Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Sydney

Supporters of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament have celebrated the commitment of the new Albanese government to put the issue to a referendum. But is government support enough?

It’s a start, but the road to referendum success is a hard one, as it was always meant to be.

The Constitution was meant to be hard to change

When the Constitution was being written in the 1890s, the initial expectation was that it would be enacted by the British and they would control the enactment of any changes to it, just as they did for Canada.

But the drafters of the Commonwealth Constitution bucked the system by insisting they wanted the power to change the Constitution themselves. They chose the then quite radical method of a referendum, which they borrowed from the Swiss.

While it was radical, because it let the people decide, it was also seen as a conservative mechanism. British constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey described the referendum as “the people’s veto”, because it allowed the “weight of the nation’s common sense” and inertia to block “the fanaticism of reformers”.

The drafters of the Commonwealth Constitution were divided on the issue. Some supported the referendum because it would operate to defeat over-hasty, partisan or ill-considered changes. Others were concerned that change was hard enough already, and voters would have a natural tendency to vote “No” in a referendum because there are always objections and risks that can be raised about any proposal. Fear of the new almost always trumps dissatisfaction with the current system, because people do not want to risk making things worse.

In this sense, the referendum is conservative – not in a party-political sense, but because it favours conserving the status quo.

Another concern, raised by Sir Samuel Griffith, was that constitutions are complex, and a large proportion of voters would not be sufficiently acquainted with the Australian Constitution to vote for its change in an informed way. He favoured using a United States-style of constitutional convention to make changes.

The democrats eventually won and the referendum was chosen. But to satisfy their opponents, they added extra hurdles. To succeed, a referendum has to be approved not only by a majority of voters overall, but also by majorities in a majority of states (currently four out of six states).

Read more:
An Indigenous ‘Voice’ must be enshrined in our Constitution. Here’s why

A Constitution frozen in time

The predictions were right. The referendum at the federal level has indeed turned out to be the “people’s veto”. Of 44 referendum questions put to the people, only eight have passed. No successful Commonwealth referendum has been held since 1977. We have not held a Commonwealth referendum at all since 1999.

There are many suggested reasons for this. Some argue that the people have correctly exercised their veto against reforms that were proposed for party-political advantage or to unbalance the federal system by expanding Commonwealth power. If reforms are put because they are in the interests of the politicians, rather than the people, they will fail.

Questions asked in referendums have been poorly formulated and often load too many issues into the one proposed reform. If a voter objects to just one aspect of a proposal, they then vote down the entire reform.

Another argument is that, as Griffith anticipated, the people know little about the Constitution and are not willing to approve changes to it if they are unsure. The mantra “Don’t know – Vote No” was extremely effective during the republic campaign in 1999.

Of course, if you don’t know, you should find out. But the failure to provide proper civics education in schools means most people don’t feel they have an adequate grounding to embark on making that assessment.

Decades of neglect of civics has left us with a population that is insufficiently equipped to fulfil its constitutional role of updating the Constitution.

Vulnerability to scare campaigns

The biggest threat to a successful referendum is the running of a “No” campaign by a major political party, or one or more states, or even a well-funded business or community group.

Scare campaigns are effective even if there is little or no truth behind them. It is enough to plant doubt in the minds of voters to get them to vote “No”. Voters are reluctant to entrench changes in the Constitution if they might have unintended consequences or be interpreted differently in the future, because they know how hard it will be to fix any mistake.

If a referendum campaign ends up focused on technical issues about the future operation or interpretation of particular amendments, then it is likely lost.

Campaigns tend to be more successful if they focus on principles or outcomes, such as the 1967 referendum concerning Aboriginal people. That referendum had the advantage of not being opposed in the Commonwealth parliament. The consequence was that there was only a “Yes” case distributed to voters, as a “No” case can only be produced by MPs who oppose the referendum bill in parliament.

Read more:
‘Right wrongs, write Yes’: what was the 1967 referendum all about?

Overcoming the malaise

While recognising these difficulties, perhaps the greatest risk is becoming hostage to the belief the Constitution cannot be changed and referendums will always fail. It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Instead, we need to face constitutional reform as being difficult but achievable and worthwhile. The Constitution should always serve the needs of today’s Australians, rather than the people of the 1890s.

The key elements for success include a widespread will for change, the drive and persistence of proponents, good leadership, sound well-considered proposals and building a broad cross-party consensus. Not every element is necessary, but all are helpful.

As incoming Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney recently noted, there is still a lot of work to be done in building that consensus in relation to Indigenous constitutional recognition, but the work has commenced.

Anne Twomey has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council and sometimes does consultancy work for governments and inter-governmental bodies. She is also a Director of Constitution Education Fund Australia which is concerned with trying to improve civics teaching in schools.

– ref. Changing the Australian Constitution is not easy. But we need to stop thinking it’s impossible – https://theconversation.com/changing-the-australian-constitution-is-not-easy-but-we-need-to-stop-thinking-its-impossible-183626

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Wallis, Professor of International Security, University of Adelaide

Yet more proposed Chinese “security agreements” in the Pacific Islands have been leaked.

The drafts have been described by critics as revealing “the ambitious scope of Beijing’s strategic intent in the Pacific” and its “coherent desire […] to seek to shape the regional order”. There are concerns they will “dramatically expand [China’s] security influence in the Pacific”.

But does this overstate their importance?

A pause for breath

Australia should be concerned about China’s increasingly visible presence in the Pacific Islands. A coercive Chinese presence could substantially constrain Australia’s freedom of movement, with both economic and defence implications.

And Pacific states and people have reason to be concerned. The restrictions on journalists during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to Solomon Islands demonstrate the potential consequences for transparency of dealing closely with China.

And there are questions about the implications of the Solomon Islands-China security agreement for democracy and accountability.

But before we work ourselves into a frenzy, it is worth pausing for breath.

The leaked drafts are just that: drafts.

They have not yet been signed by any Pacific state.

At least one Pacific leader, Federated States of Micronesia president David Panuelo, has publicly rejected them. Panuelo’s concerns are likely shared by several other Pacific leaders, suggesting they’re also unlikely to sign.

China wields powerful tools of statecraft – particularly economic – but Pacific states are sovereign. They will ultimately decide the extent of China’s role in the region.

And these drafts do not mention Chinese military bases – nor did the China-Solomon Islands agreement.

Rumours in 2018 China was in talks to build a military base in Vanuatu never eventuated.

What if some Pacific states sign these documents?

First, these documents contain proposals rather than binding obligations.

If they are signed, it’s not clear they will differ in impact from the many others agreed over the last decade. For example, China announced a “strategic partnership” with eight Pacific states in 2014, which had no substantive consequences for Australia.

So common – and often so ineffectual – are “strategic partnerships” and “memoranda of understanding” that there is a satirical podcast series devoted to them.

Second, the drafts contain proposals that may benefit Pacific states.

For example, a China-Pacific Islands free trade area could open valuable opportunities, especially as China is a significant export destination.

Third, the drafts cover several activities in which China is already engaged. For example, China signed a security agreement with Fiji in 2011, and the two states have had a police cooperation relationship since.

It’s worth remembering Australia and New Zealand provide the bulk of policing assistance. The executive director of the Pacific Island Chiefs of Police is even a Kiwi.

The drafts do contain concerning provisions. Cooperation on data networks and “smart” customs systems may raise cybersecurity issues. This is why Australia funded the Coral Sea Cable connecting Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea to Australia.

Provisions relating to satellite maritime surveillance may cause friction with existing activities supported by Australia and its partners.

Greater Chinese maritime domain awareness of the region – meaning understanding of anything associated with its oceans and waterways – would also raise strategic challenges for Australia, New Zealand, and the US.

But there is a risk of over-egging the implications based on our own anxieties.

China’s interests

Much of China’s diplomacy has been opportunistic and not dissimilar to what Australia and other partners are doing.

Although the region is strategically important to Australia, the southern Pacific islands are marginal to China. And apart from Kiribati and Nauru, the northern Pacific islands are closely linked to the US.

China’s interest may primarily be about demonstrating strategic reach, rather than for specific military purposes.

So, amplifying narratives about China’s threatening presence may unintentionally help China achieve its broader aim of influencing Australia.

And framing China’s presence almost exclusively as threatening may limit Australia’s manoeuvrability.

Given the accelerating frequency of natural disasters in the region due to climate change, it is only a matter of time before the Australian and Chinese militaries find themselves delivering humanitarian relief side-by-side. Being on sufficiently cordial terms to engage in even minimal coordination will be important.

Indeed, Australia should try to draw China into cooperative arrangements in the Pacific.

Reviving, updating, and seeking China’s signature of, the Pacific Islands Forum’s Cairns Compact on Development Coordination, would be a good start.

If China really has benign intentions, it should welcome this opportunity. The compact, a mechanism created by Pacific states, could help ensure China’s activities are well-coordinated and targeted alongside those of other partners.

Amplifying threat narratives also feeds into Australia’s perceived need to “compete” by playing whack-a-mole with China, rather than by formulating a coherent, overarching regional policy that responds to the priorities of Pacific states.

For example, Australia has funded Telstra’s purchase of Digicel, following interest from Chinese telco Huawei, despite questions over the benefits.

What will Australia offer next?

There is a risk some Pacific states may overestimate their ability to manage China. But for the time being it is understandable why at least some would entertain Chinese overtures.

New Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong has rushed to Fiji days into the job with sought-after offers of action on climate change and expanded migration opportunities. Pacific leaders might be wondering what Australia will offer next.

Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Defence.

Maima Koro receives funding from the Australia Department of Defence.

– ref. Amplifying narratives about the ‘China threat’ in the Pacific may help China achieve its broader aims – https://theconversation.com/amplifying-narratives-about-the-china-threat-in-the-pacific-may-help-china-achieve-its-broader-aims-183917

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ann Borda, Associate Professor, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne

When a new coronavirus emerged from nature in 2019, it changed the world. But COVID-19 won’t be the last disease to jump across from the shrinking wild. Just this weekend, it was announced that Australia, is no longer an onlooker, as Canada, the US and European countries scramble to contain monkeypox, a less dangerous relative of the feared smallpox virus we were able to eradicate at great cost.

As we push nature to the fringes, we make the world less safe for both humans and animals. That’s because environmental destruction forces animals carrying viruses closer to us, or us to them. And when an infectious disease like COVID does jump across, it can easily pose a global health threat given our deeply interconnected world, the ease of travel and our dense and growing cities.

We can no longer ignore that humans are part of the environment, not separate to it. Our health is inextricably linked to the health of animals and the environment. This will not be the last pandemic.

To be better prepared for the next spillover of viruses from animals, we must focus on the connections between human, environmental and animal health. This is known as the One Health approach, endorsed by the World Health Organization and many others.

We believe artificial intelligence can help us better understand this web of connection, and teach us how to keep life in balance.

How can AI help us ward off new pandemics?

Fully 60% of all infectious diseases affecting humans are zoonoses, meaning they came from animals. That includes the lethal Ebola virus, which came from primates, swine flu, from pigs, and the novel coronavirus, most likely from bats. It’s also possible for humans to give animals our diseases, with recent research suggesting transmission of COVID-19 from humans to cats as well as deer.

Early warning of new zoonoses is vital, if we are to be able to tackle viral spillover before it becomes a pandemic. Pandemics such as swine flu (influenza H1N1) and COVID-19 have shown us the enormous potential of AI-enabled prediction and disease surveillance. In the case of monkeypox, the virus has already been circulating in African countries, but has now made the leap internationally.

Read more:
On the trail of the origins of Covid-19

What does this look like? Think of collecting and analysing real-time data on infection rates. In fact, AI was used to first flag the novel coronavirus as it was becoming a pandemic, with work done by AI company Bluedot and HealthMap at Boston Children’s Hospital.

How? By tracking vast flows of data in ways humans simply cannot do. Healthmap, for instance, uses natural language processing and machine learning to analyse data from government reports, social media, news sites, and other online sources to track the global spread of outbreaks.

We can also use AI to mine social media data to understand where and when the next COVID surge will occur. Other researchers are using AI to examine the genomic sequences of viruses infecting animals in order to predict whether they could potentially jump from their animal hosts into humans.

As climate change alters the earth’s systems, it is also changing the ways disease spreads and their distributions. Here, too, AI can be put to use in new surveillance methods.

Better conservation through AI

There are clear links between our destruction of the environment and the emergence of new infectious diseases and zoonotic spillovers. That means protecting and conserving nature also helps our health. By keeping ecosystems healthy and intact, we can prevent future disease outbreaks.

In conservation, too, AI can help. For instance, Wildbook uses computer-vision algorithms to detect individual animals in images, and track them over time. This allows researchers to produce better estimates of population sizes.

Trashing the environment by deforestation or illegal mining can also be spotted by AI, such as through the Trends.Earth project, which monitors satellite imagery and earth observation data for signs of unwelcome change.

Citizen scientists can pitch in as well by helping train machine learning algorithms to get better at identifying endangered plants and animals on platforms like Zooniverse.

AI for the natural world as well as humans

Researchers are beginning to consider the ethics of AI research on animals. If AI is used carelessly, we could actually see worse outcomes for domestic and wild animal species, for example, animal tracking data can be prone to errors if not double-checked by humans on the ground, or even hacked by poachers.

AI is ethically blind. Unless we take steps to embed values into this software, we could end up with a machine which replicates existing biases. For instance, if there are existing inequalities in human access to water resources, these could easily be recreated in AI tools which would maintain this unfairness. That’s why organisations such as the AINowInstitute are focusing on bias and environmental justice in AI.

In 2019, the EU released ethical guidelines for trustworthy AI. The goal was to ensure AI tools are transparent and prioritise human agency and environmental health.

Read more:
How to prevent mass extinction in the ocean using AI, robots and 3D printers

AI tools have real potential to help us tackle the next pandemic by keeping tabs on viruses and helping us keep nature intact. But for this to happen, we will have to widen AI outwards, away from the human-centredness of most AI tools, towards embracing the fullness of the environment we live in and share with other species.

We should do this while embedding our AI tools with principles of transparency, equity and protection of rights for all.

Patty Kostkova receives funding from UKRI

Andreea Molnar, Ann Borda, and Cristina Neesham do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. AI could help us spot viruses like monkeypox before they cross over – and help conserve nature – https://theconversation.com/ai-could-help-us-spot-viruses-like-monkeypox-before-they-cross-over-and-help-conserve-nature-182515

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

Many of us are considering a long-delayed overseas trip. However, despite what our politicians are telling us, the pandemic is not over yet, and there is always the risk you could catch COVID on holiday or just before you depart.

So, here are a few general tips about what you should do to maximise the chance of a safe and enjoyable holiday, and a quick look at the COVID situation in four popular holiday destinations.

Read more:
Want to cut your chance of catching COVID on a plane? Wear a mask and avoid business class

Vaccination status

First and foremost, make sure you are fully vaccinated – that’s three doses for most people, and four for the over-65s and some vulnerable groups. Two doses are better than nothing, but not good enough against the Omicron variant.

Health insurance

Several insurance companies will cover you against a COVID infection just before you are due to travel, or while you are travelling. Travel insurance is not only advised, it is mandatory in countries such as Fiji and Indonesia.

On the plane

Planes are quite safe since the air gets filtered through HEPA filters. However, you could be very unlucky and have someone sitting close to you who is infectious. So, the best bet is to wear a face mask when not eating and drinking.

Take alcohol wipes with you and give your tray, seat belt, controller for the entertainment and inside of seat pockets a good wipe down.

When thinking about your destination and the COVID cases there, it’s also important to compare this to the situation in Australia.

Australia’s current cases (seven-day moving average, per million of population) are 1,684 per day, and deaths (seven-day moving average, per ten million of population) are 19.8 per day. Some 84% of the Australian population have completed the initial vaccination schedule.

Read more:
Australia’s yellow international arrival cards are getting a COVID-era digital makeover. Here are 5 key questions

Fiji

In terms of how much COVID is around, Fiji is doing quite well. Average daily case numbers are 13.6 per million, tiny compared with the Australian rate. The daily death rate per ten million population is zero.

Current vaccines available are AstraZeneca and Moderna, and 70% of Fijians have completed the initial vaccination schedule. There appear to be few current public health regulations. Face masks are optional, and social distancing requirements aren’t being enforced.

Given the very low case numbers at the moment, I don’t think this is a major issue. But if you are older or at risk because of health problems, I would still wear a face mask indoors.

Health care in Fiji is not up to Australian standards, especially in government-run hospitals. Private hospitals are better, but if you get seriously ill, you’d be better off being medivaced to Australia or New Zealand.

Bali

Indonesia is also doing quite well with daily cases at 0.98 per million and a death rate of 0.3 per ten million population. However, these data might be under-reported.

Current vaccines available are Zifivax, Covovax, Moderna, Pfizer, Convidecia, Sputnik V, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, KCONVAC, Covilo, and CoronaVac. Covovax is from India, Sputnik V from Russia, and the remaining ones you may not have heard of are from China. There have been some queries about the effectiveness of some Chinese vaccines.

Some 60% of Indonesians have completed the initial vaccination schedule, however, this is likely to be higher in Bali.

Wearing a face mask indoors (for example, in shops) is mandatory, and some social distancing and mandatory QR code scanning are in force. Face masks are not required while sitting in a restaurant.

