Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Tingay, John Curtin Distinguished Professor (Radio Astronomy), Curtin University

The United States Congress recently held a hearing into US government information pertaining to “unidentified aerial phenomena” (UAPs).

The last investigation of this kind happened more than 50 years ago, as part of a US Air Force investigation called Project Blue Book, which examined reported sightings of unidentified flying objects (note the change in name).

The current hearings are the result of a stipulation attached to a 2020 COVID-19 relief bill, which required US Intelligence agencies to produce a report on UAPs within 180 days. That report appeared in June last year.

But why would governments be interested in UAPs? One exciting line of thought is UAPs are alien spacecraft visiting Earth. It’s a concept that gets a lot of attention, by playing on decades of sci-fi movies, views about what goes on in Area 51, and purported sightings by the public.

A much more prosaic line of thought is governments are interested in unexplained aerial phenomena – especially those within their own sovereign airspace – because they may represent technologies developed by an adversary.

Indeed, most discussion at the recent hearing revolved around potential threats from UAPs, on the basis they were such human-made technologies.

None of the public testimony went any way towards supporting a conclusion that alien spacecraft have crashed on, or visited, Earth. The hearings did include closed classified sessions that presumably dealt with more sensitive security information.

There is no doubt unexplained phenomena have been observed, such as in footage obtained by navy pilots (above) showing fast moving airborne objects. But the leap to aliens requires far more substantial and direct evidence – incredible evidence – that can be widely scrutinised using the tools of science.

After all, the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is a fascinating question of science and society. So the search for extra-terrestrial life is a legitimate pursuit, subject to the same burden of evidence that applies to all science.

A drop in an ocean

On and off over the past decade, I’ve used radio telescopes to perform wide ranging experiments to search for technosignatures – signs of technological civilisations on planets elsewhere in our galaxy (the Milky Way). But after decades of many teams of experts using powerful telescopes, we still haven’t covered much territory.

If the Milky Way is considered equivalent to the Earth’s oceans, the sum total of our decades of searching is like taking a random swimming pool worth of water out of the ocean to search for a shark.

On top of that, we’re not even sure sharks exist and, if they do, what they would look like or how they would behave. While I believe life will almost certainly exist among the trillions of planets in the universe – the sheer scale of the universe is a problem.

Read more:
Do aliens exist? We asked five experts

What would it take to make contact?

The vast volume of the universe makes it very difficult to achieve interstellar travel, receive signals, or communicate with any potential far-off lifeforms (at least according to the laws of physics as we know them).

Speeds are limited to the speed of light, which is around 300,000 km per second. It’s pretty fast. But even at that speed it would take a signal roughly four years to travel between Earth and the nearest star in our galaxy, which is four light years away.

But Einstein’s theory of special relativity tells us that, in practice, the speed of a physical object such as a spacecraft will be slower than the speed of light.

Also, thanks to the inverse square law of radiation, signals get weaker in proportion to the square of the distance they have travelled. Over interstellar distances, that’s a killer.

So for planets hundreds or thousands of light years away, travel times are likely in the many thousands of years. And any signals originating from civilisations on those planets are incredibly weak and difficult to detect.

Cover ups?

Could it be aliens have crashed on Earth and the US government is just covering it up, as Republican Congressman Tim Burchett claimed in his reaction to the hearing?

For airlines belonging to the International Air Transport Association, the chance of plane crash is about one in a million. That begs the question: do we think an alien spacecraft that can travel for thousands of years, across interstellar distances, is more robust and better designed than our planes?

Let’s say it’s a hundred times better. Which means the chance of a crash is one in a hundred million. So to end up with alien wreckage stashed away at Area 51, we would need one hundred million visits from alien spacecraft. That would be 2,739 visits from aliens per day, every day, for the past 100 years!

So, where are they? The near-Earth environment should be constantly buzzing with aliens.

With radars constantly scanning space, billions of mobile phone cameras, and hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers photographing the sky (as well as professional astronomers with powerful telescopes), there should be a lot of really good evidence in the hands of the general public and scientists – not just governments.

It’s much more likely the UAPs presented in evidence are home-grown, or due to natural phenomena we don’t yet understand.

In science, Occam’s Razor is still a great starting point; the best explanation is the simplest explanation consistent with the known facts. Until there is much more – and much, much better evidence – let’s conclude aliens haven’t visited yet.

I can’t lie though, I’m hoping I’ll see a time when that evidence exists. Until then, I’ll keep searching the skies to do my bit.

Steven Tingay receives funding from Western Australian Government, Australian Government, and international funding agencies. He is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. Is there evidence aliens have visited Earth? Here’s what’s come out of US congress hearings on ‘unidentified aerial phenomena’ – https://theconversation.com/is-there-evidence-aliens-have-visited-earth-heres-whats-come-out-of-us-congress-hearings-on-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-183443

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Curtin, Professor of Politics and Policy, University of Auckland

All budgets are about economics and politics, and 2022’s was no different. The Labour government continued its economic rebuild through commitments to infrastructure and industry, low- and middle-income earners’ living costs, and the successful implementation of signature reforms in health and climate.

Commentators judged it largely responsible, given the backdrop of international disruption, risks of continued inflation and stretched supply chains. The reaction to how New Zealand’s women fared, however, has been mixed.

Politically, Labour needed to reassure both core and softer voters with this budget. And since the 1990s, women have been an important source of soft votes for Labour. Under John Key, National closed the gender gap that had opened under Helen Clark’s previous administration.

But women voters began to return to Labour in 2017 and overwhelmingly supported Labour in 2020. The NZ Election Study shows 51% of women respondents voted Labour compared to 21% for National. These figures suggest support from women cannot be taken for granted.

Hits and misses

What did the 2022 budget offer New Zealand’s diverse communities of women and non-binary people? There was some good news: the NZ$580m package for Māori and Pacific initiatives and additional funding for the prevention of family and sexual violence were welcome.

So were increases for specialist mental health and addiction services, to health practitioners for care of intersex children and young people, and to ACC for injuries that birthing parents suffer. Sole parent beneficiaries will now receive child support payments as income. And because women continue to earn on average less than men, the additional $350 cost-of-living payment matters.

Read more:
A budget for the ‘squeezed middle’ – but will it be the political circuit-breaker Labour wants?

But it isn’t all good news. The equal employment opportunities commissioner has highlighted the cost-of-living payment excludes beneficiaries, and pay gaps affecting Māori, Pacific, ethnic communities and disabled whānau have been overlooked.

Such gaps could be addressed if government ministries were required to undertake intersectional analysis of their budget proposals to ensure inequalities based on such things as race, gender, ethnicity, class or sexual orientation aren’t reinforcing one another.

For example, we know women were disproportionately affected by COVID-19 job losses, with
wahine Māori and Pacific women experiencing the highest rates of unemployment. We also know the underutilisation rate for women is almost four percentage points higher than for men.

Women in work

The budget’s investment in construction, advanced manufacturing, digital tech and agricultural industries, along with the continuation of the Apprenticeship Boost have been positively received.

But as with previous budgets, inclusive outcomes are complicated by the gender segregation within our labour market. To be fair, the government has funded initiatives to encourage women to move into these industries, and the number of women working in construction has increased by 12,600 since 2020.

Read more:
The cost of living crisis means bolder budget decisions are needed to lift more NZ children out of poverty

Proportionally, however, women are only 15% of the sector (a two point increase over two years). Likewise, there has been little increase in the representation of women employed in manufacturing.

Figures from the digital technology sector are harder to distil. According to industry group NZTech, only 27% of digital technology roles were held by women, while employment of Māori and Pacific Peoples was at 4% and 2.8% respectively.

The 2022 OECD Economic Survey of New Zealand, and the NZTech and Digital Skills Forum, have both identified the need to develop digital apprenticeships, design inclusive education pathways, and actively support careers for women, Māori and Pacific people in this sector.

Genuine well-being

We also need to remember that continuing to invest in the care economy and social sectors will benefit post-pandemic recovery.

Caring for future generations through climate change mitigation and emissions reductions was also a significant part of this budget. The $150 million investment in clean vehicles, and $109 million for active and public transport initiatives, are commendable.

But applying an equity and gender analysis to these initiatives would reveal the complexities associated with assuming that all New Zealanders will be able to avail themselves of these “greener” options.

For example, New Zealand’s National Climate Change Risk Assessment identified how the impacts of climate change can exacerbate existing inequities for those marginalised by ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, age, literacy or health.

Read more:
Collapse of negotiations with care workers shows little has changed in how the government views the work of women

While women are interested in electric vehicles, the extended (permanent for some) discounts on public transport fares are more likely to benefit them than a clean vehicle rebate; women are more likely than men to use public transport, in part because of their lower income levels.

But cost is not the only barrier to using public transport. Safety is also important, meaning connection times between services, regular rural and regional services, street lighting and distances between stops and work or home matter to women.

The budget statement released in December 2021 included evidence that New Zealand women felt a lot less safe than men. The Treasury cites OECD figures that reveal New Zealand’s gender gap on feeling safe is second highest, only slightly better than Australia.

So there is more work for the government to do to ensure inequities are systematically addressed through public policy and the budget process. Perhaps the best starting point would be a requirement that all state agencies include gender in their calculations and analysis. That way
New Zealand can truly be a leader on budgeting for “well-being”.

Jennifer Curtin is the recipient of a Endeavour Fund grant (2018-22) which has supported her research into designing a gender responsive budgeting system for Aotearoa New Zealand.

Dr Suzy Morrissey is affiliated with the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll).

Komathi Kolandai and Oluwakemi Igiebor 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. Labour’s fourth ‘well-being budget’ still comes up short on the well-being of women – https://theconversation.com/labours-fourth-well-being-budget-still-comes-up-short-on-the-well-being-of-women-182842

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peggy Kern, Associate professor, The University of Melbourne

It’s been a big week and you feel exhausted, and suddenly you find yourself crying at a nice nappy commercial. Or maybe you are struck with a cold or the coronavirus and the fact your partner used up all the milk just makes you want to weep.

You may indeed feel sad about being sick or tired, but why the tears? Why can’t you hold things together?

Tears serve multiple psychological functions. Tears act as a physical indicator of our inner emotional state, occurring when we feel intense sadness or intense joy.

Inside our brains, strong emotions activate the central autonomic network. This network is made up of two parts: the sympathetic system (which activates our “fight or flight” response when we perceive danger) and the parasympathetic nervous system, which restores the body to a state of calm.

Strong emotions activate the sympathetic part of this system, but when we cry, the parasympathetic part is activated, making us feel better.

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

What happens when we’re stressed or tired?

We are trained from a young age to control our emotions, with socially sanctioned times to express emotion, refraining from physical displays of negative emotion. For example, crying during a sad movie is fine, but crying at work is usually seen as less acceptable.

The prefrontal cortex, or the cool, thinking part of our brain, responds to the emotional signals released by the central autonomic network, helping us regulate the emotional response to deal with our emotions in controlled ways. The prefrontal cortex is like the main processor of your computer, managing tasks to keep the system functioning well.

Unfortunately, the more stressed and tired we are, or if we experience extended periods of physical or emotional pain, the sympathetic system remains activated. The prefrontal cortex becomes overwhelmed, like a computer that has too many programs running all at once.

The brain becomes less able to regulate our emotions in the expected ways, resulting in visible emotional responses, such as tears or angry outbursts. We might not even realise how overwhelmed we are until tears are running down our face after a seemingly minor incident or experience.

Some people are more likely to cry than others. Women tend to cry more than men, though the extent to which this is due to biological aspects versus expectations of society is unclear.

People who score high on the personality traits of empathy or neuroticism are more likely to cry more often. Excessive crying can also be a physical indication of depression, as the brain is overwhelmed with emotional pain.

What’s the point of tears?

Beyond psychological reasons, tears play several social roles. Even as our society might disapprove of strong expressions of emotions, tears actually help to create and sustain social bonds.

Tears can act as a cry for help, visibly showing others we are not OK and need support. Tears often generate feelings of sympathy in others, helping us connect with them. Tears can also occur when we feel deep sympathy for another person, crying along with them, which further strengthens social bonds.

Read more:
Are creative people more prone to psychological distress or is the ‘mad genius’ a myth?

Beyond psychological and social reasons, there are also physical reasons for tears. For instance, when we are tired, we work hard to keep our eyes open, which dries out the eyes. Our bodies produce tears to counteract the dryness, keeping the eyes moist so we can see clearly.

Watery eyes are also common in respiratory illnesses such as cold, flu, and the coronavirus. When we have an infection in the body, white blood cells are mobilised to fight the bug. These extra white blood cells can inflame the blood vessels in the eye, which causes the eye ducts to clog, bringing tears.

Tears are a natural part of human functioning. Especially with the pressures the past few years have brought, sometimes there’s nothing better than a good cry to relieve overwhelming emotions. But if you find yourself excessively crying, it might be helpful to talk to your doctor about possible physical or psychological causes.

Peggy Kern 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. Why do we get teary when we’re tired or sick? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-get-teary-when-were-tired-or-sick-180661

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

Dogs have an exceptional sense of smell. We take advantage of this ability in many ways, including by training them to find illicit drugs, dangerous goods and even people.

In recent years, a dog’s sense of smell has also been used in the medical field. These remarkable animals can be trained to sniff out cancer, diabetes, and extraordinarily, epileptic seizures before they occur.

Early in the pandemic the possibility of using dogs to sniff out COVID was explored in a few countries. And although the results of these early trials surpassed most people’s expectations, many questions remained. These included how well these findings would stand up to more rigorous scientific scrutiny and how well dogs would perform outside the artificial environment of the research laboratory.

Read more:
Yes, dogs can sniff out COVID. But not after dinner, when they need a nap

In the past week we have moved closer to answering these questions, with an article published in BMJ Global Health, which found dogs could detect COVID almost as well as PCR tests, in some circumstances.

What did the researchers test?

This article reported the results of two studies. In both studies, four dogs were tested to see how well they detected COVID from skin swabs taken from people with or without COVID (according to the gold-standard test, PCR).

These dogs didn’t just come off the streets; they had already had a significant amount of training in sniffing out drugs, dangerous goods or cancer.

Read more:
The scent of sickness: 5 questions answered about using dogs – and mice and ferrets – to detect disease

The first study

In the first study, the researchers looked at whether the dogs could identify COVID in the skin swabs of 420 volunteers, 114 of whom had tested positive to COVID by PCR.

The study was rigorous, with various precautions against the results being compromised. This included an elaborate study protocol that involved a number of separate assistants and a dog handler. None of them knew whether the sample was from someone with COVID, so they could not influence the outcome, intentionally or unintentionally.

The dogs detected COVID with a sensitivity of 92% (which refers to their ability to correctly identify those with infection) and a specificity of 91% (their ability to correctly identify those without infection).

Although there was some variation between dogs, they all performed exceptionally well. There are no significant disclaimers here, this was a great result.

The second study

The second study was important as its goal was to see how well the dogs could do in the messiness of the real world. This real-life trial involved the dogs sniffing 303 incoming passengers at Helsinki-Vantaa International Airport in Finland. Each passenger also took a PCR test.

The dogs matched the PCR results in 296 out of 303 (98%) of the samples and they correctly identified the swabs as negative in 296 out of 300 (99%) samples.

The important consideration in interpreting this result is this happened during airport screening, a situation where you wouldn’t expect many people to test positive.

In this type of low-prevalence environment, you want dogs to be able to screen passengers with a high “negative predictive value”. That is, you want the dogs to be able to identify people who are not carrying the virus to differentiate them from those who may be carrying it. Then you would carry out confirmatory PCR testing on that last group.

In an environment where the prevalence of COVID is around 1%, such as an airport, the researchers estimated the “negative predictive value” for dogs screening for COVID to be 99.9%. That is, the dogs would be expected to correctly exclude 99.9% of passengers as having COVID. This is another fantastic result.

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

Low tech and instant

In a world where we rely on expensive technological solutions, there is something reassuring about finding a low-tech option for screening COVID.

Importantly, however, the study highlights dogs are quick to train for this task and are ideal for screening in high-throughput settings, such as airports, given how accurate they are and the fact they give instant results.

