Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Hall, Senior Researcher, Environmental Law Initiative and Visiting Scholar, Faculty of Law, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Nature in Aotearoa New Zealand is in serious trouble. With many of our species and habitats at risk of disappearing forever, the government’s 2020 biodiversity strategy sets the scene in stark terms:

Despite all that we are doing to try to protect and restore habitats and assist species, Papaptūānuku and Aotearoa New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity is in crisis.
Around 4,000 species are threatened or at risk of extinction. Many plants and wildlife continue to decline or are just hanging on.
We need to act urgently to ensure that nature is healthy and thriving for its own sake and for current and future generations.

The strategy – full title, Te Mana o te Taiao: Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2020 – contains staggered goals for the years 2025, 2030 and 2050. The task of achieving those 2025 goals falls to the recently released Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan.

The government deserves credit for acknowledging a biodiversity crisis and responding with a plan. As the strategy acknowledges, there is much good work already happening to protect and restore habitats and species.

Unfortunately, comparing the strategy and the plan reveals a serious disconnect between important goals and the associated actions.

Missing in action

In keeping with the government’s wish that the plan be a living document, we identify fundamental issues that need to be urgently addressed if we’re to avoid sleepwalking into a biodiversity crisis.

For example, one of the biodiversity strategy’s 2025 goals states:

The most ecologically damaging pollutants (eg. excess nutrients, sediment, biocides, plastics, light and sound) and pollutant sources have been identified, and an integrated plan for their management is in place.

Yet the plan merely refers back to existing resource management instruments, despite the failure of these to prevent the proliferation of ecologically damaging pollutants such as nitrates or pesticides.

Similarly, another 2025 goal sates:

Environmental limits for the sustainable use of resources from marine ecosystems have been agreed on and are being implemented.

The plan then refers to a “best practice framework” for aquaculture, the implementation of the existing quota management system, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, and the forthcoming Natural and Built Environments Act. None of these actions involves the agreement and implementation of environmental limits for marine ecosystems by 2025.

Other core goals around marine bycatch, freshwater fisheries and ecosystem restoration also suffer from similar disconnects between aspiration and action. To meet these key goals, the plan should be updated with concrete actions that directly align with the strategic goals.

Beyond business as usual

Around two-thirds of the plan represents measures already in place. While many are targeted at the 2025 goals and will obviously have value, it’s clear business as usual has led us to the current crisis.

Addressing the scale of of the crisis demands a step-change in our approach to biodiversity protection and conservation. Fundamental to that is moving beyond business as usual, and for the government to produce a set of quantifiable targets and limits for biodiversity conservation.

The current biodiversity strategy “goals” are vague and hard to quantify – for example: “Significant progress has been made in protecting marine habitats and ecosystems of high biodiversity value.” Even with an agreed set of national indicators it will be difficult to know if goals have actually been met.

Read more:
Bringing the tūī back to town – how native birds are returning to NZ’s restored urban forests

Instead, we must heed the call of scientists and produce smart national and regional biodiversity targets that clearly set out how much of an ecosystem, a species or a population we wish to sustain as a nation.

The strategy and plan do contain references to environmental limits in the freshwater and marine environments, as well as the work to introduce limits into the new Natural and Built Environments Act.

While this is welcome, it’s not clear from the plan that these will be dedicated biodiversity limits (the minimum we need for an ecosystem, species or population to survive), beyond which we cannot lawfully proceed.

Such limits, in theory, should prevent biodiversity continually being traded away for development, perhaps the key driver of biodiversity loss.

Read more:
Why a sense of kinship is key to caring about the living world

Consensus on the crisis needed

With targets and limits in place, the Department of Conservation (DOC) should urgently review all legally protected land in Aotearoa New Zealand, to determine the extent to which it meets our target levels for ecosystems, species and populations. A similar review was done by Australian scientists in 2016.

Legal protections are vital, as habitats that aren’t legally protected are more likely to be cleared for land development. Where species or ecosystems are underrepresented on protected public and private land, the government should detail concrete actions to increase the levels of those ecosystems and habitats under protection.

Read more:
How New Zealand’s review of ecologically important land could open the door to more mining on conservation land

A good starting point would be to examine where areas of stewardship land (ecologically significant land not currently managed by DOC) could be restored back to ecosystem health.

Underpinning all this is the political will and resourcing to make it happen. Already the strategy and plan have been through two governments, with maybe another to follow next year’s general election. DOC is massively under-resourced and facing a budget crisis.

To ensure the longevity of this work, perhaps what’s needed most is long-term cross-party support for urgently addressing the biodiversity crisis.

Without that support and funding, regardless of what the plan is on paper, the government won’t be able to take the big actions necessary to match the scale of our biodiversity crisis.

Matthew Hall is a Senior Researcher at the Environmental Law Initiative.

Allan Brent is Senior Legal Advisor to the Environmental Law Initiative.

– ref. Without a better plan, New Zealand risks sleepwalking into a biodiversity extinction crisis – https://theconversation.com/without-a-better-plan-new-zealand-risks-sleepwalking-into-a-biodiversity-extinction-crisis-182279

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn Barnsley, Adjunct researcher, University of Tasmania

Menthol is the minty cigarette ingredient that conjures up images of beaches, snow-covered ski slopes and glamorous yacht parties, all crisp white and fresh green. Menthol as a deadly additive is under threat at last.

Several countries, including Canada, Ethiopia, Turkey, Chile, the European Union and the United Kingdom, have banned the use of menthol and other flavours in tobacco products.

Late to regulating menthol in tobacco products, the US Food and Drug Administration has also announced a ban.

In Australia, we have done little to change what’s inside cigarettes and other smoking products. So we lag even further behind the many other countries that have banned menthol.

For ‘timid’ ladies

The marketing of menthol by the tobacco industry in Australia has long been targeted at supposedly sophisticated smokers. In Melbourne in the 1990s, tobacco giant Philip Morris – in its personality analysis of smokers of its Alpine menthol brand – found the “Alpine Gal is a physically timid lady”, so the packaging had to be “gentle”, not “dare devil”.

More recently, the industry added menthol “crush balls” or capsules in filters in Australian cigarettes, so users get a burst of menthol by biting on the filter. Once again, women and children are the target market. A study from Wales showed the fact that:

[…] three in five 11–16 year-old smokers reported using menthol cigarettes in the past 30 days highlights how appealing these products are to young people, particularly capsule cigarettes, used by 70% of menthol smokers.

A search of millions of tobacco industry documents confirms menthol is designed to attract new young smokers, who incorrectly believe it makes cigarettes somehow less harmful.

In 2012, Australia’s then health minister and Attorney-General Nicola Roxon regulated the outside of cigarette packets, introducing plain packaging with graphic health warnings. Although significant, the packaging change did nothing to alter what was inside the product.

Nor have subsequent governments.

In other words, we have not yet regulated the most damaging aspects of cigarette design that increase and maintain addiction.

Read more:
Next step for tobacco control? Make cigarettes less palatable

Not really ‘light’ – just dangerous

Menthol is associated with so-called “light” cigarettes, which the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has found misleading and deceptive and banned the use of the term. The ACCC did not ban the content or engineering of cigarettes.

It is not just additives in cigarettes, and the smoke emissions, that are harmful. The “engineering hoax” of filters – which don’t make smoking any safer – is an even more dangerous fraud.

Read more:
Filters: a cigarette engineering hoax that harms both smokers and the environment

A new era of additives

Australia’s new National Tobacco Strategy Consultation Draft says it will “explore” regulation of filters, additives – including menthol – and nicotine content, but offers little certainty.

In the UK, the ban on menthol cigarettes not only triggered a switch to menthol vapes, but also prompted the tobacco industry to invent new products to exploit loopholes in the law.

Late last year, the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project – a network of investigative journalists – found:

A key goal of Big Tobacco was to get menthol defined as vaguely as possible.

So, any attempts at legislative control must be tightly worded. Big tobacco will drive its legal trucks through anything vague.

The effects of bans are mixed

Canadian research showed a fall in smoking rates followed their menthol ban.

Other research suggested targeting menthol in cigarettes might cause a switch to vaping, as in the UK. We know that vaping is a global public health problem and that flavourings drive uptake in adolescents. The FDA will not immediately ban menthol in e-cigarettes.

Vaping causes lung damage and exacerbates COVID symptoms.

E-cigarettes and heat-not-burn products should be regulated in exactly the same way as other tobacco products, and flavours should be regulated or eliminated.

New Zealand has moved to reduce nicotine content, the principal addictive drug in tobacco. But NZ has dropped the ball on e-cigarettes by separating its regulatory framework from other tobacco products. The country is experiencing high rates of teenage vaping uptake.

Read more:
A damning review of e-cigarettes shows vaping leads to smoking, the opposite of what supporters claim

Smoking kills

There are three million smokers in Australia. Two-thirds will die from smoking-related diseases.

Most will have health problems, and our hospital emergency departments and wards deal with much higher rates of smokers being admitted than the general population.

The crushing burden on the health system and the associated economic cost could be effectively reduced with comprehensive regulatory measures on tobacco.

Endgame

The four endgame initiatives that will reduce smoking and vaping to a minimum in Australia are:

1. a ban on sales of both combustible and vape tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2004

2. regulation to eliminate flavours (including, but not limited to, menthol) in combustible, vape and emerging tobacco products

3. staged reduction in nicotine content

4. a ban on filter ventilation engineering in cigarettes.

Banning menthol as a standalone reform would make a modest contribution to reducing smoking and vaping rates in Australia.

However, substantive reduction in smoking rates will only occur with a comprehensive suite of measures, already strongly supported in the community. These include phasing out the sale of tobacco products completely.

Kathryn Barnsley is co-convenor of SmokeFree Tasmania.

– ref. The US FDA has moved to ban menthol cigarettes. Australia should do that and more – https://theconversation.com/the-us-fda-has-moved-to-ban-menthol-cigarettes-australia-should-do-that-and-more-182435

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andreea Lachsz, PhD Candidate, University of Technology Sydney

Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that names of deceased people are included in this article.

The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service is representing family members of Veronica Nelson, Ms Calgaret, and Michael Suckling in coronial investigations/inquests into their deaths in custody.

When someone is placed in prison, they are entirely dependent on prison officers and prison health-care providers. Incarcerated people do not get to choose when they see a doctor or mental health practitioner, when they take medicine, or what type of care they receive. They cannot call 000 and be taken to a hospital if they are dangerously ill.

In Victoria, if a person in prison is Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, they do not get access to culturally competent care through Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations. In Victoria, prison health care is provided by for-profit private companies contracted by the state government.

Imprisoned peoples’ physical health and/or social and emotional well-being is at the mercy of prison officers and prison healthcare providers.

Through our practice at the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, we have seen the differences between how people are treated in the community and how they are treated in prisons and youth prisons.

Read more:
Does the pre-election budget address ways to realistically ‘close the gap’ for Indigenous people?

The right to healthcare continues when people are incarcerated

International law requires “prisoners should enjoy the same standards of health care that are available in the community”. This healthcare should be “free of charge” and “without discrimination”. It also makes clear everyone has the right to the “highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”.

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities requires that persons deprived of liberty (such as people in prison or police custody) be treated with humanity and respect.

The Coronial Inquest into the death of Yorta Yorta woman, Aunty Tanya Day, found that police and prison staff must ensure access to medical care for detained people. Under law, incarcerated people in Victoria have the “right to have access to reasonable medical care and treatment necessary for the preservation of health”.

Yet incarcerated people in Australia are excluded from access to funding under Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This impacts not only health care in prisons by Aboriginal health services, but also the ability to provide continuity of care to incarcerated Aboriginal people as they enter and exit prison.

In Victoria, health care in prisons is the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Community Safety, not the Department of Health. Health care is provided by a subcontracted and fragmented system of multiple, private health-care providers. This contributes to inconsistent health care across the prison system.

From our clients in prison, we hear about limited access to health care for critical conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart problems. What’s more, people in prison are often prescribed medication without a thorough health check. Self-harm incidents among Aboriginal people in Victorian prisons have risen by more than 50%. Despite this, we still hear of lack of access to counselling, psychiatric care, trauma and grief support.

Read more:
How the kidnapping of a First Nations man on New Year’s Eve in 1788 may have led to a smallpox epidemic

Imprisonment should not be a death sentence

There have been more than 500 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander deaths in custody since 1991. Last year, a Guardian analysis on the 30th anniversary of the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody found:

For both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous people, the most common cause of death was medical problems, followed by self-harm.

However, the Guardian also found Indigenous people who died in custody were three times more likely not to receive all necessary medical care, compared with non-Indigenous people. For Indigenous women, the result was even worse – fewer than half received all required medical care prior to death.

This conclusion is chilling, given that incarcerated people, particularly Aboriginal people, have higher rates of underlying health conditions than the general population.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended prison health care be culturally safe and “be of an equivalent standard to that available to the general public”. This recommendation still has not been implemented.

Multiple upcoming coronial inquests will examine deaths in custody in Victoria’s prisons, and the adequacy of prison healthcare. Aboriginal man, Michael Suckling, died of a suspected stroke at Ravenhall Correctional Centre. His death will be examined in a coronial inquest later this year.

Veronica Nelson, a proud Gunditjmara, Dja Dja Wurrung, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta woman, died at Victoria’s main women’s prison, Dame Phyllis Frost Centre. A coronial inquest into her death began last week. The inquest will examine matters including the adequacy of the healthcare Veronica was provided in prison, and whether her Aboriginality affected the treatment she received.

Ms Calgaret, a proud Yamatji, Noongar, Wongi and Pitjantjatjara woman, died at Sunshine Hospital after being transferred from Dame Phyllis Frost Centre in a critical condition in November 2021. The death of a newborn baby at the same prison is also being examined in an upcoming coronial inquest. Despite these deaths and widespread calls for the Victorian Government to invest in community not prisons, the government is proposing to expand Dame Phyllis Frost Centre.

Read more:
Racism is a public health crisis – but Black death tolls aren’t the answer

Culturally safe healthcare for Aboriginal people

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority has defined cultural safety as follows:

Cultural safety is determined by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals, families and communities. Culturally safe practise is the ongoing critical reflection of health practitioner knowledge, skills, attitudes, practising behaviours and power differentials in delivering safe, accessible and responsive healthcare free of racism.

The first Aboriginal community controlled health organisation was founded in Redfern in 1971, “in response to experiences of racism in mainstream health services and an unmet need for culturally safe and accessible primary health care.” Aboriginal-led health organisations are essential to ensuring culturally safe health services are provided to Aboriginal people, and are a manifestation of Aboriginal self-determination.

In the Northern Territory and the ACT, Aboriginal community controlled health organisations have begun coming in to prisons to deliver primary health services in adult and youth prisons.

This is a crucial first step to providing culturally safe healthcare to incarcerated Aboriginal people. This will improve access to healthcare for those who are imprisoned, and provide support and consistency upon release. This is vital when many of our community members cycle in and out of prison at frequent intervals, due to failures of the justice system.

Time to action the lessons learned

In prisons, officers and prison health staff make life and death decisions every day. When they are negligent, there must be accountability, space for truth, and justice.

The Victorian and Federal governments do not need any more “examples” of what can happen when healthcare is not equivalent to that in the community, and is not culturally safe. Aboriginal people are dying in custody, becoming disabled, or living with the preventable development or exacerbation of mental or physical health conditions as a result of negligent practices.

The writing is on the prison wall.

It is time for governments to care, it is time for them to act.

This article was written with permission from Apryl Day to write about Aunty Tanya Day, and the family members, whom VALS represents, of Veronica Nelson, Ms Calgaret, and Michael Suckling.

Andreea Lachsz is the Head of Policy, Communications and Strategy at the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service. VALS is representing the family members of Ms Veronica Nelson, Ms Calgaret, and Michael Suckling in coronial investigations/inquests into their deaths in custody.

Nerita Waight runs the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service which receives funding from Department of Justice and Community Safety and Corrections Victoria . Nerita is currently a member of the Victorian Women’s Correctional Services Committee.

Sarah Schwartz is a Senior Lawyer / Advocate at the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and acts for family members of Veronica Nelson, Ms Calgaret and Michael Suckling in coronial proceedings into their deaths in custody.

– ref. Victoria’s prison healthcare system should match community healthcare – https://theconversation.com/victorias-prison-healthcare-system-should-match-community-healthcare-180558

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isabelle Onley, PhD Candidate, University of Adelaide

Social structure is an important aspect of species’ biology. Having a pecking order and male or female territoriality can help species thrive.

For instance, this can prevent inbreeding, by ensuring males or females leave their family territory to reproduce. It can also help with passing important knowledge and resources down through family lines.

Many Australian species, such as the kangaroo, have a male-dominated social structure. However, recent research into lesser-known native animals has found it’s actually girls who run these worlds.

The houseproud greater stick-nest rat

The greater stick-nest rat (Leporillus conditor) is a native rodent about the size of a guinea pig. It was once widespread across the southern half of mainland Australia. But by the 1930s, grazing, changes in land use and introduced predators reduced its range down to a single island off the coast of South Australia.

Now, thanks to some fantastic conservation efforts, it persists in multiple safe havens across the country.

This species builds nests out of sticks and dry grass, bonded together with special sticky urine. The nests can reach huge sizes and are surprisingly complex – with multiple burrows, chambers and even levels that keep the inhabitants safe from predators and extreme heat and cold.

The construction is so advanced that nests can last for thousands of years, when protected from the elements by caves or rock overhangs.

These stick nests are communal and used over many generations. For a long time, however, there was little understanding of how the nests are passed down. A study published last year by myself and my colleagues used trapping data and genetic samples taken over many years to investigate this.

We found females were more closely related to each other over shorter distances, while males were not. Also, females that were caught in consecutive months and years were typically found in the same nest (or one next door), while males were not.

The evidence pointed to one thing: female greater stick-nest rats typically remain in, or near, the nest they were born in – while males leave and disperse across the landscape.

This strategy has two major benefits. First, it helps prevent inbreeding within populations.

Second, since the nests are a huge energy investment for a little rat, passing them down through the female line improves the likelihood of breeding success for future generations, by giving descendants protection from predators and extreme temperatures.

Researchers of greater stick-nest rats have also observed dominant behaviour in females and, occasionally, aggression towards males that come near their nest. Males have even been seen presenting flowers to a resident female, as if attempting courtship!

Read more:
Fierce female moles have male-like hormones and genitals. We now know how this happens.

Female dominance in Australian species

The greater stick-nest rat isn’t the only Australian rodent with females that rule the roost.

The broad-toothed rat, a sub-alpine species found in south-eastern Australia, demonstrates female territoriality in the summer months while the males roam across larger home ranges. But when the cold winters set in, and snow covers the landscape, males and females can be found huddling together in shared nests.

Meanwhile, the ash grey mouse, a native rodent from the biodiversity hotspot of southwest Western Australia, forms groups of multiple females that share a burrow and raise their young together.

Female social dominance can also be found in marsupials, such as the thumb-sized honey possum, which is also native to southwest Western Australia. Females of this species are larger than males and are sexually promiscuous. They mate with multiple males to produce tiny babies, no bigger than a grain of rice.

The brush-tailed phascogale, another small marsupial species, has females which settle and occupy territories that are sometimes surrendered in part to their daughters when they reach adulthood.

The males, meanwhile, move more freely over large home ranges that overlap with other individuals. A key factor in the marking of brush-tailed phascogale territories is believed to be a kind of scent marking, by way of faeces left in prominent positions around the home range boundaries and nesting sites.

Other native species exhibit similarly variable and complex social structures. But with so many of our fauna threatened, endangered or difficult to find and study in the wild, we have much to learn about how they interact.

The science of sociality

While the complexities of these social hierarchies are fascinating, they’re often hard to determine. Previously, such knowledge could only be gained through long-term studies in the field or in captivity. This is difficult when the species is shy, or tiny like the honey possum.

Thankfully, advances in genetic and animal tracking technology are providing experts deeper insight into the dynamics of these species, with much less cost and effort. With tracking devices becoming more lightweight, powerful and durable, researchers can now remotely monitor the movement and dispersal of species across their home ranges.

In addition, DNA from tissue, skin or hair samples can be sequenced to provide high-quality data to inform on how individuals in an area are related. This can show us how family groupings coexist.

Yet even with these improvements, there is still much we don’t know about the secret lives of Australia’s animals. With the combined pressures of habitat loss, feral predators and climate change, researchers are racing against the clock to better understand our wildlife and hopefully preserve it.

Wildlife reserves such as the Arid Recovery Reserve, where our study on greater stick-nest rats was conducted, combine research with hands-on management to inform conservation efforts – and are taking steps to safeguard our precious native species’ place in the future.

Read more:
What Australian birds can teach us about choosing a partner and making it last

Isabelle Onley receives funding from the following sources: the University of Adelaide, Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, Nature Foundation South Australia, Biological Society South Australia/Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, and the Field Naturalists Society of South Australia.

– ref. Meet the territorial females and matriarchs in Australia’s backyard – https://theconversation.com/meet-the-territorial-females-and-matriarchs-in-australias-backyard-181617

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

What does a democracy do when a dominant news media organisation goes rogue during an election campaign?

In 2022, News Corporation is confronting Australia with this question once again, as it did in 2019, 2016 and 2013, and as it did in the United States in 2016 and 2020.

“Going rogue” here means abandoning any attempt at fulfilling one of the media’s primary obligations to a democratic society — the provision of truthful news coverage — and instead becoming a truth-distorting propagandist for one side.

The evidence that News Corp has gone rogue during the current federal election is plentiful. It can be seen every morning in its newspapers across the country, and every evening on Sky News after dark.

A sample of its election coverage over the period April 27 to May 2 makes the case.

On May 2, the Daily Telegraph in Sydney devoted its front page to a publicity puff for Katherine Deves, the Liberal candidate for Tony Abbott’s old seat of Warringah.

Deves is campaigning to have transgender women banned from sport, but has had to apologise twice as statements by her have emerged claiming “half of all males with trans identities are sex offenders”, and likening her view on the issue to standing up to Nazis.

The Telegraph splashed the headline “They are all with me”, alongside a photo of a smiling Deves, pushing the argument that “the silent majority” supported her position. Rowan Dean on Sky went so far as to say this could win the election for the government.

On May 1, the Herald Sun in Melbourne turned its front page into a campaign poster for Josh Frydenberg. According to the headline, Frydenberg was in the “fight of his life” to retain Robert Menzies’ old seat of Kooyong against a “teal” independent, Monique Ryan.

Inside, the paper produced a double-page spread promoting Frydenberg with the banner headline, “Why you need to vote for me”, reportedly lifted straight from a Liberal campaign advertisement.

Pictures of his wife and children featured prominently in this piece of rank propaganda.

Meanwhile, on Sky after dark, the big guns Andrew Bolt, Peta Credlin and Paul Murray kept up a relentless barrage of pro-Liberal, anti-Labor and anti-teal propaganda.

Bolt picked up on a Scott Morrison jibe about Labor’s policy on the Solomon Islands, saying it involved sending the ABC to head off China in the south Pacific.