Read more:
Why COVID-19 means the era of ever cheaper air travel could be over

Like Fiji, hospitals in Bali are generally not up to Western standards, although private ones are better than public hospitals. If you get seriously ill, getting medivaced to Australia is probably the best way to go.

New Zealand

Across the ditch, the COVID situation is similar to Australia, with 1,399 cases per day per million population, and 23.4 deaths per ten million population.

Vaccines authorised are AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Novavax. The rate of vaccination is also very similar to Australia with 80% having completed the initial vaccination schedule.

New Zealand is a bit more sensible than Australia, retaining face mask mandates in retail settings and public spaces such as museums.

The New Zealand health-care system is not quite up to Australia’s level, but good enough that you don’t have to worry if you have to be hospitalised. The good news is Australia has a reciprocal arrangement with New Zealand so there are no costs if you are admitted to a public hospital.

The United Kingdom

All public health measures have been removed in the UK.

Reported case numbers are not as dire as Australia and New Zealand, with average daily case numbers at 120 per million population. However, COVID tests are no longer free for most people. While people can buy their own rapid antigen tests, these can’t be logged on the government website. Only those with underlying health conditions can get a free test and must report the results. This means the reported case numbers are likely a big underestimate. This would, in part, explain the UK’s current daily death rate of 12.4 per ten million population.

Interestingly, just about everyone in the UK has antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Some 73% of the UK population has completed the initial vaccination schedule, considerably lower than Australia.

In terms of quality, the UK health system is somewhere between Australia and New Zealand. Like New Zealand, Australia has a reciprocal health-care arrangement with free treatment in UK public hospitals.

In a nutshell

While Bali and Fiji don’t have much COVID around, their health systems are not as good if you are unlucky enough to get very sick. You’ll be more likely to catch COVID in the UK or New Zealand, but they have good health services if you do.

As for me, I’m masking up and staying in Australia for the next few months!

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

– ref. Planning a holiday? What’s the COVID situation in Bali, Fiji, NZ and the UK? – https://theconversation.com/planning-a-holiday-whats-the-covid-situation-in-bali-fiji-nz-and-the-uk-182850

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothée Bonnet, Researcher in evolutionary biology (DECRA fellow), Australian National University

How fast is evolution? In adaptive evolution, natural selection causes genetic changes in traits that favour the survival and reproduction of individual organisms.

Although Charles Darwin thought the process occurred over geological timescales, we have seen examples of dramatic adaptive evolution over only a handful of generations. The peppered moth changed colour in response to air pollution, poaching has driven some elephants to lose their tusks and fish have evolved resistance to toxic chemicals.

Read more:
Explainer: Theory of evolution

However, it is still hard to tell how fast adaptive evolution is currently occurring. We also don’t know whether it has a hand in the fate of populations challenged by environmental change.

To measure the speed of adaptive evolution in the wild, we studied 19 populations of birds and mammals over several decades. We found they were evolving at twice to four times the speed suggested by earlier work. This shows adaptive evolution may play an important role in how the traits and populations of wild animals change over relatively short periods of time.

The tools of the evolutionary biologist: maths and binoculars

How do we measure how fast adaptive evolution is occurring? According to the “fundamental theorem of natural selection”, the amount of genetic difference in “fitness” to survive and reproduce among individuals across a population also corresponds to the population’s rate of adaptive evolution.

The “fundamental theorem” has been known for 90 years, but it has been difficult to apply in practice. Attempts to use the theorem in wild populations have been rare, and are plagued by statistical problems.

We worked with 27 research institutions to assemble data from 19 wild populations that have been monitored for long periods of time, some since the 1950s. Generations of researchers collected information about the birth, mating, reproduction and death of each individual in these populations.

Together, those data represent around 250,000 animals and 2.6 million hours of field work. The investment may look outrageous, but the data have already been used in thousands of scientific studies and will be used again.

Statistics to the rescue

We then used quantitative genetic models to apply the “fundamental theorem” to each population. Instead of keeping track of changes in every gene, quantitative genetics uses statistics to capture the net effect emerging from changes in thousands of genes.

We also developed a new statistical method that fits the data better than previous models. Our method captures two key properties of how survival and reproduction are unevenly distributed across populations in the wild.

First, most individuals die before breeding, meaning there are a lot of entries in the “zero offspring” column of the lifetime reproduction record.

Second, whereas most breeders have only a few offspring, some have a disproportionately high number, leading to an asymmetric distribution.

The rate of evolution

Among our 19 populations, we found that, on average, genetic change in response to selection was responsible for an 18.5% increase per generation in the ability of individuals to survive and reproduce.

This means offspring are on average 18.5% “better” than their parents. To put it another way, an average population could survive an 18.5% deterioration in the quality of its environment. (This may change if genetic response to selection is not the only force at play; more on that below.)

Given these rates, we found adaptive evolution could explain most recent changes in wild animal traits (such as size or reproductive timing). Other mechanisms are important too, but this is strong evidence evolution should be considered alongside other explanations.

An exciting result for an uncertain future

What does this mean for the future? At a time when natural environments are changing dramatically all over the world, due to climate change and other forces, will evolution help animals adapt?

Unfortunately, that is where things get tricky. Our research estimated only genetic changes due to natural selection, but in the context of climate change there are other forces at play.

First, there are other evolutionary forces (such as mutations, random chance and migration).

Second, the environmental change itself is likely a more important driver of population demographics than genetic change. If the environment keeps deteriorating, theory tells us that adaptive evolution will generally be unable to fully compensate.

Read more:
Life quickly finds a way: the surprisingly swift end to evolution’s big bang

Finally, adaptive evolution can itself change the environment experienced by future generations. In particular, when individuals compete with each other for a resource (such as food, territory or mates), any genetic improvement will lead to more competition in the population.

Our work alone is insufficient to draw predictions. However, it shows that evolution cannot be discounted if we want to accurately predict the near future of animal populations.

Despite the practical challenges, we are thrilled to witness Darwinian evolution, a process once thought exceedingly slow, acting observably in our lifetimes.

Timothée Bonnet receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. Wild animals are evolving faster than anybody thought – https://theconversation.com/wild-animals-are-evolving-faster-than-anybody-thought-183633

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thea van de Mortel, Professor, Nursing and Deputy Head (Learning & Teaching), School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University

As we head into winter, you may have a sniffly child under two years old at home. Is it just a cold? Or could it be COVID?

You may be tempted to reach into the cupboard for a rapid antigen test to find out. But some manufacturers say their COVID tests aren’t suitable for children under two.

Can you use a test intended for adults or older children? How do you test a wriggling or grumpy small child anyway? We’re infection control and child health researchers. Here are our tips.

Read more:
Coronavirus or just a common cold? What to do when your child gets sick this winter

Are there special tests for this age group?

Of the 47 different rapid antigen tests authorised for home use in Australia at the time of writing, most (57%) state they are not suitable for children under two. This leaves 20 tests that are.

You can check the list on the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) website to see if the test you have at home is one of them.

Just because a test isn’t approved for a particular age doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t work at all. It usually means the test has not been tested, or its use determined, for that age. But try to use a test approved for under twos if you can.

However, rapid antigen tests are generally not as accurate in children as they are in adults. They are:

• highly specific – rapid antigen tests for children have high specificity. This means if the test is done correctly, it is unlikely to say your child is positive if it is not

• but not as sensitive – rapid antigen tests are less sensitive in children than adults. In other words, they’re not as good at detecting if a child has COVID. But tests are more likely to correctly detect COVID if the child has symptoms.

Read more:
15 things not to do when using a rapid antigen test, from storing in the freezer to sampling snot

Which type of test to use?

Of the 20 tests approved for use in under twos, 16 use nasal swabs and four sample saliva.

The accuracy of different sampling methods in children differs by viral variant. While it was once thought nasal swabs were more accurate in children, this may not necessarily be the case with the Omicron variant.

There’s preliminary evidence, which has yet to be independently verified, saliva swabs may be better able to detect Omicron. So we’ll see how the evidence develops.

Taking a saliva sample may not be as straightforward as you think.

Depending on the test, your child may need to cough (several times, on demand) and spit into a tube. Or after you swab your child’s tongue and mouth, your child will need to keep the spongy tip of the swab in their mouth for a few minutes, without sucking or biting it. So getting an under two-year-old to cooperate is unlikely.

If you do go down this route you can use a tongue depressor to flatten the tongue to take the sample. You can buy these from a pharmacy.

But with a bit of preparation (and an extra pair of hands) you should be able to use a nasal test on a young child. You should be able to do this without causing pain or distress, a common worry for parents considering COVID testing their child.

Read more:
How to prepare your child for a COVID test

How do I prepare?

Understand what the COVID test involves and plan to have the resources you need.

As you take the test components out of the packet, remember to keep them out of reach of your child. The chemicals can be toxic if swallowed, or can cause skin and eye irritation. Parents should also ensure small children don’t swallow test components, such as small bits of plastic.

It’s also helpful to have two adults: one to perform the test and the other to hold and support the child.

Distraction helps take your child’s mind off the test by concentrating on something more pleasurable. Young children can be easily distracted by listening to a favourite song. So have a song ready on your phone.

For toddlers, it can help to have another adult to provide more engaging distraction such as watching a video on a phone or tablet, or switching on a light-up toy.

Holding a favourite toy or blanket may also help your child relax.

How do I actually take the sample?

One adult can use a secure hugging hold to reduce movement during the test while the other adult takes the sample.

The adult holding the child sits the child upright on their lap and holds them close to make them feel secure. They cross one arm across the child’s body and place the other hand on the child’s forehead.

If you’re testing the child by yourself, you can wrap them in a blanket to hold them still while you take the sample.

Staying calm yourself communicates to your child they are safe. Maintain a steady voice and breathe calmly during the test.

Slowly insert the tip of the swab inside the nose for about 1cm or until you meet resistance. Angle it along the base of the inside of the nose horizontally rather than pointing it upwards as you insert it (go low).

There is at least one nasal test that provides a smaller swab for young children so check the TGA site if you wish to use it.

Read more:
Go low, go slow: how to rapid antigen test your kid for COVID as school returns

What do I do next?

Children’s memories of medical tests can influence how they respond next time. So, as your young child may need another rapid antigen test in the future, finish on a positive note.

Play with your child after the test and provide positive reinforcement. Give your toddler a simple reward, such as a stamp or sticker.

If the test is unsuccessful, give your child a chance to recover before trying again.

However, if you feel anxious about performing the test, or repeating it, seek the support of a health professional. Every test should be the best possible experience for your child to avoid unnecessary distress.

Read more:
COVID-19 in babies – here’s what to expect

Thea van de Mortel teaches into the Graduate Infection Prevention and Control program at Griffith University.

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

– ref. Can you use rapid antigen tests in children under 2 years old? – https://theconversation.com/can-you-use-rapid-antigen-tests-in-children-under-2-years-old-182125

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Pickering, Assistant Professor, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

For much of the past three decades, Australia has been viewed internationally as a
laggard on climate change – and with good reason.

Australia was the last of the G20 economies that ratified the Kyoto Protocol and the first to dismantle a national carbon pricing scheme, and often sits near the bottom on global rankings of climate action.

In his first encounter with world leaders at the Quad meeting in Japan earlier this week, Australia’s new Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that the country was ready to take ambitious action on climate change.

But how well does this claim hold up? Will an Albanese government repair Australia’s tattered international reputation on climate change, and its strained relationships with the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Pacific Island countries over this issue?

The Albanese government has taken crucial steps this week to mend Australia’s international standing on climate change. But Labor’s insistence on maintaining a booming coal export industry will hamper its comeback, and questions remain about whether it will do enough to boost funding for climate action internationally.

Climate looms large in Albanese’s first week

In their first week in office Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have placed climate change diplomacy firmly on the agenda.

In Albanese’s opening address to Quad partners – India, the United States and Japan – he stressed the importance of tackling climate change for national security, saying it will build “a stronger and more resilient Indo-Pacific region”.

Wong has travelled to Fiji in the government’s first efforts to pick up the pieces of Australia’s fraught relationship with Pacific Island nations, pledging to boost development assistance to the region already hit hard by climate change impacts.

Pressure at home and abroad to lift targets

Arguably the most prominent step towards redeeming Australia’s standing on climate change is boosting its national emissions reduction targets.

The Coalition’s climate target was to reduce emissions 26-28% compared to 2005 levels – the same target it had in 2015. This was widely viewed at home and overseas as an insufficient contribution to the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2℃.

Labor’s pledge to boost the 2030 target to a 43% reduction is a significant improvement. But it still falls short of the 45% target it took to the 2016 and 2019 elections, and is far less ambitious than those proposed by the Greens and teal independents.

Even if Labor gains a majority in the House of Representatives, it won’t have a majority in the Senate. While this gives crossbenchers an opportunity to exert upward pressure on Australia’s climate performance, incoming Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has ruled out lifting the 2030 target.

The crossbenchers will need to pick their battles. In the short term, they may have more success negotiating measures that will help Australia to beat its existing 2030 target, rather than formally set a new one.

As the impacts of climate change intensify and the global race towards renewables accelerates, domestic and international pressure on Australia’s targets will only increase.

Countries are due to announce their next round of contributions to the Paris Agreement’s goals by 2025. In the interim, Labor and the crossbenchers will need to lay the groundwork for a higher target for 2035 or 2040.

Keeping coal alive

Australia’s climate policy record will remain vulnerable on a number of fronts, perhaps most glaringly as one of the world’s top fossil fuel exporters.

At last year’s UN climate summit, Australia refused to join a coalition of countries aiming to phase out coal. While Labor’s energy policy, Powering Australia, seeks to reduce Australia’s reliance on coal, it does not commit to a phase-out.

Albanese has envisaged that coal exports could stretch beyond 2050 and has supported opening new coal mines. This is out of step with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report, which finds keeping temperature rise to 2℃ or below will require “cancellation of new coal power projects and accelerated retirement of existing coal plants”.

Read more:
Mass starvation, extinctions, disasters: the new IPCC report’s grim predictions, and why adaptation efforts are falling behind

While coal remains, for now, an important feature of Australia’s trade relations with major economies in Asia, it will increasingly become a liability, especially now that all of Australia’s ten major trading partners have net zero targets.

Beyond coal, there’s much Australia could do to expand or revive partnerships with other industrialised economies on areas of innovation, such as green hydrogen and clean energy supply chains.

Funding international action

Also important is how Australia supports lower-income countries to reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change impacts.

Following drastic cuts to aid under the Abbott government, Australia’s international climate finance has gradually risen again, with Australia pledging A$2 billion from 2020-25. However, this pledge falls well below Australia’s fair share.

The Morrison government decided not to make any further contributions to the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund, which aims to finance emissions reductions and climate resilience in developing countries.

Read more:
Wealthy countries still haven’t met their $100 billion pledge to help poor countries face climate change, and the risks are rising

The fund has attracted around US$20 billion in pledges to date, with France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom the largest contributors (Australia pledged A$200 million in 2014).

Labor has promised to boost Australia’s aid budget to reach 0.5% of Gross National Income over time (it currently sits at about 0.2%) and launch a partnership to finance climate-resilient infrastructure in the Pacific. But it did not commit in this campaign to return to the Green Climate Fund.

A new climate diplomacy?

A final key element in resuscitating Australia’s global profile is re-engaging constructively in UN climate talks.

Labor’s plan to reinstate the position of Ambassador for Climate Change is a positive step. The government will also seek to host the annual UN climate conference in 2024 in Australia for the first time.

Hosting such an event in partnership with Pacific neighbours would send a high-profile message to the international community that Australia is back in the game.

Read more:
To walk the talk on climate, Labor must come clean about the future for coal and gas

Still, there’s a cautionary tale from past UN conferences, where some hosts (such as Poland in 2018) have used the occasion to showcase their ongoing reliance on fossil fuels.

Overall then, a change of government offers hope Australia will be regarded globally as a more enthusiastic partner on climate change. But as long as Australia remains a major exporter of fossil fuels, its claims to become a “renewable energy superpower” will come with a catch.

Jonathan Pickering receives funding from the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (Formas) for a research project on national policies on climate change and sustainable development. He previously worked in a postdoctoral research position funded by the Australian Research Council. He is a Scientific Steering Committee member of the Earth System Governance Project research network.

– ref. Laggard to leader? Labor could repair Australia’s tattered reputation on climate change, if it gets these things right – https://theconversation.com/laggard-to-leader-labor-could-repair-australias-tattered-reputation-on-climate-change-if-it-gets-these-things-right-182860

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alaric Maude, Associate Professor of Geography, Flinders University

Revisions to the Australian primary school curriculum for geography mean children will learn much less about the world and its diversity than they do at present. They will learn nothing about some significant concepts such as climate.

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) launched the new version of the Australian Curriculum on May 9. ACARA described it as “a more stripped-back and teachable curriculum that identifies the essential content our children should learn”.

Read more:
How well does the new Australian Curriculum prepare young people for climate change?

Overall, the new curriculum reduces the number of content descriptions by 21%. These are statements that describe what teachers should teach and what students should learn. In primary school geography, however, 50% of the content descriptions in the Knowledge and Understanding strand have been deleted or had content reduced.