Although nothing should surprise us about our closest friend, another incredible outcome from this study was the suggestion the dogs may have been able to distinguish between the variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

While other possible explanations cannot be excluded, the performance of the dogs seemed to drop with the emergence of the Alpha variant. This was attributed to the dogs being able to identify a difference between this variant and the wild-type virus on which they were originally trained.

These studies confirm nothing could be further from the truth when we say you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

Read more:
Why are there so many new Omicron sub-variants, like BA.4 and BA.5? Will I be reinfected? Is the virus mutating faster?

Hassan Vally 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 sniffer dogs really detect COVID almost as well as a PCR test? Turns out they can – https://theconversation.com/can-sniffer-dogs-really-detect-covid-almost-as-well-as-a-pcr-test-turns-out-they-can-183363

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Trying to gauge the worst aspect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is difficult. For some, it will be the illegal invasion itself. For others, the war crimes or crimes against humanity committed since.

But measured in terms of pure human suffering, the worst atrocity may well turn out to be famine beyond the immediate warzone. With Russian blockades of Ukrainian ports preventing the export of grain, there are now warnings of mass starvation in other countries.

But while invasions and war crimes are recognised as breaches of international law, causing famine as collateral damage in countries not directly related to the war is not a recognised crime. There is not even a name for this type of atrocity, one that could kill millions.

Ukraine is one of the world’s most important breadbaskets and a major cog in the global food economy. There have been direct attacks on Ukrainian grain storage facilities, but Russia knows the most effective economic damage lies in targeting export routes on land and sea. Over 70% of Ukrainian exports, including 99% of its corn, go by ship.

Russia has suspended entry into the strategic Sea of Azov on Ukraine’s south-east coast and effectively blockaded the northern part of the Black Sea, where Nato says the risk of collateral damage or direct attack on merchant ships is high.

Dozens of other vessels are stuck in Ukrainian ports, and soaring shipping prices and rising insurance rates are pushing merchant vessels to safer locations.

Collateral damage beyond the warzone

Using hunger as a weapon of war is not new. And while there were attempts in the 19th century to restrict blockades to weapons and contraband directly related to war efforts, such chivalrous ideas dissolved in the horrors of the first and second world wars.

The subsequent Geneva Conventions prohibited the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Ocean blockades designed to deny civilian populations the essentials for survival are also illegal. In 2018, the United Nations Security Council (including Russia) reconfirmed the prohibition of the use of hunger as a weapon of war.

Read more:
War in Ukraine is pushing global acute hunger to the highest level in this century

Although Russia has now tried to back away from such humanitarian legal commitments, these rules are considered customary, meaning they apply generally, whether or not specific countries agree. There are also strong legal arguments and broad principles about freedom of transit that apply to ocean trade for peaceful purposes.

But all these laws and rules are directed at protecting civilians within warzones. They were designed to contain the immediate damage of war. They were not designed to prevent collateral damage to distant populations unconnected to a conflict.

So while starvation of an enemy is not new, starvation of vulnerable but distant civilian populations is. It’s partly a symptom of our globalised world, where interconnection, vulnerability and outdated or inadequate rules and restraints are all colliding. And it means the greatest loss of life related to the Ukraine war may occur elsewhere.

War in a hungry world

The threat is exacerbated by the wider problem of famine and malnutrition in a world where 811 million people go to bed hungry every night. The number facing acute food insecurity has more than doubled since 2019, from 135 million to 276 million.

Up to 44 million people in 38 countries are on the edge of famine. Most are just one more economic shock from disaster – such as a potential 37% increase in food prices now forecast by the World Bank.

There can be many causes of food crises, but a combination of climate shocks, rising prices and conflict now sees 60% of the world’s hungry living in areas afflicted by war, violence, debt and poverty.

Read more:
With the UN powerless, the greatest danger now may be Russia beginning to lose in Ukraine

It’s not possible to say whether Russia’s threat to global food security is deliberate or coincidental to its war aims, but there are ways catastrophe can be avoided.

Ideally, the Sea of Azov and Black Sea would be demilitarised. A workable compromise would be all sides in the war agreeing to a safe corridor for merchant vessels and food trade, guaranteed by neutral third parties.

Given the seemingly intractable situation now between Russia, Ukraine and the West, this may be a vain hope. But urgent efforts must be made. The lives of millions on the edge of famine and living beyond the warzone may depend on it.

Alexander Gillespie 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. Russia’s blockade could cause mass famine beyond Ukraine – but it’s a crime without a name – https://theconversation.com/russias-blockade-could-cause-mass-famine-beyond-ukraine-but-its-a-crime-without-a-name-183429

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Gunn, Lecturer, Monash University

What is it like to be on the surface of Mars or Venus? Or even further afield, such as on Pluto, or Saturn’s moon Titan?

This curiosity has driven advances in space exploration since Sputnik 1 was launched 65 years ago. But we’re only beginning to scratch the surface of what is knowable about other planetary bodies in the Solar System.

Our new study, published today in Nature Astronomy, shows how some unlikely candidates – namely sand dunes – can provide insight into what weather and conditions you might experience if you were standing on a far-off planetary body.

What’s in a grain of sand?

English poet William Blake famously wondered what it means “to see a world in a grain of sand”.

In our research, we took this quite literally. The idea was to use the mere presence of sand dunes to understand what conditions exist on a world’s surface.

For dunes to even exist, there are a pair of “Goldilocks” criteria that must be satisfied. First is a supply of erodible but durable grains. There must also be winds fast enough to make those grains hop across the ground – but not fast enough to carry them high into the atmosphere.

So far, the direct measurement of winds and sediment has only been possible on Earth and Mars. However, we have observed wind-blown sediment features on multiple other bodies (and even comets) by satellite. The very presence of such dunes on these bodies implies the Goldilocks conditions are met.

Our work focused on Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan, Triton (Neptune’s largest moon) and Pluto. Unresolved debates about these bodies have gone on for decades.

How do we square the apparent wind-blown features on Triton’s and Pluto’s surfaces with their thin, tenuous atmospheres? Why do we see such prolific sand and dust activity on Mars, despite measuring winds that seem too weak to sustain it?

And does Venus’s thick and stiflingly hot atmosphere move sand in a similar way to how air or water move on Earth?

Furthering the debate

Our study offers predictions for the winds required to move sediment on these bodies, and how easily that sediment would break apart in those winds.

We constructed these predictions by piecing together results from a host of other research papers, and testing them against all the experimental data we could get our hands on.

We then applied the theories to each of the six bodies, drawing on telescope and satellite measurements of variables including gravity, atmospheric composition, surface temperature, and the strength of sediments.

Studies before ours have looked at either the wind speed threshold required to move sand, or the strength of various sediment particles. Our work combined these together – looking at how easily particles could break apart in sand-transporting weather on these bodies.

For example, we know Titan’s equator has sand dunes – but we aren’t sure of what sediment encircles the equator. Is it pure organic haze raining down from the atmosphere, or is it mixed with denser ice?

As it turns out, we discovered loose aggregates of organic haze would disintegrate upon collision if they were blown by the winds at Titan’s equator.

This implies Titan’s dunes probably aren’t made of purely organic haze. To build a dune, sediment must be blown around in the wind for a long time (some of Earth’s dune sands are a million years old).

We also found wind speeds would have to be excessively fast on Pluto to transport either methane or nitrogen ice (which is what Pluto’s dune sediments were hypothesised to be). This calls into question whether “dunes” on Pluto’s plain, Sputnik Planitia, are dunes at all.

They may instead be sublimation waves. These are dune-like landforms made from the sublimation of material, instead of sediment erosion (such as those seen on Mars’s north polar cap).

Our results for Mars suggest more dust is generated from wind-blown sand transport on Mars than on Earth. This suggests our models of the Martian atmosphere may not be effectively capturing Mars’s strong “katabatic” winds, which are cold gusts that blow downhill at night.

Potential for space exploration

This study comes at an interesting stage of space exploration.

For Mars, we have a relative abundance of observations; five space agencies are conducting active missions in orbit, or in situ. Studies such as ours help inform the objectives of these missions, and the paths taken by rovers such as Perseverance and Zhurong.

In the outer reaches of the Solar System, Triton has not been observed in detail since the NASA Voyager 2 flyby in 1989. There is currently a mission proposal which, if selected, would have a probe launched in 2031 to study Triton, before annihilating itself by flying into Neptune’s atmosphere.

Missions planned to Venus and Titan in the coming decade will revolutionise our understanding of these two. NASA’s Dragonfly mission, slated to leave Earth in 2027 and arrive on Titan in 2034, will land an uncrewed helicopter on the moon’s dunes.

Pluto was observed during a 2015 flyby by NASA’s ongoing New Horizons mission, but there are no plans to return.

Read more:
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune: why our next visit to the giant planets will be so important (and just as difficult)

Andrew Gunn received funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Agency.

– ref. What’s it like to be on Venus or Pluto? We studied their sand dunes and found some clues – https://theconversation.com/whats-it-like-to-be-on-venus-or-pluto-we-studied-their-sand-dunes-and-found-some-clues-181241

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

You first have to lose an election on principle if you want to win one on principle.

This was how Labor rationalised the miscalculations that led to its “Don’s Party” disappointment in 1969, followed by the 1972 triumph of the “It’s Time” campaign.

Half a century later, the idea of sticking with unpopular policy seems romantic, unthinkable. Principles are not just old-hat in an era of professionalised politics, but absurd.

Swamped by voter-attitude metrics, modern democratic leaders are not leaders in the traditional sense. Rather, they are followers. Followers of market researchers and media proprietors who disabuse them of ambitious conceits like national leadership, or anything that might tempt them to make changes based on electoral judgement, the national interest, or even ideology.

Still, a few months ago, one starry-eyed fool (to wit, this author) described the looming 2022 federal election as the most important national choice to be put before voters since that 1972 hinge-point.

If it was an invitation to Labor leader Anthony Albanese to paint in bold brushstrokes, he didn’t receive it.

Read more:
If the polls are right, he may soon be the next Australian prime minister. So who is Anthony Albanese?

Instead, Labor’s risk-averse policy presentation has largely mirrored the reform-shy government it seeks to replace. This makes for the least policy-divergent choice in the 50 years since 1972.

The 2022 election more closely resembles a velodrome match-sprint where the two riders have almost stopped on the banked section, each terrified of leading off and being overtaken in the final dash for the line.

Whitlam’s re-imagining

The 1972 comparison gets even harder when you look at former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s first month in office.

He promised to establish diplomatic relations with Peking (now Beijing), following his audacious trip to “Red China” in 1971. Imagine this (or any) opposition making a play of similar foreign policy gravity today.

Whitlam’s bold Australian re-imagining, which historian Stuart McIntyre later characterised as “a nationalism attuned to internationalism”, kick-started a lucrative economic co-dependency that has propelled Australian prosperity to this day. Hungry for commodities and services imports, China’s staggering growth has also insulated Australia through global shocks like the Asian Financial Crisis, Global Financial Crisis, and COVID-19.

While the Coalition would no doubt have come to it eventually, Whitlam acted without hesitation or American permission. Crucially, he backed his capacity to explain it to the country, despite the danger of being tagged as soft on communism. Again, leaders taking decisions and then relying on their persuasive powers to win arguments seems fanciful amid the timidity of contemporary politics.

A shot of adrenaline

In those first days, Whitlam also ended conscription, withdrew from Vietnam, granted independence to Papua New Guinea, and set about ratifying long-deferred international conventions on basic labour conditions, racial non-discrimination, and nuclear weapons proliferation.

With his pared back, don’t-frighten-the-horses agenda, Albanese might have less to do over a whole term, and Whitlam was only getting started.

Read more:
Gough Whitlam: a man for his times whose mark is on our times

Before his government crashed, Whitlam would end the White Australia Policy, scrap royal honours, appoint the first women’s adviser, reform draconian divorce laws, champion multiculturalism, dramatically ratchet up funding for the arts and humanities, abolish university fees, revive urban development, and more.

To a slumbering post-war Australia, it was a shot of late 20th Century adrenaline and the results were startling. Australian historian Manning Clark described it as the “end of the Ice Age”.

But in 1975, it ended in ignominy. As McIntyre later observed, “the golden age was over”.

History rhyming, not repeating

So far, the case for equivalence between 1972 and 2022 is not obvious, right?

But what if it is not Labor that now represents the radical option but the status quo? What if changing governments offers the safer, more conventional course for nervous voters? As Mark Twain noted, history doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.

Labor’s 1972 manifesto was inspiring, but it was the urgency with which its modernising promise was articulated after 23 years of Coalition rule that had impatient voters energised. The McMahon Coalition government was a no ideas factory in the lead-up to the 1972 election, although it did not exhibit the insidious corrosive streak of its modern-day equivalent.

This is the rhyme. While the 2022 election is not about the magisterial reform possibilities of an incoming government, it is about the urgent need to rescue longstanding governing norms around transparency, accountability, ministerial standards, trust and the honesty, and of course, the viability of the public service.

It is in this critical sense that the two elections might be compared.

Divide and dither

The radicalism absent from Labor’s 2022 manifesto is made up for in the unspoken but no-less transformative erosion of standards by the government. The Coalition is primarily intent on the political dividends of division, on courting the applause of media vassals, religious conservatives, and a populist Nationals rump.

Morrison’s approach can be described as divide and dither.

It finds its expression in the Coalition’s reflexive recourse to politics over policy – frequently at the direct expense of the national interest such as in the weaponisation of climate change and more recently, the attempts to weaken the outward presentation of domestic bipartisanship on national security.

The former is a classic of the genre. Morrison’s hollow embrace of net zero by 2050 ahead of Glasgow last year was greeted by political insiders as a triumph of prime ministerial skill, when all it really did was expose how utterly pointless the Coalition’s decade-long negation had been. Moreover, it brought no revision to interim targets nor adjusted any other policy architecture.

It’s real aim – in which it was successful – was the neutralisation of a Coalition stance that had morphed into a clear electoral negative. It just didn’t count on the rebellion from its

The latter, national security, was tickled along last Friday in Defence Minister Peter Dutton’s ultra-earnest press conference transparently called to (re)frighten voters about a Chinese “warship” that was “hugging” Australia’s north-western coast at a distance of 400 kilometres.

Manufactured wars and textimonials

Divide and dither revels in manufactured culture wars over transgender teens and identity politics, fumes about supposed attacks on faith, and white-ants efforts to build support for a First Nations Voice in the Constitution.

Witness the government’s pillorying responses to anti-discrimination campaigners with dismissive throw-aways like “all lives matter”.

Read more:
‘His beating heart is a focus group’: what makes Scott Morrison tick?

Divide and dither’s existence was spectacularly laid bare in a series of explosive “textimonials” regarding Morrison’s character from his own colleagues – people much closer to him than voters, including Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. These described him variously as a “hypocrite and a liar”. A New South Wales Liberal senator called him a “bully with no moral compass”.

It’s there, too, in the vicious campaigns against “fake” independent women – simply for standing for office. In a democracy. The Liberals’ refusal to acknowledge and address female under-representation has invited the very rebellion it now faces from high-calibre female candidates in safe Liberal seats.

The overall impression is of a government shamelessly enabled by a pseudo-independent media that makes no serious attempt to govern for all Australians.

No change means no consequences

In light of these multiple failures, in opting for no change, Australian voters would be saying there is no cost for governing like this.

The Coalition’s take-out would be – keep misleading and pork-barrelling and fomenting useless culture wars.

Keep stacking boards and cutting taxes for the rich and emaciating the public service. Keep denying an anti-corruption commission even as its need becomes ever-more pressing.

Psychologists would call such a verdict “learned helplessness” – an acceptance that such corruptions are inevitable, and no more than we deserve.

Accountable government, national unity, evidence-based policy, and democratic accountability are all on the ballot at this election.

It is not 1972, but the choice might be equally stark, despite Labor’s timidity.

Mark Kenny 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. Australians face their starkest choice at the ballot box in 50 years. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/australians-face-their-starkest-choice-at-the-ballot-box-in-50-years-heres-why-183217

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Camilla Hoyos, Research Fellow, University of Sydney

There is increasing recognition of the important role sleep plays in our brain health. Growing evidence suggests disturbed sleep may increase the risk of developing dementia.