Over the week it was part of an eclectic contribution from Bolt, touching on Hong Kong, border protection, male birth control and a new twist on the concept of climate denialism. On Bolt’s planet, increasing power prices are the result of “being in denial” by thinking coal-fired power stations can be replaced by wind and solar energy.

Credlin also spent a lot of time on climate but had a quite different take. Having re-run a Liberal attack ad saying Labor is proposing a carbon tax, she went on to say the Coalition is divided more fundamentally than Labor on climate.

To her obvious chagrin, the Liberal Party had allowed itself to be distracted by this and by identity wars, a clear reference to the Deves problem, and she conceded the government was “a little bit shop-soiled”.

But Credlin’s main targets were the teal independents – women candidates standing on a platform of climate action, integrity and gender equality against Liberal incumbents in seats such as Goldstein and Kooyong in Melbourne, and Wentworth and North Sydney in Sydney.

Their sheer impertinence made her cross.

It meant, she said, the “hard heads” at Liberal campaign headquarters were having to spend time and money defending Liberal seats that “by right” they should not have to defend. In other words, the Liberal Party was entitled to occupy these seats without serious challenge.

Then there was Murray, presenting himself as “the last line of defence for common sense”.

In this role he was running a countdown: by the evening of May 2, there were only 19 days left to “save the country from the mad left”.

When a Labor figure, Nicholas Reece, tried to argue the cost of Labor’s election promises was dwarfed by the debt run up by the present government, Murray shouted him down, saying, “I’m not interested.”

Murray also asserted, without a shred of evidence, that Labor and the Greens had struck a power-sharing deal, so in the event of a hung parliament Labor would govern with the Greens’ support. This added up to the fact that “Labor and the Greens are the same thing”.

The lesser lights on Sky, such as Chris Smith, Chris Kenny and others, made their own toxic contributions, using words such as “fraud”, “sewer” and “spewing” in crude attacks on the teal independents.

And so it went for the whole week: propaganda, distortions, crudity and pro-Liberal apologia.

A fraud on the people

This abandonment of a fundamental news media obligation to truth-telling is by definition harmful to a democratic society. Not only does it rob the population of a bedrock of reliable news, it debases the entire discourse. It is also a fraud on the people by misrepresenting propaganda as news.

The dilemma facing a democracy is that measures needed to counter these harms would violate free-speech principles to a degree that would harm democracy in a different way.

Any abridgement of free speech must be proportional to the harm that is sought to be avoided. How that balance might be struck in a case like this is highly contestable on political as well as ethical grounds.

Yet existing measures are clearly ineffectual. The broadcast industry’s codes of practice for television and radio require news programs to be accurate and fair – but give no guidance on what this consists of. Current affairs programs are exempt even from this requirement.

The broadcast regulator, the Australian Communication and Media Authority, is a “co-regulator” that has shown itself to be utterly captured by the industry it is meant to hold to account.

Read more:
10 years after Finkelstein, media accountability has gone backwards

Newspapers are accountable to the Australian Press Council, but it has proved just as ineffectual as the ACMA. In any case, it is fatally compromised by being reliant on funding from the newspaper companies, among which the largest contributor is News Corporation.

All efforts to establish an effective independent media accountability body have foundered on the rock of implacable opposition from the commercial media organisations.

Yet, even if one were to be established, the dilemma would remain: what standards would strike the right balance, and how would they be enforced during an election campaign in ways that did not unreasonably burden free speech?

In the end, democracies are thrown back on conventions, which provide the boundaries within which politics operates in ways conducive to the public good.

The conventions depend on people in power, including those running media organisations, living up to the responsibilities that their role in a democracy imposes on them.

By convention, those responsibilities include prioritising the public interest over the private interests of media organisations and their owners, and providing news content calculated to inform, not repel, the voting public.

News Corporation fails on both counts.

It prioritises the understood financial and ideological interests of one man, Rupert Murdoch, over the public interest, and its toxic news content is calculated to reinforce the worldview of its target audiences.

If News Corp were merely an online echo chamber, this would be bad enough, but it is not.

The ready availability of its newspapers to the population as a whole, and the spread of its Sky after dark content beyond the confines of pay television into regional free-to-air services, make it a far more damaging influence than any online filter bubble.

WIN and Southern Cross Austereo, the companies that carry the Sky content on free-to-air TV into regional Australia, are complicit in inflicting this damage on the Australian polity. They too have abandoned their conventional responsibilities.

In an age where communications businesses are enjoined to “move fast and break things”, breaking these conventions risks breaking democracy itself. Events in the United States since 2016 provide a stark example of what this looks like when it happens.

Denis Muller 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. As News Corp goes ‘rogue’ on election coverage, what price will Australian democracy pay? – https://theconversation.com/as-news-corp-goes-rogue-on-election-coverage-what-price-will-australian-democracy-pay-181599

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillip Mendes, Professor, Director Social Inclusion and Social Policy Research Unit, Monash University

Young people transitioning from out-of-home care – whether it’s foster, kinship or residential care – are disadvantaged in many ways. Many have experienced abuse, neglect, family hardship or illness. They may feel long-term grief due to family separation.

And while some enjoy stable placements with committed foster or kinship carers, others – particularly those in residential care, supervised by rostered staff – may experience instability as friends or support workers come and go.

Most exit the out-of-home care system at 18, or younger, without ongoing support.

Unfortunately, however, many such young people quickly encounter homelessness, unemployment and contact with the criminal justice system soon after leaving out-of-home care. Instead of leaving these people to fend for themselves at age 18 (or younger), we need a nationally consistent model of extended care that supports care leavers until age 21.

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

A tough transition

A 2021 study by the CREATE Foundation (which represents young people who have experienced out-of-home care) found homelessness was common among people exiting the system. Almost 100 of the 325 sampled care leavers aged 18-25 experienced homelessness in the first year after their transition.

Another study found:

More than half the 1,848 Victorian care leavers in this study (using data from leavers during 2013 and 2014) accessed homelessness services in the four years after leaving care, while one in three had multiple homeless experiences. Participants with experiences of residential care and multiple foster care placements were more likely to experience housing disruptions.

Another national study noted care leavers were three times as likely as other young Australians to have received social security payments.

Of course, many care leavers do integrate effectively into the social and economic mainstream. Some have difficult lives but still manage to cope, while others struggle to overcome adversity and social exclusion.

In general, those who achieve successful transitions tend to leave care later than 18 years of age and receive ongoing support well into their twenties from, for example

• foster or kinship carers

• extended family members

• formal mentors or neighbours

• friends

• members of sporting, religious, cultural and other community groups.

These supportive relationships, which mirror the assistance that most of their non-care peers naturally access from their parents, provide the social capital needed to acquire housing, food, clothing, a driver’s licence and entry into sustainable education, employment and training.

According to one young person who remained with their foster family in Victoria beyond 18 years:

I was in the same home for 11 years, they were like my parents so they didn’t kick me out or anything. It wasn’t like I was in their care; I was like a part of the family.

Conversely, those who experience troubled transitions from out-of-home care may experience social isolation, emotional adversity and hardship.

One young person from Victoria who was suddenly forced to leave care commented:

I mean if you have a kid, you’re not going to kick him out as soon as they turn 16. You’re not going to, you know, tell your kid that ‘oh you have to find your own way to learn how to drive or anything’. You’re going to take them by the hand, you’re going to help them with each of these things. Even after your kid’s left, you’re still going to, you know, check up on them, you’re going to go there make sure they’re eating properly, cleaning the place properly. I had no idea how to clean anything.

Young people who have harder transitions often include those in youth justice custody when they turn 18 years of age, some young parents, those who have a major cognitive disability or poor mental health and some Indigenous young people who have been prevented from forming a connection with their culture, identity and community.

Read more:
Reunifying First Nations families: the only way to reduce the overrepresentation of children in out-of-home care

Extended care as an early intervention strategy

The best way to boost the life chances of all care leavers is to introduce a nationally consistent model of extended out-of-home care from 18 to 21 years. This is the model advocated by the Home Stretch campaign led by Anglicare Victoria.

Evidence from evaluations of extended care programs in the US and UK confirms providing support until age 21 can improve outcomes for care leavers.

As of April 2022, the Home Stretch model has informed the introduction of major extended care safety nets in six out of Australia’s eight states and territories.

• Victoria and Western Australia offer support to young people leaving all forms of out-of-home care until age 21

• South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory fund an allowance to foster and kinship carers only until age 21. South Australia has introduced a trial program for residential care leavers in February 2022 – but it is only funded for two years to support 20 young people

• Queensland offers the same assistance only until 19 years

• the Northern Territory has promised to legislate universal extended care soon

• New South Wales is the outlier in currently providing no form of extended care.

No state or territory allows young people living in residential care to remain in their existing homes beyond 18 years of age.

Nor have any of them introduced Staying Close programs similar to those trialled in the UK, whereby residential care leavers are supported to live close to their former accommodation and maintain existing relationships with their former carers and support networks.

The federal government, via the recently updated National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children, should establish a nationally consistent model of extended care that would universally assist all care leavers until age 21.

Phillip Mendes receives funding from Australian Research Council, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Sidney Myer Fund. This story is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is about escaping cycles of disadvantage. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. Homelessness is common for teens leaving out-of-home-care. We need to extend care until they are at least 21 – https://theconversation.com/homelessness-is-common-for-teens-leaving-out-of-home-care-we-need-to-extend-care-until-they-are-at-least-21-181167

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Wood, Associate Professor, Discipline of Childhood and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney

Over the last year, COVID vaccination recommendations have been updated regularly. So it can be difficult to keep track of how many vaccine doses you and your family members need.

This may seem confusing, but it is actually a good approach to take when navigating a pandemic, especially when the virus keeps changing. Let’s look at the current Australian recommendations and why vaccine advice needs to evolve over time.

Read more:
Do COVID boosters cause more or fewer side effects? How quickly does protection wane? Your questions answered

Why do recommendations need updating?

The nature of the COVID pandemic has changed over the past two years and will likely continue to change. The virus of today is more contagious and less deadly than the virus of 2020.

The collective immunity of the Australian population has improved, thanks to most of us getting vaccinated (95% of Austalians aged over 16 have had two doses) and a surge of infections at the start of this year.

A changing virus and rising immunity levels in the population mean the benefits and risks of vaccination also change.

The goal is to make sure we use the current vaccines in a way that offers the most benefit and least harm.

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

Recently ATAGI recommended the interval between primary doses (that is the first two doses) should be eight weeks and people should wait until three months after they have had natural infection before they get the next vaccine they are due. The advisory group said the extended dose interval had been shown to improve immune response to vaccination and may reduce the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis.

Preventing serious illness

ATAGI’s COVID vaccination recommendations are designed to minimise the risk of serious illness in the individual being vaccinated.

Preventing the spread of virus was of prime importance last year. We’ve since learnt serious illness is less common with the Omicron variant and the vaccines’ ability to prevent its spread is short-lived and limited.

ATAGI has now identified the prevention of serious illness and death as the principal role for vaccines at this stage of the pandemic.

Nonetheless, a substantial number of people still become seriously unwell from Omicron and require hospitalisation. Fortunately, booster doses of the COVID vaccines remain excellent at preventing severe infections.

Who needs a winter shot?

There are several groups of people for whom a “winter” booster dose is recommended – to be given from four months after the booster or third dose (whatever the season).

A person’s age is the single biggest risk factor for severe COVID disease. The presence of immunosuppression or some other chronic health conditions is important too, but age plays the most substantial role.

Risk of death and admissions to intensive care units are highest among those aged 65 and older. So the benefits of preventing serious illness with a winter dose are most clear in this age group. A study from Israel showed reduced COVID hospitalisations and deaths after a second booster (a fourth dose) in Israeli adults aged 60 years and over.

This case is strengthened because the very rare, yet serious, side effects of vaccination – like myocarditis after mRNA vaccines – are uncommon in this age group. If you are over 65, you should plan for a winter dose from four months after your booster. Accordingly, residents of aged care facilities are recommended a winter dose, as are those in disability residential care.

First Nations people aged 50 years and older and anyone aged 16 years and older who have severe immune-suppression are also recommended for a winter shot.

What about others aged 16 to 64?

For most Australians aged 16 to 64, it is not clear a fourth “winter booster” vaccination is needed.

UK data shows the primary course and booster or third dose of COVID vaccination have been effective at preventing serious disease from Omicron, however indicate that immunity from the booster dose is also likely to wane.

Read more:
16-17 year olds can now get their COVID boosters. Why not younger children?

Are kids aged 5–15 due another shot? What about under 5s?

COVID vaccination has not been recommended for babies and children under 5 years.

When it comes to children and young teenagers (who are not severely immunocompromised) we don’t have enough evidence of the extra benefit of a booster (third) dose.

What we do know is that serious illness in this age group, including those with severe immunocompromise and other medical conditions, is rare. Studies in the US, South Africa and the UK have suggested that although there may be a higher hospitalisation rate with Omicron compared to Delta infection they were less severe (less likely to need ICU, ventilation or lead to death).

We also know the risk of vaccination, principally myocarditis, is rare in children under 11 years old (but under active surveillance) and side effects are proportionally larger in teenagers.

At present, the benefits of vaccination are smaller than for adults and the majority of already-vaccinated young teenagers are not experiencing severe disease.

Read more:
The Moderna vaccine is now available for 6 to 11 year olds. Here’s what parents need to know

The most up-to-date advice from ATAGI is available and shown below. But as the benefit versus risk equation continues to change, expect these recommendations to change too. Remember the aim remains the same: to prevent serious illness for you and in our community.

The University of Sydney where Nicholas Wood is employed receives funding from the NHMRC for the conduct of vaccine research. He holds a Churchill Fellowship awarded in 2019.

– ref. COVID vaccination recommendations evolve over time. Who is due for which dose now? – https://theconversation.com/covid-vaccination-recommendations-evolve-over-time-who-is-due-for-which-dose-now-181779

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

Late last year, more than 100 former diplomats and officials called for a new Australian foreign policy — with climate action at the centre — to help cement Australia’s future in a world rapidly shifting to net-zero emissions.

Failure to act on climate change, they argued, would erode our national interests and international influence. Australia’s allies, partners and competitors would penalise us for not pulling our weight. Regardless of who wins the federal election, Australia’s next government must heed this advice.

There’s a saying that “all politics is local”. But Australian climate politics is dictated as much by the realities of a warming planet, and seismic shifts in global energy markets, as by marginal electorates in Queensland.

Managing the transition to a net-zero emissions economy must be a priority task for the next government. Our strategic and economic success depends on it.

How did we get here?

In recent times, Australian foreign policy has promoted the nation as an energy superpower – a major supplier of coal and gas to Asia. Reducing emissions has been a secondary focus, as Australia’s diplomatic machinery is tasked with promoting fossil fuel exports.

This wasn’t always the case. When a scientific consensus on global warming emerged in the late 1980s, the Hawke Labor government appointed an ambassador for the environment to promote climate action, and supported ambitious national targets to cut emissions.

By the mid 1990s however — under the influence of a powerful fossil fuel lobby and following a national recession — the Keating government was increasingly concerned about potential economic costs of climate action. The subsequent Howard government decided taking serious climate action was not in Australia’s interests

The argument then, as it is now, was that Australia’s economy depends on fossil fuels, and cutting emissions would cost us relatively more than it would other countries.

So ever since, rather than act on climate change, Australia has sought to minimise obligations to cut emissions while expanding coal and gas exports.

Today, Australia has one of the weakest 2030 emissions targets in the developed world. At last year’s global climate talks in Glasgow, Australia refused to join other developed nations in strengthening its ambition.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres describes Australia as a holdout on climate action. He is right. Australia is among a small, isolated group of countries — including Russia and Saudi Arabia — resisting global efforts to cut emissions.

Not by coincidence Australia is also the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter, behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia.

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

The world is changing around us

When Prime Minister Scott Morrison last year sought support from his Nationals colleagues for a net-zero by 2050 target, he urged them to accept economic reality. The world is transitioning to net-zero. And climate action is now a key pillar of the Western alliance, and so key to Australia for national security reasons.

Morrison’s arguments show how the world has changed since he came to power in August 2018.

Australia’s most recent foreign policy white paper, released in 2017, forecast strong global growth in demand for fossil fuels. Those forecasts have proved wrong.

Instead, Australia’s key destination markets, such as Japan, China and South Korea, are phasing out fossil fuels. In the past two years alone, more than 100 countries, representing around 90% of the global economy, have committed to net-zero emissions.

This mega-trend has fundamentally altered Australia’s economic prospects.

Climate has also moved to the centre of global geopolitics. Major powers are integrating climate into defence and strategic planning, foreign policy, diplomacy and statecraft.

The European Union will next year start imposing border costs on imports from countries not doing enough to cut emissions, a move which could eventually shave A$12.5 billion from the Australian economy annually. G7 countries are planning a “climate club” to impose costs on countries that don’t meet shared standards for climate policy.

In the US, a new Indo-Pacific strategy signals an intention to pressure countries such as Australia to set a stronger 2030 target. This is partly so the US and allies might work together to press China to cut emissions.

Security mismatch in the Pacific

The recent security deal between the Solomon Islands and China may demonstrate how Australia has yet to integrate climate action into its own statecraft.

For decades, Pacific island countries — including the Solomon Islands — have argued climate change is their first-order security threat, particularly for atoll island states who face inundation from rising seas.

But those concerns are not reflected in Australia’s current efforts to engage more closely with the Pacific. The recent Pacific Step Up strategy is largely driven by concern that China could leverage infrastructure lending to establish a military base in the region.

A former Australian intelligence chief, Nick Warner, says Australia’s position on climate has “undermined our standing in the Pacific” — a view echoed by former Australian High Commissioner to the Solomon Islands, Peter Hooton.

The lesson is clear. In a warming world climate policy is foreign policy.

Australia as a clean energy superpower

Our foreign policy must be retooled to reposition Australia as a clean energy superpower, and to seize the economic opportunities that will flow.

As the sunniest and windiest inhabited continent on the planet, Australia has world-class renewable energy resources and enviable reserves of minerals needed for the electric vehicles, batteries and wind turbines of the future.

Australia is well-placed to export zero-emissions electricity to growing economies in Asia. Our renewable energy advantage also means we can competitively produce zero-carbon versions of the commodities the world urgently needs – steel, aluminium, hydrogen and fertilisers.

The Business Council of Australia estimates clean export opportunities could generate 395,000 jobs by 2040. With the right policy framework, Australia could grow a new clean energy export mix worth A$333 billion each year, almost triple the value of existing fossil fuel exports.

Read more:
How can Aboriginal communities be part of the NSW renewable energy transition?

A big task for the next government

Whichever party wins the election on May 21 should reposition Australia as a global climate leader. This will require negotiation between domestic constituencies resisting change and an international context that’s changing regardless.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Australia’s diplomatic network, should be tasked with promoting climate action. And a climate change ambassador should be appointed – separate from the existing ambassador for the environment.

Australia should also bid to host the annual UN climate summit and co-host the UN talks with Pacific island states.

Above all, the next government must strengthen Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target before global climate talks in Egypt in November. We should at least match our key allies and commit to halving emissions this decade. Failure to do so will only bring increasing diplomatic and economic costs.

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

Wesley Morgan is a researcher with the Climate Council

– ref. The world doesn’t care about swings in marginal seats. Climate action must spearhead a new Australian foreign policy – https://theconversation.com/the-world-doesnt-care-about-swings-in-marginal-seats-climate-action-must-spearhead-a-new-australian-foreign-policy-181713

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Elliot Noe, Postdoctoral Fellow, Lincoln University, New Zealand

Urbanisation, and the destruction of habitat it entails, is a major threat to native bird populations. But as our new research shows, restored urban forests can return native birds to our cities and improve species richness.

We define restored urban forests as green areas within a city, dominated by native vegetation that has been planted intentionally. To evaluate restoration success, we tracked changes in native bird communities in 25 restored forests in two of New Zealand’s cities, Hamilton and New Plymouth.

The forests we used in our study ranged widely in their ages, including one where initial restoration efforts began 72 years ago. We also compared these restored forests to remnant patches of native, mature forest – both within and beyond the city – that had never been clear-felled.

Our findings show older restored forests support more species of native birds, and some are close to the species richness of untouched remnants of native forest. The abundance of birds increased as the forest canopy became denser.

Contrary to our initial predictions, introduced invasive mammals had no significant effect on either species richness or abundance of native birds in urban forests.

Read more:
The urban forest of the future: how to turn our cities into Treetopias

Older restorations are better

We found the younger forests supported small-bodied insect-eating and omnivorous birds such as fantails, silvereyes and grey warblers. Older plantings were also home to nectar and fruit-feeding species such as tūī.

This increase in native species richness suggests older sites provide a greater variety of food and other resources, meeting the needs of more species over time. We also found greater overall numbers of fantails and tūī in older restored forests.

To monitor these native bird communities, we counted all terrestrial birds seen and heard along 200m transects.

It appears native bird diversity in restored forests is becoming increasingly similar to what we find in urban forest remnants, but there is still a noticeable gap between the oldest restored areas and both urban and rural remnants.

This could mean it might take more than 72 years for a forest to provide the same quality of habitat as remnant forest, underscoring the importance of protecting the remaining forests, both within and beyond the city limits.

Rats and possums also like restored forests

We also needed to know how mammals affect native birds at our sites, so we used camera traps to detect cats and chew cards to track rats and possums.

Chew cards are small sheets of corrugated plastic, with the edges filled with peanut butter, which allow us to identify rodents and possums by their bite marks. To our surprise, we did not find any significant influence of rat and cat numbers on the diversity and abundance of native birds.

This was unexpected because both rats and cats prey on native birds and rats also take their eggs. However, other research has shown three of our widely detected native birds (grey warbler, fantail and silvereye) are capable of coping with a certain level of predation.

In 2006, a study proposed the idea that the bird communities we see in our cities today are those less affected by predation – the “ghosts of predation past”.

We believe this to be the case in our study – birds that are highly vulnerable to predation by invasive mammals have already disappeared from New Zealand cities. The remaining birds are those that can survive despite current levels of predation.

Read more:
Thousands of city trees have been lost to development, when we need them more than ever

We never detected rats and possums in the youngest restored forests. They seem to prefer a certain level of vegetation complexity, canopy cover and tree height in restoration plantings. Once these habitat requirements are met, after about nine years, rats and possums become relatively widespread.

It appears the changes in vegetation structure and complexity that occur as the restored forest ages benefit native forest birds but also provide habitat for invasive predators.

Urban forests benefit people and nature

In urban areas that have undergone extreme deforestation and habitat modification, increasing the number and quality of native forest through restoration planting is a necessary first step towards re-establishing native forest bird communities. But this should eventually be accompanied by invasive mammal control.

Our findings highlight the considerable opportunity forest restoration presents to enhance native bird diversity. This allows us to reconcile human development with protection and improvement of native biodiversity in cities.

As people continue to move to cities, urban restoration provides a renewed link between people and native environments.