The education ministers of the governments of Australia pressured ACARA to further reduce the content in the primary school humanities and social science learning areas. What is this knowledge that they have decided is no longer essential for our children to learn?

Read more:
Why do Australian states need a national curriculum, and do teachers even use it?

What knowledge of the world is gone?

The previous curriculum had a sequence of content descriptions that gave students some knowledge of the world beyond Australia. The following have been deleted:

• the division of the world into hemispheres, continents and oceans (in year 2)

• the main climate types of the world and the similarities and differences between the climates of different places (in year 3)

• a brief study of the continents and countries of Africa and South America (in year 4), and Europe and North America (in year 5)

• differences in the economic, demographic and social characteristics of countries across the world (in year 6).

• the world’s cultural diversity, including that of its indigenous peoples (in year 6).

The only world knowledge retained in the revision is the study of Australia’s neighbouring countries in year 3 and Asia in year 6. As a result, students will learn nothing about four of the continents, or of the environmental, economic, demographic and social differences and similarities between the countries of the world. They will have no sense of the world as a whole, and its diversity.

In an increasingly interconnected world, children need at least to know about the countries we are connected to through history, trade, migration, alliances and government and non-government aid.

Read more:
A ‘crowded curriculum’? Sure, it may be complex, but so is the world kids must engage with

What key concepts have been lost?

Concepts are what we think with, and intellectual development is based on conceptual thinking. The previous curriculum developed children’s understanding of the following key concepts and ways of thinking.

The concept of place, including the definition of a place, and an understanding of the importance of places to people. The study of places is the core of primary school geography.

The concept of location, including why things are located where they are, and the influence of location and accessibility on people’s activities. These were in the curriculum to get students thinking about the effects of location and distance on their lives, and about where things should be located.

The concept of space, including the management of spaces within neighbourhoods and towns. This introduced students to debates about how land should be used and how development conflicts are resolved, and to the idea of town planning.

The concept of climate. The difference between climate and weather still confuses debate over climate change, so an understanding of this difference is vital.

The concept of a settlement, including the differences between places in types of settlement and demographic characteristics. This added another concept to students’ knowledge of places, and introduced them to the small area census data that reveal much about Australian communities.

All this content has been removed.

Read more:
First, it’s not an instruction manual: 3 things education ministers need to know about the Australian Curriculum

What are the impacts on learning?

The revision of the primary school geography curriculum has done three things:

1. it has severely reduced children’s knowledge of the world

2. it has reduced the level of conceptual thinking that students will be exposed to

3. it will leave them less prepared for geography in secondary school, where the curriculum was designed on the assumption that students would know what is in the current one.

If the aim of these deletions has been to make more time for the development of literacy and numeracy skills, it is self-defeating. Children apply and develop these skills and expand their vocabulary through subjects such as geography and history.

Is this the best we can do to help young Australians understand the world? The geography curriculum for England demands much more.

Alaric Maude was the Lead Writer and Writing Coach for the previous Geography curriculum.

– ref. Dumbed-down curriculum means primary students will learn less about the world and nothing about climate – https://theconversation.com/dumbed-down-curriculum-means-primary-students-will-learn-less-about-the-world-and-nothing-about-climate-183520

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Mountain, Director, Victoria Energy Policy Centre, Victoria University

Yesterday the Australian Energy Regulator increased the “default market offers” that apply to electricity retailers in New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland by 8% to 18%, depending on type of tariffs and location.

The day before, Victoria’s Essential Services Commission announced the default offer for Victorian consumers will increase by 1% to 5%, depending on tariff type and location.

These increases point to very serious issues within Australia’s electricity market. We may be in the early stages of an energy price shock comparable to the 1973 oil price crisis.

Read more:
The coal price has skyrocketed in 2021 – what does it mean for net zero?

Fossil fuel costs are spiking

First, let’s summarise why retail electricity prices are rising. In short, the cost of generating power from coal or gas – which accounts about 70% of the electricity Australians consume – is soaring due to international events.

The short-term market price of black coal (used for about 70% of coal-fired generation) is now about five times higher than its long-run (ten year) average. One coal miner, New Hope Coal, says these are “record highs”.

Similarly the short-term price of gas has risen to levels never seen before in Australia – about four times its long-run average.

Read more:
How disrupted Russian gas supplies will hit global and Australian prices

These price hikes have driven the prices in wholesale electricity markets to extraordinary levels. For example, the average wholesale price in the southern and eastern states in the period since April 10 (when the 2022 federal election was called) and yesterday has increased by 409% compared to the same period last year ($346 per megawatt-hour (MWh) versus $68 per MWh).

These wholesale prices flow through to the “offers” that retailers make to customers.

Wholesale effects on retail prices

If wholesale prices have increased so much, you may be wondering, why are the changes in retail “default” offers so small?

This can be explained by the evidence that, in practice, default offers have not been the “fair priced” offers that policy makers had perhaps intended them to be. Rather they have offers that have been among the most expensive in the market.

Read more:
Your household power bills could be 15% cheaper, if Australia’s energy regulator was doing its job

In fact, the Victoria Energy Policy Centre has forthcoming research showing that over the past two years any Victorian customer randomly selecting an offer was likely to have paid less than the default offer. Astute customers could have paid 30% less. Few customers are supplied on default offers.

The increases in the default offers are not likely to represent the market. So to know what increases most customers are likely to see, we need to look at the mass of offers that have historically had discounts, sometimes steep discounts relative to the default offers.

Cheap offers are disappearing

Such discounts are disappearing as I write. As surging wholesale prices flow through into retail markets, the cheap offers are being removed from the market. So, most customers will increasingly find their retailers raising prices much more than the increases decided by regulators for the default offers.

In many cases retailers may well raise their prices above the level of the default offers, as they are entitled to do.

Retailers not obliged to sell electricity to customers at the default rates. The default offer only applies to a small group of customers that have never actively chosen their retail offer (these are mostly customers that did not change their retailers from that they were supplied by when the electricity industry was opened to competition more than a decade ago)

The retailers most likely to be affected by surging wholesale prices are the small retailers who do not produce the electricity they sell. Such retailers should really be called “re-sellers”. Most of the electricity they sell has been produced by the generation arms of one of the big retailers. Historically these “re-sellers” have offered the cheapest deals – and driven innovation – in order to lure customers away from the big retailers.

These small retailers drive competition. They force the big retailers – who supply most customers – to lower their prices and improve their services. Losing those small retailers will greatly undermine competition.

Effective competition is enormously valuable. I don’t need to know much about power tools to get a good deal if I can be confident it’s a competitive market. So to in the electricity market.

What should customers do?

First, search for better offers than the default offers. It may be a good move to lock in an offer with decent discounts for a reasonable length of time (a year or more).

Second, reduce wasteful consumption where you can.

Third, take any opportunity to self-supply from rooftop solar (and ideally have batteries to store for later use).

What now for Australian regulators?

Developments in Britain indicate what may be in store for Australia.

In Britain, average electricity prices in 2021 were 36% higher than in 2020. In April the UK energy market regulator increased retail prices by a further 54%. Further increases in the range of 30%-50% are likely in July.

In the year to February 2022, about half of all Britain’s electricity retailers exited the market or were put into administration, affecting about one in six customers.
These failures are likely (at least in part) due to retail price caps lagging surging wholesale prices. The UK regulator is now considering setting price caps every three months, instead of every six months.

Unless wholesale prices fall back again soon, expect Australian regulators to also have to reset default offer prices sooner than in a year’s time.

If we see increases of the order of those in Britain, greater financial help for those in need must obviously be a priority.

Read more:
Energy bills are spiking after the Russian invasion. We should have doubled-down on renewables years ago

The only good news in this is that surging generation prices will make investment in new generation much more attractive. As the saying goes, the best cure for high prices is high prices – though this is not a message any customer wants to hear, or any politician wants to say.

Navigating the coming storm to minimise the adverse impact on taxpayers and consumers, but maximise the positive impact for investors in renewable generation and storage, will test the mettle of the states and the new federal government.

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

– ref. Expect more power price hikes – a 1970s-style energy shock is on the cards – https://theconversation.com/expect-more-power-price-hikes-a-1970s-style-energy-shock-is-on-the-cards-183911

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Ward, Fellow in Historical Studies, The University of Melbourne

In explaining the reasons for Russia’s unexpected military weakness in Ukraine, few have expressed it better than The Economist. The magazine noted “the incurable inadequacy of despotic power” and “the cheating, bribery and peculation” that is “characteristic of the entire administration”.

Peculation means embezzlement. It’s a word rarely used nowadays; these words were in fact published by The Economist in October 1854, when Russia was in the process of losing the Crimean War.

But they might just easily be about Russia today, under Vladimir Putin, and the mess of its invasion of its far smaller neighbour. Rarely have the pernicious effects of authoritarianism and endemic corruption been so vividly on display.

Indeed Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention has cheekily thanked Russian officials for making “it much easier to defend democratic Ukraine” by embezzling “what should have gone to the needs of the army”.

How corrupt is Russia?

Of the world’s 20 major economies, Russia rates the worst on corruption.

In 2021, the respected Corruption Perceptions Index compiled by anti-corruption body Transparency International scored Russia 29/100, alongside Liberia, Mali and Angola. This made it the 44th most corrupt nation on the index. (South Sudan was most corrupt, scoring 11/100, and Denmark the least corrupt, on 88/100.)

To be fair, Ukraine’s score isn’t much better, having gone though a similar post-Soviet privatisation process that delivered immense wealth to a few oligarchs. Its 2021 corruption score was 32/100.

Read more:
Ukraine’s economy went from Soviet chaos to oligarch domination to vital global trader of wheat and neon – and now Russian devastation

But President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made tackling corruption a central policy, and Ukraine is improving on the index – unlike Russia. Ukraine also has some clear advantages for further improvements.

The US organisation Freedom House gives Ukraine a democracy score of 39.3%, compared with 5.4% for Russia. Transparency International rates Ukraine’s democratic processes as “generally free and fair”. It considers efforts in recent years to tackle corruption as slow and flawed, but nonetheless genuine and substantive.

Read more:
How long can Vladimir Putin hold on to power?

Russia’s rule of thieves

Putin’s Russia, on the hand, is described by Transparency International as a kleptocracy – a government of thieves. Putin himself is estimated to have accrued a fortune of US$200 billion, making him (unofficially) the world’s second-richest man, after Elon Musk.

Putin’s wealth accumulation methods are relatively straightforward. According to Bill Browder, a fund manager specialising in Russian markets, having Mikhail Khodorkovsky – then Russia’s richest man – sent to prison in 2005 proved particularly fruitful:

After Khodorkovsky’s conviction the other oligarchs went to Putin and asked him what they needed to do to avoid sitting in the same cage as Khodorkovsky. From what followed it appeared that Putin’s answer was “50%” […] for Vladimir Putin personally.

Much of Putin’s fortune is squirrelled away in foreign bank accounts and investments, as revealed by the Pandora Papers. But he also enjoys material comforts such as a palace on the Black Sea reputed to have cost about US$1 billion – paid in part out of a government program meant to improve health care.

Stealing from military budgets

Money supposed to be for Russia’s military capability has also been plundered. For example, defence minister Sergei Shoigu lives in an $18 million mansion – not bad for someone supposedly on a government minister’s salary.

A typical rort has been to award contracts to companies owned by cronies, who then provide shoddy products and pocket huge profits. Food and housing in the Russian military is said to worse than being in prison. Russian soldiers sent to invade Ukraine have been given rations years out of date.

This has created a “Potemkin military” – all show and little substance – according to Andrey Kozyrev, Russia’s foreign minister from 1990 to 1996:

The Kremlin spent the last 20 years trying to modernise its military. Much of that budget was stolen and spent on mega-yachts in Cyprus. But as a military advisor you cannot report that to the President. So they reported lies to him instead.

Social distrust runs deep

It should be no surprise, therefore, that Russia is a deeply distrustful society. This has been measured by global surveys such as Lloyd’s Register Foundation
World Risk Poll and the Edelman Trust Barometer.

This distrust has been a hallmark of the Russian military’s performance in Ukraine.

Western military organisations emphasise empowering individual units to show initiative when plans go wrong. In marked contrast, the Russian military structure, like the state, is based on command and control, with little faith or trust in troops.

Read more:
Equality and fairness: vaccines against this pandemic of mistrust

In particular Russia’s conscription-dependent army lacks non-commissioned officers. These senior enlisted personnel train and supervise troops, and often take over leadership of smaller units in wartime.

This helps explain the high number of senior Russian generals killed on the front line in Ukraine – 12 at last count. Typically, generals manage battlefields from a safe distance. But, as a recent report from The Economist has noted:

Morale has been low, logistics poor and casualties high. And that seems to have forced the generals to get their boots muddy.

And also put themselves within range of Ukrainian snipers and missiles.

This war, which the Russians expected would be over in days, has just entered its fourth month. It’s possible the Russian military can learn from its strategic and logistical blunders, and still win the battle for the Donbas area. But, unlike many Russian officers, general corruption and general distrust remain on the battlefield.

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

– ref. Military history is repeating for Russia under Putin’s regime of thieves – https://theconversation.com/military-history-is-repeating-for-russia-under-putins-regime-of-thieves-181164

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Casey, Clinical psychologist, University of Technology Sydney

One of the most popular shows on Netflix right now is Heartstopper, which follows UK schoolboys Charlie (Joe Locke) and Nick (Kit Connor) as their friendship grows into something more.

Based on Alice Oseman’s graphic novel series of the same name, Heartstopper has been widely (and accurately) hailed as “a warm hug”.

At the same time, social media has been flooded with posts from LGBTIQ people who have experienced something else when watching the show: anger, grief, and sadness as they compared the show to their own relatively painful adolescence.

LGBTIQ people often have high school experiences marked by prejudice and discrimination, with 60% of young LGBTIQ Australians feeling unsafe or uncomfortable at school due to their sexual or gender identity.

These experiences can provide a surprisingly enduring internal blueprint: during 2017’s marriage equality postal survey, for example, many LGBTIQ people said that the intense scrutiny and stigma felt like “being back in high school”.

Researchers call this phenomenon minority stress. The cumulative negative effects of these threatening social conditions can ultimately lead to isolation, depression, and anxiety.

As a clinical psychologist working in LGBTIQ mental health, Heartstopper has come up frequently in counselling sessions. The same pain is being described by people approaching middle age and those still in their teens. The show seems to plant a seed that makes them wonder how life might have played out if their high school experience was supportive rather than frightening.

What can those of us who feel pain in the face of this heartwarming depiction of queer joy do to navigate these difficult thoughts and feelings? Psychological research has a few suggestions.

Embrace the duality

Pioneering clinical psychologist Marsha Linehan emphasised the importance of “dialectics”, or the ability to hold the tension between two seemingly opposing things. As humans, we tend to judge our experience as good or bad, black or white. We say things like “I never do anything right”, when the truth is that sometimes we fail and sometimes we succeed.

The experience of watching Heartstopper and feeling both joy for the characters and sadness for yourself is also a dialectic. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking the sadness cancels out the joy: notice and allow everything that you’re feeling.

Don’t run from it

As humans, we’ve evolved to avoid suffering. However, we have a habit of doing this in ways that minimise short-term pain, while maximising long-term problems. This can be especially challenging for LGBTIQ people, who often had to push down or avoid their feelings to navigate adolescence.

I’ve spoken to people who’ve tried to cope with the pain thrown up by Heartstopper in counterproductive ways. Trying to avoid their sadness that they don’t have a Nick to their Charlie, they’ve found themselves chasing unavailable partners, pouring an extra glass of wine, or pursuing casual sex and feeling even more alone. While there’s nothing wrong with wine or casual sex, they often mask problems rather than offering solutions.

Take meaningful action

If it isn’t always helpful to run from our pain, what are we supposed to do with it? There’s useful information in painful feelings. As influential clinical psychologist Steven C Hayes puts it, “we hurt where we care”. The site of our greatest pain is the site of our greatest purpose, and we can use it to guide actions that matter deeply to us.

Examine what you’ve responded to most strongly in Heartstopper. While the chance of a queer high school romance has passed for many of us, we can still make choices that move us towards the life we want today. Research consistently shows that connecting with other LGBTIQ people increases resilience, but there are lots of other things Heartstopper could inspire you to do: prioritise your friendships (like Tao), make new queer connections (like Elle), be honest with those closest to you (like Nick), or try new things (like Charlie).

Be kind to yourself

This stuff hurts. Life can be hard and full of disappointments. We often respond to these difficult points by pushing harder and telling ourselves to “get it together”.

Pause and be kind to yourself – be the Nick to your Charlie. Give yourself a hug, make yourself a cup of tea, speak encouragingly rather than critically to yourself. It sometimes helps to imagine what you would say to a friend or another LGBTIQ person facing similar challenges. Guided meditations can also be helpful here.

Challenge your assumptions

The human mind takes all kinds of cognitive shortcuts: a common one is “the mental filter”, in which we filter out information that doesn’t support our assumptions.

If you find yourself comparing yourself to Charlie and Nick’s picture-perfect romance, try to notice what you’re filtering out. Both characters – particularly Charlie – experience bullying and self-doubt. (Readers of the books know that Charlie has even darker days ahead of him.)

