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

The single most important measure in Australian election polls is the two-party preferred vote (2PP). It captures the two central characteristics of Australian House of Representatives elections: that it is a preferential voting system, in which the flow of preferences can be crucial in determining who wins a seat; and that the crucial contest to form the next government is a two-sided battle between Labor and the Coalition.

It is usually a good, although not infallible, indicator of which party will win. In 24 of the 29 elections since the second world war, the party that has surpassed 50% of the 2PP has won. The five exceptions were 1954 (Coalition 49.3), 1961 (Coalition 49.5), 1969 (Coalition 49.8), 1990 (Labor 49.9) and 1998 (when John Howard’s 48.9 was the lowest ever winning percentage).

All five exceptions were won by the government of the day, testimony to their ability sometimes to hold onto marginal seats and defy the national trend. In the first three, another factor was a greater disproportion in electorate sizes, favouring the Coalition with smaller rural electorates.

Australian elections tend to be fairly close. In 19 of the 29 elections the winner’s 2PP was under 53%. The Coalition’s biggest victories were in 1966 (56.9%), 1975 (55.7%) and 1977 (54.6%). Labor has never secured such a large share of the vote. Its biggest victories have been 1946 (53.7%), 1983 (53.2%), 1972 and 2007 (both 52.7).

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

The 2PP figures of Labor against the Coalition from the major pollsters when Prime Minister Scott Morrison called the election were: Essential 52-48, Newspoll 54-46, Ipsos 55-45, Resolve 55-45, and Morgan 57-43. History suggests it is unlikely Labor will secure any more than 53%, so it is likely there will be some tightening of the polls.

Because of the abject failure of the polls at the 2019 election, people will rightly view them with more scepticism this time. In a penetrating review, the Association of Market and Social Research Organisations (AMSRO) called it a polling failure – the polls erred by a statistically significant margin, all erred in the same direction, and the source of error was the polls themselves rather than any last-minute shift among voters. Labor had won 55 Newspolls in a row leading up to its election defeat.

In the election, the Coalition’s primary vote was 41.4%. Essential had it at 38.5, Ipsos at 39, Newspoll 38, Roy Morgan 38.5 and YouGov/Galaxy 39. Similarly, nearly all of them overestimated the Labor vote by similar margins.

The AMSRO review concluded the main reason for the failure was unrepresentative samples. Samples were skewed towards more politically engaged and better-educated voters, and this over-represented Labor voters. It observed that 17 of the 25 final poll results since 2010 overestimated 2PP support for Labor.

Social changes have made polling more difficult. The proportion of homes having fixed telephone lines has dropped sharply, and the ability and willingness to participate in online polls is still somewhat uneven. Resistance also seems to have grown: even between 2009 and 2019, survey response rates dropped from 35% to 11% in telephone surveys.

The pollsters have a lot at stake in being seen to do well at this election. But there is one important aspect where the national polls will be of no use.

The main type of contest where the 2PP is of no benefit and where the national polls fail to illuminate what is happening is in what the Australian Electoral Commission calls “non-classic” contests: that is, electorates where the main competition is between an independent and one of the major parties, or between one of the major parties and a minor party.

The major parties’ share of the vote has been in long-term decline. This is much more pronounced in the Senate. Whereas their combined vote in the upper house a few decades ago was typically over 90%; now it is usually in the 70s.

In 2022, the crossbench already has six members (if we exclude the temporary aberration of Liberal defector Craig Kelly currently being there), and there has been a very strong push for the “teal” independents in many electorates. It seems these candidates are reflecting a strong current of sentiment among the public.

It is quite unpredictable whether this push will continue strongly through the campaign (when the focus tends to be increasingly on the major parties). However, there is a real chance the numbers on the crossbench will increase and perhaps even hold the balance of power.

The national polls are useless in guiding us about which of these electorates might see the sitting member defeated. Electorate polling can help, but remember, a sample of 1,000 has a margin of error of plus or minus three, whether extrapolating to the whole nation or just to a single electorate.

Two points about the 2019 election are both true. It was a disaster for Labor, most obviously that against the expectations of most, it lost. But in addition, it ended up further from government. There was a swing of 1.1% to the Coalition (only the seventh time of 29 in which there has been a swing to a sitting government).

Moreover, there were strong swings against Labor in several marginal seats, especially in Queensland. Capricornia, for example, was on knife-edge before 2019 requiring swing of 0.6% for Labor to win, but now has a 12.4% buffer. Now a uniform swing to Labor would yield just three seats.

Read more:
Where are the most marginal seats, and who might win them?

The 2019 results had lots of drama: 92 electorates swung to the Coalition and 59 to Labor. Queensland had a swing of 4.3% to the Coalition; Victoria 1.3% to Labor. We can expect a lot of diversity in the 2022 results also.

However, the end result in 2019 was almost a status quo House of Representatives, which is very finely balanced. The current state of the House’s 151 seats is: Coalition 76, Labor 68 and crossbench seven (including Kelly). My guess is the other six crossbench members – Bob Katter, Andrew Wilkie, Adam Bandt (Greens), Zali Steggall, Rebekah Sharkie and Helen Haines – will all be re-elected, with at least one or two additions to their number.

In most Australian postwar elections there has been a swing against the government (22/29), but only seven resulted in that government’s defeat. Around half (15/29) have generated swings of 3% or more.

Whether or not the campaign is interesting, the vote count is likely to generate a lot of drama.

Rodney Tiffen 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. Explainer: how to read political polls – and why we can expect a lot of drama on election night – https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-to-read-political-polls-and-why-we-can-expect-a-lot-of-drama-on-election-night-181477

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yee-Fui Ng, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University

As the election is looming, the Labor Party has placed integrity issues prominently on its party platform. Labor leader Anthony Albanese claims the Morrison government cannot be trusted, and that the only way to restore integrity is to elect a new government.

On the other hand, the Coalition government has downplayed integrity issues. When questioned about his broken promise to establish an integrity commission, Morrison said, “I’ll talk about what my priorities are: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs”, giving rise to speculation the Coalition is walking back from its 2019 election promise to establish an independent anti-corruption commission.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has said most voters would not care that a national integrity commission has not been established by the government. Research suggests otherwise.

So, how has the Morrison government fared in corruption issues?

Still no integrity commission

The centrepiece of the Morrison government’s failure to address corruption is its failure to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission.

There is strong public support for a federal anti-corruption commission, with two-thirds (67%) of Australians in favour of such a body.

After pressure from the opposition, independent MPs and advocacy groups, in 2018, the government reluctantly agreed to set up a federal integrity commission.

However, the weak, watered-down model the government proposed was roundly criticised by legal experts and commentators. It would not have the power to hold public hearings, make findings of corruption, or act on public tip-offs.

Morrison’s proposed model also has a high threshold of investigation, requiring a suspicion of criminal corruption. This means it is hard for the proposed commission to even start an investigation.

Read more:
The proposed National Integrity Commission is a watered-down version of a federal ICAC

Labor is promising a stronger National Anti-Corruption Commission within six months if it wins the election, with the power to hold public hearings and the ability to make findings of corrupt conduct in public reports.

In short, for three years, the Morrison government dragged its feet, and finally shelved the proposal to establish an integrity commission in its term. It all ended in a whimper.

Rorting aplenty

Meanwhile, there have been plenty of examples of why an anti-corruption body is needed. The Morrison government has been beset by rorting scandals, such as

• the “car park rorts”

• the “sports rorts”

• the Western Sydney airport deal

• the ASIC chair’s tax advice bill

• the Angus Taylor water buyback scheme (just to name a few).

If politicians abuse their powers in allocating public funds, it can give rise to political favouritism and corruption.

The continual and repeated misuse of public money erodes public trust in government. It creates the perception of politicians having their snouts in the trough, and rewarding their friends and cronies.

Drop in corruption rankings

Australia has fallen steadily in Transparency International’s global corruption index, from 8th place in 2012 to 13th in 2021. Even so, Australia is the 13th-least corrupt country in the world, which is still a respectable ranking.

Public perception on government corruption is grim. A Vote Compass survey found 85% of Australians believe corruption is a problem in this country, while only 1% say it is not a problem at all.

More alarming is the fact one in 20 Australian public servants said in a survey they had seen a colleague acting in a corrupt manner. This figure has doubled in the past three years.

Undue influence in government

There are also other activities that do not amount to corruption, but nevertheless shows an undue influence on government.

The influence of money in politics is strong, with lax donations rules at the federal level. Big donors may have more access and influence in government.

The game of mates also proliferates, where those who can afford well-connected lobbyists have better access to politicians. This skews democratic participation towards the well-heeled, rather than the person on the street.

There should be stronger rules on lobbying and political donations, as well as a code of conduct for MPs, policed by an independent commissioner.

Read more:
As the government drags its heels, a better model for a federal integrity commission has emerged

The verdict

The Morrison term has not inspired much confidence in terms of integrity issues. Their failure to address corruption and undue influence, and their continual rorting of the public purse, show a blatant disregard of the electorate’s wishes and needs.

Our faith in government has been eroded by a lack of transparency and the perception that those in power are enjoying unfair benefits. Creating robust institutions, rules and processes that can act as checks and balances on governmental power is key to a vibrant democracy – and will be the first step towards rebuilding public trust.

Yee-Fui Ng 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. Explainer: what are Labor and the Coalition promising on an anti-corruption commission and what is the government’s record? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-labor-and-the-coalition-promising-on-an-anti-corruption-commission-and-what-is-the-governments-record-180971

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gavin Moodie, Adjunct professor, RMIT University

In the lead-up to the federal election, neither of the major parties has given higher education much thought or attention.

While the Coalition focuses on the military and Labor on aged care, universities continue to sweat it out after a decade of at best being ignored, and at worst being wilfully undermined by the current government.

Higher education might not be on many voters’ radars now, but as the number of 18-year-olds is projected to increase, if university funding and places do not increase, this could quickly become an issue if parents find their children can’t fulfil their dream of going to university.

A decade of cuts and worse

Universities have been shunned by the Coalition government since it was elected almost a decade ago in 2013. While the Coalition’s first budget in May 2014 established the Medical Research Future Fund of A$20 billion and increased some other research grants, it cut operating grants and grants to the Australian Research Council and CSIRO.

The budget also unsuccessfully proposed to remove caps on student fees, and introduce fees for research higher degrees.

Read more:
More expensive, more elite: higher education in five years

The Coalition cut operating grants again in 2017 and university research funding again in 2018, and successive education ministers secretly vetoed Australian Research Council grants in the humanities before the federal election in 2018 and again last year.

During the pandemic the government changed JobKeeper’s rules three times to exclude public universities from support, but left private higher education providers eligible.

The government made some modest concessions, by allowing universities to retain their student funding for 2020 even if they under-enrolled, offering increased funding for micro credentials, increasing research program funding in 2021 by $1 billion, and funding new places mainly for 2021. But overall the government’s actions appeared at best unsupportive.

Read more:
The 2021-22 budget has added salt to universities’ COVID wounds

The Coalition legislated its signature higher education policy Job-Ready Graduates in late 2020.

Job-Ready Graduates cut higher education funding again, but also made substantial other changes. This included lowering the fees for courses the government deemed more likely to lead to work such as teaching and nursing, and increasing them for law, commerce and the humanities.

Read more:
New analysis shows Morrison government funding won’t cover any extra uni student places for years

And as an eloquent closing statement of the Coalition’s political and policy priorities, its big-spending pre-election budget offered nothing new for education.

Read more:
A cost-of-living budget: cuts, spends, and everything you need to know at a glance

What has the Coalition done and what should it do?

The Coalition has rightly been concerned about the long-term substantial under-representation in higher education of people from regional and remote areas. It has increased places at regional campuses, introduced regional university centres, and compensated regional universities for the cut in funding in 2017.

Yet depending on the method used to identify regional and remote students, remote students still have less than half the participation rate of other students, and regional students have 76-80% of the participation rate of other students.

The Coalition government removed the cap on places for Indigenous students from regional and remote areas. It should extend that policy for all Indigenous students, all remote students, and even all regional students.

There were only 10,000 remote students in 2020, which is half the number of Indigenous students, so there is little risk of a budget blowout from removing enrolment caps for them. There were around 200,000 regional students in 2020, so removing the enrolment cap for them would be more expensive. But they are only 20% of all domestic students, so even if regional students increased their enrolment substantially, their impact on the budget would still be relatively modest.

What has Labor promised and what should it do?

Labor has promised 465,000 free TAFE places (including 45,000 new places), and up to 20,000 extra university places for universities offering more places in areas it identifies as national priority and skills shortages (clean energy, advanced manufacturing, health and education) and more places for under-represented student groups. However, 20,000 places may not be enough, and more could be added.

Read more:
Albanese offers more university places and free TAFE spots

Job-Ready Graduates has several design flaws, even accepting the Coalition’s premise that it should favour the jobs it predicts for the future, which is at least questionable on evidentiary and normative grounds.

Read more:
Can government actually predict the jobs of the future?

The starkest anomaly is that fees for students in the humanities are $14,630 per year, 28% more than fees for medical students.

This is bad policy for at least three reasons.

The more than doubling of humanities fees by Job-Ready Graduates signals a devaluing of fields which are intrinsically valuable, and are instrumentally valuable in understanding society and culture’s handling of health measures and of developments abroad, whose importance has become more obvious in the last three years.

Secondly, humanities students now pay 93% of the funding for their programs, far more than the 29% medical students contribute to their programs’ funding. Third, humanities graduates earn far less than medical graduates and thus have far less capacity to repay their loans.

The simplest way for Labor to fix this would be to put society and culture in the same funding category as English, which the Coalition bizarrely split from the rest of society and culture. That would cut humanities fees to the lowest rate and it would increase total funding for society and culture by 10% to the same rate for English, education, mathematics and statistics.

While tertiary education might not seem like a vote winner now, if universities are left to flounder, higher education may become out of reach for more young people. Voters will surely start to pay attention then.

Read more of The Conversation’s analysis of Job-Ready Graduates

Gavin Moodie has received various research grants from bodies funded by the Australian and state governments, and was employed by Australian universities for 35 years. He is currently employed by the University of Toronto and is a co investigator on a grant funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Here’s what the major parties need to do about higher education this election – https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-major-parties-need-to-do-about-higher-education-this-election-180855

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert K. Niven, Associate Professor, Australian Defence Force Academy

There has been widespread discussion of Russia’s threat to use tactical nuclear weapons in its war on Ukraine.

Russia is estimated to have thousands of tactical nuclear weapons – possibly the world’s largest stockpile – which could be deployed at any time. The use of nuclear weapons is also embedded in Russian military doctrine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has appealed to the rest of the world to take the threat seriously.

In this article we examine what would happen during a tactical nuclear bomb explosion, including the three stages of ignition, blast and radioactive fallout – and how one might be able to survive this.

Ignition

You see a sudden flash in the sky, as bright as (or even brighter than) the sun. You quickly turn your face away and run for cover.

The brightness suddenly vanishes, but returns again a short while later and continues – the distinctive double flash caused by competition between the fireball and shock wave. It gets incredibly hot and bright, and you shield your eyes to avoid retina burns.

The intense thermal radiation also causes skin burns, possibly through your clothing. Wearing pale-coloured clothing or being indoors will help.

You’ve also received substantial doses of invisible nuclear radiation: gamma rays, X-rays and neutrons. You find cover to shield the worst of the heat and radiation.

You’ve now survived the first seconds of a nuclear detonation, hopefully a “tactical” bomb smaller than that at Hiroshima (which was the equivalent of 15 kilotons of TNT).

The fact you’ve lived this long means you’re on the periphery, not at ground zero. But to survive the next few seconds, there’s a few things you’ll need to do.

The blast wave

Next will come the blast wave. This consists of an overpressure shock wave followed by an outward blast wind, often with reverse winds returning to ground zero.

This will destroy or damage all built structures within a certain radius from the epicentre, depending on the yield and height of the burst.

For example, a 15 kiloton bomb would have a fireball radius of about 100 metres and cause complete destruction up to 1.6 kilometres around the epicentre.

A one kiloton bomb – similar to the 2020 ammonium nitrate explosion in the Lebanese capital Beirut – would have a fireball radius of about 50 metres, with severe damage to about 400 metres.

The shock wave travels faster than the speed of sound (about 343 metres per second). So if you’re one kilometre away from the epicentre, you have less than three seconds to find cover. If you’re five kilometres away, you have less than 15 seconds.

You’ll need to shield yourself from the thermal and nuclear radiation, as you could die if exposed. However, you must find somewhere safe – you don’t want to be crushed in a building destroyed by the blast wave.

Get indoors, and preferably into a reinforced bunker or basement. If you’re in a brick or concrete house with no basement, find a strong part of the building. In Australia, this would be a small bathroom at ground level, or a laundry with brick walls.

The incoming shock wave will reflect off the internal walls, superimposing with the original to double the pressure. Avoid the explosion side of the building and make sure to lie down rather than stand.

If there is no reinforced room, you can lie under a sturdy table or next to (not under) a bed or sofa. You may be crushed under a bed or sofa if a concrete slab crashes down.

Keep away from doors, tall furniture and windows, as they will probably shatter. If the walls come down, you’ll have a chance of surviving in a pocket in the rubble.

If you’re in an apartment building, run to the fire staircase in the structural core of the building.

Avoid timber, fibre cement or prefabricated structures (which includes most modern housing in Australia) as these probably won’t survive. And open your jaw as the blast comes through, so your eardrums get the pressure wave on both sides.

Radioactive fallout

The third stage is the fallout: a cloud of toxic radioactive particles from the bomb will be uplifted during the blast and deposited by the wind, contaminating everything in its path. This will continue for hours after the explosion, or possibly days.

In comparable British-Australian bomb tests at Maralinga, the fallout was clearly preserved in the desert along one kilometre-wide tracks, extending 5–25 kilometres out from ground zero.

