Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dougal Sutherland, Clinical Psychologist, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

After more than two years of disruptions, lockdowns and uncertainty, employers are facing a new reckoning in 2022: getting staff back into the office.

Dubbed by some the “great hybrid return to work”, employers across a range of industries are being forced to consider what the work environment will look like for staff.

In an environment where labour is tight, just how much can businesses prod employees to come back into the office? And how can bosses design a solution to meet the needs of the collective after more than two years of work-from-home flexing where individual choice has reigned supreme?

This reckoning isn’t isolated to New Zealand, with stories from the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia painting a picture of a world that has fundamentally shifted, and the dawn of what may well become the work-from-home decade.

Granted, not all employees can work from home. Some never have, as they’ve continued to show up on the front line in hospitals, grocery stores and emergency response call outs. But research suggests those who got a taste of working from home are hungry for more.

Placing emphasis on coordination

A 2022 report from Stanford University heralds the benefits of a hybrid approach to work, acknowledging that most – but not all – staff benefit from a bit of time at home and a bit of time in the office.

Read more:
Stressed out working from home? Consider a hotel day pass

The Stanford recommendation is to coordinate the return to the office with agreed days (for example, Tuesday through Thursday in office, Monday and Friday at home) and reassess at the end of the year to create a long-term plan.

This copy and paste plan certainly won’t work for all workplaces but it suggests there is some merit to a coordinated approach.

Fairness as key

Social connection isn’t the only reason some researchers are advocating for a hybrid working model where teams come in on the same agreed-upon days.

This approach can maximise fairness and equity, thereby boosting diversity and inclusion. Having teams in one place at the same time ensures equitable information transfer and opportunities for development and promotion.

This could be especially pertinent for working parents, who may already face difficulty or discrimination from working flexibly or taking parental leave, and for minority groups that have traditionally been pipped at the post for promotions or mentoring opportunities.

Read more:
Working from home: How classism covertly dominated the conversation

Fairness, one of the key protective factors against burnout at work, helps to offset feelings of cynicism, anger or indignation.

Decisions about returning to the office should be transparent and clearly communicated. And while individual approaches may be necessary, plans for work should equally advantage all groups – senior leaders and entry-level graduates alike.

Ask, don’t assume

What works for some won’t work for all, so employers should talk to their employees. This simple advice applies as much to the general well-being of employees as it does to the structure of the work week.

By engaging in genuine conversations with staff and including them in the decision making process, leaders can build and maintain a level of trust that is essential to a strong culture of well-being in the workplace and can ensure the diverse needs of employees are met.

While everyone is neck deep in the process of discovering a new normal, employers should take the opportunity to really tap into the specific wants and needs of their employees by implementing a consultation process.

This may mean providing various options for people to give input, such as informal check-ins (face-to-face, text or otherwise) or more formal meetings and forums; this formal and informal communication can be complemented by anonymous employee surveys to capture opinions that some people may find hard to give in person.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to launch a new way of working that meets the needs of employees and allows them to participate in the process of strengthening support and well-being in the workplace.

Build back better

While many leaders may bemoan the reluctance of their employees to return to the office, citing a reduction in collaboration and information sharing in the work-from-home setup, it’s worth asking whether pre-COVID office spaces really that much better.

Open plan offices, the norm for many modern workplaces, can actually increase stress responses in the body and, paradoxically, reduce collaboration, well-being and engagement.

How do businesses strike a balance between opportunities for collaboration and information sharing, while protecting an employee’s individual well-being?

With the aim to build back better, employers need to consider adapting office space in a way that is fit for connection as well as focus, with multiple breakout spots, intentional collaboration opportunities and quiet working zones.

Businesses should harness the power of hybrid working too – perhaps utilising work-from-home days for deep work, with a “no meetings” rule and reserved in-person office days for collaborative working and catch-ups.

The next six months will undoubtedly be a period of trial and error for many businesses as they look to encourage workers back to the office. Following the simple rules – “ask, don’t assume” and “keep it fair” – may go a long way to ensuring the return to the office is helpful for employees and organisations alike.

Gaynor Parkin and Dr Amanda Wallis from Umbrella Wellbeing contributed to this article.

Dougal Sutherland works for Victoria University of Wellington and Umbrella Wellbeing

– ref. The age of hybrid working is here – how can businesses find the right mix between office and home? – https://theconversation.com/the-age-of-hybrid-working-is-here-how-can-businesses-find-the-right-mix-between-office-and-home-182595

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greta Nabbs-Keller, Senior Research Affiliate UQ Centre for Policy Futures, The University of Queensland

This is part of a foreign policy election series looking at how Australia’s relations with the world have changed since the Morrison government came into power in 2019. You can read the other pieces here.

Prior to September 2021, the Coalition had a largely positive scorecard on Southeast Asia relations.

But the announcement of Australia’s security deal with the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS) to acquire nuclear-powered submarines caused a serious rupture in our relations with Southeast Asia.

Further, the recently-signed security pact between the Solomon Islands and China highlights the ongoing complexities of China’s role in the Pacific and Southeast Asia.

The increasing gravitation of Southeast Asian countries into China’s orbit isn’t a fundamental failure of Australian foreign policy. It’s based largely on profound shifts in the balance of economic, political and military power in the Indo-Pacific that’s seen China’s influence grow exponentially.

But the challenge is one in which the Coalition government appears increasingly ill-equipped to manage.

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

Morrison’s track record in Southeast Asia

The Coalition’s track record was mostly positive up until the AUKUS announcement.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison built successfully on Malcolm Turnbull’s rapport with Indonesian President Joko Widodo.

This was in contrast to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whose clumsy responses to espionage allegations and the “Bali Nine” drug case did little to endear him to Indonesia’s political leaders.

The Coalition’s policy initiatives on Vietnam have also been commendable. In 2018 the relationship between Australia and Vietnam was elevated to a “comprehensive strategic partnership”. This will broaden cooperation between the two countries, including on defence and security. This is based on Vietnam’s closer alignment with Australia in the face of China’s maritime coercion.

In 2020, Australia signed onto the world’s largest free trade agreement with ten ASEAN member states, China and other Asia-Pacific countries called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

This has further cemented Australia’s economic integration with major trading partners in the region.

The pandemic exposed the inadequate health infrastructure and vulnerable informal employment sectors of many Southeast Asian countries.

In response, the Morrison government quickly pivoted its aid program to COVID relief. It channelled $480 million to our hardest-hit regional neighbours.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg provided a $1.5 billion loan to Indonesia in late 2020 as the country’s finances struggled with the effects of COVID.

Read more:
While rich countries experience a post-COVID boom, the poor are getting poorer. Here’s how Australia can help

AUKUS rupture

However, the Morrison government’s September 2021 AUKUS announcement created a serious rupture in Australia’s relations with Southeast Asia.

The nuclear-powered submarine deal – formulated in secret between Australia, the UK, and the US – threatened to undermine Australia’s foreign policy independence and credibility in Southeast Asia.

It also challenged long-established ASEAN norms opposing the presence of nuclear weapons.

Among ASEAN states it was received most negatively by its largest member state, Indonesia, whose foreign ministry demanded immediate clarification from the Morrison government.

Indonesia perceived the AUKUS agreement – and the informal “Quad” alliance comprising Japan, the US, Australia and India – as anti-China coalitions which would escalate tensions.

The spat highlights Australia and Indonesia’s increasingly divergent regional outlooks. It also highlights longstanding issues in the relationship. Indonesia believes there’s a lack of respect from Australia and that Canberra has failed to consult adequately with Jakarta on vital foreign policy issues.

Whichever party forms government after the election will have to contend with this.

Labor’s wedge

The Solomon Islands security deal with China has dramatically shifted the election dynamic. It has provided Labor with a wedge issue to argue the Coalition is incompetent on national security and regional foreign policy.

Prior to the security agreement, there was little substantive difference between Labor and the Coalition on Southeast Asia.

Where Labor has differentiated itself from the Coalition is in its increased policy commitment to Southeast Asia, its pledge to reverse cuts in Australia’s aid and diplomatic resources, and its regional climate change focus.

Now sensing a political advantage, Labor has flagged a further $525 million in foreign aid for the Pacific if elected. This recalibration of Labor’s regional foreign policy platform will likely extend to Southeast Asia with further announcements planned.

Anti-China rhetoric is currently at fever pitch in the Coalition government. For Australia to be successful in Southeast Asia, governments of both political persuasions require a more sophisticated narrative on the role of China in the region to avoid alienation from key partners.

Governments must also respect the sustainable economic development priorities of Southeast Asian countries on their own terms, not just as pawns in a larger geopolitical game.

On this point, it seems Labor is leading.

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

– ref. How well has the Morrison government handled relations with Southeast Asia? – https://theconversation.com/how-well-has-the-morrison-government-handled-relations-with-southeast-asia-181958

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gery Karantzas, Associate professor in Social Psychology / Relationship Science, Deakin University

The “36 questions of love” have taken the dating world by storm.

First published in 1997 as part of scientific research into relationships, the 36 questions of love gained global popularity through Mandy Len Catron’s viral 2015 New York Times essay “To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This”.

In that essay, she outlines how she used the 36 questions with a university acquaintance on a casual night out. The result was the two fell in love, not dissimilar to two research participants who took part in the study back in 1997.

In the publishing of that essay, a phenomenon was born. Social media, dating websites, dating coaches and bloggers were posting, writing or discussing the 36 questions of love – often framing these questions as a surefire method to find love – backed by science.

As people attempted the 36 questions of love during dates, it became clear the 36 questions typically did not result in people falling in love.

Read more:
Have you found ‘the one’? How mindsets about destiny affect our romantic relationships

What are the 36 questions?

The 36 questions are three sets of 12 questions. Each set is designed to increase the amount of information a person discloses about themselves to a stranger.

Not only does each set of questions increase the amount each person must disclose, but within each set, the questions increase the level of disclosure as they progress.

For example, one question in the first set includes “For what in your life do you feel most grateful?” The second set includes questions such as “What is your most treasured memory?”

The final set, which requires the greatest disclosure, includes questions such as “When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?”.

Read more:
Bridgerton offers clever relationship advice — why friendship is the foundation of happy romantic partnerships

Are the 36 questions a scientific hoax?

To answer this, one needs to go back to the original paper published by well-known relationships researcher Arthur Aron and colleagues.

The research aim was to determine if progressively increasing disclosure increases closeness between two strangers. The research was not designed to test whether the questions lead to love.

Across three studies, Aron and colleagues found support for the idea that a gradual increase in disclosure between strangers is related to an increase in closeness immediately after the experiment.

The original research never measured whether people developed feelings of love directly after the experiment or in the future. However, the final study did a brief follow-up with most matched pairs of participants.

Read more:
What is love?

Seven weeks after participating in the study, it was found 57% of the matched pairs had a follow-up conversation, 35% did something together (no more details were provided), and 37% went on to sit together in class. But again, none of these findings have anything to do with people finding love and going on to have a long-term relationship.

If indeed the 36 questions helped Mandy Len Canton find love, that is a positive thing. However, for the dating world to generalise about the love-generating properties of the 36 questions on the basis of one popularised case speaks to how pop culture can heavily misconstrue science.

What does actually lead to love?

Those of us who study how people fall in love and what makes for a lasting relationship know there are many ingredients that go into making a relationship work.

Some of these include:

• the importance people place on what they want in the ideal partner

• people’s similarities and differences

• people’s history of past relationships

• styles of dealing with conflict

• ability to support and respond to a partner in stressful times

• the alignment of partners’ beliefs, values and goals

• each person’s level of commitment and the ability to regulate emotions

(and these are just some of the factors).

Read more:
There are six styles of love. Which one best describes you?

What should we take away from the 36 questions?

The point of the research conducted by Aron and his colleagues is self-disclosure and enhancing closeness are two factors that matter within the larger scheme of factors.

The other important point is the 36 questions provide a structured way to engage in self-disclosure.

Research has shown relationships can falter when people disclose too much about themselves early on in the dating process.

When people do not know each other well, it can be overwhelming for a person to hear very intimate and personal details about another. They may not know how to respond to the disclosure, or feel uncomfortable themselves. This can result in the person who disclosed coming away from the interaction feeling invalidated and vulnerable.

On the other hand, when a person feels their partner responds to their disclosures and vulnerabilities, relationship intimacy is enhanced.

But it is a high bar to set early in a relationship to expect a partner to respond appropriately to another who discloses highly personal information about oneself. Generally speaking, over-disclosure in the early stages of relationships can be problematic, especially for those who are anxious about their relationships.

So taking a gradual and measured approach to self-disclosure and ensuring each partner has the opportunity to disclose at a comfortable pace is very important.

The 36 questions are unlikely to be a “surefire” way to find love, but they can help people understand the importance of taking a gradual approach to self-disclosure. Finding love doesn’t have to be a race.

Gery Karantzas receives funding from the Australian Research Council, he is also the founder of relationshipscienceonline.com

– ref. Do those viral ’36 questions’ actually lead to finding love? – https://theconversation.com/do-those-viral-36-questions-actually-lead-to-finding-love-176984

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Shine, President, Australian Academy of Science; Laboratory Head, Garvan Institute

The longer you live through a crisis, the less likely you are to fully appreciate that you’re in one. This is especially true if there is more than one crisis, and they overlap.

In Australia, we’ve experienced several in the past few years: bushfires and floods turbo-charged by climate change, and an enduring pandemic. These events have all taken place during my time as President of the Australian Academy of Science. As my term draws to a close, I’ve paused to reflect on how we’ve managed these overlapping events.

My observation is this: our natural human ability to absorb and respond to the shock and stress of a crisis, while usually a strength, is not serving us well when it comes to complex and sustained crises. Put differently, we appear to have become complacent. Perhaps a better explanation is that we have “crisis fatigue”.

How else to explain the lack of discussion about the fundamental role of science during this election campaign?

Our future depends on science

There has been no serious national dialogue concerning climate change and very little talk about the pandemic, which is not over nor likely to be our last. Next to nothing has been said of the role of science in supporting our defence and national security and its role in equipping the public with essential life skills.

Science is about far more than crisis management. It’s about how we understand our present and future, and realise our potential as people.

Both major parties talk about a stronger and better future, with a growing economy and more jobs. But what should this look like?

The Australian Academy of Science offers four recommendations:

• secure the scientific base through a long-term investment strategy for science
• establish a Parliamentary Science Office
• undertake a national, whole-of-government review of the science and research system
• advance a cohesive, national approach to secure jobs through the translation of science to industry.

A long-term investment strategy for science

A strong science sector relies on long-term, consistent and coherent government funding to support discovery and innovation. In investment terms, this is “patient capital” which doesn’t expect quick or easy returns.

This patience can eventually have huge rewards. For example, long-term funding allowed the fundamental understanding of RNA technologies which meant scientists developed a COVID-19 vaccine in less than a year.

Read more:
Messenger RNA: how it works in nature and in making vaccines

However, Australia’s investment in research and development as a percentage of GDP has declined over the past decade.

In 2021 the Australian government’s investment was 0.56% of GDP, behind nations such as Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France and the United States. Research shows that if Australia lifts investment in university R&D by just 1%, the economy would be $24 billion bigger over ten years.

Independent, expert advice for parliament

Fiscal and budget policy are complex matters, and not all politicians can be experts. That’s why parliament has a Parliamentary Budget Office to provide independent, non-partisan analysis.

Matters of science are complex too, and becoming more so every day. To make good decisions, our parliament, justice system and public square need ready access to the best available science.

So why doesn’t Australia have a Parliamentary Science Office?

Such an office, modelled on the United Kingdom’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, would provide impartial scientific advice, evidence and data to all parliamentarians.

Our politicians must be better equipped to distinguish between evidence and fiction, while understanding how science works and how our knowledge base rapidly evolves.

Review science and research funding

In 2019–20, Industry Innovation and Science Australia reported that the Australian government’s innovation, science and research investment was split across 202 programs and 13 portfolios.

This fragmentation is indefensible, made worse because few funding programs, if any, provide enough money to cover the actual cost of research. This means researchers have to secure multiple grants for work that a single grant would cover in a fit-for-purpose system.

The next government must urgently conduct a whole-of-government review to identify the best operation, funding arrangements and architecture of the Australian science and research system to provide for a secure foundation for at least the next 20 years.

Translating science to industry

Applying the knowledge gained from fundamental science underpins the long-term health, security and prosperity of Australians. Australia needs a sustained and secure translation fund to turn science into innovative technologies and other solutions to the challenges we face in an uncertain and rapidly changing world.