Also notice if there’s anything positive from your own experience that you’re filtering out: a good friend, a supportive teacher, a welcoming sport or hobby group.

Ultimately, Heartstopper is “fantasy fiction”. Don’t use that fantasy as the metric by which you judge your reality.

Liam Casey consults on LGBTIQ mental health in private practice.

– ref. Heartstopper depicts queer joy – here’s why that can bring about complicated feelings for those in the LGBTIQ community – https://theconversation.com/heartstopper-depicts-queer-joy-heres-why-that-can-bring-about-complicated-feelings-for-those-in-the-lgbtiq-community-183729

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

Anthony Albanese had expected the election might be a week earlier than it was, because last Saturday would bump up against Tuesday’s Quad meeting in Tokyo.

But Scott Morrison wanted maximum time to try to wear down his opponent. Then, when it emerged publicly that Albanese was making arrangements with officials to attend the Quad if he won, Morrison accused him of being presumptuous.

The preparations were prudent and proper, not presumptuous.

The new prime minister’s Quad trip has been an obvious success, with leaders – especially US President Joe Biden – impressed he was there at all, so soon after the election. Albanese’s resetting of Australia’s policy on climate change, which he emphasised inside and outside the meeting, has also gone down well internationally.

The timing of the Quad has been much to Albanese’s advantage. Immediately after becoming PM, he’s had face-to-face talks not just with the US president but also the Japanese and Indian prime ministers, in a diplomatic top-level job lot.

As opposition leader, Albanese was focused on domestic rather than foreign policy. The Quad was an opportunity to get a first-hand feel for issues and positions, as well to indicate the direction his government will take on regional policy.

It’s been a stellar first week for Albanese, but it will only get harder from now, even internationally but especially domestically.

Labor fiercely attacked the Morrison government for its Pacific policy failure, after the China-Solomons security agreement exploded into Australian politics during the campaign.

China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, is currently on a diplomatic sweep of the Pacific, with China offering some ten countries region-wide security and free trade agreements.

Albanese said Australia is paying a big price for cutting aid. But whatever points it might score against its predecessor, the Labor government has to put in place Australia’s response to this fresh Chinese assertiveness.

After the Quad, Foreign Minister Penny Wong flew to Fiji, addressing the Pacific Islands Forum. Her speech strongly focused on the climate issue. “I understand that – under past governments – Australia has neglected its responsibility to act on climate change,” she said. “This is a different Australian government and a different Australia.”

Before the election, Labor announced a range of extra assistance measures for the small Pacific nations. But some experts believe that, to counter China’s Pacific push (if it can be effectively countered), Australia needs to do better than raise climate ambition, boost aid, improve diplomacy and build on existing labour and visas access.

Michael Shoebridge, director of defence, strategy and national security at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), says Australia should have the same arrangements with the small Pacific states as it has with New Zealand.

This would mean visa-free entry for work and travel, and closer economic arrangements for businesses, far beyond current arrangements. It would be a serious Pacific “step up”.

As in the campaign, when voters were more concerned about the rising cost of living than the national security debate, so over the coming months people’s attention will be primarily on economic issues.

And the picture is grim, as Treasurer Jim Chalmers has underlined this week.

Read more:
Quad praises Albanese government’s higher ambition on climate

An incoming government has, for a limited period, a sort of immunity from blame. It’s able to say it has “inherited” a bad situation. But this doesn’t last – anyway, the situation itself has to be dealt with, as best the government can.

Chalmers on Wednesday said he would be “blunt” in the economic statement he’ll deliver when parliament sits. He highlighted the negatives facing the Australian economy – rising inflation, increasing interest rates, the squeeze on wages. He pointed in particular to the inflationary spikes in power prices and building costs.

A day later the Australian Energy Regulator delivered its bad news on electricity costs, with increases of between about 4.5% and 18% in the “benchmark” prices. This follows a rise in the wholesale cost, driven by higher coal and gas prices, and also contributed to by outages at large coal generators.

On wages, the government has made it clear it wants the Fair Work Commission to deliver an increase of 5.1% – the inflation rate – in the minimum wage. The decision will come before the end of June.

But much or all of whatever low-paid workers do get (and it may be below 5.1%) will before long be swallowed up by price increases, for example for petrol. Chalmers this week reaffirmed Labor was unlikely to extend the six-month cut in petrol excise the Morrison government made in the March budget.

For many Australians the remainder of this year will be very difficult, and there is not much the government can do about it. The October budget will be a juggling act for Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher (they’re already searching for savings), and not as benign as the March one.

One feature of Albanese’s first week was his signal he is apparently determined to try to improve political behaviour.

He publicly rebuked his frontbencher Tanya Plibersek for insulting Peter Dutton, who next week will become opposition leader.

Plibersek described Dutton as looking “a bit like Voldemort”, the villain from Harry Potter, saying: “I think there will be a lot of children who have watched a lot of Harry Potter films who will be very frightened of what they are seeing on TV at night, that’s for sure.”

Read more:
As Albanese heads to the Quad, what are the security challenges facing Australia’s new government?

She later contacted Dutton to apologise. Albanese said her comment had been unacceptable. “I think that in politics, we need to treat each other with respect. And I think that’s important. Tanya recognises that, which is why she apologised.”

Albanese said of the man who’ll become his opposite number: “I have a much better relationship with Peter Dutton than I had with Scott Morrison. Peter Dutton has never broken a confidence that I’ve had with him.”

He went on: “I think it’s very important that the prime minister and the leader of the opposition are able to exchange ideas and information and get co-operation wherever it’s possible.

“I want to lead a government that gets things done for Australia. And I’ll have discussions with Peter Dutton directly if he becomes the leader of the opposition, as I will have discussions with members of the crossbench.”

One message from this election – most notably in the large vote for the “teals” – as well as from extensive other evidence, is Australians are deeply disillusioned with the way politicians conduct themselves.

They are looking for a more civil discourse. Admittedly the adversarial system, the nature of today’s media, and feral social media work against this. And broad statements of good intentions – “I want to lead a gentler parliament,” said Albanese on Thursday – are not enough.

But if Albanese can actually succeed in raising the tone on the political battleground that will be very welcome for many voters.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Stellar first week for Anthony Albanese but tough months ahead – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-stellar-first-week-for-anthony-albanese-but-tough-months-ahead-183920

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendon O’Connor, Associate Professor in American Politics at the United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Mass shootings in the United States are all too common and, sadly, unsurprising to much of the world.

But when the victims of such violence are primary school students, the world takes notice.

Coverage of this week’s mass shooting at a Texas elementary school in the coming days will follow a predictable pattern. After all the horrifying details are released of the shooting, we return to a very simple debate: why can’t America stop the scourge of gun violence?

The reason is that gun violence is emblematic of a broken political system that fails to protect its own citizens.

A stain on America’s reputation

Frequent mass shootings are one of the most widely known things about the US internationally, and are a stain on the country’s international reputation.

President Joe Biden came to office promising to restore some measure of faith in American democracy, and to prove the American system was a superior model to that of autocratic great powers such as China and Russia.

But when it comes to curbing gun violence in America, a very different international narrative takes hold. Global audiences often see the failure to take aggressive action against gun violence as a symptom of a dysfunctional system of government incapable of protecting its own citizens, including children.

News agencies of countries such as China often taunt the US for failing to take aggressive action on guns. In 2019, Chinese tabloid Global Times claimed China’s effective gun control was “a lesson for the US”.

These arguments are obviously made for self-interested reasons: namely, to present the Chinese government in a much more favourable light. But given the extent to which the US believes in the superiority of its values, one would think the criticisms should sting. Sadly, this isn’t the case.

A 2021 Pew Research Survey found 53% of Americans want stricter gun laws. This includes 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, but only 20% of Republicans and those who lean Republican.

However, support for specific restrictions like “background checks” is a lot higher.

No longer a good model of democracy

No matter how often Biden talks about restoring “America’s soul”, as he did in his inaugural address, America’s international reputation has taken a big hit.

International student numbers in America, a good gauge of America’s ability to attract foreign talent to its universities, declined during the Trump years and wasn’t solely attributable to the pandemic. The country’s broken politics, which included rising anti-immigrant sentiment and gun violence, played its part in making the US a much less attractive environment.

Opinion polls also confirm a declining faith in the health of American democracy. Across 16 advanced economies surveyed by the Pew Research Center, an average of 83% of people said the US is no longer a good model of democracy to follow.

This makes for depressing reading and seemingly makes it incumbent on the Biden administration to take action on gun control.

But this will prove difficult

Biden is rightly appalled by this latest massacre and will advocate the need for gun reform. But without the support of the Congress, little will happen federally.

This is the story of the Obama presidency on gun reform. It’s shameful the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in 2012, where 20 children were killed along with six staff members, didn’t lead to comprehensive gun reforms in the way the Port Arthur massacre and the Christchurch mosque shootings did in Australia and New Zealand.

Worse still, some American politicians bragged about their ability to stop gun reform. Republican Senator Ted Cruz ran a campaign ad stating: “After Sandy Hook, Ted Cruz stopped Obama’s push for new gun-control laws”. He’s now tweeting that: “Heidi & I are fervently lifting up in prayer the children and families in the horrific shooting.”

This is America’s broken political system in a nutshell.

Cruz doesn’t represent majority opinion in America, but the Democrat-controlled Congress won’t enact reform because Democrat Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema don’t support getting rid of the “filibuster”. A filibuster is when a member of a legislative body such as the US Senate endlessly talks in order to obstruct the passage of a piece of legislation. Senate rules dictate that 60 US Senators out of the 100 must vote to end a filibuster and force a vote. This holds true when it comes to gun reform legislation, and this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

What’s more, too many American politicians are disinterested in comparing American public policy with laws in other wealthy nations, or showing any concern about America’s reputation in the wider world.

Change at the state level?

Change to American gun laws is most likely to happen at the state level.

In Texas, the current governor signed into law last year seven pieces of legislation loosening restrictions of gun-rights now and into the future (one new law “exempts” Texas from potential federal restrictions).

If you dive deep into the data, it finds states controlled by Democrats are more likely to enact gun restrictions after mass shootings, and states controlled by Republicans are more likely to loosen gun controls.

Given the Republican party is the dominant party at the state level (with 28 of the 50 state governorships), and Congressional Republicans can easily block legislation at the federal level, this most recent tragedy will sadly lead to more inaction on gun reform.

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

– ref. Will the latest shooting of US children finally lead to gun reform? Sadly, that’s unlikely – https://theconversation.com/will-the-latest-shooting-of-us-children-finally-lead-to-gun-reform-sadly-thats-unlikely-183829

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeremy Moss, Professor of Political Philosophy, UNSW Sydney

Australia’s climate election has been won. Now comes the harder part. It’s now entirely possible we could see a government committed to domestic climate action, speeding up the exit of coal and gas from our grid and electrifying transport –while still exporting vast quantities of fossil fuels for other countries to burn.

In short, we could fall into what we can call the “Norway trap”: clean at home, dirty abroad. Norway has vigorously pursued clean energy and electric transport at home and is progressing well towards its goal of a 55% reduction in emissions by the end of the decade – while doubling down on exporting its oil and gas reserves, thereby undermining its domestic gains.

In Australia, Labor still believes in supporting and expanding our fossil fuel exports, which are by far our largest contribution to heating the planet. Backing fossil fuels no doubt helped the new government keep coal seats such as Hunter in New South Wales.

To change this situation, we need to urgently reduce the influence of the fossil fuel lobby – and include our exported emissions in the government’s net zero plans plans.

Wasn’t this the climate election?

Despite the clear mandate for stronger climate action, both major parties soft-pedalled on exports to woo electorates with substantial coal and gas infrastructure. Seats such as Hunter, and Flynn in Queensland, recorded swings to Labor in a reversal of the 2019 election, when Labor was not seen to be standing up for the interests of coal communities.

This time around, Labor made its support clear, flagging continuation – and even expansion – of our fossil fuel exports. In a speech to the Minerals Council last year, Anthony Albanese said of coal exports, “We will continue to export these commodities.”

Read more:
How to answer the argument that Australia’s emissions are too small to make a difference

That means Australia will go to the next global climate summit trumpeting its increased commitment to slashing emissions while maintaining its dubious role as one of the largest fossil fuel exporters in the world. We could even see ourselves once again aligned with Russia and Saudi Arabia on opposing production cuts.

It’s long been a climate sceptic talking point that Australia’s emissions are just 1.2% of the world’s total – the 15th-highest in the world. But our vast liquefied natural gas (LNG), thermal and metallurgical coal exports are the equivalent of double our domestic emissions. That means exports are by far our biggest contribution to climate change.

Real change starts with taming the lobbyists

Little about this situation will change while Labor and the Coalition keep listening to the fossil fuel industry – and accepting millions of dollars in donations. Over the past decade the fossil fuel industry has given hundreds of millions of dollars to political parties. Woodside, one of Australia’s largest oil and gas producers, has donated more than A$2 million to political parties.

Without change, the revolving door of politicians and staffers who end up working for fossil fuel companies will continue slowing climate policy.

This election offers us a long overdue reset. What we need is to tackle Australia’s total contribution to climate change. That includes our role as one of the world’s top exporters of government-subsidised fossil fuels. We can’t just aim to get Australia to net zero and say job done if we leave the export industry to just keep growing, with more than 100 fossil fuel projects in the pipeline.

Steps the government should take immediately should include clamping down on fossil fuel lobbyists and the revolving door. It would be simple to ban government employees from joining the fossil fuel industry without a long cool-down period, as well as banning ex-ministers or politicians from taking up lucrative posts in the industry when they leave politics. The government should also end all direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

Our fossil fuel lobby has had too many wins over the last two decades. We cannot afford to have our government beholden to an industry incompatible with a liveable climate. We can expect lobby groups to lay low for a little while. But the role of these lobbyists is to ensure that nothing actually challenges their ability to export vast quantities of fossil fuels.

We cannot ignore our role in heating the planet

You’ve no doubt heard the argument that if we don’t export fossil fuels, someone else will. This doesn’t stack up.

That’s because the argument ignores the impact leadership in this area would have. If one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters began to phase out its exports and bed down a just transition for those affected, it would have a huge impact on fossil fuel finance and signal time really is up for an industry long thought untouchable. Leading on this would show our neighbours in the Pacific that we can change.

This argument is also morally dubious. Just because someone else is doing something unacceptable, that doesn’t give anyone else license to do the same. We cannot let our leaders and fossil fuel companies off the hook just because other fossil fuel exporters exist. If this argument were really true, then Australia should have no qualms about engaging in bribery or corruption to achieve its ends if other countries are likely to do so.

This election result – and especially the climate campaigns of the Greens and teal independents – has given us our first good opportunity in years to make a real dint in our emissions, both local and exported.

Jeremy Moss receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. To walk the talk on climate, Labor must come clean about the future for coal and gas – https://theconversation.com/to-walk-the-talk-on-climate-labor-must-come-clean-about-the-future-for-coal-and-gas-183641

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Kildea, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese began his election night victory speech by declaring: “I commit to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.” This commitment, delivered on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Uluru Statement, is monumentally important to First Nations people and to the nation.

Albanese’s words stand in stark contrast to those of former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who initially rejected the Uluru Statement in 2017, and show how far the public debate has come. They mark an important shift away from the Morrison government’s more limited co-design process on a Voice to Parliament.

Read more:
Did Australia just make a move to the left?

The Uluru Statement calls for government reforms

The Uluru Statement was issued to the Australian people following the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in 2017. The convention followed a series of 13 regional dialogues led by the Referendum Council, at which a representative cross section of the Indigenous community had their say on what constitutional change they wanted.

This was the first time the Indigenous community had direct input into this process. The convention produced a consensus position calling for a First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution, followed by a Makarrata Commission to supervise agreement-making (treaty) and truth-telling.

These reforms have long been targets of the Indigenous community that aim to empower Indigenous peoples when it comes to government decision-making and to get on with the unfinished business of treaty and truth-telling.

The first stage of the Uluru reforms would see the establishment in the Constitution of a body, or Voice, that would advise parliament on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Constitutional entrenchment is important because it would give the Voice special legitimacy and provide it with stability and certainty. The details of its design would be determined by parliament.

Changing the Australian Constitution requires a referendum. In April, a gathering of the Uluru Dialogue issued the Yarrabah Affirmation, nominating two possible dates for a Voice referendum: May 27 2023 (the 56th anniversary of the 1967 referendum) or January 27 2024.

Read more:
Prime Minister Albanese’s victory speech brings hope for First Nations Peoples’ role in democracy

The Voice and the new parliament – how would it work?

The formal process for constitutional change begins in the federal parliament. The government introduces a referendum Bill setting out its proposed amendments to the Constitution. If the Bill is approved by absolute majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the proposal can then be put to a referendum. If one house approves the Bill but the other rejects it, a referendum can still proceed if the approving house waits three months and then passes the Bill a second time.

Labor has pledged to build consensus for its Voice proposal across the parliament. It has a strong platform to do this. The Greens have said they want progress on treaty and truth-telling first, but won’t stand in the way of any genuine reform, including a Voice. And most independent MPs, both new and existing, are also supportive.

