whenever you feel like it.

But if the people in your family don’t usually show how they feel, then you will also learn to keep your feelings inside and not let them show by crying.

We cry to show our feelings

As you can see in these examples, crying isn’t just something we do by ourselves. Quite often, crying is a way for us to show other people how we feel.

When you cry, your parents, teachers or friends know that you’re having a big feeling. Then they can help you feel better with a hug, or a talk about your feelings.

So why do we cry?

Well, partly because our bodies are made that way. But also because crying is how people around us show their feelings, and we learn to show our feelings the same way. Crying helps us share and care.

And I think that’s a wonderful thing.

Read more: Curious Kids: why can’t we do whatever we want?

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

– ref. Curious Kids: why do we cry? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-we-cry-119814

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Hopkins, Lecturer in conservation biology and microbial ecology, Edith Cowan University

As most of the science community knows, the climate emergency is here now. Weather extremes such as droughts and heatwaves are increasing in frequency and intensity and are measurably exacerbated by climate change. The significant impacts of these extremes are well documented on both our native terrestrial and marine ecosystems.

Less documented is what’s happening beneath our feet. Changes below the ground are hard to measure, so most previous research has focused on what can be readily observed above the ground, such as tree deaths.

But soil is a crucial element of the climate system, being the second-largest store of carbon after the ocean. Climate change can result either in an increase in soil carbon storage (through plant growth), or in more carbon being released into the atmosphere (through plant death). Soil is also full of microbes such as fungi, bacteria and algae, and these organisms play a vital role in determining how well an ecosystem functions and how it responds to changes in climate.

Read more: Eyes down: how setting our sights on soil could help save the climate

We have completed one of the first studies to examine the impact of drought and warmer temperatures on living organisms below the ground (known as the soil biota), in biodiverse shrublands in Western Australia, near Eneabba, about 280km north of Perth. These areas are already suffering immense climate-related stress above ground as a result of rising temperatures and longer droughts. This is making these ecosystems extremely vulnerable with many plant species facing likely extinctions in the future.

We documented significant impacts for soil biota too, with implications for the health of ecosystems in regions that are expected to experience increased drought and climate warming in the future.

We found that lower rainfall and higher temperatures are likely to affect the overall composition of soil fungal communities, and that some groups may be lost altogether.

We saw an increase in the number of fungal species that cause plant disease, whereas many common and beneficial fungi declined in response to warming and drying. These beneficial fungi contribute to many important ecosystem processes, such as boosting plant growth, and ensuring that plants get enough water and nutrients such as phosphorus.

How we did it

We built specially constructed shelters and mini-greenhouses over plots of shrubland 4x4m in size, to recreate the drier, hotter weather conditions predicted to arise between now and the end of the 21st century. This allowed us to assess how the projected future climate will affect the composition, richness and diversity of soil fungi.

Our rain shelters consisted of a roof made of gutters, widely spaced so as to intercept about 30% of the rain that fell on the plot and funnel it away.

Read more: We need more carbon in our soil to help Australian farmers through the drought

To study the impact of increased temperature, we enclosed separate plots on the same sites in walls made of transparent fibreglass sheeting. These worked in a similar way to a greenhouse, by reducing air flow and increasing daytime temperatures inside the shelter by 5.5℃.

We left the rain shelters and mini-greenhouses in place for four years. Then we collected soil from each plot and examined the fungi in the soil using DNA sequencing techniques.

Our study revealed that it is vital to understand patterns of below-ground ecosystems as well as those we can see, if we are to accurately predict how our shrublands and other valuable ecosystems will be altered by climate change.

– ref. We built a network of greenhouses and rain shelters to simulate what climate change will do to soils – http://theconversation.com/we-built-a-network-of-greenhouses-and-rain-shelters-to-simulate-what-climate-change-will-do-to-soils-108065

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Krystian Seibert, Industry Fellow, Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology

Over the weekend, Prime Minister Scott Morrison launched a new assault on the campaigning group GetUp. At the Liberal Party’s state conference in Adelaide, he said GetUp needed to be “accountable for what they say and do”.