Australia must also introduce a coherent strategy to develop education and training programs along with career incentives to deliver the highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce we need to seize and grow the opportunities offered by a strong science base.

A moment of truth

As election day approaches, Australia faces a moment of truth. Science can grow the knowledge economy to secure our future economic and social prosperity and prepare us to deal with the known and unknown events that the 21st century will present.

But for that to happen, the next government must prioritise and invest in science and ensure decisions are informed by evidence. At a minimum, anyone wanting to lead our nation should also lay out their vision for science at the final leaders’ debate this Wednesday evening.

John Shine has previously received funding from the National health and Medical Research Council .

– ref. Australia’s future depends on science. Here’s what our next government needs to do about it – https://theconversation.com/australias-future-depends-on-science-heres-what-our-next-government-needs-to-do-about-it-182756

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Rolfe, Honorary lecturer, School of Social Sciences, UNSW Sydney

The 2022 election campaign seems longer than Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow. And there is still ten days to go. But that does not mean the whole thing is without lighter moments.

Humour is an important and inescapable tool of persuasion used by politicians, parties and their allies during election campaigns.

What are we seeing in 2022?

Neither Prime Minister Scott Morrison or Labor leader Anthony Albanese are renowned as great wits, in contrast to Gough Whitlam and other former prime ministers who thrived in more freewheeling times.

Instead, humour is now a campaign function that can be supplied by party or non-party specialists – not necessarily comedy specialists – as part of heavily managed campaigns.

The power of a joke

Humour is a funny thing because of its many ways, receptions and uses. It is not always light-hearted and inoffensive, as fans of Ricky Gervais or Chris Rock know.

Many of us think celebrities deserve such ridicule, just as we think politicians deserve mockery laced with malice or schadenfreude. Our tradition of stereotyping politicians as corrupt began 300 years ago with satirists such as Jonathan Swift, the writer of Gulliver’s Travels.

Read more:
Funny, that: why humour is a hit-and-miss affair on the election campaign trail

Humour is not always subversive in politics, although comedians like Australia’s Charlie Pickering think their work speaks “truth to power”. After all, it can be used to reinforce community values or discipline those who step outside social conventions, for instance in the struggle against racism.

Humour as a campaign tool

Humour can also be a positive campaign tool, enhancing the credibility of politicians, even if by association.

Independent candidate Zoe Daniel appeared in a session of the recent Melbourne Comedy Festival with advocate Grace Tame and comedian and anti-fossil fuel campaigner Dan Ilic. Apart from looking like a good sport she also benefited from their mockery of her Liberal opponent in Goldstein, Tim Wilson, and Morrison.

Clearly, humour can be used by a party as a negative tool when getting an audience to laugh at an opponent and diminish their reputation.

To these ends, memes have been important tools since the 2016 federal election, repurposing culture with ironic humour in order to reach disengaged voters.

This continued in 2019 with the Liberals aiming to dominate the digital conflict with lots of posts. However, this means quantity can come at the expense of humorous quality.

The 2022 campaign

This time, the Liberals seem to replaying their success of three years ago with humour, focusing their efforts on Facebook (aimed at all ages) and, to a lesser extent, Instagram but not Twitter.

Since the start of the election campaign on April 10, the Liberals have had a clear lead in Facebook numbers. The federal Liberals have 1.1 million followers and had 1.69 million interactions and 1.96 million video views compared to Labor with 509,000, 1.21 million and 1.21 million.

But the Liberals have declined from a big start and Labor has caught up on average number of daily posts and getting better interaction rates.

Liberal humour hasn’t always garnered great success because of the strategy of quantity over quality. This includes a mock poster for “a new series by Flip-flop-flix”.

According to the Crowdtangle research tool, it only got 1.3 times less interactions than the average comparable Liberal post. Similar under-performing videos include the “Chronicles of Marles” at -1.7 times and a Star Wars themed post at -3.2 times with only 1,800 views.

The Liberal’s 007 meme – “flip-flopped, not stirred” – fared modestly well according to Crowdtangle, with 6.3 times the average (5,300 reactions, 1,000 comments and 1,000 shares), according to the Facebook ad library. A Gump meme, received a score of 5.7 times and more than 7,000 interactions.

Some Liberal videos have also done modestly well. One that edited Albanese into an appearance before Judge Judy received about 23,500 views. This falls short of their standard “serious” posts criticising Albanese, such as two focusing on his failure to remember the unemployment rate which got 160,000 and 80,000 views, according to Crowdtangle.

Labor jokes

Labor has been focusing its efforts more on Instagram and on TikTok, where we know younger voters spend most of their time. Only 23% of under 35s voted for the Coalition in 2019, so this is an important demographic for the ALP.

On TikTok, Labor has a huge lead, with 76,400 followers, 1.6 million likes and 3.4 million views since April 10. This is compared to the Greens with 15,000, 206,800 and 1.47 million respectively and the Liberal Party with 1,900, 22,700 and 499,000.

Labor has been using its channel to poke fun at Morrison’s “raw” chicken curry and has made use of well-known marmot footage to joke about the absence of disgraced education minister Alan Tudge during the campaign.

One Labor post with about 157,000 views depicts Morrison as a brute from the video game Halo bashing young people and making housing unaffordable, playing on their fears about the issue.

Another Labor TikTok with about 23,000 views splices a blinking Morrison replying, “It’s not my job” to Princess Leia from Star Wars begging for help.

Other players

Non-party players are also helping to fight the election with humour.

Controversial political commentator and comedian Jordan Shanks (also known as Friendlyjordies) is not an ALP contractor but is effectively a Labor party satirist in the same fashion that Swift was for the Tories in the 18th century. Shanks openly advocates for Labor and has the advantage of being more risque than the party can be. He regularly gets between 150,000 and 500,000 views on Youtube and on Tiktok.

Similarly, satirical website Juice Media usually excoriates the “shit-fuckery” of the Coalition in “honest government ads”. The latest instalment has so far earned more than 500,000 views and supports the “not-shit” independents.

What does this mean?

Labor’s internal review of the 2019 election found the party had dropped behind the Coalition when it came to digital strategy.

But this time, the record seems more mixed when it comes to humour. Of course, we await post-election analysis, but it is clear both parties view humour as a serious way of undermining their opponents.

Yet, there is no assurance that a catchy meme or a clever pop culture reference will convert voters to either party’s policies or leaders. It is possible they can be preaching to the converted, which is fine for bolstering political identity but not for boosting votes among the uncommitted.

Mark Rolfe 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. Election humour 2022: can the major parties win votes with a funny marmot or a joke about Star Wars? – https://theconversation.com/election-humour-2022-can-the-major-parties-win-votes-with-a-funny-marmot-or-a-joke-about-star-wars-182292

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

With voting already underway, and the sausage sizzle less than two weeks away, there are three things worth knowing if you are trying to work out which side is most likely to win:

• the likely result in terms of the two-party preferred vote
• the record of the electoral pendulum, based on the two-party preferred vote, in predicting election outcomes, and
• the record of the opinion polls in predicting how far the electoral pendulum is likely to swing.

Here’s how are they used together to predict a result.

Read more:
As the election campaign begins, what do the polls say, and can we trust them this time?

The two-party preferred

The two-party preferred vote (which compares Labor and the Coalition) combines the first preferences with second or other preferences.

If Labor wins 51%, the Coalition wins 49%, and vice versa; the numbers always add up to 100.

But the two-party preferred, on its own, is not enough to predict the outcome of the election. You also need to get your head around the electoral pendulum.

The electoral pendulum

Devised by psephologist Malcolm Mackerras in 1972, the pendulum lists the seats held by Labor and the Coalition in ascending order of their two-party preferred results.

There are various versions of the electoral pendulum online, but the ABC’s is regarded as definitive.

The 2022 pendulum is based on the results of the 2019 election, adjusted for subsequent changes in electoral boundaries in Victoria and WA.

Nominate a national two-party preferred vote, and the pendulum promises to predict each side’s share of the seats.

True, this promise has been fulfilled only twice in the 19 elections held since 1972.

But it’s usually quite close; at four elections it has fallen short by only one seat, and at eight by no more than two or three. Not a bad record.

More importantly, the pendulum has only twice failed to predict which side would form government:

• in 1998, when Labor won 51% of the two-party preferred result but got 12 fewer seats than the pendulum predicted, a result that allowed John Howard to survive; and
• in 2010, when the Coalition won 49.9% of the two-party preferred – enough, on the pendulum, for an Abbott victory – only to see Labor bag five more seats than the pendulum anticipated, allowing Julia Gillard to form a minority Labor government.

As 2010 illustrates, the side that gets more than half the votes won’t necessarily get more than half the seats. Rather, the pendulum works off the margins by which seats are held.

At this election, Labor needs substantially more than 50% of the two-party preferred vote – 51.8% according to the pendulum – to win the majority of seats, 76. This equates to a swing of 3.3 percentage points.

How big a challenge is that? Since the war, there have been 29 elections. Labor increased its share of the two-party preferred vote in 13.

But in only six did it do so by 3.3 percentage points or more, and in only four did it do so by 4.5 points or more (the swing required for it to pick up a two-party preferred result of 53%). Not Mount Everest, but not a stroll in park.

The last time there was a swing to Labor of this magnitude was in 2007.

A two-party vote of 54% suggested by recent polls – a 5.5-point swing – is something Labor has only achieved once since the war. That was in 1969, off a much lower base (a two-party vote of 43.1% not 48.5%, Labor’s two-party vote in 2019).

So, what to make of current polls?

Labor currently enjoys a two-party preferred vote of about 54% in the polls; this translates to a gain of 17 seats on the pendulum.

A two-party preferred result of 53% would, in theory, yield just 10 seats – three more than the seven it needs to form government.

A two-party preferred result of 57%, reported by the latest Ipsos poll, would produce a Labor gain of 30 seats.

According to Sportsbet on Monday morning, punters are expecting a Labor two-party preferred result of 51.6% and a gain of the seven seats it needs, with the Coalition expected to lose another three to independents.

Current doubts about the polls’ accuracy have focused on their 2019 failure, with all of them getting it wrong and by the similar margins.

But over the past 30 years, a fifth of all the polls have called the wrong winner.

More importantly, from 1993 to 2010, the polls median error in calculating the winner’s lead was almost two percentage points.

On a median error of this size, a 54-46 lead in the polls might really be a lead of six (53-47) or ten (55-45), if the polls were entirely accurate.

Similarly, if the polls narrow, a lead of 53-47 could turn out to be a lead of 52-48 or a lead of 54-46.

Errors of this size could make a big difference.

An element of uncertainty

Before the votes are counted, the two-party preferred vote can only be a guesstimate.

In a close contest, even a smaller error could make the difference between:

• a hung parliament in which the Coalition formed government (unlikely this time)
• a hung parliament in which Labor formed government (a more likely outcome)
• a parliament in which Labor commanded a majority in its own right (the outcome to which all the polls are pointing).

History suggests the polls could easily be over-estimating Labor’s two-party preferred; the chances that they are underestimating it are low.

While each of these considerations are important, as we try to work out what’s likely to happen, each involves an element of uncertainty.

Of course, uncertainty is part of life. Maybe you’ll get a good sausage sandwich when you turn up to vote, and maybe you won’t.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Labor widens leads in Newspoll and Ipsos, as pre-polling starts

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. Over the last 30 years, a fifth of polls have called the wrong winner. Here are 3 things poll-watchers need to understand – https://theconversation.com/over-the-last-30-years-a-fifth-of-polls-have-called-the-wrong-winner-here-are-3-things-poll-watchers-need-to-understand-182594

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anam Bilgrami, Research Fellow, Macquarie University

Most new Australian mothers receive government paid parental leave to support health, encourage workforce participation and balance work and family life equally with their partners. Despite this, Australia still has one of the least generous parental leave schemes in the developed world.

Both major parties propose to improve the paid parental leave scheme this election.

If you plan on having children, it’s worthwhile understanding what each party promises. Their policies may impact your health, income and the opportunity to pursue your career differently.

Read more:
Father’s days: increasing the ‘daddy quota’ in parental leave makes everyone happier

What are the major parties promising?

The Australian government provides working parents with paid leave at the minimum wage for up to 18 weeks. This scheme was introduced by Labor in 2011 and represented a “giant leap” in social policy, but it came quite late by OECD standards.

It has since been adjusted to provide partners with two weeks of leave and increase leave-taking flexibility.

This election, the Coalition promises to “enhance” the scheme, although it will keep the total leave amount shared between parents unchanged at 20 weeks. It will also leave payments fixed at the minimum wage.

Instead, the Coalition will allow parents to completely share this leave flexibly between them as they choose, with no separate amounts earmarked for mothers or “dads and partners”.

The Coalition will fix a design flaw in the income test by connecting scheme eligibility to household income, rather than individual income. It will also increase the income threshold that cuts off access at $350,000, allowing 2,200 more families to access the scheme.

Labor has a more generous plan. It promises to increase total leave from 20 to 26 weeks to be shared between parents. It also seeks to pay benefits at a person’s full salary.

Labor aims to fund their proposed scheme from employer and government contributions. But their plan is scant on details, including how much this policy would cost, what proportion would be funded by business and government, and whether each parent will have leave earmarked for them.

A group that would be better off under either plan is single parents. They would be able to access more leave than the current 18 weeks available to them (Labor’s plan increases leave and the Coalition’s collapses leave for partners into the total leave entitlement).

Leave-taking, gender equality and scheme fairness

Take-up of the current scheme is low among Australian fathers. Some economists have criticised the Coalition’s proposal to remove leave earmarked for fathers and partners, saying it would discourage them from taking any leave at all.

Read more:
Is the budget good for women? The paid parental leave change takes us backwards and childcare costs were ignored

The argument is that if households want to maximise their income, lower paid parents (on average, mothers) would be the ones taking the entire 20 weeks’ leave, since it will be paid at the minimum wage. This means the Coalition’s plan may work against “promoting equality between men and women” in work and family life, despite offering more flexibility.

Labor’s plan better promotes equal leave-taking, since it will pay either parent taking leave their full salary.

Parental leave schemes in other countries offering higher salary replacement are funded by a combination of government, employer and employee contributions.

The Australian scheme already works together with employer-paid leave as 60% of Australian employers also offer paid leave.

This arrangement creates differences in leave-taking between parents who can also use employer-paid leave and those without this privilege. This is inequitable and may translate to differences in mothers’ health outcomes.

Read more:
Paid parental leave needs an overhaul if governments want us to have ‘one for the country’

Labor has not clarified the details of their proposed government/employer-funded approach. More details are needed on how their scheme would interact with existing employer-paid parental leave policies and whether it would help address existing inequities.

Effects on health

Labor’s plan better supports parent and child health (particularly for those without any employer-paid leave). Research has found six months’ leave after birth for mothers is optimal for their mental health, a minimum amount also suggested by the World Health Organisation for promoting breastfeeding and infant health.

Labor will get Australia’s scheme closer to this benchmark.

When fathers take leave, this is associated with better health outcomes for both mothers and fathers. It also supports children’s development.

The Coalition’s plan doesn’t increase leave from the currently low entitlement. It also only allows mothers to take more leave at the expense of fathers (and vice versa), which may compromise health.

Women’s workforce participation

Any changes to parental leave need to balance health promotion and gender equality with supporting women’s workforce participation.

Overly short leave increases the risk of women exiting the labour force, while overly long leave (more than one year) can result in women losing valuable skills and weaken workforce attachment. (Although neither party’s plan is anywhere near generous enough to create this issue).

The current scheme includes six weeks’ paid leave that can be used flexibly between parents any time over the first two years after birth, including while working part-time. This feature potentially supports skill retention and employment attachment, and is probably what the Coalition had in mind when proposing complete flexibility in leave-taking.

Read more:
Reforming ‘dad leave’ is a baby step towards greater gender equality

Future changes needed to support Australian women

Labor’s plan provides a health-promoting boost to leave, while the Coalition’s recognises the value of flexibility in supporting women’s work. Both plans are lacking in execution; Labor’s on details and the Coalition’s on policy design that promotes equality in leave-taking and caring.

Both parties should consider providing longer and equally split leave for each parent with an additional “flexible” component, or rewarding “bonus” leave to parents who share leave more equally.

Australia has one of the most highly educated and skilled working age female workforces in the OECD. Sadly, this still isn’t reflected in women’s workforce participation, with women more likely than men to work part-time, be under-represented in most industries and earn less.

Policy design matters, but broader changes are needed to draw on this “productivity gold”. This includes promoting high-quality flexible work and normalising fathers taking extended leave to care for children.