This would be enough to pass the referendum bill through the parliament. Labor has the numbers in the House of Representatives, and could get the bill through the Senate with the backing of the Greens, the Jacqui Lambie Network and other supportive senators such as independent David Pocock. Beyond this, Labor will want to secure as broad a consensus as possible.

The big unknown is what position the Liberal Party will take. The Morrison government opposed a constitutional Voice, preferring instead to legislate to establish several regional bodies. The party nonetheless remains open to a referendum, and many Liberal MPs support the Uluru Statement. With Peter Dutton all but certain to be the party’s next leader, it remains to be seen whether the party, many of whose MPs do support change, will support the bill or not.

Chances of success

After parliament passes the bill, a referendum must be held within six months. The Constitution requires the proposed amendments be approved by both a national majority of voters and a majority of voters in at least four of the six states.

The referendum record shows how difficult it is to change the Constitution. Since Federation in 1901, just eight of 44 proposals for constitutional amendment have been approved by voters. The last time we voted yes at a constitutional referendum was in 1977. Is there any reason to think that this time it will be different?

In the Voice’s favour is the fact it is popular with voters and that popularity is growing. This month, ABC’s Vote Compass found 73% of Australians agree the Constitution should be amended to establish a Voice to Parliament. That was up from 64% in 2019.

Also significant is the fact the proposal for a Voice to Parliament has emerged from a long period of public deliberation. This has been a feature of previous successful referendums, including the 1967 vote on extending federal law-making power to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

What isn’t yet clear is whether the Voice proposal will have bipartisan support. So far, no federal referendum has gotten up without it. This fact has led some to conclude that bipartisanship is an essential pillar of referendum success.

But this overstates the importance of bipartisanship. The lessons of past referendums are now a bit stale. What held true some decades ago isn’t necessarily the case today. As the recent federal election showed, major parties hold less sway over voter choices than they once did, and social media has expanded the information and opinions that people can access.

The conventional wisdom also ignores the fact that Australians voted Yes at the same-sex marriage survey in the absence of bipartisanship. And they have done the same in constitutional referendums held by state governments.

After the election, Linda Burney, Wiradjuri woman and the incoming Minister for Indigenous Australians addressed this question. She said Labor hopes to secure bipartisan support but will proceed without it and the government remains committed to holding a referendum in its first term, regardless of the opposition’s position.

The path to a constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice has become more likely with the election of the Albanese government. In the coming months the government should aim to further grow public awareness and continue forging consensus within the parliament. This would build on an already strong foundation for a successful referendum in this parliamentary term.

Australians are showing they are ready to accept the Uluru Statement’s invitation to walk with First Nations people in a movement for a better future. Now our nation’s leaders are finally catching up.

Paul Kildea has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Eddie Synot is affiliated with Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW that works in partnership with the Uluru Dialogue on progressing the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

– ref. We keep hearing about a First Nations Voice to parliament, but what would it actually look like in practice? – https://theconversation.com/we-keep-hearing-about-a-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-but-what-would-it-actually-look-like-in-practice-183718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natasha Layton, Senior Research Fellow: Rehabilitation, Ageing and Independent Living Research Centre, Monash University

This month, the first ever World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF Global Report on Assistive Technology was released.

The WHO estimates one in three of us will need assistive technology, ranging from glasses to mobility scooters, in our lifetimes. This number is set to grow with an ageing population and the rising prevalence of non-communicable diseases such as heart disease and diabetes, which are major causes of disability.

For 2.5 billion people globally and more than two million Australians living with health, disability or age-related conditions, assistive products are vital in daily life. The WHO estimates almost one billion children and adults are denied the assistive technology they need.

The WHO/UNICEF report provides a range of recommendations for policy action that Australia’s new government should consider and learn from.

What is assistive technology?

If you use glasses or screen magnification on your phone, foot orthotics, hiking poles on uneven ground, or a powered mobility scooter to get to the shops, you are using assistive products. Reminder alerts on your mobile phone, smart home and text-to-speech technologies are also in this category.

Then there’s the information, professional recommendations and training needed to fit, troubleshoot, learn to use or maintain your assistive products. Together, these products and services are called “assistive technology”.

The return on investment for assistive technology is around nine times what is spent, because it enables people to work and study, worship and play, control their homes and move around their communities.

How does Australia measure up?

Let’s compare the top recommendations from the Global Report of Assistive Technology with Australian experiences.

1. Improve access to safe, effective and affordable assistive technology

Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) funds support for about 10% of Australians living with disability, including assistive technology products and services.

But outside the NDIS, Australians who need assistive technology often have very restricted access to funding.

They must navigate more than 100 different funding schemes in a “postcode” or eligibility lottery identified by the recent Aged Care Royal Commission as unfair.

2. Invest in research data, evidence-based policy, and innovation

Australia is building a National Disability Data Asset, for safe and secure sharing and linking of data. This will give governments a better understanding of people with disabilities’ life experiences. For now though, there is no detailed data collection on assistive technology use and unmet need in Australia.

On the innovation front, assistive technology that uses artificial intelligence (AI) or changes how a person receives support offers real potential to help people to live how and where they want to. For example, infrared movement sensors in homes – linking to AI – can learn patterns of typical or out of the ordinary events and alert a nominated family member if required, whilst still allowing a person to live on their own.

But Australia needs an ethics framework for the use of AI, including by people with disability, to protect privacy, safety and effectiveness – and more broadly, human rights.

Read more:
Digital inequality: why can I enter your building – but your website shows me the door?

3. Enlarge, diversify and improve workforce capacity

Australia is facing workforce shortages across health, disability and aged care.

The Global Report on Assistive Technology outlines roles for assistive technology users to be peer supporters, alongside expert health teams.

A skilled and diverse workforce is required, and will include both health professionals at the point of need (via telehealth or in person), and training and employment pathways for the assistive technology peer workforce.

4. Develop and invest in enabling environments

Recent Australian National Construction Code reforms propose minimum accessibility in new housing. This would allow people more choice in where they live, and who they live with.

However, some states have refused to adopt this voluntary code.

When the NDIS was introduced, government funding for independent assistive technology advice via state-based information and resource centres, called Independent Living Centres (ILCs), was lost. The ILC National Equipment Database remains online, but the few remaining information clearinghouses – including the Centre for Universal Design Australia and the Home Modifications Information Clearinghouse – rely largely on the goodwill of dedicated volunteers to collate information and resources.

Read more:
‘It’s shown me how independent I can be’ – housing designed for people with disabilities reduces the help needed

5. Include assistive technology in humanitarian responses

Australia is facing ongoing humanitarian crises with fires, floods and a pandemic threatening lives – and livelihoods.

Our research with people who use assistive technology and their families, as well as providers and civil society showed that during the COVID pandemic, the public health response excluded assistive technology services. They were considered “non essential” by government.

In Australia, during the floods, accessible information and disaster preparedness for people who use assistive technology was absent. This meant that, for example, when the lift in the building of a wheelchair user broke, and the building’s intercom was down, there was no way for them to escape or call for help.

Read more:
Homeless and looking for help – why people with disability and their carers fare worse after floods

This information and support gap, and access to safe evacuations, was often filled by local communities. The knowledge of assistive technology users, their families and providers to create more inclusive preparedness plans will be vital for future disasters.

Time for change

Assistive technology is key to a good life for one in ten Australians.

Labor made a pre-election commitment to a major review of disability services in Australia, and inherits potentially transformative Royal Commission recommendations across both ageing and health care.

The WHO and UNICEF Global Report on Assistive Technology provides a roadmap for the incoming government to involve users and their families in change.

Natasha previously received funding from the World Health Organization for research now published, and referred to in this article. Natasha is affiliated with the Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association (ARATA), the national peak body for assistive technology stakeholders, as a Board Member..

Libby Callaway receives funding from the Australian Government’s Department of Social Services. She previously received funding from the World Health Organization for research now published, and referred to in this article. Libby is affiliated with the Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association (ARATA), the national peak body for assistive technology stakeholders, as the current Voluntary President of ARATA.

Louise Puli consults to the World Health Organization.

– ref. From glasses to mobility scooters, ‘assistive technology’ isn’t always high-tech. A WHO roadmap could help 2 million Australians get theirs – https://theconversation.com/from-glasses-to-mobility-scooters-assistive-technology-isnt-always-high-tech-a-who-roadmap-could-help-2-million-australians-get-theirs-183529

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonti Horner, Professor (Astrophysics), University of Southern Queensland

As Earth orbits the Sun, it ploughs through dust and debris left behind by comets and asteroids. That debris gives birth to meteor showers – which can be one of nature’s most amazing spectacles.

Most meteor showers are predictable, recurring annually when the Earth traverses a particular trail of debris.

Occasionally, however, Earth runs through a particularly narrow, dense clump of debris. This results in a meteor storm, sending thousands of shooting stars streaking across the sky each hour.

A minor shower called the Tau Herculids could create a meteor storm for observers in the Americas next week. But while some websites promise “the most powerful meteor storm in generations”, astronomers are a little more cautious.

Introducing comet SW3

The story begins with a comet called 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 (comet SW3 for short). First spotted in 1930, it is responsible for a weak meteor shower called the Tau Herculids, which nowadays appears to radiate from a point about ten degrees from the bright star Arcturus.

In 1995, comet SW3 suddenly and unexpectedly brightened. A number of outbursts were observed over a few months. The comet had catastrophically fragmented, releasing huge amounts of dust, gas, and debris.

By 2006 (two orbits later), comet SW3 had disintegrated further, into several bright fragments accompanied by many smaller chunks.

Is Earth on a collision course?

This year, Earth will cross comet SW3’s orbit at the end of May.

Detailed computer modelling suggests debris has been spreading out along the comet’s orbit like enormous thin tentacles in space.

Has the debris spread far enough to encounter Earth? It depends on how much debris was ejected in 1995 and how rapidly that debris was flung outwards as the comet fell apart. But the pieces of dust and debris are so small we can’t see them until we run into them. So how can we get an insight into what might happen next week?

Could history repeat itself?

Our current understanding of meteor showers began 150 years ago with an event quite similar to SW3’s story.

A comet called comet 3D/Biela was discovered in 1772. It was a short-period comet, like SW3, returning every 6.6 years.

In 1846, the comet began to behave strangely. Observers saw its head had split in two, and some described an “archway of cometary matter” between the pieces.

At the comet’s next return, in 1852, the two fragments had clearly separated and both were fluctuating unpredictably in brightness.

The comet was never seen again.

But in late November of 1872, an unexpected meteor storm graced northern skies, stunning observers with rates of more than 3,000 meteors per hour.

The meteor storm occurred when the Earth crossed 3D/Biela’s orbit: it was where the comet itself should have been two months earlier. A second storm, weaker than the first, occurred in 1885, when the Earth once more encountered the comet’s remains.

3D/Biela had disintegrated into rubble, but the two great meteor storms it produced served as a fitting wake.

A dying comet, falling apart before our eyes, and an associated meteor shower, usually barely imperceptible against the background noise. Are we about to see history repeat itself with comet SW3?

What does this suggest for the Tau Herculids?

The main difference between the events of 1872 and this year’s Tau Herculids comes down to the timing of Earth’s crossing of the cometary orbits. In 1872, Earth crossed Biela’s orbit several months after the comet was due, running through material lagging behind where the comet would have been.

By contrast, the encounter between Earth and SW3’s debris stream next week happens several months before the comet is due to reach the crossing point. So the debris needs to have spread ahead of the comet for a meteor storm to occur.

Could the debris have spread far enough to encounter Earth? Some models suggest we’ll see a strong display from the shower, others suggest the debris will fall just short.

Don’t count your meteors before they’ve flashed!

Whatever happens, observations of next week’s shower will greatly improve our understanding of how comet fragmentation events happen.

Calculations show Earth will cross SW3’s orbit at about 3pm, May 31 (AEST). If the debris reaches far enough forward for Earth to encounter it, then an outburst from the Tau Herculids is likely, but it will only last an hour or two.

From Australia, the show (if there is one) will be over before it’s dark enough to see what’s happening.

Observers in north and south America will, however, have a ringside seat.

They are more likely to see a moderate display of slow-moving meteors than a huge storm. This would be a great result, but might be a little disappointing.

However, there is a chance the shower could put on a truly spectacular display. Astronomers are travelling across the world, just in case.

What about Australian observers?

There’s also a small chance any activity will last longer than expected, or even arrive a bit late. Even if you’re in Australia, it’s worth looking up on the evening of May 31, just in case you can get a glimpse of a fragment from a dying comet!

The 1995 debris stream is just one of many laid down by the comet in past decades.

During the early morning of May 31, around 4am (AEST), Earth will cross debris from the comet’s 1892 passage around the Sun. Later that evening, around 8pm, May 31 (AEST), Earth will cross debris laid down by the comet in 1897.

However, debris from those visits will have spread out over time, and therefore we expect only a few meteors to grace our skies from those streams. But, as always, we might be wrong – the only way to know is to go out and see!

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

– ref. Fragments of a dying comet might put on a spectacular show next week – or pass by without a trace – https://theconversation.com/fragments-of-a-dying-comet-might-put-on-a-spectacular-show-next-week-or-pass-by-without-a-trace-182434

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

Right from the outset, it is clear Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s agenda is very different to his predecessor Scott Morrison’s – from emphasising his commitment to fighting climate change to foreign leaders in Tokyo, to displaying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags at his Parliament House press conferences.

In this final episode of our election podcast Below the Line, our expert panel discusses the possible impacts the election result may have on government policy, from Canberra to the world stage. What can Albanese get done, in concert with the independents, the Greens and other MPs?

They’re joined by PhD student Phoebe Hayman from La Trobe University to discuss the teal independents’ campaigns and how they might contribute to the new parliament. They’re also joined by Director of La Trobe Asia Bec Strating to discuss how the Solomon Islands dispute impacted the campaign and what our relationship with China might look like under Foreign Minister Penny Wong.

This final episode was recorded live at La Trobe University on May 24, and we have released it in two parts. Listen here to part one, which focuses on the election results and their fallout. This concluding edition looks ahead to the policy issues faced by the new federal parliament.

Our panellists also discuss the frontrunner for the Liberal leadership Peter Dutton, whom Simon Jackman believes is more pragmatic than some may think. Host Jon Faine and Andrea Carson speculate as to whether News Corporation will double down on its partisan alignment with the Coalition, or learn from its ultimately unsuccessful attempts to influence the campaign during its coverage.

Meanwhile, Anika Guaja wonders whether the teal independents might band together and form a new party ahead of the next federal election in 2025. We also hear from young La Trobe students about their experience of voting for the first time.

Finally, a sincere thank you to our regular listeners who have supported Below the Line throughout the election campaign. Our regular panellists are taking a well-earned break, but perhaps you might hear from them again at the next federal election.

To become one of more than 190,000 people who get The Conversation’s journalism by experts delivered straight to their inbox, subscribe today.

Disclosures: Simon Jackman is a consultant on polling data for the Climate 200 network of independent candidates.

Image credit: Lukas Coch/AAP

– ref. Below the Line: How might our new, more diverse parliament change Australia and the Asia-Pacific? – podcast – https://theconversation.com/below-the-line-how-might-our-new-more-diverse-parliament-change-australia-and-the-asia-pacific-podcast-183910

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shidan Tosif, Honorary Clinical Associate Professor, The University of Melbourne

Parents are understandably worried about what would happen if their infant caught COVID-19. Babies may be considered vulnerable due to immature immune systems, and are also not eligible for most of the treatments and vaccinations available for older children and adults.

The good news is, most babies experience mild illness. Here’s what to expect if your baby tests positive.

Can I protect my baby if I have COVID-19?

If you test positive, and have a newborn or infant at home, there are some protective steps you can take. These include hand-washing before providing care, and wearing a mask when breastfeeding or in close contact. Current evidence suggests COVID-19 cannot be spread through breastmilk.

Read more:
Should I get a COVID vaccine while I’m pregnant or breastfeeding? Is it safe for me and my baby?

It’s still really important to continue breastfeeding (if you do so already) and there is no need to separate mother and baby.

Transmission from older siblings and other close contacts may also be reduced by vaccination. Vaccination of parents and caregivers will also reduce their chance of severe disease, thereby minimising the risks and interruptions for mother and baby.

What do I do if my baby has cold symptoms or a fever?

Testing your baby is similar to testing yourself. Babies can often get PCR tests in the same places where you will be tested, or you can use a rapid antigen test (RAT) on them.

If you are using a RAT it’s important to check it’s for the correct age group, as not all RATs can be used on children. It will say on the packet whether it is suitable. Otherwise ask your pharmacist for the correct test for your child’s age.

It’s also important to follow the specific instructions for the test you have purchased, as not all will be the same.

COVID-19 is usually mild in babies

Throughout the pandemic, children of all ages have been less likely to experience severe disease compared with adults. The likelihood of severe disease also appears to be lower with Omicron compared with previous variants, although the transmission of later variants has been higher.

From our clinical experience, and international research, babies with COVID-19 have mostly had mild disease. The need for hospitalisation or intensive care is extremely uncommon. Babies may be at higher risk if they are premature or have another underlying serious illness or condition. Studies describing COVID-19 in newborns reflect that similar to other respiratory viruses like influenza and RSV, deaths are very rare.