They want to be in the political space, fine, call yourself a political party.

GetUp has been in the government’s firing line for several years now. This isn’t surprising. The campaigning group is typically described as a “left wing” and “progressive” organisation, and the stances it takes on various issues tend to be at odds with those of the Liberal and National parties.

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Paul Oosting responds to GetUp’s critics

GetUp campaigns on these issues by mobilising its membership in a number of ways. It encourages them to make donations to fund advertisements and other campaign initiatives, to directly contact their political representatives, and to operate on the ground in electorates in the run-up to elections.

It is perhaps this last activity that most bothers the Coalition government, as GetUp targeted a number of sitting Liberal MPs at the last election, including Peter Dutton and Tony Abbott. The group didn’t have a tremendous amount of success, though, with only Abbott losing his seat.

GetUp is already heavily regulated

Australia’s electoral process is not the private fiefdom of political parties. There are a variety of actors permitted to participate in our democracy and become involved in election campaigns. These include lobby groups, charities and not-for-profit campaigning groups, such as GetUp and its new “conservative” counterpart, Advance Australia.

And there is already a regulatory framework in place to ensure there is accountability and transparency around their electoral activities.

Any organisation that spends more than the “disclosure threshold” (currently A$14,000 per year) on “electoral expenditure”, for example, needs to submit an annual return to the Australian Electoral Commission. Information about these so-called “third parties” is publicly available on the AEC’s transparency register.

Read more: GetUp’s brand of in-your-face activism is winning elections – and making enemies

Groups like GetUp are now subject to even more regulation than third parties, thanks to legislative changes introduced by the government last year. Because of the amount they spend trying to influence elections, they fit into a new category called “political campaigner”. Political campaigners are required to register with the AEC and submit a more detailed annual return than “third parties”, similar to the returns required of political parties.

So, when Morrison calls for GetUp to be accountable like a political party, that’s already the case. However, despite being regulated in a similar way to political parties, they don’t receive the same benefits.

Organisations like GetUp don’t field candidates in elections, for instance, so they can never hope to wield political power in the way that political parties do.

Political parties also benefit from taxpayer funding – the AEC reimburses them for some or all of the expenses they incur in an election, provided they reached a certain threshold of votes. GetUp doesn’t get a cent from the AEC.

Donations to political parties of up to A$1,500 per year from individuals are also tax deductible. This also doesn’t apply to GetUp’s donors.

Stripping away GetUp’s independence

Morrison wants to have GetUp classified by the AEC as related to the Labor Party or the Greens, what the electoral law refers to as an “associated entity”. These organisations have some sort of formal link with a political party, or they

operate wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties.

Having GetUp classified as an “associated entity” wouldn’t actually bring any extra regulation. As a “political campaigner”, GetUp is already subject to the same type of regulation as an “associated entity”.

But this is likely not the point. For the Coalition, labelling GetUp an “associated entity” would make it much more difficult for the group to maintain its much-vaunted status as

an independent movement of everyday people

This may influence how GetUp’s future campaigns are perceived by voters – and would certainly be something the government would talk up at every opportunity.

The AEC has looked into this question three times – in 2005, 2010, and earlier this year. It has consistently found that GetUp is not an “associated entity” because it does not operate wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties.

Read more: New style lobbying: how GetUp! channels Australians’ voices into politics

While it’s true that the positions of GetUp often align with those of the Labor Party or the Greens, the AEC concluded the organisation is primarily an issues based campaigning organisation and that:

the expression of views or other conduct by an entity that broadly or closely aligns with the policy of a registered political party do not support a finding that the entity is operating wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties

If the government once again refers this matter to the AEC, it would be surprising if the AEC didn’t come back with exactly the same finding – especially given it’s only been a few months since the AEC last examined the matter.

Other methods for shutting down the group

There are other ways the Coalition government can try to reduce the influence of organisations like GetUp. For instance, the Liberal National Party State Convention in Queensland recently voted in support of banning GetUp and other campaigning organisations from handing out how to vote cards and other political material at polling booths on election day.