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

– ref. Planning kids? You should know the major parties’ parental leave policies before you vote – https://theconversation.com/planning-kids-you-should-know-the-major-parties-parental-leave-policies-before-you-vote-181785

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jake Whitehead, E-Mobility Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

Australia has no clear strategy to decarbonise transport. That’s a problem, because without a plan, our take-up of clean technologies like electric cars, trucks and buses is slow. It’s stopping us from meeting our climate commitments. And it leaves us paying exorbitant prices for imported oil at the fuel pump, as well as in the cost of groceries and services.

The good news? Over the last year, 18 transport and energy experts have created this independent, science-based summary of what is now possible in cleaning up land, sea and air transport as well as what will become possible in coming decades.

Our plan gives all levels of Australian government a list of priority policies. Together, these policies would make possible the delivery of a net zero transport system by or before 2050, and see Australia gain major economic, social and environmental benefits from the transition.

The pandemic has shown us how governments and experts can work together to take on wicked challenges. We can do the same here. We can draw on the knowledge of transport and energy experts, engineers, planners, and economists to develop the science-based net zero transport strategy Australia urgently needs.

Why we must rapidly reduce transport emissions

Today most of our transport relies on fossil fuels. That makes it one of Australia’s most emission intensive sectors. Worse, transport emissions are forecast keep increasing until at least 2030, during the most critical decade in the fight to slow climate change.

Read more:
Beyond electric cars: how electrifying trucks, buses, tractors and scooters will help tackle climate change

By 2030, transport emissions could grow to a quarter of the country’s domestic emissions. Australia has a high-polluting, inefficient vehicle fleet 90% reliant on imported fuel. These two factors mean many Australians have been hit hard by unprecedented fuel prices.

Shifting to clean transport is a win-win-win – we can slash emissions, cut costs to commuters and boost Australia’s fuel security in a very uncertain geopolitical time.

How can Australia reduce transport emissions?

To begin this shift, we must have a clear vision for rapid decarbonisation of transport. Our framework has three steps:

1. avoid: where possible, avoid transport trips and shorten travel distances such as through working from home

2. shift: for the majority of trips that are unavoidable, shift as many as possible to more efficient transport modes such as e-bikes, public transport and walking

3. improve: boost Australia’s transport energy efficiency by adopting low and zero emission vehicles, such as electric cars, electric buses and electric trucks.

We must invest in transformative technologies to speed the transition, such as electric vehicles for land transport, and electric, hydrogen, ammonia, sustainable biofuel and synthetic fuel options for shipping and aviation.

This approach is in line with the world’s current best practice. The peak global body for clean transport says the electrification of transport is the single most important technology to decarbonise the sector.

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states electric vehicles offer the largest decarbonisation potential for land transport on a lifecycle basis. The harder challenges will be finding ways to make shipping and planes run without fossil fuels. To do this, we’ll need to invest in finding the solutions.

As if saving the world from the worst of climate change isn’t enough, the economics have shifted enormously. Far from being a long-term cost to Australia, a rapid switch to clean transport could save us nearly half a trillion Australian dollars by 2035. Of this, almost $300 billion is the amount we save the health system by getting killer pollutants out of the air. Australians could also save around $2,000 every year in lower fuel and maintenance costs for electric cars. If all cars in Australia were electric, this would equate to more than $30 billion saved every year.

This may not surprise you to hear, but Australia is woefully behind the rest of the world on this transition. For example, we’re one of the few countries without mandatory fuel efficiency standards, which has given us a dirty and inefficient vehicle fleet.

To date, neither the Coalition or Labor’s current policies go far enough to achieve net zero transport emissions. Our next government must commit to ambitious policy to support the rapid decarbonisation of transport.

Read more:
How do the major parties rate on climate policies? We asked 5 experts

Where to from here? The road map to hit net zero transport by 2050

To reach net zero for land transport by 2045 and all transport by 2050, we need evidence-based strategies.

Given we’re almost starting from scratch, we can only make this shift through ambitious transport policies. These would include:

• clear targets for each transport sector to achieve net zero transport by or before 2050
• new financial incentives to help households and businesses switch to zero emission transport
• new sales mandates and fuel efficiency targets to stimulate innovation and increase the supply of zero emission vehicles
• investing in clean transport manufacturing and recycling industries to allow us to build batteries, produce renewable fuels and build electric vehicles locally by 2030
• infrastructure and policies to support active transport, low emission zones and road pricing reform.

To tackle the harder-to-decarbonise sectors of shipping and aviation, we need:

• research, development and investment into low and zero emission options, coupled with mandates for use of zero emission fuels
• renewable hydrogen clusters to support broader economy decarbonisation and the low and zero emission shipping and aviation.

Luckily for us, we have many resources to draw on to create this better system. We have a natural resource base able to support clean transport not only locally but globally. We will be able to access enormous amounts of cheap, renewable energy, which we can harness to power mining and refining of critical resources, turn water into green hydrogen, manufacture batteries, and build our own zero emission vehicles.

Pipe dream? Hardly. Australia already has one of the world’s top EV charger companies, and we already have companies turning out electric buses.

This is all possible. But time is short. We must move to grasp this opportunity to clean our transport sector while securing new jobs, improving our national security, and cleaning the air we all breathe.

A full list of the 18 co-authors of the FACTS report can be found here, and the FACTS report is available for download here.

Dr Jake Whitehead is on unpaid leave from his role as a Research Fellow at The University of Queensland. He was a Lead Author of the AR6 Transport Chapter for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Member of the International Electric Vehicle Policy Council, and Director of Transmobility Consulting. He has previously received government and industry funding for several sustainable transport projects, including research on both hydrogen and electric vehicles, and mobility-as-a-service. He is also holds a part-time position as the Head of Policy at the Electric Vehicle Council.

Bjorn Sturmberg has received funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency for electric vehicle projects.

Donna Green receives funding from the Digital Grid Futures Institute, UNSW and the Electric Vehicle Council.

Emma Whittlesea is the Program Manager for the Climate Ready Initiative at Griffith University and is an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow with the Griffith Institute for Tourism. Emma is working collaboratively with industry and government agencies, including peak bodies to progress the transition to net zero. She was previously a Principal Policy Officer working on climate change transition for the Queensland Government’s Department of Environment and Science, with a particular focus on the tourism and transport sectors.

Liz Hanna Chairs the Environmental Health Working Group for World Federation of Public Health Associations, and serves on the WHO Climate and Health Expert Working Group. She is an Honorary Associate Professor at the Australian National University

– ref. Australia could rapidly shift to clean transport – if we had a strategy. So we put this plan together – https://theconversation.com/australia-could-rapidly-shift-to-clean-transport-if-we-had-a-strategy-so-we-put-this-plan-together-182598

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kitty Te Riele, Deputy Director (Research), University of Tasmania

Consistent school attendance is important in any child’s education but for many children in out-of-home care, going to school every day is no easy thing.

There are three main types of out-of-home care in Australia: relative (or kinship) care, foster care, and residential care (small group homes). Children and young people who are unable to live safely at home, due to risk of abuse or neglect, are removed and placed in care by their state and territory child protection services.

In June 2020, there were 35,717 school-aged children (age 5-17) in care in Australia; 40% (14,444) of these were Indigenous children.

Research shows regular school attendance is crucial to educational achievement.

Unfortunately, children in out of home care face myriad challenges when it comes to attending school every day.

Read more:
Low attendance in Year 7 may mean you’re less likely to finish school

What is education like for children in care?

Evidence shows that too often these students in care end up having negative experiences in school, and worse academic outcomes than their peers.

For example:

• 82% of students in care in Year 3 meet the national minimum standard in NAPLAN-Reading, compared to 95% nationally. By Year 9, it drops to 69% (versus 93%)
• 81% of students in care in Year 3 meet the national minimum standard in NAPLAN-Numeracy, compared to 96% nationally. By Year 9, it drops to 61% (versus 93%)
• 57% of young care leavers (aged 18-25) completed Year 12 or equivalent, compared to the national average of 85%.

What are the issues and inequitable outcomes?

These young people are dealing with the impact of trauma and placement instability. But schools often lack expertise to support them.

Imagine what it’s like to attend five or more primary schools. Imagine having to get used to new teachers again and again. Dealing with new approaches to learning, new rules, and new classmates. Having to constantly catch up on what has been missed. Being thought of as the kid who is “behind”.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in care also risk being disconnected from their culture and kin.

COVID-19 created and exacerbated problems. School closures have made school more difficult. COVID-19 uncertainty may have increased placement instability, schooling mobility, and economic and social stressors.

Quality education is essential for well-being and development. Improving education outcomes for students in care is of profound benefit to them. But it also benefits Australian society – now and for future generations.

Read more:
Children in care are falling behind in literacy and numeracy – but the problem is far bigger than that

Attendance is fundamental

Regular attendance is crucial to educational achievement.

Absence from school flows on to negative effects like leaving school early, poor academic achievement, and social isolation. Even short absences – including absences that are officially allowed, such as illness – can make it more difficult for children to keep up.

The effects are cumulative. Each further absence makes things harder for the student.

The experiences that make school harder for children and young people in care (such as trauma and frequently moving to new care placements and schools) also lead to lower attendance. The statistics tell an alarming story:

The average number of days absent per term is double for students in care with a substantiated concern to the state child protection authority: seven days versus 3.4 days for students not in care. A substantiated concern means a report about safety of a child/young person has been investigated by a caseworker, and they have been found to be at significant risk of harm.

Suspensions also mean students miss out on school. South Australian data suggest the proportion of students in care who were suspended is almost four times higher: 23% versus 6% across all students.

The best available data about absences and suspensions are from South Australia, but there is no reason to believe it is much different in other jurisdictions.

They show attendance is fundamental to improving outcomes for children in care. somethign funny here with the link

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in care are doubly disadvantaged. For example, in a review of 1,000 cases in Victoria, 30.5% of had been suspended in secondary school. In primary school, the proportion was 11.4%.

What can be done?

Behind these figures sits a complex challenge.

It’s not the fault of these young people. They did not choose to go into care, or that their lives would be characterised by disruption and trauma.

Nor should we blame schools and teachers.

Frequent absences of children in care is a systems problem that goes beyond the responsibility of individual schools.

We’ve known about these problems for a long time. But several policy commitments now provide hope.

The 2019 Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration names “learners in out-of-home care” as a group needing targeted support.

The 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap highlights school attendance as a key driver for ensuring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students “achieve their full learning potential”.

The federal government’s National Standards for Out-of-Home Care require state and territory governments to work to enhance life chances for children in care, including through appropriate education.

And the relatively new Safe and Supported: the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2021–2031 recognises access to education as a “fundamental right”.

These commitments create a powerful opportunity to give children and young people in care a fair go at their education – to set them up for learning, and for life.

But this will need collaboration across education and child protection systems to ensure these children attend school. Every day counts.

Kitty Te Riele receives funding from a range of Australian, state, and territory governments, and non-government agencies. She is co-chair of the Board of the Australian Association for Flexible and Inclusive Education and affiliated with several foundations and organisations that support education, especially for disadvantaged students. This story is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is about escaping cycles of disadvantage. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

Anna Sullivan receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is Board Chair and Director of the Media Centre for Education Research Australia.

Daryl Higgins receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, a range of Australian, state, and territory governments, and non-government agencies including out-of-home care providers.

Jesse King works for the Stronger Smarter Institute. The Stronger Smarter Institute has received funding from the National Indigenous Australians Agency.

Joseph McDowall is Executive Director (Research) at the CREATE Foundation which conducts research into the out-of-home care sector reporting the views of the children and young people living in the system.

Rhonda Coopes works for the Stronger Smarter Institute which has received funding through the National Indigenous Australians’ Agency.

Sharon Bessell receives funding from
The Australian Research Council
The Norwegian Research Council
The Australian Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Paul Ramsay Foundation

Emily Rudling and Michael A. Guerzoni 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. Attending school every day counts – but kids in out-of-home care are missing out – https://theconversation.com/attending-school-every-day-counts-but-kids-in-out-of-home-care-are-missing-out-182299

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joakim Goldhahn, Rock Art Australia Ian Potter Kimberley Chair, The University of Western Australia

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains images and names of deceased people.

For students of Australian art and art collectors around the globe, Arnhem Land is synonymous with bark painting: sheets of tree bark carefully prepared as a canvas for painting by Aboriginal artists.

Bark painters such as John Mawurndjul and Yirawala are some of the most internationally renowned and sought-after Australian artists.

As the market for bark paintings emerged in the early 20th century, recording the name of individual artists was far from the collector’s mind. Museums and art galleries are full of early artworks, sometimes attributed to particular “clans” or geographic areas, but rarely including the name of the artists.

Such collections are routinely named after the collector rather than the creators. One such collection, the Spencer/Cahill Collection at Museums Victoria, is the focus for our ongoing research project.

The Spencer/Cahill Collection is vast and includes many precious objects collected by Sir Baldwin Spencer when he visited Oenpelli (Gunbalanya), Northern Territory in 1912. He later acquired further artworks and objects via his “on the ground” contact, buffalo shooter Paddy Cahill.

Our project’s main focus is the approximately 170 bark paintings commissioned at Oenpelli between 1912 and 1922.

Earlier bark paintings in museum collections were generally removed from bark huts found by explorers and collectors during their travels. Spencer and Cahill took the additional step of commissioning paintings on bark from the artists: these works represent the birth of the bark painting Aboriginal art movement.

Spencer’s earlier collecting experiences had been conducted to document – as Spencer and others described – a “doomed race” before it became extinct.

In Oenpelli, Spencer was mesmerised by local artists who decorated their stringy bark huts with paintings depicting animals and spirit beings, which resemble paintings found in rock shelters in the vicinity.

He compared the delicate lines in the artworks with “civilised” Japanese or Chinese artworks and concluded the local bark paintings were:

so realistic, always expressing admirably the characteristic features of the animal drawn, that anyone acquainted with the original can identify the drawings at once.

Spencer’s encounter led him to refigure his perception of Aboriginal art towards a more aesthetic appreciation. At Oenpelli, he selected a handful of the most skilful artists to paint a series of bark paintings for him.

He left with 50 artworks. Over the following years, around another 120 barks were sent down to Melbourne.

Spencer did not record the name of the artist for each painting. But, thanks to an unpublished interview from 1967, we can now successfully link bark paintings from this collection to an individual artist.

Read more:
Review – Transformations: Early Bark Paintings from Arnhem Land

Paddy Compass Namadbara

Paddy Compass Namadbara (c. 1892-1978) is remembered by people in western Arnhem Land as a skilful artist, a “clever man”, a strong community leader and family man.

During the 1950s and 1960s he spent much of his time on Minjilang (Croker Island), where he often painted alongside contemporary artists such as Yirawala and Jimmy Midjaumidjau.

In 1967 he was visited by researcher Lance Bennett, who was there to collect bark paintings and information for a book he was writing on contemporary Aboriginal art.

During these interviews, Namadbara casually identified his own works in a book published by Baldwin Spencer in 1914, Native tribes of the Northern Territory of Australia. One work features a barramundi, another a swamp hen, black bream and painted hand stencils.

Bennett asked Namadbara to recreate this painting from 1912, a painting now in The Bennett Collection at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra.

Bennett took the time to ask Namadbara about his personal experiences of Spencer’s visit to Oenpelli in 1912. Namadbara said Spencer asked chosen artists to create bark paintings on small, transport-friendly bark sheets, which they had never done before. This transformed the traditional bark-hut paintings into a new media: bark paintings.

Cahill, who acted as a middleman, is remembered by Namadbara as asking Aboriginal people to shed their western clothing so Spencer could film and photograph ceremonies that were “properly old fashioned”.

Spencer asked Namadbara to cross his hands when he created his hand stencils on the bark with the swamp hen and the black bream, which the artist found peculiar. They asked the artists to leave some of the paintings not fully decorated, so that the motifs would stand out better in photographs.

The payment for the 50 bark paintings consisted of a bag of tobacco and two bags of flour.

Read more:
This 17,500-year-old kangaroo in the Kimberley is Australia’s oldest Aboriginal rock painting

Ongoing connection

The master artists who created works for early collectors deserve to be recognised, as do the vital ongoing connections that remain between the paintings and the communities from which they were acquired.

Gabriel Maralngurra, Namadbara’s kin-grandson and one of the researchers on this project, explains:

these paintings they remain part of us, part of our community. It doesn’t matter if they are far away, we still hold them close.

Being able to identify the artists in this and other museum collections revitalises the significance of these artworks for contemporary First Nation communities, artists and their families.