Despite the conservation challenges urban environments present, there is growing recognition of the benefits to both native species and people. Ecological restoration is a potentially powerful tool for mitigating the detrimental effects of urbanisation.

Read more:
Save the trees: Never-ending construction in cities threatens the urban forest

By providing habitat for birds, urban green spaces also allow city residents daily contact with charismatic species. This facilitates an emotional connection with nature which in turn promotes public support for conservation and restoration.

The United Nations has declared 2021-2030 the decade of ecosystem restoration – a rallying call for the protection and revival of ecosystems around the world, for the benefit of people and nature.

Our study shows every New Zealander can contribute to this revival of our iconic native birds by planting native trees in their own urban neighbourhoods.

Elizabeth Elliot Noe receives funding from Bioprotection Aotearoa.

Andrew D. Barnes receives funding from MBIE, the Marsden Fund, and the University of Waikato.

Bruce Clarkson receives funding from MBIE.

John Innes receives funding from MBIE, NZ Transport Authority and occasionally Waikato Regional Council.

– ref. Bringing the tūī back to town – how native birds are returning to NZ’s restored urban forests – https://theconversation.com/bringing-the-tui-back-to-town-how-native-birds-are-returning-to-nzs-restored-urban-forests-182064

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Esperanza Vera-Toscano, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne

We often hear a job is the best way to get someone out of poverty. In many cases this is true, and anti-poverty strategies should prioritise improving people’s access to jobs.

But this isn’t the complete solution. For many – particularly those with disability or substantial caring responsibilities that limit their scope to work – the income support system remains crucial to avoiding persistent poverty.

It may not feel like it at a time of rising living costs, but the incomes of Australians have on average risen substantially over the last three decades and continue to trend upwards – we have never been richer.

However – as highlighted by the Productivity Commission – some in the community continue to be left behind.

Our new study of income poverty shows persistent poverty remains a significant problem in Australian society.

Looking back over the first two decades of this century, we found around 13% of the population are persistently poor.

We defined these as people who persistently have to live on incomes that are less than 60% of the median income in Australia (a definition employed by Eurostat for European Union member countries).

Poverty then isn’t simply a temporary experience in Australia, and tackling persistent disadvantage needs to be a policy imperative.

Why do people descend in poverty – and often stay there?

Understanding what drives poverty and its persistence is an essential first step to alleviating it.

Using data from the longitudinal Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, we examined the extent and nature of persistent poverty among the same sample of Australians tracked over time.

Specifically, we looked at

• why do people descend into poverty?
• why do some people remain in poverty, while others escape it?
• why some of those who escape poverty remain out of poverty while others fall back into it.

We also examined the degree to which the depth of poverty (how far someone’s income is below the poverty line) impacts on the likelihood of staying in poverty.

We found persistent poverty is more prevalent among:

• women
• single-parent families
• older people
• Indigenous Australians
• people with a disability
• less-educated people, and
• people living in more disadvantaged regions.

This is consistent with previous studies of poverty made at a single point in time.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, those in deep poverty – the poorest of the poor – are the most likely to be persistently poor (up to five times more likely than the average person in the community).

The very poor are therefore a policy priority – not only because they are very poor now, but because they are more likely to remain poor.

‘Falling’ into poverty

Similarly, among those initially not in poverty, those with incomes closest to the poverty line – the poorest of the non-poor – are at greater risk of falling into persistent poverty.

Another policy priority therefore needs to be preventing those close to the poverty line falling into actual poverty.

When we examined the “trigger events” for people falling into poverty or rising out of it, we found the household’s success in the labour market is critical. In other words, people need to be able to get a job.

An increase in the number of employed people in the household is strongly associated with lifting people out of poverty.

There is also a strong association between a lack of work and the risk of persistent poverty.

Clearly, then, policy measures geared towards increasing employment, and retaining employment for those already employed, are key to reducing persistent poverty.

It’s not just about jobs, though

But employment isn’t the only factor of importance. Any change in family type, but particularly becoming a single-parent family, increases the risk of poverty.

More broadly, the household context plays a crucial role in determining individuals’ poverty experiences.

Who you live with, what they do, and what happens to them are important. The household perspective then is critical to understanding poverty and designing appropriate policy responses.

The onset of disability or substantial caring responsibilities is also much more likely to tip you into poverty and keep you there.

Put simply, those who are more likely to experience persistent poverty tend to be constrained in their ability to participate in the labour market. Having a job may not be an option at all.

Focusing only on labour market-related anti-poverty policy measures therefore isn’t enough to fully address persistent poverty in the Australian community.

Many of those highly exposed to persistent poverty have very constrained access to paid work, because of factors such as:

• long-term health conditions
• high caring responsibilities for young children or
• significant disabilities.

Even among couple-parent households, we found the more dependent children in the household, the lower the probability of exiting poverty.

This highlights the importance of child care assistance to facilitate employment participation and sustained income adequacy for families with young children.

An unavoidable conclusion

But even improvements in child care assistance aren’t enough. The simple fact is that, for a significant number of people, income support will continue to determine their living standards.

The unavoidable conclusion is that boosting income support payments beyond their current austere levels remains a crucial pillar of policy for governments genuinely committed to reducing persistent disadvantage.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be on the agenda of either of the major parties.

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.

Roger Wilkins receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. Poverty isn’t a temporary experience in Australia. We need urgent policy tackling persistent disadvantage – https://theconversation.com/poverty-isnt-a-temporary-experience-in-australia-we-need-urgent-policy-tackling-persistent-disadvantage-181343

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

The opposition has increased its winning margins in both Newspoll and the Australian Financial Review’s Ipsos poll, as Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese clashed in a shouty, fractious debate on Sunday night.

With pre-polling opening on Monday, Newspoll has Labor leading 54-46% on a two-party preferred basis, compared to 53-47% a week before.

Albanese has narrowed the gap as better PM – his rating has risen 3 points and Morrison has fallen a point. Morrison leads by a whisker – 44-42%.

In the Ipsos poll, Labor leads the government 57-43%, compared to 55-45% a fortnight ago, and Albanese is ahead of Morrison as preferred PM 41-36%, a 3-point widening of the gap.

The poll results follow last Tuesday’s interest rate rise and Albanese’s stumble on Thursday when he was asked to name the six points of his NDIS policy.

The interest rate increase further elevated cost of living in the campaign, and this appears to have helped Labor, despite some hopes by the Coalition that having economic issues front and centre might be to its advantage.

The Nine debate – which will be followed on Wednesday by the final leaders’ debate, on the Seven network – was scored by more than 30,000 viewers and listeners as a draw.

The two clashed heatedly at several points especially after Albanese said, “When I was a minister, we put US marines into Darwin. When you have been a minister we have had the Port of Darwin sold to a company connected with the Chinese Communist
Party”. This brought a strong reaction from Morrison.

With wide ranging questions from a journalist panel and each other, Albanese dodged when asked why he would not investigate allegations the late senator Kimberley Kitching had been bullied, and again refused to admit he’d been caught out over his NDIS policy.

Pressed on why people questioned his honesty Morrison could only reply in terms of having disagreements with people from time to time.

Neither leader fell into any major hole. The level of assertiveness and aggression was notable, with the moderator, Sarah Abo, at times trying in vain to stop them talking over each other and her.

In Newspoll, conducted Wednesday to Saturday of 1523 voters and published in Monday’s Australian, Labor is up a point to 39% on primary votes; the Coalition is on 35%, down a point. The Greens are stable on 11%.

Morrison’s satisfaction rating has dipped 3 points to 41%; dissatisfaction with him has increased by 4 points to 55%. His net satisfaction is minus 14.

Albanese’s satisfaction increased a point to 41% and his dissatisfaction rating fell by 2 points to 47%. He has a net rating of minus 6.

In the Ipsos poll, the Coalition’s primary vote is down 3 points to 29%; Labor’s primary vote is 35% (up a point). The Greens are steady on 12%.

This gives Labor a 52-40% two-party lead with 8% undecided.

Taking out the undecideds puts Labor on 38% primary vote, with the Coalition on 32%. Labor then leads 57-43% in two party terms, compared to 55-45% a fortnight ago.

Morrison’s approval declined 2 points to 32%; his disapproval increased 3 points to 51%, for a net figure of minus 19. There was only minor change in Albanese’s approval figures. His approval was 30%; his disapproval 36%, and his net rating minus 6.

The poll of 2311 was done Wednesday to Saturday.

Morrison sparked fresh controversy at the weekend when he said a re-elected Coalition would deal with religious discrimination legislation and protection for gay students “sequentially” rather than at the same time. He would not be pinned down on a timeline but given an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission it could be a year or more between the two.

Morrison said Australians of faith were being discriminated against all the time. He said there was no evidence religious schools sought to expel students because they were gay.

Several Liberal backbenchers, including Trent Zimmerman and Katie Allen, who crossed the floor earlier this year to protect trans students’, which led to Morrison abandoning the religious discrimination bill, indicated their position had not changed.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Labor widens leads in Newspoll and Ipsos, as pre-polling starts – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-labor-widens-leads-in-newspoll-and-ipsos-as-pre-polling-starts-182655

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Melleuish, Professor, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese met in the second election debate on Sunday evening, before a panel of Nine Network journalists.

In the often fiery debate, the leaders answered questions about the cost of living, aged care, national security and a federal integrity commission, among other issues.

Here’s how our expert panel rated their performances.

Read more:
Labor seizes large lead in Newspoll and Ipsos; impact of how to vote cards is exaggerated

Gregory Melleuish, Professor, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong

It was an odd time for an election debate, 8.45pm on a Sunday night – hardly a slot that would guarantee a large audience. It was a frustrating affair, not least because the app one downloaded to provide feedback didn’t seem to work properly.

The format was better than that of the first debate, with no audience and questions from three interrogators that were often quite pointed, and which both Albanese and Morrison had to answer within a minute. This format, I think, did not work in Morrison’s favour as he has a tendency to loquaciousness.

The response of both Morrison and Albanese was to attempt to be “on message”. Morrison went on about how good his government was in economic affairs, blaming the current situation on external and international factors. Albanese focused on increasing wages, aged care and cost of living. He talked at length about “the plan”, although it was unclear what this plan is.

At this stage, the whole thing seemed somewhat tedious, looking like a rerun of the first debate. One began to look at one’s watch to see how long it would continue. Then the first elements of aggression began to emerge in the debate, with quite heated exchanges between Morrison and Albanese on what seemed to be technical matters of particular policies.

My sense was that Morrison was somewhat frustrated with the format and felt the need to assert himself, although Albanese was also quick to respond. One of my colleagues texted me that Morrison was now engaging in Trump-style tactics, but it seemed to me Morrison’s aggression was not calculated, as is the case with Trump, but more borne out of frustration.

Then came the real highlight of the contest, when Albanese mentioned the Liberal government had sold the port of Darwin to a Chinese company. This inflamed Morrison and made him quite aggressive, perhaps an indication that he felt that Albanese had laid a very effective punch.

In this regard, I have to give the debate to Albanese on points. He stood up to Morrison and made his case quite effectively. He did not back down in any of the confrontations with Morrison.

Morrison, I feel, had problems with the debate because it restrained his natural marketing style and this lured him into being more aggressive than he might have wished to be.

One wonders whether either Morrison and Albanese have done themselves any good regarding how they are perceived by women. Sarah Abo did a courageous job trying to keep the two of them in line. But, as the debate became more heated, she experienced difficulties keeping them in check. Perhaps not a good look for the two leaders.

Verdict: Albanese, on points.

Sana Nakata, Associate Professor in Political Science, University of Melbourne

The losers in this debate were the Australian public. At various moments in this debate, Morrison and Albanese shouted over each other in a manner unedifying and near impossible for the audience to follow.

While there were the expected questions on the cost of living, national security, corruption and aged care, there were three questions that stood out from the issues that have otherwise been preoccupying the daily election coverage.

The most interesting was about what’s at stake for young people in this election, eliciting two different responses: social housing and the help-to-buy scheme from Albanese, and jobs from Morrison. It was surprising not to hear more on climate change from Albanese, given what a priority it is for young voters. An underwhelming response from Morrison, and a missed opportunity for Albanese.

The worst question (and responses) of the night was “How do you define a woman?” The question was terrible because it wasn’t asked in order to clarify any specific policy, nor was it a question explicitly about Katherine Deves’ campaign in Warringah.

Even worse, in the quick pivot to “women’s issues”, it was also not asked to take seriously trans peoples’ lives and what’s at stake for them and their families in this election. In the end, it came off as a question designed to create another “gotcha” moment for the pleasure of journalists, rather than to help the voting public decide which leader best represents their values and concerns.

It would also be remiss of me not to remark on what was not debated tonight – there was not a single question on First Nations policy, nor any reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in any response. This is as expected, but it is important to name what can and cannot be debated in front of the Australian public.

And it turns out trans lives and Black lives still don’t matter.

Verdict: Albanese, by a slightly less shouty whisker.

Joshua Black, PhD Candidate, School of History, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University

“The Great Debate” was an unedifying spectacle emblematic of the election campaign more broadly.

There were several fraught and shouty exchanges between Morrison and Albanese, over energy prices, foreign policy, and the long-promised national integrity commission. Most sensationally, Morrison accused Albanese’s deputy leader Richard Marles of kowtowing to China, a bald attempt at red-baiting and echoing his earlier claim Albanese was China’s preferred candidate.

The panellists later claimed they enjoyed the “entertainment”, but the refusal to uphold a semblance of decorum was to the detriment of both candidates.

At times, the pair shouted not only over one another, but over the moderator, Sarah Abo. Given the treatment of women in politics remains an issue of great import, the optics of the two men ignoring the younger woman moderator as they attacked one another were decidedly poor.

On a key issue, the debate did nothing other than reveal the lack of direct controls available to a federal government in the war against inflation. In an exchange about the price of lettuce, Nine political editor Chris Uhlmann prodded Morrison to accept the government had no direct control over prices. For his part, Albanese promised he would “try” to secure the “objective” of keeping wages above inflation. For all of the hollow rhetoric about “getting prices down”, neither leader gave much cause for confidence given the Commonwealth’s historic powerlessness over prices and incomes.

Much would be gained from observing this evening’s debate with the sound off, not only because the rhetoric was so often evasive. Morrison is a voice actor. Without sound, his body language, and that of his opponent, told a markedly different story.

Albanese looked earnest but frustrated, determined to show strength and spirit but clearly exasperated at repeated efforts to skewer him. Morrison oscillated between a smug placidity and high-octane dominance of the space, smirking at some moments and gesticulating wildly at others.

In the end, Albanese might have narrowly won the contest, his doggedness prevailing against Morrison’s hysteria and aggression. But after that shouting match, Nine Entertainment was the real winner, and the public the loser.

Verdict: Albanese, narrowly

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: ‘Gotcha’ questions are ugly journalism but hazards for leaders

Joshua Black is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

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

– ref. A shouty, unedifying spectacle and a narrow win for Albanese: 3 experts assess the second election debate – https://theconversation.com/a-shouty-unedifying-spectacle-and-a-narrow-win-for-albanese-3-experts-assess-the-second-election-debate-182423

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted May 4-7 from a sample of 1,523, gave Labor a 54-46 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since the previous week’s Newspoll. Primary votes were 39% Labor (up one), 35% Coalition (down one), 11% Greens (steady), 5% One Nation (steady), 4% UAP (steady) and 6% Others (steady).

55% were dissatisfied with Scott Morrison’s performance (up four) and 41% were satisfied (down three), for a net approval of -14, down seven points. Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved three points to -6. Morrison led as better PM by 44-42 (45-39 last week).

Labor led the Coalition by 44-41 as best to handle cost-of-living pressures; this lead is narrower than in other polls that have asked this question. Newspoll figures are from The Poll Bludger.

The Reserve Bank on May 3 raised the cash rate by 0.25% to 0.35%, the first time it has increased in more than 11 years. It’s virtually certain that this rate hike is the first in a series that will continue in the coming months.

I believe both this rate hike and the ABS inflation report the previous week have had an impact on the polls. Voters hate seeing prices rise for food and petrol, and this matters far more than whether Albanese forgot his NDIS policy.

In last week’s report, I said Morrison’s net approval in Newspoll had improved five points to -7, and the Coalition could win if he improved to near net zero. But he’s slumped seven points to -14 now.

All current polls have moved towards Labor. With early voting beginning Monday and just 12 days until the election, it is becoming increasingly likely that Labor will win.

Ipsos: 57-43 to Labor

An Ipsos poll for The Financial Review, conducted May 4-7 from a sample of 2,311, gave Labor a 57-43 lead, a two-point gain for Labor since last fortnight. Primary votes were 35% Labor (up one), 29% Coalition (down three), 12% Greens (steady), 4% One Nation (steady), 3% UAP (steady), 10% Others (up two) and 7% undecided (down one).

Labor led by 52-40 by 2019 preference flows (50-42 previously) – the headline figure excludes undecided. By respondent allocated preferences, Labor led by 50-35 (48-38 last time).

51% disapproved of Morrison’s performance (up three) and 32% approved (down two), for a net approval of -19, down five points. Albanese’s net approval was down two points to -6. Albanese led by 41-36 as preferred PM (40-38 previously).

Read more:
Race for the Senate: could Labor and the Greens gain control?

Impact of how to vote cards is exaggerated

Bonham wrote last December that changes in relative major party primary votes are a far bigger factor in recent Australian elections than minor party preferences. Labor relies far more on preferences than the Coalition to win seats, such as from the Greens.

Had UAP preferences split evenly between the major parties in 2019, rather than 65-35 to the Coalition, Labor would have won just one extra seat: Bass, and the Coalition would still have governed.

The main purpose of how to vote cards is to reduce the informal rate by giving a party’s voters something they can easily copy. If the UAP’s how to vote card made a 10% difference in its preference flow, then 5% of the vote would be required to produce a 0.5-point difference in the final two party vote. This only matters in very close seats.

Labor’s lead increased in last week’s Essential and Morgan polls

In last week’s Essential poll, conducted April 27 to May 1 from a larger than normal sample of 1,500, Labor led by 49-45 with undecided included (47-46 in mid-April). Primary votes were 36% Coalition (down one), 35% Labor (steady), 10% Greens (up one), 4% UAP (steady), 3% One Nation (steady), 5% all Others (steady) and 6% undecided (down one).

33% (down one since mid-April) said the government deserved to be re-elected, while 46% (down two) said it was time to give someone else a go. 79% said cost of living was important or very important, and Labor was trusted to manage this by 40-30 over the Coalition.

47% (up five since last October) said Australia was not doing enough to address climate change, while 32% (up one) said we were doing enough and 11% (down four) that we were doing too much.

A Morgan poll, conducted April 25 to May 1 from a sample of 1,487, gave Labor a 55.5-44.5 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since the previous week. Primary votes were 35% Coalition (down 0.5), 35% Labor (steady), 13% Greens (up one), 3% One Nation (down 1.5), 1% UAP (down 0.5), 9.5% independents (up 1.5) and 3.5% others (steady).

Seat polls: Goldstein, Mackellar, Boothby and ACT Senate

The usual warning for seat polls applies: they are unreliable, particularly those for partisan groups.

A uComms poll of Goldstein (Vic) for the left-wing Australia Institute gave independent Zoe Daniel a 62-38 lead over Liberal incumbent Tim Wilson, though this was 57-43 using 2019 preference flows. Primary votes were 35% Wilson, 34% Daniel, 14% Labor and 8% Greens. This poll was done April 27 from a sample of 855.

The Poll Bludger reported that a uComms poll of Boothby (SA) for the SA Forests Products Association gave Labor a 55-45 lead over the Liberals (51.4-48.6 to Liberal in 2019). This was conducted May 4-5 from a sample of 810.

A Redbridge poll of the ACT Senate for Climate 200 gave Labor 27% (39% in 2019), the Liberals 25% (32%), independent David Pocock 21% and the Greens 11% (18%). This suggests tactical voting by Labor and Greens to stop the Liberals taking the second ACT Senate seat (they only need 33.3% after preferences). This poll was done April 23-24 from a sample of 1,064.

Read more:
Race for the Senate: could Labor and the Greens gain control?

A uComms poll of Mackellar (NSW) for the campaign of independent Sophie Scamps gave incumbent Liberal Jason Falinski 32% of the primary vote (down three since a similar poll a month ago), Scamps 31% (up seven), Labor 15%, the Greens 9%, UAP 3%, One Nation 3% and undecided 7%. Scamps would win easily from these primaries. This poll was taken May 4 from a sample of 834.

SA Labor’s coup in upper house

I wrote last week that Labor holds nine of the 22 SA upper house members, the Liberals eight, the Greens two, SA-Best two and One Nation one. In SA, the upper house president only has a casting vote to break a tie.

Had Labor taken the presidency, they would have had eight of 21 votes on the floor, and likely required both the Greens and SA-Best to pass legislation opposed by the Liberals, although One Nation with either the Greens or SA-Best would also suffice.

But Labor installed Liberal Terry Stephens as upper house president on May 3 when the SA parliament first met following the March 19 election. Stephens had been forced to resign as president in July 2020 owing to alleged misuse of parliamentary allowances.

As a result, Labor now has nine of 21 floor votes, and requires just two more to pass legislation. Either the Greens or SA-Best will be sufficient.

Tasmanian upper house elections

Every May two or three of Tasmania’s 15 upper house seats are up for election. This year’s regular elections were in Elwick and McIntyre, and there was also a byelection in Huon. On Saturday, Labor and independent incumbents easily retained Elwick and McIntyre respectively with over 50% of first preferences.

In Huon, which Labor is defending, Labor had 25.2%, a conservative independent 23.9%, the Liberals 22.8%, the Greens 20.3% and the Local party 7.7%. Preferences will decide this seat, but are unlikely to be known until the last day to receive postals on May 17.

UK local and Northern Ireland elections

I live blogged Thursday’s UK local and Northern Ireland elections for The Poll Bludger. The Conservatives received a bloody nose, but their losses did not go to Labour, but to the Lib Dems and Greens. In Northern Ireland, the Irish nationalist Sinn Féin became the first nationalist party to win a plurality of votes and seats, but the unaligned Alliance was the biggest winner.

Read more:
Northern Ireland election: despite Sinn Féin’s historic win over unionists, things may not be as they seem

Adrian Beaumont 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. Labor seizes large lead in Newspoll and Ipsos; impact of how to vote cards is exaggerated – https://theconversation.com/labor-seizes-large-lead-in-newspoll-and-ipsos-impact-of-how-to-vote-cards-is-exaggerated-182323

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

On Monday May 9, early voting centres will open and Australians can start casting their votes for the federal election.

Increasing numbers of Australians are choosing not to line up for their democracy sausage on election day, opting instead to get it out of the way beforehand. So the next few days are crucial for parties’ and candidates’ campaigns – can they convince enough persuadable voters before they cast their ballots?

In this episode of Below the Line, award-winning broadcaster Jon Faine and our regular panel of political scientists discuss how early voting is “truncating” political campaigns, by bringing forward the crucial vote-turning period.