I and University of Sydney colleagues have published a new study showing treating sleep apnoea in older adults with mild cognitive impairment can improve memory, but not other areas of cognition, in the short term.

As there is no current treatment or cure for dementia, increasing efforts have focused on developing novel approaches to slow its progression. Mild cognitive impairment is the stage between the expected cognitive decline of normal ageing and the more serious decline of dementia.

In mild cognitive impairment, the individual, family and friends notice cognitive changes, but the individual can still successfully carry out everyday activities. Mild cognitive impairment is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia in subsequent years.

Researchers believe this is the optimal time to intervene to help prevent a future dementia diagnosis. Finding new ways to slow cognitive decline in those with mild cognitive impairment is therefore important.

Read more:
What causes Alzheimer’s disease? What we know, don’t know and suspect

How is sleep important for our brain health?

Sleep optimises the ability of our brains to stabilise and consolidate newly learned information and memories. These processes can occur across all the different stages of sleep, with deep sleep (also known as stage 3 or restorative sleep) playing a key role.

We also now know the glymphatic system, or the waste management system of the brain, is highly active during sleep, especially during deep sleep. This process allows waste products, including toxins, our brain has built up during the day to be cleaned out.

Toxins in the brain include beta-amyloid, one of the key proteins in the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Disturbing sleep could disrupt this cleaning process and lead to more accumulation of beta-amyloid in the brain.

The important role of sleep in these vital processes has led to the investigation of whether sleep disruption, including sleep disorders, could be associated with changes in our cognition when we age, and a possible link to the development of dementia.

Read more:
Why our brain needs sleep, and what happens if we don’t get enough of it

What is sleep apnoea?

Sleep apnoea is estimated to affect 1 billion people worldwide. In Australia, 5-10% of adults are diagnosed with the condition. Sleep apnoea causes the throat (also called the upper airway) to close either completely (an apnoea) or partially (a hypopnoea) during sleep.

These closures or obstructions can range from ten seconds up to one minute and can lead to a drop in blood oxygen levels. To start breathing again, a short awakening occurs without the individual being aware.

In a person living with severe sleep apnoea this process can happen 30 times or more an hour, causing very fragmented sleep. People with sleep apnoea may snore, toss and turn, and others may notice them stopping breathing, choking or gasping for air during sleep. These repeated disruptions to sleep can cause sleepiness and reduce alertness during the day which, for some people, leads to difficulties performing tasks.

Does sleep apnoea increase our risk of dementia?

The sleep fragmentation, as well as the drops in blood oxygen at night time, are a double blow in dementia risk. Studies have shown sleep apnoea to be associated with a 26% increase in the development of cognitive impairment, as well as greater amounts of beta-amyloid in the brain. However, it is not clear if treating sleep apnoea could reduce this risk.

The gold-standard treatment for sleep apnoea is continuous positive airway pressure therapy, commonly known as CPAP, in which a mask connected to a pump blows continuous air down the upper airway, keeping it open. When the machine is being used it stops the airway from closing. It is not known whether treating sleep apnoea will reduce the risk of dementia. Our new research, however, shows CPAP could be beneficial for memory in the short term.

Read more:
Six things you can do to reduce your risk of dementia

Our study aimed to understand whether treating older adults with both sleep apnoea and mild cognitive impairment could improve thinking and memory skills in the short term.

The trial assessed the effect of CPAP treatment on memory and thinking skills compared to no treatment. This was a crossover study, which means all participants had both CPAP and no treatment during the trial, but at different times. Some had CPAP first, then swapped. The others had no treatment first, then swapped. Trained staff helped participants get established with the therapy, and after using it for three months, participants underwent a series of cognitive tests.

The researchers found that compared to not treating sleep apnoea, thinking skills were not improved with CPAP, whereas some improvements in memory were observed. This suggests treating sleep apnoea could potentially improve outcomes in the short term, but it is unknown whether it would have any impact on long-term cognitive decline.

A previous study suggested CPAP could slow cognitive changes over one year in older adults with mild cognitive impairment and sleep apnoea. However, studies of longer duration are needed before we can say what the long-term effects look like.

Camilla Hoyos receives funding from NHMRC (NHMRC-ARC Dementia Research Development Fellowship- GTN1104003) and the National Heart Foundation (Future Leader Fellowship). The study was funded by a Dementia Australia Research Grant (DGP1300034) and RESMed provided CPAP machines in kind but were not involved in any aspect of the study.

– ref. Treating sleep apnoea can improve memory in people with cognitive decline – https://theconversation.com/treating-sleep-apnoea-can-improve-memory-in-people-with-cognitive-decline-176796

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Wilson, Associate Professor of Leadership, Swinburne University of Technology

Whatever the result of the 2022 election, one thing is clear: many Australians are losing faith that their social institutions serve their interests.

Our annual survey of 4,000 Australians about leadership for the greater good shows the gulf between what the community expects and what they perceive.

Leaders and institutions are now widely seen as more concerned with their own interests, not the public interest.

The rise and fall of leadership for the good

We’ve been tracking public perceptions of leadership and integrity since 2018 to compile the Australian Leadership Index. It covers four major institutional sectors – the government, the public sector, private enterprise, and the non-government sector.

In 2020, with the pandemic, public perceptions of leadership across these sectors rose. In 2021, however, three sectors have declined significantly. Only the public sector has sustained favourable perceptions it serves the public interest, thanks largely to the performance of public health institutions throughout the pandemic.

Federal government has fallen furthest

The steepest falls in perceptions of leadership have been for the federal government. Its index score – a measure of overall leadership perceptions – fell from from a high of +17 in late 2020 to -15 in late 2021.

In essence, this score means most people by the end of last year didn’t believe the government was committed to the public interest or showed leadership for the public good. That’s a stunning shift from generally positive public perceptions in 2020.

Faith in public integrity has collapsed

The steep decline in perceptions of the federal government’s leadership has been matched by the collapse of perceptions of public integrity.

As outlined by South Australia’s Independent Commission Against Corruption, public integrity comprises several core themes: public trust, public interest, morality, impartiality, transparency and accountability.

Read more:
Perceptions of corruption are growing in Australia, and it’s costing the economy

Perceptions of government integrity fell sharply in 2021 across indicators such as morality and ethics, transparency and accountability. Expectations of public integrity also increased.

The following chart shows public perceptions and expectations of the federal government’s morality and ethics since Scott Morrison became prime minister in August 2018. It is indicative of the trends observed for all other indicators of government integrity.

Given the corrosive effects of declining public trust in the institutions of democracy, reversing these perceptions should be a priority for whichever party is in government.

Most want environmental action

Action on environment and climate are becoming key drivers of public perceptions of institutional leadership across all sectors.

The following graph shows how institutions across all sectors perform in terms of creating positive environmental outcomes and the influence of their environmental performance on public perceptions of their leadership.

Our results show national and multinational businesses, trade unions and the federal government are judged as very poor environmental performers. By contrast, small and medium enterprises, charities, education institutions and charities are perceived to be performing strongly.

Health workers still heroes

Since the Australian Leadership Index started collecting data in 2018, the public health sector has consistently rated positively. In 2020 these perceptions spiked even higher. They remained high throughout 2021.

Of all the institutions the index measures, only charities are on par in terms of perceived leadership for the public good.

Ideas of leadership have changed

Perceptions of what leadership for the greater good looks like appear to have shifted between 2020 and 2021.

In 2020, the focus was on security, protection and institutional responsiveness to the needs of society (health care, financial support and so on). In 2021, there was a much greater concern for the processes and principles that inform and govern the actions of authorities and institutions.

The principles of public integrity – morality and ethics, transparency, accountability and concern for the public interest – now trump security in community assessments of leadership for the greater good.

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

It is timely to reflect on the state of our social institutions and to have a national conversation about what our institutions could or should look like to promote flourishing and help rather than harm the public good.

Whoever forms government next week would do well to take note of community aspirations and expectations for social institutions that serve the interests of the many, not the few.

Samuel Wilson receives philanthropic funding for the Australian Leadership Index.

Vlad Demsar receives philanthropic funding for the Australian Leadership Index.

– ref. 5 charts show how trust in Australia’s leaders and institutions has collapsed – https://theconversation.com/5-charts-show-how-trust-in-australias-leaders-and-institutions-has-collapsed-183441

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

The text arrived on Thursday morning, from a woman who helps me with my horses. “And now I have to do that voting thing. Recommendations please? Who is best?”

Well Margaret, after an unedifying campaign, from most of which you have spared yourself, you could find your choice challenging. (Okay, I’m not directly answering your question.)

You may dislike Scott Morrison (large numbers of women do). But you know the government’s stripe and the PM has promised he’ll listen and show greater empathy if he’s installed for another term.

But can you believe him? Equally likely, once vindicated by victory, we could see even more of the arrogance for which he’s so widely criticised. And he’s given little idea of how he’d use another term. Just being the manager?

You might like Anthony Albanese better, with his “caring” pitch. But would he be up to the job? He was competent enough as a senior minister. But it’s a big step from opposition leader to PM. And he’s run a seriously poor campaign, peppered by slip ups (on Thursday he mistakenly said “our [national] borders are closed”).

It’s understandable Albanese has made Labor a small target after Bill Shorten’s 2019 experience, but that’s meant we don’t have a broad feel for what Labor would do over the medium term.

If you were in a “teal” seat, Margaret, you could escape the Morrison V Albanese dilemma by voting for one of those very reasonable-sounding professional women whose priorities are climate, integrity, and gender equity.

But you might be concerned about how another hung parliament would work out (according to what you thought of the minority Gillard government). It would be an adventure into the unknown, with much depending on whether Morrison or Albanese ran it.

This election comes when people are exhausted after the pandemic, and highly disillusioned with politicians. The campaign has been beset by noise and sledging. Spending promises, to bribe marginal seats, have been thrown around like confetti by both sides.

There are some policies on view but what has been missing are big ideas for the nation’s future. Neither side has dared to talk about serious “reform”. There’s little to grab the attention of the disengaged, or indeed even of the engaged.

When I contact Margaret, a professional rider, to ask if I can report her text, she tells me politics “is just something I don’t focus on. It’s not part of my life – which is ridiculous, because it affects every part of my life.”

Margaret is one of thousands of voters around Australia who have left their decisions to the last minute. They’re the prime targets as the leaders make their late pitches, dashing from seat to seat. In some electorates, voters deciding on the death-knock could be crucial.

Albanese and five of his senior shadow ministers – his deputy Richard Marles, Penny Wong, Jim Chalmers, Tanya Plibersek, and Jason Clare – will have between them dropped into 20 marginal Liberal-held seats over Thursday-Friday.

Albanese (who has previously come under some criticism for the leisurely pace of his campaign) will be in South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria on Friday.

In contrast to the late-deciders, millions of Australians have already pre-polled, for convenience, COVID-safety, or just because they are anxious to be over the election.

As the opinion polls this week show the contest tightening, the final few days bring their manic moments.

Morrison, in pursuit of yet another photo opportunity, knocks a kid to the ground during a soccer encounter; the kid later analyses the detail for the camera and says “it should have been a penalty”. In the teal seat of Kooyong, where passions have been running high for weeks, treasurer Josh Frydenberg films a verbal altercation between “teal” money man Simon Holmes à Court and superannuation minister Jane Hume.

But the dying days have also seen some new economic figures that go to the heart of this election battle.

The wage price index, released on Wednesday, underlined how people are going backwards in our now high inflation environment. It increased by 2.4% over the year to March, when inflation was 5.1%.

This played for Labor, which is running hard on cost of living.

Then on Thursday, the latest unemployment number, 3.9% in April, reinforced the government’s mantra on jobs.

But the conundrum remains. Normally one would expect our very tight labour market to drive up wages growth, but it hasn’t been happening and there is no prospect it will happen any time soon. The Reserve Bank doesn’t expect any growth in real wages, as measured by the wage price index, before the end of 2023.

Albanese has indicated Labor hopes the Fair Work Commission will give workers on the minimum wage a rise that keeps them up with inflation. Morrison, on the back foot on wages, tries to have things both ways. He says he wants to see wages rising, but has condemned Albanese’s stance as irresponsible.

Labor left its release of its policy costings until Thursday, effectively as late as possible. It admitted it anticipated a scare campaign. But it has gambled that, now that deficits are enormous, having a cumulative deficit just $7.4 billion above the government’s $224 billion in the budget won’t be politically damaging. (The figure is $8.4 billion when a last-minute government saving announced this week is taken into account.)

The Labor differences, compared to the budget, are: $1.1 billion in 2022-23; $1.7 billion in 2023-24; $2.2 billion in 2024-25; and $2.3 billion in 2025-26.

The opposition says its larger deficit is accounted for by investment in “key economy-growing areas” of child care, training and education, and clean and cheaper energy. In other words, Labor argues it has a gap of only a few billions, and casts the extra spending as boosting productivity.

But these same few billions are being used by the government to reinforce its claim Labor can’t manage money. “I think Australians think $7.4 billion is a lot of money,” declared Morrison (who in the March budget spent, in payments and tax breaks, an extra $30.4 billion).

Conflicting messages for the undecideds like Margaret. 

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. Grattan on Friday: Numbers fly as unedifying campaign draws towards its close – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-numbers-fly-as-unedifying-campaign-draws-towards-its-close-183449

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Hellard, Deputy Director (Programs), Burnet Institute

Australia’s COVID death toll is rising, yet public health measures to reduce transmission such as mask mandates are largely a thing of the past.

It’s time for governments and the community to consider what measures can be reintroduced to reduce COVID transmission and deaths, particularly during waves of infection.

Cutting COVID transmission by 20% could avert more than one million infections and 500 COVID deaths in Victoria this year, our new modelling shows.

Given Victoria makes up around 25% of Australia’s population, if extrapolated, these results suggest a 20% reduction in transmission could save up to 2,000 lives nationally.

Even if reintroducing public health measures cut COVID transmission by 10%, this could save between 198 and 314 Victorian lives between now and the end of 2022. Again, this would translate to many more lives saved nationally.

Read more:
COVID has killed 5,600 Australians this year and the pandemic isn’t over. Ethics can shape our response

COVID isn’t ‘just like the flu’

The prevailing view in Australia is we can now treat COVID “like the flu”. However, the dramatic and sustained increase in COVID-related deaths in 2022 tells a very different story. There have been 5,687 COVID deaths reported in Australia since January 1.

During the Omicron wave in January 2022, COVID was the second most common cause of death nationwide, with 2,865 more people dying in that month than is normally expected. That’s a 22% increase.

Critically, COVID deaths have not stopped since the January peak: our current seven-day average sits at about 45 deaths per day, or 315 deaths each week.

In comparison, our most recent severe influenza season (2017) caused 1,255 deaths across the entire year.

We have vaccines, so why are there so many deaths?

There are still so many deaths because we have let the virus run. By scaling back public health measures and delivering an “it’s over” message, we have allowed almost unfettered transmission.

Currently, 381,000 Australians are known to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. With high case numbers comes a high death toll, even with a reduced case fatality rate (the proportion of those infected who die).

This relaxed policy stance – combined with emerging variants (three new Omicron strains have entered Australia), winter encouraging more time indoors, and waning immunity – suggest high caseloads will continue for some time yet.

Who is dying of COVID?

In order to reduce COVID deaths, it’s important to understand who is dying and why. While some basic information on deaths is available for some states, additional data – for example, whether those who die are eligible for antiviral treatment – is needed. Such data could enable targeted public health action such as improving treatment access.

Nevertheless, with the data we have we know older people continue to be at greatest risk. Last week in NSW, 41% of all COVID deaths were in aged care residents, despite very high rates of vaccination.

Read more:
Australia is failing marginalised people, and it shows in COVID death rates

We often hear those who die from COVID have pre-existing medical conditions. This is true – about 70% of deaths due to COVID were in people with chronic conditions.

But note that half of all Australians have a chronic condition, as do 80% of those aged 65 and older. Given most of those who have died due to COVID are aged over 65, it’s not surprising most also have an underlying condition.

Are people dying ‘with’ rather than ‘of’ COVID?