It also assists cultural institutions to better understand the significance and ongoing cultural links to these collections – collaboratively charting a path for this priceless Australian heritage.

Joakim Goldhahn receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Rock Art Australia. This research is being undertaken in collaboration with Injalak Arts and Museums Victoria.

Gabriel Maralngurra is affiliated with Injalak Arts.

Luke Taylor receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Paul S.C.Taçon receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Sally K. May receives funding from the Australian Research Council. This research is being undertaken in collaboration with Injalak Arts and Museums Victoria.

– ref. Paddy Compass Namadbara: for the first time, we can name an artist who created bark paintings in Arnhem Land in the 1910s – https://theconversation.com/paddy-compass-namadbara-for-the-first-time-we-can-name-an-artist-who-created-bark-paintings-in-arnhem-land-in-the-1910s-180243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Marriott, Professor of Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Tax is back in the news. Often this means a looming budget or election, as is indeed the case now, with the government’s 2022 budget delivered next week.

The election is much further away, but if the past couple of weeks are anything to go by, the interim will see the parties’ contrasting tax positions given plenty of attention.

So it’s probably time to discuss “wealth taxes” – a term broadly used here to capture the bucket of potential taxes on wealth, including capital gains, inheritance, gift, land or other types of tax on assets.

As recently as May 3, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said her government doesn’t have current plans to introduce a wealth tax but was also refusing to rule one out. Either way, it’s an issue that is unlikely to go away any time soon.

What we tax

To put it in context, there are three primary means of taxation, or three “limbs”, to use a frequently used tax term.

The first is income – taxes on earnings such as wages, salaries or company earnings. The second is taxing consumption – taxes on purchases of goods and services. Finally, there are taxes on wealth – taxes on what you own, usually assets.

In Aotearoa, we have comprehensive regimes for the first two of these.

Income tax is mostly paid by individuals and companies. In 2020-21, individuals paid income tax of NZ$45 billion or 46.4% of total taxation revenue. Companies paid $15.8 billion or 16.2% of total taxation revenue in the same period. While not without its issues, it is better than many income tax systems.

Read more:
Inflation has already eroded tomorrow’s minimum wage rise – NZ’s low-income workers will need more support

Our goods and services tax (GST) is a broad-based consumption tax. This does what it says: it taxes goods and services.

Globally, our GST is often referred to as a model system due to its broad base and few exemptions. GST collected in 2020-21 was $25.6 billion (net), or 26.3% of total tax revenue.

Other consumption taxes include fuel, tobacco, and alcohol excise and duty. These are also all paid by the final consumer and totalled $5 billion in 2020-21 (5.2% of total tax revenue).

The primary issue with GST and excise taxes is that they fall more heavily on lower income earners as a proportion of earnings.

The missing limb

But where is limb three? This is largely absent in Aotearoa, although we do tax assets in a small number of specific situations, such as the “bright-line” test for residential housing.

But the default is that we don’t tax wealth, and unless a transaction is explicitly included in the legislation, it will not attract tax. Why is this a problem?

First, as the OECD puts it, wealth accumulation “operates in a self-reinforcing way and is likely to increase in the absence of taxation”.

Read more:
With a mandate to govern New Zealand alone, Labour must now decide what it really stands for

The OECD also argues “there is a strong case for addressing wealth inequality through the tax system”. This is because higher income earners have greater capacity to save, which facilitates investment creation and further wealth accumulation.

Additionally, wealth inequality is greater than income inequality. But income is comprehensively taxed while wealth is not.

Not the law’s fault

The discussion inevitably comes back to fairness. We’re all familiar with the stories of the untaxed passive gains made by property owners, while those earning wages or salaries pay tax on every dollar earned.

We can’t blame “the wealthy” for this outcome. They are only following the rules as outlined in tax legislation, as they are required to by law.

We can, however, blame governments – and not just the current one, despite its parliamentary majority offering an opportunity for action that recent past governments haven’t had.

Read more:
With their conservative promises, Labour and National lock in existing unfairness in New Zealand’s tax system

The issue is that none appear willing to tackle the political unpalatability of introducing a wealth tax. And in the absence of a government willing to take a leadership role, the wealthy continue to benefit at the expense of those who have less.

It is important to note that wealth taxes are not typically directed at an individual’s personal home. They are intended to tax wealth in the traditional meaning of the word – for example, people who own multiple houses or are “land banking”.

Importantly, taxes are flexible instruments, they can have exclusions where appropriate, such as for Māori land.

An informed debate

Revenue minister David Parker’s recent proposals indicate some positive steps forward. Capturing more accurate information about high wealth individuals has the potential to provide the mandate for change.

As Parker said, current data used for policy purposes “effectively ignores the wealthiest”. He cited evidence that the maximum net worth collected in the current survey data used for policy purposes was $20 million, which is “out by a factor of hundreds”.

The question is, what will the government do when that information is available?

Collecting information is just the first step to inform debate in a democratic society. The issue is how much inequality our democracy is willing to tolerate.

Better quality data on who wins and who loses from a wealth tax will contribute to better quality debate. Whether we want a wealth tax, however, can only be determined at the ballot box. This should be put to the vote.

Lisa Marriott 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. Even if next week’s budget avoids the issue, it’s time New Zealand seriously considered a wealth tax – https://theconversation.com/even-if-next-weeks-budget-avoids-the-issue-its-time-new-zealand-seriously-considered-a-wealth-tax-182505

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

Both Anthony Albanese and Scott Morrison landed themselves onto the sticky paper on Tuesday, as they trudged through this campaign’s penultimate week.

The issues couldn’t have been more different. But each was an area of their respective vulnerabilities – economic numbers in Albanese’s case and social views in Morrison’s.

The opposition leader unwisely tied himself to a specific figure for what would be an appropriate rise in the minimum wage. The Prime Minister dug himself further in behind his controversial Warringah candidate, Katherine Deves, and in the process fell into factual error.

Labor is campaigning hard on the need for wages to rise. Higher wages have until recently had general support across the political spectrum. But the latest 5.1% inflation figure has complicated the debate, and business is warning of the potential for substantial wage rises to entrench high inflation.

In Sunday’s leaders’ debate, Albanese conceded a Labor government could not “guarantee” real wage increases. Rather, “our objective is to have real wage increases and we have practical plans to do that”.

This was a prudent statement. The power of governments to influence wages is limited.

Under questioning on Tuesday about the minimum wage – at present just $20.33 an hour – Albanese said it should at least keep up with the cost of living. “We think no-one should go backwards,” he said.

When he was asked whether this meant he would support a rise of 5.1%, he said , “absolutely”. He answered without hesitating, and probably without thinking through the implications.

For one thing, this inflation figure may not be the relevant number.

Shane Wright, economics writer at the Sydney Morning Herald, quickly pointed out in a tweet that the Fair Work Commission had to look at inflation for 2022-23, which the Reserve Bank was forecasting at 4.3%, rather than the 5.1% number, which was the year to March.

Labor says it would replace the Morrison government’s submission to the current minimum wage case with one that argued for a rise. But it also says that submission might not nominate a figure.

Albanese points out the commission last time awarded a rise above inflation. On the other hand, critics argue the inflation spike creates special circumstances this time.

Albanese’s embrace of the 5.1% number again indicated he doesn’t always think through the detail.

But whether in this instance it will do him any harm is another matter.

The important message for many people will be that Labor will actively support a pay rise for the lowest earners, at a time when cost of living pressures are bearing down heavily on workers.

Albanese said on the ABC on Tuesday night that “the idea that people who are doing it really tough at the moment should have a further cut in their cost of living is, in my view, simply untenable”. Many voters mightn’t be too concerned about the fine print of the numbers.

On the other side of politics Deves, Morrison’s “captain’s pick”, has refuelled the furore around her by saying on Monday that when she had referred to trans children being surgically “mutilated”, this was “actually the correct medico-legal term”.

Deves has been widely condemned for this and other offensive (and now removed) tweets. But she insisted in an interview with Sky, “When you look at medical negligence cases that is the terminology that they use”.

Questioned at his Tuesday news conference Morrison said “the issues Katherine commented on yesterday, they’re incredibly sensitive.

“What we’re talking about here is gender reversal surgery for young adolescents. And we can’t pretend this is not a very significant, serious issue.

“And the issues that have to be considered first and foremost [are] the welfare of the adolescent child and their parents. We can’t pretend that this type of surgery is some minor procedure.

“Now I’m sure many other Australians are concerned. This is a concerning issue. It’s a troubling issue. And for us to pretend it’s a minor procedure – it’s not. It is extremely significant. And it changes that young adolescent child’s life forever.”

It was quickly pointed out to Morrison that the government’s own website said reassignment surgery couldn’t be undertaken by minors.

Regrouping, the PM said, “You will also understand that this process can begin in adolescence”. The surgical procedure could not take place then but discussions could commence, he said.

Morrison said he wouldn’t use Deves’ language of surgical mutilation. Asked whether he had spoken to her about her language, he said “I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity to talk”, but on terminology “I’m not a surgeon […] I’m not the Chief Medical Officer.”

One of Morrison’s motives in choosing Deves was that he judged her views against trans people competing in women’s and girls’ sport would resonate in outer suburban areas and seats with high numbers of voters from ethnic communities.

It’s notable that initially he highlighted her push on female sport but now has willingly moved on to the gender reassignment issue.

He hasn’t had much concern, it seems, for whatever fallout his defence of Deves might have where there are “teal” candidates running against Liberal incumbents.

He declared he had no regrets about choosing Deves. A lot of Liberals do, however.

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. View from The Hill: Albanese and Morrison caught on fly-papers of wages, gender – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-and-morrison-caught-on-fly-papers-of-wages-gender-182781

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

As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.

In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn canvass
how the interest rate rise has played against the government, Scott Morrison defending Katherine Deves (again), the major parties’ keeping the climate change issue low key, “gotcha” questions, and the coming Liberal launch.

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. Word from The Hill: Scott Morrison defends Katherine Deves (again), but slips up on surgery detail – https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-scott-morrison-defends-katherine-deves-again-but-slips-up-on-surgery-detail-182777

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rolf Gerritsen, Professorial Research Fellow, Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University

Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner has resigned suddenly, making the announcement just after delivering the NT budget in parliament. He will stay on as a backbencher.

“My head and my heart are no longer here, they are at home,” said Gunner, who is the Labor leader and had recently celebrated the birth of his second child.

“I have grappled with this decision for some weeks and welcoming little Nash into the world sealed the deal.”

The news initially came as a surprise to me. But looking closely at the forward estimates in today’s budget papers, it became clear he’s planned it for at least a month. The forward estimates promise a return to surplus earlier than most people thought; given the years of deep deficit, I thought that seems highly improbable.

But he wants to be remembered for a budget that suggests economic and fiscal recovery is underway. He won government in 2016 promising the elimination of the budget deficit. What he has in mind is a legacy budget.

Read more:
State of the states: six politics experts take us on a trip around Australia

Federal implications: the seat of Lingiari

Gunner’s resignation may have federal election implications in the division of Lingiari, which covers most of the Northern Territory.

The seat is in play due to the resignation of Labor’s Warren Snowden, who has held the seat since 2001.

Labor’s opponent is the Country Liberal Party (known as the CLP), which has been running hard on crime in its federal election campaign. Crime is usually a state issue but the CLP aimed to link crime rates with Gunner’s legacy as chief minister, and by association, Labor federally.

So with Gunner stepping down, it takes the wind out of the CLP’s sails in terms of its capacity to associate crime rates with Labor in the federal election campaign. It may end up helping Labor retain the seat.

A cunning and resolute politician

The first Territory-born chief minister, Gunner is a resolute and cunning politician.

He’s been the subject of vituperative attacks in the media, but I believe him when he says he wants to spend more time with his family. A lot of politicians say that, but in his case the idea has more credibility than usual. He has an impeccable personal behaviour record, so the stated reason for his resignation makes sense. It’s not covering for something else.

His wife is an ABC journalist and in his resignation press conference he mentioned he’s looking forward to supporting her in the way she has supported him.

Gunner is member for the state seat of Fannie Bay and was first elected to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in August 2008.

As well as chief minister, he was – until today – treasurer. He took over that role after Nicole Manison, who is currently deputy chief minister and will probably be the next leader.

As treasurer he faced a real challenge managing the NT’s spiralling deficit, which revealed constrained opportunities to raise revenue along with large, recurrent expenditure commitments.

A mixed legacy

When he was elected chief minister in 2015, Gunner restored stable government after the chaos of leadership under former CLP chief minister Adam Giles. He won a second term in the 2020 election, the first of the successful “COVID election” first ministers.

But I can’t say he will be remembered for much.

We have had lots of rhetoric from the Gunner government about Indigenous housing and conditions, but not a lot of action. He was vocal on health and on crime but we haven’t seen great improvements in those areas.

He lifted a moratorium on fracking, which earned him the ire of environmentalists, and he was increasingly at odds with the police force, who were angry at his defence of the police commissioner over the Zachary Rolfe case.

So he will not be fondly remembered by key constituencies like police, conservationists and, to a degree, older people living in urban areas who are angry about crime rates being high.

But his departure will help Labor in Lingiari; it removes a lightning rod for dissatisfaction.

Rolf Gerritsen previously worked as a public servant, in the role of director of social and economic policy in the NT Department of Chief Minister.

– ref. Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner resigns. Could this help Labor in the federal election? – https://theconversation.com/northern-territory-chief-minister-michael-gunner-resigns-could-this-help-labor-in-the-federal-election-182759

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

Channel Nine’s leaders’ debate on Sunday night may have been a “shouty, unedifying spectacle”, but Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese will do it all again on Wednesday evening on Channel Seven.

Why? In the latest episode of our election podcast Below the Line, our panel of experts explain that our political leaders are under pressure to persuade voters as quickly as possible, given early voting centres have now opened and Australians can cast their ballots.

But what policies aren’t being talked about on the debate stages and the campaign trail? Plenty, according to the University of Sydney’s Simon Jackman and Anika Gauja and La Trobe University’s Andrea Carson. Below the Line’s usual host Jon Faine is away for this episode, but will return later in the week.

Anika identifies migration and the casualisation of work as two key issues the major parties have largely steered clear of in the campaign so far. Simon is dumbfounded by how quickly politicians and the media have dropped the topic of COVID, given how many Australians have died with the disease in 2022. Meanwhile, Andrea wonders why renters can barely get a look in amid all the discussion of first-homebuyer schemes.

Finally, the panel discusses preference deals and whether they could lead to candidates being elected to the lower house despite having relatively few first preferences themselves.

Below the Line is a limited-edition election podcast brought to you by The Conversation and La Trobe University. The show is produced by Courtney Carthy and Benjamin Clark.

To become one of the thousands of people who help The Conversation produce journalism by experts, make a tax-deductible donation here.

Image credit: Alex Ellinghausen/AAP

Audio credit: Channel Nine/60 Minutes

Disclosure: Simon Jackman is an unpaid consultant on polling data for the Climate 200 network of independent candidates.

– ref. Below the Line: What issues are politicians ignoring this election? – podcast – https://theconversation.com/below-the-line-what-issues-are-politicians-ignoring-this-election-podcast-182757

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

The Reserve Bank is pushing up interest rates to take money out of our hands.

The first increase in the current round
will add about A$65 a month to the cost of paying off a $500,000 mortgage.

The second will add a bit more. If, as the bank’s forecasts assume, there are another four such increases this year, that’s a further $275 a month, and so on.

The point, in the words of the Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe, is to “slow the economy, to get things back onto an even keel”.

In a helpful video, the Governor explains that rate rises take money out of mortgagee’s hands directly, make it harder to borrow, make people “feel less happy”, and hit the price of houses and other assets so people “don’t feel as confident and they don’t spend as much”.

Which is fair enough, if the Governor decides that’s what’s needed.

So why on earth are we scheduled to do the opposite?

As the RBA takes, the government will give

From mid-2024 the government will put an awful lot of money in to people’s hands. Stage 3 of the income tax cuts will cost $15.7 billion in its first year.

By way of comparison, that’s almost as much as the $16.3 billion will be spent on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that year, and more than the $10.5 billion that will be spent on higher education.

That it is mistimed ought not be a surprise. Stage 3 was legislated in 2018.

The treasurer at the time, back in the year Grant Denyer won the Gold Logie, was Scott Morrison, who said he was legislating Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the tax cuts all at once (and Stage 3 six years ahead) in order to provide “certainty”.

A tax switch settled years ahead of time

So uncertain was the treasury about the future back then that it only forecast the economy two years ahead, and produced less reliable and more mechanical “projections” for the following two years, neither of which extended to 2024.