Read more:
Coronavirus while pregnant or giving birth: here’s what you need to know

A range of immune differences in newborns have been proposed to explain why babies usually get less severe disease. While there is no vaccine for infants, antibodies transfer from mothers who have been vaccinated while pregnant to newborns, which may offer protection.

What symptoms do babies usually get?

Babies may exhibit a range of symptoms when they have COVID-19 that are typical of other respiratory viruses. Up to 25% of babies may have no symptoms.

Fever, nasal congestion, feeding difficulties and cough are more common symptoms.

Breathing difficulties, lethargy and persistent fever may be signs of severe disease.

How do I treat it?

You can give your baby paracetamol or ibuprofen if there is fever or discomfort, and nasal saline drops can ease congestion. If you are considering giving medication to an infant under three months of age, please consult your GP.

When should I seek medical advice?

Talk to your doctor if your baby has any of the following:

• difficulty breathing

• persistent fever

• feeding difficulties impacting hydration or causing less than 50% of normal number of nappies.

It is important to note any fever in a newborn up to three months of age requires a medical review, regardless of whether the baby has COVID.

Anything else I should know?

Especially as we enter winter, protecting against other common circulating viruses which can affect babies, such as influenza, is also important. Children above six months of age can receive the influenza vaccine.

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

– ref. COVID-19 in babies – here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-in-babies-heres-what-to-expect-181940

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nic Rawlence, Senior Lecturer in Ancient DNA, University of Otago

One species of iconic moa was almost wiped out during the last ice age, according to recently published research. But a small population survived in a modest patch of forest at the bottom of New Zealand’s South Island, and rapidly spread back up its east coast once the climate began to warm.

What we’re learning about this remarkable survival story has implications for the way we can help living species adapt to climate change, and how we conserve and restore what may be important future habitats.

Growing to around 80kg and up to 1.8 metres tall, the eastern moa was one of the smaller of the nine extinct moa species. It got its name because its fossil bones have been found in sand dunes, swamps, caves and middens all along the eastern parts of the South Island – Southland, Otago, Canterbury and Marlborough.

Eastern moa became extinct from over-hunting and habitat destruction by humans, and possibly predation by kurī (dogs) and kiore (rats). But were eastern moa populations thriving when people arrived, or were they already in trouble due to ancient climate change?

Refuge in the south

Between 29,000 and 19,000 years ago, New Zealand was in the grip of an ice age. Glaciers were much larger and more widespread than they are today, and the distribution of grasslands and forests changed as the climate became colder and drier.

Current climate change threatens the survival of many different species, and the same was true of climate change thousands of years ago. The fossil record hints that the ice age was bad news for eastern moa, as few eastern moa bones from this period have been discovered.

But a lack of fossils doesn’t necessarily mean a species was doing it tough. Perhaps they just avoided the caves and swamps where we might eventually discover their bones.

Read more:
How a change in climate wiped out the ‘Siberian unicorn’

To find out more, we sequenced DNA from dozens of eastern moa bones to see how their genetic diversity and population size changed over the past 30,000 years.

Large and healthy animal populations tend to have high genetic diversity, while low genetic diversity can be a sign that a population is in decline. We found eastern moa had very low genetic diversity immediately after the last ice age.

So eastern moa didn’t cope well with the ice age climate – but how did they manage to escape extinction? Our study provides a clue: their genetic diversity was highest in the very south of the South Island.

Preserving future habitats

During the ice age, grassland replaced wet podocarp forests in many areas. Those forests were the favourite habitat of eastern moa, possibly explaining why they struggled to survive.

Luckily for eastern moa, however, small pockets of forest survived in southern New Zealand during this time. While eastern moa disappeared from most of the country, our study suggests they clung on in remnant forest at the very south of the South Island.

Scientists have a special name for pockets of habitat where species can shelter and endure climate change – “refugia”.

Read more:
How the warming world could turn many plants and animals into climate refugees

Once the climate began to return to pre-ice age conditions, eastern moa were able to return to parts of the country they had formerly occupied. They bounced back so well that they were the most common moa in some parts of New Zealand at the time of Polynesian arrival.

Ancient DNA from fossils across the world has shown that refugia play an important role in allowing species to adapt to climate change. The story of eastern moa shows this is equally true in New Zealand.

Importantly, though, the eastern moa was affected differently to other moa, showing not all species are affected by climate change in the same way. Our study emphasises the need to conserve and restore a diverse range of habitats for the future, given the places where species are found today may be unsuitable for them in the very near future.

By ensuring that species can continue to find appropriate refugia, we may reduce the number that become extinct as a result of our global impacts on the climate.

Nic Rawlence receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

Kieren Mitchell receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

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

– ref. How did ancient moa survive the ice age – and what can they teach us about modern climate change? – https://theconversation.com/how-did-ancient-moa-survive-the-ice-age-and-what-can-they-teach-us-about-modern-climate-change-183350

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Goodwin, Teaching Specialist, The University of Melbourne

With the swearing in of a new arts minister, there is a unique opportunity to address some of the structural issues around pay and job precarity in the arts and build a more equitable and diverse sector.

After holding the shadow portfolios, it is expected Tony Burke will be sworn in as minister for the arts and minister for industrial relations: the first federal minister to hold the pairing of these two portfolios.

A member of parliament since 2004, Burke briefly held the arts portfolio in the Gillard/Rudd ministry before becoming opposition spokesperson in 2016. He became shadow minister for industrial relations in 2019.

Through his time in parliament, Burke has often showcased his passion for the arts on his social media accounts, and he even keeps a selection of guitars in his parliamentary office (where he is known to play with other politicians in a Labor caucus band).

Burke has also long advocated for addressing issues of insecure work and unreliable pay, claiming Labor would launch a senate inquiry into insecure work if elected.

The arts and cultural sector has the dubious title of being an industry leader in insecure work. And it is at the intersection of cultural and industrial relations policy where our new arts minister could dramatically reshape the sector.

A precarious sector

In the final days of the election campaign, the Biennale of Sydney faced criticism after advertising an unpaid internship position.

Offered in partnership with Google Arts and Culture, the position involved cataloguing responsibilities and the creation of original content over the course of three months – all for no pay.

The arts and cultural sector is no stranger to unpaid internships. With limited full-time and salaried positions available, many arts workers use internships and other forms of unpaid labour as a way of gaining a foothold in the industry.

Even once established, arts workers typically rely on a combination of short-term and gig-based work, often at extremely low rates of pay.

Read more:
The crisis of a career in culture: why sustaining a livelihood in the arts is so hard

Arts organisations are often built on a foundation of cheap or free labour. Faced with budget shortfalls and a lack of government support, many organisations have few options but to perpetuate the precarity of work in the sector.

This means taking advantage of workers who are desperate to gain industry experience and build professional networks.

The sector’s reliance on unpaid work has far-reaching consequences for its diversity. With unpaid work a key feature of the industry, arts workers who can’t afford to work for free are essentially forced out of the labour pool. This creates a sector that largely excludes anyone from a working-class background.

Over the past two years, the situation facing arts workers has reached a tipping point. Many artists and arts workers were excluded from receiving JobKeeper or other forms of pandemic support. This led to greater numbers of arts workers abandoning the sector in favour of more stable employment – and an increasingly narrow pool of workers who can afford to stay.

Read more:
The government says artists should be able to access JobKeeper payments. It’s not that simple

An industrial relations approach

As part of their election commitments, the new Labor government said they will again implement a national cultural policy. But it is within his other portfolio that Burke could have the greatest impact on the sector.

When launching Labor’s arts policy at Melbourne’s Esplanade Hotel on May 16, Burke acknowledged cultural policy isn’t just about the arts:

Arts isn’t simply about entertainment, leisure and hobbies. At its best it affects our education policy, our health policy, our trade, our relations around the world, our industrial relations approach and is a driver of economic growth.

The arts and cultural sector have loudly condemned the lack of economic support received over the past decade, as well as during the pandemic.

But arts organisations must also take responsibility for contributing to a labour market environment that exploits workers and creates barriers to workers from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, and Burke needs to hold these organisations to account.

Considering the inclusion of labour standards within grant agreements could establish a stronger culture of fair pair for all arts workers. Similarly, Burke could institute stronger regulations on the use of internships versus paid work.

Arts work is work and should be compensated accordingly.

The Biennale of Sydney states in the advertisement for its unpaid intern that “art should be accessible to all.” Our incoming arts minister can help to make this a reality, not just for audiences but for workers as well.

Read more:
Wages and women top Albanese’s IR agenda: the big question is how Labor keeps its promises

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

– ref. Tony Burke’s double ministry of arts and industrial relations could be just what the arts sector needs – https://theconversation.com/tony-burkes-double-ministry-of-arts-and-industrial-relations-could-be-just-what-the-arts-sector-needs-183623

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Carlson, Professor, Indigenous Studies and Director of The Centre for Global Indigenous Futures, Macquarie University

This article contains mentions of the Stolen Generations, and policies using outdated and potentially offensive terminology when referring to First Nations people.

May 26 is National Sorry Day. On this day, we commemorate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were forcibly removed from their families under government policies during the Assimilation era (officially 1910-70).

Those children stolen from their families have become known as the Stolen Generations. Many survivors have provided an account of the violence they endured and the ongoing pain they experience as they try to find their families. While some have managed to find their families, many have not. This has left an indelible pain that resonates in all aspects of their lives.

While this is a national day of commemoration, shamefully, it barely rates a mention in the media. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities however, never forget. How can we, when so many of our families have been impacted by this legacy?

The exact number of children who were removed may never be known. However, there are very few families who have been left unaffected. In some families, children from three or more generations were taken.

On this day, we acknowledge the ongoing grief and loss experienced by many individuals and families, and we recognise the pain and intergenerational trauma that continues.

Oppression and discrimination of past government policies

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been subject to various government policies that resulted in oppressive and discriminatory conditions. In what has been referred to as “The Killing Times” massacres of Aboriginal people occurred from 1788 to 1928. The survivors of this frontier violence were then subject to “protection” policies.

During this era, “protectors” were appointed, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations were segregated onto reserves, missions and government settlements.

This time of “protection” was not an era of benevolence. Beginning in the late 19th century, the “protection” era involved controlling every aspect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s lives. This included forced confinement, institutionalisation and forcible child removals.

An official policy of assimilation was established in 1937. The policy was defined at the 1961 Native Welfare Conference of Federal and State Ministers in these terms:

The policy of assimilation means that all Aborigines (sic) and part-Aborigines (sic) are expected to attain the same manner of living as other Australians and to live as members of a single Australian community, enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same customs and influenced by the same beliefs as other Australians.

But this was never the case. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had no say on this policy, nor any freedom to decline it. The notion they were ever intended to enjoy the same rights and privileges as white folk is a lie.

National Sorry Day

The first National Sorry Day was held on May 26 1998, one year after the tabling of the report from the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. The inquiry examined the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families and communities. A key recommendation of the report was that reparations be made.

Almost a decade after that, on February 13 2008, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered an apology to members of the Stolen Generations. This is often heralded as a historic day, and indeed it was important for people who had been impacted by being forcibly removed from their families to finally have a government tell the truth. Rudd, however, firmly stated the government had no intention to consider compensation.

While there is yet to be a national reparation scheme, various States and Territories have developed reparation strategies to provide monetary compensation to members of the Stolen Generations. Sadly, many members of the Stolen generations have passed before they could receive reparations and there is no mechanism to pay it forward to their families.

Read more:
New bill in NSW could prove crucial to helping reduce numbers of First Nations children in out-of-home care

“Sorry” means you don’t do it again

When Rudd delivered his apology 14 years ago, there were 9,070 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care in Australia. That number has since risen to about 18,900, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children now represent more than 41% of all children in out-of-home care.

Aboriginal journalist Allan Clarke has referred to the growing number of our children in out-of-home care as a terrible crisis that has continued since Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were first snatched from their families almost a century ago.

Commemorations such as Sorry Day serve as a permanent link between present and past generations – committing them to memory and assigning them with importance, meaning and purpose.

National Sorry Day commemorates not only the past but the continuity of injustice borne by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. All the “sorrys” in the world won’t provide justice, support or compensation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were forcibly removed from their families. Remembering this significant day is the least we can do.

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

– ref. National Sorry Day is a day to commemorate those taken. But ‘sorry’ is not enough – we need action – https://theconversation.com/national-sorry-day-is-a-day-to-commemorate-those-taken-but-sorry-is-not-enough-we-need-action-183618

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dietmar Müller, Professor of Geophysics, University of Sydney

For hundreds of millions of years, Earth’s climate has warmed and cooled with natural fluctuations in the level of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere. Over the past century, humans have pushed CO₂ levels to their highest in 2 million years – overtaking natural emissions – mostly by burning fossil fuels, causing ongoing global warming that may make parts of the globe uninhabitable.

What can be done? As Earth scientists, we look to how natural processes have recycled carbon from atmosphere to Earth and back in the past to find possible answers to this question.

Our new research published in Nature, shows how tectonic plates, volcanoes, eroding mountains and seabed sediment have controlled Earth’s climate in the geological past. Harnessing these processes may play a part in maintaining the “Goldilocks” climate our planet has enjoyed.

From hothouse to ice age

Hothouse and icehouse climates have existed in the geological past. The Cretaceous hothouse (which lasted from roughly 145 million to 66 million years ago) had atmospheric CO₂ levels above 1,000 parts per million, compared with around 420 today, and temperatures up to 10℃ higher than today.

But Earth’s climate began to cool around 50 million years ago during the Cenozoic Era, culminating in an icehouse climate in which temperatures dropped to roughly 7℃ cooler than today.

What kickstarted this dramatic change in global climate?

Our suspicion was that Earth’s tectonic plates were the culprit. To better understand how tectonic plates store, move and emit carbon, we built a computer model of the tectonic “carbon conveyor belt”.

The carbon conveyor belt

Tectonic processes release carbon into the atmosphere at mid-ocean ridges – where two plates are moving away from each other – allowing magma to rise to the surface and create new ocean crust.

At the same time, at ocean trenches – where two plates converge – plates are pulled down and recycled back into the deep Earth. On their way down they carry carbon back into the Earth’s interior, but also release some CO₂ via volcanic activity.

Our model shows that the Cretaceous hothouse climate was caused by very fast-moving tectonic plates, which dramatically increased CO₂ emissions from mid-ocean ridges.

In the transition to the Cenozoic icehouse climate tectonic plate movement slowed down and volcanic CO₂ emissions began to fall. But to our surprise, we discovered a more complex mechanism hidden in the conveyor belt system involving mountain building, continental erosion and burial of the remains of miscroscopic organisms on the seafloor.

The hidden cooling effect of slowing tectonic plates in the Cenozoic

Tectonic plates slow down due to collisions, which in turn leads to mountain building, such as the Himalayas and the Alps formed over the last 50 million years. This should have reduced volcanic CO₂ emissions but instead our carbon conveyor belt model revealed increased emissions.

We tracked their source to carbon-rich deep-sea sediments being pushed downwards to feed volcanoes, increasing CO₂ emissions and cancelling out the effect of slowing plates.

So what exactly was the mechanism responsible for the drop in atmospheric CO₂?

The answer lies in the mountains that were responsible for slowing down the plates in the first place and in carbon storage in the deep sea.

As soon as mountains form, they start being eroded. Rainwater containing CO₂ reacts with a range of mountain rocks, breaking them down. Rivers carry the dissolved minerals into the sea. Marine organisms then use the dissolved products to build their shells, which ultimately become a part of carbon-rich marine sediments.

As new mountain chains formed, more rocks were eroded, speeding up this process. Massive amounts of CO₂ were stored away, and the planet cooled, even though some of these sediments were subducted with their carbon degassing via arc volcanoes.

Rock weathering as a possible carbon dioxide removal technology

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal methods is “unavoidable” if the world is to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Read more:
On top of drastic emissions cuts, IPCC finds large-scale CO₂ removal from air will be “essential” to meeting targets

The weathering of igneous rocks, especially rocks like basalt containing a mineral called olivine, is very efficient in reducing atmospheric CO₂. Spreading olivine on beaches could absorb up to a trillion tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere, according to some estimates.

The speed of current human-induced warming is such that reducing our carbon emissions very quickly is essential to avoid catastrophic global warming. But geological processes, with some human help, may also have their role in maintaining Earth’s “Goldilocks” climate.

This study was carried out by researchers from the University of Sydney’s EarthByte Group, The University of Western Australia, the University of Leeds and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich using GPlates open access modelling software. This was enabled by Australia’s National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) via AuScope and The Office of the Chief Scientist and Engineer, NSW Department of Industry.

Dietmar Müller receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Adriana Dutkiewicz receives funding from the Australian Research Council (FT190100829).

Andrew Merdith receives funding from MSCA-IF project 893615.

Christopher Gonzalez received funding from Australian Research Council.

Sabin Zahirovic receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DE210100084).

Tobias Keller previously received funding from the European Research Council and from the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Weronika Gorczyk receives funding from Australian Research Council and Minerals Research Institute Of Western Australia

Jo Condon is affiliated with AuScope, a federally funded and non-profit NCRIS organisation that supports the development of GPlates software used in the research described in this article.