You must protect yourself from the fallout or you’ll have a short life.

If you’re in a stable structure such as a basement or fire staircase, you can shelter in place for a few days, if necessary. If your building is destroyed, you’ll need to move to a nearby intact structure.

Block all the doors, windows and air gaps. You can drink water from intact pipes and eat from sealed cans.

For outdoor movement, any PPE available should be used – especially a P2 mask, or even a dust mask. While tactical nukes are designed to destroy personnel or infrastructure, they still allow troop movement under cover of the blast. The radiological hazard is significant, but should be survivable.

A radiological weapon, on the other hand, will deliberately increase the radiation dose to the point of it being lethal.

Once you’ve found shelter, you’ll need to decontaminate. This will require a thorough scrub of the skin, nails and hair, and a change into clean clothing. But any severe burns should be tended to first.

Hopefully by now the national authorities will have stepped in for rescue and medical treatment.

Read more:
‘I still cannot get over it’: 75 years after Japan atomic bombs, a nuclear weapons ban treaty is finally realised

Robert K. Niven receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

Chi-King Lee, Damith Mohotti, and Paul Hazell 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. How to survive a tactical nuclear bomb? Defence experts explain – https://theconversation.com/how-to-survive-a-tactical-nuclear-bomb-defence-experts-explain-181340

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

Despite the seismic changes that have convulsed media communications and journalism since the turn of the millennium, the mainstream media remains a formidably relevant force, including at election time.

Data on where people get their news make this clear. In 2021, about 61% of Australians accessed television news in an average week, and 47% used online news platforms.

These are dominated by the established media organisations. The top ten digital news titles over the 12 months to December 2021 were all mainstream media.

At the top was news.com.au, followed by the ABC, nine.com.au, The Sydney Morning Herald and 7News. All except the Daily Mail (which lost ground heavily) showed year-on-year growth.

While just 20% of people used print-based media, reflecting the decline of newspapers since the digital revolution really got going in 2006, the data from Roy Morgan Research indicate the slide might be slowing, at least in some markets.

The data are preliminary, but they show a quite remarkable 10.4% growth in The Australian’s print audience, growth of 8.2% in the Daily Telegraph’s and 3.1% in The Sydney Morning Herald’s.

There was growth too in the print audiences of the Courier-Mail in Brisbane (2.3%), the West Australian (5.5%) and the Adelaide Advertiser (0.4%).

Notably, however, the print audiences of the two main Melbourne papers, The Age and the Herald Sun, continued to decline, The Age’s by 1.3% and the Herald Sun’s by 1.9%.

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

A striking feature of these figures is the growth in audiences of the News Corporation newspapers across the country, except in Melbourne.

This raises interesting questions about the kind of news Australians seem to want.

News Corporation makes no bones about using its news reporting to push its own agendas. Its internal code of conduct states:

Comment, conjecture and opinion are acceptable in reports to provide perspective on an issue, or explain the significance of an issue, or to allow readers to recognise what the publication’s standpoint is on the matter being reported.

So much for impartiality in news reporting and for separating news from opinion – principles that are explicitly required by the codes of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Australian Financial Review, by the editorial policies of the ABC, and by The Guardian, whose magisterial former owner-editor C. P. Scott’s enduring dictum was, “Comment is free but facts are sacred”.

For decades, surveys have shown Australian media consumers prize impartiality in news reporting very highly, rating it second only to accuracy as the attribute they value most in news content.

A report for the Australian Communications and Media Authority in 2020 cited a Morgan survey from 2018 showing the attributes people considered most important when deciding which news media to trust. The top two were accuracy in reporting (93%) and impartiality (90%).

So is this changing?

Is it possible people’s extensive exposure to social media and their use of it as a source of news is altering their taste in news and their assessment of which attributes matter?

After all, at 52%, social media is now the second most accessed source of news for Australians, not far behind the 61% for television.

Or could it be that in an age of intense political polarisation, people prefer news that promotes the perspectives of their tribe at the expense of impartiality?

Social media news content, much of which comes nowhere near meeting journalistic standards of impartiality, unquestionably provides this, creating the well-established phenomena of filter bubbles and echo chambers.

At the same time, the feedstock for social media news content is to a significant extent drawn from the mainstream media. This is especially so in an election campaign, where the media “pack” travelling with each of the main parties’ leaders is comprised of mainstream media – it is they who are given the accreditation and direct access to the leaders.

Social media takes this raw material and gives it various treatments – memes, altered contexts and distortions of multiple kinds – to entertain, enrage or mobilise.

In this way, mainstream news influences what goes on in social media, adding to mainstream media’s reach and relevance yet along the way commonly losing the attributes of accuracy and impartiality that people say they value.

Contradictions abound.

People say they base their trust in media on whether the reporting is accurate and impartial. Trust in mainstream media remains higher than trust in social media as a source of news, yet social media has grown in importance as a source of news while mainstream media, especially newspapers, has been declining.

Read more:
The vomit principle, the dead bat, the freeze: how political spin doctors’ tactics aim to shape the news

It would be a heavy irony indeed if a recovery in the audience reach of mainstream media was driven by their aping social media, abandoning the impartiality that people say is a cornerstone of their trust.

Not just an irony, but a disaster for democracy.

For one thing, democracy depends on voters having a bedrock of reliable, accurate and impartial information on which to base political, social and economic choices. A focus on gaffes and political theatre, of the kind we have seen in this campaign so far, does not deliver that.

For another, highly partisan news media help drive the polarisation that is undermining the democratic consensus, the consequences of which were shown by the assault on the Capitol in Washington on January 6 2021.

Yet the audience growth of the News Corp newspapers, as indicated in the Morgan data, shows that abandoning impartiality in news reporting might be a successful corporate business strategy.

It might also be a successful corporate political strategy as its mastheads barrack hard for a return of the Morrison government.

Mainstream media is certainly not dead as a force in elections and the form its journalism is taking, with its impact on Australia’s democratic processes, are large and important questions for the country’s future.

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

– ref. How much do mainstream media matter in an election campaign? (Spoiler: more than you might think) – https://theconversation.com/how-much-do-mainstream-media-matter-in-an-election-campaign-spoiler-more-than-you-might-think-180780

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Director, Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University

The private health insurance rebate costs Australian taxpayers nearly A$7 billion per year, and has cost over $100 billion since its introduction.

Yet the rebate’s return on investment has never been estimated.

In the middle of an election campaign and with a record budget deficit, it’s worth reflecting on why the rebate was introduced and whether it represents value for money.

Read more:
INFOGRAPHIC: A snapshot of private health insurance in Australia

What is the private health insurance rebate, who gets it, and why was it brought in?

The private health insurance rebate is money paid by the Australian government to people who buy private patient hospital cover.

Eligibility depends on policy type (single or family) and annual income. Singles or families within incomes classified as Tier 3 do not receive any rebate.

The rebate rate is based on age and income. It is calculated as a percentage of the premium paid, so the more spent, the more money the government will provide, either through lower premiums or through your tax return.

The Australian government introduced a means-tested rebate to singles and families in 1997 to encourage people to buy private health insurance.

It thought an increase in private hospital cover would take pressure off public hospitals.

Read more:
The debate we’re yet to have about private health insurance

Cover had significantly declined due to premium increases of 75% between 1989 and 1996.

Around the same time, the government introduced the Medicare Levy Surcharge. This penalises higher income people for not owning private hospital cover.

It also introduced lifetime health cover loading, which makes people aged over 30 pay higher premiums if they decide to purchase private hospital cover for the first time, or drop their cover for three years or more (with exemptions for people going overseas).

Means testing on the rebate was removed in 1999, and a flat 30% rebate was applied to all policies. This formed part of the government’s support for cost of living pressures given the goods and services tax was being introduced.

At the time, there were several supporters of the rebate, such as the peak bodies for the private health insurance sector and private hospitals.

There were also strong opponents.

The Industry Commission (now the Productivity Commission) concluded the rebate would not help the public hospital system. A Senate Standing Committee concluded the rebate runs “counter to the Medicare principles of universality, equity and access”.

Changes to rebate policy settings over time

The then Coalition government increased the rebate in 2005 from 30% to 35% for people aged 65-69 years and 40% for people aged 70 years and over. This was to “reward older Australians for contributing to private health insurance costs for most of their adult lives”. It had little effect on membership and has been interpreted by some researchers and academics as a wealth transfer to older Australians.

The then Labor government reduced the rebate and increased the Medicare levy surcharge for high income earners in 2012, to limit government expenditure growth, after concerns the rebate provided “windfall gains” to high income earners. This policy increased private hospital cover.

The government has gradually reduced the rebate since 2014.

Does the rebate achieve its intended purpose?

The federal government now spends the same on the rebate each year as the South Australian government spends on its whole health system.

The purpose of the rebate was to increase private health insurance membership to reduce public hospital pressure. On these measures, it seems to have failed.

While private hospital cover increased dramatically from 31% to 45% just after the 30% rebate was introduced, most studies attribute the increase to the lifetime health cover policy.

There is also no strong evidence increasing private hospital cover takes pressure off the public hospital system, with data suggesting little, if any, impact. Public hospital elective surgery waiting times for three popular surgeries increased despite the dramatic increase in private hospital cover at the start of the millennium.

Some studies suggest increased private hospital cover could increase public hospital waiting lists. Shifting patients into private hospitals decreases demand for public hospital elective surgery, but the supply of surgeons also shifts to private hospitals, which means fewer resources for public hospitals.

Many people have also downgraded their cover because of systemic premium increases. This means members may still use the public system to avoid large out-of-pocket costs.

So what should the major parties do this election?

Both major parties should commit to reviewing the rebate’s return on investment and ditch the rebate if taxpayers are not getting value for money.

Removing the rebate would be politically challenging.

Some members would experience a premium increase of between 8 and 33%, adding to their cost of living. Older Australians with low incomes would experience the greatest premium increases.

Read more:
Private health insurance ‘carrot and stick’ reforms have failed – here’s why

That doesn’t mean there would be a collapse in membership but there would be some decline, potentially below 40% of the population.

Removing the rebate should be popular among Australians without private health insurance, which is more than half. They don’t receive any benefit from the rebate yet their tax is used to cover its cost.

A drop in membership means some people would get their elective surgery in public hospitals instead. But the money saved from the rebate would be more than enough to cover those extra costs in the public system, with funds left over.

Savings could be reinvested into the public system, where every Australian can benefit.

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

– ref. What should happen to the private health insurance rebate this election? A $7 billion question – https://theconversation.com/what-should-happen-to-the-private-health-insurance-rebate-this-election-a-7-billion-question-181264

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ross Gordon, Professor, Queensland University of Technology

Australian aged care policy and programs are increasingly focused on what’s known as “successful ageing” – helping people feel satisfied, happier and healthier as they age. The goal is not just living longer, but also living better.

An essential part of ageing successfully is having enough energy for cooking, heating, cooling, cleaning, and leisure activities.

Being able to use energy in these ways can help prevent ill health or premature death, manage illness and chronic disease, sustain social relations, and support positive mental health.

Recent research I led focused on the role domestic energy consumption plays in supporting successful ageing. Over several months, we met with and interviewed 39 householders aged over 60 living in the New South Wales Illawarra region, from varying economic, social and cultural backgrounds, and housing arrangements.

We found clear associations between energy consumption and health and well-being outcomes. Many people told us they avoid using energy – risking even their health and well-being – to reduce costs.

Read more:
Australians want insurance against the burden of old age

When you can’t use the clothesline anymore

Carl is a 97-year-old widower who survived the sinking of two battleships during WWII. He now lives alone after his wife died following a long illness.

He recently had a couple of bad falls, which means he can no longer manage to use his clothesline outside to dry his laundry. Carl explains:

I’ve stopped using the outside line because I felt awkward. I’d have to put my stick down and lift things up, then I’d go wobbly. I fell a couple of times […] I have a dryer for emergencies, but I try not to use it because of the electricity costs […] It dries in the kitchen anyway.

To save on energy costs, Carl uses a kitchen pulley system to dry his clothing.

While he is just about able to manage, is he ageing successfully?

Carl’s worries about the cost of energy have led him to risk his health instead of choosing the safer and easier option of the dryer.

Read more:
To keep heatwaves at bay, aged care residents deserve better quality homes

Comfort versus cost

We found other participants were rarely putting the heating on. Danielle, a 72-year-old woman who lives with her husband, told us:

My daughter was here last night. She complained about being cold. I gave her a blanket. I offered to put the heater on; I gave her a blanket instead.

Zack, an 89-year-old widower, only offers to put the reverse cycle air conditioner on when he has visitors.

I put it on yesterday afternoon because I knew the daughter was coming. But at times I just got a couple of throw rugs and just sit here and watch the television with that on.

This inability to live at a comfortable temperature was also an issue for Georgie, a 72-year-old woman who lives alone in a small unit. Despite the cold mornings in winter, Georgie has so far avoided buying a reverse cycle air conditioner due to the cost:

It’s really quite cold in here in the winter. In the morning […] I get up really early. I’m up by 5:00 in the morning, and it’s cold. But it [reverse cycle air conditioning] would be expensive to run.

Energy supports health and socialising

Participants also had to consider energy costs associated with essential medical devices such as CPAP machines, chairlifts, and blood pressure and blood sugar monitors.

As Daisy, a 72-year-old married woman explains, her husband Joe relies on energy for his CPAP machine:

Really, I mean, that has to come first, the fact that he needs to breathe.

Many older Australians face a difficult choice between using energy to manage their health or face high energy bills they can ill afford.

We also found energy supports well-being; hosting friends for a cup of tea or initiating social connections is tough without energy.

Genevieve, aged 89, explains how her computer helps her keep in touch with family:

There is a little bit of communication between them regularly every time we have a meeting and, you know, little things, so it’s continual. So, I’m doing emails and little reports and little things like that on it.

Energy policy must consider the needs of older people

Existing Australian energy policy focuses on marketisation, productivity, efficiency, security and the clean energy transition, offering little focus on health and well-being.

On the other hand, health policies pay scant attention to the role domestic energy consumption plays.

With energy prices set to increase later this year, billing anxiety lingering and fuel insecurity looming, there’s a risk the health and well-being needs of older Australians are neglected.

What would help?

Our findings underscore the need for health, energy, and housing policy to be integrated to better support older people to age successfully, in homes fit for purpose – without constant worries about high energy bills.

Policies and programs geared towards energy cost savings such as solar installations, insulation and efficient appliances would help. So too would promoting access to higher value energy rebates for those with chronic health conditions.

Health professionals can help by guiding eligible Australians towards their entitlements.

By recognising that energy is a basic human need, essential for health and well-being, we can better support successful ageing.

Ross Gordon receives funding from Energy Consumers Australia, the Australian Research Council, and the Australian Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources.

Ross is a member of the World Health Organisation Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health.

– ref. Older Australians on the tough choices they face as energy costs set to increase – https://theconversation.com/older-australians-on-the-tough-choices-they-face-as-energy-costs-set-to-increase-180974

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Renwick, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Lincoln University, New Zealand

As New Zealand considers the removal of the goods and services tax (GST) from food to reduce costs for low income households, advocates need to consider the impact cheap food has on the environment and whether there are better options to help struggling families.

Globally, we have become used to an abundant, season defying food supply. For decades, the price of our food was on a sustained downward trajectory before prices began to rise again in the mid-2000s.

In many developed countries the proportion of income that we spend on food has declined to around 10%. However, the price we have been paying for our food does not represent its true cost to the planet and to our health.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in New Zealand.

We have the third highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, at an estimated cost of NZ$2 billion in healthcare services each year. Our agricultural sector accounts for nearly half of our greenhouse gas emissions, and has been associated with declining water quality and biodiversity loss.

The issue is that many of these costs don’t just come from the food we eat, but also from the food that is lost or wasted.

The cost of waste

Globally, it’s estimated between 20% and 40% of food is lost or wasted each year and New Zealand is just as guilty as other countries.

Food loss occurs throughout the supply chain due to factors such as harvest losses and poor storage. It mainly occurs in developing economies. Food waste occurs at the point of sale (retailing or food service, for example) and in the home, and is more of an issue in developed economies.

All this lost and wasted food is a serious environmental issue. If food loss and waste was a country it would be the third largest global emitter of greenhouse gases after the US and China.

Read more:
To reduce world hunger, governments need to think beyond making food cheap

Cheap food losses its value

Many reasons have been put forward for the high levels of waste in our food system, from supermarket marketing (buy one get one free offers, for example) to a general lack of understanding of “use by” dates.

However, a key reason for food waste is that with low prices food is not properly valued. We only have to look back to the second world war or to those living now with real food shortages to see that when food is scarce it is not wasted.

Things are starting to change. The downward trend in food prices has been reversed over the past decade and this reversal has become particularly noticeable over the past three years. The interruptions in our food supply chains due to COVID-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have pushed up the price of food, with further price rises expected as increases in resource costs are fed through to the consumer.

Read more:
How food prices are affected by oil, trade agreements and climate change

The blanket tax

These rises are exacerbated in New Zealand because GST is applied on all foods.

According to Engel’s Law, as we become richer, the proportion of our income that we spend on food declines. Therefore, any tax on food falls disproportionately on low income households.

Inevitably, when food prices rise the call to remove GST resurfaces.

The general arguments for and against removing GST on food have been well canvassed in New Zealand. As recently as 2018 the Tax Working Group advocated against it.

Those against removing the tax argue it will do little to tackle inequality, that it will be complicated and costly, and the lack of competition in the supermarket sector may mean that prices will not actually fall.

The problem with GST in New Zealand is that it does not discriminate between “good” and “bad” foods in terms of their impacts on our health or the environment.

Targeted cuts in GST have been called for (for example on fruits and vegetables), but again concerns have been raised over the complexity of selective GST and possible costs associated with exempting some products and not others. You only have to look at the difficulties faced by Ireland when trying to create tax distinctions between foods to understand some of these challenges.