At the time the Reserve Bank had been cutting interest rates (12 times in a row), at the time inflation was 1.9%. It looked as if the economy could do with a bit of a boost, albeit a boost which wouldn’t be delivered for six years.

In saying that things have changed, it’s fair to also acknowledge that things might change back again. We can’t be sure what will be needed in 2024, although we can be a good deal more sure than we had back then.

Backed by Labor

The Stage 3 tax cuts, opposed by Labor at first, but now backed by Labor treasury spokesman Jim Chalmers after “weighing up a whole range of considerations”, are overwhelmingly directed at high earners.

Of the $184.2 billion the parliamentary budget office believes Stage 3 will cost in its first seven years, $137.9 billion is directed to Australians on $120,000 or more.

Part of Stage 3, the part that cuts the rate applying to incomes over $45,000 from 32.5 cents in the dollar to 30 cents, will benefit most taxpayers.

The bigger part, that extends that low tax rate all the way up to $200,000, abolishing an entire tax rate, benefits most those on $200,000 and above.

For those high earners, the part of their income that was taxed at 37 cents will be taxed at 30, as will another part of the rest that was taxed at 45 cents.

A politician, on a base salary of $211,250, will get a tax cut of $9,075. A registered nurse on $72,235 will get a tax cut of $681 according to calculations prepared by the Australia Institute.

Read more:
Stages 1 and 2 should pass. Stage 3 would return tax to the 1950s

More broadly, a typical middle earner can expect $250 a year, whereas a typical earner in the top fifth can expect $4,230 according to a separate analysis by the parliamentary budget office.

The fate of the middle earner will be made worse by the loss of the $1,000+ middle income tax offset which wasn’t extended in this year’s budget, sending the middle earner backwards.

The typical female earner will go backwards too after the loss of the offset, getting half as much as the typical (higher earning) male, according to the budget office.

A tax switch that’ll send some bakcwards

The logic is (or was) that middle and higher earners would need big tax cuts to compensate them for bracket creep (which is wage rises pushing them into higher tax brackets), though there’s been a lot less of that than expected.

Were it not for the fact that Labor supports and will implement it, Stage 3 would provide a stark contrast with Labor leader Anthony Albanese’s approach unveiled on Tuesday of asking the Fair Work Commission to lift the minimum wage to compensate for inflation.

Read more:
Why the RBA should go easy on interest rate hikes: inflation may already be retreating and going too hard risks a recession

Such an increase would go to low wage earners first, and flow through more slowly to award wages. It would give the greatest help to those who needed it the most when they needed it, rather than years in the future when things might be quite different.

Peter Martin 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. Stand by for the oddly designed Stage 3 tax cut that will send middle earners backwards and give high earners thousands – https://theconversation.com/stand-by-for-the-oddly-designed-stage-3-tax-cut-that-will-send-middle-earners-backwards-and-give-high-earners-thousands-182751

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah R. Feldman, Research Fellow, Institute for Water Futures, Australian National University

While there was plenty of heat in Sunday’s night’s debate between Labor and Coalition leaders, one issue was barely mentioned: climate change. This raises a large red flag for Australia’s young voters.

In an election term marred by extreme bushfires, floods and heat waves, there was a conspicuous lack of climate change questioning during the debate. And when prompted on how young people will fare this election, both leaders quickly pivoted to housing reform and job security for all Australians.

For a generation that will face an extreme increase in environmental disasters in their lifetime, research consistently shows climate change represents one of the top challenges on the minds of young people. Students have recently been taking this message across the country, demanding greater climate action by political leaders ahead of the federal election on May 21.

So which party really has young interests at heart – and which doesn’t? Let’s look at where the major players stand on youth and climate change policy.

Read more:
How do the major parties rate on climate policies? We asked 5 experts

How does Labor rate?

According to vote compass data, more Australians have rated climate change as their top concern this election than any other issue. Climate change was also overwhelmingly rated as the top issue in The Conversation’s #SetTheAgenda poll.

But despite the long-term vision of voters, Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese was keen to focus squarely on immediate returns in Sunday’s debate, especially on issues related to “right now” – a phrase repeated nine times in his closing remarks.

Albanese took the campaign to classrooms this week, and pivoted to housing reform when directly asked about the future of youth lives in Australia.

Not only was this a missed opportunity to mention the newly announced funding for high-achievers to study teaching, but also to draw attention to the fact Labor also has an engagement plan to reconnect with young people in politics.

Youth voters often feel shut out of policy engagement exercises, finding consultation processes disingenuous and serving the agendas of people in power, rather than through genuine youth representation.

Labor policy looks to overcome some of these challenges by connecting government with youth voices in decision making. While this is still a very top-down approach, it could be a promising step towards meaningful integration of young people in politics.

With these foundations, it’s unfortunate that climate change and youth issues have not been openly championed by Albanese. Young people will have to go searching through buried policy to see whether they’ll be heard after May 21, but not before.

What about the Coalition?

Likewise, the Liberal National Party has been generally shying away from climate change discourse.

We saw this clearly in March, for example, when the federal court found Environment Minister Sussan Ley holds no duty of care towards young people facing the climate crisis. Ley had successfully appealed a previous ruling in a landmark case brought by eight students, setting a disappointing stage for the Coalition’s campaign trail.

The Liberal Party, however, do have policy support for communities and structures that surround young Australians, including funding for schools, parents, and getting young people into jobs, as Prime Minister Scott Morrison repeatedly highlighted in Sunday’s debate.

But Liberal Party youth policy also comes with a great irony: if elected, they promise large investments in youth mental health, despite climate change (and a lack of action) being a key source of anxiety and worry for young people.

Read more:
Australians are 3 times more worried about climate change than COVID. A mental health crisis is looming

Much research, including my own, has shown climate change presents an extreme burden on the mental health of young people, particularly teenagers. But while anxiety can be a source of disengagement from politics entirely, other young people can use it as motivation to engage with politics in ways they haven’t before.

This will likely be a driving force in School Strike 4 Climate events in the lead up to May 21 (and beyond), including planned action at Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s Kooyong electorate offices.

Overall, the Coalition’s hopes for an employed youth sector are not without merit, but failing to link the need for youth reform with the climate emergency seriously tarnishes any credibility they may have had on youth issues.

The Greens and Independents?

At the last election in 2019, Australian youth were overwhelmingly left-leaning, with the lowest Liberal vote on record for voters under 35. Indeed, 37% of 18-24 year olds were primarily voting for the Greens, and that number is likely to remain high on May 21.

The Greens are the only major player in the upcoming election to specifically mention youth and climate change together in their policies. They acknowledge the long term consequences of current climate action on future Australians, and also align strongly with the demands of the School Strike 4 Climate movement.

Read more:
Polls show a jump in the Greens vote – but its real path to power lies in reconciling with Labor

Much of the Greens climate policy is mirrored in some way by “teal” Independents. But the crossbench hopefuls are decidedly targeting different demographics in their contested seats: those trending Green are generally younger and on lower incomes than those in seats turning teal.

In key electorates such as Wentworth in New South Wales or Goldstein and Macnamara in Victoria, young people represent 16-18% of registered voters. Climate-aligned platforms may well be the deciding factor in seats moving away from the major parties.

The verdict

While the near-sighted campaign trail might not care too much about youth voters, the long term consequences of their treatment will come with very real returns as they age.

Late teens and early-20s are critical ages for formulating political personas that only grow stronger into adulthood. Issues that matter to youth such as climate change are not going to diminish in their lifetimes.

Albanese may have won Sunday night’s debate by a hair according to The Conversation’s expert panel, but it was clear that Australia’s young people were not winners in the political shouting match.

The future of youth engagement and climate change may take a positive turn with a Labor government or a powerful crossbench, but the major parties are still too narrowly focused on the short term.

Read more:
A shouty, unedifying spectacle and a narrow win for Albanese: 3 experts assess the second election debate

Hannah R. Feldman 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. Young voters will inherit a hotter, more dangerous world – but their climate interests are being ignored this election – https://theconversation.com/young-voters-will-inherit-a-hotter-more-dangerous-world-but-their-climate-interests-are-being-ignored-this-election-182663

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gareth Edwards, Associate Professor, University of East Anglia

At last year’s Glasgow climate conference, countries lined up to increase their ambition to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Even Australia brought a new target of net-zero emissions by 2050, and signed the final agreement which called for a global “phase down” of coal.

That leaves Australia with two particularly important tasks. First, our power grid – reliant on coal for about half our electricity – must shift to renewable energy. Second, we must dramatically reduce coal exports, which produce about 3% of global CO₂ emissions when burned overseas.

Clearly, Australia needs to have a serious conversation about what the move away from coal means, and how to make it fair. This shift is often called a “just transition”. In our recent study we examined how the idea is understood in Australia.

We found several barriers to a productive conversation about the just transition – not least, an almost complete absence of the federal government in talking about or planning for it. This is a failing the next government must not repeat.

A tale of two coal industries

First, it’s important to define “just transition”. Many different definitions are used, but include as a key feature that no-one is left behind when making necessary changes to energy and economic systems.

That means sharing the costs and benefits of the changes fairly, supporting workers with new jobs or retraining, and supporting communities through broader economic changes.

Our research into the just transition in Australia involved reviewing academic research and other literature; interviews with key people from civil society, government and industry; and analysis of hundreds of media articles.

Interviewees reported that the limited discussion in Australia about a just transition has focused on the electricity sector, particularly after the sudden, high-profile closure of Victoria’s Hazelwood Power Station in 2017. Discussion about winding back coal exports was considered too difficult.

Australia’s electricity sector is on the road to decarbonising, and coal-fired power stations are closing faster than expected. In February, for example, Origin Energy announced it would close its massive Eraring Power Station in three years – the soonest timeframe allowed under national rules.

But Australia’s coal mining industry dwarfs the power industry. Some 90% of Australia’s black coal is exported. Most ends up in Asia, either in power stations producing electricity or blast furnaces producing steel. Australian coal contributes more to CO₂ emissions overseas than at home.

Read more:
How do the major parties rate on climate policies? We asked 5 experts

Just transition is a toxic term

Our study revealed how “just transition” is a problematic term in Australia. This is largely driven by parts of the media and some politicians who equate the transition with job losses.

This “jobs versus environment” narrative has been cultivated throughout the so-called “climate wars” plaguing federal politics over the past 15 or so years.

The narrative was exemplified by Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce late last month. Asked if the government planned move away from coal, he said “we’re not going to be saying to people the word ‘transition’ because that equals unemployment”.

The argument resonates in regional communities for two main reasons, according to our interviewees. First, most people calling for a “just transition” are not locals and there is a perception they don’t understand the needs and aspirations of coal towns. And second, many communities have had bad past experiences of economic restructuring programs.

Many interviewees said it’s important to discuss the just transition, but they avoid using the term explicitly because of the negative connotations.

Government leadership is sorely needed

A just transition is not just something environmental or union campaigners are calling for. Our research revealed almost all key stakeholders are willing to plan for it – from industry to community groups, investors and some state and local governments – even if their motivations differ.

These groups also agreed a lack of government leadership was the biggest barrier to action. In particular, the federal government has been almost completely absent from discussions.

Whichever side wins the May 21 election needs to start talking about, and actively planning, a just transition. That means introducing policies to encourage coal power generation and coal exports to wind down, supporting new industries and helping communities manage the change.

Federal government support is crucial because the transition away from coal affects all of society. Governments can set up the stable, long-term institutions and policy mechanisms to support state and local transition efforts.

How to have productive conversations

Our research highlighted ways the federal government and others can have productive conversations about the just transition away from coal.

Outsiders going to regional communities should listen to people to understand their aspirations and fears.

Explain that the transition away from coal is already underway, and be explicit about what a just transition means: reducing coal production, but increasing other energy sources and diversifying regional economies.

Make clear that the transition is an opportunity for regional people with skills that society needs as our energy systems change. And explain the practical actions available to help communities undergoing major change.

Finally, centre conversations on livelihoods and communities, rather than wages and workers. The transition will only be just if it involves everyone.

Which way now?

In the absence of strong government policy, progress towards a just transition has been challenging. Notwithstanding this, we are seeing change.

Australia’s power generation industry is already transitioning away from coal. And Australia’s two largest export-oriented coal miners, Glencore and BHP, also see clear limits on ongoing coal exports.

The shift away from coal is now inevitable. But if not managed effectively, the transition will be disorderly rather than just. This will damage not just coal communities, but Australia’s economy and international standing.

Read more:
The world doesn’t care about swings in marginal seats. Climate action must spearhead a new Australian foreign policy

Gareth Edwards receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust for a Leverhulme International Fellowship (2021-22) and from the British Academy under its ‘Just transitions to decarbonisation in the Asia Pacific Region’ programme.

Robert MacNeil receives funding from the British Academy under its ‘Just transitions to decarbonisation in the Asia Pacific Region’ programme.

Susan M Park receives funding from the British Academy, the Canadian Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences, and is a Hans Fischer Senior Fellow at the Technical University of Munich.

– ref. Australia’s next government must start talking about a ‘just transition’ from coal. Here’s where to begin – https://theconversation.com/australias-next-government-must-start-talking-about-a-just-transition-from-coal-heres-where-to-begin-181707

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Nicholls, Associate professor in regulation and governance, UNSW Sydney

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal published information from Facebook whistleblowers, alleging Facebook (which is owned by Meta) deliberately caused havoc in Australia last year to influence the News Media Bargaining Code before it was passed as law.

During Facebook’s news blackout in February 2021, thousands of non-news pages were also blocked – including important emergency, health, charity and government pages.

Meta has continued to argue the takedown of not-for-profit and government pages was a technical error. It remains to be seen whether the whistleblower revelations will lead to Facebook being taken to court.

Read more:
The Conversation’s submission to the Australian Senate Inquiry into the News Media Bargaining Code

The effects of Facebook’s “error”

The News Media Bargaining Code was first published in July 2020, with a goal to have Facebook and Google pay Australian news publishers for the content they provide to the platforms.

It was passed by the House of Representatives (Australia’s lower house) on February 17 2021. That same day, Facebook retaliated by issuing a statement saying it would remove access to news media business pages on its platform – a threat it had first made in August 2020.

It was arguably a reasonable threat of capital strike by a foreign direct investor, in respect to new regulation it regarded as “harmful” – and which it believed fundamentally “misunderstands the relationship between [its] platform and publishers who use it to share news content”.

However, the range of pages blocked was extensive.

Facebook has a label called the “News Page Index” which can be applied to its pages. News media pages, such as those of the ABC and SBS, are included in the index. All Australian pages on this index were taken down during Facebook’s news blackout.

But Facebook also blocked access to other pages, such as the page of the satirical website The Betoota Advocate. The broadness of Facebook’s approach was also evidenced by the blocking of its own corporate page.

The most major harm, however, came from blocks to not-for-profit pages, including cancer charities, the Bureau of Meteorology and a variety of state health department pages – at a time when they were delivering crucial information about COVID-19 and vaccines.

Whistleblowers emerge

The whistleblower material published by the Wall Street Journal, which was also filed to the US Department of Justice and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), includes several email chains that show Facebook decided to implement its blocking threat through a broad strategy.

The argument for its broad approach was based on an anti-avoidance clause in the News Media Bargaining Code. The effect of the clause was to ensure Facebook didn’t attempt to avoid the rules of the code by simply substituting Australian news with international news for Australian users. In other words, it would have to be all or nothing.

As a consequence, Facebook did not use its News Page Index. It instead classified a domain as “news” if “60% [or] more of a domain’s content shared on Facebook is classified as news”. One product manager wrote:

Hey everyone – the [proposed Australian law] we are responding to is extremely broad, so guidance from the policy and legal team has been to be over-inclusive and refine as we get more information.

The blocking approach was algorithmic and based on these rules. There were some exceptions, that included not blocking “.gov” – but no such exclusion for “.gov.au”. The effect of this was the taking down of many charity and government pages.

The whistleblower material makes it clear a number of Facebook employees offered solutions to the perceived overreach. This included one employee proposal that Facebook should “proactively find all the affected pages and restore them”. However, the documents show these calls were ignored.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

The whistleblower documents show Facebook did attempt to exclude government and education pages. But people familiar with Facebook’s response said some of these lists malfunctioned at rollout, while other whitelists didn’t cover enough pages to avoid widespread improper blocking.

Amendments following the blackout

Following Facebook’s news blackout, there were last-minute amendments to the draft legislation before it was passed through the Senate.

The main change was that the News Media Bargaining Code would only apply to Facebook if deals were not struck with a range of key news businesses (which so far has not included SBS or The Conversation).