Some argue the high rates of COVID deaths isn’t as worrying as it seems because people are dying “with” COVID rather than “from” COVID.

But the majority (89.8%) of COVID deaths are “from” COVID.

For those defined as dying “with” COVID, this means COVID has possibly or probably “contributed” to those deaths.

For example, a person is infected with COVID which weakens their immune system and leads to a bloodstream infection (sepsis). They’re hospitalised and die three weeks after their COVID diagnosis. Although their death is directly “due to” sepsis, it is also “with” COVID because COVID caused the decline in their health which ultimately led to their death. COVID is not incidental in these deaths.

COVID is also killing young people – even children. Eight children aged nine and under have died in Australia from COVID since the pandemic began, as well as five people aged ten to 19 years, 22 in their twenties, and 65 in their thirties.

It’s impossible to know if COVID will cause significant numbers of premature death in coming years. Given the damage the SARS-CoV-2 virus causes to the heart, brain, kidneys and lungs, we have reason enough to be seriously concerned.

What could reduce the COVID death toll?

Vaccination continues to be hugely important, and the main reason we can even contemplate our current open lifestyle. But vaccination alone is not enough.

Improving air quality and/or wearing a high-quality N95/P2 mask in indoor spaces cause minimal disruption to the community but interrupt COVID transmission effectively.

To illustrate the benefit of interventions, we used our model to simulate three hypothetical scenarios for the state of Victoria for the remainder of 2022.

We first modelled a scenario with no additional interventions (the light blue line). We compared this with two scenarios where, from May 20, hypothetical interventions were introduced that could reduce the risk of transmission per contact by 10% (the dark blue line) or 20% (the red line).

We didn’t specify which specific interventions should be adopted to make up the 10% or 20% reduction. It could be a single intervention a or combination that make up the 10% to 20% reduction.

Between May 20 and the end of 2022, the outcomes from the “no additional intervention” scenario were an extra 2.22-2.38 million infections or reinfections and 1,060-1,450 deaths in Victoria.

With interventions reducing transmission by 10%, 596,000-614,000 infections and 198–314 deaths could be averted (a 16-25% reduction) over this period.

With interventions reducing transmission by 20%, 1.08-1.10 million infections and 462-502 deaths could be averted (a 37-40% reduction). As outlined above, this translates to up to 2000 lives nationally.

These are likely to underestimate the impact of interventions because the analysis was deliberately conservative and didn’t consider new COVID variants or sub-variants (only omicron BA.1 and BA.2).

The simple message is a small reduction in transmission has a big impact on mortality.

How do we do this modelling?

The model used for this work was COVASIM, a model that can assess the impact of different policies and behaviours on COVID transmission, hospitalisations and deaths. The model has been used to assist policy decisions in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom.

People in the model are assigned an age (which affects their susceptibility to infection and their disease prognosis), a household, a school (for people aged five to 17) or a workplace (for people over 18, up to 65), and they participate in a number of community activities that may include attending restaurants, pubs, places of worship, community sport, and social gatherings.

The model includes:

• vaccination (including individual dosing schedules, vaccine types and waning immunity)
• testing (PCR or rapid antigen tests)
• contact tracing (self-tracing)
• quarantine of close contacts
• isolation of confirmed cases
• masks
• a variety of policy restrictions to prevent or reduce transmission in different settings (such as closing schools or workplaces, density limits in hospitality and retail settings, restrictions on social gathering sizes).

It’s not just about the economy

Australia successfully mitigated the direct impact of COVID in the first two years of the pandemic. However, recently Australia has made little effort to reduce the impact of COVID. We are quietly, perhaps unknowingly, approving a trade-off between COVID deaths, and economic and social well-being more generally.

Many people seem unaware of the high death numbers, and that simple interventions can make a meaningful difference.

But the value of the current trade-off is unclear. The economic and social benefits of winding back key public health measures, when tens of thousands of COVID cases occur each day, have not been established. Indeed, stories of major COVID-driven disruption are common, suggesting the opposite is true.

Australia must find a middle road, centred around slowing transmission, reinvigorating vaccine roll-out and scaling-up treatment options for people with COVID infections. Otherwise, 10,000 or more COVID deaths per year could well be our new – previously unthinkable – normal.

Read more:
I’m at home with COVID. When do I need to see a doctor? And what treatments are available?

Margaret Hellard has received funding receives funding from the Victorian Government, the Federal Government, the New South Wales Government, the Macquarie Foundation and the Minderoo Foundation for COVID-19 related research. None provided support for this specific work. She also receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia for other research, and Gilead Science and Abbvie for investigator initiated non COVID-19 related research.

Brendan Crabb and the Institute he leads receives research grant funding from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, & other Australian federal and Victorian State Government bodies.

Dominic Delport has received funding from the NSW government in 2021 and continues to receive funding from the Victorian government for COVID-19 modelling work.

Nick Scott receives funding from the Victorian Government for COVID-19 related work, and has previously received funding from the New South Wales Government and Federal Government for COVID-19 related work. No government funding was received for this specific work. He also receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia for research on other diseases.

– ref. Reducing COVID transmission by 20% could save 2,000 Australian lives this year – https://theconversation.com/reducing-covid-transmission-by-20-could-save-2-000-australian-lives-this-year-183426

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society and NATSEM, University of Canberra

Early in the election campaign, on April 14, we learned that Australia’s unemployment rate had slipped below 4% in March, to 3.95% – the lowest rate in 48 years.

But the Coalition was denied the bragging rights that would flow from an unemployment rate beginning with “3” because of a Bureau of Statistics convention of quoting the rate to only one decimal place, which meant the rate was presented as “4.0%”, the same as the month before (when it was actually 4.04%).

Thursday’s figure, for the month of April, has broken the barrier. Officially 3.9% (and actually 3.85%), it is clearly below 4% for the second consecutive month (because the March figure has been revised downwards to also round to 3.9%).

Read more:
Technically unemployment now begins with a ‘3’. How to keep it there?

It means the unemployment rate has decisively broken out of the band of 5-6% it has been in or near for the past two decades and slipped below 4%.

It has fallen to where it was a half-century ago when (in the days the survey was quarterly) it jumped from 3.7% to 5.4% between November 1974 and February 1975.

Of course, 3.9% is an average. Over the country, the unemployment rate ranges from lows of 2.9% in Western Australia and 3.1% in the Australian Capital Territory, to highs of 4.5% in Queensland and South Australia.

For women, the rate is an almost half-century low of 3.7%, less than the 14-year low of 4.0% for men.

Australia isn’t alone. The unemployment rate is below 4% in the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand; and below 3% in Japan, Germany and Korea.

Further declines are expected. The Reserve Bank is forecasting unemployment of 3.6% by 2023, a few points less than the Treasury, which is forecasting 3.75%.

But the Bank is modest about its forecasting ability. It only claims to be 90% confident that by mid-2024 the rate will be somewhere between 2% and 5%.

At a press conference to release Labor’s election policy costings hours after the employment numbers were released, Labor treasury spokesman Jim Chalmers held out the prospect of more optimistic forecasts in Labor’s first budget as a result of the net $7.4 billion of extra spending it is proposing.

He said he would work with the Treasury if elected to ensure the dividends of Labor’s investments in childcare, training and energy were reflected in those forecasts.

The improvement is real

Sometimes the unemployment rate can be misleading. It can fall because people have left their jobs and are too despondent to search for new ones, meaning they are classified as “not in the labour force” rather than unemployed.

And it can fall even though people are less fully employed, working fewer hours than they did (in accordance with an international convention, one hour per week is all that’s needed to be “employed”).

Read more:
Forget the election gaffes: Australia’s unemployment rate is good news – and set to get even better by polling day

But in these figures the share of the working age population in work remains at an all-time high of 63.8%, well above the 62.4% before the COVID crisis and the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in response from March 2020.

The number of hours worked rose in April to a record 1,833 million hours.

Underemployment – the proportion of people working fewer hours than they would like – fell to a fresh 14-year low of 6.1%.

Wages missing out

Australia’s steadily falling unemployment rates have to date had little effect on wages growth. The figures released on Wednesday showed wages grew 2.4% in the year to March, up only marginally on the 2.3% in the year to December.

Read more:
Are real wages falling? Here’s the evidence

The Reserve Bank says its business liaison programme is giving it a more positive picture, with firms telling it they are having to pay to attract and retain staff.

The Bank is forecasting annual wages growth of 3% by December and 3.5% by December 2023, but it concedes its wage growth forecasts have been overoptimistic in the past, producing higher numbers than eventuated in most of the past ten years.

The Bank remains hopeful. Previous dips in unemployment, in 2008 and 2010, boosted wages growth.

A recent study by two of its economists finds that in the locations where unemployment fell below 4% in the decade before COVID, wages grew the most.

Higher rates in store

The most immediate impact of Thursday’s very welcome news on unemployment will be confirmation within Reserve Bank HQ that the economy can withstand further increases in interest rates.

The next increase is likely a fortnight after the next government takes office, following the Bank’s June board meeting on Tuesday June 7.

Only if it gets clear evidence that wages aren’t climbing as it expects is it likely to consider changing course.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist in the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Treasury.

– ref. At 3.9%, Australia’s unemployment rate now officially begins with ‘3’. What’s next? – https://theconversation.com/at-3-9-australias-unemployment-rate-now-officially-begins-with-3-whats-next-183226

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Bonython, Associate Professor of Law, Bond University

This Saturday, most Australians over 18 will vote in the federal election. The right to participate in elections is enshrined in international and domestic human rights law.

Under Australia’s Commonwealth Electoral Act, all citizens over 18 are eligible to be entered on the electoral roll and vote in federal elections. Failure to do so, if you meet these requirements, is an offence.

There are some exceptions. Along with people convicted of serious crimes, people of “unsound mind” are ineligible to enrol to vote if they are unable to understand the electoral process or significance of voting.

Typically, this includes people with incapacitating mental illness (such as untreated schizophrenia), or intellectual disability.

Some people won’t be enrolled to begin with. For some, a carer will apply to have them removed from the roll. Endorsement from a medical practitioner is required to have someone removed from the roll.

A need for law reform

“Unsound mind” is archaic language. It predates the 1918 Commonwealth Electoral Act. Historically, people of “unsound mind” were presumed to lack capacity to make legally recognised decisions. Alongside other outdated stigmatising terminology such as “idiocy”, “insanity” and “lunacy”, “unsound mind” has largely been removed from Australian law.

Further statutory reform has responded to the international Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability, to which Australia is a signatory. This convention fundamentally changed the law of capacity, including for people with intellectual disability.

Read more:
‘Don’t shove us off like we’re rubbish’: what people with intellectual disability told us about their local community

Rather than paternalistically excluding people with disability from decision-making processes by denying them participation or permitting substitute decision-makers to make decisions on their behalf, the Convention requires that people with disability be supported in making their own decisions. That support includes provision of information at an appropriate level.

Guardianship laws, mental health laws, and medical decision-making laws throughout Australia have been updated to reflect a shift towards supported and participative models of decision-making for people with disability.

They reflect both the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability, and modern understandings of capacity, intellectual disability and mental illness. The Convention requires that people with disability have the right to participate in political processes, such as voting in elections.

Many Australians with intellectual disability have previously been declared ineligible to enrol under historic “unsound mind” provisions.

To become eligible, these Australians are required to positively demonstrate they can understand the electoral system, and the significance of voting. That usually requires medical evidence. No other group of prospective voters in Australia is required to demonstrate its competence to vote in this way, regardless of education, literacy, language or engagement with the political system.

This creates a discriminatory barrier for people with disability. It is inconsistent with international human rights law and other Australian law.

Read more:
From ‘demented’ to ‘person with dementia’: how and why the language of disability changed

Is it feasible?

The Australian Law Reform Commission, in its inquiry into equality, capacity and disability in law, called for reform to the Electoral Act.

In its interim report, the commission called for the legislation to be reworded. Its final report called for the exclusion to be repealed entirely, recognising that retention in any form is discriminatory. Proposals for either reform have so far fallen on deaf ears, notwithstanding support from the Australian Electoral Commission.

Australia is not the only country waiting to modernise its electoral laws. A range of other countries continue to exclude people with “intellectual disability” from voting. Several European nations such as France have progressively updated their laws. Change is feasible. It does not require that people who are permanently incapable of voting, vote.

One common argument against reforming voting laws to be more inclusive is a perception it would undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Critics claim people with intellectual disability are vulnerable to coercion and accordingly likely to be inappropriately influenced to vote a particular way. Others speculate institutions, such as aged-care facilities, may pressure their clients and residents to vote according to corporate objectives.

Read more:
Australia once rejected ‘feeble-minded’ immigrants. While the language has changed, discrimination remains

In the United Kingdom, where voting is not mandatory, laws that prevented people from voting due to lack of mental capacity were overturned. People with any form of intellectual disability are eligible to vote. However, the law also expressly states decisions on whether to vote, and how to vote, remain the person’s alone. No one is entitled to exercise a vote on their behalf.

If electoral integrity is a concern, the solution is to ensure safeguards adequately protect voters with intellectual disability from inappropriate coercion. Give people with disability an option as to whether they vote, and provide support. Do not deny them access to a fundamental human right.

Wendy Bonython and Bruce Arnold made submissions to the ALRC enquiry mentioned in this article.

Bruce Baer Arnold 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. This election, many adults with disabilities won’t be allowed to vote. That should change – https://theconversation.com/this-election-many-adults-with-disabilities-wont-be-allowed-to-vote-that-should-change-183130

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Hay, Honorary Fellow, The University of Queensland

Environmental scientists see flora, fauna and phenomena the rest of us rarely do. In this series, we’ve invited them to share their unique photos from the field.

While most people go out of their way to avoid snakes, we’re the opposite. We’re crazy about snakes. As wildlife photographers, we’ve spent months in the Australian bush and in overseas jungles tracking down beautiful snakes.

Photographing snakes is no easy task. Apart from wild weather, long hours, biting insects and lack of sleep, there’s one final hurdle to overcome: actually finding the elusive reptiles. Australia’s snakes, for instance, usually flee when they hear humans, and they’re very good at hiding.

But it’s all worth it for those moments when we round a corner and spot the scaly body of a species we haven’t seen before.

Why do we spend so much time looking for snakes?

Australia’s snakes are remarkably diverse and adaptable. We have over 200 different species across the land and sea. They have carved out niches in every possible habitat, from coastal rainforests to arid deserts to alpine regions.

It’s difficult to put into words about why we love snakes so much, but we have both been obsessed with the beauty and mystery of snakes since we were young children. This obscure obsession has developed into fascinating careers for both of us, which is also how we found each other.

Even though they’re found across the continent, our snakes are notoriously difficult to find. They’re exceptionally good at hiding. When we go herping (searching for snakes), we don’t just wander through the bush hoping to stumble across one. There’s quite a process we go through to boost our chances.

Snakes are hard to find. Here’s how we improve our chances.

First, we decide which species we want to photograph. To make our trips worthwhile, we often look for spots where the ranges of several target species overlap. Once we choose an area, we take a deep dive into the details of each species.

Combined, we have more than 50 years of snake knowledge to draw on. We use this to examine each species’ preferred habitats and microhabitats and where these features occur in our area.

To home in further, we focus on behaviour. Is it nocturnal? Is it active only in daytime? Or is it crepuscular, moving around only at dusk?

Once we’ve figured out the most likely spots to look, we have to choose the best time of year to go.

You might think summer is always the best, given reptiles are more active in the warmth. For some species, we’ve had better luck in cooler months, when they’re inactive. This can make them easier to find.

Once we’ve picked a time to go, we look at the local climate and weather forecasts to help predict the location and severity of storms.

Heavy rain is generally not good for herping, unless you’re looking for one of Australia’s 46 species of blind snakes, which come up from underground to escape drowning in water-logged soils.

But for the above-ground species we look for, the best conditions come when there’s been recent rain or the threat of rain. This is because rain leads to vegetation growth, which in turn increases insect activity and animals that feed on them, and so on and so forth. It stimulates activity throughout the food chain.

Once we’ve done all of this, we plan our trip and hopefully find some remarkable species to photograph. Success is, of course, not guaranteed. We once went looking for a species of whipsnake, spending a full week and $3000 in the process and still didn’t find the snake. But we did find many unusual lizards.