Read more: Time for the federal government to catch up on political donations reform

Such a drastic move to limit participation in our electoral process is at odds with Australia’s reputation as a free and vibrant democracy. As one Queensland Liberal National politician wisely warned, it could also cut both ways and harm conservative groups seeking to campaign on particular issues.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with GetUp’s positions, these types of campaigning groups reflect the diversity and vibrancy of our democracy and the different ways people can get involved in our political process.

If our political leaders are serious about improving the transparency and accountability of all actors in our political system, then instead of singling out GetUp, Morrison should prioritise the introduction of “real time” disclosure of political donations and the lowering of the disclosure threshold for public reporting of donations.

– ref. Yes, GetUp fights for progressive causes, but it is not a political party – and is not beholden to one – http://theconversation.com/yes-getup-fights-for-progressive-causes-but-it-is-not-a-political-party-and-is-not-beholden-to-one-122033

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist, University of Sydney

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au.

How does our blood fight viruses like chicken pox, sickness and colds? – Teddy, 5, Oxfordshire, England.

Our bodies are made up of building blocks called cells. They are different sizes and colours and join together to become organs like the skin, brain and lungs.

Some cells travel around our body and work to move food and waste.

Other cells work for the immune system, which is the body’s protection system. The mucous (or snot) and the tiny hairs in your nose and throat are a part of your immune system. Snot traps germs before they get too far into your body. The tiny hairs in your nose and throat tickle when they feel a germ, making your body cough or sneeze the germ out.

But if a germ makes it past the first layers of protection and into your blood, they will meet an army of special immune system cells that have one job: to fight germs.

Read more: Curious Kids: How does pain medicine work in the body?

Red and white blood cells

It helps to think of our blood like a soup, a mixture of different ingredients. The main ingredients are red blood cells and white blood cells.

The red cells give our blood its colour. They carry a thing called oxygen from our lungs to the rest of the body.

The white blood cells act as an army of fighting soldier cells that attack germs. They are fast, strong and smart.

They can squeeze out of the blood and travel into the nose or throat cells, capture germs and even swallow them.

White blood cells have a cool trick to help them recognise and fight germs: they “wear” the broken parts of germs like a badge. This helps other white cells know what the bad cells look like, so they can stop the bad cells if they come back.

Do you remember going to the doctor and getting a needle in your arm? The doctor was probably injecting a vaccine into your blood. The vaccine has a germ that’s been changed so it won’t hurt you – like a tiger with no teeth. The vaccine helps your immune system learn to recognise that germ if the real, more dangerous version came along.

Some viruses are smart and can change their appearance so white cells can’t remember them. This is why you can get the cold or the flu more than once.

Sometimes the white cells will eat the viruses. Other times they will shoot powerful balls called antibodies at the bad cells. These balls stick to the bad cells and make them very weak, which stops them moving around your body.

How to help your body fight a virus

Fighting bad cells can cause your body to get very hot and you can get a fever. This is because white cells work better when your body temperature is higher than normal.

You might also get rashes, aches and pains and feel really unwell. It is important to drink lots of water (or warm soup) and rest. Resting helps your body recover from all the fighting that the soldiers in your body have done.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why does my snot turn green when I have a cold?

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

– ref. Curious Kids: how does our blood fight viruses like chicken pox and colds? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-does-our-blood-fight-viruses-like-chicken-pox-and-colds-119394

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Hemer, Principal Research Scientist, Oceans and Atmosphere, CSIRO

The rise in sea levels is not the only way climate change will affect the coasts. Our research, published today in Nature Climate Change, found a warming planet will also alter ocean waves along more than 50% of the world’s coastlines.

If the climate warms by more than 2℃ beyond pre-industrial levels, southern Australia is likely to see longer, more southerly waves that could alter the stability of the coastline.

Scientists look at the way waves have shaped our coasts – forming beaches, spits, lagoons and sea caves – to work out how the coast looked in the past. This is our guide to understanding past sea levels.