They also discuss whether the Reserve Bank’s recent interest rate hike will hurt Prime Minister Scott Morrison, or perhaps help him among mortage-free retirees. On the whole, polling expert Simon Jackman believes it represents a net-negative for the government, because there are more mortgage-holders in marginal seats.

The political parties’ advertising spending is also dissected, with Labor coming out on top as the biggest spender on social media.

Finally, they discuss preferences, campaign finance disclosures and the curious case of a candidate for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party who lives 2,500 kilometres away from the electorate she’s seeking to represent.

Below the Line is a limited-edition election podcast brought to you by The Conversation and La Trobe University.

Correction: Jon states that the One Nation candidate for “Bob Katter’s seat in northern Queensland” lives in the Melbourne suburb of Pakenham, whereas the far-flung candidate Diane Pepe is actually contesting the seat of Herbert, which is adjacent to Katter’s seat of Kennedy.

Disclosure: Andrea Carson has received funding for research projects from Facebook.

Image credit: Lukas Coch/Mick Tsikas/AAP

– ref. Below the Line: How much are the parties spending on ads? And how come One Nation’s Townsville candidate lives in Melbourne? – podcast – https://theconversation.com/below-the-line-how-much-are-the-parties-spending-on-ads-and-how-come-one-nations-townsville-candidate-lives-in-melbourne-podcast-182596

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

University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Professor Paddy Nixon talk about this week in politics.

They discuss the interest rate rise, with neither side sure how it will affect people’s votes. Labor holds its polling lead but Anthony Albanese, who had a stumble this week, will need to avoid any more slips as the campaign heads into its final fortnight.

Paddy and Michelle also canvass the teals’ campaigns and especially the battle in Josh Frydenberg’s seat of Kooyong and the University of Canberra’s research in Wentworth.

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. VIDEO: Election focus is on hip pocket nerve with rising living costs and interest rates – https://theconversation.com/video-election-focus-is-on-hip-pocket-nerve-with-rising-living-costs-and-interest-rates-182591

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, The University of Melbourne

The record-shattering heatwave that engulfed most of India and Pakistan through March and April brought temperatures exceeding 45℃ in many areas, leading to critical electricity and water shortages.

Indeed, the maximum temperatures forecast for Delhi, India, will continue to reach over 40℃ for several days. The severe heat has strained healthcare systems across both nations, which are already stretched due to the continuing high numbers of COVID cases.

Temperatures overall have eased back to near-average in the last few days, but unfortunately as the planet continues to warm, such extreme heat will become more commonplace.

This is particularly dire for India and Pakistan, as steps to improve air quality is an added factor that will actually increase temperatures during heatwaves. Let’s take a closer look at why this heatwave is exceptional, and what the future may hold for the region.

Smashing heatwave records

India’s climate is different from many other regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Unlike most land areas north of the equator, the highest temperatures typically occur in May rather than in July or August.

This is because the monsoon brings huge amounts of moisture and rain to the Indian subcontinent from June and July, and this has a significant cooling effect.

Severe heatwaves have occurred in recent years, but usually in May. Notably, in May 2016, temperatures exceeded 50℃ in Rajasthan, northwestern India.

The 2022 heatwave has been exceptional in its area, persistence and how early it occurred.

India and Pakistan both experienced their warmest March in at least 60 years with an average maximum temperature of 33.1℃ for India.

The hot weather continued in April. And by the end of the month the temperature hit 49℃ in Jacobabad, Pakistan.

Parts of both India and Pakistan had their hottest April on record too, such as in northwest and central India.

Nowhere to hide from the heat

This extended heatwave affected hundreds of millions of people in one of the most densely populated and vulnerable regions of the world.

Heatwaves in any country cause surges in hospital admissions for a large range of illnesses as well as excess deaths. The heatwave culminating in Victoria’s Black Saturday bushfire in 2009, for example, claimed 374 lives.

Continuing high COVID cases adds an additional stress, with around 50,000 cases recorded over the course of April in India. This means healthcare systems have little capacity to cope with public health emergencies caused by extreme weather in many countries.

In wealthy regions of the world, most people can retreat indoors during severe heatwaves and many have access to air conditioning. But, in less wealthy areas such as in India and Pakistan, millions of people work outdoors, with few ways to find relief from the brutal heat.

Landfills are reportedly catching fire. Critical wheat crops are dying in the dry heat. And the electricity network is also less able to cope, with spikes in demand and frequent hours-long power outages.

Worse heat to come as air quality improves

Worryingly, the trend towards more frequent heatwaves has been accelerating across most regions, particularly over the last 40 years, as the planet has warmed. There’s no sign this acceleration will stop anytime soon under climate change.

The story is more complicated in South Asia as, in some parts of India and particularly the south, the most extreme high temperatures have become less hot in the last few decades. Yet, the overall number of heatwave days has increased.

Read more:
The world endured 2 extra heatwave days per decade since 1950 – but the worst is yet to come

There are two main reasons India is bucking the trends in “heatwave intensity” (how hot it gets during a heatwave) seen in other parts of the world: pollution and irrigation.

The increase in population, along with the expansion of heavy industry and transportation, has meant there are more particles in the atmosphere that block sunlight from reaching the surface.

In places such as North America and Europe, clean air laws introduced in the mid-20th century helped drive down air pollution, but in southern and eastern Asia, aerosol levels remain high.

Irrigation use in agriculture has also increased across India, and its associated evaporation has had a slight cooling effect on temperatures.

India, Pakistan and other Southern and Eastern Asian countries are starting to take steps to improve air quality, but progress is slow. Reducing pollution will have an unintended consequence of likely accelerating warming at a local scale, as pollution has helped mask some of the greenhouse gas-induced warming in the region.

While reduced air pollution will have many health benefits, it will also likely lead to greater heatwave intensity and frequency over the Indian subcontinent, as less sunlight is reflected by aerosols.

Read more:
Record-smashing heatwaves are hitting Antarctica and the Arctic simultaneously. Here’s what’s driving them, and how they’ll impact wildlife

If Earth warms by 2℃ this century, which is roughly how much the world will warm if all government pledges are met, then we can expect large increases in hot temperature extremes over South Asia.

This includes parts of Pakistan and northwest India, which will endure more than 30 additional days over 40℃, compared with an early-industrial climate.

Adapting to inevitable disasters

The tremendous threats heatwaves pose should not be ignored, and it’s crucial governments take measures to help countries adapt to the inevitable severe heat, to greatly reduce the worst impacts.

In Europe, the 2003 heatwave resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, but another that struck in 2006 led to almost 70% fewer deaths in France than expected.

Read more:
Western Sydney will swelter through 46 days per year over 35°C by 2090, unless emissions drop significantly

Sadly, one reason is that the deaths of thousands of vulnerable people occurred only three years earlier. But France had also taken steps to reduce vulnerability to heat, including fit-for-purpose warning systems and public education on keeping cool during heatwaves.

India and Pakistan are both working to reduce heatwave impacts through plans that also focus on early warning of heatwaves and improved public communication of ways to find relief from heat.

We can only hope this will have reduced the number of excess deaths in the recent heatwave.

Andrew King receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program.

– ref. A climate scientist on India and Pakistan’s horror heatwave, and the surprising consequences of better air quality – https://theconversation.com/a-climate-scientist-on-india-and-pakistans-horror-heatwave-and-the-surprising-consequences-of-better-air-quality-182516

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Principal Fellow (Hon), Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne

For those seeking refuge from the election, the 101st Archibald Prize is almost a politician-free zone. Unless you count Joanna Braithwaite’s amusingly titled McManusstan, a portrait of bird lover Sally McManus. Former Labor minister Peter Garrett painted by Anh Do is in the line up – but more accurately described as a rock star.

Braithwaite has painted McManus in a suit that I am guessing she doesn’t own, as it is covered in newspaper stories attacking unions.

This year’s exhibition includes some interesting art as well as people of interest. Both artists and their subjects have issues that our elected officials seem unwilling or unable to solve.

As effective as McManus has been in bringing industrial issues to the fore, Laura Tingle – the fourth estate, painted by James Powditch, is probably more influential for the way she speaks truth to power.

Powditch has entered the Archibald many times before and this is by far his most impressive entry so far. Tingle is painted in profile, looking intently at someone we cannot see.

Her face is superimposed over a collage that includes a script from 7.30, a page from her Quarterly Essay, pages from Simeon Potter’s Language in the Modern World and a fragment of a Bach composition. A multicoloured collage of facsimile engravings by Sydney Parkinson tells of her love of gardening.

Read more:
‘I think Archie would be pleased’: 100 years of our most famous portrait prize and my almost 50 years watching it evolve

Reverent rage

The painting that dominates the exhibition is Blak Douglas’ Moby Dickens, a portrait of the Wiradjuri artist Karla Dickens.

Dickens lives in Lismore, Bundjalung Country. Her justifiable anger at the way she and many others have been neglected sparks out of her eyes. She is painted holding leaky buckets while standing in brown muddy water. The 14 clouds represent the 14 days it rained in the first February flood, while government failed to act.

The floods are the subject of at least two paintings in the Wynne Prize, but this Archibald entry says it all. Douglas encapsulates the rage of a people betrayed by an absent government.

Read more:
Like many disasters in Australia, Aboriginal people are over-represented and under-resourced in the NSW floods

The somewhat pained expression on Saul Griffith’s face in Jude Rae’s The big switch – portrait of Dr Saul Griffith, which hangs to the left of Douglas’ work, may give some context to the anger.

Griffith has created a blueprint for Australia to cut electricity costs via solar power and batteries. Most Federal politicians are less than receptive, preferring to cook the planet with coal and gas.

Griffith was also the subject of a portrait by his mother, Pamela Griffith. There is an unwritten rule in the Archibald that only one painting of any subject will be hung, so this sadly went with the great majority to the rejects.

There are many reasons for righteous anger in this year’s exhibition. Mostafa Azimitabar’s self portrait, KNS088, stares at the viewer, confronting us with the way we as a country have been complicit in a crime against humanity.

For many years he was in detention, on Manus Island and then a hotel. He learnt to paint using coffee and a toothbrush. Both materials are used here.

Joan Ross’ ‘You were my biggest regret’: diary entry 1808, seems by comparison to be relatively mild. But her stylised mock-colonial self portrait is mournfully hugging a tree trunk, symbolising the destruction of the natural world by the colonisers in whose steps we tread.

Pleasure in the craft

The exhibition also celebrates those who fight for causes.

Tsering Hannaford has a painting of the Pitjantjatjara activist Sally Scales, painted in the academic style most commonly found in the hallowed halls of gentlemen’s clubs.

Not all creative activists are treated with such seriousness.

Jordan Richardson’s Venus is a portrait of Benjamin Law as Velázquez’s Rokeby Venus, while Avraham Vofsi’s portrait of John Safran as David and Goliath successfully appropriates the style of 19th century academic art, including the gold frame.

Yoshio Honjo’s portrait of Yumi Stynes as onna-musha (female samurai) is painted in the style of a Japanese woodblock print. It is one of many works where the artist has really considered the sensibility of their subjects.

Easily the most successful of these appropriated styles is Claus Stangl’s “3D” portrait of Taika Waititi, the man who gave the world Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What we do in the shadows before making Marvel movies that are actually worth watching.

It is a very clever painting, using thin layers of paint to create a mock 3D effect, gloriously out of focus, and a very worthy winner of the Packing Room Prize.

Joanna Mendelssohn has received funding from the ARC

– ref. The Archibald 2022 finalists: sitters speaking up to power; artists speaking back to the canon – https://theconversation.com/the-archibald-2022-finalists-sitters-speaking-up-to-power-artists-speaking-back-to-the-canon-179770

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Poole, Professor of Molecular Evolution, University of Auckland

Several well-intentioned efforts seek to incorporate mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) into science in New Zealand. These include a pilot National Certificate in Educational Achievement (NCEA) programme in biology and chemistry which places mātauranga Māori concepts on an equal footing with science. Other proposals aim to do the same for university science curricula and science policy.

For some, these efforts are a welcome move, while others view them as cause for concern. I wish to contribute an Asian scientific perspective on this discussion.

Why is an Asian perspective relevant? First, Asians constitute about 15% of the population of Aotearoa. It is important not to forget that conversations on science, and our national education curriculum, are relevant to us all.

Second, Asia is emerging as a global science leader. Asian universities now rank among the top 25 in engineering, biology, physics and astronomy and chemistry. While one can quibble about rankings, no Australian or New Zealand universities rank this well.

Japan – from where one side of my heritage stems – is part of this trend, despite having been perhaps the most insular country of the past 500 years. In recent years, Japanese scientists have won Nobel prizes for the invention of blue-light LEDs (used in phone screens) and lithium-ion batteries (used in electric cars).

Read more:
Let’s choose our words more carefully when discussing mātauranga Māori and science

Japan is a science powerhouse and Japanese culture also has concepts similar to those being considered for the NCEA science curriculum: whakapapa, mauri and kaitiakitanga are all familiar to us. Shinto, Japan’s indigenous religion, is polytheistic and animistic, and, like Māori culture, ours has also found currency globally (think judo, manga, haiku).

Importantly for New Zealand’s national conversation, in charting a path as emerging science leaders, Japan and other Asian countries have grappled with how modern science and traditional knowledge systems interact. As such, I believe Asians have a helpful perspective to offer, and I offer mine in good faith.

Japan and ‘Western’ science

Let’s take a look at the origin of modern science in Japan, which was not so much Western as Dutch.

Our story begins in 1771 at Kotsugahara (the Plain of Bones). Physicians attended the execution of a murderer to observe the executioner dissecting the body, as was the custom in those days. Their interest in such a gruesome event? To compare a Japanese medical text with a Dutch one, Ontleedkundige Tafelen (Anatomical Tables).

At the execution, physician Sugita Genpaku and his colleagues realised the superiority of the Dutch text and resolved there and then to translate it. The resulting book, Kaitai Shinsho (New Book on Anatomy), became Japan’s standard text on anatomy.

It overturned the orthodoxy of the time, where physicians would keep their knowledge secret, teaching it only to their disciples. This episode is remembered at a memorial in Tokyo:

Rangaku (Dutch studies) sprang from here and served to revitalise the progress of modern Japanese science.

This episode reveals some things about science: science should be shared for the betterment of humanity, and any concept can be translated into any language. This is not trivial. Sugita documented this challenge in Rangaku Koto Hajime (The Beginning of Dutch Learning).

Sugita recounts how he and his colleagues had to understand Dutch words without Japanese equivalents and create those equivalents.

Read more:
Eat your heart out, scientists: evidence is a balancing act

Sugita is known for another episode that shows how science works: physician Kagawa Gen’etsu claimed in his book, Sanron (1765), that a developing foetus is positioned head-down in the womb. Sugita expressed skepticism, as this was not documented in Dutch or traditional texts.

On later discovering that Kagawa’s observations were correct, he openly admitted his error. Not all scientists are as honourable as Sugita, but over time the scientific process tends to correct errors and zero in on the truth.

These early steps illustrate the scientific mindset when confronted with new knowledge. Sugita writes:

We were ashamed of having lived […] in […] complete ignorance […] without the slightest idea of the true configuration of the body, […] this should have been considered the foundation of our art.

A different way of knowing?

So how has Japan reconciled traditional and modern knowledge? Did it develop a different “way of knowing”, a new form of science?

Novelist Tanizaki Junichiro pondered this in In’ei Raisan (In Praise of Shadows, 1933), in which he criticises modernity and praises Japanese aesthetics, which favour shadows and imagination:

Suppose […] we had developed our own physics and chemistry: would not the techniques and industries based on them have taken a different form, would not our myriads of everyday gadgets, our medicines, the products of our industrial art – would they not have suited our national temper better than they do? In fact our conception of physics itself, and […] chemistry, would probably differ from that of Westerners; and the facts we are now taught concerning the nature and function of light, electricity and atoms might well have presented themselves in different form.

Read more:
How Indigenous knowledge advances modern science and technology

The answer from every instance of the adoption of science across Asia is a resounding no. Physics and chemistry are not cultural or aesthetic constructs; they are concerned with phenomena that exist even if our species does not.

Tanizaki, who had a penchant for irony, goes on to say: “Of course I am only indulging in idle speculation; of scientific matters I know nothing.”

Tradition and science intertwined

Our next stop is Manshu-in temple in Kyoto, and the “microbe mound”, kinzuka. It carries an inscription by microbiologist Sakaguchi Kinichiro:

To the innumerable souls of microbes

Who have dedicated and sacrificed

For the existence of humans,

We pay our deepest respect.

Here we hold a memorial service

For their souls’ rest and condolence,

Building a microbe mound.

Kinzuka is not scientific, but it offers scientists an opportunity for reflection. It is something quite unique to Japan. By contrast, stepping inside Japanese laboratories, one could be anywhere in the world. The methods are standard, the equipment recognisable. And when we swap protocols, they can be readily applied in any lab, albeit with a little translation.

The details of how to grow microbes or how to extract DNA from them are separate from Japanese culture – or indeed any culture.

Some Japanese research is informed by culture and art, however. One example is Aizome (indigo dyeing), which involves extracting dye by fermenting indigo leaves. The traditional process is fascinating, and no artisan needs a scientist’s insights to improve their craft.

The scientific part is understanding exactly how fermentation extracts the dye; no artisan knows this. After revealing how the microbial fermentation process works, my colleagues did something quite astonishing – they used this knowledge to develop a fuel cell. In this case, tradition has inspired new science.

Cultural treasures and science

I have touched on religion, but I want to end by diving in at the deep end: science inevitably comes into conflict with some forms of knowledge. Our oldest text, Kojiki (Record of Ancient Matters, 711CE), recounts oral traditions, myths and kami (gods). It states that the emperor’s genealogy traces to Amaterasu, the sun goddess.

As a scientist, I understand that if held up to the light of modern genetics, linguistics or geology, these stories, if taken literally, are absolute nonsense. But that does not detract from the central place of these myths in Japanese culture. They are treasures not to be conflated with science.

Read more:
Let’s choose our words more carefully when discussing mātauranga Māori and science

I can think of no better embodiment of how our national religion, Shinto, sits alongside science than the former Emperor Akihito. It is remarkable to learn that he is a keen ichthyologist (fish biologist). Writing in the journal Science, he states:

Since science pursues truth and scientific methodology puts truth to the use of mankind, it is desirable that such studies be pursued through cooperation that transcends national and other boundaries.

But how can he espouse science and be akitsumikami – “a god in manifestation”?

Japanese, Māori and Western thinkers have all resolved this paradox by recognising that religion and science don’t overlap. One deals with facts and theories, the other with moral meaning and value, and as evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould noted:

[T]hey bump right up against each other, inter-digitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border.

This is worth considering in Aotearoa’s national discussions about which parts of mātauranga Māori belong in science and which belong in other subjects. For instance, arguing that mauri is an identifiable life force is problematic for science because there is no such force, but we can understand the cultural values inherent in such a term.

The Japanese equivalent, ki, is peppered through everyday language. For instance, when we say ki o tsukete (take care), the literal translation would be “switch on your mauri”.

That the Japanese imperial family descend from kami, and Māori whakapapa to atua, are also ideas that fall outside science. Japanese aesthetics finds beauty in shadows and lurking ghosts, but there is also beauty in the illumination that science sheds on the world.

This point is well understood by some of the most eminent Māori thinkers, including professor of Māori Studies Mason Durie:

You can’t understand science through the tools of mātauranga Māori, and you can’t understand mātauranga Māori through the tools of science. They’re different bodies of knowledge, and if you try to see one through the eyes of the other, you mess it up.

We need to explore the border between mātauranga Māori and science. This may yield new knowledge (like the Aizome-fuel cell), but some parts will be better treated as non-overlapping.

We must also recognise the value of scientific progress, and the legacy of Sugita Genpaku, whose embrace of Dutch studies sealed the fate of much of traditional Japanese medicine – in the service of improving it.

Anthony Poole 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. Japan’s path to becoming a leader in Western science: an Asian perspective on science and other forms of knowledge – https://theconversation.com/japans-path-to-becoming-a-leader-in-western-science-an-asian-perspective-on-science-and-other-forms-of-knowledge-179191

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olga Oleinikova, Senior Lecturer and Director of the SITADHub (Social Impact Technologies and Democracy Research Hub) in the School of Communication., University of Technology Sydney

In the wake of the Russia’s continued aggression and a third round of inconclusive diplomatic negotiations, the death toll and humanitarian crisis continues to worsen in Ukraine.

In just 70 days of war, a quarter of Ukraine’s population have left their homes. 5.5 million refugees have fled the country, and a further 7.1 million people have been internally displaced.

Experts say they’ve hardly seen a humanitarian crisis evolving as rapidly as this.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine isn’t only devastating the lives of ordinary Ukrainians, it is already creating economic disruption and increasing poverty, food insecurity and inflation far beyond Eastern Europe.

Read more:
Ukraine refugees need urgent, ongoing health care. We’ve worked in refugee camps and there’s a right way to do it

Worsening humanitarian situation

In Ukraine, major infrastructure has been destroyed, and there are severe shortages of food and water. Many innocent Ukrainians are facing starvation. Disruptions to electricity and basic supplies are widespread.

My grandparents, both 85-year-old survivors of the second world war, rely on food and vital medicine to be delivered by volunteers to their apartment in central Kyiv.

And Kyiv isn’t even the worst of it. The extent of hardship in Mariupol and Kharkiv is still unknown, as people in these areas have been largely unreachable online for more than two months. The last available reports say access to power, food, and water is precarious at best.

The humanitarian crisis is worsening not just in Ukraine, but also in the territories controlled by Russia.

One example is the Donetsk People’s Republic, which has become a bridgehead for Russian troops into the Donbass region. Close family friends in Donetsk tell me constant shelling has disrupted their water supply, so people are forced to queue at a local communal water pipe station for hours.

Read more:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is illegal under international law: suggesting it’s not is dangerous

Access to humanitarian aid provided by global charities is another big problem. Russia’s refusal to comply with basic humanitarian law has made it difficult to create sustainable humanitarian corridors in Ukrainian territory, meaning aid isn’t reaching parts of Ukraine that need it, all while Russia delivers their own humanitarian aid to Russian-controlled Donetsk and Luhansk.

Local businesses and non-for-profit community organisations have made an extraordinary effort to assist in Ukraine. They’ve established voluntary networks to provide medication, food, and psychological support to the most vulnerable.

Escalating refugee crisis

The 5.5 million refugees having fled Ukraine makes this the fastest growing refugee crisis since the second world war and the first of its kind in Europe since the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s.

An estimated 55 children are forced to flee the country every minute. More than half of Ukraine’s children had been displaced after just a month of the invasion.

The main destinations for Ukrainian refugees are neighbouring European nations to the west – Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Moldova, Hungary, and Romania.

Australia has offered a temporary solution, issuing more than 6,000 temporary visas to Ukrainians offering a pathway to a temporary humanitarian protection visa.