Herping is no relaxing holiday. It is very hard work requiring early mornings and late nights. To find nocturnal snakes, for instance, we have to stay up until the early hours of the morning. (Nocturnal snakes are active only in warmer months, and soak up radiant heat left over after the day). We often start early, too, since the best natural light for photography is early morning or late afternoon, when the sun is low in the sky.

We’re both registered snake catchers, so sometimes we’ll be called out to a job and find an interesting snake which we can photograph before releasing it.

Safety comes first

When the stars align and we find one of the snakes we’ve been looking for, we have to make sure we don’t get too excited. Our safety is more important than any photograph.

We’re often in remote parts of Australia, hundreds of kilometres from any help. If one of us gets a snake bite, it would mean real trouble.

When you’re looking through a camera’s eye-piece, you can get the impression you’re further away from the snake than you really are. We’ve had to learn how to choose the right lens for each species, to ensure we can keep a safe distance without making the snake too small in the frame.

Only one of us takes the photographs at any one time. That’s because you need someone to watch the situation and make sure you’re not taking risks. As a husband and wife team, we place our full trust in each other. Distractions are not an option.

We don’t intend this to be a how-to guide for people to find dangerous reptiles and photograph them. Snake photography is not a hobby to dive into without a great deal of preparation and knowledge.

Having said that, it is a rewarding profession – particularly when you get a shot of a rare reptile that’s very hard to find. Getting a shot like this and seeing it used in books, field guides and online makes all the preparation worthwhile.

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. Here’s how we track down and very carefully photograph Australia’s elusive snakes – https://theconversation.com/heres-how-we-track-down-and-very-carefully-photograph-australias-elusive-snakes-176971

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University

One way to make sense of Finance Minister Grant Robertson’s fifth budget speech was to see it as a political performance working on different levels.

First, Labour needs this budget to do an immediate job – address concern with the cost of living. Following two years of pandemic-dominated politics, Robertson had to tell a compelling story about his plans for tackling mounting fuel, food and other prices.

Reminding people that some of this is beyond the government’s control is not a winning strategy. Handing out something tangible was imperative today – hence a NZ$1 billion cost-of-living package, including a one-off $350 cash payment for some 2.1 million low- and middle-income earners, and extended public transport subsidies and fuel excise cuts.

But the government also wants a reset in its head-to-head with a resurgent National Party. Many voters have moved on from the pre-Omicron phases of the pandemic. And with a genuine contest looming at next year’s election, Labour and the Greens will be hoping today’s announcements serve as a political circuit-breaker.

Some of the big-ticket items – chiefly the health reforms and Emissions Reduction Plan – speak to the longer term. We can imagine the government will be closely watching the Australian federal election this weekend to see how much climate policy influences voters’ choices.

Finally, there may also be something deeper going on. As reaction to today’s budget rolls in, we’ll get a sense of New Zealanders’ ongoing appetite for a more active and engaged state. Here and internationally, the pandemic years have represented a break with small state orthodoxy.

And while Robertson reassured voters and markets that this is a prudent, sustainable budget (many governments would walk over broken political glass for a projected surplus in 2025), the National and ACT parties will seek to portray Labour as fiscally profligate. Whichever narrative prevails will go a long way to determining whether Robertson delivers a third-term budget.

– Richard Shaw, Massey University

The government in the economy

Budgets are generally no longer a surprise – most things are telegraphed well in advance. This is deliberate as mistakes happen when households and businesses have to play “guess what the government is thinking”.

A slight surprise was the one-off cost-of-living payment to those earning under $70,000. While no doubt any extra money is welcome to those struggling, the amount does need to be put into context. At the median wage of about $57,000 a year, an extra $350 is equivalent to a 0.6% pay increase. Inflation in the first quarter of 2022 alone was 1.7% and 6.9% for the year, and this is a one-off payment – you don’t get that money on an ongoing basis.

This budget also entrenches a bigger government presence in the economy.

In 2016, core crown expenses of $74 billion equalled 29% of gross domestic product (GDP). Core expenses are projected to be $127 billion (about 33% of GDP) for the year ended June 2023, and $138 billion (31% of GDP) by 2026. At the same time, tax revenue has grown from $70 billion (27.5% of GDP) in 2016 to a projected $116 billion in 2023 (30% of GDP).

Tax revenue is projected to grow to $138 billion by 2026 – or by about 6% per year – by which point it will be around 31% of GDP and the government’s books will balance once again. Under the current expenditure settings, significant changes to tax thresholds or rates seem unlikely.

– Stephen Hickson, University of Canterbury

Leaving poor children behind

The centrepiece of the budget’s cost-of-living response – a temporary three-month cash payment of $350 – targets families earning under $70,000. Cash injections, when targeted and adjusted appropriately, are important poverty tools, allowing families to plug gaps in vital expenditure.

The problem, however, is that such payments aren’t targeted progressively and bypass those who are really being “squeezed” – the lowest income families who are most likely being kept in poverty by our income assistance programmes, and who are not eligible for this cost-of-living payment.

Indeed, Treasury’s own estimates predict that, while all families’ incomes should increase in the next few years, middle-class families’ incomes are projected to increase at a faster rate than those at the bottom of the income distribution.

Read more:
The cost of living crisis means bolder budget decisions are needed to lift more NZ children out of poverty

We shouldn’t be surprised by the most vulnerable families being forgotten in the budget announcements today. The government had announced changes to benefit rates (decried by child poverty experts at the time as not enough) ahead of the budget and signalled this was already “enough”.

But the announcement that child support payments will go directly to parents on benefits (rather than being paid by the other liable parent to the government) is a welcome change that will lift some children out of poverty and reduce another punitive barrier to supporting the well-being of families that don’t fit the nuclear norm.

By the government’s own budget projections, the already modest child poverty targets set last year won’t be put back on track. In fact, they’ll fall well short of estimates based on a relative measure of income before housing costs are included, and only just squeeze into the margin of error on a measure of fixed income after housing costs are included – a short-term target that was easily met last year.

This budget will be remembered as the first to demonstrably leave poor children behind.

– Kate Prickett, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

No step-change on climate change

With the announcement of the Emissions Reduction Plan on Monday, there were only a few surprises left for budget day: an additional $47 million went to climate adaptation, $16 million for community-based renewable energy, a $73 million top-up for the Warmer Homes programme, and $132 million to extend the public transport fare reduction for two months, or longer for Community Services cardholders.

Otherwise, the budget confirmed fiscal commitments we already knew, such as the ten-fold boost to decarbonisation funding at $678 million, and $350 million for cycleways and public transport. The ERP proposal for mission-led “climate innovation platforms” appears to be unfunded.

Read more:
Air of compromise: NZ’s Emissions Reduction Plan reveals a climate budget that’s long on planning, short on strategy

All up, the transport sector receives $1.3 billion, energy $692 million and agriculture $380 million. As a complement to the Emissions Trading Scheme, this policy mix is expected to reduce emissions by 95 to 228 metric tons over the next three emissions budgets until 2035.

But what about the government’s hints that, after underwhelming investment on climate action in past years, 2022 would be the year of the climate budget? If we exclude the extraordinary spending of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, then ordinary spending on climate-related initiatives through the budget process has only gently increased.

Building on earlier analysis, we estimate that at least $3 billion was allocated to climate-positive initiatives in 2022, compared to $1.4 billion in 2020 and $2.8 billion in 2021. Without a doubt, this year’s climate-related expenditure is more coherent and targeted, but not obviously a step-change.

– David Hall and Nina Ives, Auckland University of Technology

A mixed bag for health

Health was a clear focus of the budget ahead of the health system restructure. The $1.8 billion funding increase for year one, with $1.3 billion in the second year, will give the system a needed boost as it adapts to the reforms. The last thing we need is a seriously underfunded system unable to cope in a period of significant change.

Aside from the additional operational funding, the budget was a bit of a mixed bag for health. Mental health services received a significant boost, including for school-based mental health and well-being support and specialist mental health and addiction services. These initiatives are important for the government to deliver on improving well-being.

Additional funding for air and road ambulance services will be important in maintaining and improving service quality. The $191 million in additional Pharmac funding over two years will also be welcome news for many. However, it’s still likely to leave some people disappointed, as the budget doesn’t give clear directions on what that additional funding will be spent on.

Read more:
Why the budget should treat public health like transport – vital infrastructure with long-term economic benefits

The equity pay deal with support workers is set to expire, so it was good to see further commitment of $40 million per year. However, there was no specific response to calls for improved pay for allied health workers.

Health workforce development has been allocated additional funding to support the delivery of kaupapa Māori and Pacific services. This and other initiatives will be important for health equity. However, the budget doesn’t offer further specific commitment to overcoming the shortage of general practitioners. The need for a third medical school in New Zealand is becoming increasingly urgent.

Overall, more funding for health is always going to make things look better than less funding. The big questions now lie in how successful the overall reforms of the health system will be.

– Michael Cameron, University of Waikato

David Hall is affiliated with the Forestry Ministerial Advisory Group.

Michael P. Cameron receives funding from Te Hiringa Hauora/Health Promotion Agency.

Kate C. Prickett, Nina Ives, Richard Shaw, and Stephen Hickson 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. A budget for the ‘squeezed middle’ – but will it be the political circuit-breaker Labour wants? – https://theconversation.com/a-budget-for-the-squeezed-middle-but-will-it-be-the-political-circuit-breaker-labour-wants-183335

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Preston, Professor of Economics, The University of Western Australia

In 2020 the Morrison government allowed Australians to raid their superannuation to get through during the pandemic. This week Scott Morrison proposed letting people raid their super for a home deposit.

Helping people own their home is an important social good. But the latest data on superannuation savings and drawdowns – graphed below – shows how early access to super in the pandemic has already widened the retirement savings gap between men and women.

Allowing early access to superannuation as a housing policy risks increasing inequality and widening the gender gap between men and women in retirement even further.

How much super do most Australians have?

The first graph shows median superannuation savings by gender and age from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ most recent survey of Household Income and Wealth (published in April).

This survey covers the 2019–20 financial year and includes the first part of the federal goverment’s COVID-19 early super release scheme, which ran from April to December 2020. The scheme allowed a A$10,000 withdrawal before June 30 2020, and a further $10,000 after. A total of $38 billion was withdrawn, with $20 billion of that in the 2019-20 year.

Median rates are a better reflection of the “average” than the mean, because the latter can be easily skewed upwards by a small number of very high income earners. The mean super balance for the 25-34 age group, for example, is $42,000 for men and $34,500 for women, compared with the median of $25,500 and $22,000 respectively.

It is worth noting what this implies for the Coalition’s super home buyer proposal, which would allow up to 40% of super to be withdrawn for a home depsit. Based on 2019-20 numbers, for those aged 25 to 34 with median super balances this would amount to $10,200 for men and $8,800 for women.

Who’s most likely to withdraw super?

The next two graphs shed light on who is most likely to draw down their super when given the chance. This data comes from the latest instalment of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, published in December 2021. The focus is on those aged 18-64.

HILDA is a nationally representative longitudinal survey, which means it surveys the same people each year. In 2020 it asked 17,000 survey participants if they withdrew any superannuation under the COVID-19 scheme, and how much.

Not surprisingly, those on lower incomes, with lower educational qualifications, who were renting and had lower financial literacy, were more likely to have withdrawn super. Those aged 25-34 were most likely to withdraw.

Estimates based on HILDA data show that 12.7% of men and 9.5% of women made a withdrawal in 2020. The mean amount withdrawn was $12,758 for men and $10,264 for women. The median amount withdrawn by both groups was $10,000.

Read more:
Who really wins and loses from first homebuyer schemes? What you need to know as a buyer, owner or renter

In interpreting these numbers we must factor in that women tend to have lower balances from which to draw, and that those in greater financial need are more likely to withdraw their super if allowed.

The pandemic has widened the gender gap

These factors are reflected in the next graph showing the gender gap in super balances has widened between June 2019 and June 2021. These numbers are based on data from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority published in January 2022.

These male-female differences in superannuation savings are large, and the gap increases with age. It means women, on average, retire with significantly less savings than men and face greater economic insecurity in old age.

To ensure greater equality in retirement incomes, we need policies to eliminate gender-based wage discrimination, as well as pay superannuation contributions during paid parental leave.

We also need to ensure that super contributions are appropriately preserved until retirement.

Read more:
Yes, women retire with less than men, but boosting compulsory super won’t help

Housing affordability is a serious problem, and supporting Australians to achieve home ownership is an important goal, as is assisting them meet financial needs. But early access to superannuation is not the way to do it.

Alison Preston 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. Raiding super early has already left women worse off. Let’s not repeat the mistake for home deposits – https://theconversation.com/raiding-super-early-has-already-left-women-worse-off-lets-not-repeat-the-mistake-for-home-deposits-183351

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Eltham, Lecturer, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University

The past term of government has been tough for arts and culture in Australia. Culture was among the worst affected by the pandemic of any aspect of society: the first to lock down; the last to have health restrictions lifted.

Culture is also recovering slowly. Shows at key festivals are still being cancelled due to COVID-19. The damage to the sector has been so deep that informed observes believe it will take years to fully recover.

Despite this, the arts and culture have been disappointingly absent from the 2022 election campaign.

Read more:
How do the major parties compare on arts and cultural policy? We asked 5 experts

Those looking for a genuine vision for Australian arts and culture won’t find it with the major parties.

The Coalition has not put out an arts or cultural policy, instead running on its record of pandemic stimulus and a claim of record funding) to the arts portfolio in the most recent budget.

That is cold comfort for a sector still struggling to recover from its biggest setback in a century. March’s federal budget slated funding cuts of roughly 19% for the federal arts portfolio that Paul Fletcher heads.

The Australian Labor Party released its policy on Monday evening at the Espy Hotel in Melbourne. Labor’s arts platform at this election is surprisingly modest.

Labor’s arts spokesperson Tony Burke gave a wide-ranging address which touched on Labor’s history of cultural policy at the federal level. There were also some bite-sized policy commitments, such as $84 million for the ABC and $80 million for a First Nations art gallery in Alice Springs.

According to Burke, Labor will “relaunch” a cultural policy if elected, promising to consult widely. But there are few specific or concrete promises, and many decisions are deferred.

Notably, there was no promise of new money for the Australia Council, the nation’s primary federal cultural agency. Labor has also refused to make a specific promise on local content quotas for streaming platforms like Netflix. As of publication, Labor’s arts policy wasn’t even published on the party’s campaign website.

Read more:
‘The relation between politics and culture is clear and real’: how Gough Whitlam centred artists in his 1972 campaign

Big visions

There are some genuinely big visions being advanced for the arts and culture in this election. They are coming from independents such as Allegra Spender in Wentworth and Jo Dyer in Boothby, and especially from the Greens.

In particular, the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young has put forward the kind of big-picture blueprint for a renewed cultural policy that 30 years ago was advanced by Paul Keating.

Read more:
Paul Keating’s Creative Nation: a policy document that changed us

There are transformative funding promises, including a $1 billion content fund for Australian screen production and another $1 billion for the performing arts. The Greens want to double the Australia Council’s funding, ramp up funding for game production, and inject $30 million into the Indigenous media sector.

You could argue such promises are cheap, because there is no political scenario in which the Greens will sit on the government benches or control the Treasury. But their policy is also strong on regulation, where a Greens cross-bench will likely wield significant legislative power in the next Senate.

The Greens are pushing for streaming platforms to invest 20% of their earnings from Australian subscribers into Australian content (some of the teal independents are also backing this). If implemented, it will lock in meaningful levels of local content on Australian screens.

The most original proposal put forward by the Greens is their policy for a trial of a basic income for artists, paying up to 10,000 artists $772.60 a week for a year. The policy is modeled on a trial of basic incomes for artists in Ireland, where it is specifically targeted at redressing the crippling precarity of cultural labour markets.

Hanson-Young spruiks her policy as supporting artists “to develop their craft, build their portfolios and support them to keep creating.” By directly seeking to create income for artists, it is a potentially far-reaching policy intervention.