Maybe GST isn’t the issue

However, we could look at the issue of rising food prices and associated GST costs in a more positive light.

Higher prices encourage us to value food more appropriately and to waste less. This could provide major benefits by reducing the overall resource costs associated with our food system.

As GST is a percentage of the cost of food, price rises increase the government’s tax take. So instead of cutting GST it might be better to use the extra tax funds to alleviate the financial pressure on low income households through other means such as tax credits and support.

Read more:
Turning supermarkets into public utilities could be the solution to New Zealand’s grocery problem

In addition, concerted efforts to change our relationship with food could be supported with the additional tax revenue. These could include campaigns to educate our children on good eating, advice on how to cook and store food to prevent waste, and pressure on supermarkets to stop promoting excessive purchases.

These measures could help improve our health, reduce expenditure on food (as we are not wasting so much) and reduce the pressure on our environment.

If we can offset the negative financial impacts on low income households, then high prices signalling the true value of food, coupled with targeted interventions using the revenue from the tax, could work to tackle our dysfunctional food system. If we do it right then the gains in terms of our health and environment could be secured for future generations, regardless of economic shifts.

Alan Renwick 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. Cheaper food comes with other costs – why cutting GST isn’t the answer – https://theconversation.com/cheaper-food-comes-with-other-costs-why-cutting-gst-isnt-the-answer-181463

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

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

In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn canvass
the controversy surrounding Katherine Deves, the Prime Minister’s hand-picked candidate for Warringah, who posted transphobic comments on social media. Scott Morrison is standing by her in the strongest terms, refusing persistent calls from within the Liberal party for her dumping.

Morrison and Anthony Albanese have both said they won’t do deals with independents to form government if there is a hung parliament. Michelle and Amanda discuss what really would happen if the election produced no clear winner.

As the campaign continues, COVID is hardly getting a mention – yet case numbers are large and death numbers substantial. Why is there this apparent lack of concern?

Cliamte is a major issue with many voters, on all the polling. But so far it hasn’t been as dominant in the campaigning as we might have expected – indicating, in part, how the attention issues get varies in different parts of the country.

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

– ref. Word from The Hill: On Katherine Deves, a hung parliament, and the new silence about COVID – https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-on-katherine-deves-a-hung-parliament-and-the-new-silence-about-covid-181496

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

Remember those classic lines that have come out of election debates? Recall 2013 when Tony Abbott asked the audience, “Does this guy [Kevin Rudd] ever shut up?” Or Bill Shorten in 2019 describing Scott Morrison as a “classic space invader?” Or back in 1993 when Paul Keating told John Hewson his costing of the proposed GST was like “a magic pudding?”

In our fourth episode of the Below the Line podcast, host Jon Faine asks if election debates still matter. Audience numbers have dropped significantly since 1993, when 71% of Australians surveyed said they tuned in. By 2016, viewership was down to 21%.

The first debate for the 2022 federal election campaign is scheduled for April 19 on Sky News, hosted in partnership with the Courier Mail. 100 undecided voters will pose questions to both major party leaders.

Simon Jackman and Anika Gauja remind us that while not many people tune in, debates can be dangerous for leaders if they stumble or fail to recall policy details. These “fails” then trend on social media. For example, there might be some tricky questions on climate change given Brisbane, where the debate is being held, was recently hit by devasting floods.

While audience numbers might be small, they capture some voting demographics which both major parties are targetting. Andrea Carson points out that Sky News is broadcast on the free-to-air WIN TV Network and Southern Cross Austereo across
regional New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland. Television ratings data tells us that these audiences are older, and polling data tells us they are more likely to be supporting the Coalition than Labor.

Our expert panel also discuss Anthony Albanese’s polarising appearance at the BluesFest musical festival in Byron Bay, and the surfacing of controversial comments about transgender people made by the Liberal candidate for the Sydney-based seat of Warringah.

Below the Line is an election podcast brought to you by The Conversation and La Trobe University up until the vote is counted.

Image: Lukas Coch/AAP

– ref. Below the Line: Will anyone watch the Morrison vs Albanese debate? And will a transphobia debate divide the Liberals? – podcast – https://theconversation.com/below-the-line-will-anyone-watch-the-morrison-vs-albanese-debate-and-will-a-transphobia-debate-divide-the-liberals-podcast-181476

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

This election will be won by the Coalition and Prime Minister Scott Morrison if the economic models perform as expected – and they usually do.

A model refined in 2000 by then Melbourne University economists Lisa Cameron and Mark Crosby found that most federal election results in records going back to 1901 can be predicted pretty well by just two economic indicators.

And they are not the indicators that might be expected.

The growth in real wages in the year leading up to the election appears to have no effect on the governing party’s chance of being returned to power. (Which is just as well for the Coalition, because the buying power of wages has been shrinking.)

Similarly, GDP (which is shorthand for gross domestic product, the measure meant to encompass almost everything known about the state of the economy) turns out to be “not robustly correlated” with support for the incumbent government in Australia, although it is in the United States.

The only two economic variables that do matter, and they seem to matter a lot, are the rate of inflation and the rate of unemployment, each in a different way.

For inflation, the higher it is, the more the incumbent suffers, as you might expect.

For unemployment, what turns out to matter is not the rate itself. High rates and low rates appear not to be sheeted home to the party in power. What is sheeted home, big time, is the change in the rate.

Voters reward lower unemployment

A government seen to have cut the unemployment rate gets rewarded, while a government seen to have pushed up the rate gets punished.

Cameron and Crosby find a one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate cuts a government’s vote share by 0.58 percentage points.

And they find a wrinkle. In swinging seats, Coalition governments are likely to be punished if unemployment rises, whereas Labor governments are likely to be rewarded. They say their findings are “consistent with voters having the perception that the Labor party is more committed to lowering unemployment”.

In 2005 economists Andrew Leigh (the one who later became a Labor politician) and Justin Wolfers applied a slightly different model to the 2004 election. They found it got the result right, but under-predicted the size of the Coalition victory.

The model usually gets it right

In the latest edition of the Australian Economic Review, University of Queensland economist Hamish Greenop-Roberts applied the Cameron and Crosby model to the past four elections, the one Labor won in 2010 and the ones the Coalition won in 2013, 2016 and 2019. He found it picked the result three times out of four, putting it on a par with the polls and betting odds, which also got the result right three times out of four.

The crucial difference is the economic model got the results right in each of the past two elections – something the others conspicuously failed to do.

Read more:
Economically, 2022 looks like an ideal time to land re-election

Asked this week what the economic model would predict for the current election, Greenop-Roberts notes that on one hand, unemployment is much lower than it was at start of this government’s term (and far lower than was expected), which the model says should help it get re-elected.

On the other hand, inflation is unusually high, which the model says would hurt.

What matters for predicting the outcome is the size of each move and how much the size of each move has turned out to matter in the past.

And it’s no contest. The effect of the dramatic cut in the unemployment rate (from 5.2% to 4%) is so big it more than outweighs the effect of the 3.5% rate of inflation, “setting the stage for the Coalition to be returned”.

Unemployment trumps inflation

So big is what has happened to unemployment that Greenop-Roberts says an inflation rate of at least 8% to 9% would be required to flip the prediction.

Whatever Australia’s official inflation rate is in the lead-up to polling day (there will be an update next Wednesday) it will very possibly above its present 3.5% but still be way short of 8-9%.

Or perhaps the model will be wrong when it comes to inflation. Greenop-Roberts points out that since the early 1990s, an entire generation of voters has entered adult life without experiencing serious inflation, and might either be alarmed by it or not understand the concept. This election might provide a test.

And it is possible this will be one of the rare elections in which the state of the economy fails to predict the outcome. Opinion polls did badly in the last election, but they might recover and they are suggesting a Labor victory. Betting markets did badly too, and are only just suggesting a Labor victory.

Polls, experts and even the model can be wrong

Experts often get it wrong. Greenop-Roberts points to a poll of 13 experts published two days before the 2019 election.

Twelve predicted a Labor victory. The only expert who didn’t predicted the Coalition would be forced to govern jointly with independents, a prediction some way short of the result, which was a comprehensive Coalition victory.

Read more:
Morrison defends Warringah candidate as push to oust her strengthens

The reality is that this election will be fought seat by seat, and Greenop-Roberts has identified a new metric that might help predict those outcomes.

His Australian Economic Review paper compares the electorate by electorate results of the 2017 same-sex marriage poll with the electorate by electorate swing to the Coalition in 2019.

He finds the electorates that swung most to the Coalition in 2019 (shown below) were those most opposed to same-sex marriage.

‘No’ vote in the 2016 same sex marraige poll versus 2019 swing to Coalition

The statistically significant link better predicted voting intention than income, education or unemployment.

It might again, or we might not yet have perfected the science of predicting what will happen, which might be just as well. What’ll happen in this election is up to all of us.

Peter Martin 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. This economic model tipped the last 2 elections – and it’s now pointing to a Coalition win – https://theconversation.com/this-economic-model-tipped-the-last-2-elections-and-its-now-pointing-to-a-coalition-win-181462

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabriel da Silva, Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, The University of Melbourne

Russia may have used chemical weapons in its invasion of Ukraine, according to unconfirmed reports from the besieged city of Mariupol last week.

The reports have been taken seriously, with official investigations announced and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons monitoring the situation. To date, however, there is no solid evidence to support these claims.

But what are the chemical weapons that could be used in Ukraine, and how will their reported use be investigated?

As a chemical engineer who studies dangerous chemicals in the environment, I can help answer these questions.

What are chemical weapons?

Any harmful chemical substance can be used as a weapon. This includes deadly compounds designed specifically for use in battle, but also extends to many compounds used in industry that are harmful when handled improperly.

Because of their indiscriminate nature, the use of any chemical agent in warfare has been internationally outlawed.

Read more:
What makes pepper spray so intense? And is it a tear gas? A chemical engineer explains

However, controlling the production and distribution of dual-use chemicals (such as chlorine) and riot control agents like tear gas is much harder than regulating dedicated chemical weapons such as sarin and other nerve agents.

It can also be difficult to demonstrate a dual-use chemical was intended for use as a weapon.

An unconfirmed report

On April 11, the first report of Russia using chemical weapons in the invasion of Ukraine emerged from the besieged city of Mariupol.

Members of the Azov Battalion, a far-right unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, claimed a number of its fighters had been injured by white smoke emitted from a device dropped by a Russian drone.

Injuries from the incident, which occurred at the Azovstal steelworks, reportedly included skin and lung damage and were not life-threatening.

Possible explanations

This “white smoke” could be a chemical weapon, many of which attack the body’s skin and mucosa (organ linings) at openings such as the eyes, nose, and mouth. Conventionally, chemical weapons have also been delivered in munitions that disperse smoke-like aerosols or vapour.

Yet there are other plausible explanations.

The steelworks would house many industrial chemicals, which could be inadvertently released in an active battle. The reported symptoms are consistent with exposure to the fumes of a great many chemical irritants.

The eyewitness reports are not specific enough to discount these possibilities, or to assign the incident to any one class of chemical warfare agent.

Russian disregard for convention

The use of chemical weapons is banned by international convention.

The early days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine saw rhetoric from all sides around the use of chemical weapons, as nations started to frame their potential response to these weapons being used.

Russia promoted false stories about Ukraine’s possession of chemical and biological weapons. US President Joe Biden interpreted these stories as a “clear sign” Russia was paving the way to use such weapons itself.

Russia has destroyed its declared chemical weapons stockpiles. However, the use of distinctive Russian-developed Novichok nerve agents in the poisonings of Sergei Skripal in 2018 and Alexei Navalny in 2020 suggests Russia may still possess an active chemical weapons program.

These incidents, as well as the use of a fentanyl-like anesthetic gas in the Moscow Theatre hostage crisis of 2002, also demonstrate Russia’s disregard for the international fall-out from using chemical warfare agents.

Chemical weapons investigations

Investigating claims of chemical weapons use is often challenging. Inspectors will look to gather victim and witness reports to help establish the facts of any incident.

Medical records and biological samples can assist in identifying the nature of the chemical agent. Ideally, samples of these usually short-lived chemicals from the battlefield would be obtained, but with no international inspectors on the ground in Ukraine this possibility seems remote.

Chemical threats

Even in the absence of a chemical attack, the Russian invasion may create numerous unpredictable chemical and radiological hazards in Ukraine. As a prime example, Russian activity within the Chernobyl power plant’s exclusion zone has disturbed radioactive waste and set back remediation efforts at the site of the world’s worst nuclear accident.

Many of Ukraine’s most sensitive industrial sites are situated in regions of intense fighting, where shelling has the potential to pollute the land and water for years to come, and could create toxic air pollution.

Uncontrolled fires in urban areas may have similar effects. This is akin to what was seen following the Iraq war, where fumes from burn pits are now believed to have permanently disabled thousands of US veterans.

Does verification matter?

Ultimately, a verified chemical attack in Ukraine may not be the red line it once was.

Evidence is emerging of the manifold atrocities that the Russian army have committed in Ukraine: war crimes, sexual violence, and slaughter of civilians on a scale that is being equated to genocide.

Read more:
It’s the right time to review the world’s chemical weapons convention

Chemical warfare agents are primarily a weapon of terror, with limited strategic use. It has been argued that their use in Ukraine is unlikely to substantially ratchet up the international pressure on Russia.

In spite of this it remains essential that accusations of chemical attacks be thoroughly investigated. If an attack does happen, a robust investigation will be necessary to bring those responsible to justice, and to maintain strong deterrents against the manufacture and use of chemical weapons.

Gabriel da Silva 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. Chemical weapons: how will we know if they have been used in Ukraine? – https://theconversation.com/chemical-weapons-how-will-we-know-if-they-have-been-used-in-ukraine-181339

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Seale, Associate professor, UNSW Sydney

This month, mask mandates were lifted in South Australia, and vaccine requirements for dining and nightlife were removed in Queensland.

Public health experts at the World Health Organization have begun discussing what conditions would eventually signal the public health emergency declared on January 30, 2020 can be ended. However, they stress we are not there yet.

What’s happening in other countries?

By spring 2022, the UK government will see all social and public health measures removed in England, including the need to isolate and the availability of free testing. The rationale is based on the costs of maintaining these policies, including testing, often at the expense of other essential services such as mental health support.

Read more:
Time to remove vaccine mandates? Not so fast – it could have unintended consequences

Some countries across Europe have rolled back the use of vaccine passports, whereas others have moved forward with mandates. Greece approved mandatory vaccination for over-60s in late December, with a monthly €100 fine added to tax bills for those who refuse (exempting those with a recent COVID infection).

In New Zealand, mandatory vaccinations will end next month for teachers, police officers and members of New Zealand’s military.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said expert advice and an expectation that the current wave of omicron cases will soon pass — and not the protests — had prompted the change in policy. They will, however, continue to use them for health, aged care, and corrections staff, and border and MIQ (managed isolation and quarantine) workers.

Read more:
As New Zealand relaxes restrictions, here’s what we can still do to limit COVID infections

In settings such as South Korea – which has already pivoted to “living with COVID” and has relaxed several COVID mitigation strategies – cases have risen, but hospital admissions and deaths have remained manageable due to high vaccine coverage.

In comparison, data from Hong Kong has suggested higher mortality rates during the fifth wave have been driven by low vaccination coverage among older adults. Leading into the outbreak, overall two-dose vaccination coverage was 64%, however rates varied between age groups.

While other countries may follow suit with the relaxation of public health measures, as of early February 2022 the use of face coverings in all public spaces was required in 152 of 196 countries, contact tracing in 136 and mass testing in 114.

The pandemic is not over

While Omicron has ended up being less severe than previous variants, there is still the potential for a new variant that is more transmissible and which has the ability to evade the immune system, resulting in a prolonged pandemic.

As outlined by David Heymann, a former WHO and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist, a key metric for countries considering declaring an end to the emergency is population immunity. This is the proportion of people who have some antibodies to the virus either from immunisation, infection, or both.

We have not reached the point yet of declaring the pandemic over. Potentially, if we continue to have high levels of vaccination coverage, we may see more endemic (when a disease exists at a predictable level not requiring society-defining interventions), less severe disease outcomes in the community. However, we need to ensure there is no longer a large influx of hospital patients.

A disease becoming endemic does not mean it no longer poses a risk, nor does it mean all public health strategies will be removed.

Some settings may still require vaccine requirements, and we would need to ensure vulnerable populations, including those who are at heightened susceptibility due to their occupation, and those who are at risk of severe outcomes (such as the immunocompromised) are protected.

Read more:
Is it time to rethink vaccine mandates for dining, fitness and events? We asked 5 experts

Is the ending of restrictions a health risk to me?

In March the WHO saw an 8% increase in the detection of COVID-19 cases, with more than 11 million positive test results. Based on the experiences overseas, there is a chance Australia will see an increase in COVID cases (especially going into winter).

At a local level, it is now understood most people become infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 by inhaling it from shared air. The risk is predominantly indoors and so the lifting of vaccine and mask mandates will result in a shift in the level of risk to individuals (especially the unvaccinated) who are sharing the same airspace.

It is important we continue to highlight the rationale for voluntary mask use and for catching up outdoors to the community, as well as stress the effectiveness of booster shots at preventing severe infection.

Based on data from 2020, the US CDC recently released findings linking mask requirements with a more than 1 percentage point decrease in the daily growth rate of COVID-19 cases and deaths 20 days after the implementation of the mask mandate. The authors of the study cautioned against the premature lifting of prevention measures.

There remains complexity and uncertainty ahead, and governments will need to continue to review their decisions as we enter a period where we may need to rapidly adjust public health measures in the event of a new, more virulent variant emerging. Omicron is not the last variant we will be dealing with.