The global impacts

Russia’s invasion is having global consequences beyond destroying Ukraine.

Increasing food and fuel prices are chief among them. Exacerbated poverty is likely to be another.

The Washington-based Center for Global Development estimates at least 40 million people around the world will be pushed into extreme poverty – defined as living on less than $1.90 a day – because of the price spike sparked by Russia’s invasion.

Another concern is global wheat supplies. Ukraine and Russia together account for more than a quarter of world wheat exports.

The conflict will likely see wheat prices skyrocket as major wheat importers including Egypt, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Turkey compete for alternative supplies.

This war has also hit Russia hard

Russia is facing its most difficult economic situation in three decades due to Western sanctions and the mounting death toll of Russian soldiers.

Export restrictions and sanctions on Russian food production will heighten levels of poverty in Russia over the next six months, leaving low-income households particularly vulnerable to supply shortages.

Also hard hit will be Russia’s low-income trading partners. Some of the most economically exposed countries will be those with historically favourable relations with Russia including Egypt, Turkey, India, South Africa and Thailand.

Read more:
A year of hunger: how the Russia-Ukraine war is worsening climate-linked food shortages

In response to the global consequences of Russia’s invasion, major NGOs and international finance institutions must act quickly to address the urgent humanitarian needs.

Meanwhile, wealthy governments should provide immediate funding to curb the worst consequences of an imminent global food crisis.

Olga Oleinikova 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. Food shortages, millions of refugees, and global price spikes: the knock-on effects of Russia’s Ukraine invasion – https://theconversation.com/food-shortages-millions-of-refugees-and-global-price-spikes-the-knock-on-effects-of-russias-ukraine-invasion-180559

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of South Australia

If you believe anecdotes online, drinking lukewarm water with a splash of lemon juice is detoxifying, energising and soothing.

Water and lemon juice on their own are healthy. But if you combine them, do they become healthier? The really quick answer is, no!

Could drinking lemon water do you any long-lasting harm? It’s unlikely.

Read more:
I’ve always wondered: why does lemon juice lighten the colour of tea?

It contains vitamin C, but do you need extra?

Lemon juice contains vitamin C, a vital nutrient. We’ve long-known a vitamin C deficiency can lead to scurvy. This condition is most commonly associated with seafarers in history who had no access to fresh fruit and vegetables on long voyages.

More recently, we have seen low levels of vitamin C in Australia, for instance in people admitted to hospital and referred for surgery. But this may not represent vitamin C levels more broadly in the community. In this group of people, the factors that led to their ill health could also have impacted their vitamin C intake.

If your intake of vitamin C is low, drinking lemon water may help. Vitamin C starts to degrade at 30-40℃, which would have a small impact on levels in your warm lemon water, but nothing too concerning.

If you have enough vitamin C in your diet, anything extra will be excreted as either vitamin C or oxalate via your urine.

Read more:
Explainer: what is scurvy and is it making a comeback?

What else can lemon juice do?

Lemon juice may have other benefits, but research so far has been mixed.

One study found people with high blood lipid (cholesterol) levels who drank lemon juice for eight weeks did not see any changes in their blood pressure, weight or blood lipids levels.

However, in another study, drinking 125mL lemon juice with bread led to a small decrease in blood glucose levels compared to drinking tea or water with the bread. A small study found something similar with drinking 30g lemon juice with water before eating rice.

Researchers suggest the acidity of lemon juice inhibits a particular enzyme in your saliva (salivary amylase), which usually starts to break down starch in your mouth. So it takes longer for starch to break down to glucose lower in the gut and transported across the intestine wall into your blood. For people with diabetes, this may lead to a reduction in the spikes of blood sugar levels, but it has not as yet been tested.

Other studies indicate there are other nutrients in lemon that may be beneficial for protecting against developing diabetes.

But it is likely you can get the same benefits by adding lemon juice to your food.

How about detoxing, energising or soothing?

Your body already detoxes without the added “help” of lemon water. It breaks down toxins or excess nutrients in the liver and eliminates those molecules via the kidneys and out into the toilet in your urine.

There is no evidence vitamin C helps this. So any claims lemon water detoxes you are untrue. If you really need a detox, you probably need a liver transplant.

Does lemon juice energise you? Aside from the placebo effect of drinking something you feel is good for you, the short answer is no. However, like most nutrients, if you’re not getting enough of them, you could feel sapped of energy.

And as for lemon water being a soothing drink, some people find warm drinks soothing, others prefer cold. The best temperature to drink fluids is the temperature at which you are more likely to drink enough to stay hydrated.

Read more:
Do you really need a detox?

Any possible harms?

As lemon water is acidic, there have been some concerns about its ability to erode tooth enamel. But this is a problem for any acidic beverages, including fizzy drinks and orange juice.

To minimise the risk of acid erosion, some dentists recommend measures including:

• rinsing out your mouth with tap water after drinking lemon water

• chewing sugar-free gum afterwards to stimulate saliva production

• avoid brushing your teeth immediately after drinking lemon water

• drinking via a straw to avoid contact with the teeth.

Read more:
Health check: what’s eating your teeth?

Some doctors say lemon water may irritate the bladder and may make some people feel like they need to urinate more often, particularly at night. If that’s the case, they recommend switching to plain water.

However one study, which looked at a range of drinks including lemon beverages, found no effects on bladder irritation when people reduced their intake.

Others say lemon water makes acid reflux (heartburn) worse. But this has not been tested.

So, should I drink lemon water?

If you enjoy drinking lemon water, drink it! But if you don’t like drinking it, you’re not missing out.

You can get your vitamin C from other citrus fruits, as well as other fruit and vegetables. You can also squeeze some lemon juice on your meat, salads or vegetables.

Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.

– ref. Lemon water won’t detox or energise you. But it may affect your body in other ways – https://theconversation.com/lemon-water-wont-detox-or-energise-you-but-it-may-affect-your-body-in-other-ways-180035

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

There could be no better example of the United Nations’ failure to live up to its founding ideals than the recent visit by secretary general António Guterres to Russia. Attempting to calm the dangerous war in Ukraine, he obtained nothing of significance.

No peace deal, no blue helmeted peacekeepers in the warzone keeping the belligerents apart. Relegated to the role of an aide to the Red Cross, his single achievement was an agreement in principle to help the beleaguered civilians in Mariupol.

Guterres then went to Kyiv where he criticised the Security Council for failing to prevent the war. Russia applauded with a salvo of missiles fired at the same city he was speaking in.

This is far from what the drafters of the UN Charter envisaged. They had wanted to avoid history repeating. The organisation’s predecessor, the League of Nations, had failed precisely because the great powers felt their interests were better served by not joining.

To entice the five most powerful post-war nations (America, Russia, France, Britain and China) to join the new UN, it was split in two. The General Assembly was where the talking took place. The Security Council had the real power over peace and security.

Above all, the big five were offered the power of veto over Security Council actions, meaning any one of them could block any initiative to prevent or end war. Therein lies today’s sad reality.

Power by veto

It was originally hoped the veto would be used rarely, and those granted it would behave as model international citizens. Since 1946, however, the veto has been used more than 200 times. Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) has used it most, followed by the US.

Since the end of the Cold War, new patterns have emerged: the US has continued to use the veto to protect Israel, but France and Britain have become silent. Russia, and increasingly China, use their veto most to thwart Security Council initiatives.

Read more:
How can Russia’s invasion of Ukraine end? Here’s how peace negotiations have worked in past wars

Turning Syria to rubble was only possible because Russia helped its ally militarily and then repeatedly vetoed (often with the support of China) Security Council intervention or condemnation.

We now face the same situation with Ukraine. Russian president Vladimir Putin has run his tanks over the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and disobeyed the International Court of Justice because of the unbridled power of veto.

The last proposed Security Council resolution Russia vetoed affirmed the territorial sovereignty of the Ukraine and condemned Russia’s invasion as a violation of the United Nations Charter.

A more dangerous world

Although most of the world wants restrictions on the use of the veto, nothing has changed. The only restraint involves the General Assembly being called together to scrutinise and comment after the veto has been used.

While the UN remains impotent, Ukraine exercises its sovereign right to self defence – including the right to source military hardware from other countries. This is quite legal under international law unless it involves prohibited weapons or the trade itself is prohibited by an agreed UN embargo, neither of which applies to Ukraine.

Read more:
Why the war in Ukraine is pushing the Doomsday Clock’s hands closer to midnight

This has meant the UN void is filled (despite threats from Moscow) by at least 40 countries, which are now busy providing weaponry and aid to help Ukrainians defend themselves.

The net effect is that one permanent member of the Security Council has invaded a country across whose border sit three other permanent members furiously pushing high-tech weaponry into the warzone.

For now, the always risky balance between the veto-wielding members looks precarious. And the post-war assumption that the big powers would behave with some restraint now seems questionable at best.

Read more:
4 things to know about Moldova and Transnistria – and why Russia’s war may spread beyond Ukraine to reach them soon

Tipping points

While the scale and variety of arms shipments to Ukraine is growing, that alone won’t necessarily cause the war to spill across borders. Nor should Russia attacking those arms shipments once they reach Ukraine.

But if the geography of the conflict expands – such as if Russian targets outside Ukraine are repeatedly hit, or discontent spreads further into breakaway provinces – the danger escalates.

Similarly, should Russia harass Western nations with cyber-attacks in retaliation over arms supplies, and individual countries (or possibly NATO acting collectively) retaliated in kind, the situation could quickly spin out of control.

Other dire possibilities include Russia targeting arms shipments in international territory, such as the high seas – or worse, attacking them within (or transiting through) a NATO country.

The real trigger may not be Russia winning this war, but beginning to lose it. At that point, the theory and paper wall of a UN system designed to prevent wider conflict and superpowers clashing may disappear in a flash.

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

– ref. With the UN powerless, the greatest danger now may be Russia beginning to lose in Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/with-the-un-powerless-the-greatest-danger-now-may-be-russia-beginning-to-lose-in-ukraine-182512

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isobelle Barrett Meyering, Research fellow, Macquarie University

Mother’s Day has long been exploited for commercial and political gain. This year, again, my inbox is filled with gift ideas to “make mum smile”. With the federal election looming, we can expect candidates to make the most of this weekend to demonstrate their pro-family credentials.

But advertisers and politicians are not the only ones with a stake in Mother’s Day. The day’s origins lie in feminist campaigns in the late 19th and early 20th century to promote peace and greater recognition of women’s social and economic contribution as mothers.

For subsequent generations of feminists, it has proven to be a site of contest. This was especially so in the 1970s, when women’s liberationists set out to challenge prevailing expectations of female domesticity.

In their view, the dominant model of the male breadwinner and female homemaker was a leading source of women’s oppression. Many felt Mother’s Day only reinforced the problem.

A pamphlet issued by Adelaide women’s liberationists in 1971 claimed Mother’s Day was little more than an exercise in hypocrisy.

For one day, the pamphlet asserted, society paid lip service to women’s “martyrdom” in the home. For the rest of the year, their domestic labour remained invisible and their “basic needs” were left unmet – including for some independence from their children.

But it is worth noting women’s liberationists argued the “cult” of domesticity not only had dire consequences for women, but for children too. On this Mother’s Day, it bears remembering activists were committed to their joint liberation.

Read more:
Don’t give mum chocolates for Mother’s Day. Take on more housework, share the mental load and advocate for equality instead

Liberation for children

This vision was put forward most explicitly in North American radical feminist Shulamith Firestone’s bestseller, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970).

The book is now best known for its forthright critique of maternity: Firestone went so far as to describe pregnancy as “barbaric” and advocated for artificial reproduction in its place.

But The Dialectic of Sex was also noteworthy for Firestone’s analysis of children’s status in the nuclear family and the power parents wielded over them. Mothers played a particularly insidious role, Firestone argued, in the psychological formation of children, determining “what they become as adults and the sorts of relationships they are able to form”.

Read more:
Shulamith Firestone: why the radical feminist who wanted to abolish pregnancy remains relevant

Firestone’s views on the subject were far from exceptional. Indeed, the concept of children’s liberation reverberated through a wide range of feminist texts of the period.

And as I discovered when I started looking for evidence of the concept’s impact in Australia, it was also put into practice in diverse ways.

For feminist mothers in the 1970s, access to affordable childcare services was an especially high priority – not only to enable their equal participation in public life, but because of its benefits for children’s social development and connection beyond the nuclear family.

This sentiment was best captured in the slogan used at protest marches: “Free Mum, Free Dad, Free Me, Free Child Care”.

Many feminist teachers and mothers were attracted to new approaches that emphasised children’s autonomy and self-direction. These principles also informed broader decisions about childrearing, such as mothers’ selections of books, toys and clothing, and their attempts to be more open and frank when addressing their children’s questions about sexuality.

When they could not find readily available alternatives, one Melbourne group even began producing their own resources. In 1974, they formed the Women’s Movement Children’s Literature Cooperative. Their first book, The Witch of Grange Grove, was typical in featuring characters who disregarded gender stereotypes and pursued their own interests.

By the mid-1970s, the issue of violence within the family home had become pressing. Children comprised more than half of the residents at women’s refuges, such as Elsie in Sydney. Along with physical and emotional abuse, child sexual abuse – particularly by male relatives – was one of the issues that refuge workers, along with activists at rape crisis services, frequently confronted.

Read more:
Damned Whores and God’s Police is still relevant to Australia 40 years on – more’s the pity

The forgotten revolution

For many feminists of the era, women’s and children’s liberation were inseparable.

This was certainly true for the Adelaide activists protesting Mother’s Day in 1971. As their pamphlet had it, for both their own sake and so as not to “suffocate” their children, women must “renounce [their] martyrdom” and redefine themselves as “a human being […] not just ‘mum’”.

But this message was often lost on women’s liberation’s opponents, who were intent on casting the movement as “anti-mother” and “anti-child” – a stereotype of this era that has persevered.

Internal tensions within women’s liberation have also shaped feminist and popular memory of this period. While many involved in the movement worked hard to improve the conditions of mothers and their children, not everyone felt these efforts went far enough.

Some women were alienated by the staunch critiques of motherhood, or felt judged by those who did not have children. And although women’s liberation attracted participants from diverse backgrounds, many First Nations and migrant women chose to organise in groups outside it, in part due to a perception that their experiences of motherhood required different political remedies.

The relationship between 1970s feminism and maternity was at times a fraught one. But we should not forget that this ambivalence about motherhood could also be productive, creating space for new ways of thinking not just about women, but children too.

We continue to grapple with many of the same issues, from childcare and gender socialisation to child abuse and family violence.

In seeking lasting solutions to these problems, it is worth remembering there is a longer history of feminist activism that might inform our contemporary approaches – not least of all when it comes to responding to the predictable cliches that surface each year on Mother’s Day.

Isobelle Barrett Meyering 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. ‘A human being, not just mum’: the women’s liberationists who fought for the rights of mothers and children – https://theconversation.com/a-human-being-not-just-mum-the-womens-liberationists-who-fought-for-the-rights-of-mothers-and-children-182057

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leah Ruppanner, Professor of Sociology and Founding Director of The Future of Work Lab, The University of Melbourne

With Mother’s Day right around the corner, many grateful and loving families are thinking about what to give mum to show their appreciation.

Should you give her chocolate? Nope. Fancy soaps? Nope. Fuzzy slippers, pyjamas, scented candles? No, no and no.

On this Mother’s Day, keep your cash and give your wonderful mother gifts that will actually have a long-term impact on her health and well-being.

Read more:
Planning, stress and worry put the mental load on mothers – will 2022 be the year they share the burden?

1. Do a chore that mum hates and hold onto it … forever

Research shows men have increased the amount of time spent on housework and childcare and that mothers, over time, are doing less (hooray!).

But, women still do more housework than men, especially when kids are in the home.

Further, men tend to pick up the more desirable tasks, like cooking and playing with the kids, leaving mothers to do the less pleasurable chores (think cleaning toilets and clearing out fridges).

The chore divide in same-sex relationships is generally found to be more equal, but some critique suggests equality may suffer once kids are involved.

This year give your mum (or mums) the gift of equal housework and childcare sharing – start by taking the most-hated tasks and then hold onto them… forever.

Research shows housework inequality is bad for women’s mental health. Undervaluing women’s housework and unequal sharing of the chores deteriorates relationship quality, and leads to divorce.

Housework and childcare take up valuable time to keep the family happy, harmonious and thriving, often at the expense of mum’s health and well-being.

So, skip the chocolates and show mum love by doing the worst, most drudgerous and constant household chores (hello, cleaning mouldy showers!) and keep doing these… forever.

2. Initiate a mental unload

The mental load is all of the planning, organising and management work necessary to keep the family running.

The mental load is often perceived as list making or allocating tasks to family members.

But, it’s so much more – it is the emotional work that goes with this thinking work.

The mental load is the worry work that never ends and can be done anywhere, anytime and with anyone (in, for example, said mouldy shower).

Because the mental load is performed inside our heads, it is invisible. That means we don’t know when we or others are performing this labour unless we really tune in.

In fact, it is often when we tune in through quiet time, relaxation or meditation that the mental load rears its ugly head. Suddenly you remind yourself to buy oranges for the weekend soccer game, organise a family movie night and don’t forget to check in on nanna.

Women in heterosexual relationships are shown to do more of the mental load with serious consequences for their mental health. But we don’t have a comprehensive measurement of how much women do it nor how it is allocated in same-sex couples.

So, on this mothers’ day spend some time talking about, cataloguing, and equalising the family’s mental load.

This isn’t just making a list about what has to be done but also understanding how the mental load connects to the emotional health of the family, and the person carrying this invisible labour, worry and stress.

3. Speak up for your mum and all caregivers

Families alone cannot bear the brunt of the caregiving necessary to keep us thriving.

Governments, workplaces and local communities also play a critical role. For this mothers’ day, pick an issue impacting mothers (for example, equal pay, affordable childcare or paid family leave) and do one thing to help move the needle.

Write a letter to your boss, your local MP, or donate money to an advocacy organisation advancing gender equality.

Or, role model these behaviours yourself – normalise caregiving as a critical piece of being an effective worker, create policies and practices that support junior staff to care for themselves, their families and their communities and use these policies.

Research shows men want to be equal carers and sharers but often fear what taking time off for caregiving will signal to their employer despite evidence that fathers who request flexible work are perceived more favourably.

Appearing to be singularly devoted to work was shown to be impossible during the pandemic with kids, spouses, partners, and pets home all day long.

Learning to create more care-inclusive workplaces and communities is critical.

Paid parental leave, affordable and accessible high-quality childcare, flexibility in how, when and where we work and greater investments in paid sick leave, long-term disability support and aged care are just a few policies that would strengthen the care safety net.

We will all be called upon to care at some point in our lives – let’s create the environments that support caregiving for all, not just mum.

Read more:
Flexible work arrangements help women, but only if they are also offered to men

Leah Ruppanner receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Don’t give mum chocolates for Mother’s Day. Take on more housework, share the mental load and advocate for equality instead – https://theconversation.com/dont-give-mum-chocolates-for-mothers-day-take-on-more-housework-share-the-mental-load-and-advocate-for-equality-instead-182330

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Curkpatrick, Researcher and adjunct lecturer, University of Divinity

Can the Southern Cross represent Australian identity? Waved by a proud athlete or an angry protester, inked into skin or stuck to a car window, these five stars condense different aspirations, identities and histories into a recognisable symbol.

Yet such symbolism is inherently contested: from the Eureka Stockade to protests over COVID-19 vaccine mandates, or from the coat of arms to the eponymous Sydney train station, Australians have projected differing values and narratives of belonging to this constellation.

Warwick Thornton’s 2017 film We Don’t Need a Map wrestles with racist usage of the Southern Cross, playing on a growing disquiet among many Australians who have come to associate the Southern Cross with bigotry. But Thornton also explores Indigenous narratives about the Southern Cross, suggesting the symbol can never be contained within a single defining narrative.

It is important to appreciate the diversity of identities under the Southern Cross. But we want to go further and ask: what role can the Southern Cross play in shaping an Australian identity, in which diversity coheres in a unique and life-giving way?

Read more:
Supernovas, auroral sounds and hungry tides: unpacking First Nations knowledge of the skies

Reading the stars, finding our home

Through his teaching and artistic direction, Warlpiri Elder Wanta Jampijinpa Pawu asks these questions with anyone willing to hunt with him. Jampijinpa explores the meaning of the Southern Cross: a law emblazoned on the night skies since creation and read by countless generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Wanta has spent decades educating young Warlpiri, especially through his innovative work as artistic director of the biennial Milpirri festival in Lajamanu, in the northern Tanami desert.

Through the Milpirri festival, Wanta and his father Jerry Jangala have drawn from rich wells of cultural identity to expound the concept of ngurru-kurlu, (Warlpiri for “home within”). Wanta understands Ngurru-kurlu to be a way of navigating identity for all who seek to live alongside one another under the Southern Cross.

Ngurra-kurlu is the essence of a people. You might call it their home. But it is more than just the ground we sleep on: we become our own home. The first three letters, ngu, mean “inner” and rra means flowing or being in motion. So ngurra is “inner flow”. By adding kurlu, which means “home,” or “with home,” you get ngurra-kurlu.

The Southern Cross can show us how to discover our ngurra-kurlu. This is more than identity: it’s also about belonging and purpose. The stars of the Southern Cross show us how our own ngurra-kurlu is bound together with the ngurra-kurlu of others.

For Warlpiri, each star of the Southern Cross represents the different skin groups that make up Warlpiri society, mapping respective stories, language, law and country.

These skin groups are:

• Nampijinpa/Jampijinpa and Nangala/Jangala (north group – emu)
• Napaljarri/Japaljarri and Nungarrayi/Jungarrayi (west group – wedge-tailed eagle)
• Napurrula/Jupurrula and Nakamarra/Jakamarra (south group – kangaroo)
• Napanangka/Japanangka and Napangardi/Japangardi (east group – goanna).

The Southern Cross is like a map that shows us how to live alongside different people, country and ecosystems; these weave together to make our homes and sustain our identities. When we see birds, animals, plants, places, we see our families, so it reminds us of these relationships with people, the land and sky.

The little star in the Southern Cross is the wulyu-wulyu (Western chestnut mouse). That this star is off-centre is a reminder to keep learning about this country and its inhabitants, to nourish one another and grow together, so that we also do not drift away.

Read more:
Indigenous technology is often misunderstood. Here’s how it can be part of everyday life

A gift for all

The Southern Cross has deeper meanings than non-Indigenous people might realise. It is more than a symbol: for Warlpiri, it is a law that has existed since the beginning, which means we cannot claim the Southern Cross as our own but need to be reclaimed by it. By exploring its diverse meanings, we can discover those connections that sustain life in all its vibrant diversity and unity.

Sitting above us all, the Southern Cross calls us to become wantarri (a gift to one another), to become wungu-warnu (companions who are the same but different), a relationship that is a cross between family and friend. Through generous acts such as the Uluru Statement from the Heart, First Nations people have invited the rest of the nation to discover shared belonging and purpose. This has been done against Australia’s backdrop of painful and violent dispossession and disrespect against First Nations people.