Read more:
Australia should have a universal basic income for artists. Here’s what that could look like

Moving the mainstream

The artists’ wage proposal is clearly a long way off being legislated in Australia. But putting forward new ideas is a critical role for minor parties. As John Maynard Keynes recognised in the 20th century, policy ideas that seem far-fetched today can quickly move to the mainstream when the winds of change blow in the right direction.

With the Coalition increasingly preoccupied with the prosecution of culture wars, and Labor huddled in a defensive crouch, it is now up to the minor parties and independents to advance a larger vision for Australian culture in the next term of government.

If the cards fall her way in the Senate, Hanson-Young may be in a position to drag Labor towards implementing some bold ideas.

Ben Eltham has previously received funding from the Australia Council for the Arts. He is affiliated with the Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute, where he has previously co-written a report about federal cultural policy. He is a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), a union that represents workers in the cultural sector.

– ref. Arts and culture have been all but overlooked this election – but the Greens have a big-picture plan – https://theconversation.com/arts-and-culture-have-been-all-but-overlooked-this-election-but-the-greens-have-a-big-picture-plan-183358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben White, Professor of End-of-Life Law and Regulation, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology

The last state in Australia, New South Wales, has today passed its voluntary assisted dying bill. This means the vast majority of the population now lives in a jurisdiction where voluntary assisted dying is, or will be, lawful.

However, voluntary assisted dying is not yet available in NSW. As in other states, there is an 18 month implementation period to establish how it would work.

Here’s what’s just happened in NSW, what can be learned from other states, and what to expect next.

Read more:
Planning for death must happen long before the last few days of life

What does the NSW legislation say?

The NSW legislation reflects the broad Australian model of regulating voluntary assisted dying in the other states.

It will be available to an adult with decision-making capacity who has an advanced and progressive illness that will cause death, likely within six months (or 12 months for neurodegenerative conditions).

Other eligibility criteria include the patient is suffering, and their choice is voluntary and enduring. Two senior doctors, who have completed mandatory training, will each conduct a rigorous eligibility assessment. A voluntary assisted dying board will be established to ensure the system is operating safely.

Each state has variations in its voluntary assisted dying laws. One of note in NSW is a person can choose between taking the medication themselves or having a health practitioner administer the medication to them.

In other states, although both methods are allowed, self-administration is the default method.

Read more:
FactCheck Q&A: do 80% of Australians and up to 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support euthanasia laws?

What does this mean for people in NSW?

During the 18 months between the legislation passing and implementation, NSW can benefit from the experience of the five other states.

Victoria was the first to have legalised voluntary assisted dying in 2019 followed by Western Australia in 2021. Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland have also passed similar legislation but their laws are not yet in force.

Read more:
One year of voluntary assisted dying in Victoria: 400 have registered, despite obstacles

This just leaves the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory without voluntary assisted dying laws.

One key lesson for NSW is for people to access voluntary assisted dying, there need to be sufficient doctors trained and willing to participate from the start.

This requires the legislatively-mandated training to be ready early, and incentives and supports provided for doctors to undertake it. It also requires knowing which doctors may be open to participating.

Read more:
Voluntary assisted dying will begin in WA this week. But one Commonwealth law could get in the way

A linked issue from Victoria and WA is the critical facilitating role played by “voluntary assisted dying care navigators”. These health professionals support patients, families and other health professionals who wish to seek or provide voluntary assisted dying, and guide them through the complex eligibility assessment procedure.

This role includes the vital function of connecting patients with doctors. The establishment of this small but critical workforce, well before voluntary assisted dying is available, is essential.

A final observation from other states’ implementation is the importance of education for key stakeholders.

Potentially eligible people can only access voluntary assisted dying if they are aware it exists. So there needs to be a clear public communication strategy to tell the community that voluntary assisted dying is available, and where to find more information.

Building awareness for the broader health workforce (beyond those providing voluntary assisted dying) is also important.

These two groups are linked. Evidence shows people wanting more information about end-of-life law are likely to ask health professionals.

Read more:
We all hope for a ‘good death’. But many aged-care residents are denied proper end-of-life care

What happens in NSW once the law kicks in?

The end of 2023, when the NSW voluntary assisted dying laws are expected to begin, may seem a long time away. But the experience of other states has been that there is little time to waste. This is a major health, legal and community initiative and implementing it is challenging.

There will be patients seeking access to it as soon as the law begins. So the system must be ready.

In WA, there was higher-than-anticipated early demand. Within the first four months of the law being implemented, 50 terminally-ill people chose to die using voluntary assisted dying. As a state with a significantly larger population, NSW should be anticipating more.

So work must start now to ensure that as soon as the NSW law begins, there is a functional system ready to support people eligible for voluntary assisted dying.

How about the territories?

As territories, the NT and ACT cannot legislate on voluntary assisted dying. The Commonwealth passed legislation in 1997 to prohibit this.

However, there have been repeated calls for this to change. If this were to occur, this would open the possibility for the territories to follow the lead of the states and pass their own laws permitting voluntary assisted dying.

Ben White receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and State Governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, he (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland Governments to design and provide the legislatively-mandated training for doctors involved in voluntary assisted dying in those States. He (with Lindy Willmott) has also developed a model Bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Ben White is a recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT190100410: Enhancing End-of-Life Decision-Making: Optimal Regulation of Voluntary Assisted Dying) funded by the Australian Government.

Lindy Willmott receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and State Governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, she (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland Governments to design and provide the legislatively-mandated training for doctors involved in voluntary assisted dying in those States. She (with Ben White) has also developed a model Bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider.

– ref. Voluntary assisted dying will soon be legal in all states. Here’s what’s just happened in NSW and what it means for you – https://theconversation.com/voluntary-assisted-dying-will-soon-be-legal-in-all-states-heres-whats-just-happened-in-nsw-and-what-it-means-for-you-183355

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Foley, PhD Candidate, La Trobe University, La Trobe University

National security has been a feature of this election campaign, but there’s been little substantive difference on key issues of foreign policy. Last week’s foreign policy debate between Foreign Minister Senator Marise Payne and Shadow Minister Penny Wong barely touched on differences in policy.

An exception was Labor’s proposed changes to the government’s existing Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. This scheme provides jobs for Pacific and Timor-Leste workers in Australia.

Labor’s proposed policies for the Pacific are positive for Australia’s foreign policy, and include some wins for these workers.

But the plan so far does not make it clear how it will address rampant wage theft, exploitation and unsafe working conditions faced by Pacific workers in Australia.

And reforms made under the Coalition government have so far failed to fix systemic problems that have led to some Pacific Island workers being exploited.

Read more:
How should the next Australian government handle the Pacific?

What has Labor proposed?

The recent Solomon Islands-China security pact revealed Coalition weaknesses in the Pacific. Labor soon proposed a suite of policies it said would “restore Australia’s place as the partner of choice for the countries in the Pacific”.

It proposed a new “pacific engagement visa” to provide pathways to permanent migration, the first of its kind in the existing Pacific labour mobility schemes.

This visa would initially allow about 3,000 Pacific Islanders to migrate annually to Australia.

Other proposed reforms include:

• the travel costs of Pacific migrant workers to be paid by the federal government, instead of by employers
• allowing Pacific migrant workers to bring their families with them
• in a move welcomed by unions, a new dedicated agricultural visa would replace a contentious “Ag visa” introduced last year.

Mistreatment, wage theft and exploitation

The existing Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, which emerged from a series of reforms to older schemes, was launched in 2022.

It is more heavily regulated than other temporary workers visas. Still, significant concerns remain about workers on these schemes

Both Labor and Coalition governments have overseen various iterations of the scheme where exploitation and wage theft occurred. Since 2012, 30 workers have reportedly died on the Pacific Labour Scheme visa and a previous iteration, the Seasonal Worker Program.

Recently, the Senate Select Committee on Job Security heard from Pacific Islander seasonal workers who experienced wage theft and unsafe working conditions.

Pacific workers have experienced reduction in promised hours and pay deductions. One investigation revealed seasonal farm workers receiving as little as A$9 a week after deductions.

Critics have likened the poor conditions, underpayment and “skimming” of paychecks to modern slavery and “blackbirding” – where Pacific Islanders were lured or taken forcibly to work in Australia.

A scheme that serves too many masters

The problem with the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme is it serves too many masters.

Leaders in Pacific Island states like it because it provides overseas sources of work for citizens. For Australia, this scheme provides a positive soft diplomacy tool in Pacific engagement.

Yet, labour migration has also been shaped by the interests of Australian agricultural and horticulture sectors keen to fill a labour shortage.

In revisions of the Pacific labour program under the Coalition, industry interests have been prioritised ahead of workers.

And while Labor’s focus on increasing numbers of the overall intake through permanent residency is welcome, it raises questions about how it will ensure greater protections for workers.

The extent to which its plan will protect Pacific Islanders from exploitation is not clearly outlined in their policy platform. It only promises a “review” of the scheme and the provision of “whistle-blower” status to all temporary migrant workers.

A policy priority

Both major parties acknowledge labour mobility is important to Australia’s relationship with Pacific Island nations.

As we have seen during the election campaign, constructive and genuine engagement with the Pacific region is critical to Australia’s national interests.

But addressing serious concerns about exploitation in existing schemes is crucial.

There is debate about whether to keep the scheme specific to the Pacific or extend it to Southeast Asia – so getting this scheme right is important.

Whoever wins on May 21, protecting Pacific workers in Australia must be a policy priority, as temporary migration will continue to rise post-pandemic.

Read more:
In the wake of the China-Solomon Islands pact, Australia needs to rethink its Pacific relationships

Emily Foley receives funding from the Department of Education Skills and Employment via the Research Training Program.

Rebecca Strating receives external funding from Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, US Department of State, UK High Commission in Australia, and Taiwan Foundation for Democracy.

– ref. Labor’s proposed Pacific labour scheme reforms might be good soft diplomacy but will it address worker exploitation? – https://theconversation.com/labors-proposed-pacific-labour-scheme-reforms-might-be-good-soft-diplomacy-but-will-it-address-worker-exploitation-183119

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dani Larkin, Lecturer/Deputy Director of the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW Sydney

One of the recommendations from the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for the establishment of a First Nations Voice to parliament, enshrined in the Constitution. This would ensure First Nations people are formally consulted on government decisions and legislation affecting their communities.

However, for a Voice to parliament to be enshrined in the Constitution, it would need to be passed at a referendum.

A recent survey found significant public support for a First Nations voice to parliament.

However, it seems Labor and the Coalition are clashing on what this might look like in practice.

We asked five experts to grade the major parties’ policies and past actions on pursuing a Voice to parliament.

Coalition

Labor

Dr Dani Larkin is part of the legal team at the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW that provides technical support to the Uluru Dialogue and community education on constitutional reform.

Eddie is part of the legal team at the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW that provides technical support to the Uluru Dialogue and community education on constitutional reform.

Dr Emma Lee has consulted on the National Co-Design Group for Indigenous Voice. Dr. Lee has also received funding from the Australian Research Council Grant DP200101394 Making policy reform work: a comparative analysis of social procurement.

James Blackwell is a member of the Uluru Dialogue at UNSW, which is campaigning to support the Uluru Statement From the Heart and its sequence of constitutional reforms.

Sana Nakata receives funding from Australian Research Council (DP200100728; LP200200046).

– ref. How do the major parties rate on the First Nations Voice to Parliament? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/how-do-the-major-parties-rate-on-the-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-we-asked-5-experts-181162

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bhiamie Williamson, Research Associate & PhD Candidate, Australian National University

It is often lamented that Indigenous peoples’ electoral power is insignificant in Australia, except perhaps in the remote Northern Territory seat of Lingiari.

But our new analysis of Indigenous populations in marginal seats at the upcoming federal election suggests Indigenous votes could matter — and not just in remote Australia.

As we show below, there are 15 marginal seats across Australia where the number of eligible Indigenous voters is larger than the electoral margin at the last federal election.

That means Indigenous peoples have considerably more potential electoral power than has been appreciated. Bringing together an Indigenous voting bloc would require rallying enrolled voters, and persuading non-enrolled eligible Indigenous voters to participate.

Invisible electoral power of Indigenous peoples

Indigenous people make up a relatively small part of the Australian population — just 3.3% at the 2016 Census. This fact leads some prominent figures to consider Indigenous participation in elections as ineffective. However, because the Indigenous population is not evenly spread across Australia, there are strategic opportunities for Indigenous people to exercise electoral power.

Minority groups in marginal seats can wield significant electoral influence. For example, Australian citizens of Chinese-Australian ancestry are considered to hold decisive electoral power in some marginal electorates.

Indigenous votes are generally considered to be decisive only in the remote Northern Territory seat of Lingiari. Lingiari covers all the Territory except Darwin with just under half of the population being Indigenous. Here, Indigenous voters are widely acknowledged to be crucial in a close electoral contest.

Our analysis shows Indigenous votes could be important in several seats beyond the Northern Territory. The table below describes 15 seats where the estimated number of eligible Indigenous voters is larger than the electoral margins at the 2019 federal election.

These include other remote seats such as Leichhardt and Kennedy in northern Queensland, and Durack, which covers most of Western Australia. But this list of electoral divisions also includes several urban marginal seats such as Lilley in northern Brisbane, Dobell on the New South Wales Central Coast, and Cowan in Perth.

However, most of these 15 seats are in regional areas, particularly in NSW and Tasmania.

Read more:
Why voter ID requirements could exclude the most vulnerable citizens, especially First Nations people

Mobilising an Indigenous vote

Our paper uses data from the Australian Electoral Commission. These data suggest fewer than half of Indigenous voters are both enrolled and cast a vote. This creates challenges for parties and independents alike. However, addressing these challenges creates significant opportunities.

If Indigeonus people who are eligible to vote but that until now haven’t, did vote, these previously inactive voters would outnumber the 2019 electoral margins in ten of the 15 marginal seats listed above. In other words, if non-voting Indigenous peoples enrolled and voted, they would be decisive in these ten seats.

Low rates of Indigenous electoral participation mean that campaigns aiming to appeal to Indigenous voters might rely on tactics more generally used in countries with voluntary voting systems. These include “get out to vote” campaigns and the provision of policies that aim excite a “base” of voters. These are quite different strategies to those typically used in Australia, which tend to appeal to the middle of the political spectrum.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is currently the subject of a complaint being mediated by the Australian Human Rights Commission. West Arnhem Regional council Mayor Matthew Ryan alleges the AEC has suppressed votes through indirect discrimination.

In April, the AEC told NITV news it was increasing efforts to encourage Indigenous people to vote in the federal election, including speaking to community leaders and partnering with Indigenous media. “That is a really critical issue for us,” commissioner Tom Rogers said.

But the AEC needs to provide more support to Indigenous voters. This would require facilitating remote enrolment, improving access to the ballot box, providing interpreter services where appropriate, and further investment in voter education programs.

Equally importantly, parties and/or independents would need to offer attractive policies that support Indigenous peoples’ aspirations and visions for the future.

Of course Indigenous peoples, like all other groups in society, are unlikely to vote as a single cohort. Research has demonstrated Indigenous voters do change their votes between parties in response to policies and choice of representatives. But it is up to those running to garner support.

Read more:
To Australians sick of the election: this is why voting is not a waste of your time

A different democratic narrative

In his 2014 essay “A Rightful Place”, Noel Pearson spoke of the “feeble democratic participation” of Indigenous peoples. We believe this view of Indigenous electoral frailty to be misguided and disempowering. The discussions about Indigenous electoral insignificance can become self-fulfilling, as Indigenous peoples think their vote doesn’t matter, so they don’t vote. This results in their electoral power going unrealised.

We do not believe electoral participation alone will advance Indigenous interests in this country. It must be used alongside other strategies including activism, lobbying, and establishing a First Nations Voice. However, harnessing the electoral power of Indigenous peoples may offer opportunities to further progress in these areas.

Electoral empowerment can only begin when Indigenous peoples recognise that their votes matter. As the youthful Indigenous population grows older and more Indigenous people reach voting age, potential electoral power will only grow.

The question then becomes how we can support Indigenous communities to wake up this electoral power and wield it to promote the sustainable self-determination of Indigenous peoples.