It’s not clear whether the amendment was as a result of Facebook’s actions, or if it would have been introduced in the Senate anyway. In either case, Facebook said it was “satisfied” with the outcome, and ended its news blackout.

Read more:
This week’s changes are a win for Facebook, Google and the government — but what was lost along the way?

Facebook denies the accusations

The definitions of “core news content” and “news source” in the News Media Bargaining Code were reasonably narrow. So Facebook’s decision to block pages so broadly seems problematic – especially from the perspective of reputational risk.

But as soon as that risk crystallised, Facebook denied intent to cause any harm. A Meta spokesperson said the removal of non-news pages was a “mistake” and “any suggestion to the contrary is categorically and obviously false”. Referring to the whistleblower documents, the spokesperson said:

The documents in question clearly show that we intended to exempt Australian government pages from restrictions in an effort to minimise the impact of this misguided and harmful legislation. When we were unable to do so as intended due to a technical error, we apologised and worked to correct it.

Read more:
Publishers take on Facebook and Google for failing to pay up under the News Media Bargaining Code

Possible legal action

In the immediate aftermath of Facebook’s broad news takedown, former ACCC chair Allan Fels suggested there could be a series of class actions against Facebook.

His basis was that Facebook’s action was unconscionable under the Australian Consumer Law. We have not seen these actions taken.

It’s not clear whether the whistleblower material changes the likelihood of legal action against Facebook. If legal action is taken, it’s more likely to be a civil case taken by an organisation that has been harmed, rather than a criminal case.

On the other hand, one reading of the material is Facebook did indeed overreach out of caution, and then reduced the scope of its blocking over a short period.

Facebook suffered reputational harm as a result of its actions and apologised. However, if it engaged in similar actions in other countries, the balance between its actions being a stuff up, versus conspiracy, changes.

The Wall Street Journal described Facebook’s approach as an “overly broad and sloppy process”. Such a process isn’t good practice, but done once, it’s unlikely to be criminal. On the other hand, repeating it would create a completely different set of potential liabilities and causes of action.

Disclosure: Facebook has refused to negotiate a deal with The Conversation under the News Media Bargaining Code. In response, The Conversation has called for Facebook to be “designated” by the Treasurer under the Code. This means Facebook would be forced to pay for content published by The Conversation on its platform.

Rob Nicholls is a member of the UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation from which he receives research funding. He is also the faculty lead for the UNSW Institute for Cyber Security (IFCYBER), which provides support. UNSW has received an untied gift from Facebook, which is used to fund some of Rob’s research.

– ref. Stuff-up or conspiracy? Whistleblowers claim Facebook deliberately let important non-news pages go down in news blackout – https://theconversation.com/stuff-up-or-conspiracy-whistleblowers-claim-facebook-deliberately-let-important-non-news-pages-go-down-in-news-blackout-182673

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Murphy, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary History, Monash University

Universities like to associate themselves with exceptional individuals through the awarding of honorary doctorates, but this practice has often attracted controversy, creating headaches for university administrators.

Honorary doctorates highlight uncomfortable but important questions about the purpose of the university and its role in reinforcing and perpetuating social inequality.

The tradition and purpose of honorary doctorates

Honorary degrees (usually, though not always, doctorates) are awarded by universities to recognise outstanding achievement in a particular field, or service to the broader community.

While some universities have established separate honorary degrees, such as the “Doctor of the University” at Griffith University, most Australian universities have maintained the traditional system in which a range of degrees may be awarded honoris causa. This means no degree is actually undertaken, but the nominee receives the distinction in name anyway.

A committee, usually including members of the university’s senior executive, representatives of the university council and professors, receives nominations and determines which will be approved.

Universities gain a number of benefits from conferring honorary doctorates. The acceptance of an honorary degree by an exceptionally distinguished person often generates publicity and brings “reflected glory” on the university, in the words of one former Vice-Chancellor, preserved in the Monash University archives.

Honorary doctorates have long been used to foster advantageous connections with individuals, countries or organisations. The University of Oxford awarded the first recorded honorary doctorate in around 1478 to a brother-in-law of Edward IV in a clear attempt to “obtain the favour of a man with great influence”.

Honorary degrees have, unsurprisingly, usually been awarded to well-known individuals. The honouring of less-known individuals, and members of socially disadvantaged groups, has been much rarer.

Read more:
Why do we still hand out honorary academic titles?

Controversy and protest

In Australia, especially since the post-World War II dawn of federal funding for universities, honorary doctorates have occasioned public debate and sometimes protest.

In August 1962, the Australian National University declined to award an honorary degree to King Bhumibol of Thailand, reportedly because of his lack of academic qualifications. This created diplomatic embarrassment for the Australian government in the context of an impending royal visit.

The University of Melbourne stepped into the breach to make Bhumibol an Honorary Doctor of Laws in September 1962, which was judged a bad look in university circles. The Vice-Chancellor of Monash University, Louis Matheson, commented a little smugly in an internal memo that “There is no subject to which a university should bring more delicacy and sureness of touch than the selection of its honorary graduates”.

Matheson was forced to eat humble pie when in 1967 a furore erupted over his university’s honouring of Victorian Premier Henry Bolte, shortly after Bolte had sanctioned the controversial execution of Ronald Ryan.

Monash’s staff and student associations alike opposed the move, and the ceremony took place off-campus to minimise the risk of disruption by students. At a faux awards ceremony held by students on campus, a degree was awarded to a piglet. “No pedigree for pigs” was inscribed on the campus lawn.

Read more:
Honorary doctorates: well deserved, or just a bit of spin?

After the Bolte row, Monash determined to never again honour a politician in office. Other universities have discovered since that doing so doesn’t always end well. The University of Adelaide’s award of an honorary doctorate to Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in 2017 was overshadowed by student protests about planned fee hikes and funding cuts for universities.

Undermining standards?

It is often said handing out “unearned” doctorates devalues the university’s highest academic qualification. The award of honorary doctorates to celebrities and especially sportspeople tends to raise eyebrows and draw bitter jokes from academics about when they should expect their honorary Olympic medal.

Swimmer Ian Thorpe was recognised in 2014 by Macquarie University for sport and philanthropy, the late Shane Warne had an honorary PhD, and cricketer Sir John Bradman famously turned down more than one honorary doctorate.

Places of privilege

Recent public discussion of honorary degrees has focused on the diversity of recipients. The University of Melbourne was suspended from a lucrative research funding program earlier this year after awarding honorary doctorates to a group of six white men.

The under-representation of women among honorary degree recipients was highlighted by equal opportunity policies in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1995 Monash acknowledged that since 1964 it had awarded honorary doctorates to 122 men and just 13 women. Along with other universities, it sought to correct this, aiming for equal gender representation among recipients – a target which remains far from being achieved.

The recent University of Melbourne controversy suggested to many that modern universities, despite their public relations nous, still carry echoes of the tone-deaf ivory tower.

Melbourne no doubt exposed itself to criticism through unfortunate optics and poor handling (the university claimed a larger group of intended recipients, including three women and an Indigenous man, were unable to attend the ceremony). However, the failure of such honours to represent the diversity of the community is a sector-wide problem.

Honorary doctorates have failed to cast off their function and reputation as a kind of academic peerage. They are uncomfortable reminders that our universities are still led and occupied, for the most part, by the socially privileged few.

Kate Murphy 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 award honorary doctorates, and what do the choices say about our universities? – https://theconversation.com/why-award-honorary-doctorates-and-what-do-the-choices-say-about-our-universities-179300

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Honorary Fellow, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

We are into the final fortnight of the election campaign, and commentators have noted that climate change has been almost invisible. This is despite the latest IPCC report in April calling for urgent action to avoid catastrophic climate change.

So what would a positive vision for Australia as a climate leader look like?

Read more:
Scorched dystopia or liveable planet? Here’s where the climate policies of our political hopefuls will take us

Fast-forward 8 years

Imagine it’s 2030. Australia is a renewable energy superpower helping meet Southeast Asia’s energy needs. It exports renewable energy via cable from northern Australia and ships green hydrogen first from Queensland and Tasmania, and then from all around the country.

It is a significant exporter of green commodities – such green steel produced with renewable energy – and the critical minerals used in renewable technology such as solar panels and electric vehicles. It works closely with the region on climate risk assessment and disaster preparedness.

Seem fanciful? Not necessarily.

Southeast Asia’s needs

Southeast Asian countries are highly exposed to the effects of climate change, with ASEAN rating Southeast Asia as one of the world’s most at-risk regions. Southeast Asia is already experiencing the growing intensity and magnitude of extreme weather events including flash floods, forest fires, landslides and cyclones – and the economic, environmental and social damage they cause.

In an era of climate disasters, Australia needs to avoid getting caught in a spiral of simply responding to events. As one of the primary security threats of this century, we know climate change is a huge challenge for Australia’s strategic and foreign policy. But it is also an opportunity.

Southeast Asian countries will increasingly be looking for renewable energy sources, green commodities, critical minerals and associated technologies and infrastructure, with countries as diverse as Singapore, Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos all putting in place national green growth plans.

Australia’s resources

Australia should be in a position to facilitate this. It has a major competitive advantage thanks to its renewable energy resources.

One provider, Sun Cable, estimates its undersea cable from Darwin could provide up to 15% of Singapore’s electricity supply.

Australia’s natural endowment of nickel, copper, lithium and cobalt are critical to the development of solar panels and electric vehicles (which in turn can lead to job creation in raw materials, technological development and service delivery).

Read more:
IPCC says the tools to stop catastrophic climate change are in our hands. Here’s how to use them

Southeast Asian countries are looking for partners in their energy transition not just within ASEAN but among other countries. Australia’s recent green economy agreements with Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam demonstrate this. But there are other countries who could also take advantage of this market. For example, major players in hydrogen include Japan, Korea, China and Germany.

There are barriers to overcome

To achieve this, Australia will need to overcome ambivalence and inconsistency around climate and energy policy. This has led to uncertainty for energy market operators meaning they can’t plan and commit to major projects.

In many Southeast Asian countries, there are also vested interests and political calculations that create barriers. For example, there are strong political incentives to subsidise fossil fuels in some countries that have to be managed, as Indonesia did when it scrapped petrol subsidies.

Finding ways for those who currently benefit from fossil fuel to benefit from renewables may be necessary to help them transition.

Read more:
Climate change is a security threat the government keeps ignoring. We’ll show up empty handed to yet another global summit

A window of opportunity

There is a window of opportunity for Australia to become actively involved in influencing Southeast Asian economies towards sustainable infrastructure and renewable energy sources.

Australia could use blended finance – where development finance attracts private finance – to support investment. For example, blended finance into Indonesia’s emerging car battery industry could help it become a global electric vehicle manufacturing hub, both securing a critical tech supply chain and expanding export markets for Australian lithium.

Government has a role in compiling and promoting up-to-date assessments of regional needs and Australia’s opportunity to supply these, including in critical minerals, green steel, green aluminium and hydrogen. As industry becomes more aware of the opportunities for Australian renewable exports, the volume will rise.

Australia should also work with regional bodies on related policy issues, including standards, certification and regulation and with Southeast Asian governments on policy creation and regulation. Australian can share its expertise around energy market design to assist with development of a region-wide ASEAN electricity market.

The pathways are there for Australia to be a significant partner to achieve the global goal of net zero by 2050 in Southeast Asia, a region that will be a litmus test for the rest of the world.

Read more:
As Asia faces climate change upheaval, how will Australia respond?

Melissa Conley Tyler is Program Lead at the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue (AP4D). This research is based on a report “What does it look like for Australia to be a Partner in Climate Leadership in Southeast Asia?” funded by the Australian Civil-Military Centre. Thanks to all those involved in consultations to produce this report.

– ref. Imagine it’s 2030 and Australia is a renewable energy superpower in Southeast Asia – https://theconversation.com/imagine-its-2030-and-australia-is-a-renewable-energy-superpower-in-southeast-asia-177646

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marcus Harmes, Professor in Pathways Education, University of Southern Queensland

The BBC’s announcement that the Rwandan-Scottish actor Ncuti Gatwa will play Doctor Who from 2023 is making global headlines.

Even people who don’t watch the show have been taking to social media to comment about Gatwa’s casting. The announcement makes his the 14th casting of the show’s lead actor, the 13th to be male and the first ever to be a person of colour.

Despite a few of the usual gloomy voices, there is genuine excitement among both fans and casual viewers, proving that his casting means the 14th Doctor and the show’s 60th year look to be special.

Changing with the times

Necessity is the mother of invention, as the saying goes, and necessity has enabled Doctor Who’s incredible near six decades of (interrupted) production to become the world’s most enduring science fiction series.

William Hartnell, a veteran film and stage actor, was announced as the lead in a new science fiction series in 1963 and viewers watched his adventures in space and time over the next three years.

By October 1966, Hartnell was exhausted and unwell, arteriosclerosis affecting his ability to learn lines. The BBC could cancel the show, or, do something inventive and keep the character and series intact but change the lead actor.

Patrick Troughton, another respected and prolific actor, became the Doctor. Because the Doctor is an alien Time Lord, the character has the ability to regenerate when his or her body becomes old, ill, or injured. The excellence of Troughton’s performance meant the renewal of the character was a success, now repeated more than a dozen times.

Thinking of the incredible contrast between Hartnell and Gatwa, is reminder of not only how long Doctor Who has lasted, but how the British acting profession and indeed Britain itself has changed.

Born in Edwardian England in 1908, before the invention of television and before films had sound, Hartnell was an established leading man in his mid 50s when cast as the Doctor. Gatwa is a child of the nineties, born 1992.

From Hartnell to Gatwa

The black and white Doctor Who of the Hartnell era was also monochrome in more ways than one. An all-white leading cast of the Doctor and his companions reflected the demographics of the British acting profession of the time.

Gatwa’s casting in Doctor Who is owed to what the showrunner Russell T Davies called a brilliant and show stealing audition. His acting credentials are already sky high after the massive success of Sex Education.

Read more:
Netflix’s Sex Education is doing sex education better than most schools

Doctor Who has a history of showcasing not only performers from minority backgrounds but narratives and histories of people of colour.

Besides the casting of Noel Clarke, Freema Agyeman and Pearl Mackie, to most recently Tosin Cole and Mandip Gill, the series has made casting choices that insist on the presence of black and minority ethnic people in Britain’s future and past.

The classic Doctor Who (made 1963-1989) did cast actors from minority backgrounds, but not as Doctors or companions. Since the David Tennant era (2005-2010) the show runners have made diversity part of their casting process for leads and guests alike.

Sophie Okonedo played Liz X, a British queen in the far future, while stories set in Roman Britain and 16th and 17th century England made casting choices that reflected the historically accurate presence of black people in pre-modern and early modern England.

Gender is not scary

To say that in 2017 the casting of Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor after 12 men in succession caused an epic meltdown is an understatement.

The Australian comedian Mark Humphries hilariously satirised the reactions of mostly older male fans in a sketch offering a helpline for Doctor Who fans unable to cope with the “new reality: a fictional alien that is a woman”.

Immediately after her casting, Whittaker had to assure male fans not be afraid of her gender. The anger and fear that, from some quarters, greeted her casting also prompted soul searching among fans on the sometimes unwelcoming space that fandom can be for females.

Towards 60 years

It is unlikely that Gatwa’s casting will provoke satire based on race the way Whittaker’s did on gender. However with the announcement only days old, already there is counter reaction.

The conservative Telegraph has declared this shows Doctor Who’s producers no longer care about pleasing “legacy fans”, presumably suggesting that viewers old enough to remember William Hartnell can’t cope with Ncuti Gatwa.

However doomsayers predicted the show would implode with a female lead: clearly it did not. Gatwa not only brings a huge following from Sex Education but a high social media profile.

He will be the lead for the show’s 60th anniversary special. What that special will involve is as yet unknown, but 60 is an astonishing age for a television program to reach.

When played by Hartnell, the Doctor cautioned against pessimism: “there must be no tears, no regrets, no anxieties” he said, a hopeful sentiment worth remembering as we watch a young actor take the TARDIS into a new decade.

Marcus Harmes 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. 60 years and 14 Doctors: how Doctor Who has changed with the times – and Ncuti Gatwa’s casting is the natural next step – https://theconversation.com/60-years-and-14-doctors-how-doctor-who-has-changed-with-the-times-and-ncuti-gatwas-casting-is-the-natural-next-step-182677

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Hall, Professor of Health Economics and Director, Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney

During elections, we usually hear calls for the government and opposition to commit to increasing funding for hospitals.