Holly Seale is an investigator on research studies funded by NHMRC and has previously received funding for investigator driven research from NSW Ministry of Health, as well as from Sanofi Pasteur and Seqirus. She is the Deputy Chair of the Collaboration on Social Science and Immunisation.

– ref. Many places are starting to wind back COVID restrictions, but this doesn’t mean the pandemic is over yet – https://theconversation.com/many-places-are-starting-to-wind-back-covid-restrictions-but-this-doesnt-mean-the-pandemic-is-over-yet-180856

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Griffith University

Why did 46.8% of Americans vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 election? Why did approximately 2,000 of them attack the Capitol building? Why do 54% believe Joe Biden to be one of the worst Presidents in US history? They can’t all be “deplorables”, all ill-educated bigots or self-interested cynics. What do they actually think?

On the Left there is a tendency to see conservative ideas as a deficit of progressive ones. The Left is about hope and rationality, the Right is about fear and blind emotion. The divide is cast in psychological rather than political terms.

Will Arbery’s play Heroes of the Fourth Turning, which ran on Broadway in 2019, and has just closed at Red Stitch Theatre in Melbourne, treats conservative ideas as a matter for serious examination. The focus is on ideas. The play isn’t about personality clashes or party feuds. It is about the moral and intellectual concepts informing the political Right today.

For those wanting to go beyond appalled op-eds and documentaries where cherry-picked interviewees roll out QAnon weirdness, the play offers a unique opportunity to plumb the mental universe of the Right and take stock of its variety of commitments.

It also assists in discerning where cogent conservatism metastasises into something much uglier. This too is a focus of the drama. Arbery’s achievement is that he shows how easily it can happen – how the best ethical commitments are destroyed when expressed in extreme form.

A big conversation

Heroes of the Fourth Turning, which takes its title from William Strauss and Neil Howe’s controversial 1997 book on generational cycles of change, is set in the backyard of a small house in Wyoming, America’s least populous state.

Justin, Kevin and Teresa are alumni of Transfiguration College, returning for the inauguration of a revered teacher, Dr Gina Presson, as its President, the first woman so elected. A fifth character is Gina’s daughter Emily, suffering from an unnamed degenerative disease and in more or less constant pain.

The College is a bastion of conservative Catholic thought. Its syllabus is erudite, holistic, and religiously based, with 2000 years of Church learning behind it. Students take classes in conversational Latin and horse-riding. They graduate imbued with high moral purpose. This is reflected in the structure of the play, which is two hours of solid talk threaded around one vital question: what does it mean to live a good life?

Heroes of the Fourth Turning does not have a “compelling story”. The narrative element that Aristotle thought essential to drama is not absent, but it is slack. Nor are the characters outsize or especially charismatic.

They sit in a middling realistic register without much backstory. They are like people one meets at a dinner party memorable for what Kevin would call a “big conversation”. The vacated space is taken up instead by a fast, charged and confronting exchange of ideas.

It is impossible to briefly summarise the thematic terrain Heroes of the Fourth Turning covers. “The good” the characters contest involves a constant shuttling between differing opinions, experiences and feelings. Given the Catholic milieu, a shared point of hostility is Roe vs. Wade i.e. legalised abortion.

But even here, there are a range of views. On the one hand, Teresa is immovable: abortion is murder. On the other, Emily, the most open minded of the group, has worked in a front-line agency for single mothers, and takes a wider, gender-based perspective:

EMILY Okay so let’s say it is a Holocaust, okay… Let’s say the babies are the Holocaust victims – what does that make the mothers?

TERESA They’re the —

EMILY Do not tell me they’re the Nazis. Just don’t. Do not.

TERESA I wasn’t going to. I just… mm. I think maybe some of the mothers are victims too… It’s not a one-to-one correlation.

EMILY I just think you’re not looking at it from the perspective of these women, Teresa —

TERESA You’re allowed to like your abortionist friend Olivia. But you’re not allowed to tell me that she’s equally as good as you… She’s contributing to a genocide… She’s on the wrong side. You’re on the right side…

EMILY Well I feel like all I’m asking for, all I’m ASKING for, is just a bigger dose of empathy —

TERESA Oh don’t with the empathy. Liberals are empathy addicts. Empathy empathy empathy. Empathy is empty… Empathise with someone and suddenly you’re erasing the boundaries of your own conscience, suddenly you’re living under the tyranny of their desires. We need to know how to think how they’re thinking. From a distance.

Teresa is both an intriguing and disturbing figure. Smart, beautiful and articulate, she has mastered the rhetorical tricks of the theological disputatio – tendentious definitions, extreme examples, clever use of emotive terms. She is a formidable debater and in the world of Right-wing blogging, a rising star.

But does she control language or does language control her? The play’s climactic scene is a bruising confrontation between Gina’s older, John Birch Society anti-Communist conservatism, and Teresa’s Steve Bannon apocalyptic millennialism, with its dire predictions of a race war on (and in) the West.

Step by step, speech by speech, Heroes of the Fourth Turning, shows how Teresa’s baseline Catholic morality escalates into a paranoid, hate-filled, white supremacism.

Drama as a mode of inquiry

You have to go back to Stephen Sewell’s Welcome the Bright World in 1981 to find an Australian play that tackles Right-wing thinking in a non-pathologised way. Hannie Rayson’s Two Brothers in 2005, based loosely on Peter and Tim Costello, starts with forensic intent, but blows-out to melodrama. Compounding this is the widespread belief that drama is not a serious mode of intellectual inquiry.

Not true. Drama is an engine of discovery as powerful as Q&A or media reportage, but different from them. It has this remarkable advantage: it puts humans beings under the microscope along with what they say, linking opinions to emotions, actions to experience, so we gain understanding not only about what people think, but why they think it, and the values that make them to cleave to their views.

Read more:
Australian plays: how to persuade a nation to question its own soul?

Surprising insights can flow from such imaginative exercises. One observation about Arbery’s play, for example, is how much of the dialogue, with a few changes of keyword, might be a discussion on the Left.

In this, it reflects public debate today, where rival positions reject each other’s claims in identically absolutist tones. “This is the problem”, Teresa exclaims, “no one knows how to debate, we literally can’t hear each other”.

Teresa certainly can’t. She’s locked in an echo chamber of her own making. In a thoughtful, careful, and compassionate way Heroes of the Fourth Turning tries to open the door of that chamber and start a new big conversation.

Julian Meyrick has directed a number of shows for Red Stitch Theatre, and his partner, Louise McCarthy, was the designer for its production of Heroes of the Fourth Turning.

– ref. Heroes of the Fourth Turning: how theatre can serve as a mode of inquiry into right wing ideas – https://theconversation.com/heroes-of-the-fourth-turning-how-theatre-can-serve-as-a-mode-of-inquiry-into-right-wing-ideas-181057

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 April 14-17 from a sample of 1,510, gave Labor a 53-47 lead, unchanged since last week. Primary votes were 36% Labor (down one), 35% Coalition (down one), 12% Greens (up two), 4% One Nation (up one), 4% UAP (steady) and 9% for all Others (down one).

52% were dissatisfied with Scott Morrison’s performance (down two), and 43% were satisfied (up one), for a net approval of -9, up three points. Anthony Albanese’s net approval slumped 11 points to -14. Morrison led as better PM by 44-37 (44-39 last week). Newspoll figures are from The Poll Bludger.

Since an early March Newspoll that gave Labor a 55-45 lead, Labor has lost five points on primary votes and the Greens have gained four. The Poll Bludger said this is the best Newspoll for the Greens since May 2021. So much of Labor’s loss appears to be caused by concern it would not do enough on climate change.

After a dreadful first week of the campaign that was highlighted by forgetting basic economic data, Albanese has taken a large hit to his ratings. But the two polls published this week still give Labor a clear lead after preferences, with analyst Kevin Bonham estimating a Labor lead of 52.5-47.5 from the Resolve primaries.

While Labor is still clearly ahead, they have lost a point or two since the polls taken immediately after the March 29 budget.

Bonham said this Newspoll broke a streak of seven successive Newspolls where Albanese’s net approval was higher than Morrison’s. It is the largest poll to poll drop in net approval for an opposition leader since Bill Shorten lost 16 points in February 2015.

It’s often said governments lose elections, oppositions don’t win them. High inflation is hurting governments in the rest of the world, and is a key reason for Labor’s current lead: 61% in an Essential poll last fortnight said cost of living was the most important economic issue, and Labor led the Coalition by 38-27 on addressing it. Voters hate price rises on food and petrol.

However, oppositions can lose elections that they should win if their policies or leaders are flawed. Outside election campaigns, media focus is on the government, but during campaigns, the opposition is the alternative government and attracts much more media attention.

If Albanese avoids making obvious errors for the rest of the campaign, it’s likely his ratings will recover and Labor will win comfortably. But if he continues to make mistakes, Labor could lose an election it should win.

Many media commentators and the betting markets appear to think that momentum is decisive – that is, whoever is gaining in the polls during the campaign will run away with it. This is a dumb argument – improvements in polls do not in general lead to further improvements in the polls. The logical endpoint of this argument would be that one party would eventually win 100% of the vote!

Labor’s primary vote tanks in Resolve poll

A Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted April 11-16 from a sample of 1,404, gave the Coalition 35% of the primary vote (up one since early April), Labor 34% (down four), the Greens 11% (steady), One Nation 4% (up two), UAP 4% (up one), independents 9% (steady) and others 4% (up one).

Resolve does not provide a two-party estimate, but Bonham’s estimate from the primary votes was 52.5-47.5 to Labor, a three-point gain for the Coalition. Resolve appears worse for Labor than Newspoll because the previous Resolve gave Labor a far bigger lead than the previous Newspoll.

47% gave Scott Morrison a poor rating for his performance in recent weeks (down six) and 44% a good rating (up five), for a net approval of -3, up 11 points. Albanese’s net approval dropped five points to -9. Morrison regained a 38-30 lead as preferred PM (37-36 to Albanese previously).

The Liberals and Morrison led Labor and Albanese by 43-23 on economic management (37-27 last time). This is the Liberals’ biggest lead on this crucial question since last October.

The 27% “uncommitted” refers to the “how firm are you with your vote” question. Resolve does not allow respondents to say they are undecided, likely inflating the independent vote.

Unemployment steady at 4.0%

The ABS released the March jobs report on April 14. The unemployment rate was unchanged from February at 4.0%, while the underemployment rate was down 0.3% to 6.3%. The employment population ratio – the percentage of eligible Australians employed – remained at its highest for at least the last decade at 63.8%.

The unemployment rate remained at its lowest since August 2008 before the global financial crisis began. It has not been lower since 1978.

While the jobs situation remains very good for the government, inflation is poor. We will get an inflation report for the March quarter on April 27. The April jobs report will be released May 19, two days before the election.

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 still has clear lead in Newspoll and Resolve, but Albanese’s ratings slump – https://theconversation.com/labor-still-has-clear-lead-in-newspoll-and-resolve-but-albaneses-ratings-slump-181469

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alfio Leotta, Senior Lecturer, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

When images from Ukraine of abandoned Russian tanks tagged with the word “Wolverines” circulated in early April, movie buffs got it right away: Ukrainian fighters were consciously referencing the cult 1984 film Red Dawn.

Released at the apex of the Cold War, it chronicles a fictional Soviet invasion of the US, in which a group of teenagers – the Wolverines – mount a guerilla resistance against the might of the Soviet military.

The tagged tanks weren’t the first instance of Red Dawn being invoked over Ukraine. Early in the war, for example, some Western commentators compared the Ukrainian resistance to the Wolverines. And, more recently, dozens of Red Dawn-inspired memes have circulated on the internet.

One study showed the movie itself had seen a 500% surge in popularity on video-on-demand platforms globally since late February. When a 1980s action movie starring the likes of Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen and Jennifer Grey resonates this much with contemporary audiences, something is clearly going on.

A Cold War hit

Produced by MGM during the height of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Red Dawn captured contemporary US anxiety about communist military might. MGM wanted to capitalise on American protests against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and ride a wave of patriotic sentiment generated by the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.

The studio enlisted one of the most conservative American directors of the era, John Milius. At the time of its release, the Guinness Book of Records rated Red Dawn the most violent film ever made, featuring more than two violent acts per minute. But with a PG-13 rating, it proved a commercial success, grossing nearly US$40 million worldwide.

Read more:
War movies are big earners. What does that say about us?

Not everyone was enthusiastic, however, with liberal critics attacking the explicit jingoism, violence and anti-communist rhetoric of the film. As the New York Times’ Janet Maslin wrote:

To any snivelling lily-livers who suppose that John Milius […] already reached the pinnacle of movie-making machismo, a warning: Mr. Milius’s “Red Dawn” is more rip-roaring than anything he has done before. Here is Mr. Milius at his most alarming, delivering a rootin’-tootin’ scenario for World War III.

Elsewhere, media scholar Douglas Kellner argued Red Dawn was an effort to reclaim for the political right the heroic figure of the revolutionary freedom fighter from 1960s leftist mythology. He saw the film as an attempt to legitimise US-backed anti-communist insurgencies in Afghanistan and Nicaragua.

Against all odds

Such readings of Red Dawn fail to account for the ideological complexity of the film, however. Despite Milius’s radical conservatism, it would be unfair to label him as merely in thrall to the American military.

Along with George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese, Milius was a pioneer of the “New Hollywood” period in American film history from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s, characterised by an anti-establishment, formally innovative approach to film making.

Read more:
Apocalypse Now turns 40: rediscovering the genesis of a film classic

During this time Milius achieved international fame as the screenwriter of Apocalypse Now (for which he also received an Oscar nomination), and as director of The Wind and the Lion (1975) and Conan the Barbarian (1982).

Unlike MGM, which wanted an unambiguously patriotic and anti-communist film, Milius was more interested in the existentialist aspect of the story, particularly the idea of fighting against all odds:

I took a lot of stuff from French and Russian resistance stories – in particular that they are not going to make a big difference, but the fact that they fought and died makes a symbolic difference.

Read more:
The Cold War, modern Ukraine and the spread of democracy in the former Soviet bloc countries

Brutal reality

Milius claimed the depiction of extreme violence was necessary to convey the brutality of an imaginary global conflict: “You see the tremendous cost of everything. Nobody comes out of it whole or unscarred.”

In fact, the film occasionally displays a subtle irony, blurring the ideological line between Americans and communists. A sequence depicting special Soviet forces entering the Wolverines’ home town, for instance, is a clear reference to The Battle of Algiers, a quintessentially anti-imperialist film in which French paratroopers are sent to fight anti-colonial militants.

The film’s anti-communist credentials are further undercut by the celebration of both the Wolverines’ anti-imperialist values and the daring of some of the invaders.

Furthermore, both sides commit brutal acts of violence, with the difference between them increasingly indistinct. When the Wolverines prepare to execute a prisoner of war, one teenage guerilla asks, “What’s the difference between us and them?” To which the leader’s only response is, “We live here.”

A lasting influence

Milius often claimed the perceived anti-communism of Red Dawn gained him the hostility of what he regarded as a mainly left-wing Hollywood culture, and eventually contributed to the decline of his film-making career.

With time, however, the film acquired cult status and its title became synonymous with the threat of foreign invasion. The US mission to capture toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was dubbed Operation Red Dawn. “I think all of us in the military have seen Red Dawn,” said Captain Geoffrey McMurray, who chose the name.

More recently, TV shows Stranger Things and South Park have payed homage to Milius’s film, and its influence extends to music and video games. Red Dawn’s vast following even motivated a 2012 remake, about an implausible North Korean attempt to invade the US, which failed to replicate the success of the original.

As its adoption by Ukrainian fighters shows, however, Milius’s third world war fantasy has retained a unique place in the collective imagination. Nearly 40 years on, Red Dawn’s stark depiction of the brutality of contemporary warfare resonates still.

Alfio Leotta 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. When war imitates art: rediscovering Red Dawn, the 1984 movie inspiring Ukrainian fighters – https://theconversation.com/when-war-imitates-art-rediscovering-red-dawn-the-1984-movie-inspiring-ukrainian-fighters-181261

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hessom Razavi, Associate professor, The University of Western Australia

Indigenous people in Australia experience three times more vision loss than non-Indigenous people, creating a concerning gap for vision.

Much of this is due to diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Here, blood vessels in the back of the eye (the retina) are damaged by high blood sugar levels. Over time, this causes swelling (oedema) of the central part of the retina (the macula).

Macular oedema blurs the central vision, diminishing the ability to recognise people’s faces, to drive and work, and perform other essential tasks. DMO affects around 23,000 Indigenous people in Australia, with most of them of working age. Similar trends are reported in other developed states with Indigenous populations, including New Zealand, Canada and the United States.

The good news is DMO is treatable, with medications known as anti-VEGF agents. We undertook a world-first clinical trial to test longer-acting DMO treatment for Indigenous Australians. In doing so, we also learned about undertaking culturally sensitive research on Country.

Read more:
How can the new Closing the Gap dashboard highlight what indicators and targets are on track?

A longer-lasting treatment

When injected into the eye by an ophthalmologist (an eye surgeon), anti-VEGF drugs are safe and effective for treating DMO. The injections don’t hurt, since the eye is anaesthetised. The catch is that anti-VEGF agents are relatively short-acting, requiring them to be re-administered as often as every month.

Many Indigenous patients find it impractical, for complex and varied reasons, to attend ten to 12 eye appointments a year. There is, therefore, a need for an alternative.

Longer-acting medications do exist. One example is a dexamethasone implant (commercially known as Ozurdex(R)), a steroid injected into the eye. The dexamethasone implant only needs to be dosed every three months.

The dexamethasone implant is PBS approved for DMO in Australia but has never been evaluated in an Indigenous population. This is important because a possible side effect of steroid medications is increased pressure in the eye. If left untreated, this can lead to a condition called steroid-induced glaucoma.