Francis Markham 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. He is not a member, employee or officeholder of any political party.

Bhiamie Williamson 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. Indigenous votes matter — and not just in remote Australia – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-votes-matter-and-not-just-in-remote-australia-183124

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucas Cernusak, Associate professor, James Cook University

In recent years, the Great Barrier Reef off Australia’s northeast coast has seen multiple events of mass coral bleaching as human-caused global warming has driven sustained high temperatures in the ocean.

Alongside the Coral Sea is another spectacular natural wonder: the rainforests of the World Heritage-listed wet tropics of Queensland.

It turns out the same climate change forces contributing to coral bleaching have also taken a toll on the trees that inhabit these majestic tropical rainforests.

In new research, we and our co-authors found that mortality rates among these trees have doubled since the mid 1980s, most likely due to warmer air with greater drying power. Like coral reefs, these trees provide essential structure, energy and nutrients to their diverse and celebrated ecosystems.

A 50-year record

Our study was based on 20 plots of trees in rainforests in northeast Queensland, which were created and monitored in a project begun in 1971 by a forest scientist named Geoff Stocker.

These plots were later incorporated into the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area, and the monitoring has been carried on by CSIRO scientists based in Atherton, Queensland.

The plots are typically half a hectare (5,000m²) in size. In each plot the species and diameter of all trees larger than 10cm diameter at breast height were recorded.

The plots were revisited at intervals ranging from two to about five years. Tree diameters were recorded again, along with any new trees that had grown into the 10+cm size class, and any trees that had died.

Over the years, a few additional plots were initiated and contributed to our analyses. But these 20 provided a uniquely long record and formed the core of the dataset.

The lifespan of trees

With many plots visited multiple times, and many tree species on each plot, we were able to estimate the average percentage of trees in each species that died in a given year (the “annual mortality rate”). We also examined how this rate has changed over time.

Read more:
Trees aren’t a climate change cure-all – 2 new studies on the life and death of trees in a warming world show why

Until about the mid 1980s, the average annual mortality rate was around 1%. This means that any given year, each tree had about a one in 100 chance of dying.

This corresponds to an average tree lifespan of about 100 years.

However, beginning in the mid-1980s, the annual mortality rate began to increase. By the end of our dataset in 2019, the average annual mortality rate had doubled to 2%.

These results match a similar pattern in tree deaths in the Amazon rainforest at the same time, which suggests the increase in tropical tree mortality may be widespread.

A doubled annual mortality rate means that trees are only living half as long as they were, which means they are only storing carbon for half as long.

If the trend we observed is indicative of tropical forests in general, this could have big implications for the capacity of tropical forests to absorb and mitigate carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.

Thirsty air

What caused the increasing mortality rates of the tropical trees?

A first guess might be temperature stress: the average air temperature of the plots has increased in recent decades.

However, we did not find that temperature directly caused the increasing mortality rates. Instead the mortality rates correlated better with the drying power or “thirstiness” of the air, which scientists call the “air vapour pressure deficit”.

You’re probably familiar with the idea of relative humidity. It tells you how much water vapour there is in the air, as a percentage of the maximum amount the air can hold.

When temperatures rise, the air’s capacity to hold water vapour increases exponentially. Each degree of warming lets the air hold about 7% more water vapour.

So if the air temperature increases, and the relative humidity stays the same, the air will have a bigger capacity to take on more water vapour.

To a first approximation, this is what has happened with global warming. Air temperature has increased, relative humidity has remained approximately constant, and the air has become thirstier.

This means the drying power of the atmosphere (or “evaporative demand”) has increased. This is what we found best explained the increasing mortality rates in Australian tropical trees.

What’s next

If greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, both the air temperature and the air vapour pressure deficit will continue to increase. Our results suggest that in all likelihood this will cause a further acceleration in the increasing mortality rates of tropical rainforest trees.

Like coral reefs, tropical rainforests may then experience relatively rapid changes in species composition, biodiversity, and three-dimensional structure, threatening these prized Australian ecosystems as we know them. The best way to mitigate this threat is to urgently reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, in order to slow global warming and eventually stabilise the global climate system.

Read more:
Friday essay: trees have many stories to tell. Is this our last chance to read them?

Lucas Cernusak receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Susan Laurance receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. Climate change is killing trees in Queensland’s tropical rainforests – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-killing-trees-in-queenslands-tropical-rainforests-183215

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Murray Goot, Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations, Macquarie University

The number of voters the Coalition is attempting to sway in the final days of the campaign varies widely, depending on how the targeted voters are defined. But the historical precedent for success to which commentators refer isn’t persuasive.

The party leaders’ final policy announcements and campaign appearances are about shoring up support among voters not yet fully “committed”, pulling “softly committed” voters away from other parties, and persuading those with no clear party preference.

These are the voters pollsters more properly categorise as “don’t knows”, or perhaps “won’t says”, rather than “undecided” – a category that can apply to those who have indicated a choice but aren’t certain about it.

The media will puzzle endlessly over the effectiveness of the leaders’ appeals. Making sense of the evidence, based on varying notions of “commitment”, will be difficult.

The 2004 election is a key reference point. But evidence for a late swing, often said to have saved John Howard that year, needs to be examined carefully.

Opinion polls are designed to minimise the number of ‘don’t knows’

Opinion polls are designed to minimise the number of “don’t knows”. The greater the “don’t knows”, the greater the uncertainty about voting intentions and the more difficult it is to decide what to do with them.

Should pollsters ignore them on the grounds they will not vote or vote informal? Or find some other way of working out how they might vote?

Conveniently, pollsters also have a way of ensuring the number of “don’t knows” is small. Respondents who initially refuse to say how they intend to vote are usually asked to which party they are “leaning”. Thanks to this step, none of the polls report a “don’t know” figure of more than 7%.

None of the pollsters say how big the share of “don’t knows” is before the “leaning” question is asked. But the proportion is sure to be much greater than 7%.

The ultimate way of minimising the “don’t knows” is not to register them at all.

Jim Reed, who conducts the Resolve poll for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, insists respondents choose a party or independent: no “don’t knows” allowed.

But what of respondents who appear ‘decided’ but are not ‘committed’?

However, having forced respondents to choose, Resolve asks respondents: “How firm are you with your vote?”

In its latest poll, recent 86% of respondents are “committed”, 14% are “uncommitted” – a much bigger number than the “don’t knows” reported by other polls.

Party pollsters have their own ways of defining those voters who might be still be “in play”. They ask, for example, about the “hesitations” voters have about Labor/Albanese or the Liberals/Morrison.

The major parties obviously think carefully about the voters they might be able to shift from a minor party or independent, or between Labor and Liberal.

But they also hope to persuade voters who are going to vote first for other parties or independents, to preference them so that they get their vote, two-party preferred.

The numbers the parties are looking to influence vary, but they are much higher than the conventional “don’t knows” or Resolve’s “uncommitted”.

Ahead of the Liberals’s policy speech, the prime minister put the number of voters “either undecided or opting for a minor party of independents” at about 25%.

In the Weekend Australian, Dennis Shanahan put the number even higher. In addition to those intending to vote for minor parties or independents, he says, are those who are “officially uncommitted”, totalling “at least one in three voters”.

There are not enough ‘undecideds’ to neutralise Labor’s lead

Where the proportion that “don’t know” is small, and the gap on the two-party preferred wide – as it is in some, though not all, of the polls – the chances of the “don’t knows” making a difference isn’t great.

In theory, Labor needs 51.8% of the two-party vote to win.

So, even if the “don’t knows” split 2:1 in favour of the Coalition, this would only reduce the the gap in the Morgan poll from six points (47-53) to four (48-52) – not enough to prevent a Labor majority. In the Newspoll, it would reduce it to six (47-53).

The “uncommitted” vote offers the Coalition much greater hope. But caution is called for.

It’s not clear the number of “uncommitted” voters now is much greater than it has been at other elections.

More to the point, there have been few if any elections when, in the last week, it has been the “uncommitted” voters who have turned things around.

Take 2004 with a grain of salt

For those contemplating a boil-over, the 2004 election looms large.

Behind in the polls with about a week to go, the story goes, Howard wrong-footed Labor with his forests’ policy; Labor then shot itself in the other foot when Mark Latham, with a day to go, appeared to grab Howard’s hand and pull Howard towards him.

According to then Liberal campaign director, Brian Loughnane, Latham’s handshake generated more feedback to Liberal Party headquarters than anything else during the six-week campaign, and “brought together all the doubts and hesitations that people had about Mark Latham”.

But the Coalition’s support peaked not at the end of the campaign but in the first few weeks.

It went on to win by a massive majority: 24 seats. Well before the final week, the Coalition already had it won.

Whether or not the “uncommitted” prevent Labor winning this time, the part they played in securing the 2004 win for Howard is more Liberal legend than political science.

Murray Goot receives funding from no organisation but has received funding from the Australian Research Council and various government bodies and formal inquiries in the past.

– ref. Morrison is hoping for an election surprise but ‘uncommitted’ voters rarely turn things around in the final week – https://theconversation.com/morrison-is-hoping-for-an-election-surprise-but-uncommitted-voters-rarely-turn-things-around-in-the-final-week-183131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

With severe staffing cuts, pressures for instant productivity and a priority on producing clickbait, few would think we are in a golden age for journalism. Few, either, would think that the media have distinguished themselves in this election campaign.

There have been periods in the past – such as the last three years of Menzies’ reign or the first four to five years of the Fraser government – where the Canberra press gallery achieved peak passivity.

In my view, sadly, those periods are now matched by the gallery’s poor performance in the lead up to the 2022 election. Exploiting this passivity has also become a key part of the government’s re-election strategy.

Car parks and the 2019 campaign

During the 2019 election campaign, the Morrison government promised A$660 million to build 47 car parks near train stations, justified as part of its strategy to reduce urban congestion. Two-thirds of the car parks were in Melbourne, even though Sydney had a majority of the nation’s most congested roads, and three quarters of them were allotted to Liberal-held electorates.

The government pledged six to the marginal Liberal seat of Goldstein, and three to Liberal-held Dunkley. The Labor-held seat of Isaacs lies between these two, and has almost a dozen railway stations, but it was not allocated any. After Labor won Dunkley, two of the car parks were cancelled.

In June 2021, the auditor-general found that in the lead up to the government’s announcements, there were no data produced on current car parking, or commuter numbers, and decisions were made with no input from the relevant bureaucrats. Several of the projects involved funding from state or local governments, but little if any consultation had been had with those governments before the announcements. Tellingly, a major working document was titled “top 20 marginals”.

In November 2021, the government said that just three of the 47 car parks had been completed, and that work had started on another six.

À lire aussi :
The ‘car park rorts’ story is scandalous. But it will keep happening unless we close grant loopholes

Shrugging off the auditor-general

The government endured some embarrassment in July 2021 after the publication of the auditor-general’s report, but largely shrugged it off.

The infrastructure minister leading up to the 2019 election, Alan Tudge, denied ever having seen the document titled “top 20 marginals”, while Morrison avoided answering the question.

Finance Minister Simon Birmingham dismissed the criticism because the Coalition had won the 2019 election. Move over John Stuart Mill and Thomas Jefferson: according to the Birmingham Doctrine, democracy is anything you can get away with.

It was a policy cynically conceived and then cynically abandoned. It was based on the belief that thanks to media passivity and lack of curiosity, they could get away with it.

The Age/Sydney Morning Herald journalists Shane Wright and Katina Curtis did some excellent reporting digging into the auditor-general’s report – and government grants more generally – and there was a Senate inquiry and some freedom of information requests. But their efforts failed to generate traction elsewhere in the media.

The passivity continues: in October 2021, the government claimed 33 of the projects would be either completed or under construction by the end of 2022. I have not seen any media reports testing whether this assertion is still true.

Morrison won his gamble.

Part of a pattern

If the lack of news coverage of the broken promises on the car parks were a single example, it would be bad enough, but it seems to be part of a pattern.

After the Hayne banking royal commission reported in February 2019, the government said it would implement all its recommendations. Since then, it has quietly abandoned several of the key ones. The Age/Sydney Morning Herald economics editor Ross Gittins recently wrote a scathing column about it, but it has received little attention elsewhere.

Similarly, the government pledged to implement the recommendations of the aged care royal commission, released last year. How many media have since followed up their implementation? Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services Richard Colbeck has been allowed a convenient invisibility throughout the election campaign.

Early in the campaign, an excellent ABC Four Corners investigation by Linton Besser highlighted how well-connected company Aspen Medical had won several government contracts, some without any open tender process. Neither that report nor more general probing of whether the government’s widespread outsourcing has delivered value for money to the public has been widely pursued by the media.

Journalism is hard, but needs to be better

Media coverage is not helped by the fact the largest commercial employer of journalists in the country – News Corp – is simply a propaganda arm for the government, and their mediocrity sets a tone for others. Nor is performative aggression at media conferences a substitute for probing reporting.

The Morrison government has been able to campaign in the comfortable belief that with a few exceptions such as its failure to establish an integrity commission, its record over the past three years would not be subjected to probing examination by the news media.

À lire aussi :
Below the Line: What issues are politicians ignoring this election? – podcast

Rodney Tiffen ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. The media has reached ‘peak passivity’ in the lead up to the 2022 election – https://theconversation.com/the-media-has-reached-peak-passivity-in-the-lead-up-to-the-2022-election-183109

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law. President, Australian Association for Professional & Applied Ethics., Griffith University

It’s difficult to ask, but how many fatalities should Australia accept from COVID in 2022?

The World Health Organization says worldwide there were almost 15 million excess deaths in 2020–21 due to the pandemic.

In Australia, deaths have surged, with more than 5,600 so far this year and hundreds each week.

Some epidemiologists, including Mike Toole from the Burnet Institute and other public figures, are critical that little attention is being paid to these fatalities.

Public health officials are focused on hospitalisations, which remain relatively low, and the case fatality rate (the proportion of those with the illness who die), which is falling, in part due to the high vaccination rate. So governments are easing the remaining restrictions.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said yesterday that every COVID death was a “terrible loss” but Australians wanted to “move on”.

Do we have the balance right, from an ethics perspective?

Our ethical responsibilities

COVID policy-making and ethical decision-making are challenging, and there is room for a diversity of views. But there are three areas of responsibility we should focus on.

First, in the election run-up, voters deserve to know where each party stands, such as their intended policy response to any surge in fatalities (perhaps driven by a new virus variant). There also must be a review of lessons learned.

Second, we should each consider what we are personally willing to do for the wider community. Getting that booster, or vaccinating your children, can be both personally and socially worthwhile.

Third, our community has vulnerable people, for whom infection might be a death sentence. If we see someone wearing a mask and carefully socially distancing, we should respect their efforts. Above all, if you have any indication you might be infected, take extra care not to risk exposing others.

Leer más:
COVID mask mandates might be largely gone but here are 5 reasons to keep wearing yours

Simply put, the pandemic isn’t over yet, and we’re going to have to continue relying on each other.

Questions of political and personal ethics

When we’re thinking about how many COVID fatalities are acceptable, we need to distinguish the different ethical questions that face us.

One is the question of policy. What should our governments be doing in response to the high death toll? Should they employ some new mix of vaccine/booster mandates, lockdowns, contact-tracing, travel restrictions, mask mandates, and the like?

Then there’s the question of our own personal behaviour. We can all make efforts to limit the risk of spreading the virus to other, perhaps vulnerable, people.

Ethics is a higher standard than law, and not every moral obligation should be compelled by government.

Leer más:
Many places are starting to wind back COVID restrictions, but this doesn’t mean the pandemic is over yet

Guidance from ethical theory: utilitarianism

It can seem commonsense that we should do all we can to prevent harms to vulnerable people. But mainstream ethical theories resist this intuitive idea.

The theory of utilitarianism focuses purely on consequences. Utilitarianism tells us to maximise the sum total happiness of all sentient beings. While this approach can be very demanding, it would resist a stringent response to COVID, for two reasons.

First, utilitarianism gives no special obligation to fellow citizens. Because we live in a wealthy country, our best strategic investment is usually to look further afield, and to reduce global extreme poverty. This focus would be the same for COVID too, such as by directing our efforts to boost global vaccine efforts.