While states are responsible for running hospitals, the federal government shares responsibility for paying for them.

The federal government also has the primary responsibility for keeping people out of hospital – through the primary care system, which includes general practice.

South Australia is the latest state to pressure both major parties to commit to greater levels of federal funding for hospitals.

Past hospital funding agreements didn’t account for increasing volume

Although state and territory governments are responsible for managing public hospitals, they have been reliant on federal government contributions since the 1940s, when when the states lost some of their taxation powers during World War II.

States and territories became even more reliant on federal government funding with the advent of Medicare in the 1980s, which gave all Australians the right to free public hospital treatment.

Up to 2011, the federal government and the states and territories negotiated how much the federal government would pay every five years. Negotiations were often accompanied by blame-shifting and acrimony between premiers and prime ministers.

Read more:
Public hospital blame game – here’s how we got into this funding mess

As a result, federal funding for hospitals was influenced by the timing of elections and the cycle of the five-year agreements, reaching a low of 38% in 2007, down from around 50%.

This was, in part, due to the fact that the federal government’s contribution did not alter when hospital activity went up.

Hospitals are paid for each procedure

Since 2011, the federal contribution to public hospitals has been based on the number and type of patients treated. This is known as activity-based funding.

All states and territories measure hospital activity by case “type”, weighted to reflect the complexity of a hospital’s activity. A lung transplant, for example, has a higher value than resolving an ingrown toenail.

The idea of measuring hospital activity and even using this as a basis for funding is not new. What was new in 2011 was using activity-based funding to determine the federal contribution.

Since 2011, the federal government pays 45% of the growth in the cost of delivering hospital services each year. This means the federal government’s annual increase in contribution can reflect both additional costs and activity.

State and territory governments are responsible for the remaining costs.

Since 2017-18, the growth in federal government expenditure has been limited to 6.5% each year. So even if a hospital performs many more procedures than the previous year, the federal government caps its annual expenditure growth at 6.5% more than the previous year.

Funding also encourages efficiency

Activity is one component of hospital funding, the other is the price paid for each unit of activity. The basis for this is the “nationally efficient price”.

The Independent Hospital Pricing Authority determines this price, based on its analysis of actual costs and assessment of unavoidable and legitimate variations in costs. For example, the 2022-23 efficient price for a hip replacement was deemed to be A$19,798.

This means the price is the same across Australia. Adjustments are made for patients from rural and remote areas, and for Indigenous patients. Sicker patients or those with multiple underlying conditions will fall into a different case type, with a higher price.

This provides a benchmark for comparing hospital efficiency as well as the level of funding the hospital will receive.

The goal is to treat more patients but keep costs constrained

The hospital funding system is designed to address efficiency by providing incentives to increase output, while constraining the growth in costs.

Since 2011, we’ve seen a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in costs, with an overall growth rate of 2.1%.

Annual growth in costs (per national weighted activity unit):

But there is further to go

The Independent Hospital Pricing Authority has, in recent years, started measuring hospital quality. This has created financial incentives for hospital managers to minimise errors, complications and unnecessary re-admissions. But so far, these are still quite targeted and only apply to certain procedures.

Activity-based funding is criticised for funding activity irrespective of the value of that activity. Just like all fee-for-service payments, it encourages a greater volume of services.

If the level of admissions provided is too low and the hospital is treating too few patients, then incentives to increase the volume are appropriate. But if some services do little to improve patient health outcomes, or if there is too little investment in keeping people well, then a change in incentives is warranted.

COVID has added a further complication. Hospital activity was decreased, particularly by canclling elective admissions to maintain spare capacity to handle COVID admissions. And costs were increased due to infection control requirements, such as personal protective equipment and staff on furlough after exposure.

The latest federal-state/territory agreement commits all governments to explore better ways to pay for health care. This will require not just thinking about hospitals but understanding their place in the health system and how to improve co-ordination across community and primary care.

If elected, Labor and the Coalition have both said they’re open to having further discussions with the states and territories about hospital funding.

Read more:
The private health insurance rebate has cost taxpayers $100 billion and only benefits some. Should we scrap it?

Jane Hall receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council; and is a member of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority

Kees Van Gool receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council. He is affiliated with the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority.

– ref. Remind me, how are hospitals funded in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/remind-me-how-are-hospitals-funded-in-australia-177915

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Chapman, Postdoctoral Fellow in Geology, University of New England

Some 252 million years ago the world was going through a tumultuous period of rapid global warming.

To understand what caused it, scientists have looked to one particular event in which a volcanic eruption in what is now Siberia spewed huge volumes of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

However, there is evidence the climate was already changing before this.

Sea surface temperatures had increased by more than 6–8℃ in the hundreds of thousands of years leading up to the Siberian outpouring. Temperatures increased again after it, so much so that 85–95% of all living species eventually went extinct.

The eruption in Siberia obviously made a mark on the planet, but experts remained puzzled about what caused the initial warming before it.

Our research reveals Australia’s own ancient volcanoes played a big role. Prior to the event in Siberia, catastrophic eruptions in northern New South Wales spewed volcanic ash across the east coast.

These eruptions were so large they initiated the world’s biggest ever climate catastrophe — the evidence for which is now hidden deep in Australia’s thick piles of sediment.

Ancient volcanoes

Our study, published today in Nature, confirms eastern Australia was shaken by repeated “super eruptions” between 256 and 252 million years ago.

Super eruptions are different to the more passive Siberian event. These catastrophic explosions spewed massive amounts of ash and gasses high into the atmosphere.

Today we see evidence of this in light-coloured layers of volcanic ash in sedimentary rock. These layers are found across huge areas of NSW and Queensland, all the way from Sydney to near Townsville.

Our study has identified the source of this ash in the New England region of NSW, where the eroded remnants of volcanoes are preserved.

Though erosion has removed much of the evidence, the now innocuous-looking rocks are our record of terrifying eruptions. The thickness and spread of the ash produced is consistent with some of the largest volcanic eruptions known.

How big were the super eruptions?

At least 150,000 km³ of material erupted from the northern NSW volcanoes over four million years. This makes them similar to the supervolcanoes of Yellowstone in the United States and Taupo in New Zealand.

To put it into perspective, the 79AD eruption of Mt Vesuvius, which obliterated the Italian city of Pompeii, produced just 3–4km³ of rock and ash. And the deadly Mt St Helens eruption in 1980 was about 1km³.

The Australian eruptions would have repeatedly covered the entire east coast in ash — metres thick in some places. And a massive outpouring of greenhouse gases would have triggered global climate change.

Environmental devastation

Ancient sedimentary rocks provide us with a timeline of the environmental damage caused by the eruptions. Ironically, the evidence is preserved in coal measures.

Today’s coal deposits in eastern Australia show ancient forests used to cover much of this land. After the super eruptions, however, these forests were abruptly terminated in a series of bushfires over some 500,000 years, 252.5–253 million years ago.

Read more:
How Australia’s geology gave us an abundance of coal – and a wealth of greentech minerals to switch to

Typically the plant matter accumulated in swamps and was then buried under sediments. The burial process provided heat and pressure which enabled the conversion of the plant matter into coal.

Without the forests, there was no plant matter to accumulate. The ecosystem collapsed and most animals became extinct.

The subsequent eruptions in Siberia only exaggerated the devastation started by Australia’s supervolcanoes.

And this collapse of ecosystems was not limited to Australia, either. The catastrophic event affected all of the ancient continents. It had a substantial influence on the evolution of life — which eventually led to the rise of the dinosaurs.

Australia’s super eruptions were a key marker of change in the ancient world. As we look to achieving a more habitable climate in the future, who knew the clues to environmental catastrophe lay buried beneath our feet?

Acknowledgement: we would like to thank our colleague Phil Blevin from the Geological Survey of New South Wales for his contribution to this work.

Timothy Chapman has received funding from Australia Research Council. He is affiliated with the University of New England.

Ian Metcalfe is an Adjunct Professor at the University of New England and has received both Australian Research Council and industry grants for research on the Permian-Triassic boundary and end-Permian mass extinction.

Luke Milan is staff at the University of New England and has received funding from the Australian Research Council in the past.

– ref. How a volcanic bombardment in ancient Australia led to the world’s greatest climate catastrophe – https://theconversation.com/how-a-volcanic-bombardment-in-ancient-australia-led-to-the-worlds-greatest-climate-catastrophe-178037

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Walter, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Monash University

In troubled times, people look for strong leaders – men and women who offer decisive action to address collective problems, and promise the capacity to deliver. They initially present as larger-than-life characters, and we’ve had our share of them: Robert Menzies, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and perhaps Kevin Rudd.

The dual problems of the pandemic (with its tail of economic problems) and of the destabilisation of the international order, with the rise of an assertive China and the outbreak of war in Europe, has provoked a crisis mentality in which the demand for such leadership is intensified.

Read more:
How changing times made Australia’s political leaders more disposable

But when one ponders the daily newsfeed of the election campaign and the record of the past three years, the results are dispiriting. Each of the major parties is spraying cash at carefully targeted demographic sectors and seats. Neither is showing leadership in addressing the budget problems that portend a horror budget after the election.

The one-man band that was Scott Morrison in the 2019 campaign has failed to deliver, and he is trying to run the same campaign in different circumstances. The cautious superintendence of a small-palette agenda by Anthony Albanese has led many to castigate its lack of ambition. The major parties are in decline, and neither appears capable of delivering the big ideas needed for current challenges.

Consider Morrison’s claim to the mantle of strong leadership. If one rates him against John Howard – not a larger-than-life character but certainly a strong leader – Morrison fails to measure up. Howard had a rocky first term, but demonstrated the courage of his convictions early with gun law reform, despite opposition from the National Party and many in rural constituencies.

He ran a disciplined cabinet, and persisted with the economic reforms introduced by Labor but adapted them to his own purposes, building a coherent policy program. He made the brave decision to introduce a goods and services tax (GST), and never introduced a new policy measure without showing how it aligned with specific liberal values, rather than waffling about “Australian” values.

He carried his party with him, regularly visiting party branches to talk with and listen to members. He could rightfully claim that whether people agreed or disagreed with him, they knew who he was and what he was about. The result: eventually he “owned” the party.

Now Morrison, too, has had a difficult first term, with challenges not of his making. But there has been no courageous decision, and certainly not the will to challenge the way in which he has been held hostage by the National Party and its costly demands.

Morrison has been reactive rather than proactive: rarely thinking long-term, but preoccupied with the immediate. He has failed to see crises coming or imagine what his role in addressing them should be.

The overwhelming impression is that there is nothing of substance behind the “ScoMo” persona. And it is a canker that has spread throughout the government as the paucity of policies now on offer demonstrates.

Read more:
Leaders only inspire when we feel part of their group

What, then, of the Labor Party? Anthony Albanese is not a big personality, like Hawke or Keating, nor an adept media operator like Rudd or Morrison. He is not a dominating figure on the campaign trail, although he managed to outfox Morrison in both leaders’ debates so far.

Read more:
A shouty, unedifying spectacle and a narrow win for Albanese: 3 experts assess the second election debate

In having been careful not to present a big target, open to the demolition Morrison visited upon Shorten, he has disappointed the Labor faithful.

To take one instance, the party has had three years to address a factor thought to be integral to Labor’s loss in 2019: its disregard of the impact of its climate transition policies on the communities most affected.

Its failure since to prosecute the case for the transition to renewables as presenting opportunities and growth is inexcusable. It has now done so in a detailed and costed policy proposal, but too late: those front-line communities think neither party has done enough to explain any advantage that will offset the disappearance of jobs so long central to their economies.

Maybe the same might be said of the Labor policies now presented: they are modest, and beg questions about how they might be afforded. But they promise to take action on and responsibility for real problems in health, aged care, the energy transition and jobs, gender pay equity, manufacturing and housing affordability.

Unlike the Coalition’s policy program, Labor’s relies on substantiating research and represents a start that might in the right circumstances be built upon. Still, Albanese and his team will have their work cut out to convey these messages when few are paying attention.

Perhaps we need finally to be looking for different leadership capacities. Julia Gillard, after all, did not present as a strong leader in 2010 relative to Rudd in 2007.

Yet, despite having to negotiate in a minority government, being belittled and demeaned by Tony Abbott and his colleagues, incrementally undermined by some within her own ranks, and continually under assault in some media quarters, she was the closer on much that Rudd left unfinished, achieved the only workable emissions-reduction scheme we have had to date, and passed more legislation than any other administration, not all of which the Coalition has subsequently been able to reverse.

Read more:
Australians to our leaders: ‘lift your game and think long term’

At Albanese’s campaign launch, journalist Katherine Murphy noted he was modelling a different style of leadership:

He’s not a powerful orator […] He didn’t seek to dominate the room: he sought connections in it, looking for faces, connections, cues[…] [without] the hallmarks of toxic masculinity. Rather than a set jaw, there’s an incline of the head, a gesture of listening – a physical glance at humility.

This brings to mind John Bew’s marvellous biography of Clement Attlee. In the 1945 British election, the Tories and some in his own Labour Party ranks assumed that Attlee – a diminutive, unassuming man they called “a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – would be overpowered by the venerated war leader Winston Churchill. Yet Attlee prevailed, and then presided over a transformation of British society that has led to Bew arguing persuasively that he was Britain’s greatest peacetime prime minister. Might Albanese be Australia’s own Attlee?

James Walter 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. Times are tough, and may get tougher, so where can Australians find strong political leadership? – https://theconversation.com/times-are-tough-and-may-get-tougher-so-where-can-australians-find-strong-political-leadership-182326

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Treasure McGuire, Assistant Director of Pharmacy, Mater Health SEQ in conjoint appointment as Associate Professor of Pharmacology, Bond University and Associate Professor (Clinical), The University of Queensland

Australia’s surge in COVID cases this year has seen many people looking for ways to protect themselves or boost their immunity and recovery. An upswing in sales of dietary supplements has followed.

In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration includes vitamins, minerals, amino acids, enzymes, plant extracts and microbiome supplements under the term “complementary medicine”.

The supplement industry’s global estimated worth  was about US $170 billion (A$239 billion) in 2020. Australian complementary medicines revenue was estimated at A$5.69 billion in 2021 – doubling in size over the past decade. The latest data shows 73% of Australians bought complementary medicines in the previous year, with vitamins featuring in more than half of purchases.

But how likely are these purchases to be effective in preventing COVID or treating it?

Fear, avoidance and laboratory studies

Historically, the public has purchased supplements from sources that also provide health-care advice. Lockdowns and blanket health messages about social distancing and personal hygiene have created a new normal. So people are doing more shopping online for supplements and turning to the internet, friends or social media for vitamin recommendations. For some, this has led to an unhealthy fear of COVID (coronaphobia) and negative impacts on daily life.

As with any medicine, consumers should seek information from reliable sources (doctors, pharmacists or evidence-based peer-reviewed articles) about the potential benefits and harms of supplements before purchase. Strong evidence supports vaccination as effective against the acute respiratory symptoms of COVID. Researchers have also looked at whether supplements may prevent or reduce the duration and severity of this viral infection by boosting the immune response.

Deficiencies in essential nutrients that support immune function (vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc and selenium) have been shown to increase susceptibility to infection, including COVID. But there is little evidence supplementation in a healthy person prevents respiratory infections such as COVID. An evidence gap exists between a supplement’s action in laboratory or animal studies and findings from well designed and conducted clinical trials.

Read more:
No, CBD is not a miracle molecule that can cure coronavirus, just as it won’t cure many other maladies its proponents claim

A pandemic ‘infodemic’

Ready access to supplements without a prescription from a myriad of online and shopfront sources and the uncontrolled spread of claims that supplements can prevent or treat COVID symptoms, has created an “infodemic”.

These claims are fuelled by supplement manufacturers being able to “list” their products on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, with limited evidence of safety or effectiveness. This appearance of official approval tallies with the common misperception that “natural” means “safe”.

Supplements can cause harm in the form of adverse effects, drug interactions and expense. They also add to a patient’s medication burden, may delay more effective therapy, or give false hope to the vulnerable.

Read more:
Lemon water won’t detox or energise you. But it may affect your body in other ways

Vitamins A to zinc

The recent COVID A to Z Study illustrates some of the challenges involved.

It was designed to test the effectiveness of high-dose zinc, vitamin C, and a combination of both, to shorten the duration of COVID-related symptoms compared with usual care in adult outpatients with confirmed infection.

These nutrients were chosen because:

• vitamin C studies in mice showed this antioxidant to be essential for antiviral immune responses against the influenza A virus, especially in the early stages of the infection
• deficiency of zinc, an essential trace element, has been associated with increased susceptibility to viral infections.