This invitation will continue to be shared because it is always there, written in country. Wanta teaches us there are other stories in the Southern Cross, like Jardiwarnpa, the “real” Australia Day. Jardiwarnpa takes place in the cool season after the great storms of the wet, when the Southern Cross rises from below the horizon. This is a time for reconciliation and atonement, bringing our wrongdoings and discarding them in the open, so that all might see and we might become one body of people again.

Wanta’s teaching leads to the challenging yet hope-filled assertion: in all of our differences, we are called to become Australia. As we digest the knowledge from this continent, we are learning to belong to it. To learn about our respective relationships and responsibilities to one another is to become our home, which is a kind of freedom.

It is no good trying to define Australian identity through two-dimensional symbols: we must allow this country to teach us how to sit, feed and camp together under one sky.

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

– ref. Beyond angry protesters and inked arms, there’s this First Nations story of the Southern Cross – one of unity and belonging – https://theconversation.com/beyond-angry-protesters-and-inked-arms-theres-this-first-nations-story-of-the-southern-cross-one-of-unity-and-belonging-181161

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Jakubowicz, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Technology Sydney

The debate over whether an “ethnic vote” phenomenon exists in Australia re-emerges at each federal election.

Some argue people from ethnic communities can be influenced by issues which are cultural or which relate to their countries of origin rather than to their duties as Australia citizens.

We know from previous elections that sections of multicultural Australia can play a critical role in the election outcome. But obviously different communities have different concerns and this can play out unevenly.

What might this mean in 2022?

What has happened before?

Ahead of the 2016 federal election I suggested issues associated with ethnicity would play a critical role in the deciding votes in marginals with significant multicultural populations. As it turned out they did – delivering at least two seats in NSW and one in Victoria to the Coalition and in turn, government.

In 2019 I suggested ethnic voters might well save Morrison’s government, again mainly among disappointed opponents of the 2017 same-sex marriage legislation. While Queensland proved more important in the large, but Chisholm and Reid gave Morrison the tiny buffer he needed to win.

But there was no uniform “ethnic vote”. In some Labor electorates in 2019, the “ethnic vote” was a socially conservative one – with voters swinging away from the ALP, due to its commitment to same-sex marriage and the Liberal’s promise of a religious discrimination act.

My colleague Christina Ho and I drilled down into the 2019 results for the marginal Liberal seat of Banks in Sydney, concluding that the large local population of Chinese Australian voters tended to be slightly more pro-Labor than the average voter, but followed the broader swing towards the Liberals.

What is different in 2022?

Both Liberal and Labor-held seats will be important in 2022. Some critical electorates with significant ethnic populations include Parramatta, Reid, Banks, Fowler, Greenway and Lindsay in NSW, and Chisholm, Bruce, and Wills in Victoria.

Goldstein and Kooyong in Melbourne and Wentworth in Sydney also have significant Jewish populations. Nearby North Sydney also has a high number of overseas-born voters. All four of these seats are being challenged by “teal” independents.

Read more:
Below the Line: Will different cultural groups favour one side of politics this federal election? – podcast

Ethnicity may also present itself in some significant new ways this time.

The international world is more present in this election than it usually is, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and ongoing tensions with China front of mind and the news agenda. There has also been a significant increase in new citizens. Over 2020-21 this included about 24,000 Indians, 9,000 Filipinos, and 7,000 Chinese.

The government’s pandemic responses has also greatly challenged the “most successful multicultural society in the world” slogan. Not only have Australians with overseas connections been cut off from the rest of the world (or been locked out of the country) but we have seen high death rates among ethnic communities, the undermining of their well-being through lockdowns (which affected industries employing high proportions of ethnic workers), and reinvigorated racism.

Ahead of the 2022 vote, the ALP’s decision to install candidates in Fowler and Parramatta who are not from diverse cultural backgrounds nor from the local area might be thought of as patronising and ultimately, not a vote winner. Well-known Vietnamese Australian local councillor Dai Le is standing as an independent in Fowler, which could hurt parachute candidate, Kristina Keneally.

Where the parties stand

The Federation of Ethnic Communities of Australia has a comprehensive election wish-list. This includes an Office for Multicultural Australia and a new, well-resourced anti-racism strategy.

So far, we have little detail on the major parties’ election policies on multiculturalism and for ethnic Australians.

Read more:
Preselection and parachuting candidates: 3 reasons parties override their local branch members, despite the costs

Last year, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke promised a multicultural cohesion statement but this has not yet eventuated. The recent federal budget also cut expenditure for multicultural programs, and reduced support to the Australian Human Rights Commission, which does important anti-racism work.

The ALP has not yet released its main policy goals, though a 2021 report on multicultural engagement was very limited in its goals and did not include earlier commitments to expand the government’s multicultural policy capacity.

The Greens proposal for a federal multicultural commission sits undebated before the Senate, though the party has a specific set of anti-racism policies for the 2022 campaign.

On the ground

A focus on two electorates – one in Victoria and the other in NSW – shows us what impact an “ethnic bloc” might have.

The first is the ultra-marginal seat of Chisholm, currently held by Liberal MP Gladys Liu on a margin of just 0.5% and contested by Labor candidate Carina Garland.

According to the (latest available) 2016 Census data, half the population of Chisholm reported speaking a language other than English at home. The electorate had a China-born population of 14%, with 17% having both parents born in China. About 20% spoke a Chinese language at home. The next major community language was Greek.

Reflecting the high proportion of the China-born population, 36% of the population reported “no religion”, while 6% identified as Buddhist. In 2019 the Greens vote of 12% and the ALP of 34% were not enough to halt the Liberal win, with a primary vote of 43%. The informal vote was 4.5%.

Key issues this time include the rising racism experienced by Chinese Australians during the pandemic, the antipathy to China voiced by the government, and the perception of economic threats associated with the major parties.

The Parramatta campaign

The second seat is Parramatta, which the Labor Party currently hold on 3.5%. Here outgoing Labor MP Julie Owens will be replaced by candidate Andrew Charlton. He is challenged by Liberal candidate Maria Kovacic.

According to the 2016 Census, more than 60% of the Parramatta population speak a language other than English at home, with Arabic and Mandarin equal on 8%, Cantonese and Hindi about equal on 5% and Tamil on 3%. About 15% were born in India, with another 8% in China.

The electorate has a large number of Catholics, Hindus and Muslims. Since 2019 the sub-continent population has risen, with many more becoming citizens. In 2019, even though the ALP won the seat, the first preference swing to the Liberals was 7%, with an informal vote of 8%.

Parramatta will be affected by the strong campaign by Christian groups to focus attention on the need for a Morrison-government type religious discrimination act, which may also find some support among Muslim communities.

Critically, the ALP candidate is a non-local white man, parachuted into an electorate which was badly impacted by COVID lockdowns. The Coalition’s candidate has strong links to local eastern European communities, Christian churches and business and voluntary organisations, including networks of business women in western Sydney.

Ultimately in heavily “ethnic” electorates we will see ethno-cultural values tested against socio-economic interests. Diaspora voters will decide whether these interests reinforce or counteract each other and then how that propels their vote.

Andrew Jakubowicz received funding from the ARC for research on ethnic groups in Australian politics. This article is dedicated to the memory of James Jupp, the doyen of studies in ethnic politics in Australia, who passed away in early April.

– ref. Amid COVID and heated debate about China, how will multicultural Australia vote in 2022? – https://theconversation.com/amid-covid-and-heated-debate-about-china-how-will-multicultural-australia-vote-in-2022-181273

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

What happens if no party or coalition of parties wins a majority in the House of Representatives at the federal election? This is known as a “hung parliament”.

While it is unusual at the federal level, it has happened more often at state and territory level, so there is lots of experience in dealing with them in Australia.

The prime minister gets to choose what happens next

An election does not terminate the existing government. It continues in office as a caretaker government until a new government is formed, so there is never a gap between governments. An inconclusive election does not mean no-one is in charge.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not up to the governor-general to “call upon” someone to form a new government after an election. This is because there is no vacancy in the office of prime minister until the prime minister resigns.

If the result of the election is unclear, or the results leave neither side with a majority so the balance of power will be held by independents and members of small parties (known as “crossbenchers”), then it is up to the prime minister to decide what to do next.

The prime minister could choose to:

• resign on behalf of the government, which is normally what occurs if it is clear that enough of the crossbenchers are going to support the other side

• stay in office while negotiating with the crossbenchers to see who they will support (and resign if they choose the other side)

• stay in office and face parliament to see whether the lower house votes no-confidence in the government (in which case the prime minister must, according to convention, resign) or whether the house is prepared to let the government stay in office as a minority government.

What is the governor-general’s role?

The role of the governor-general is limited. If the prime minister resigns on behalf of the government, convention requires the governor-general to appoint as prime minister the person most likely to command the support of a majority of the lower house.

This will usually be the leader of the opposition. In rare circumstances, where there are competing claims about who commands the support of the lower house, the governor-general might have some discretion. However, if the issue was contentious, the governor-general would probably leave it to the House of Representatives to decide by voting on who holds its confidence.

In the extraordinary circumstance where a prime minister refused to resign, even though the lower house had voted no confidence in them or their government, the governor-general would be entitled to dismiss the prime minister and commission a new one to form a government. But this has not happened in Australia and is extremely unlikely ever to occur.

Read more:
Could the 2022 election result in a hung parliament? History shows Australians have nothing to fear from it

Is it necessary to get a ‘confidence and supply’ agreement with the crossbenchers?

When there is a hung parliament, the focus is on whether enough of the crossbenchers will support one side or the other in government, by protecting it from a no-confidence vote and by passing its budget (known as “supply”).

Minority governments can be defeated on legislation and other motions in the lower house and continue in office, as long as they can get supply passed and do not lose the confidence of a majority of the lower house.

So where there is a hung parliament, both sides will ordinarily try to negotiate a “confidence and supply” agreement with enough crossbenchers to guarantee majority support on those two crucial matters. It is not necessary to have such an agreement, but it does help in providing stable government. It is also a good indicator to the governor-general of who commands the necessary support of the lower house.

That is why, despite comments that they won’t do “any deals”, it is likely that in the face of a hung parliament, both the prime minister and the opposition leader would try to negotiate confidence and supply agreements with enough crossbenchers to get majority support in the lower house.

In return for a promise of support on confidence and supply, the crossbenchers will usually impose some conditions. They may require the government to promise to implement certain policies (for example, measures to deal with climate change) or establish greater accountability (such as an anti-corruption body).

They may seek reforms on how parliament operates and demand adequate funding for existing accountability bodies, such as the auditor-general. They may also make their agreement on confidence conditional on the government not engaging in any corrupt conduct.

There are no rules about how these negotiations take place or how long it takes before an agreement is reached. Prime Minister Julia Gillard took over two weeks to negotiate confidence and supply agreements with enough crossbenchers to form a minority government. But if close elections are challenged in the Court of Disputed Returns, it can take months to obtain certainty. In the meantime, the existing government continues in office as a caretaker government.

Read more:
Explainer: what are the caretaker government conventions?

Does a hung parliament result in chaos?

Hung parliaments can be effective or chaotic, or both, as the Gillard minority government showed. Forcing a government to explain and justify every bill on its merits, and negotiate amendments to reach a reasonable consensus, is no bad thing. It can result in significant improvements to government policy and legislation. A hung parliament can be a moderating force that knocks the ideological edges off policies and pushes them into the centre ground, where they have broad acceptance.

On the other hand, a hung parliament can result in governments failing to take hard, but necessary, measures that are in the country’s long-term interests. It can also result in horse-trading of support for bills and unfair favouritism directed towards projects in the electorates of the crossbenchers.

Whether a hung parliament ends up with policy paralysis and horse-trading on the one hand or major improvements in accountability and policy on the other, depends on the quality of both the government and the crossbenchers and their commitment to the public interest over self interest.

So when it comes to voting, it is wise to look beyond party or independent labels to the quality and commitment of the candidate you choose – because it may turn out to be very important.

Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and occasionally does consultancy work for governments, parliaments and inter-governmental bodies.

– ref. Explainer: what happens if the 2022 election results in a hung parliament? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-happens-if-the-2022-election-results-in-a-hung-parliament-182283

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Blake Bennett, Senior Lecturer in Sport Coaching and Pedagogy, University of Auckland

Although sport is often touted as a vehicle for positive experiences, many investigations into sporting cultures – particularly high performance sport – have highlighted how predatory or abusive behaviour by coaches can emerge and be tolerated.

The potential for (and reality of) abuse in youth sport is based on various factors. This includes the reputation of the coach to produce “champions”, the money medals generate for an organisation, the pressure felt by athletes to endure pain and discomfort as part of training, and a general culture of obedience.

For those reasons, a robust, sustainable child safeguarding (CSG) policy has become a critical step to ensure New Zealanders – young and old – can continue to enjoy their involvement in sport.

The risk, however, is that these necessary safeguards can inadvertently create confusion and cultures of suspicion between colleagues, parents and athletes. When even a congratulatory high-five or reassuring pat on the back can be misconstrued, we need to ask how we get the balance right.

Keeping kids safe

Encouragingly, the New Zealand’s Children’s Act (2014) introduced a series of changes over the past few years to enhance the safety of children and adults working with children in a range of settings.

Although the law is not specifically aimed at the sport sector, Sport NZ – the crown entity responsible for governing sport and recreation – has responded with several (online) training modules, and engaged with the sector to safeguard children interacting with adults in sport settings.

Notwithstanding this progress at home, international research suggests the legal requirements on coaches can cause confusion, spoiling the otherwise healthy and positive relationships coaches can have with parents and young athletes.

This is especially true of volunteers, who make up such a large proportion of coaching roles generally, and who often struggle to access nuanced CSG training in preparation for their roles.

Policy fails to make it into practice

Currently, the influence policy is having on coach and athlete experiences is not well understood in Aotearoa New Zealand.

To begin to address this, we asked 237 coaches from around the country to complete an online survey of their understanding of CSG policy in their sport or club, and how that policy is influencing their coaching.

While the findings indicated some sport organisations are reaching more coaches than others, overall the results indicated significant uncertainty about what CSG policy exists or what it requires.

Read more:
Gymnastics NZ has apologised for past abuses — now it must empower athletes to lead change

In particular, only 33% of volunteer coaches considered current CSG policy helpful in their roles.

Many participants (60%) said they had not made any changes to their coaching practice in response to CSG policy. Notwithstanding the commendable efforts made by Sport NZ (and others), this is concerning and suggests much more clarity is needed to ensure safe sporting environments.

Blanket bans have trumped nuanced policy

So, what kinds of changes are being made by the remaining 40%? Data from this and other research indicates some coaches and organisations are misinterpreting CSG policy, and consequently making adjustments based on what they think is right.

For instance, participants said policies in their sport or club aimed to restrict males from coaching females, and encouraged sweeping bans of all physical contact between adults and children.

However, these reactions are not advocated as the “best practice” outlined in the Children’s Act or Sport NZ’s training. Rather, it seems the lack of clarity surrounding CSG best practice is sometimes based more on people’s “best guess”.

Read more:
Bradley Wiggins alleges he was sexually groomed by a coach when he was about 13: expert explains safeguarding in sport and what more needs to be done

We suggest this is primarily driven by wider, societal anxieties about abuse in sport, and is causing people to make changes that are neither required nor necessary.

As research in Aotearoa and abroad has shown, this has included “no touch” and gender separation policies that lead to adults and children viewing each other as potentially dangerous.

This in turn leads to cultures of suspicion rather than positive and sustainable cultures of safeguarding. Equally concerning is the danger of turning good people away from sport if misinterpretations escalate.

Balance needed to prevent long term harm

No one wants children exposed to predatory behaviour in sport. But discouraging interaction between males and females, or adults avoiding any physical contact with children, isn’t a solution.

Research suggests this culture of suspicion can worsen over time, which is antithetical to a positive educational experience. As scholars in the UK have suggested, this inevitably leads to significant collateral damage to intergenerational relationships.

Given the apparent uncertainty surrounding CSG policy, any changes coaches or organisations make should be monitored carefully by sport sector leaders, policy makers and coach educators.

Challenging as it may be, it’s critical we provide opportunities for people to share and discuss best practice with each other and with experts. To that end, Sport NZ’s efforts to circulate CSG policy in the sector must be supported by ongoing research to measure what’s happening over time.

This is imperative if sport is to keep providing rewarding experiences for both adults and children.

Blake Bennett received a grant from the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Auckland to conduct this research.

– ref. How do we protect kids from abuse in sport without creating a ‘culture of suspicion’ that ruins it for everyone? – https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-protect-kids-from-abuse-in-sport-without-creating-a-culture-of-suspicion-that-ruins-it-for-everyone-182417

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sebastian Duchene, ARC DECRA Fellow, The University of Melbourne

By now, many of us will be familiar with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. This variant of concern has changed the course of the pandemic, leading to a dramatic rise in cases around the world.

We are also increasingly hearing about new Omicron sub-variants with names such as BA.2, BA.4 and now BA.5. The concern is these sub-variants may lead to people becoming reinfected, leading to another rise in cases.

Why are we seeing more of these new sub-variants? Is the virus mutating faster? And what are the implications for the future of COVID?

Read more:
What’s the difference between mutations, variants and strains? A guide to COVID terminology

Why are there so many types of Omicron?

All viruses, SARS-CoV-2 included, mutate constantly. The vast majority of mutations have little to no effect on the ability of the virus to transmit from one person to another or to cause severe disease.

When a virus accumulates a substantial number of mutations, it’s considered a different lineage (somewhat like a different branch on a family tree). But a viral lineage is not labelled a variant until it has accumulated several unique mutations known to enhance the ability of the virus to transmit and/or cause more severe disease.

This was the case for the BA lineage (sometimes known as B.1.1.529) the World Health Organization labelled Omicron. Omicron has spread rapidly, representing almost all current cases with genomes sequenced globally.

Because Omicron has spread swiftly, and has had many opportunities to mutate, it has also acquired specific mutations of its own. These have given rise to several sub-lineages, or sub-variants.

The first two were labelled BA.1 and BA.2. The current list now also includes BA.1.1, BA.3, BA.4 and BA.5.

We did see sub-variants of earlier versions of the virus, such as Delta. However, Omicron has outcompeted these, potentially because of its increased transmissibility. So sub-variants of earlier viral variants are much less common today and there is less emphasis in tracking them.

Read more:
How does Omicron compare with Delta? Here’s what we know about infectiousness, symptoms, severity and vaccine protection

Why are the sub-variants a big deal?

There is evidence these Omicron sub-variants – specifically BA.4 and BA.5 – are particularly effective at reinfecting people with previous infections from BA.1 or other lineages. There is also concern these sub-variants may infect people who have been vaccinated.

So we expect to see a rapid rise in COVID cases in the coming weeks and months due to reinfections, which we are already seeing in South Africa.

However, recent research suggests a third dose of the COVID vaccine is the most effective way to slow the spread of Omicron (including sub-variants) and prevent COVID-associated hospital admissions.

Recently, BA.2.12.1, has also drawn attention because it has been spreading rapidly in the United States and was recently detected in wastewater in Australia. Alarmingly, even if someone has been infected with the Omicron sub-variant BA.1, re-infection is still possible with sub-lineages of BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 due to their capacity to evade immune responses.

Is the virus mutating faster?

You’d think SARS-CoV-2 is a super-speedy front-runner when it comes to mutations. But the virus actually mutates relatively slowly. Influenza viruses, for example, mutate at least four times faster.

SARS-CoV-2 does, however, have “mutational sprints” for short periods of time, our research shows. During one of these sprints, the virus can mutate four-fold faster than normal for a few weeks.

After such sprints, the lineage has more mutations, some of which may provide an advantage over other lineages. Examples include mutations that can help the virus become more transmissible, cause more severe disease, or evade our immune response, and thus we have new variants emerging.

Why the virus undergoes mutational sprints that lead to the emergence of variants is unclear. But there are two main theories about the origins of Omicron and how it accumulated so many mutations.

First, the virus could have evolved in chronic (prolonged) infections in people who are immunosuppressed (have a weakened immune system).

Second, the virus could have “jumped” to another species, before infecting humans again.

What other tricks does the virus have?

Mutation is not the only way variants can emerge. The Omicron XE variant appears to have resulted from a recombination event. This is where a single patient was infected with BA.1 and BA.2 at the same time. This coinfection led to a “genome swap” and a hybrid variant.

Other instances of recombination in SARS-CoV-2 have been reported between Delta and Omicron, resulting in what’s been dubbed Deltacron.

So far, recombinants do not appear to have higher transmissibility or cause more severe outcomes. But this could change rapidly with new recombinants. So scientists are closely monitoring them.

Read more:
Should we worry about the XE variant? Maybe not yet, but ‘hybrids’ will become more frequent as COVID evolves

What might we see in the future?

As long as the virus is circulating, we will continue to see new virus lineages and variants. As Omicron is the most common variant currently, it is likely we will see more Omicron sub-variants, and potentially, even recombinant lineages.

Scientists will continue to track new mutations and recombination events (particularly with sub-variants). They will also use genomic technologies to predict how these might occur and any effect they may have on the behaviour of the virus.

This knowledge will help us limit the spread and impact of variants and sub-variants. It will also guide the development of vaccines effective against multiple or specific variants.

Read more:
A single vaccine to beat all coronaviruses sounds impossible. But scientists are already working on one

Sebastian Duchene receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DE190100805) and the Australian Medical Research Future Fund (MRF9200006).

Ashleigh Porter receives funding from the Australian Medical Research Future Fund (MRF9200006).

– ref. Why are there so many new Omicron sub-variants, like BA.4 and BA.5? Will I be reinfected? Is the virus mutating faster? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-there-so-many-new-omicron-sub-variants-like-ba-4-and-ba-5-will-i-be-reinfected-is-the-virus-mutating-faster-182274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ayesha Tulloch, ARC Future Fellow, Queensland University of Technology

In the human fascination with birds, it’s the flashy appearance and antics of males that get the most attention from researchers and the public.

From their colourful plumage to elaborate songs and courtship displays, male birds often steal the show. This has led to female birds routinely being overlooked by conservation planners.

First, let’s clear up a few misconceptions. At least 70% of female birds sing – a fact historically overlooked due to research and survey biases towards males. And while many female birds have more muted colours than males, there are numerous examples of females with brilliant plumage.

But the wonders of the female bird world go far deeper. The capacity of female birds to rear and protect their young is phenomenal. Somehow, they manage to hold their families together despite predators, harsh conditions and sometimes, a less-than-attentive partner.

Satin bowerbirds: an unequal domestic burden

The male bowerbird is one of the most over-the-top bachelors of the bird world.

Male satin bowerbirds have striking, iridescent blue plumage and violet-coloured eyes. Females, on the other hand, are green and brown to blend into their surroundings.

To attract a mate, the male dances in an exaggerated fashion and makes a decorated bower. Females visit various bowers and select their mate. After that, the female basically does everything.