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

– ref. How plate tectonics, mountains and deep-sea sediments have maintained Earth’s ‘Goldilocks’ climate – https://theconversation.com/how-plate-tectonics-mountains-and-deep-sea-sediments-have-maintained-earths-goldilocks-climate-183725

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Plenty was said in the election campaign about the very real challenges faced by first home buyers and by homeowners already mortgaged to the hilt. But little comment focused on the cost-of-living predicament faced by low income renters.

Our new report, released today, reveals a social housing system critically stressed, with demand rapidly outpacing supply.

Many eligible applicants in need simply give up on ever being allocated a spot. Probably far more, knowing their faint hope of a tenancy offer, never even apply.

Read more:
Climate change hits low-income earners harder – and poor housing in hotter cities is a disastrous combination

Social housing system capacity cut by more than half

Rental stress is where a tenant’s housing costs leave not enough remaining income to cover basic household essentials.

This is estimated to affect two thirds of the low-income private tenant population – around a million households.

And across Australia, but especially in the regions, the past two years have seen rents rising at rates unseen in more than a decade.

However, this only compounds the much more longstanding trend of growing demand pressure at the lower end of the private rental market.

In part, this reflects a quarter-century of near-stagnation in social housing stock in Australia.

While the national population is now 41% higher than in 1996, social housing has expanded by just 3% over that period.

Effectively, social housing system capacity has been cut by more than half since the 1990s.

Just under 30,000 new applicants were granted a social housing tenancy, Australia-wide, in 2020-21.

As the most meaningful indicator of supply, that compares with 52,000 lettings in 1991 – a 42% reduction. But proportionate to national population, the latest figure is 61% down.

Indeed, the three years to 2021 saw overall social housing waiting list numbers rising by 16%, Australia-wide, to 164,000 households.

Nationally, the annual number of “new greatest need applications” (mainly people experiencing or at risk of homelessness) grew by 48% over this period, suggesting soaring demand.

As our research reveals, stress on the New South Wales social housing system is clearly intensifying. The proportion of total lettings to highest priority applicants increased from 41% to 60% in the six years to 2020-21.

This means longer wait times for income-eligible but non-priority social housing applicants.

In Queensland, meanwhile, waiting list numbers grew by 78% in the four years to June 2021 (to some 28,000 households). Average waiting times for registered applicants also increased by 83%.

High rates of ‘churn’

But despite recent increases, the longer-term trend of social housing waiting list numbers has remained largely flat. 2021 point-in-time registrations barely exceeded the number for 2006.

This is despite substantially increased housing need over this period as evidenced by trends in homelessness, rental stress and other indicators.

Our research reveals some likely explanations for this paradox.

Most importantly, social housing waiting lists now see high rates of “churn” – where many applicants register each year but many others exit lists without gaining a social housing tenancy.

Quantifying these processes, we draw on unpublished government statistics for New South Wales, where June 30 2021 waiting list applications totalled nearly 50,000.

Our evidence suggests that during 2020-21, over 6,000 registrations were cancelled or withdrawn. That’s in addition to the 12,000 registrations ending thanks to a social housing tenancy allocation.

In part, this pattern likely reflects the realisation by many non-priority applicants that the prospect of a tenancy offer is remote.

After all, for those needing a three bedroom property, the NSW government projects typical waiting times of more than a decade in most of its 25 Sydney letting areas.

Rigorous waiting list management is also implicated, with registrations deleted when an applicant (intentionally or otherwise) fails to reconfirm eligibility and interest.

Limiting social housing eligibility

Restricting eligibility to register for social housing is central to rationing; in particular, through income limits.

As highlighted in our report, there is great variation across the country in the maximum income allowed before you’re no longer eligible.

In most jurisdictions, the 2021 income limit for a single person was below the current minimum wage (assuming full-time employment).

Weekly income limits defined by the Queensland and West Australian governments (A$609 and $450 for single adults in 2021, respectively) have remained static or almost unchanged for more than a decade.

This has managed demand by effectively tightening applicant eligibility over time.

The rationing challenge

State and territory government staff face unenviable challenges in rationing a static or shrinking resource at a time of growing need.

The roots of this scenario can be traced back to the end of Australia’s routine national public housing construction program, which ran for 50 years until 1996, until its effective termination under the Howard government.

In certain states (notably Queensland and Victoria), recent post-COVID economic recovery pledges include significant new social housing construction investment funded by states themselves.

The incoming federal Labor government has also pledged a six year scheme to construct 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes.

Advocates will welcome these commitments. But to truly relieve low income housing stress, the national program needs to be expanded in scale and maintained long term.

Otherwise, the challenge faced by state and territory governments in rationing scarce social housing will become tougher still.

Read more:
The many faces of social housing – home to 1 in 10 Australians

Hal Pawson receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), Launch Housing, and Crisis UK. This story is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is about escaping cycles of disadvantage. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. Australia’s social housing system is critically stressed. Many eligible applicants simply give up – https://theconversation.com/australias-social-housing-system-is-critically-stressed-many-eligible-applicants-simply-give-up-183530

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Messina, Team Leader in the Infectious Diseases Research Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute; Honorary Fellow at The University of Melbourne Department of Paediatrics., Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

After virtually disappearing for two years, influenza is back and rapidly sweeping across Australia – and the world.

So far this year, there have been more than 15,000 flu cases in New South Wales alone, of which more than 12,000 were diagnosed since the start of May.

The Queensland government has announced free flu vaccinations and NSW is considering doing the same. Australian Medical Association president Omar Khorshid has urged the incoming federal government to provide free flu shots for all Australians.

Meanwhile, COVID cases continue to mount as colder weather sets in.

The good news is, we know the influenza vaccine can protect against the flu – and a growing body of international research suggests the flu jab might also protect against COVID.

A recent study of 30,774 health-care workers in Qatar found influenza vaccine could guard against COVID, particularly severe illness.

These promising results have implications not only for COVID, but also for future pandemics caused by newly emergent germs. However, there are some reasons for caution.

Read more:
Should I get the 2022 flu vaccine? And how effective is it?

New flu findings

The Qatar study, released online this month and yet to be independently verified, used data from more than 12,000 health-care workers who had a COVID test during the 2020 flu season.

The researchers compared influenza vaccination rates between the 576 health-care workers who got COVID, and a similar group of 2,000 health-care workers who had tested negative to COVID in the last three months of 2020.

Those who had an influenza vaccination at least two weeks before COVID testing were 30% less likely to have a positive COVID test and almost 90% less likely to develop severe or critical COVID, compared with those who hadn’t been recently vaccinated against flu.

This finding is consistent with similar retrospective studies from Brazil, Italy, Iran, the Netherlands and the United States, which have also shown protective effects of influenza vaccination against COVID.

Common to studies of people who work in the health field, there is the risk people in the study are health-conscious. It’s likely they are more inclined to follow COVID protection advice such as adhering to lockdowns, physical isolation and mask wearing. They are also more likely to get their influenza vaccination. This potential bias is reduced in the Qatar study by focusing only on health-care workers, however it can’t be ruled out as contributing to the findings.

There are two further considerations to the implications of this study. First, the health-care workers included in the study were young and not assessed to see if they had other health conditions. This means the effects seen in the study may not hold true for older people and those with other health issues – both of whom are at greater risk of severe COVID.

Second, the study used data collected before COVID vaccines and before COVID variants such as Omicron. This means the impact of the findings in the current global circumstances are unclear.

In the study, the average time for COVID testing after flu vaccination was six weeks. With the study using data only during a three-month period, it is unclear whether this protective effect of the flu vaccine against COVID might last beyond a few months.

Beneficial ‘off-target’ effects of vaccines

In the early months of the pandemic – while COVID vaccines were still in development – researchers were intensely interested in the possibility existing vaccines might provide some protection against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID).

This is because of emerging evidence some vaccines can have additional beneficial effects, greater than just protecting against the infection they were originally designed for.

This bonus protection has mostly been linked to live-attenuated vaccines, made from a weakened forms of the germ or a related germ. For example, both the 100-year-old tuberculosis vaccine called Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) and measles vaccines have been shown to reduce infant deaths from any cause.

This protection is thought to be because these vaccines can kick-start the immune system so it protects the body more effectively from infectious diseases.

To understand more about the bonus protection of routine vaccines like these against COVID, multiple randomised controlled trials are under way.

One multinational clinical trial, called the BRACE trial, has enrolled almost 7,000 health-care workers to determine whether BCG vaccine reduces the incidence of symptomatic and severe COVID. So far, we have found BCG vaccination changes the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in a way that could reduce severe COVID illness.

However, this trial is ongoing and we need to wait for the final results to determine whether this immune response translates into real-world protection against COVID.

Read more:
Cases are high and winter is coming. We need to stop ignoring COVID

Decreasing COVID’s inflammatory response?

For influenza vaccines, one plausible explanation for their protective effect against COVID is that influenza vaccination reduces the risk of having influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infection at the same time.

Co-infection with flu and COVID is associated with more severe disease. Prevention of this could reduce the severity of COVID. However, due to exceptionally low influenza rates in Qatar during the 2020 flu season, this is unlikely to explain the recent findings.

Like the BCG vaccine, influenza vaccines might decrease potentially harmful inflammatory immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Severe COVID has been linked to overactive inflammatory responses which can cause damage to tissues and result in severe symptoms. By reducing inflammation these routine vaccines might prevent related tissue damage.

Future protection

These promising results emerge as we grapple with growing COVID cases and the pandemic rolls on.

More research is needed to confirm what researchers are beginning to report. But the potential for existing vaccines, such as the flu jab and BCG, to provide protection against COVID gives rise to the possibility they could also help to protect against future pandemics.

However exciting these new results are, the best evidence remains that influenza vaccination protects us from the flu and COVID vaccination and boosters protect against COVID and severe illness.

Read more:
Flu, COVID and flurona: what we can and can’t expect this winter

Nicole Messina receives funding from the NHMRC.

The Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI) leads the BRACE trial (for which Dr Nicole Messina is the BRACE trial Biosample and Laboratory Lead) across 36 sites in five countries. It is supported by the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Programme. The BRACE trial is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV‐017302), the Minderoo Foundation (COV‐001), Sarah and Lachlan Murdoch, the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation (2020‐1263 BRACE Trial), Health Services Union NSW, the Peter Sowerby Foundation, the Ministry of Health Government of South Australia, the NAB Foundation, the Calvert‐Jones Foundation, the Modara Pines Charitable Foundation, the UHG Foundation Pty Ltd, Epworth Healthcare and individual donors.

– ref. As flu cases surge, vaccination may offer some bonus protection from COVID as well – https://theconversation.com/as-flu-cases-surge-vaccination-may-offer-some-bonus-protection-from-covid-as-well-183613

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nerilie Abram, Chief Investigator for the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes; Deputy Director for the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, Australian National University

The 2022 federal election will go down in history as Australia’s climate change election.

Australians resoundingly voted for ambition on climate action, something which has been missing for a decade under a Coalition government, along with integrity and gender equality.

I am a climate scientist who has spent the last two decades studying how our climate is changing and sharing our increasingly urgent and frightening findings with the world.

This is my plea to our newly elected politicians.

Dear Mr Albanese,

Congratulations on becoming the 31st Prime Minister of Australia.

If you wanted a clear mandate that the people are ready for ambitious and immediate climate action, then Australian voters certainly delivered that last Saturday. And how could they not?

Climate change is already impacting every inhabited part of our planet. Over the past few years Australians have suffered devastating bushfires and killer heat, catastrophic off-the-charts flooding, damage along our coasts from relentlessly rising seas, and the drawn-out hardship of droughts.

I spend every day looking at the data that tells us each of those climate extremes will keep getting worse.

Every tonne of carbon dioxide that we emit adds to global warming. And every fraction of a degree of further warming will cause climate impacts to become more frequent and more intense.

So I implore you and the Labor Party to govern like every decision, and every year, matters. Because it really, really does.

You’ll have a chance to prove on the world stage that the Australian Government is serious about climate action at the international climate conference, COP27, in Egypt later this year. You’ve got some work to do, because COP26 last year was an embarrassment for our nation.

Read more:
‘The Australian way’: how Morrison trashed brand Australia at COP26

We took little more than a three-word slogan to the conference in Glasgow, and came away from those negotiations as a climate villain. The world is waiting for Australia to increase our 2030 commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions at COP27.

Labor’s plan to reduce Australia’s emissions by 43% by 2030 is a good start. Though it will still put us on track to contribute to more than 2℃ of global warming (roughly twice the warming level we’re currently at).

Fortunately, the international climate negotiations framework is designed for ratcheting up ambition over time. This means Australia can still increase our 2030 ambition further and do our fair share to limit warming to 1.5℃, which would be a much safer pathway.

To the Greens,

Well done on your record-high vote. Yours was a campaign with a climate policy aligned to the science of what’s needed from Australia to keep the 1.5℃ warming goal alive. I hope you’re able to push from inside the house and the senate to make that a reality.

The strength of the Greens vote in Queensland perhaps shouldn’t have been a surprise to me. Nowhere else in Australia would the difference between 1.5℃ and 2℃ of warming be more apparent.

Read more:
Why 2℃ of global warming is much worse for Australia than 1.5℃

Earlier this year I wrote the saddest research proposal I ever have. A decade ago I could not have imagined having to pen anything like it, but here we are.

I study climate change and its impacts using corals that have grown in the ocean for centuries. These ancient corals faithfully record natural and human-caused changes in the environment around them.

But now those very coral records I use to study the climate are being destroyed by climate change. My proposal is to call for an urgent international effort to recover valuable scientific samples from coral reefs before they’re lost forever.

Amid all of the bluster of this election campaign, the Great Barrier Reef quietly bleached for the fourth time in the last seven years. As scientists we knew to expect this – at 1.5℃ of warming 90% of reefs will have been lost, and at 2℃ the wondrous Great Barrier Reef as we know it today will no longer exist.

This most recent bleaching event hits me hard. Maybe it hit Queensland voters hard this time too?

I wish the elected Greens well as they work inside Parliament to do what’s needed to give the reef a fighting chance.

To the Teal Independents,

Thank you for putting yourselves forward. For seeing the political status quo was not working for the people, and having the courage and conviction to provide Australians with an alternative.

It is well recognised that women need to be at the heart of climate action and solutions. Globally, female representation in politics has been shown to lead to stronger climate policies and better conservation outcomes.

It makes me proud and hopeful to see the Australian people have elected so many strong, talented, independent women to our parliament.

To every member of our new parliament,

Its time to get to work. The federal government has squandered the last decade and made the job harder.

But fortunately, Australia’s state governments have made a start while federal government dallied. Australia’s states and territories adopted net-zero targets before the federal government, and together those commitments are estimated to represent defacto national emission reductions of around 37-42% by 2030.

Tackling the climate crisis is going to take a scale of ambition unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. But we have many solutions for decarbonising our energy and transport sectors ready to go. We will have to deploy these as quickly as possible to make the significant cuts to emissions needed this decade.

In future decades we will also need solutions that don’t yet exist. This includes technologies and enhanced nature-based solutions that will help us to draw carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere. These need to be underpinned by an investment in fundamental science today, so we can forge a pathway to those as-yet-unknown solutions.

People in Australia, and our neighbours in the Pacific, also need your help. Climate extremes are going to worsen and we need investment in the climate science and modelling capabilities to be able to improve adaptation decisions at the local scale.

To paraphrase our new Prime Minister, together you can end the climate wars and seize the abundant opportunities that Australia has to be a climate leader.

Good luck.

Read more:
The election showed Australia’s huge appetite for stronger climate action. What levers can the new government pull?

Nerilie Abram receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes; Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science) and the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (NESP2 climate hub).

– ref. I am a climate scientist – and this is my plea to our newly elected politicians – https://theconversation.com/i-am-a-climate-scientist-and-this-is-my-plea-to-our-newly-elected-politicians-183540

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Keating, Visiting Fellow, College of Business & Economics, Australian National University

The new government has inherited an extraordinarily difficult budget situation.

The budget deficit amounts to 3.5% of gross domestic product this financial year and it will be almost as high next financial year at 3.4%, after which the budget papers project deficits for the entire ten-year forecast period.

At the same time, the unemployment rate has fallen to 3.9% – the lowest in five decades. It is so low it is below the 4.25% the treasury believes is needed to stop inflation accelerating.

In other words, the economy is operating at full capacity and inflationary pressures are mounting, with businesses complaining about difficulties in finding labour and supplies.

Households and businesses are flush with cash saved during the pandemic and prepared to spend more.

A responsible budget would immediately wind back the deficit and get to surplus within two years. Without that kind of restraint, inflationary pressures will mount and interest rates will climb higher, hurting mortgagees and crimping growth.

Labor’s budget strategy

During the election campaign, Labor’s budget strategy was built around:

• minimising the number of its own expenditure proposals, so that next year they would add only a net A$1.1 billion to the estimated $77.9 billion deficit

• “quality” spending proposals, with Labor claiming its plan would “alleviate supply-side pressures by enhancing the productive capacity of the economy”

• a crackdown on multinational tax avoidance and achieving substantial savings by auditing the previous government’s “rorts, waste and mismanagement”

So far, so good. But it is extremely unlikely this strategy will be sufficient to restore budget balance, and impossible for it to restore it within two years.

For one thing, even though much of Labor’s proposed spending is worthwhile, it will add to aggregate demand (spending) in the economy in the same way as would bad or wasteful spending.