Read more: Rising seas threaten Australia’s major airports – and it may be happening faster than we think

But often this research assumes that while sea levels might change, wave conditions have stayed the same. This same assumption is used when considering how climate change will influence future coastlines – future sea-level rise is considered, but the effect of future change on waves, which shape the coastline, is overlooked.

Changing waves

Waves are generated by surface winds. Our changing climate will drive changes in wind patterns around the globe (and in turn alter rain patterns, for example by changing El Niño and La Niña patterns). Similarly, these changes in winds will alter global ocean wave conditions.

Read more: Curious Kids: why are there waves?

Further to these “weather-driven” changes in waves, sea level rise can change how waves travel from deep to shallow water, as can other changes in coastal depths, such as affected reef systems.

Recent research analysed 33 years of wind and wave records from satellite measurements, and found average wind speeds have risen by 1.5 metres per second, and wave heights are up by 30cm – an 8% and 5% increase, respectively, over this relatively short historical record.

These changes were most pronounced in the Southern Ocean, which is important as waves generated in the Southern Ocean travel into all ocean basins as long swells, as far north as the latitude of San Francisco.

Sea level rise is only half the story

Given these historical changes in ocean wave conditions, we were interested in how projected future changes in atmospheric circulation, in a warmer climate, would alter wave conditions around the world.

As part of the Coordinated Ocean Wave Climate Project, ten research organisations combined to look at a range of different global wave models in a variety of future climate scenarios, to determine how waves might change in the future.

While we identified some differences between different studies, we found if the 2℃ Paris agreement target is kept, changes in wave patterns are likely to stay inside natural climate variability.

However in a business-as-usual climate, where warming continues in line with current trends, the models agreed we’re likely to see significant changes in wave conditions along 50% of the world’s coasts. These changes varied by region.

Less than 5% of the global coastline is at risk of seeing increasing wave heights. These include the southern coasts of Australia, and segments of the Pacific coast of South and Central America.

On the other hand decreases in wave heights, forecast for about 15% of the world’s coasts, can also alter coastal systems.

But describing waves by height only is the equivalent of describing an orchestra simply by the volume at which it plays.

Some areas will see the height of waves remain the same, but their length or frequency change. This can result in more force exerted on the coast (or coastal infrastructure), perhaps seeing waves run further up a beach and increasing wave-driven flooding.

Similarly, waves travelling from a slightly altered direction (suggested to occur over 20% of global coasts) can change how much sand they shunt along the coast – important considerations for how the coast might respond. Infrastructure built on the coast, or offshore, is sensitive to these many characteristics of waves.

While each of these wave characteristics is important on its own, our research identified that about 40% of the world’s coastlines are likely to see changes in wave height, period and direction happening simultaneously.

While some readers may see intense waves offering some benefit to their next surf holiday, there are much greater implications for our coastal and offshore environments. Flooding from rising sea levels could cost US$14 trillion worldwide annually by 2100 if we miss the target of 2℃ warming.

Read more: Droughts and flooding rains already more likely as climate change plays havoc with Pacific weather

How coastlines respond to future climate change will be a response to a complex interplay of many processes, many of which respond to variable and changing climate. To focus on sea level rise alone, and overlooking the role waves play in shaping our coasts, is a simplification which has great potential to be costly.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Xiaolan Wang, Senior Research Scientist at Environment and Climate Change, Canada, to this article.

– ref. Climate change may change the way ocean waves impact 50% of the world’s coastlines – http://theconversation.com/climate-change-may-change-the-way-ocean-waves-impact-50-of-the-worlds-coastlines-121239

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Owain Emslie, Associate, Grattan Institute

Inheritances can have an enormous impact on finances and lives.

Yet in Australia we know surprisingly little about who gets them and how big they are.

New Grattan Institute research provides some answers.

Inheritances are big and growing

A sample of estates from Victoria’s probate office suggests the median estate in Victoria is worth around A$500,000. That’s likely to be close to what it is Australia-wide.

But many are much larger. About 20% are worth more than A$1 million, and 7% are more than A$2 million. Property is the largest component, accounting for about half of the average value.