She makes the nest – usually high in a tree to protect nestlings from predators such as goannas. She produces and incubates the eggs on her own. And once the chicks hatch, the mum alone feeds them and defends the nest.

Meanwhile, the male bowerbird fusses over his man-cave – or bower – throughout the year in the hope of attracting another mate.

Read more:
Women have disrupted research on bird song, and their findings show how diversity can improve all fields of science

Palm cockatoos: the female bodyguard

Male palm cockatoos shot to fame a few years ago when new research identified their drumming abilities. The males make drumsticks from branches and bang them rhythmically against a tree for pair-bonding or sometimes to claim territory.

But once the palm cockatoos pair up, the female plays a crucial role in securing their territory for breeding. During many months of behavioural observations, we found the female sits sentinel (kind of like a bodyguard) on the tree hollow while the male goes inside, splintering sticks with his massive bill to make the nest.

If danger comes – perhaps a neighbouring cockatoo pair or predator – the female alerts her mate and chases away the intruder.

Virtuosic lady lyrebirds

The impressive repertoire of male superb lyrebirds is well-known. But it was only in recent years, when researchers turned their attention to the female, that her incredible singing ability was discovered.

Male lyrebirds don’t help with nest-building, incubation, brooding or feeding young.

Left alone to rear and protect her offspring, the female lyrebird has developed a cunning ability to confuse predators by mimicking the calls of at least 19 other bird species.

The female lyrebird is also remarkable for the length of time she cares for her young. Once fully feathered and able to fly, young lyrebirds remain dependent on their mothers and may stay in their care for more than a year.

Fairy-wren code-makers

The Horsfield’s bronze-cuckoo does not build its own nest but instead lays its eggs in the nests of other birds such as fairy-wrens. This can leave the fairy-wren mother expending precious time and food raising another bird’s chicks.

But the female superb fairy-wren has developed a truly ingenious way to detect foreign nestlings once the eggs hatch.

She sings to her eggs – and includes in the song a specific “password”. Once her chicks hatch, they sing the password when begging for food.

It can be hard for the fairy-wren mum to differentiate her young in her dark, ball-shaped nest. But she can identify her offspring by their song. Cuckoo nestlings can’t learn or sing the password so are less likely to get fed.

Eclectus parrot: the ultimate nest defender

Even though nesting only takes a few months, female eclectus parrots guard their precious hollows for up to nine months.

This is why their plumage is red and their male counterparts are green.

The red serves as a beacon screaming “this hollow is taken!”, helping keep cockatoos away.

Here’s to all mums

Female birds are just as worthy of our time and research effort as their male counterparts. Considering the behaviours and needs of female birds is especially vital from a conservation perspective.

What’s more, affirming the important role of females in any community – bird or human – is crucial to achieving more equitable and just societies. Never is that message more important than on Mother’s Day.

Read more:
What Australian birds can teach us about choosing a partner and making it last

Ayesha Tulloch receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is the Vice President of Public Policy and Outreach and co-convenes the Science Communication Chapter for the Ecological Society of Australia, and sits on Birdlife Australia’s Research and Conservation Committee. She is a member of eBird Australia, the Society for Conservation Biology and the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre Citizen Science Node.

Christina N. Zdenek received funding from the Australian-American Fulbright Commission, National Geographic, Norman Wettenhall Foundation, and the Hermon Slade Foundation.

– ref. This Mother’s Day, let’s celebrate the brave, multi-tasking mums of the Australian bird world – https://theconversation.com/this-mothers-day-lets-celebrate-the-brave-multi-tasking-mums-of-the-australian-bird-world-180880

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jesse Adams Stein, Senior Lecturer & ARC DECRA Fellow, School of Design, University of Technology Sydney

Most politicians vocally support Australian-made products. Manufacturing certainly provides excellent opportunities for candidates in high-vis to make election campaign announcements.

Labor has promised to make Australia “a country that makes things again”. It has emphasised locally-made transport, NBN infrastructure, apprenticeships and defence-related production.

The Coalition has spruiked the federal government’s modern manufacturing strategy. It highlights technology investment and six priority areas (minerals, food, medical, clean energy, defence and space).

But despite the seemingly endless announcements, Australian manufacturing remains a problem for the major parties. Whoever wins the federal election will need to do things very differently if they genuinely want to boost local production.

Read more:
Don’t be too quick to dismiss ‘dying trades’, those skills are still in demand

Another way forward for manufacturing

In the mid-1960s, Australian manufacturing employed around 25% of the working population; it’s now down around 6.4%.

Manufacturing’s share of GDP is also in decline, now sitting at around 6%. Jobs continue to drift offshore.

Leaving things to the “free market” clearly isn’t working for Australian manufacturing. But patriotic argument we must get back to the “good old days” where everything was supposedly made in Australia is also unrealistic.

There is another way: a coordinated and targeted national industry policy that favours long-term planning over a short-term, scattergun approach.

Tapping into the global green economy

What Australia needs is coordinated national industry policy supporting niche, specialist manufacturing.

This policy would drive an ecosystem of industries and sectors geared towards emissions reduction and skills development. It would help Australia take its place in the booming global “green” technology economy.

For example, policy cleverly targeting gaps in national and international supply chains could support expansion of renewable energy technology manufacturing.

This targeted approach requires manufacturing policy to be developed in step with policy on education, energy, mining, research and development, and emissions reduction.

Done right, the international evidence shows tailored support for niche industries can be very successful.

Germany, for example, has a coordinated policy emphasising technical skills, generous funding for research and development, and energy sector decarbonisation. This approach supports high-end vehicle manufacturing.

Switzerland has specialised in luxury consumer products, precision instruments and food items. In Denmark the policy focus has been on high-quality consumer and industrial products – from bespoke furniture to aircraft – for international markets.

Australia can’t do everything. But boosting ecologically and socially responsible industries is a good start. It would also help attract investment by shoring up economic certainty around Australia’s energy future.

What can governments do to help?

Direct financial benefits to manufacturers certainly help, if they require manufacturers to remain onshore.

The federal government could also offer tax-related “carrots and sticks” requiring foreign-owned companies to establish production sites in Australia, so as to avoid tariffs.

Government procurement policies that more overtly favour local manufacturing can also be effective, given the influential size of state and federal governments as consumers themselves. Opting for overseas-made tenders, such as Sydney’s crack-riddled light rail sets, can prove very expensive in the long run.

When governments commit to onshore production, Australia can produce excellent products meeting international demand. Take, for example, the Bushmaster armoured vehicles produced by Thales Australia in Bendigo and requested by Ukraine. Thales spent A$1.9 billion on Australian suppliers between 2018 and 2020, generating a significant local return on government spending.

For employers in manufacturing, skills shortages can impede expansion.

As I argue in my book Industrial Craft in Australia, Australia can learn from countries that put long-term technical education at the heart of their industrial policy.

The German vocational training sector, for example, involves industry employer associations, unions and work councils collaborating with a publicly subsidised training system. This produces a highly skilled workforce with scholarly and technical knowledge.

At the very least, Australia could do more to directly support apprentice uptake and pay 50% of their wages. This must occur alongside substantial reinvestment in TAFE, rather than supporting unreliable private training providers.

Electric opportunities for Australia

Two examples show what’s possible: electric vehicles (EVs) and solar batteries.

The conventional thinking is that Australian car manufacturing is “dead”. But recent research published by the Carmichael Centre and Per Capita suggests EVs and/or EV component manufacturing remains viable, especially as local demand for EVs outstrips supply.

Much of Australia’s existing automotive-manufacturing infrastructure is lying unused, and could be revamped for component manufacturing and assembly.

On solar batteries, Australia could capitalise on soaring global demand for battery storage of renewable energy.

Australia has its own lithium and zinc reserves – key battery ingredients. So it makes more sense to add value to our mineral resources than to ship raw materials offshore and buy back overseas-produced batteries at inflated prices.

Currently, very few companies completely manufacture solar batteries in Australia.

One exception is sonnen, based at an old Holden plant in South Australia. Sonnen is now owned by Shell – even fossil fuel giants can see where global industry is going.

How can we afford all this?

Australian taxpayers subsidised the fossil fuels sector to the tune of $11.6 billion in 2021-2022. The Morrison government just promised $250 million to oil refineries alone.

Supporting fossil fuels comes with dire climate consequences. But it’s also worth asking whether it makes sense to heavily subsidise low value-add extractive industries.

Australia can afford to transform manufacturing into an economically viable, environmentally sustainable and job-creating sector. For that, we need a strategic and long-term approach.

Read more:
Design and repair must work together to undo our legacy of waste

Jesse Adams Stein receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union.

– ref. Politicians in high-vis say they love manufacturing. But if we want more Australian-made jobs, here’s what we need – https://theconversation.com/politicians-in-high-vis-say-they-love-manufacturing-but-if-we-want-more-australian-made-jobs-heres-what-we-need-182510

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Freebairn, Professor, Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne

The Coalition and Labor parties have each produced election policies designed to help low and middle income earners buy homes.

Who is likely to benefit from them and who is likely to suffer is far from obvious, and depends in part on the price of the homes on offer.

But broadly speaking, both parties’ schemes will hurt buyers of low-priced homes and renters – and here’s why.

What’s on offer?

The Coalition and Labor policies have common themes, among them lower deposits for first homebuyers on low to middle incomes buying below-average priced homes.

The Coalition would extend its Home Guarantee Scheme scheme. It enables buyers with deposits as small as 5% (2% for single parents) to avoid paying mortgage insurance.

Labor’s Help to Buy Scheme would see the government partnering with buyers for up to 30% of the value of an existing home and 40% of the value of a new home, also with a low (2%) deposit.

Read more:
For first homebuyers, it’s Labor’s Help to Buy versus the Coalition’s New Home Guarantee. Which is better?

Labor’s income caps are A$120,000 for couples and $90,000 for singles. The Coalition’s are $200,000 per annum for couples and $125,000 for singles.

Each scheme has price caps for the homes that can be bought with it. Roughly similar, they range from $400,000 in regional Tasmania to $900,000 in Sydney.

What’s likely to happen

For properties with values above the thresholds, the policies should have next to no effects on demand or supply, and as a result, close to no effect on prices.

For properties with values below the thresholds, the resulting increase in demand should push up prices (as well as getting more people into homes).

How much will depend on how responsive the supply of housing is to prices. The more responsive (“elastic” is the term used), the less prices will need to climb to get the extra people into homes.

There’s reason to believe housing supply is fairly inelastic. The bulk of the supply of housing is fixed. It was built some time ago.

Read more:
Building more houses quickly is harder than it looks. Australia hasn’t done it in decades

Also, it takes time to build new homes, and supply of labour is fairly fixed, being hard to ramp up quickly. Uncertainty about whether the policy will continue might make builders cautious about hiring more staff, even if they can get them.

This is likely to push up the prices of lower (but not higher) value properties.

The Australians the schemes help into lower value properties will still come out ahead, but not others trying to get into lower value properties.

Low-priced homes will cost more

Some who would have been only just able to get into a lower-priced home will miss out as a result of the scheme, seeing prices climb just beyond their reach.

Repeat buyers of lower-priced homes face no such problem. People moving from one lower-priced home to another will find both the home they buy and sell have climbed in price, leaving them broadly no worse off.

All they will face will be a small net loss associated with higher (percentage based) agent fees and higher stamp duty.

Low-priced rents will cost more

Renters of and owners of lower-priced investment properties will be worse off.

More than one quarter of households rent, normally in lower-priced homes. New landlords who have to pay more for these homes will charge more in rent, in what will be an undesirable second-round consequence of the policies on offer.

Some households who would have rented will be able to get into home ownership as a result of the schemes. Others, who still have to rent, will pay more.

We ought to build more homes

While the size of these effects is uncertain, it’s easy to determine their direction.

The best way to get more renters into homes is to build more homes for them, enough to push down prices.

Stopgap proposals aimed at giving a fortunate few a leg-up can have unintended consequences.

John Freebairn 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. Who really wins and loses from first homebuyer schemes? What you need to know as a buyer, owner or renter – https://theconversation.com/who-really-wins-and-loses-from-first-homebuyer-schemes-what-you-need-to-know-as-a-buyer-owner-or-renter-182425

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Barnes, Lecturer in Physics, Western Sydney University

Whether you need a new villain or an old Spider-Man, your sci-fi movie will sound more scientifically respectable if you use the word multiverse. The Marvel multiverse puts different versions of our universe “out there”, somewhere. In these films, with the right blend of technology, magic, and imagination, travel between these universes is possible.

For example (spoilers!), in Spider-Man: No Way Home, we discover there are other universes and other Earths, some of which have their own local Spider-Man. In the universe of the movie, magic is possible.

This magic, thanks to a misfiring spell from superhero Dr Strange, causes some of the other Spider-Men to be transported into our universe, along with a few supervillains.

In Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (in cinemas this week), the universe-on-universe buffoonery threatens a “desecration of reality”.

So, which of these ideas has Marvel borrowed from science, and which ones are pure fiction?

Multiverse lite: a really big universe

Could there be other Earths? Could there be other people out there, who look a lot like us, on a planet that looks like ours? Scientifically, it’s possible, because we don’t know how big our universe actually is.

We can see billions of light years into space, but we don’t know how much more space is out there, beyond what we can see.

If there is more space out there, full of galaxies, stars and planets, then there are more and more chances for Another-Earth to exist. Somewhere. With enough space and enough planets, any possibility becomes likely.

The fiction of the Marvel multiverse stems from the ability to travel between these other earths. There’s a good reason why Dr Strange needs to use magic for this.

According to Albert Einstein, we can’t travel through space faster than light. And while more exotic ways to travel around the universe are scientifically possible – wormholes, for example – we don’t know how to make them, the universe doesn’t seem to make them naturally, and there is no reason to think they’d connect us to Another-Earth rather than some random part of empty space.

So, almost certainly, if Another-Earth is out there somewhere, it’s unimaginably far away, even for an astronomer.

Changing the laws of nature

The Marvel multiverse might seem wild, but from a scientific perspective it’s actually too tame. Too normal. Too familiar. Here’s why.

The basic building blocks of our universe – protons and neutrons (and their quarks), electrons, light, etc. – are able to make amazing things, such as human life. Your body is astounding: energy-gathering, information-processing, mini-machine building, self-repairing.

Physicists have discovered that the ability of our universe’s building blocks to make life forms is extremely rare. Just any old blocks won’t do.

If electrons had been too heavy, or the force that holds atomic nuclei together had been too weak, the stuff of the universe wouldn’t even stick together, let alone make something as marvellous as a living cell. Or, indeed, anything that could be called alive.

How did our universe get the right mix of ingredients? Perhaps we won the cosmic lottery. Perhaps, on scales much bigger than what our telescopes can see, other parts of the universe have different building blocks.

Our universe is just one of the options – a particularly fortunate one – among a multiverse of universes with losing tickets.

This is the scientific multiverse: not simply more of our universe, but universes with different fundamental ingredients. Most are dead, but very very rarely, the right combination for life-forms comes up.

The Marvel multiverse, by contrast, merely rearranges the familiar atoms and forces of our universe (plus a bit of magic). That’s not enough.

Cosmic inflation and the Big Bang

What was our universe like in the past? The evidence suggests that the universe was hotter, denser and smoother. This is called the Big Bang Theory.

But was there a Big Bang? Was there a moment when the universe was infinitely hot, infinitely dense, and contained in a single point? Well, maybe. But we’re not sure, so scientists have explored a bunch of other options.

One idea, called cosmic inflation, says that in the first fraction of a second of the universe, it expanded extremely quickly. If true, it would explain a few things about why our universe expands in just the way it does.

But, how do you make a universe expand so rapidly? The answer is a new type of energy field. It has control of the first moments of the universe, causes a rapid expansion, and then hands the reins to the more familiar forms of matter and energy: protons, neutrons, electrons, light, etc.

Read more:
Butt plug duels and fanny pack stunts: how Everything Everywhere All At Once fits into the canon of comedy-martial arts films

Cosmic inflation might make a multiverse. Here’s how. According this idea, most of space is expanding, inflating, doubling in size, moment to moment. Spontaneously and randomly, in small islands, the new energy field converts its energy into ordinary matter with enormously high energies, releasing what we now see as a Big Bang.

If these high energies scramble and reset the basic properties of matter, then each island can be thought of as a new universe with different properties. We’ve made a multiverse.

So is there a Multiverse?

In the cycle of the scientific method, the multiverse is in an exploratory phase. We’ve got an idea that might explain a few things, if it was true. That makes it worthy of our attention, but it’s not quite science yet. We need to find evidence that is more direct, more decisive.

Something left over from the aftermath of the multiverse generator might help. A multiverse idea could also predict the winning numbers on our lottery ticket.

However, as Dr Strange explains, “The multiverse is a concept about which we know frighteningly little.”

Luke Barnes 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. The multiverse is huge in pop culture right now – but what is it, and does it really exist? – https://theconversation.com/the-multiverse-is-huge-in-pop-culture-right-now-but-what-is-it-and-does-it-really-exist-181781

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

The public don’t have much regard for journalists and many people will be critical of the “gotcha” questioning that found Anthony Albanese on Thursday unable to recite the six points of his policy on the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Pursuing “gotchas” is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. We’ve seen plenty of it recently. A while ago, Scott Morrison didn’t know the price of petrol or bread. Because a leader can’t rattle off a list doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t know a policy, and usually there are deeper questions the public would like explored.

Having said that, the NDIS moment was unfortunate for Albanese. And he wasn’t convincing when later on the ABC he denied he’d been caught out, although he’d win sympathy for his contention that “one of the things that puts people off politics, I think, is the sort of gotcha game-playing”.

The incident brought back memories of his stumble at the start of the campaign – when he couldn’t recall the unemployment and cash rates – and it played into the impression he isn’t good on detail. Before the news conference, he had been grilled on TV about whether he was really across his brief.

Albanese is not a strong campaigner, and it doesn’t help that he’s just come out of COVID and had to get through a campaign launch while still feeling its aftermath. He’s relying on having his frontbench colleagues beside him, which is not a bad thing in itself because most of the team are good performers but does risk diminishing him. He is also keeping to a relatively light schedule.

Recognising his own weak points, and the media’s penchant for “gotchas”, he needed to be better prepared. On Thursday he finally rustled up his material on the NDIS from an adviser but the confusion made for bad pictures.

The danger of being trapped by these questions is they not only get immediate headlines but become part of a wider, self-reinforcing negative story. And “gotchas” deflect attention from the big substantive issues, which in this fourth campaign week have been cost of living and rising interest rates.

A just-released poll from the Australian National University’s Centre for Social Research and Methods, titled Views on policy and politics on the eve of the 2022 Federal Election, underlines how central the cost of living has become for voters.

Some 3587 people were asked, between April 11 and 26, how much of a priority each of 22 policy areas should be for the next government. Nearly two thirds (64.7%) gave as a top priority reducing the cost of living. Among Coalition voters, 60.8% said this was a top priority: among Labor voters, it was 68.8%.

The only other area rating more than 60% as a top priority was “fixing the aged care system”(60.1%).

Four other areas polled more than 50% as a top priority. These were: “strengthening the nation’s economy” (54.4%), “reducing health care costs (53.5%), “dealing with global climate change” (52.8%), and “improving the education system” (53.1%).

Just 27.2% said fixing the budget was a top priority.

The two issues at the bottom of the list of top priorities were “dealing with the issue of immigration” (22.3%) and “addressing issues around race in this country” (24.8%).

It is notable that only 36.6% of Australians say dealing with the pandemic should be a top priority for the next government.

COVID is hardly getting a mention in this election campaign. This is despite a continuing high death rate, which only a few months ago would have been dominating headlines and news conferences. Covid-related deaths are now running at about 40 a day nationally, and it is currently the second leading cause of death in Australia, just a little behind heart disease, and ahead of dementia/Alzheimer’s disease.

The COVID years have been a balancing act between health and the economy – the scales, in the minds of politicians and members of the public, are now heavily weighted to the latter.

In campaigns, it is worth thinking about not just what issues are being talked about, but also what is being forgotten or pushed aside.

In this election, the Liberals are fighting on two fronts – against Labor and against the “teal” candidates. Thus on Wednesday treasurer Josh Frydenberg debated his Labor shadow Jim Chalmers at the National Press Club and on Thursday, he was up against his “teal” challenger Monique Ryan in a Sky debate in his Melbourne seat of Kooyong.

It’s a fair bet Frydenberg anticipated his face-off with Chalmers was the more predictable and manageable contest – it was a battle on known ground in which each combatant fought competently.

When Frydenberg met Ryan, he was on more unfamiliar, even treacherous political terrain, despite his opponent being at a considerable disadvantage, in terms of experience and her narrow agenda.

Frydenberg had his arguments marshalled, but prickled when Ryan described him as “the treasurer for NSW” during the pandemic. He was careful to stress his concern for his Kooyong community, and subtly made it clear he was no Scott Morrison (for example in talking about an integrity commission).

With “Keep Josh” signs through his electorate, Frydenberg warned: “If people vote for me, people need to know that if they want to keep me as the local member, but they may have an issue with something that the Liberal party has said or done and they want to give us a kick for that, at the end of the day you know that may not leave me as being the local member”.

Ryan stressed the teal issues of climate and integrity, and cast her opponent as “a hostage both to Barnaby Joyce but also his own political ambitions”.

She declared that “For Mr Frydenberg, politics is about power. For me, it’s about people.”

“Politics for me is about people, thank you Monique,” Frydenberg said sharply. “It’s about small business […] It’s about my local community.”

The content of this debate was less remarkable than the fact it happened at all. That the treasurer was going head to head in a major debate with an independent candidate was testament to how concerned Frydenberg has been about this seat that once was seen as the deepest blue.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: ‘Gotcha’ questions are ugly journalism but hazards for leaders – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-gotcha-questions-are-ugly-journalism-but-hazards-for-leaders-182538

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott Fitzpatrick, Research Fellow, Australian National University

Men’s suicide is often linked to social and economic factors such as financial problems, legal issues and unemployment.

But when seeking to understand men’s suicide, we shouldn’t overlook important questions of responsibility, choice, and agency – especially in the case of men who kill themselves in the context of relationship conflict and intimate partner violence.

Our research, published this week, found threats of self-harm and suicide were a tactic of coercive control men used against female partners.

Together with other forms of physical, emotional, economic and psychological controlling behaviour, threats of self-harm and suicide were intended to instil fear and exert power over women.

Read more:
Why victims of domestic abuse don’t leave – four experts explain

What did we study?

Our research team included University of Newcastle psychiatric epidemiologist Tonelle Handley, UNSW senior research fellow in epidemiology Bronwyn Brew Haasdyk, and University of Newcastle professor of rural health David Perkins.

We examined cases of completed suicide from the National Coronial Information System and used a subset of data involving 155 suicide cases between 2010 and 2015 in rural Australia. We then qualitatively analysed 32 cases in detail to explore emerging patterns in the data.