Glaucoma is thought to occur less commonly overall among Indigenous people, suggesting differences in the physiology of eye pressure between Caucasian and Indigenous eyes. Additionally, the incidence of steroid-induced subtype glaucoma has never been studied among Indigenous people. This is particularly important for people in remote locations, since glaucoma is a “silent disease”, requiring regular check ups for detection and treatment.

The historical barriers preventing this sort of research include cultural and geographical factors, as well as a lack of endorsement from Indigenous health services and “staff champions”.

Not just what to research, but how

At the Lions Eye Institute, we sought to overcome these barriers with the OASIS Study – a world-first clinical trial in ophthalmology to exclusively recruit Indigenous patients.

We framed our study around ten key factors for success including support from all participating Aboriginal Medical Services, free and safe treatment, free transport, appointment reminders, and cultural safety training for all trial staff. Wherever possible, study visits were performed within patients’ usual Aboriginal Medical Service. Study participants could have friends, family and staff members present. This helped communication and a sense of safety and trust.

Over two years, we recruited 38 Indigenous patients and 52 eyes (some patients had DMO in both eyes). Patients were recruited from both Perth and country Western Australia. On enrolment, they were randomly assigned to receive dexamethasone implant or an anti-VEGF agent called Avastin. Follow up was performed for check ups and re-treatments. After 12 months, we analysed all our data, to compare the safety and effectiveness of the two drugs.

The results showed patients who received dexamethasone implant gained four extra letters on a standard eye chart, equivalent to a 6.2% improvement in their vision. Those who received the anti-VEGF agent, meanwhile, lost 5.5 letters on average, representing an 8.9% decline.

Taken together, these results represented a 15% (9.5 letter) visual advantage for patients who received dexamethasone implant. In real world terms, this meant patients met the visual requirements for a private driver’s license. Those who received the anti-VEGF agent did not.

This disparity was most pronounced in country towns, where dexamethasone implant had a 37% (24 letter) advantage over the anti-VEGF agent.

Why it works

As we suspected, the reason for the dexamethasone implant’s better performance related to its less frequent, hence more pragmatic, dosing regime.

Over 12 months, patients who were meant to receive four dexamethasone implant injections, received an average of 3.3 injections. This meant that, on average, they received 82.5% of their intended treatments.

Anti-VEGF patients, meanwhile, received 7.2 of their scheduled 12 injections. This equated to only 60% of their intended treatments, and reflects the difficulty of attending monthly appointments in the real world. Anti-VEGF patients had more than twice as many injections as dexamethasone implant patients, yet ended up with poorer vision.

Not all the results were positive. One third of patients who received dexamethasone implant developed high pressure in the eye – a recognised side effect of steroid injections. While not painful, this requires treatment with pressure-lowering drops and close follow up, to prevent glaucoma.

Secondly, steroid injections speed up cataract formation (a clouding of the lens in the eye). This requires access to cataract surgery, which is not always simple to arrange in remote locations. Based on these caveats, we developed guidelines for the judicious use of dexamethasone implant among Indigenous patients, published in March.

Read more:
A new way to keep First Nations people with dementia connected to Country, community, family and culture

Reducing the burden, closing the vision gap

While dexamethasone implants are not perfect, we believe the OASIS Study provides hope for reducing vision loss and the “burden of treatment” for Indigenous Australians with diabetes.

The ability to perform culturally safe clinical trials means new treatments may be similarly evaluated in the future, with consideration given to input from patients through community-controlled research.

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

This study was funded by Allergan Australia Pty Ltd which produces the treatment Ozurdex mentioned in this article. None of the authors received personal payment. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.

– ref. Longer-acting eye treatment could reduce vision loss for Indigenous Australians – https://theconversation.com/longer-acting-eye-treatment-could-reduce-vision-loss-for-indigenous-australians-180586

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erica Russ, Senior Lecturer, Southern Cross University

The crisis in child welfare in Australia has, for too long, resulted in too many children taken into care, with many not receiving the timely assistance and care they and their families need.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are 11 times more likely to be taken into care. Children from culturally diverse families, and children and parents with disability are also over-represented in the system. Children often enter child protection systems for many reasons, including neglect because of poverty. Families need support to care for their children safely, rather than having their children removed.

Our national study, published by the Institute of Child Protection Studies, found this problem is made worse by poor workforce planning. The need for child welfare services has gone up but the current workforce is ill-equipped and unable to respond.

Reform is urgently needed to reshape the system and its workforce towards more services that prevent problems emerging in the first place, rather than a system geared towards removal. Such reform would support children to remain safely with their families.

Read more:
The faulty child welfare system is the real issue behind our youth justice crisis

A prevention approach

Our study examined broad-ranging, publicly available data to investigate emerging trends, issues and needs in the child welfare workforce and the educational profile of the workforce.

We approached this research from a public health perspective, where the priority is prevention and early intervention.

We wanted to evaluate how ready this workforce is to implement principles outlined in the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, a guiding policy document agreed upon by state and federal governments at the 2009 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting.

These principles envision a system where services and key stakeholders – such as teachers, health workers and community service workers – are funded to work together with children and families to reduce vulnerability and prevent child abuse and neglect.

Research has also identified ways we can invest in supporting parents to address early issues that might otherwise become a child protection concern.

If early intervention approaches prove to be not enough, more intensive services exist to support more vulnerable families to reduce the risk of child abuse and neglect. Then, the formal state child protection response (sometimes known as the “tertiary tier” of the broader child welfare system) should only kick in if the supportive services are not able to manage or reduce the risk of child maltreatment.

Even when someone notifies a state child protection authority about a child’s safety, they and their family don’t always get the help they need. Safety concerns keep on being raised. Removal of children may be necessary in some instances. But removal often does not ensure the safety and well-being of children.

We need early, specialist support that is actually helpful for children and families, culturally appropriate, and meaningful. This is by far the most effective way to deal with child abuse and neglect and promote child safety and well-being, while minimising removals.

To achieve this goal, workforce reform is needed.

A question of resourcing

The workforce for the preventative and supportive services in the child protection system is poorly defined and resourced.

Many of these workers – teachers, early childhood educators, nurses, GPs – do not have the qualifications or skills needed to recognise and assess risk of harm and provide needed support.

These problems inherent with prevention and support increases the pressure on the child protection systems.

Most of the funding and resources are aimed towards the more severe end of the child protection systems, yet high levels of staff turnover continue, which negatively affect the quality and consistency of service.

Diversifying the workforce

Our analysis highlighted that workers in child protection systems are overloaded yet still must deal with complex situations. They often lack the training or skills and have limited experience to draw on.

The number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers, culturally diverse workers, and workers with disability does not align with the disproportionate representation of these groups within child protection systems.

Those that are in the child protection system tend not to be in leadership roles, and less likely to be making decisions.

Educational programs key to child welfare – such as social work, psychology and human services – are not meeting the increased demand for workers.

What would make a difference?

Investment priorities must shift. Funding needs to be aimed at preventative and supportive services for vulnerable children and their families, rather than at the part of the system that deals with removals. We must respond to people’s needs early and decrease the pressure on child protection systems.

The preventative child welfare workforce (including teachers, early childhood educators, nurses, GPs and other community service workers) needs to be better resourced and supported. These stakeholders must be able to develop the skills and knowledge necessary to identify and respond to the risk factors.

Better professional development for all workers in the child welfare sector is urgently needed.

The numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers, in support and child protection services needs to be increased in a way that recognises their knowledge, expertise and value in keeping children safe. More government funding and support for First-Nations led organisations like SNAICC (Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care) could potentially assist with this.

There is also a need for more culturally diverse workers and those with a disability.

Higher education providers and child welfare sectors must work together to plan for the continuing demand and future needs in child welfare services.

Read more:
First Nations children are still being removed at disproportionate rates. Cultural assumptions about parenting need to change

Erica Russ has prior experience working in child protection and have previously undertaken other state government funded research related to child protection. She is a member of the Australian Association of Social Workers. 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. The researchers would like to acknowledge seed funding for this project provided by the University of New England, Faculty of Medicine and Health and New England Institute of Healthcare Research Collaborative Research Scheme.

Bob Lonne is am a member of the Australian Association of Social Workers.

Daryl Higgins receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, a range of Australian, state, and territory governments, and non-government agencies. He is a member of the Australian Psychological Society.

Louise Morley has previous experience working in the child protection field and has previously undertaken other state government funded research related to child protection. She is a member of the Australian Association of Social Workers.

Maria Harries and Mark Driver 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. The workforce in the child protection system needs urgent reform – https://theconversation.com/the-workforce-in-the-child-protection-system-needs-urgent-reform-180950

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hazel, Senior Lecturer, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide

You’ve got an important meeting in the morning and your cat wakes you at 4am. Why? And what can you do to stop this happening again?

Although cats are evolved for night-time activity, during domestication they have adapted to human lifestyles.

Domestic cats tend to be most active early in the morning and at dusk, not in the middle of the night. They also change their activity cycles to fit in with their human housemates.

This means if you sleep at night, your cat should also be resting. And a lot of people do sleep with their cat. In a survey of women in the US, around 30% slept with at least one cat.

So why do some cats want to play in the wee hours?

The reason why your cat is waking you up will often help you understand how to stop them. Here are three reasons your cat might be waking you up and how to address the issue.

Read more:
Cool for cats: that spiny tongue does more than keep a cat well groomed

1. They’re hungry

This is among the most common reasons. Unfortunately, one of the first things a sleepy person will do is feed their cat. This rewards the behaviour and makes the cat more likely to repeat it.

To start addressing this problem, make sure your cat is getting enough to eat throughout the day. You can feed them a meal or a satisfying snack right before you go to bed.

If you usually feed your cat in the morning, you need to make sure your cat is not associating wake up time with breakfast time. Leave a gap between when you get out of bed and when you feed kitty breakfast – aim for at least half an hour.

You can also train your cat to associate something else with getting fed, such as saying “breakfast time!”.

2. They don’t have a routine

Cats love predictability.

Keeping a regular routine has even been associated with reduced stress levels in cats.

To maintain a routine, keep mealtimes, play times and any grooming close to the same time each day.

Empty litter at regular, predictable intervals (dirty or disturbed litter may also be a reason your cat is waking you up). Try not to move litter trays, bowls or scratch posts around unless needed.

If something changes in their environment – you go on holiday, move furniture or have a new house guest or pet – your cat may return to early morning wake up calls. This is typical for cats.

Keep the routine as consistent as you can and eventually your cat will settle in to the new normal.

3. They’re not using up their energy throughout the day

It’s common knowledge cats love to sleep, but they also love to play and move their bodies just like us.

It’s important to give your cat access to a variety of toys and resources around the house to interact with, especially if you’re not home often.

Scratch posts offer cats a place to climb and stretch. Balls, soft and motorised toys give them an opportunity to play and exercise.

When you are home, engage your cat with an interactive toy (like a cat wand) or play a game of chase around the house. You can even try making up a game your cat will enjoy.

Cats get bored easily. Keep variety in your play times. And don’t play with your cat in the hour before you want to go to bed. Ideally, a play session before you go out and once you get home should help to keep your kitty quiet overnight.

Help! I’ve made these changes and my cat still woke me up!

Your cat might still wake you up for some time. This behaviour may even get worse in the short term as your cat adjusts. The key is to ignore your cat’s behaviour at night or in the early morning. Don’t get up and, if you can, don’t interact with your cat when they wake you.

If you’ve tried everything and your cat still wakes you up, it’s time to go to see your veterinarian. There might be a health reason causing the behaviour.

Hopefully, you and your cat can come to an agreement about when it’s sleep time and when it’s wake-up time. It is definitely possible to love your cat and still get your sleep.

Read more:
Five things to consider before getting a feline companion

Susan Hazel is affiliated with the Dog & Cat Management Board of South Australia and the RSPCA South Australia.

Julia Henning 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. Why does my cat wake me up so early, and what can I do about it? – https://theconversation.com/why-does-my-cat-wake-me-up-so-early-and-what-can-i-do-about-it-180959

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Wynn, Lead Economist, CSIRO Futures, CSIRO

As demand for alternative protein sources grows, Australians are increasingly looking for options that are healthy, sustainable and ethically made.

At CSIRO, we have produced a “protein roadmap” to guide investments in a diverse range of new products and ingredients. We believe plant-based patties, lab-made meat and insects are just some of the foods set to fill Australian fridges by 2030.

The roadmap sketches out the foundations for a future with greater choice for consumers, and better outcomes for Australian producers across all types of protein.

Changing protein preferences

Australia is one of the world’s largest per-capita beef consumers, but there has been a steady decline in consumption over the past two decades.

The most common reason for eating less red meat is cost, followed by concerns related to health, the environment, and animal welfare.

At the same time, meat consumption among the middle class in countries such as China and Vietnam has been rising.

This shift in demand is creating an opportunity for protein producers to expand and diversify.

Read more:
Ultra-processed foods are trashing our health – and the planet

Producing plant-based protein locally

The plant protein industry is still small in Australia. However, it is ramping up rapidly.

The total number of plant-based protein products on grocery shelves has doubled over the past year to more than 200. Recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows demand for these products has increased by about 30% in the past two years.

Plant-based food products are made by processing various plant ingredients (such as wholegrains, legumes, beans, nuts and oilseeds) into food products, including breads, pasta, and alternatives to meat and dairy.

Lupins, chickpeas and lentils can be turned into plant-based burgers, while protein powders can be made from faba or mung beans.

Most plant-based products available now are either imported or made in Australia using imported ingredients, so there is plenty of room for Australian producers to enter the industry.

The story behind the steak

Meat will continue to be a staple in many people’s diets for years to come.

When we do eat meat, Australian consumers are increasingly asking questions about where their meat came from. On this front, “digital integrity” systems can be a useful solution.

These systems track everything from the origin of ingredients, to nutrition, sustainable packaging, fair trade and organic certifications. They also keep a record of associated labour conditions, carbon footprint, water use, chemical use, animal welfare consideration, and impacts to biodiversity and air quality.

One example is made by Sydney-based firm NanoTag Technology: a unique micro-dot matrix pattern printed on the packaging of meat products which, when scanned with a pocket reader, verifies the authenticity of the product. Buyers can see the product’s pack date, batch number and factory of origin.

Seafood is also an important source of healthy and low-fat protein. Demand is growing for local, inexpensive white-flesh fish such as barramundi and Murray cod.

While Australia produces 11,000 tonnes of white-flesh fish annually, it also imports almost ten times this amount to help meet annual demand.

Responding to this demand, the Australian aquaculture industry has ambitions to reach 50,000 tonnes of homegrown produce by 2030.

Fermented foods

Precision fermentation is another technology for creating protein-rich products and ingredients – potentially worth A$2.2 billion by 2030.

Traditional fermentation involves using microorganisms (such as bacteria and yeast) to create food including yoghurt, bread or tempeh.

In precision fermentation, you customise the microorganisms to create new products. The US-based Every Company, uses customised microorganism strains to create a chicken-free substitute for egg white. Similarly, Perfect Day has created a cow-free milk.

Man made meats

Still want to eat meat, but are concerned about animal welfare or environmental impacts? Cultivated or cell-based meat is biologically similar to the regular variety, but the animal cells are grown in a lab, not a farm.

Australian company Vow is making pork and chicken, as well as kangaroo, alpaca and water buffalo meat using cells from animals. These products are not yet commercially available, though chef Neil Perry did use some of them to create a menu in 2020.

Edible insects

Edible insects, such as crickets and mealworms, have been part of cuisines around the world for millennia, including Australian First Nations Peoples.

Insects have a high nutritional value, are rich in protein, omega-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, folic acid and vitamins B12, C and E.

Insect farming is also considered to have a low environmental footprint, and requires less land, water and energy.

Australian company Circle Harvest sells a range of edible insect products including pastas and chocolate brownie mixes enriched with cricket powder.

Protein is vital to our health. However, until now its production has placed strain on the health of most other ecosystems. CSIRO’s protein roadmap offers not only sustainability, but also more choice for consumers and opportunities for Australian producers.

Read more:
Emerging tech in the food, transport and energy sector can help counter the effects of climate change

Katherine Wynn works for the CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government.

Michelle Colgrave is affiliated with both CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government; and Edith Cowan University wherein she receives grant funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Plant-based patties, lab-grown meat and insects: how the protein industry is innovating to meet demand – https://theconversation.com/plant-based-patties-lab-grown-meat-and-insects-how-the-protein-industry-is-innovating-to-meet-demand-180859

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carol Johnson, Emerita Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Adelaide

This is the second in a two-part series on the major parties’ Treasury spokespeople. You can read Michelle Grattan’s profile of Josh Frydenberg here.

Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers decided it would be premature to stand for the Labor leadership after Bill Shorten’s 2019 election defeat. However, he is likely to be a serious candidate if Anthony Albanese loses the 2022 election. At the least, Chalmers has positioned himself to be a very capable senior minister in an Albanese government.

So who is Jim Chalmers?

He grew up in southern Brisbane and Logan City, in his current electorate of Rankin. He feels

part of all I have met there: the local parents and pensioners, cleaners and kitchen hands, businesses and battlers, tradies and truckies.

His mother Carol was a nurse and his father Graham a courier. A favourite school teacher remembers Chalmers as “always going to go into politics.”

Chalmers’ subsequent education suggests he was indeed aiming for a political career. He gained a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Communication from Griffith University, and a PhD in political science from the Australian National University.

Chalmers’ PhD on Paul Keating studied the sources and constraints of prime ministerial power. He argued Keating’s flaws included failing to build a good relationship with the media, and not engaging sufficiently with the concerns and aspirations of voters.

Chalmers had already begun working for the ALP before he completed his PhD. He went on to hold a variety of state and federal government advisory roles, including being former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan’s chief of staff.

Chalmers’ experiences in the Rudd and Gillard governments led to a book, Glory Daze, which defended Labor’s economic management of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) against critics, particularly the Murdoch press. After the Rudd government’s defeat, Chalmers co-authored a book with Mike Quigley on the economic and social policy implications of technological disruption, Changing Jobs: The Fair Go in the New Machine Age.