Second, utilitarianism will note that most COVID fatalities are among the elderly. Utilitarianism values all happiness equally – whether of a child or a 90-year-old.

But saving the life of a 90-year-old is likely only to net a few more years of happy existence. Saving the life of a child would likely deliver more than 20 times that number. In technical terms (such as those used by the World Health Organization), saving the child yields an enormous net gain in “disability-adjusted life-years” (DALYs).

For both these reasons, with widespread vaccination limiting COVID’s harms in Australia, the utilitarian would resist directing enormous efforts to constrain local fatalities.

Guidance from ethical theory: duties and rights

Another common ethical approach is to focus on actions rather than outcomes. For these duty-based approaches (the technical term is “deontological”), the end does not justify the means.

Unlike utilitarianism, duty-based approaches would allow us to prioritise locals. They also would be wary about discriminating between young and old, as all life is equally valuable.

Duty-based approaches hold we should avoid risking harm to others, and should be generous to those in need.

Leer más:
Disabled people are being left out of COVID recovery. Here are five ways to change that

However, because duty-based approaches value things like freedom, responsibility and integrity, they limit these obligations.

Sweeping obligations to save others erodes the space for people to pursue their chosen callings, fashion their own diverse life plans, and nurture close relationships.

Consider a comparison

Both ethical theories align in treating COVID consistently with other threats to life and well-being. This makes sense.

Consider one of the leading causes of death in Australia: cancer. Australia employs many policy responses to this ongoing threat. We ban asbestos and tax cigarettes. We publicly fund medical research and healthcare. We run campaigns to slip, slop, slap.

Yet we could do more. We could raise taxes and direct more resources into research and treatments. We could ban tobacco outright. We could even ban going to the beach during high-UV periods!

Instead – and taking a leaf from the ethical theories considered above – we direct our efforts towards impactful policies, and avoid intruding too far into people’s personal decision-making.

Sensible ethical responses to COVID will behave similarly. In terms of both public policy and personal decision-making, we need to remember the pandemic isn’t over yet. Just as we do for other serious threats to our lives and well-being, we will all have a continuing role to play.

Hugh Breakey no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. COVID has killed 5,600 Australians this year and the pandemic isn’t over. Ethics can shape our response – https://theconversation.com/covid-has-killed-5-600-australians-this-year-and-the-pandemic-isnt-over-ethics-can-shape-our-response-182765

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ruby Grant, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Tasmania

About one in three LGBTIQ+ voters are not sure who to vote for, or are considering changing who they vote for, this federal election, according to a survey by Equality Australia.

So, if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, queer or otherwise part of the rainbow community, you might be wondering what the major parties have to offer you.

Health care and LGBTIQ+ issues are among the top concerns for the roughly 850,000 LGBTIQ+ Australians eligible to vote this election. So let’s look at what each party has promised on health.

Read more:
Marriage equality was momentous, but there is still much to do to progress LGBTI+ rights in Australia

Labor

Improving health and aged care are central Labor platforms this election. Labor plans to make it easier to see a doctor, set up urgent care clinics, and cut costs of medications.

Labor has promised to consult more with LGBTIQ+ people about their health needs. It will support the national LGBTIQ+ mental health and support hotline, QLife, with a one-off grant to help the service reach more people. Labor also wants to set up a new taskforce to end Australia’s HIV epidemic.

LGBTIQ+ people would benefit from a stronger health system, but there is not much detail on how Labor’s health reforms would make health care more inclusive for LGBTIQ+ Australians.

Also missing from Labor’s health commitments is specific support for transgender people. Its 2021 national platform said it wanted to ban gay conversion practices and unnecessary medical treatment of intersex people, but these have not been election promises this year.

Read more:
Yes, words can harm young trans people. Here’s what we can do to help

The Greens

The Greens have also focused on affordable health care this election. They want to expand Medicare to include dental and mental health care by reinvesting private health insurance rebates into the public system.

Out of all the major parties, The Greens have made the most LGBTIQ+ specific commitments this election. They propose A$285 million “to ensure all LGBTIQ+ people have access to holistic and comprehensive health services regardless of whether they live in a capital city or a rural town”. There will be funding for LGBTIQ+ community-run organisations, health services and research.

The Greens will dedicate funding to cover out-of-pocket costs for trans people accessing gender affirming health care.

They also plan to commit $132 million to act on The Darlington Statement, which advocates for intersex people.

All these commitments might seem ambitious. But they are supported by research and recommendations from LGBTIQ+ organisations.

Read more:
Surgery to make intersex children ‘normal’ should be banned

Coalition

The Liberal Party promises support for primary and preventative health care, expansion of telehealth services, more funding for public and private hospitals, and cost cuts for private health insurance.

Its women’s health platform is based on an almost $54 million commitment to “make it easier for more Australians to become parents”. Aged care is also a big feature of its platform, as is mental health.

The Coalition assures voters it is “committed to supporting the mental health of the LGBTIQ+ community – particularly the LGBTIQ+ youth – as demonstrated by the ongoing investment in child and youth mental health and LGBTIQ+ specific programs and services”.

The Liberal Party recently announced a $4.2 million funding boost over three years for national services to support LGBTIQ+ mental health.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: On Katherine Deves, a hung parliament, and the new silence about COVID

However, the Coalition has a patchy history when it comes to LGBTIQ+ health. Liberal and National Party members have opposed marriage equality and LGBTIQ+ inclusive sex education.

Some Coalition members recently supported religious exemptions allowing discrimination against LGBTIQ+ staff and transgender students in faith-based schools.

Liberal Party candidate for Warringah, Katherine Deves, is vocally opposed to transgender women participating in women’s sport. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has defended Deves, wrongly saying “gender reversal surgery for young adolescents” is a “significant issue”.

Read more:
I’m a pediatrician who cares for transgender kids – here’s what you need to know about social support, puberty blockers and other medical options that improve lives of transgender youth

Call to focus on the real issues

Research shows discrimination and lack of access to inclusive services are the main contributors to the increased risk of mental health problems and suicide LGBTIQ+ people face.

Labor and the Coalition make big promises to fund and support mental health. But these efforts are undermined by both parties’ support for religious discrimination and their lack of leadership on transgender inclusion in health care and in public life more broadly.

When it comes to LGBTIQ+ issues this election, most have played out in the mainstream media as the “transgender issue”. However, this misses some of the real issues that matter to this community – freedom from discrimination and access to quality health care.

Ruby Grant is a board member of LGBTIQ+ advocacy group, Equality Tasmania. She has previously received research funding from the Tasmanian Government.

– ref. LGBTIQ+ and unsure how to vote? Here are what the major parties are promising on health – https://theconversation.com/lgbtiq-and-unsure-how-to-vote-here-are-what-the-major-parties-are-promising-on-health-183214

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University

Climate change and reducing emissions has figured little in the 2022 federal election campaign. But after many years of inadequate national climate policy, the need for sensible, long-term measures is now dire.

The first task of the government in Australia’s 47th parliament must be to increase the national emissions target for 2030. But this is just the first step. Australia urgently needs a proper policy framework to get the nation on a lower emissions path – systematically and for the long term.

A long to-do list on climate policy awaits the new government and those that follow. The issues before us are too difficult, too important and too pressing to abandon them to political point-scoring or ideological zealotry.

The to-do list

Years of climate policy inaction has left plenty of low-hanging fruit ready for the next government to harvest.

On Australia’s emissions reduction out to 2030, the Coalition already expects to do better than the existing 26-28% target. If returned to government, the Coalition could formally raise the target – but presumably there would be no appetite to raise it by much.

Labor has pledged 43% emissions reduction by 2030 – a target, like the Coalition, based on 2005 emissions levels. But that still falls short of the 46-50% cut urged by the Business Council of Australia, and is far less that the pledges of many other developed countries.

A meaningful target is needed to bolster confidence to low-carbon investors and signal to our international peers that we’re playing our part.

The next government needs to ensure continued private investment for new renewable energy generation, and help bring power infrastructure online quickly and affordably. That means meaningful reform in the national electricity market and working constructively with the states.

And however much it may go against political instinct, the next government must face up to the coal industry’s coming decline. It will need to manage coal plant closures without delaying the renewables transition, and plan for the inevitable fall in export demand for coal and later, gas.

Economies in regions such as central Queensland and the Hunter Valley in New South Wales will change. The federal government has a role in helping prepare for this, again in collaboration with the states.

Importantly, the next federal government must push Australia’s industrial sector to get more energy efficient and shift to renewables. That will keep energy-intensive industries globally competitive in the long term.

Making the existing “safeguards mechanism” effective is the obvious way to start. It should become a “baseline and credit” scheme covering all medium and large industrial polluters, with financial penalties for being above an emissions threshold and financial incentives for being below.

This would create a quasi-carbon price that can later be the stepping stone to a comprehensive carbon pricing scheme. Carbon taxes and emissions trading are widespread elsewhere in the world and a natural part of a comprehensive climate policy package.

The next government must help ensure the transition to electric cars, trucks and trains is smooth, speedy and fair – including through road tax reform. And it should adjust policy and regulation to further decentralise our energy system, including having electric cars providing power to the grid when and where needed.

In the building sector, we need meaningful national energy efficiency standards, low-carbon construction requirements and a push away from gas for heating.

Read more:
No, Mr Morrison. Minority government need not create ‘chaos’ – it might finally drag Australia to a responsible climate policy

But what about the cost? Many politicians have created fear by claiming strong climate action means economic doom. In reality, many carbon-saving investments pay for themselves over time in the form of lower energy costs. Others cost extra but bring benefits such as cleaner air and more secure energy supplies.

The decline of fossil fuel exports will hurt Australia economically, but this is out of our hands. The task here is to foster economic diversification, which should be central in national industry policy.

Beyond the question of lower emissions, it’s high time the federal government got serious about adapting to climate damage that’s already happening and will worsen.

The task for the next government, then, is to help make happen the large investments that will safeguards Australia’s future. This message should be attractive to politicians who want to be seen as leaders.

Making it happen

There is also more work to do to deeply understand the pathways to a cleaner economy in Australia, the problems we face and the opportunities that can be ours.

As just one example, properly funded science will help Australian agriculture progress towards the net-zero emissions goal. It would also help the sector better understand how to respond to challenges such as changed growing conditions and more frequent or severe floods and bushfires.

As a nation, we must also get serious about identifying where and how Australia could become a major player in the energy and commodity industries of a low-carbon world. Australia could be a major international supplier of clean energy and zero-carbon commodities.

To get there requires building trust and bringing everyone along.

Net-zero as a rallying point

So where to begin for the next government? A good start would be convening an inclusive process towards a proper, long-term strategy for Australia to reduce its emissions.

The goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 is a rare point of general agreement on climate policy – both across the political spectrum and among the main lobby groups.

But how might we get there? What will it mean for different industries and regions? Where do the economic upsides lie? What are the social pressure points? Finding answers to these questions should be the basis for a real national conversation – one that includes businesses, unions, communities, non-government organisations, the research sector and the media.

Such a process would be very different from that behind the document accompanying the Coalition government’s net-zero announcement late last year. Whoever is in government next has the chance to run an inclusive process that fully maps out the options and implications of net-zero.

Read more:
Scott Morrison attends pivotal global climate talks today, bringing a weak plan that leaves Australia exposed

A new politics

Whether the next government likes it or not, it will have to deal with climate policy. Obviously, the election outcome will be the key determinant for how far the next government is willing to go.

A Labor government would clearly plan to do more than a returned Coalition government. Either is likely to do more if governing in a parliamentary minority and supported by pro-climate independents.

Yet to get strong, wholehearted action at federal level would require a sea change in politics that presently is not on the cards. The climate wars of yesteryear are the root problem.

At some point this decade, however, Australia needs a complete political reset on climate policy. In a world that needs to act urgently and deeply on climate change, the political contest should be over how best to do much more.

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

Frank Jotzo does not have affiliations or funding sources that are relevant, or likely to be perceived to be relevant, to the subject of this article.

– ref. ‘A new climate politics’: the 47th parliament must be a contest of ideas for a hotter, low-carbon Australia – https://theconversation.com/a-new-climate-politics-the-47th-parliament-must-be-a-contest-of-ideas-for-a-hotter-low-carbon-australia-182770

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Stanford, Economist and Director, Centre for Future Work, Australia Institute; Honorary Professor of Political Economy, University of Sydney

Every three months the Bureau of Statistics releases the lesser-known cousin of the consumer price index. It’s called the Wage Price Index (WPI) and it records changes in the overall level of wages, in the same way the price index records changes in the overall level of consumer prices.

Rarely does it generate headlines, but coming three days before an election and showing the worst performance ever compared with the consumer price index, it has provided concrete evidence that the buying power of wages is shrinking.

Contrary to hopes that lower unemployment would spark higher wages growth, the WPI barely budged in the year to March: climbing 2.4%, up from 2.3% in the year to December.

The consumer price index for the year to March grew twice as fast, by 5.1%

It means real wages (the buying power of wages) shrank 2.7% over the year to March in aggregate – one of the fastest and steepest declines ever.

Since March, during the election campaign, interest rates have been pushed up, further adding to the cost of living.

Read more:
Are real wages falling? Here’s the evidence

Coming right at the end of the campaign, the news reinforces a traditional Labor concern (living costs) and diminishes a traditional Coalition selling point (superior economic management).

And it’s a full frontal challenge to conventional economics.

Here are just three of the conventional thoughts it has thrown into doubt.

Wages are determined by supply and demand

Conventional economics treats the price of labour like the price of any other commodity (such as fruit at a market), determined by supply (if there’s too much the price will fall) and demand (if a lot of people want it the price will rise).

That is held to mean that, even if there is still some unemployment, wages will grow faster if employers find it hard to find workers (as they are now) and slower if workers find it hard to find jobs (as was the case when unemployment was higher).

There is said to be a special unemployment rate – the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, NAIRU – below which wages will start to grow quickly, entrenching accelerating inflation.

The problem is that the NAIRU can’t easily be observed, and moves around.

Read more:
Despite record vacancies, Australians shouldn’t expect big pay rises soon

The Treasury and Reserve Bank once believed NAIRU was close to 7%, then 6%, then 5% or lower. Now they are
not sure it exists.

With unemployment well below the rates they once believed would push up the growth rate, there is growing doubt about whether it can.

Part of the reason is that unlike the market for fruit (or pork bellies or flat whites), institutions and bargaining power affect what happens to wages in addition to supply and demand. De-unionisation, insecure work, and deregulation of the wage-setting process have shifted the balance of power away from workers.

Labour markets are flexible

Decades of changes to Australia’s wage-setting system were sold as allowing labour markets to respond more smoothly to changes in supply and demand, ensuring workers were more closely paid in accordance with what they produced (productivity).

But a lot of (anti-worker) rigidity remains. One source is punitive public sector pay caps, which even the Reserve Bank says are contributing to weak wage growth.

Another is greenfield enterprise agreements, which lock in predetermined pay rates for years.

Inflation originates in the labour market

Anthony Albanese sparked an important debate when he said wages should at least keep up with inflation.

Scott Morrison said this would be like “throwing throwing fuel on the fire” of inflation. But Wednesday’s figures seem to indicate that inflation has a life of its own. It is soaring while wages growth is not.

And after adjusting for productivity growth (which has been surprisingly resilient, averaging 2% per year for the past two years), unit labour costs have grown the slowest in years, by just 1.5% per year since 2019.

Whatever is causing inflation, it isn’t firms passing on higher wage costs to their customers. Some are passing on higher profit margins. In anything, what we are experiencing is more like profit-price inflation than wage-price inflation.

During the COVID crisis, profits climbed to a record high as a share of GDP while labour compensation (mainly wages) fell to its lowest point in postwar history.

While economic truisms are being reassessed, voters are in the process of coming to grips with what stubbornly low wages growth means for them. Many more of them make their living by selling their labour than by taking profits.

Jim Stanford is a member of the Australian Services Union

– ref. Proof positive. Real wages are shrinking, Wednesday’s figures put it beyond doubt – https://theconversation.com/proof-positive-real-wages-are-shrinking-wednesdays-figures-put-it-beyond-doubt-183343