The authors planned to include 520 patients but the safety monitoring committee recommended the study be stopped early, due to low likelihood of detecting significant outcome differences between the groups. There were also more adverse effects (nausea, diarrhoea, and stomach cramps) reported in the supplement groups than those receiving usual care.

Little evidence of benefits

Despite the large variety of complementary medicines marketed, most clinical trials to date have studied the impact of vitamin D, vitamin C or zinc to reduce the risk of contracting COVID, improve rates of hospitalisation or death.

Even with high treatment doses, results have been generally disappointing. Vitamin D, zinc and some probiotics may be beneficial to prevent viral infections. Vitamins D, C, A, zinc, calcium and some probiotics may be beneficial to treat viral infections. But other supplements studied (including copper, magnesium, selenium and echinacea) are unlikely to be beneficial or are not supported by sufficient data.

However, supplements may be beneficial when individuals are unable to achieve a balanced and varied diet.

Read more:
Sugar detox? Cutting carbs? A doctor explains why you should keep fruit on the menu

Potentially harmful

High doses or chronic use of COVID supplements have also been linked with adverse effects: vitamin D with muscle pain and loss of bone mass; vitamin A with elevated liver function tests and blurred vision; vitamin E with bleeding risk; plant extracts, magnesium with gastrointestinal effects; and selenium with hair loss and brittle nails.

So, the evidence is not convincing that taking vitamins and supplements will prevent you catching COVID or help you recover from the infection, unless you have a known nutrient deficiency or a poor diet.

Read more:
Vitamins and minerals aren’t risk-free. Here are 6 ways they can cause harm

Treasure McGuire 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 taking vitamins and supplements help you recover from COVID? – https://theconversation.com/can-taking-vitamins-and-supplements-help-you-recover-from-covid-182220

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jake Whitehead, E-Mobility Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

Poll after poll suggests climate change is one of the most pressing issues for Australian voters. Of the 10,000 people who responded to The Conversation’s #SetTheAgenda poll, more than 60% picked climate change as the issue most impacting their lives.

And yet, climate change has barely been discussed by either major party in this election campaign so far.

Since the last federal election, we’ve watched record-smashing floods, bushfires and heatwaves take lives and destroy livelihoods, corroding our national spirit. Disasters such as these will worsen with every fraction of a degree of global warming. Which town will be hit next? Who will be trapped by rising floodwater, or encroaching flames?

Strong national policies on climate change will help us be better prepared, bring global emissions down, and provide strong leadership in this time of crisis. So how did the major parties’ climate policies stack up? We asked five experts to analyse and grade different aspects of this enormous portfolio.

Here are their detailed responses:

Coalition

Labor

Dr Jake Whitehead is on unpaid leave from his role as a Research Fellow at The University of Queensland. He was a Lead Author of the AR6 Transport Chapter for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Member of the International Electric Vehicle Policy Council, and Director of Transmobility Consulting. He has previously received government and industry funding for several sustainable transport projects, including research on both hydrogen and electric vehicles, and mobility-as-a-service. He is also holds a part-time position as the Head of Policy at the Electric Vehicle Council.

Ian Lowe is emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University. He received funding from the national energy council in the 1980s for a study of Australia’s energy options up to 2030. He was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.

Johanna Nalau is an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow at Griffith University and receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II (Chapter 15 and Summary for Policymakers) and Co-Chair of the Science Committee in the World Adaptation Science Program at United Nations Environment Program.

Matt McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK.

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

– ref. How do the major parties rate on climate policies? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/how-do-the-major-parties-rate-on-climate-policies-we-asked-5-experts-181790

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mandy Treagus, Associate Professor, Department of English, Creative Writing and Film, University of Adelaide

When the final 12 episodes of Grace and Frankie were released, the show became the longest running television series on Netflix.

Over 94 episodes, this unlikely hit went where no other series had taken viewers: into the lives of older women forced to restart their lives, both socially and sexually, after their marriages of 40 years had ended.

Their husbands’ revelation that they had been lovers for 20 years – and now planned to marry each other – threw the central characters fractiously together in an admittedly idyllic San Diego beach house.

The show broke new ground when it launched in 2015, not only for its frank and fearless portrayal of ageing, but because its central characters were ageing women.

Older women are one of the least visible demographics on television, and to see them front and centre is still unusual.

The Golden Girls (1985-92) is the only real precedent for Grace and Frankie, although the ages of its characters are surprising in retrospect.

In the first season of The Golden Girls, Rose is 55, Dorothy is 53, Blanche is 47 and Sophia is 79. In the reboot of Sex and the City, And Just Like That…, Miranda and Charlotte are 54, while Carrie is 55 – and they are certainly not portrayed as old.

But at the start of this series, Grace (Jane Fonda), Frankie (Lily Tomlin) and their former partners Robert (Martin Sheen) and Sol (Sam Waterson), are in their 70s.

Read more:
And Just Like That: how Sex and the City sequel is broadening the representation of 50+ women on TV

The trouble with ageing

The show covers many of the issues of ageing from the perspective of the aged. These include a broad range of health problems – arthritis, immobility, a knee reconstruction and mini-strokes – as well as negotiating the competing claims of children, grandchildren, lovers and friends.

In season four, following multiple health issues and falling victim to a major scam, Grace and Frankie are tricked by their children into moving into aged care.

When they find that they are not allowed to run a business there – among other lost freedoms – they launch an escape bid, stealing a golf cart and heading back to the beach house which has been sold from under them.

The issue of children making choices for their ageing parents against their will is fraught. Older parents often require assistance from their children but at the same time don’t want to lose their autonomy. Children can jump in to resolve issues without taking their parents’ agency into account.

Here, this tension is mostly a source of humour at the expense of the aged care home. But Grace and Frankie also gives a glimpse into how vulnerable people can become when they have health issues.

Read more:
For Australians to have the choice of growing old at home, here is what needs to change

Let’s talk about sex

One of the most striking elements of the show is its forthright approach to sex. Part of this is the frank acknowledgement that with age comes certain sexual challenges.

Typically, popular culture has run from the idea that older women could be sexual, especially as they do not conform to dominant ideas of beauty.

The issue of what is often obliquely referred to as “feminine dryness” is tackled directly when Frankie concocts a lube from yams.

Together, both Grace and Frankie also develop a vibrator that not only takes account of arthritic hands but also of limited mobility.

Though it provides the opportunity for numerous missteps, their company “Vybrant” is ultimately a success, with women of all ages giving the product rapturous endorsement.

Giving women the power to take control of their own sexual needs is something the show is emphatic about.

Read more:
When it comes to older people and sex, doctors put their heads in the sand

Finding joy

Bringing the challenges of coming out in your 70s for Robert and Sol into mainstream programming is also ground-breaking. Older gay men are another group who rarely see themselves on television.

Aspects of gay life – equal marriage, polyamory, promiscuity and leather men, together with gay musical theatre and obsessive dog ownership – are all depicted as part of the new world Robert and Sol enter into.

Coming out, and living the lives they have longed for, has its ongoing challenges for both characters. It is this willingness to look at every issue with both honesty and humour that has marked the approach by directors and writers Marta Kauffman and Howard J. Morris and made the show such a success.

The key focus of Grace and Frankie, despite its many diversions into the lives of ex-husbands, new lovers, friends and children, is always the friendship of Grace and Frankie.

Their friendship is hard won, severely tested, and often seems completely over – but it is the central love of both women’s lives, enabling them to go into old age with confidence, support and times of joy.

Mandy Treagus 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. Grace and Frankie is the longest running series on Netflix – and a show for women who don’t see themselves on television – https://theconversation.com/grace-and-frankie-is-the-longest-running-series-on-netflix-and-a-show-for-women-who-dont-see-themselves-on-television-182298

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather Shearer, Research Fellow, Cities Research Institute, Griffith University

Rental housing in Australia is less affordable than ever before. It is no exaggeration to call the situation a crisis, with vacancy rates at record lows.

But there are some relatively simple, easy-to-implement and cost-effective things that can be done to ease rental affordability pressures.

These include relaxing planning restrictions on small and non-traditional houses, allowing granny flats to be rented to anyone, permitting property owners to let space to tiny house dwellers, and possibly even subsidising the building of granny flats or modification of houses for dual occupancy.

Read more:
Stability and security: the keys to closing the mental health gap between renters and home owners

‘Dependant’ persons only

The degree to which local councils permit very small dwellings depends on factors such as dwelling type, lot characteristics, planning scheme zoning and overlays, and state regulations.

Subject to these constraints, granny flats are generally legal in Australia, though states such as Queensland and Victoria restrict who can live in them.

In Queensland, most councils limit occupancy to members of the same household, defined as a group who “live together on a long-term basis and make common provision for food or other essentials for living”.

In Victoria, granny flats can only “provide accommodation for a person who is dependant on a resident of the existing dwelling” (and are hence called Dependant Person’s Units).

While these laws are sometimes ignored, they limit the potential for this affordable housing option for other individuals who struggle in the housing market. Extra council regulations and fees also make building a granny flat complicated, time-consuming and expensive, particularly if they incur infrastructure charges.

Desperately seeking parking space

Tiny houses, especially those on wheels, are typically not approved for permanent residence. Councils consider them caravans, with periods of permitted occupancy ranging from zero to about three months.

Some councils will tolerate them but, if receiving a complaint, can demand the tiny house be removed at short notice.

This can cause extreme distress. Some tiny house owners report living in constant fear of being moved on. In recent years we’ve seen increasing numbers of posts on tiny house social media pages pleading for “parking space”.

Because of these barriers, most tiny houses in Australia aren’t in urban areas, where demand for rental properties is highest, but hidden “under the radar” in more rural areas.

These areas typically have poorer access to public transport, employment, education and health services. If unknown to authorities, tiny house dwellers may also be at higher risk from natural disasters such as bushfires and floods.

Benefits from easing restrictions

Removing some restrictions on letting granny flats and permitting and regulating longer-term occupancy for tiny house dwellers can help ease these rental affordability challenges.

There are other benefits too. For local councils trying to limit unsustainable, low-density expansion on their fringes, these changes enable a relatively gentle and unobtrusive form of densification in places where resistance to change is common.

It could also support more ageing in place (enabling the elderly to downsize while staying in their neighbourhood), reduce development pressures on the natural environment, and provide valuable income both for home owners and give local councils a new stream of rate income.

Read more:
So, you want to live tiny? Here’s what to consider when choosing a house, van or caravan

Allowing property owners to let space to a tiny-house dweller (with appropriate regulations on aesthetic appearance, safety features and environmental impacts) could be a cost-effective and rapid way to increase rental supply for some demographics. Single women over 50, for example, are at high risk of homelessness and also the demographic most interested in tiny house living.

This crisis needs innovative responses

We have seen that, when disasters strike, governments can introduce innovative responses to local housing crises.

In response to the massive floods of February and March, the New South Wales government’s Temporary Accommodation Policy changed the rules to allow a moveable dwelling or manufactured home to be placed in a disaster-affected area for up to two years, or longer subject to council approval.

Allowing tiny houses for a trial period of, say, two years could provide a valuable pilot project, and perhaps alleviate the concerns of some local ratepayers. In nine years of research into the tiny house movement in Australia, we have found some councils are willing to consider permitting tiny houses – but only if another council does it first.

A longer-term solution is to encourage the building of more granny flats as part of a program of moderate densification, as is happening in Auckland, New Zealand.

Rather than subsidising expensive renovations of existing homes – as the Morrison government did with its HomeBuilder grants scheme – federal, state and territory governments could offer incentives to divide or extend homes in well-designed and sustainably constructed ways to enable dual living.

Read more:
Up on a roof: why New Zealand’s move towards greater urban density should see a rooftop revolution

While not as visibly dramatic as floods and bushfires, the crisis of housing affordability deserves equally imaginative policy responses. After all, adequate housing is enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The crisis is complex and multifaceted. There are no easy solutions to address it in its entirety, and for every demographic. Tiny houses and granny flats are not suitable for all households. But business as usual is no solution.

We need a willingness to experiment with and learn from innovative and even disruptive approaches.

Heather Shearer is a member of the Australian Greens Party and of the Australian Tiny House Association.

Paul Burton receives funding from the ARC (LP 190101218) and the City of Gold Coast as part of a long-standing Urban Growth Management Partnership. He is a Vice President of the Queensland Division of the Planning Institute of Australia and a member of the National Education Committee of PIA.

– ref. Tiny and alternate houses can help ease Australia’s rental affordability crisis – https://theconversation.com/tiny-and-alternate-houses-can-help-ease-australias-rental-affordability-crisis-182328

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Ambrose, Research Team Leader, CSIRO

Apartment living is booming in Australia. Many people choose apartments for their good energy efficiency, which reduces the need for heating and cooling and leads to lower power bills. But not every apartment is as energy efficient as the development advertises.

All proposed new dwellings, including apartments, require an energy rating certificate. Generally, apartments achieve a higher average energy star rating than houses in the same area.

However, the method used to assess and report the energy efficiency of new developments – averaged across the entire development – could lead some purchasers to believe their new apartment is more energy efficient than it is.

My colleagues and I collected energy rating profiles for more than 5,500 apartment developments across Australia to explore what’s really going on. In many cases, we found clusters of apartments far below the energy star rating for the complex as a whole.

Averages can be misleading

Australia’s home energy star ratings are formally known as the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS). The scheme measures the “thermal performance” of a new home – or how well it remains at a comfortable temperature without artificial heating or cooling.

Last year in New South Wales, 58% of all energy rating certificates issued were for new apartments, reflecting the popularity of this type of dwelling.

In some areas, demand for apartments is skyrocketing. In the ACT, for example, 33% of certificates issued last year were for apartments, up from 7% four years earlier.

For a residential development to comply with the National Construction Code, the average rating across all apartments must be at least 6 stars. The maximum rating is 10 stars. Across Australia last year, the average rating of new apartments was 6.6 stars, compared to an average of 6.2 stars for houses.

This averaging process means some apartments may be above the average and some below. It may also mean some individual apartments don’t meet the minimum 6 star requirement.

In fact, there may be a significant cluster of apartments that rate below 6 stars – for example, west-facing apartments exposed to the afternoon sun that require a lot of cooling.

Conversely, a small number of apartments may rate well above 6 stars. These may be north-facing apartments that are also well insulated by other apartments above, below and on either side. These apartments will pull up the average star rating of the development.

This is a legitimate approach to energy ratings of apartment blocks. But it does raise an important question: do buyers know the energy rating of their individual apartment – especially those apartments with a below-average rating?

Read more:
Low-energy homes don’t just save money, they improve lives

Crunching the numbers

We collected data from NatHERS certificates for more than 5,500 apartment developments across Australia comprising both the certificates for individual apartments and the rating of developments as a whole.

Generally, ratings for individual apartments were close to the average of the entire complex. But in about 19% of apartment developments, at least 10% of apartments rated 5 stars or lower.

The chart below shows the star rating distribution for a development in Melbourne with about 150 apartments. The average star rating for the development was 6.2 stars. However, 47% of apartments rated below 6 stars while 23% rated above 7 stars.

We also examined a large development in Sydney with more than 400 apartments. The development has an average rating of 7 stars. However, as illustrated below, 16% of apartments rate below 6 stars and 1% (five apartments) are below 5 stars.

Those five apartment owners will likely have much higher energy costs than most of their neighbours. But they may not have realised that at the time of purchase, and the sale price may not have reflected this poorer energy performance.

Know what you’re buying

Energy ratings are mandatory for all new individual dwellings in Australia. However, providing the result to consumers is not.

Recent research has shown most real estate advertisements do not promote a home’s energy rating, and real agents often don’t know what the rating is.

Energy rating certificates could be included as standard in the information provided to someone looking to buy an apartment.

But in the meantime, if you’re planning on buying a new apartment, ask for a copy of the energy rating certificate. Only then will you know what you’re paying for.

Read more:
House hunters are rarely told the home energy rating – little wonder the average is as low as 1.8 stars

Michael Ambrose has received funding from government departments including the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. CSIRO owns the AccuRate Sustainability software which is the benchmark tool used in the NatHERS software accreditation process. CSIRO receives financial benefit from the creation of NatHERS Certificates which is then used to maintain and develop the accreditation software.

– ref. Analysis of 5,500 apartment developments reveals your new home may not be as energy efficient as you think – https://theconversation.com/analysis-of-5-500-apartment-developments-reveals-your-new-home-may-not-be-as-energy-efficient-as-you-think-182143