He is married to Laura Anderson, and they have three children.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Jim Chalmers on the budget Labor can’t oppose

What does Chalmers believe in?

Chalmers is therefore a somewhat unusual politician, more reflective and intellectual than most. However, he has also established himself as a very capable media performer with excellent communication skills. He is more personable, engaging and better at cutting through than his former boss, Wayne Swan.

But what does he stand for? Chalmers is a member of Labor’s right faction. In Glory Daze, he defined Labor as standing for intergenerational mobility, aspiration and the Fair Go, while emphasising the importance of sound economic management.

In many respects, those are still Chalmers’ values. However, there is one key difference. Acceptance of large deficits as a legitimate tool of economic management has grown since COVID-related stimulus spending. Labor increased government debt to fund stimulus packages during the GFC by significantly less than the Coalition has during COVID.

Nonetheless, Rudd
and Swan still emphasised the importance of getting back in the black, blaming massively falling government revenues for their failure to do so.

Chalmers now argues it is the quality not quantity of the government spend that is most important. Labor’s alternative budget should be assessed “not on whether it’s a little bit bigger or a little bit smaller than our opponents” but on “value for money”. He criticises the Morrison government for a history of incompetent expenditure, claiming it wasted billions on French submarines, consultants, unnecessary job keeper payments and electoral pork-barrelling.

He argues the budget deficit is best addressed by ending the Coalition’s wasteful spending and rorts, while using government expenditure to increase productivity and grow the economy. Investing in education and training, innovation and developing local business supply chains are central to this agenda. Meanwhile increased funding for childcare and health would have both social and economic benefits.

Chalmers emphasises the need for a future Labor government to work with business. He shares Anthony Albanese’s view that Bill Shorten’s targeting of the “big end of town” in the last election was a mistake.

Similarly, in line with his previous arguments, Chalmers prioritises encouraging “aspiration”. Shorten’s focus on combating increasing class inequality has been replaced by a focus on addressing the cost of living pressures suffered by “working families” who have experienced increasing prices and declining real wages.

Here, as elsewhere, Chalmers often draws on pre-Shorten Labor strategies. The term “working families” was widely used by Kevin Rudd in the 2007 election campaign. It can evoke class but is less alienating to business and conservative voters than emphasising economic inequality.

Clearly Chalmers sees the focus on cost of living pressures and aspiration as connecting with voters’ concerns in a way that he has long argued Labor needs to do.

Meanwhile, the emphasis on working with business is intended to shore up Labor’s reputation as good economic managers. It reflects a traditional Labor view, strongly reaffirmed by Anthony Albanese, that business and labour have common interests in a healthy, productive economy that generates employment.

Chalmers has repeatedly stressed that Labor is committed to securing “an economy and a society stronger after COVID than before.” He is attempting to sell a positive message of hope for the 2022 election campaign, while avoiding controversial policies that could unleash Coalition scare campaigns.

However, there are after-effects of the pandemic that may pose major challenges for Labor’s agenda, especially when combined with the economic fallout of international security issues.

Challenges ahead

There are good reasons for Labor to tackle wage stagnation and low-paid, precarious work. Nonetheless, Chalmers skates over a potential contradiction in Labor’s plans to both work closely with business and increase real wages.

Labor argues that it will pursue a Bob Hawke-style consensus with business. However, it conveniently overlooks that Hawke’s consensus was reinforced by an Accord process that substituted better government services and benefits for wage rises, eventually leading to real wage cuts.

Read more:
Australian politics explainer: the Prices and Incomes Accord

Hawke later admitted that a rationale for the Accord was that “employers didn’t have to pay as much”. Furthermore, even former Labor prime ministers Chifley and Whitlam attempted to restrain real wage increases in times of inflation.

An Albanese Labor government would fund wage rises in aged care. However, many rises would cost the private sector, including in other sectors of predominantly female employment where Chalmers supports substantial real wage increases.

Some far-sighted business people, in highly profitable industries, might accept that wage stagnation has damaged the economy by reducing consumption levels. Nonetheless, pandemic losses, combined with rising supply costs exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, have contributed to many sections of business being even more hesitant to raise their own workers’ wages now than would usually be the case.

Multiple business leaders and organisations have recently opposed wage rises, or argued for a substantial delay. These range from Restaurant and Catering Australia to the Master Grocers Australia and Timber Merchants Australia.

Meanwhile, the Masters Building Association is mounting a campaign against Labor’s proposed abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, arguing that it would unleash rogue building unions and “risk the economic recovery”.

Read more:
The story of ‘us’: there’s a great tale Labor could tell about how it would govern – it just needs to start telling it

Widespread business opposition can indeed give rise to perceptions Labor can’t manage the economy, with particular implications for voters employed in the private sector. Furthermore, Chalmers praises the opportunities technology provides, including for working from home.

However, increased working from home during the pandemic has also demonstrated that many tasks can be done remotely, thereby exacerbating existing trends towards electronic offshoring to lower wage countries.

Similarly, Labor’s and Chalmers’ much vaunted emphasis on education and training, including free TAFE, may no longer be the simple panacea it once was for improving standards of living. As machines become smarter, they replace not just unskilled jobs but many skilled ones as well.

In short, there can be downsides to the benefits technology can bring that Chalmers has arguably underestimated both in recent statements and in his co-authored book on jobs in the Machine Age.

There are also other potential problems with Labor’s heavy reliance on education and training. Albanese’s recent statement that “Labor’s historic task is to move more people into the middle-class” gels with Chalmers’ long-term focus on intergenerational mobility and aspiration.

While it is excellent to provide greater access to skills, training and equal opportunities, what about the traditional working class?

COVID provides lessons here too. There is some truth in the aphorism that during the pandemic the educated middle class often stayed safely working from home while members of the working class brought them things and kept essential services running.

Yet Labor rhetoric about aspiration all too often suggests a major solution to inequality lies in people leaving the working class. Consequently, what attracts “aspirationals”, risks leaving some traditional supporters feeling alienated and unappreciated.

Labor will also face a host of other economic and social challenges. Ruling out increasing taxes other than on multinationals will still leave major government revenue losses resulting from Howard and Morrison government tax cuts. Increasing revenues from commodities trade with China has temporarily helped the budget bottom line.

However, security concerns and declining trust have resulted in a decoupling of the Australian and Chinese economies. This is likely to worsen as China searches for other markets, with negative implications for the Australian economy.

Admittedly, Chalmers would find it difficult to acknowledge such complex challenges during a small-target election campaign that focuses on promising a positive future. And he may be willing to address at least some future challenges in interesting ways if Labor wins office.

His book Changing Jobs includes a long list of new policy proposals for dealing with the Machine Age. For example, Chalmers and Quigley argue a robot tax is worthy of careful consideration. An opinion piece co-authored with Andrew Charlton (an architect of Kevin Rudd’s stimulus policies since parachuted in as Labor candidate for Paramatta) argues for the possibility of “linking the tax and transfer system to ensure a minimum basic income for those who need it.”

A robot tax would encounter major business opposition and is ruled out in the near term by Chalmers’ rejection of new taxes. But Chalmers recently reaffirmed that a minimum basic income for those who need it would be among “the sorts of issues that a Labor government would look at” given medium and longer term agendas.

In short, Chalmers may turn out to be a far more innovative politician than his current cautious election rhetoric suggests. Meanwhile, he continues to affirm that Labor governments have historically been better economic managers than the Coalition.

Nonetheless, whoever wins government will face major economic and social challenges.

Carol Johnson has received past funding from the Australian Research Council for work on Australian Labor.

– ref. If Labor wins the election, he is set to become the next federal treasurer. So who is Jim Chalmers? – https://theconversation.com/if-labor-wins-the-election-he-is-set-to-become-the-next-federal-treasurer-so-who-is-jim-chalmers-180138

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Christoff, Senior Research Fellow and Associate Professor, Melbourne Climate Futures initiative, The University of Melbourne

As far as political debate goes, this federal election seems to be less about climate change than any in the past 15 years. Unlike in 2010, 2013 and 2016 – when governments were elected and leaders deposed over climate policy – this time there’s no brutal contest over the issue.

There are no calls for emissions trading schemes, no Greens cavalcade into Queensland’s coal-mining hinterland, and no Labor prevarication over the Adani coal mine. The election is shaping up as a contest over other issues – leadership integrity, crisis management, economic nous and the cost of living.

Even so, and although overshadowed by the COVID pandemic, the current term of government has been framed by extreme climate events – first the Black Summer bushfires and, more recently, floods.

In 2019, climate change determined how about 13% of Australians voted. And while it’s early days in the campaign, several polls suggest climate change remains a defining issue for voters this time around. If they’re right, the Coalition is in trouble.

Climate emergencies fuel climate anxiety

Public anxiety over future climate damage is growing. The Lowy Institute has found 60% of Australians now say global warming is a significant and pressing problem. The same poll showed 55% of Australians say the government’s energy policy should prioritise “reducing carbon emissions” – up eight points since 2019.

We can expect the climate vote to be driven by several factors. They include: personal experience of disaster and recovery, Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s leadership on the issue, the government’s performance in reducing emissions, power prices and energy security, and competing parties’ credibility and promises on climate action.

There is mixed evidence on how extreme weather affects voting intentions. For example, while some studies say it benefits parties with greener policies, others indicate voters prioritise economic security after a disaster.

But the Morrison government has also been accused of weak leadership during recent disasters and being too slow to deliver assistance afterwards. Such perceptions, particularly in disaster-hit areas, are likely to weigh heavily against the government.

The election, of course, will not be decided on the overall swing, but what happens in marginal seats and those where credible independent candidates – many of them with climate action high on their agendas – pose a real threat to incumbents.

Some 25 electorates are likely to determine the next government. The 2019 election was only narrowly won by the Coalition and it currently holds nine seats on a margin of less than 4%. Labor holds 14 marginal seats and independents hold two.

Seven of these seats were hard hit by the Black Summer fires and this year’s floods. Five are marginal seats held by the ALP – Dobell, Eden-Monaro, Macquarie and Gilmore in NSW, and Lilley in Queensland.

If the fires and floods do swing votes this election, they’re likely to secure Labor incumbents in these seats.

The other two – Page in NSW and Gippsland in Victoria – are safe Nationals seats and likely to remain so.

Independents campaigning on climate policy look set to challenge Liberal supremacy in three urban seats: Goldstein in Victoria, and Wentworth and North Sydney in NSW.

Meanwhile Zali Steggall, an incumbent climate independent, looks secure in Warringah.

A credibility problem

Scott Morrison has a climate credibility problem. Having defined himself while treasurer by brandishing a lump of coal in Parliament, as prime minister he’s been accused of lacking empathy for victims of climate disasters.

Morrison’s trip to Hawaii during the Black Summer fires continues to haunt his reputation. And given the ongoing sensitivities around his disaster responsiveness, his government’s assistance after the recent floods was surprisingly sluggish.

Australia’s low climate policy ambition and persistent refusal to increase its 2030 emissions target saw it branded a laggard at last year’s crucial United Nations climate summit in Glasgow.

The government has sought to claim credit for Australia’s success in reducing emissions from the energy sector. But most momentum derives from state and territory policies, and private investment – coupled with the dynamism and market competitiveness of the renewable energy sector itself.

And federal plans for a “gas-fired recovery” from the pandemic make no economic or ecological sense.

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

Promises, promises

The road to elections is paved with broken old promises and lit by bright new ones (see table below).

The crucial indicator is the short-term national emissions target. The Coalition is sticking with a 26-28% reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. Labor is aiming for a 43% cut in the same period. The Greens and independents want more, and would legislate their targets.

While the Coalition has no renewable energy target, Labor is promising renewables will comprise 82% of the national grid by 2030.

But how will they get there? This year’s federal budget – which barely mentioned climate change – outline the Coalition’s express commitments. It provides funding for liquified natural gas production, but no declining funding for renewable energy.

The budget also offers $12.3 billion for road infrastructure and $3.7 billion for rail next year. But there’s little for electric vehicles – crucial for cutting transport emissions and fuel costs.

Labor is promising $20 billion for powergrid upgrades and renewables, $200 million for solar banks and community batteries, and a discount scheme for electric cars.

Seeking to repair Australia’s international reputation, Labor is also offering to host a future United Nations climate conference, which traditionally serves to enhance the host nation’s domestic performance.

But tellingly, neither major party mentions fossil fuel exports – the overwhelming and growing contributor to Australia’s global carbon footprint.

What will the next term bring?

Obviously, we don’t yet know the persuasion of the next government – nor whether it will rely on support from minor parties and independents.

But we do know it will confront growing pressure for tougher climate targets and action – from the electorate, our international peers and the rising number of climate-related legal challenges.

As this month’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates, extreme events will inevitably intensify and require more, and better coordinated, responses.

Ever more forcefully, we can expect global warming to continue shaping Australia’s political landscape.

Read more:
The Morrison government is set to finally announce a 2050 net-zero commitment. Here’s a ‘to do’ list for each sector

Peter Christoff is a member of the not-for-profit group Environment Victoria, and was previously affiliated with the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Victorian Greens.

– ref. Climate policy in 2022 is no longer a political bin-fire – but it remains a smouldering issue for voters – https://theconversation.com/climate-policy-in-2022-is-no-longer-a-political-bin-fire-but-it-remains-a-smouldering-issue-for-voters-181058

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Downie, Associate Professor, Australian National University

Not so long ago, it was easy for public banks to fund new fossil fuel projects. But now, as the world faces a worsening climate crisis, the tide may be turning.

Case in point: after Traditional owners filed an injunction over a Santos gas development near the Tiwi islands, South Korea’s export credit agency announced it would reconsider its financial support.

“Environmental and legal risks” is one reason given by the Export-Import Bank of Korea (Kexim) for the delay in deciding on a loan of up to US$330 million for the project. The move could threaten its financial viability.

Public financial institutions are under renewed pressure to change lending practices after the world’s leading climate scientists strongly warned against any new fossil fuel infrastructure. In our region, public banks in China, Japan, and South Korea now face unprecedented scrutiny for their role in financing the climate crisis.

Not only that, but the Tiwi injunction has again shone a spotlight on the role played by export credit agencies like Kexim in pumping funds into new coal, gas and oil projects.

What are export credit agencies and why do they matter?

The Kexim loan was intended to go to the Korean energy group SK E&S, which had planned to export gas from the project to Asia. Without funding, there may be no project.

That’s why Kexim’s move is so important. While export credit agencies are not the only funders of oil, gas and coal infrastructure, and not the largest either, they have been instrumental in developing many of the world’s most carbon intensive sectors.

Read more:
Green lending: world’s biggest banks’ latest initiative at COP26 is a step backwards

How? By locking in fossil fuel energy systems, leveraging private finance by reducing risk premiums, and shaping international standards which influence private bank policies. In short, they have played a key role in enabling fossil fuel expansion.

For decades, these state supported agencies have gone under the radar. No longer. Scrutiny is increasing of their work borrowing from national treasuries or public capital markets to finance export-oriented fossil fuel projects.

That’s not to criticise all the work these agencies do. They’ve proven invaluable for nations like South Korea as they industrialised. By providing direct loans, insurance and guarantees to foreign buyers, they have helped improve the competitiveness of their exports.

Ending lending: why export credit agencies must fund clean alternatives

If the world is to achieve the rapid energy transition necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we will need a revolution in global finance. We have to drain funding from fossil fuels and pump it into clean energy.

Until recently, efforts to cut international public funding for fossil fuel projects have focused on multilateral development banks like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. In response, both have slowly started to shift their financing away from fossil fuels.

While that’s a positive step, bilateral funding bodies like export credit agencies are still stuck at square one. Research estimates these public banks are now financing fossil fuel projects more than the multilateral development banks. Between 2013 and 2015, for instance, these agencies financed oil and gas to the tune of US$32 billion a year. The worst offenders were Japan, Korea and the United States.

Australia’s equivalent – Export Finance Australia – is hardly blameless. Between 2009 and 2020, our agency loaned an estimated A$1.5 billion to new coal, oil and gas projects, dwarfing the funding it gave to renewable projects.

The pressure is mounting

As governments belatedly swing into action, it is likely we will see an end to the historical support given by these banks to highly polluting sectors. In turn, this will hinder corporate efforts to mobilise public and private finance alike.

That’s not to say there won’t be holdouts. At the Glasgow UN climate conference in late 2021, developed countries including the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom committed to ending public funding for “unabated fossil fuel energy”. Australia, Japan and South Korea were not among the signatories.

Read more:
Why banning financing for fossil fuel projects in Africa isn’t a climate solution

The Glasgow announcement came only a month after the OECD announced it would end export credit support for coal-fired power plants built without the ability to capture and store carbon dioxide.

While important, these steps are nowhere near enough. To date, only the Canadian export credit agency has committed to aligning funding with the goal of net zero by 2050. That means the lending policies of almost all of these agencies remain glaringly inconsistent with Paris Agreement goals and renewed warnings from climate scientists.

In a year when unprecedented floodwaters have taken lives and livelihoods up and down Australia’s east coast, it is time for governments to revise the mandates of their export credit agencies. They can be a force for good by helping to leverage billions of dollars into clean energy projects, rather than fossil fuel ones.

Without government action, it will be left to local communities like the traditional owners in the Northern Territory and environmental organisations to fight uphill battles against these taxpayer funded banks.

Christian Downie receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Tiwi Islands offshore gas fight shows public banks are under real pressure over fossil fuel funding – https://theconversation.com/tiwi-islands-offshore-gas-fight-shows-public-banks-are-under-real-pressure-over-fossil-fuel-funding-180956

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rod Tyers, Winthrop Professor of Economics, The University of Western Australia

If tensions between the Western world and China and Russia led to a split into two separate financial and trading systems, Australia would be among the countries most hurt.