The main beneficiaries of “final” estates (estates without a surviving spouse) are children, who receive about three-quarters of all inheritance money.

Other family members, such as nieces, nephews and grandchildren, receive about 20%. Friends get about 4%, and charities 2%.

Read more: For the first time in a long time, we’re setting up a generation to be worse off than the one before it

Average inheritances are growing about 2 percentage points faster than inflation each year, which is a good deal faster than wages or gross domestic product.

There are reasons to believe they will soon grow even faster.

Net wealth has grown strongly among older households. Households headed by people aged over 75 now have an average of A$1 million in assets, up from A$400,000 for a household headed by a person of the same age in 1994.

And most retirees don’t draw down on their savings.

Indeed, many are net savers through much of their retirement, meaning there’s only one place their accumulated property and superannuation wealth can go: into bequests.

Inheritances are going to the already old…

These days, inheritances generally don’t arrive when people are saving for a house or trying to raise a young family.

More than 80% of money passed down from parents goes to people aged 50 and over.

The most common age bracket in which people to receive an inheritance from parents is 55-59.

It’s the result of good news – parents are living longer.

But as life expectancy grows still further, it will mean inheritances increasingly supplement the retirement savings of middle-aged Australians rather than help young people get into housing.

…and the already wealthy

The wealthiest 20% of Australians get 38% of inheritance money; the poorest 20% get only 8%.

It means the growing wealth of Baby Boomers is likely to end up concentrated in the hands of a select group relatively well-off Generation Xers and Millennials rather than being widely spread.

It will reinforce the advantages already enjoyed by people with well-off parents, including better schooling, better connections, and a greater ability to take financial risks because of a parental safety net.

If (as is possible) inheritances end up becoming the dominant route to wealth in Australia surpassing lifetime earnings, there will be less incentive for ordinary Australians to attempt to get ahead through individual endeavour.

We will have entered what French economist Thomas Piketty calls a “Jane Austen world”.

We don’t tax inheritances…

Calm debate on policy setting around inheritances is hard to come by in Australia.

Inheritances and gifts have been tax-free since the 1970s.

Australia is one of only seven OECD countries without any inheritance, estate, or gift taxes. Despite the economic arguments for inheritance taxes, there seems to be little appetite to bring them back.

…if anything, we subsidise them

Not taxing inheritances is one thing, but actively subsidising them is another.

Superannuation tax breaks were intended to encourage people to save for their retirement and to take pressure off the age pension system.

But given that many retired Australians do not draw down on their capital, a large part of the super tax concessions simply boosts the size of bequests.

Super death benefits tax is intended to claw back the superannuation tax breaks when the money is passed on, in order to ensure that the government doesn’t subsidise inheritances.

But, at 15%, the rate is too low to capture the value of the accumulated tax breaks. And it can easily be avoided by retirees withdrawing funds tax-free and then contributing them back as a post-tax contribution, which is tax-free when passed on.

The special treatment of the family home in the age pension means test also acts to boost inheritances at taxpayers’ expense. Without it there would less to pass on.

It’s time to claw some of them back

There is little justification for taxpayers subsidising inheritances. Policy changes could help.

We recommend a higher tax on super bequests paid to non-dependents to better capture the value of the super tax breaks that are passed on rather than used for retirement. The cap on post-tax super contributions should also be lowered, to limit the re-contribution strategies.

Read more: House prices and demographics make death duties an idea whose time has come

The age pension assets test should include part of the value of the family home, perhaps the part above A$500,000. Seniors with higher-value properties should be allowed to borrow against their home using the Pension Loans Scheme.

This would give them the ability to stay in their home but would mean that some of the wealth that would otherwise be passed to heirs (most likely in their 50s) would instead be used to fund them, taking pressure off the pension.

Read more: Vital Signs: policies come and policies go, but surely we shouldn’t be subsidising inheritances

– ref. Rethink inheritances. These days they no longer help the young, they go to the already middle-aged – http://theconversation.com/rethink-inheritances-these-days-they-no-longer-help-the-young-they-go-to-the-already-middle-aged-122029