Of the 2,511 male suicide cases in our larger study sample, family and intimate partner violence were identified in around 6% of cases.

The use of violence and suicide by men in our study took place primarily during times of separation, divorce, and custody battles. Men’s actions appeared to be based on a belief that threats of self-harm would force women into changing their behaviour.

When changes did not occur, suicide became a final act by which some men sought to punish women who they felt had wronged them. In some cases, men left spiteful messages or damaged (ex) partners’ personal belongings.

What drives this behaviour?

Suicide can be seen as a social act that draws on culturally established meanings. Here we might think of particular “types” of suicide such as the “protest suicide”, or “revenge suicide”.

Alternatively, we might think of acts of suicide that seek to express specific meanings such as grief, shame, honour or suffering.

These approaches are useful for considering how men in our study used suicide as a distinct form of violence to punish women, exact revenge, or lay blame and guilt on women.

The grief and guilt associated with suicide can be especially disruptive to relationships within families, including those between mothers and their children. For some men, suicide may be way of exerting control over (ex) partners, even in death.

These approaches also bring to light masculine ideals around marriage, family, authority, and control over women’s bodies. These were evident in the experiences, expectations, emotions, and actions of men in our study who suddenly found intimate partners out of reach.

How do police respond?

The proportion of men in our study who were in contact with police and/or health services in the weeks before suicide was high.

Police face challenges when managing incidents of violence and threats of self-harm. As primary responders to intimate partner violence and mental health crises, police make important decisions about whether the criminal justice or mental health systems are the most appropriate pathway.

Read more:
Recruiting more mental health workers won’t stop suicides. Preventing child abuse and neglect will

Our study found that in cases of physical violence, property damage, or other criminal offences, including violation of a domestic violence order, men were charged with a criminal offence.

However, in cases involving threats of self-harm, police regularly chose a health system pathway for these men.

What about health providers?

Once in health settings, health professionals typically viewed men’s violence (including threats of suicide) as a temporary crisis, with mental illness and/or alcohol or other drug use seen as important contributory factors.

Treatment then focused on management of these crises, primarily using medication, with a tendency to downplay men’s violent behaviour.

We found there was little evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions, with coroners’ findings identifying several problems in patient discharge, follow-up, and support.

Despite the involvement of police and health services, there was no indication the men in our study received any treatment to address their violent behaviour.

Further, the health and criminal justice interventions they did receive served as short-term responses, were disjointed, and did not directly communicate with each other.

So what needs to happen?

Health service and criminal justice interventions provide important opportunities for intervening to prevent further violence, including suicide.

Our study highlights the need for interventions that provide access to well-targeted, well-resourced, collaborative health and community services. There is a particular need for long-term integrated treatment, care, and social support for men experiencing alcohol or other drug use problems.

This requires a whole-of-government response to fund coordinated, collaborative approaches that do not treat social and health problems in isolation.

Also needed are mandated perpetrator programs that hold men responsible for their actions. These need to address the harmful norms of masculinity and consider the needs of men in their entirety.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Read more:
How challenging masculine stereotypes is good for men

Scott Fitzpatrick 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. Perpetrators of family violence sometimes use threats of suicide to control their partner – https://theconversation.com/perpetrators-of-family-violence-sometimes-use-threats-of-suicide-to-control-their-partner-182416

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erica Millar, Senior research fellow, La Trobe University

A leak of draft court documents reveals Roe v. Wade – which has broadly guaranteed abortion rights in the United States since 1973 – may be overturned.

The US decision may influence the rhetoric and lobbying techniques of anti-abortion activists globally but it has no direct bearing on Australia.

Nevertheless, it is a chance to highlight continued obstacles to abortion access in Australia.

Read more:
The end of Roe v. Wade would likely embolden global anti-abortion activists and politicians

Abortion is a common, essential health service. About 88,800 people have an abortion in Australia each year. Between one quarter and one third of women living in Australia will have an abortion in their lifetime.

The vast majority of Australians are broadly “pro-choice”.

Abortion is not a crime, but legal issues remain

In 2021, South Australia became the final jurisdiction to decriminalise abortion. However, the law has not commenced. Until then, the state’s abortion providers and patients remain subject to old, criminalising legislation. So the state government must enact the new law immediately.

Western Australia became the last jurisdiction to introduce “buffer zone” legislation, which prevents the harassment of pregnant people outside places that provide abortions. In WA, criminal law continues to regulate medical doctors who provide abortions.

All jurisdictions prohibit unqualified people from performing abortions. This is unnecessary legislation that seeks to regulate “backyard abortions”, which no longer exist, and prevents the full integration of abortion into health law (which already ensures medical procedures are performed by qualified professionals).

For the most part, however, abortion in Australia is now regulated under health law rather than criminal law. While new health laws correctly frame abortion as a matter of health, these health laws continue to impede access to it.

This is due to the continued over-regulation of abortion through measures including:

• gestational limits to abortion (in all state/territories except the Australian Capital Territory)

• requirements for doctors provide patients with information about counselling services (WA, NSW, SA).

Over-regulation is a direct result of, and exacerbates, abortion stigma, which treats abortion as more risky than it is in practice.

All medical procedures are already tightly regulated by government (state and federal health law), institutions (for instance, hospital policies) and professional bodies (for instance, doctors’ codes of ethics).

Removing the stand-alone abortion legislation that exists in all states/territories would treat abortion like all other health procedures and decrease abortion stigma.

Read more:
Abortion is no longer a crime in Australia. But legal hurdles to access remain

Who has access? How about the cost?

People in SA and the Northern Territory can access abortion in the public system. Vulnerable people in Victoria and Tasmania also have public access.

However, abortions are costly for others because they are largely performed in private clinics rather than in the public system.

There are few abortion providers in rural and regional Australia. Currently, only about 10% of GPs are registered to prescribe mifepristone, sometimes known as RU486, for medical abortion. This figure falls to less than 1% in some regional, remote and rural areas.

Read more:
Early medical abortion is legal across Australia but rural women often don’t have access to it

We can learn from Tasmania

Since Tasmania’s last private abortion clinic closed in 2018, abortion provision in the state has been dire. Last year, the government took action, expecting that, by October 2021, select public hospitals (together, covering the entire state) would provide abortions.

Surgical abortions are now performed at three public hospitals in the state. Vulnerable women are prioritised, indicating the service may not be universal.

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

What would improve access around Australia?

The current shortage of abortion providers could be remedied if Australia followed Sweden to make abortion provision compulsory to the training and work of midwives and obstetrician-gynaecologists.

The federal government could tie funding for public hospitals to abortion provision.

Primary health-care provision of abortion also needs to increase, which requires two key policy shifts.

First, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) must revise its guidelines for providers and dispensers of medical abortion. At present, doctors must complete an instruction module and register to prescribe mifepristone. Pharmacies must register to dispense the drug. No other drug is subject to such unnecessary regulation.

Read more:
It’s time to lift the restrictions on medical abortion in Australia

Second, Medicare needs to add an item number specifically for the provision of medical abortion. Appointments take time and, to keep this service viable, GPs often charge an out-of-pocket fee to patients of A$200-$300. Providing a Medicare item number reflects the need for this service and would incentivise more GPs to become providers by ensuring adequate compensation.

More nurses, midwives and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers are needed to provide abortion services if abortions are to be
affordable, local and timely.

This requires several shifts, including (but not limited to) changes to state/territory abortion laws (many of which limit abortion provision to medical doctors), TGA guidelines, and increased training.

Australia’s system is not perfect

There are several legal and practical hurdles to make sure abortion in Australia is affordable, accessible, and provided in a timely manner. We can look to the recent developments in the US to mobilise, in Australia, for a health system that reflects that abortion is an essential, common part of health care that needs to remain free from stigma and political interference.

Erica Millar receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition.

– ref. Abortion is no longer a crime in Australia. So why is it still so hard to access? – https://theconversation.com/abortion-is-no-longer-a-crime-in-australia-so-why-is-it-still-so-hard-to-access-182413

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

As well as the whole House of Representatives, 40 of the 76 Senate seats will be up for election on May 21. There are 12 senators per state and two per territory. At half-Senate elections, six senators for each state and the four territory senators are up for election. Unless there is a double dissolution, state senators have six-year terms and territory senators have three years.

The Senate is massively malapportioned, with Tasmania having the same number of senators as New South Wales, despite the latter’s population being more than 15 times greater. This was the price for the smaller states joining the Australian federation in 1901.

For elections to the Senate, all senators up for election in a state or territory are elected by statewide proportional representation with preferences. With six senators up in each state, a quota is one-seventh of the vote, or 14.3%. With two up in each territory, a quota is one-third or 33.3%.

Voters are instructed to number at least 1-6 above the line (to vote for parties), or 1-12 below the line (voting for candidates). However, a “1” only vote above the line is still a formal vote, but in that case there are no preferences beyond the party receiving that vote. Six preferences are required for a formal below the line vote.

In state upper houses like NSW and South Australia, voters are only told to give a first preference above the line, although they can give more preferences. This leads to a larger number of exhausted votes than in the federal Senate. There, candidates will need about 0.8 quotas after preferences to win, while it’s only about 0.5 quotas with optional preferences.

Read more:
Labor’s lead steady in Newspoll and gains in Resolve; how the polls moved during past campaigns

Impact of changes to electoral legislation

Last year, Labor and the Coalition combined to change legislation to require 1,500 members to register a party, up from the current 500, and to disallow parties with similar names to older parties. Owing to the first change, there will be less cluttering on Senate ballot papers, with most states seeing a fall in the number of above-the-line boxes from 2019.

The second change was aimed at the Liberal Democrats and the Democratic Labour Party. The DLP was deregistered under the 1,500 rule – see analyst Kevin Bonham – but the Liberal Democrats found a loophole that enabled them to keep their name for this election, as ABC election analyst Antony Green has explained.

However, Western Australia is the only state where the Liberal Democrats have drawn a box far enough to the left of the Liberals for name confusion to be an issue.

The Senate playing field

The Coalition currently holds 35 of the 76 Senate seats, Labor 26, the Greens nine, One Nation two, Centre Alliance one and Jacqui Lambie one. The remaining two seats are filled by party defectors: Rex Patrick from Centre Alliance and Sam McMahon, who quit the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party and is now a Liberal Democrat.

During the last term, the Coalition regained a seat from a defector when Cory Bernardi resigned from the Senate.

The table below shows the 2022 seats up for election in each state and territory.

The Coalition will be defending three senators in all states except SA, and that makes them vulnerable if Labor wins the election. Senate results are highly correlated with lower house results, although the major parties’ primary votes are typically a little lower in the Senate.

For Labor and the Greens combined to gain control, they would need to gain four seats in total at this election. The Coalition and One Nation combined could gain control via a two-seat gain, with the Coalition virtually certain to gain from a defector.

State analysis

For this analysis, I will use the Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack for each mainland state. For translating poll percentages into quotas, one quota is 14.3%, two quotas are 28.6% and three quotas are 42.9%. It’s a pity Newspoll hasn’t yet published state data from its five polls taken since late March.

BludgerTrack is an analysis of lower house polling, and most data were taken before it was known that One Nation would contest 149 of the 151 House of Representatives seats. One Nation will be higher in the Senate, particularly in NSW, Victoria and SA.

In NSW, Labor has 38.5%, the Coalition 38.4%, the Greens 10.4% and One Nation 2.0%. One Nation and UAP preferences would help the Coalition to three seats, with the Greens likely gaining from Labor. Likely outcome: three Coalition, two Labor, one Green.

In Victoria, Labor has 38.1%, the Coalition 35.5%, the Greens 12.8% and One Nation 1.8%. I think this would be close between Labor and the Coalition for the final seat, so it would be either be three Coalition, two Labor, one Green; or three Labor, two Coalition, one Green.

In Queensland, the Coalition has 38.2%, Labor 31.9%, the Greens 14.0% and One Nation 6.9%. One Nation will be boosted in the Senate by Pauline Hanson’s candidacy. This result would be a Greens gain from the Coalition, with two Coalition, two Labor, one Green and one One Nation elected. But Labor has historically underperformed its polling in Queensland.

In WA, Labor has 38.7%, the Coalition 37.3%, the Greens 12.2% and One Nation 5.3%. One Nation and UAP preferences would likely lift the Coalition above Labor for a status quo result of three Coalition, two Labor, one Green.

In SA, Labor has 43.6%, the Coalition 39.3%, the Greens 10.5% and One Nation 2.2%. Nick Xenophon, a former independent SA senator, is contesting this election. But Bonham reported a Greens-commissioned SA Senate uComms poll gave Xenophon just 0.37 quotas – not enough to threaten.

Read more:
Will a continuing education divide eventually favour Labor electorally due to our big cities?

However, Xenophon is likely to draw votes from both major parties, allowing the Greens to win a seat. This is likely a Labor and Green gain from the two Centre Alliance (one former), with a SA result of three Labor, two Coalition, one Green.

Tasmania’s sub-samples are too small for a separate analysis, but it was easily the most Labor-leaning state at the 2019 election, with Labor winning by 56-44, compared with a national result of 51.5-48.5 to the Coalition.

If Labor and the Greens win a combined 4-2 split in any state, it’s likely to be in Tasmania. Lambie will not be up for election this year, but she’s trying to win a second seat for her party.

Bonham reported polling that would give independent ACT Senate candidate David Pocock a chance of defeating the Liberals’ Zed Seselja. But there’s been speculation at past elections that the Liberals could lose this seat, and it hasn’t happened yet.

In the NT, the CLP is virtually certain to regain its Senate seat from defector McMahon.

With two gains for Labor and the Greens likely in SA, one in Queensland and one in Tasmania, on current polling Labor and the Greens would likely have enough for a Senate majority. But polls can change, or be wrong, as they were in 2019.

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

Adrian Beaumont 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. Race for the Senate: could Labor and the Greens gain control? – https://theconversation.com/race-for-the-senate-could-labor-and-the-greens-gain-control-181350

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

While the recent legal challenges to elements of the government’s COVID-19 response have had mixed results in the courts, they have revealed something important – how the rule of law works in New Zealand.

In the past two years, a raft of laws have been passed or amended as the government put its response to COVID-19 on a legal footing.

Some of these laws have been subsequently challenged in the courts, starting with the Borrowdale case in May 2020. Plaintiff Andrew Borrowdale argued the government’s lockdown orders were based on an improper use of its powers under the Health Act and that a range of New Zealanders’ rights had been violated as a result.

Other cases have argued, with varying degrees of success, that the government’s requirement of mandatory vaccinations violated the rights of some New Zealanders.

At the end of April, the High Court found the border quarantine (MIQ) system did work well to protect public health and many of the resulting restrictions on rights were justifiable.

However, the court also found the allocation of space in MIQ through a virtual lobby system amounted to an unjustifiable limit on the right of New Zealand citizens to return because it did not prioritise citizens over non-citizens, and it did not prioritise on individual need or delays experienced.

What we see in these cases is the New Zealand constitution in action, operating as a system of checks and balances to protect individuals from arbitrary interference by the state.

As an aspect of that, the cases show the operation of the rule of law, which means any power exercised by the government has to be based on legal authority and that everyone is subject to the law, whether they are members of the public or politicians.

Bill of Rights has its limits

The Bill of Rights Act plays an important role in that regard, although its ability to protect our rights is not as strong as we might like to think.

There are four ways the Bill of Rights works in the creating of laws.

Firstly, the Bill of Rights Act states clearly that it does not affect all other laws passed before or after it simply because those laws are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

For example, New Zealanders have the right to protest but their protest actions cannot be unduly disorderly, violent or unsafe. Neither can the courts use the Bill of Rights Act to invalidate the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.

Read more:
How far should compulsory proof of vaccination go — and what rights do New Zealanders have?

The Bill of Rights Act does, however, stipulate that wherever an act, such as the Health Act, can be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the Bill of Rights, then that interpretation is to be preferred.

Thirdly, the Bill of Rights Act, on the whole, does not protect absolutely the rights of New Zealanders, but any restrictions on those rights must be justifiable.

This balancing act has been at the core of the COVID cases so far. The limitations on the right to refuse medical treatment, for example, have largely been justified on the grounds of public health.

Finally, the attorney-general is required to report to parliament when they find any proposed law appears to be
inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. Parliament is still free to pass the proposed law, thanks to the provision outlined above.

The point of the Bill of Rights

At this stage, we might be left wondering what the point of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act actually is.

The Act still operates as a mechanism by which New Zealanders can challenge the law in the courts, and the courts can scrutinise the law in question.

Even if they can’t force the government to change the law, judges can point out any problems and put the onus back on the government to respond.

One aspect of this part of the constitutional process is a “declaration of inconsistency”, which allows judges to signal to the government and parliament that a law has seriously problematic implications for the protection of rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights Act.

Read more:
Five ways New Zealanders’ lives and liberties will be heavily controlled, even after lockdown eases

Efforts to improve this part of the constitutional system of checks and balances are currently under further discussion, as the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill makes its way through parliament, providing another example of our constitution and our democracy at work.

Limited options for change

If New Zealanders are unhappy with the current state of play regarding their own rights and the powers of the government, they have two options. Both are based on a question of trust.

Disgruntled kiwis can leave things as they are and continue to trust our elected representatives to protect our rights and freedoms. Any perceived failures in that regard can be dealt with at the ballot box.

Alternatively, those dissatisfied with the situation can push to change the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself to allow judges to have greater powers to curb parliament’s law-making power.

Read more:
If border restrictions increase to combat new COVID-19 strains, what rights do returning New Zealanders have?

But changing the balance of law-making in favour of the courts involves a greater level of trust in those who are not so easily removed from power.

In a 2017 public talk, former prime minister and constitutional legal expert Geoffrey Palmer traversed these difficult issues. Somewhat presciently, however, he noted that such changes should not be undertaken in a time of crisis.

Trust in the rule of law to ensure the accountability of government – the structures of governance that stand aside the electoral ebbs and flows of political parties – is a core aspect of our democracy.

The “COVID cases” shine an important light on how the rule of law works in Aotearoa New Zealand; how the courts, the government and parliament must continue to work to ensure the rights of New Zealanders.

Even if now is not the time for change, as we emerge from this current crisis, it may well be the time to reflect on the importance of the rule of law as we continue to navigate uncertain seas.

Claire Breen 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. Recent COVID-19 court cases show New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act is not as strong as some might wish – https://theconversation.com/recent-covid-19-court-cases-show-new-zealands-bill-of-rights-act-is-not-as-strong-as-some-might-wish-182232

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Leslie, Research Fellow in Politics, Australian National University

The leaked Roe v Wade draft opinion this week has shown us the power of the legal system when it comes to facilitating (or winding back) social change.

Read more:
The end of Roe v. Wade would likely embolden global anti-abortion activists and politicians

This is why judicial appointments are so critical, and why there has been so much debate around the recent appointment of Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In April, Brown Jackson made history after being confirmed as the first black woman appointed to the US Supreme Court. She will take up her post in the middle of the year (and was not part of the Roe v Wade vote).

Despite Brown Jackson’s impressive background – she has been a judge of the US Court of Appeals – her appointment has been fraught with divisive racial politics and toxic partisan commentary.

In Australia, we rarely have debates of this sort. We don’t have much diversity in the judiciary, either.

Read more:
Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed as Supreme Court justice: 4 essential reads

Every Justice of the High Court of Australia since Federation in 1901 has been white, and all but six have been men. This is reflected elsewhere in the judicial system, where the vast majority of senior judges are male and virtually all are from British and European ancestry. For any Indigenous person or person of colour who finds themselves charged with and convicted of a crime, it is almost certain their sentencing will be decided upon by a white judge.

With the mandatory retirement of Chief Justice Susan Kiefel and Justice Patrick Keane due in the next parliamentary term, there is a significant opportunity to make the seven-member High Court more diverse.

Labor hints at change

There are signs a prospective Labor government would at least consider this.

In a recent article for the Australian Financial Review, Labor MP Andrew Leigh (who is not the party’s shadow attorney-general) hinted Labor was thinking about how to improve the representation of women and other minorities on the bench.

As he wrote:

In 120 years, no judge of colour has ever been appointed to the High Court of Australia […] the demography of the bench will never perfectly match the nation, but people should be able to see themselves in the faces of those chosen to dispense justice.

In response to criticism about gender diversity in senior judicial positions, a spokesperson for Attorney-General Michaelia Cash has previously pointed to the Coalition appointing Jacqueline Gleeson to the High Court and Jennifer Howe to Melbourne’s Federal Circuit Court in 2021.

Read more:
No selection criteria, no transparency. Australia must reform the way it appoints judges

Ideological decision-making

Would it really make a difference? Given the lack of diversity on the Australian benches, it is difficult to answer this question directly. However, we do know Australia’s highly politicised selection process – it is decided by the prime minister and attorney-general – results in consistently ideological judicial decision-making.

In a recent study on the High Court, colleagues and I found a highly conservative High Court justice (such as Dyson Heydon) was around 30 percentage points less likely than a left-wing justice (such as Michael Kirby) to make an ideologically liberal decision. This includes being pro-civil liberties, Indigenous rights, freedom-of-information and the environment.

In a follow-up study, we also looked at whether justices vote in ways that demonstrate loyalty to the prime minister who appoints them. In some ways, this is a more serious question because it concerns judicial independence from government interference. We find that where the federal government is a party in High Court cases, justices are slightly more likely to rule in favour of the government who appointed them than subsequent governments.

These findings are not necessarily evidence of a malfunctioning justice system. After all, prime ministers are democratically elected and justices are not simply legal “robots” – they are people too. As such, it’s only natural their background and personal experience plays a part in the courtroom.

Judicial diversity outside Australia

We can also look to the experiences of other countries, who have found that increased judicial diversity positively affects case outcomes for minority litigants.

Research shows panels of US Federal Circuit Court Justices with one woman and two men (as opposed to all men) are significantly more likely to rule in favour of the plaintiff in cases regarding race, colour, religion and sex discrimination. Importantly, these results held for appointees of both Democratic and Republican parties, suggesting that women’s representation can cut across ideological divides.

Read more:
Meet Australia’s new High Court judges: a legal scholar’s take on the Morrison government’s appointees

Similarly, the presence of a black judge on a judicial panel was associated with a nearly 40 percentage point increase in the likelihood a court found in favour of policies that aim to increase the representation of black and other underrepresented people in government, universities, and private organisations.

In Israel, the presence of an Arab judge on panels (as opposed to all Jewish panels of judges) made a sizable improvement to the prospects of Arab defendants in criminal sentencing.

What happens now?

Whichever party wins the federal election, an emphasis on diverse appointments could make a lasting difference to justice for marginalised groups.

With two High Court appointments to be made in the next three years (and others on the Federal Court), this is a huge opportunity to recognise Australia’s diversity in one of the most important systems in our society.

Patrick Leslie receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. The federal election winner will get a big opportunity to change the face of the High Court – will they take it? – https://theconversation.com/the-federal-election-winner-will-get-a-big-opportunity-to-change-the-face-of-the-high-court-will-they-take-it-180864