We ran the numbers on this earlier this year for the West Australian Governor’s Strategic Foresight Dialogue. At the time the possibility of a new “bamboo curtain” with China, Russia and like-minded nations on one side, and the “West” led by the United States on the other, was academic.

It remains so. Nevertheless, it is worth reexamining what our model produced.

We modelled the short-term effects of an end to trade and investment flows across a curtain which leaves the Western economies on one side and China and the rest of the world on the other.

Read more:
Russian sanctions are biting harder than imagined, and it’ll get worse

Examining only the short-term effects of an end to trade and investment flows across such a curtain, we conservatively assumed:

• no associated military expenditures or losses

• exchange rate targeting within each group, with Western currencies pegged to US dollar and Eastern countries pegged to the Chinese Renminbi

• money wages, capital and government spending fixed in all countries

• employment, business rates of return and fiscal deficits allowed to adjust

• in all regions, the unemployed get 60% of the low-skill wage

Australia among the hardest hit

Proportionately, the negative effect on Australia would be larger than on the world as a whole, due to Australia’s relative affluence and dependence on trade.

The United States was the least affected in terms of GDP.

The relative resilience of the US is because it is less trade-dependent than other economies. It would receive an expanded share of the diminished Western investment pool.

Production would fall everywhere until production centres are relocated, resulting in mass unemployment and plunging returns on capital.

Our model suggests half a billion workers would lose their jobs worldwide, including one fifth of employed Australians.

The worth of financial assets would fall by one fifth on average, and by one quarter in Australia.

An end to trade across a bamboo curtain would hit Australia, since we export more resources to China than anywhere else and we import more goods from China than anywhere else.

Australia’s (mainly commodity) export prices would fall 6.9%, while Australia’s (mainly manufactured) import prices would climb, by as much as 13.2%.

The result would be a real decline in the value of Australia’s currency, which would be biggest against the US dollar (20%).

Australia’s export income would fall 55%, a loss almost as big as China’s.

Western Australia would be by far the worst affected Australian state, because it depends on exports for 61% of its gross state product, compared to 24% for Australia as a whole.

The 55% collapse in Australia’s export income predicted by the modelling would cause a collapse in Western Australia’s nominal gross state product by 34%, while Australia’s nominal GDP would fall by 17%.

Diversity, within the bloc

The scenario remains unlikely, but the best early defence against extremely large losses is greater economic diversity. Interestingly, this need not be diversity within the Australian economy, or within one state within it, but diversity within the entire Western bloc on Australia’s side of the potential curtain.

It is achievable with far less restructuring than would be needed to make all of Australia self-sufficient.

Nonetheless, to support the expanded investments required, Australia would have to quickly enhance its strengths in sophisticated manufacturing.

Read more:
Chief Scientist: science will drive a post-pandemic manufacturing boom

This needn’t happen within the state with the most to lose, which is Western Australia. Expanded manufacturing in Australia’s east could source the minerals, energy and agricultural inputs it needed from Australia’s west.

Of course, any support of manufacturing in Australia will require programs that avoid the import protection that held back Australian growth through the 1970s.

One idea would be tax reforms combined with tax-financed direct assistance. Finding other ideas will be challenging for Australia’s economists and policy makers, but we fear they could become very important.

The substance of this article was prepared for the WA Governor’s Strategic Foresight Dialogue: Possibilities for Western Australian Economic and Industrial Resilience in the Event of Regional Conflict, 23 February 2022

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. Australia would be among the biggest economic losers from a new cold war – https://theconversation.com/australia-would-be-among-the-biggest-economic-losers-from-a-new-cold-war-179102

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Young, Lecturer, Deakin University

When Allen & Unwin requested a sequel to J.R.R. Tolkien’s first novel The Hobbit (1937), they could not have known that it would be one of the best publishing decisions of the century, if not all time.

The Lord of the Rings has sold an enormous number of copies, and generated a vast and still-growing multimedia franchise, including the upcoming TV series The Rings of Power. Tolkien’s work and ideas also inspired countless readers and authors and is at the root of contemporary fantasy’s commercial and artistic success.

All of this took time, even after the 15 year the publishers waited for their sequel. The Lord of the Rings sold well in its original hardback edition and was positively reviewed. The poet W. H. Auden called it a “masterpiece” and said that in parts it was better than John Milton’s canonical poem Paradise Lost.

It became an international publishing phenomenon in the 1960s, with cheap paperback editions, first with an unauthorised version from Ace Books and then licensed ones from Ballantine Books and Houghton Mifflin.

Sparking a genre

These paperback editions sparked the commercial fantasy genre. According to the late David G. Hartwell, a leading figure in US fantasy and science fiction publishing, what the 1970s reading public wanted was “not more fantasy but more Tolkien”.

That desire was fulfilled with books like Terry Brooks’ Shannara series and Stephen R. Donaldson’s The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, as well as the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons.

Familiar fantasy conventions, with their roots in The Lord of the Rings, were established through this “genre-fication” of fantasy publishing: multi-book series about good vs evil, a pseudo-medieval time, a vaguely European setting and white, usually male, protagonists. They still persist, as in George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series and The Witcher franchise.

Contemporary fantasy is varied, has many sub-genres, and is often strikingly and deliberately different to The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien and his work are still a touchstone, however, particularly for so-called epic fantasy.

George R. R. Martin has been dubbed the “American Tolkien,” and critic Laura Miller explored the fantasy of David Anthony Durham and N. K. Jemisin in an article titled “If Tolkien Were Black”. Steven Erikson, the bestselling author of The Malazan Book of the Fallen series called his fiction “post-Tolkien”.

The impact of Tolkien’s ideas of fantasy

Tolkien’s ideas about fantasy literature are influential far beyond books (and other media) that were inspired, even indirectly, by The Lord of the Rings.

The great American fantasy and science fiction author Ursula K. le Guin wrote that his essay On Fairy Stories is “the best introductory guide I know to the domain of fantasy”. The ideas expressed in Tolkien’s essay validate fantasy as art and shape how many authors (and readers) understand what it means to write it.

For Tolkien, imagination and story-telling are central to being human. He wrote that “fantasy” is the purest and most “potent” kind of art because it requires subcreation of a “secondary world”. A secondary world is a different world to reality, and has “inner consistency” obeying its own rules.

If there is any one thing that the great variety of fantasy works have in common, it is that they need imagination, even if not taking place in what Tolkien would have called a secondary world. Even urban fantasy, like Neil Gaiman’s novels, where magic and mythological beings exist in a world like our reality, involves creation of a world that differs meaningfully from our own.

“Subcreation” is the author’s process of imagining and building a secondary world and the story (or stories) that take place in it.

Tolkien, a devout Christian, thought of this process as being an emulation of what he believed was God’s creation. Many fantasy authors don’t share his religious beliefs of course, but the notion of making a new world is a powerful one that gives a framework for the artistic, literary endeavour of writing in a genre that is sometimes dismissed as juvenile, repetitive and unimportant.

For Tolkien, human subcreation differed from God’s creation because humans had to work with what already existed, recombining elements to create the new world. One example of this sort of re-combination he used was imagining a world with a sun that is green, rather than the bright white of the real sun.

Even more important, for him, is dipping into what he called the “cauldron of story”, a hypothetical pot of soup where every major story ever told bubbles together for the author to draw ingredients from.

Elements of folk and fairy tales, mythologies and mythical figures like King Arthur, are familiar features in fantasy, all taken from the cauldron of story.

Lord of the Rings though the ages

Exact sales figures for The Lord of the Rings are impossible to get because it’s been sold in separate volumes as well as a single edition of all three books, and the many translations.

It is nonetheless clearly one of the best-selling books of all time with estimates putting sales at more than 150 million, and copies of The Hobbit at more than 100 million copies.

Peter Jackson’s film franchise has raked in more than US $5.8 billion. This puts it in the top 15 franchises of all time.

Still, Tolkien’s fiction and ideas have a contested and troubling legacy. The Lord of the Rings’ impact was partly due to it being taken up by 1960s hippie counter-culture, but it is also a favourite text of neo-Nazis, who embraced the fantasy depictions of race within the texts.

Fantasy, along with science fiction, has been a battle ground in the culture wars for more than a decade. The bitter reaction of some fans to casting actors of colour in Amazon’s The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power series shows that the “racialised” history of the series continues in the present. Such reactions have been “debunked”, and were resisted by other fans.

Discussions like this abound in modern criticism of Tolkien’s work – but they are only part of his legacy. It is Tolkien’s insight into the nature of fantasy itself and the way it demands that we imagine and desire a new world, that defines his work.

Helen Young is President of the Australia and New Zealand Association for Medieval and Early Modern Studies.

– ref. How Tolkien and Lord of the Rings inspired the commercial and artistic success of the fantasy fiction genre – https://theconversation.com/how-tolkien-and-lord-of-the-rings-inspired-the-commercial-and-artistic-success-of-the-fantasy-fiction-genre-170958

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

Labor has clung to its 53-47% two-party lead in the latest Newspoll, but Anthony Albanese’s ratings have taken a knock after his error-prone first week of the campaign.

While Labor would win on this vote, with a uniform swing, both government and opposition have low primary numbers, prompting speculation the chances of a hung parliament are increasing.

Labor was down a point on primaries to 36%, and the Coalition also fell a point, to 35%, since the poll last week.

The poll, published in Tuesday’s Australian, finds Albanese’s satisfaction has slumped to a record low of minus 14. This is the lowest for an opposition leader since Bill Shorten’s rating in May 2019, before the election. Albanese’s position has also worsened on the better PM measure.

The combined popular support for the Coalition and Labor is the lowest on record for an election campaign, reflecting the “pox on both houses” sentiment in the community.

Nearly three in ten (29%) voters are currently saying they would support a minor party or independent. The Greens vote rose 2 points to 12%. The Liberals are increasingly fearing the “teal” candidates challenging in some of their seats.

In his worst result since becoming leader, satisfaction with Albanese dropped 5 points to 37% and his dissatisfaction increased 6 points to 51%.

Satisfaction with Morrison rose one point to 43%; his dissatisfaction fell 2 points to 52% His net satisfaction went from last week’s minus 12 to minus 9.

Morrison widened his lead as better PM, thanks to a 2 point fall in Albanese’s support. Morrison is ahead 44-37%. The poll was conducted April 14-17.

The Newspoll comes after a Resolve poll, published in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age on Monday, showed a 4 point fall in Labor’s primary vote to 34%, while the Coalition rose from 34% to 35%. The poll suggested a possible hung parliament. Morrison led as preferred PM 38-30%.

On Monday both sides had scare campaigns running, as the campaign’s second week got underway.

Labor wants voters to believe Anne Ruston, Scott Morrison’s designated heath minister if he is re-elected, would assault Medicare.

The Prime Minister is claiming Anthony Albanese would open the flood gates to boat people.

Never mind there’s not credible evidence to back either claim. Both sides are looking for advantages from negativity.

It was no surprise when Ruston, currently social services minister, was announced as Greg Hunt’s replacement if the Coalition holds power. Labor had the files ready.

“Medicare in its current form is not sustainable into the future without some change being made,” Ruston said in March 2015.

In the budget of the year before, the Abbott government had proposed a payment, from which ultimately it had to retreat. Ruston said that “the government recognised that Australia was not ready for this particular reform”.

The quotes were quickly in journalists hands at the weekend.

On the ABC on Monday morning Ruston faffed about a bit when pressed for guarantees of no cuts. Morrison later swept up, telling a news conference Ruston “said yesterday there wouldn’t be any cuts and I would repeat that today”.

Labor is fondly remembering its successful “Medicare” campaign in the 2016 election, when the opposition claimed the Turnbull government planned to privatise Medicare.

This was based on that government considering privatising the delivery of various government payments.

Labor’s Mediscare was potent.

It’s unlikely Labor can get as far by mining Ruston’s historical quotes. In 2016 Labor was exploiting, albeit misrepresenting, something that was actually being considered. In 2022, it is recycling old statements.

On the other side, Morrison is being shameless as he seizes on Anthony Albanese’s looseness about Labor’s policy on borders, and the policy itself.

Albanese last week said he supported turnbacks, which meant offshore processing wouldn’t be necessary. He did the clean up quickly – Labor still supports offshore processing.

At the weekend he had another fluff, about Labor’s policy on temporary protection visas, saying first it supported them then clarifying that it didn’t. He said he had heard only half the question.

All this was grist for Morrison, who can chew on meagre bones.

“When Labor abolished temporary protection visas in 2008, the armada of people smugglers boats came to Australia,” Morrison told a news conference while campaigning in Perth.

On turnbacks, Morrison went back to 2015, coincidentally the same year as the Ruston quotes.

“Anthony Albanese said he couldn’t ask someone to do something he wouldn’t do himself. Now it’s fine for people to say they agree with it many years after the fact. But when it matters, when people were dying at sea, Anthony Albanese was one of the most vocal critics of the government’s border protection policies. He was wrong then, and he is still wrong.”

In 2015 the ALP national conference changed the party’s position so Bill Shorten could go to the next election with a policy for turnbacks.

Albanese, who opposed the switch, said at the time: “I couldn’t ask someone else to do something that I couldn’t see myself doing.

“If people were in a boat including families and children, I myself couldn’t turn that around.”

It’s true that Albanese has done a dramatic U-turn on turnbacks. It’s equally true that if Labor was in government his current position, not his former one, would be the policy his government implemented.

After Albanese’s major problem on numbers last week, there is a big “mistake monitor” on the campaign trail. On Monday, Morrison had to correct himself, after declaring the JobSeeker income support was $46 a week (instead of a day).

Meanwhile, the divisive row continues within the NSW Liberals over Morrison’s controversial pick for Warringah, Katherine Deves, who has a trail of offensive anti trans posts (for which she has apologised).

Many in the party want her to step down, fearing she will hurt the vote in Wentworth and North Sydney where Liberals face “teal” independents. Local Liberals have abandoned any hope of dislodging independent Zali Steggall in Warringah.

News.com.au reported Deves, in a letter to supporters, had dug in, saying “I have been bullied in the most vile way and received death threats. I’m not going anywhere, as the Prime Minister said yesterday.”

It also reports the president of the Neutral Bay branch in the electorate, Simon Moore, had emailed the party’s state president, saying he hopes Deves could be “persuaded to stand aside for the good of the party”.

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

– ref. View from the Hill: Labor holds 53-47% lead but Albanese takes a hit in Newspoll – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-labor-holds-53-47-lead-but-albanese-takes-a-hit-in-newspoll-181443

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

This is the first in a two-part series on the major parties’ Treasury spokespeople. You can read Carol Johnson’s profile of Jim Chalmers here.

When Josh Frydenberg was studying law at Monash University, he’d tell fellow students he wanted to go into politics and hopefully one day might be prime minister.

“He would say it in a jovial fashion, not in an arrogant way,” remembers one student from the time. “He’d say [to someone] ‘you can be in my cabinet’”.

The story is instructive: Frydenberg’s intensely ambitious nature was forged early, and so was his personal and political style.

“Unlike the rest of us, he was always a bit more careful of how he conducted himself.” He’s not remembered for excessive partying or drinking. “This was quite possibly because of his aspirations, but also because of the example of his parents and others in the [Jewish] community”.

There was something else too, that went to Frydenberg’s first ambition. He was still consumed by his tennis obsession, even though he’d given up his dream of becoming a “pro” after a year’s full-time try-out after he left school.

Discipline is a cornerstone in Frydenberg’s life. As a school boy, Frydenberg recalls, “I wouldn’t go out with my school friends”. His tennis coach, Peter Geraerts, “would tell me to run down Toorak Road, in front of my friends, to see what I had to give up” for a tennis career. “He was always prepared to put the hard training in – mentally and physically,” says Geraerts, who started coaching Frydenberg at age 12 or 13, and is still in contact.

The ex-student quoted above also keeps in touch. “I’ve always found him someone you can have a very robust conversation with and he will listen to different perspectives – and on occasion he would change his perspective after listening.”

As treasurer and deputy Liberal leader, Frydenberg is in sight of the prime ministership. But, while he may sooner or later clinch the prize, politics being politics means it could equally turn into a mirage.

So far, the diligent, careful aspirant has had a dream run. That might seem an odd observation, given the huge challenges of the pandemic. Yet the successful economic response to COVID, based on solid Treasury advice, means Frydenberg has been able to boast, in this election campaign, a set of enviable economic numbers, including unemployment at 4%.

It’s not a policy place Frydenberg ever thought he’d be in. He declared in his maiden speech:

We need to limit the government. Our government is too big. […] my goal is to ensure that government learns to live within its means. […] Less dependence on government makes for a better Australia.

In his early days as treasurer, the measure of his success was set to be returning the budget to surplus, a target he said unequivocally he would achieve, but then never did. Reaching budget balance was a far as he got, before COVID turned the economy and the budget pear-shaped.

Although Frydenberg has delivered four budgets (including three in 18 months), independent economist Saul Eslake sees him as a work in progress.

A really good treasurer does three things, Eslake says – makes good policy decisions, is able persuade the public of the wisdom of them, and “occasionally argues for policy changes that are good for the economy, but might cost votes”. He gives Frydenberg a tick on the first two (though not unqualified), but says he is “yet to establish himself as a reformist treasurer”.

“He’s the best treasurer in the past decade – which is not setting the bar very high. But he’s not in Keating or Costello’s league,” Eslake says. “If he gets another three years as treasurer, he may have the opportunity to improve his ranking on point three. He’s so far barely disturbed the scoring on that.”

Warwick McKibbin, professor of economics and public policy at the Australian National University, says Frydenberg has done a good job during the COVID crisis. “He has a very good memory and he’s good with numbers. He can filter good arguments from bad arguments.”

But “he doesn’t stick his neck out very far. He’s adventurous in asking interesting questions privately, but not willing to push it too far, because he’s trying to keep a political position.