For another, even though some of Labor’s new expenditures on things such as a better-trained workforce and cheaper child care can be expected to accelerate economic growth, they are unlikely to lift the growth rate growth rate above that underpinning the treasury forecasts in the pre-election outlook.

These forecasts assume that “the underlying rate of growth in labour productivity will converge over a ten-year period to the average growth rate in labour productivity over the 30 years to 2018-19 of 1.5% per annum”.

But in the first six years of the Coalition government, pre-COVID, the annual rate of labour productivity growth averaged only 0.85%.

Furthermore, this slowdown is common to all developed economies. This means while Labor’s new programs can be expected to boost economic capacity, it is very unlikely they will lift growth above what the treasury already assumes.

Maybe an extra 4% of GDP

As important, essential services are struggling after years of under-funding.

Labor has recognised this in instances such as health, aged care, facilitating the reduction of carbon emissions, and national security, but its costings made insufficient allowance for the spending that will be required.

And more will be needed in other areas, such as higher education and research.

Overall, my rough guesstimate is that even after the savings to be had from the audit of the former government’s “rorts, waste and mismanagement”, the new government will still need to raise additional revenue equivalent to around 4% of GDP if it is to close the deficit and adequately fund essential services.

First, find out what’s needed…

Unfortunately, this extra revenue can’t be expected to come from economic growth for the reasons already given. It will have to come from raising more tax.

And that’s a problem. Australia has developed a culture where low taxation has been seen as an end in itself. For Labor to succeed, it needs to change the debate.

To this end, the new government has to quickly establish an expert committee (not a royal commission made up of lawyers) to conduct a fundamental public investigation of how much extra revenue is needed to guarantee the funding of the essential services that are underperforming and underfunded.

Read more:
A new dawn over stormy seas: how Labor should manage the economy

Instead of being constrained by some arbitrary taxation cap, the committee would develop a bottom-up estimate of how much in total is required to ensure the cost-effective provision of essential services.

In developing this bottom-up estimate, the committee would be supported by more specialist committees, such as the proposed committee to be chaired by the incoming minister for health. The eventual report would provide a carefully considered and expert assessment of how much extra spending is needed.

…then work out how to pay for it

It should also be noted that even if the extra revenue required amounted to as much as 4-5% of GDP, it would leave Australia more-lightly taxed than almost every other OECD country in Europe.

Following public consideration of that first inquiry, a second inquiry would establish how best to raise the additional revenue required. Again, the inquiry process, the evidence produced, and the final report, would be instrumental in achieving public support for the types of tax reform that were needed

These inquiries and what follows will inevitably take time – years not days.

Read more:
Stand by for the oddly designed Stage 3 tax cut that will send middle earners backwards and give high earners thousands

That means that some of what Labor wants to do will take time. Some will have to be part of Labor’s platform for a second term.

But the restoration of the budget balance is urgent. It could be accelerated if Labor grasped the nettle and rescinded the Stage 3 tax cuts it has agreed to.

These Stage 3 cuts cost $15.7 billion in their first year (2024-25), climbing to $37 billion per year in ten years’ time. Very few taxpayers will notice, because they are directed towards the 10% of taxpayers with incomes greater than $120,000.

Small targets can’t offer big services

Labor has been fearful of debating taxation ever since the 2019 election, presenting itself as a small target.

This means it has served up a contradiction. Australians have been promised the services they need without a tax setup that will pay for them.

In 2022 Australians voted for change. Albanese and Treasurer Chalmers need to build on that and change the debate around tax. Now is the right time to start.

It needs to get Australians to understand what American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes was getting at when he said taxes are what we pay for a civilised society.

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

– ref. Memo to Labor: you need more tax, working out how much more is urgent – https://theconversation.com/memo-to-labor-you-need-more-tax-working-out-how-much-more-is-urgent-183638

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cain Polidano, Senior Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

Concerned that many people won’t have enough retirement savings even with compulsory superannuation, since 2003 the Australian government has had a scheme to encourage low and middle-income earners to voluntarily put more into superannuation.

The Superannuation Co-Contribution Scheme currently provides 50 cents for every dollar voluntarily contributed, up to A$1,000, by anyone earning less than $42,000. (There are tapered co-contributions for those with incomes up to $57,000.)

To date the scheme has cost more than $10 billion – or $12.7 billion in today’s dollars. Last financial year it paid out about $127 million. Over the next three years it is expected to cost $365 million.

So what is it achieving? Not much, it turns out.

Our analysis of taxation data since 2000 suggests the scheme has made little difference to lifting voluntary super contributions by low and middle-income earners.

Most significantly, our findings indicate the scheme does little more than provide a bonus to those who would have put money into super anyway.

Given the need to rein in public debt, the new Albanese government should consider discontinuing the co-contribution scheme as “low-hanging fruit” – an easy budget cutback that will harm few people.

Read more:
How to camouflage $150 billion in spending: call it ‘tax expenditure’

How we analysed the scheme

The co-contribution scheme was introduced 2003-04 by the Howard government as part of its “Better Superannuation System” reforms meant to encourage higher contributions.

Initially the co-contribution was dollar-for-dollar. In 2004-05 it was increased to $1.50 for every dollar. In 2009-10 the Rudd government reduced it to $1 and in 2012-13 the Gillard government cut it to 50 cents.

To evaluate the scheme, we used a data set from the Australian Taxation Office known as the Australian Longitudinal Information Files (ALife). This contains a 10% anonymised sample of Australian superannuation and tax records that currently goes back to 1991.

We analysed records from 2000 onwards, looking at the super contributions of anyone who earned less than $80,000 for at least one year between 1999-2000 and 2016-17.
This totalled 1.3 million individuals. Of these, 730,000 were eligible for a co-contribution in at least one year.

Before the scheme began, about 14.5% of those subsequently eligible for the co-contribution made voluntary contributions to superannuation.

Our analysis shows only marginal effects on the rate of voluntary contributions – even when the co-contribution rate was double or three times higher than it is now.

At a co-contribution rate of 50 cents on the dollar, the scheme has increased contributions by 1 percentage point.

At the previous rate of $1, the increase in super contributions was 1.5 percentage points. Even at the past rate of $1.50, it was just 3.5 percentage points.

In reading these estimates it’s important to note they aren’t simply percentage changes to the 14.5% contribution rate prior to the scheme. They are generated by an econometric model that has allowed us to measure changes in super contributions when people gain or lose eligibility for the co-contribution scheme, then compare those to changes in contributions of people whose eligibility did not change.

Who has benefited most?

The biggest increases in contributions were by high-income earners who happened to qualify in a particular year due to a temporary drop in income, as well by partnered women.

Those normally in the top 25% of income earners were four times more likely to take advantage of the scheme than those normally in the bottom 25%.

Women with partners were more than twice as likely to contribute as single women or men with partners, and four times more likely than single men. The likely explanation for this is that the scheme has been used by women with higher-earning partners.

The following chart shows these average effects across the life of the scheme.

Impacts on sub-group voluntary after-tax contribution rates

Strikingly, our analysis indicates those taking advantage of the scheme would have made slightly higher voluntary super contributions without any co-contribution.

The difference is slight – on average of $20 to $50 a year, depending on the co-contribution rate – but the whole point of the scheme is to encourage higher contributions, not provide a subsidy for people to contribute at the same (or a marginally lower) rate.

Read more:
Yes, women retire with less than men, but boosting compulsory super won’t help

Failing to make a difference here and overseas

These disappointing results from the scheme are in line with findings of similar schemes in the United States and Germany.

There are two possible reasons.

The first is that people may be unaware of the scheme. But we find no evidence for this. For example, our analysis indicates those who use tax agents – who are likely to be aware of the scheme and pass on such knowledge to their clients – are no more likely to use the scheme than those who do their own tax return.

The second reason is the more obvious one.

Most people on lower incomes don’t have spare cash to put into super. This is why increases have been minor even with a matching payments rate three times higher than now. If you don’t have the spare cash, it doesn’t make much difference a what rate the co-contribution is set.

Our findings cast serious doubt on the point of the superannuation co-contribution scheme. Despite its relative simplicity and generosity, it has done little to lift the retirement savings of low and middle-income Australians as intended.

The real beneficiaries of the scheme have been the small minority of eligible people who were already contributing. For them, this has been a windfall that has allowed them to reduce their personal contributions while still achieving their desired contribution levels.

Read more:
Retirement incomes review finds problems more super won’t solve

Cain Polidano receives funding from Australian Research Council.

Ha Vu receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Marc Chan receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Roger Wilkins receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Super co-contribution has cost $10 billion to help the wrong Australians – so let’s scrap it – https://theconversation.com/super-co-contribution-has-cost-10-billion-to-help-the-wrong-australians-so-lets-scrap-it-180680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Tregear, Principal Fellow and Professor of Music, The University of Melbourne

Opera Australia has received outstanding reviews for its Melbourne season of Richard Wagner’s opera Lohengrin.

The casting of German singer Jonas Kaufmann in the title role has been universally praised. Kaufmann demonstrates to the hilt the kinds of vocal skill and dramatic artistry that have led him to be considered by many to be the greatest tenor in the world today.

The staging, however, has not been received so positively.

The opera is directed by Frenchman Olivier Py, in a co-production with the national opera of Belgium, the Théâtre Royale de la Monnaie in Brussels.

Wagner drew inspiration for Lohengrin from Wolfram von Eschenbach’s 13th century rendering of the legend of the Knight of the Swan, alongside actual events from the foundation years of the Holy Roman Empire around the 10th century.

In Cy’s rendering, however, we are presented with an apocalyptic post-World War II landscape where death reigns. Graffiti daubed on walls quotes from Paul Celan’s poem Todesfuge (1945). Other scenic interpolations are drawn from esoteric Nazi iconography – such the Celtic Cross and the Black Sun (Schwarze Sonne).

This is not unusual. Over the past 80 years or so, operas have increasingly been reframed to provide a vehicle for commentary: either on the composer and society that created them, or on our own times. The original plot and setting is something to be riffed off, rather than revered or reproduced.

In Europe, useful background and context for these interpretative overlays is usually provided to the audience through accompanying program essays.

In Australia, we seem to be missing out on such outreach.

The director’s opera

This kind of opera production is commonly known in opera circles as Regieoper, or director’s opera.

The most influential early practitioner was Richard Wagner’s grandson, Wieland Wagner (1917–1966). In the years immediately after the second world war, Wieland tried to distance his grandfather’s operas – and the festival theatre he built for them in Bayreuth, Germany – from their prominent appropriation by the vanquished Nazi regime.

Typically, he substituted the naturalistic settings of the original works with minimalist stagings that foregrounded their underlying psychological meanings.

Subsequent Regieoper directors have been more interested to draw our attention precisely to the historical and ethical fault lines in these (and other) operatic works. Such productions commonly ask the audience to reassess the value (and values) which may have been simply presumed in the opera’s original staging.

Melbourne-born director Barrie Kosky’s 2017 production of Wagner’s Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg is a celebrated recent example. Here the opera’s plot – based around a medieval music competiton – is re-framed to put aspects of the composer’s infamous antisemitism on trial.

Read more:
Why we must keep talking about Wagner and antisemitism

But such directorial interventions rely on the presumption that audiences are already aware of the history and context of the original.

In the case of a German opera-going public watching a German opera, this may be a reasonable assumption. In Australia, arguably, it is less so.

The importance of the program essay

In many other countries, helpful background information and context is offered to audiences in the accompanying program.

It seems folly to assume a Melbourne audience will instinctively be able to appreciate how an 1848 opera based on a German medieval fable might serve as a commentary on events from 1945.

When this Lohengrin opened at the Théâtre Royale it was accompanied by substantial program essays that detailed not only why the Lohengrin story first attracted the attention of its notoriously politically minded composer, but also why Py now saw fit to link the work to Germany’s more recent past.

No such explanatory material was found in the program supplied by Opera Australia.

An otherwise fine essay by Wagner scholar Heath Lees provided some general historical background, but it offers no bridge between the work and what the audience now sees on stage. No mention was made, either, of the remarkable first Australian performances of Lohengrin in Melbourne in 1877.

As much as the opportunity to witness Kaufmann’s vocal mastery might yet have been “enough to justify the price of the tickets”, Opera Australia does the art form no favours if it gives the impression it is first and foremost just a vehicle for a vocal superstar.

Ironically, such an impoverishment of theatrical, and indeed social, ambition for opera was a danger that Wagner himself famously rallied against.

An informed audience

Opera Australia should have enthusiastically seized the opportunity to educate its audience about why this production took the form it did. Its public role, after all, should not be just to entertain us, but also to inform and at times – as Regieoper seeks to do – challenge us.

By actively helping to set the scene, as it were, Opera Australia can also show how historic works like Lohengrin – nominally separated from our everyday lives by content, time or place – can still speak meaningfully to us, whether or not they are presented in a “traditional” or Regieoper garb.

Heritage art forms like opera ought to be able to sit comfortably alongside cutting-edge contemporary work as part of a fully rounded national culture but audiences should always be encouraged to understand and engage with that heritage critically.

Ultimately, encouraging a healthy and honest dialogue between our various pasts and our multifaceted present is one sure way we have to imagine a better future.

Read more:
How Australian opera lost the plot

Peter Tregear is chair of Melbourne-based not-for-profit chamber opera company IOpera.

– ref. The singing was great – but what was it about? Why opera companies should explain themselves better – https://theconversation.com/the-singing-was-great-but-what-was-it-about-why-opera-companies-should-explain-themselves-better-183133

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

Peter Dutton has declared there is more to him than his tough side, as he formally announces he will stand for the Liberal leadership.

Dutton, set to be unopposed when the Liberals meet next week, also included with his statement a testament from wife Kirilly, who described him as compassionate and witty, saying he hid a lot of his emotion from the public.

The former defence minister, who is from Queensland, portrayed himself as more complex that his hard-man public image. But he also said that in a prime minister, “you need someone who won’t buckle in hard times and will stand up for our country and I have proven that in the portfolios I’ve had”.

Although accepting there is no one else, Liberals are divided over the prospect of Dutton, from the right, as leader.

This reflects the differences within the party about whether, after being defeated by Labor and losing seats to a wave of teals, it should now tack right or left.

There is concern about the entrenched negativity towards Dutton in the public mind, shown in his low rating in polls, and the difficulty of selling him in Melbourne and Sydney.

The Liberals had expected that if they lost the election Josh Frydenberg would become leader, but he was defeated by teal independent Monique Ryan.

Former home affairs minister Karen Andrews said on Wednesday Dutton would be elected unopposed and predicted former environment minister Sussan Ley, from NSW, would be deputy.

Dutton’s bid to broaden his image echoes a similar attempt during his challenge to Malcolm Turnbull in 2018, when he welcomed the chance to “smile and maybe show a different side”.

In his statement Dutton highlighted that he came from the suburbs, as some in the party are arguing its future lies more in the suburbs than in the urban seats that have been lost in this election.

Dutton said his “work ethic is second to none and I have the skill and experience having served five leaders and have learnt from each. I have held portfolios in government and opposition, including: defence, home affairs, health, finance, assistant treasurer, sport and employment.”

He said he’d had “tough jobs – firstly as a policeman dealing with serious sexual assaults and murders, to home affairs minister where I deported drug traffickers and child sex offenders”.

But “most people have only seen that side of me.

“I hope now, in moving from such tough portfolios, the Australian public can see the rest of my character. The side my family, friends and colleagues see.

“The side my community sees where they have elected me eight times. I come from the suburbs and I have never changed my values or forgotten where I have come from.”

Dutton also indicated he accepted the Liberal party’s broad nature.

“We aren’t the Moderate Party. We aren’t the Conservative Party. We are Liberals. We are the Liberal Party.

“We believe in families – whatever their composition. Small and micro businesses. For aspirational hard working ‘forgotten people’ across the cities, suburbs, regions and in the bush.”

Dutton said he was raised by political mentors John Howard and Peter Costello.

“I was a minister under John and assistant treasurer under Peter.

“Things are going to be tough under Labor – higher interest rates, cost of living, inflation and electricity prices.

“Labor talked a big game on the economy. They now have to deliver and we will hold them to account.

“We will be a strong alternative at the next election with economic policies to help, not harm people. This will be in stark contrast to what we will get under Labor.”

Kirilly Dutton said her husband was “an amazing father and the kids adore him.

“He has a great sense of humour – very dry and witty but he also has an incredible compassion. Particularly when it comes to the protection of women and children.

“He hides a lot of his emotion from the public but he gets most upset at reports of children or women being sexually abused or harmed. It obviously stems from his time as a policeman working in that area but it’s also from being the eldest of five kids growing up in the suburbs.”

On Wednesday Dave Sharma, who lost Wentworth to “teal” candidate Allegra Spender, said people had been “almost visceral” in their reaction to Scott Morrison.

“They would say that he is too religious, didn’t like he carried coal into parliament, they didn’t believe his sincerity on climate change and didn’t like our handling of Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame,” Sharma said.

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

– ref. Dutton, set to become Liberal leader, wants people to see ‘the rest of my character’ – https://theconversation.com/dutton-set-to-become-liberal-leader-wants-people-to-see-the-rest-of-my-character-183838