“He has the potential to understand why you want to reform – as leader it would depend on the numbers. His decisions appear to be politically based.”

Some reforms have been made, including changes to insolvency arrangements, taking on the tech giants to get them to pay for the news they use, an overhaul of foreign investment arrangements, and more transparency in superannuation. But he hasn’t confronted the big tax and other reform questions on the economists’ agendas.

Asked whether he thinks big reform is still possible, Frydenberg says: “Of course it’s possible. You can’t underestimate how all-consuming the pandemic has been. [In future] “I think there will be an appetite for [reform]”, although he adds, “I don’t buy into the theory we haven’t reformed”.

Read more:
View from The Hill: an election fought on the political low ground

Frydenberg entered parliament for the seat of Kooyong (once held by Robert Menzies) in 2010, after one preselection rebuff but a model preparation for a future high-flying Liberal.

He’d been to Oxford and Harvard, worked in banking and been a staffer in the Howard government to Attorney-General Daryl Williams, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, and the prime minister himself. Both Downer and Howard became major influences on him. He hadn’t been involved in partisan politics at university – he did win a big battle for president of the law students society – but joined the Liberal Party while working for Williams.

The most intense “networker” imaginable – even Morrison has quipped publicly about this – Frydenberg had already an extensive contact list by the time he arrived in the House of Representatives.

Some veteran Liberals quickly marked him out for higher things. Amanda Vanstone, who’d been a minister in the Howard government, attended a Frydenberg fundraiser with Margaret Guilfoyle, a Liberal icon who’d been finance minister in the Fraser government. “I can’t remember her exact words but she effectively said, this guy is part of our future,” Vanstone recalls.

Tony Abbott was opposition leader when Frydenberg was elected, and the newcomer was impatient as he looked for promotion; in the Abbott government he was made parliamentary secretary to the prime minister and later assistant treasurer.

His first real test came in Malcolm Turnbull’s second ministry, after the 2016 election. Frydenberg (minister for resources, energy and northern Australia in the first Turnbull ministry) became minister for the environment and energy, as Turnbull was trying to shift a resistant Coalition towards a better response on climate change and emissions reduction.

Despite all efforts, including solid work by Frydenberg, the exercise ended in political disaster for Turnbull, becoming a major factor in his overthrow.

In the fall of Abbott and then of Turnbull, Frydenberg displayed one quality his colleagues and friends recognise – he’s very loyal. One of Frydenberg’s best friends, fellow Victorian Greg Hunt, jumped to Peter Dutton when Dutton challenged Turnbull in 2018.

Frydenberg resisted any such temptation, and was rewarded. He was approached by colleagues to run for deputy – making for a difficult conversation when he had to tell Hunt he was opposing him for that position – and won overwhelmingly in the first ballot after Scott Morrison became leader.

That he’s not a troublemaker helped Morrison when internal criticism of the PM grew in recent months. In a Morgan poll in February, Frydenberg was preferred as Liberal leader by 38.5%, Morrison by 31% and Peter Dutton by 12.5%. Among women, Frydenberg led Morrison 41-29%.

In every election campaign, the treasurer has a big job, especially in a Coalition government, which traditionally wants economic credibility to be centre stage. This time, Frydenberg is particularly stretched. He is doing much heavy lifting in “teal” seats where Liberals are under challenge from high profile, well-funded independents and Morrison is a negative. And he is watching his back against a hightly-organised “teal” campaign in his own seat, which is on a 6.4% margin.

On the Easter weekend, Morrison and Frydenberg locked in a bear hug outside a synagogue in Melbourne, an image that mightn’t go down so well in Kooyong, given Morrison’s poor personal popularity.

Frydenberg was classed as a conservative in earlier years but seems to have moved to a more centrist position. In 2015, he declared he had changed his stance on marriage equality.

Importantly, his conservatism has always been interlaced with a humanitarian streak derived from the experiences of his family. His maternal grandparents and their infant daughter, his mother Erica, were interned in the Budapest ghetto. Many relatives died in the Holocaust.

Those who know the family well speak of them as warm, supportive and generous, and say his father Harry, a surgeon, and his mother, a psychologist have been crucial in forging Frydenberg’s values.

In his preparation for the political life Zelman Cowen, Australia’s second Jewish governor-general, was crucial. For years Frydenberg visited Cowen for breakfast on Saturday and Sunday. He sang to Cowen, an opera lover, on the night he died in 2011, regularly took flowers to his widow Anna, and has sworn the oath to his various political offices on the Hebrew Bible Cowen gave him. Frydenberg says:

Zelman was always about integrity, intellectual curiosity. He had a guiding light. He really put me through my paces.

His Jewish identity and heritage are woven through Frydenberg’s persona. Besides Cowen, some of his important mentors were Jewish. He chose Monash law school, the favoured choice of Jewish students, over the more prestigious Melbourne University.

A friend from university days and later, Melbourne businessman Duncan Murray says, “His Judaism is part of who he is and part of his brand. He has not shirked from being proud of it.” Frydenberg says: “What my Judaism has instilled in me is a love of family, respect for tradition and learning, and of course the importance of faith”.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Josh Frydenberg is optimistic about wage growth

If Frydenberg reached the top, he would be Australia’s first Jewish prime minister.

If the government loses, the contest for opposition leader would presumably be between Frydenberg and Dutton. Judging now, Frydenberg would start favourite against Dutton, who is from the hard right. Frydenberg showed in winning the deputyship that he’s a good harvester of votes within the party. All that networking doesn’t go astray.

But the route of opposition leader is not the optimal path for him. He does not excel at negative campaigning in the way Abbott did, or Dutton does. Perhaps it goes back to that willingness to see another side of things, or a lack of natural aggression.

Also, the first leader after a defeat does not necessarily get to be the one who takes their side to victory. Then again, it would also depend on how close the election result was.

From Frydenberg’s perspective, the best way to the prime ministership would be to assume it in government some time in the next term. That scenario would of course be full of assumptions. It would also mean Frydenberg PM would be asking for a fifth Coalition term at the following election. It would be a fresh face on a wrinkled body.

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. He’s the treasurer who may become the next leader of the Liberal Party. So how high can Josh Frydenberg fly? – https://theconversation.com/hes-the-treasurer-who-may-become-the-next-leader-of-the-liberal-party-so-how-high-can-josh-frydenberg-fly-181429

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

Scott Morrison and NSW treasurer and leading moderate Matt Kean are publicly at loggerheads over the future of the prime minister’s controversial captain’s pick for the seat of Warringah.

Kean has declared Katherine Deves, who made offensive comments on social media about transgender people, should be disendorsed – a view shared by a number of other prominent Liberals.

But Morrison said on Saturday he would not join the “pile on”.

“I don’t share Matt’s view. I share Tony Abbott’s view. I’m not joining that pile on,” he told reporters.

Abbott, who lost Warringah to independent Zali Steggall in 2019, condemned the “pile on from people who claim to be supporters of women’s rights”.

Abbott told the Sydney Morning Herald Deves was “a tough, brave person who’s standing up for the rights of women and girls, for fairness in sport”.

The Deves issue exploded after news.com.au revealed her offensive social media posts, which included referring to transgender children being “surgically mutilated and sterilised”. She also said she was “triggered” by the rainbow pride flag.

The posts had been deleted.

After they were reported, she apologised for using language that was “not acceptable”.

Kean said on Twitter:“There is no place in a mainstream political party for bigotry. Coming out as Trans would be hugely challenging, especially for kids, and political leaders should be condemning the persecution of people based on their gender, not participating in it.”

He told the media: “She should be disendorsed”. .

Deves was one of a batch of NSW candidates chosen at the last minute by a committee headed by Morrison. He was particularly anxious to find women candidates.

But now Deves has become not just a drag on the vote in Warringah – which the Liberals were not expected to win from Steggall anyway – but a problem more widely.

Some Liberal sources say that if Deves is not removed, this could harm the Liberal vote in North Sydney and Wentworth, where there are high profile “teal” candidates. The Liberal MPs in these seats, Trent Zimmerman and Dave Sharma respectively, crossed the floor as part of a Liberal backbench revolt to protect gay and trans children.

There are also fears within the party that more damaging material about Deves might emerge.

Deves is a strong campaigner for banning transgender women from women’s sport. Morrison some days ago praised her for her activism on women’s sport but after the social media posts were revealed he said he had not been aware of her other comments.

Morrison on Saturday said Deves had principally been talking about ensuring fairness in sport and standing up for women and girls in sport. “And she has learnt from her experiences about how she’s sought to deal with this issue in the past.

“And I have no doubt that she’ll pursue these issues in a more sensitive way, a more respectful way in the future.”

In an email that’s had wide distribution in the Liberal party, Walter Villatora, a branch president in Warringah, has written: “The view of many experienced members is that we would suffer less of a loss without a candidate than a candidate that has brought the party into disrepute to this extent. Steggall and the media will not let this go”.

Liberal sources said that before Deves was chosen it was known within the party that she was a “single issue” candidate and had made some provocative comments.

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. Morrison defends controversial Warringah candidate as push to oust her strengthens – https://theconversation.com/morrison-defends-controversial-warringah-candidate-as-push-to-oust-her-strengthens-181421

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

“Soft” voters who took part in focus groups in the Sydney seat of Wentworth this week were probably speaking for a vast number of Australians when they vented their disgruntlement with the two leaders who are fighting out this election.

These voters didn’t like Scott Morrison one bit. But they couldn’t think of much positive to say about Anthony Albanese.

They do have another course open to them in this eastern suburbs seat. A high profile independent, Allegra Spender, is the main challenger to Liberal incumbent Dave Sharma, who won the seat in 2019 from another independent, Kerryn Phelps.

But going down the Spender route was also raising questions for the undecideds.

In our second report on The Wentworth Project, sponsored by the University of Canberra’s Centre for Change Governance and The Conversation, we bring the results of the focus group research conducted by Landscape Research, on April 11 and 12, immediately after Morrison called the May 21 election.

Two groups, totalling 15 electors aged 26-68 (including a younger and an older group), were comprised of “soft” voters who hadn’t yet made up their minds who they’d vote for or who were considering switching their vote.

Focus group research is designed to tap into attitudes and is not predictive.

An earlier poll of 1036 Wentworth voters conducted March 19-21 found Morrison unpopular, Albanese as preferred PM and climate change topping the issues people said would influence their vote. The focus groups dug deeper.

Participants excoriated Morrison personally – although notably many credited the government for its management of the economy, national security and the pandemic.

“I don’t believe a word of what he says,” declared a 46-year-old woman from Paddington. Distrust was a common theme. “The biggest thing for me […] is him not fulfilling the election promise on the integrity commission (male, 34). “I don’t feel as if I can trust him when I hear him” (male, 30). “He’s too late to the party on so many things” (male, 64).

Specific criticisms were raised about how Morrison speaks about women, the way the religious discrimination bill was handled, and apparent partisanship in the initial allocation of funding after the northern NSW floods.

Older soft voters were enthusiastic about the suggestion of a leadership change to treasurer and Liberal deputy Josh Frydenberg. Unsurprisingly, Morrison is not campaigning in Wentworth; Frydenberg is.

For his part, Albanese is seen largely as a career politician, who lacks policy. Lingering concerns were expressed about his ties to the left and the unions. His lapse on the campaign’s first day, when he didn’t know the unemployment and cash rates, had been noted.

There was disappointment (not prompted but volunteered) from several women about his response to the allegations the late senator Kimberley Kitching had been bullied by female colleagues. (Albanese refused to call an inquiry.)

“I don’t trust Morrison but I certainly don’t trust Albanese [..] the fact that he won’t even look into [the Kitching matter] worries me. What are you hiding?” said a 48-year-old single mother and part-time receptionist from North Bondi.

Albanese’s small target strategy “inspires fear of what he’s going to be like and if he has some crazy ideas that he’s going to show after he gets elected” (female, 46). “He’s not very clear communicating [his agenda] at the moment, like it seems very opaque. […] That just makes me nervous that either he doesn’t know or it’s not good” (female, 39).

With substantial negativity around both leaders, when pressed for a conclusion, for these soft voters it is a case of deciding who they dislike less. Nine opted for Albanese while six preferred Morrison, as the most trusted to lead the country.

Despite their disillusionment with the country’s leaders, these soft voters from this affluent electorate were more likely to feel Australia was headed in the right direction rather than the wrong one. They pointed to the strong economy, low unemployment, infrastructure development, quality of life, and better performance compared to most countries in handling COVID.

But those who felt the country was going the wrong way highlighted the erosion of the home ownership dream, short-termism and lack of vision in political leadership, lack of transparency and signs of corruption in public office, a decline in educational standards and aged care failures.

Climate change topped the list when Wentworth voters were asked in the March poll which of several issues would have most influence on their vote. The focus group participants pointed to increasing natural disasters, not enough effort to persuade international big emitters to curb their ways and the need for more support for renewable energy and other carbon reduction technologies such as electric cars.

“We’ve had so many natural disasters in a very short time. It’s very scary,” said a 61-year-old retired female health practitioner from North Bondi.

“I’d really like to see a significant boost in infrastructure to support electric vehicles. I just don’t understand why Australia is dragging on that so badly” (male, 57). “We don’t seem to be pulling our weight in terms of changing the world perspective on climate change,” (male, 64).

But a 46-year-old mother of three felt too much emphasis was being placed on climate change and that it was harmful to the mental health of young people who were worried about the future. “In Australia, we have such a minuscule contribution to worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.[…] I wonder why we’re not talking about climate change resilience rather than net zero,” she said.

A broad range of issues was brought out as requiring addressing: energy security and alternatives to fossil fuels (including nuclear energy), national debt, defence and national security, corruption, unemployment, housing affordability, the cost of living, inflation, child care, health, aged care, education, the COVID response, and immigration.

But participants struggled to think of federally-related issues that needed to be addressed in Wentworth. When pressed, they pointed to housing affordability, job security, local employment, and aged care.

At the grass roots level, views about Sharma range from “bland” to being seen as a good local member. There’s a sense he’s been able to be all things to all people. But among these soft voters there’s a feeling of uncertainty about what he stands for, especially given that as a moderate he’s sought to distance himself from the right on issues such as climate change and the rights of transgender people (he was one of the Liberals who crossed the floor over trans rights on the religious discrimination legislation).

“He is strikingly unknown to me,” said a young fraud analyst from Rose Bay.

“He says what he thinks his constituents want to hear. I don’t know that you really can figure out who Dave Sharma really is (female, 48). “He takes feedback and seems to act on it. But I don’t think he’s been very effective when it comes to the crunch at the top level. So, even though he may disagree with things that the Liberal Party stands for, he doesn’t really enable any change” (female, 51). “Good local member […] somebody who will stand up and have a different opinion” (male, 62).

A 61-year-old woman who identifies herself as Jewish got to the crux of the problem faced by some voters. “I like Dave Sharma. I like the fact that he’s experienced in a lot of areas. [ …] And he is pro-Israel. If it was just a matter of voting for him, I would, but unfortunately he comes attached to Scott Morrison”.

Spender, despite her eastern suburbs credentials and her Liberal family background (both her father and her grandfather were in the federal parliament), is still not well known. Her appeal is mainly that she is seen at her core as a “Liberal” who is running on more moderate policies. But her non-committal position on preferences and who she’d support in parliament raises questions.

“I think she sounds to me like she’s a one-issue politician […] I also am very suspicious of her actual leanings, because I don’t like that all these independents are actually funded by one organisation. I just think that’s a bit dodgy,” said a university worker from Queen’s Park. “The fact that she hasn’t been upfront straightaway saying who her preferences are going to – that to me is the major concern” (female, 61.)

“I just think of her being more like a moderate Liberal but outside the party. She seems to have the same beliefs,” (male, 52). “She definitely seems very passionate about climate and improving integrity” (female, 51).

While not at all predictive, on a two-candidate Sharma versus Spender basis, in the younger group three were leaning towards Sharma and four towards Spender. The older group was equally divided, four for each.

Sharma’s support is taking a knock from Morrison’s unpopularity and the grievances against the government. “At this stage [I’m] leaning towards Dave Sharma, although I have to say I’m struggling with the leadership and Morrison,” said a retired corporate property manager from Clovelly. Sharma is being helped by the Liberals’ traditional reputation on the economy and the current good numbers backing that up.

Spender is seen as a viable alternative for disenchanted Liberal voters as well as appealing to swing voters. Liberal Democrat candidate Daniel Lewkovitz, CEO of Australian security and life safety firm Calamity, is also viewed as an alternative by some disaffected Liberals.

We will check in on how our soft voters are seeing things later in the campaign.

CAMPAIGN UPDATE

The opposition has announced a Labor government would legislate for an anti-corruption commission by the end of this year.

After Scott Morrison made it clear this week he will not alter his model for an integrity body and would only introduce legislation if Labor supported it, Anthony Albanese has accelerated Labor’s plans.

Previously Labor was committed to bringing in the commission in its first term.

The government’s model has been widely criticised for a lack of teeth and other flaws.

Albanese said: “A National Anti-Corruption Commission would be one of the first priorities of a government I lead.

“Mr Morrison has delayed and obfuscated for over three years – and then this week it became clear he has absolutely no intention of honouring his promise to deliver a National Anti-Corruption Commission at all. So the question for Mr Morrison is – why do you fear an anti-corruption commission? What is it you’re afraid they will find?”

Meanwhile Western Australian Liberal senator Ben Small has resigned from the Senate after finding he had New Zealand citizenship. At the time of Small’s birth his mother was an Australian citizen and his father, who was born in New Zealand, was a permanent resident.

He said on Friday that he had now renounced “any New Zealand citizenship rights” and he would contest the election.

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. The Wentworth Project: ‘Soft’ voters dislike Morrison but hesitate about Albanese – https://theconversation.com/the-wentworth-project-soft-voters-dislike-morrison-but-hesitate-about-albanese-181351