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

The opposition is criticising the government’s “giveaway” budget but, predictably, with the election close, is not opposing its cost of living package, which includes a temporary cut in full excise and billions of dollars for low and middle income taxpayers, pensioners and welfare recipients.

Jim Chalmers is shadow treasurer, and he tells this podcast, “It’s a vote seeker budget in the sense that it’s got a shelf life of six or seven weeks.

“The government is temperamentally incapable of seeing beyond the election, and that’s the difference [with Labor]. I think there was a real appetite in the community for something that said, ‘we’ve been through a lot together. And what does the future look like?’”

Chalmers argues voters will “see through it in the same way they see through the prime minister”.

Like the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, Chalmers rules out extending the petrol excise cut beyond its September expiry date.

“I’ve said, to be upfront to the Australian people, it’s difficult to see a government of either political persuasion being able to afford to extend that excise relief forever. We’re just being upfront about it because we believe in being responsible with the people’s money.”

He dodges when asked about a Labor government’s response, after the budget didn’t renew the tax offset for low and middle income earners. But the signal is that Labor would not seek to restore it.

“We don’t want to pre-empt decisions that a future government may take,” he says.

“The reality is this government is going to the election with the worst set of books that any government has ever taken to an election in Australia. There’s not room in our alternative budget, even for all of the good ideas. And so we’ve got to prioritise and sequence and make sure that whatever we do is delivering maximum bang for buck.

“This is the inheritance if government changed hands and so my responsibility if I was the treasurer […] is to weigh up all of those pressures to implement our election commitments.”

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Jim Chalmers on the budget Labor can’t oppose – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-jim-chalmers-on-the-budget-labor-cant-oppose-180329

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter J. Dean, Chair of Defence Studies and Director, UWA Defence and Security Institute, The University of Western Australia

The Morrison government has been signalling for some time that it wants the 2022 federal election to be a so-called “khaki election”: one big on defence and national security.

So what was in the budget to support this aim?

The big funding announcement on budget night was an additional A$9.9 billion over ten years for the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) for offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. That will mean a doubling of ASD’s budget over the next few years.

Interestingly, 85% of ASD’s funding will come from defence funding – specifically, out of Defence’s Integrated Investment Program (IIP) or its capability acquisitions. This is an interesting offset, and points to a freeing up of funding in the IIP that may well be due to the cancellation of the French-designed attack class submarine program.

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

At the moment, defence has no contract for a new submarine. Under the “AUKUS” agreement with the United States and United Kingdom, the 18-month consultation phase is still ongoing. The budget papers note that “the costs of [this] consultation will be met from within the existing Defence budget”.

The focus on cyber is a sage investment from the government. It comes off the back of the launch of ASD’s new cyber and foreign intelligence facility on March 22, and Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s announcement of a cyber and critical technology centre inside our peak intelligence assessment agency, the Office of National Intelligence.

In his speech on Monday night at a Parliament House dinner to mark the 70th anniversary of the ANZUS security pact, Morrison announced:

This multi-agency centre will ensure Australia, working with our allies, can better anticipate and capitalise on emerging technologies.

These two initiatives seem intricately woven into the fabric of the AUKUS deal announced last year. They represent a focus on “critical investment[s] in our digital sovereignty”.

A less rosy outlook for veterans’ affairs

It is worth noting it was not all smooth sailing in the preparation of the budget in terms of defence. While Morrison and Defence Minister Peter Dutton were happy to splash money on defence capabilities, over in veterans’ affairs things were not so rosy.

Veterans’ Affairs Minister Andrew Gee launched a very public attack on his own government, revealing he had been on the verge of resigning because he was being refused funding for his department.

This has long been an area of great concern for the defence community. In his spray, Gee revealed he had 60,000 unprocessed claims within his department, labelling the situation a “national disgrace”.

Off the back of a Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide, and the underperformance of veterans’ affairs, this pre-election internal battle was both colossally bad policy and ham-fisted politics.

Meanwhile, diplomacy is neglected

One of the key aims of the 2020 Defence Strategic Update was a focus on “shaping” Australia’s strategic environment. A key part of defence’s international engagement is defence cooperation. But as journalist Andrew Green noted, Australia is spending $2.5 million less on this than last year.

Given the concerns about a potential Chinese base in the Pacific, however, Greene also notes the government has budgeted $24,000 more this year for the Solomon Islands.

One of the key tools for Australia to shape the regional environment is through diplomacy. It’s hard to believe Morrison when he argues that:

…in these uncertain times it is vital that Australia is well-positioned to tackle the challenges our country and our region face,

while his government continues its woeful neglect of DFAT, with spending on diplomacy cut from $1.33 billion this year to $1.25 billion in 2025-26.

This continues the long-term underfunding of diplomacy and foreign aid at the very time the government is shrieking about competition in China and a deteriorating international environment.

What this part of the budget reveals is the ongoing problem of the lack of an integrated, whole of government approach to national security. We do not have a national security strategy to guide and direct government efforts. Instead, we are seeing large injections of funds into hard power through defence while soft power, aid, diplomacy, education, climate policy and a host of other key areas are bled of funds or stagnate.

This means that despite the strong rhetoric from the government on the risk and threats we face in international security, there is only piecemeal national security policy-making.

Read more:
The Morrison government wants a ‘khaki’ election. How do the two major parties stack up on national security?

Magical numbers and the federal election

As noted in a previous column , the government has been running hard on defence and national security in the shadow election.

It wants voters to focus on its record spending on defence and Labor’s supposed failures in this area in their last term in office. In fact, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg led his budget speech with the government’s main line of attack on the opposition during his budget speech:

…those opposite let defence spending to fall to its lowest levels since 1938.

Frydenberg was specifically referencing Labor’s defence spending in 2013 as percentage of gross domestic product (GDP): 1.56%. This contrasts with the government’s commitment of 2% of GDP and its realisation of 2.11% in the 2022-23 budget. This is the government’s “magical number”, and it will continue to hammer this home to the electorate at any chance.

However, GDP is rather an odd measure for defence spending. It compares it to the total cost of goods and services in the economy. There is no automatic link between the security of a nation and the percentage of its GDP spent on defence, it doesn’t make for good strategic planning and its highly misleading as a form of historical and regional comparison.

What’s more, few portfolios in government are measured this way – does anyone know the percentage of spending on housing, education, health care or social services related to GDP?

Labor will mostly likely zero in on 6.1% as its “magical number”. That is the percentage of actual government spending on defence in the budget. Since Morrison became treasurer and then prime minster, this has been on a downward trend.

Spending on defence has fallen as a percentage of government outlays in the budget, from 7.53% in 2015-16 to 5.1% in 2020-21. It is now estimated at 6.1% in 2022-23.

Labor, in its last year in office in 2012-13, spent 6.65%. Its average spend on defence in its six years in office (2007-13) was 7.15%. During Morrison’s past six years as treasurer and prime minister it was only 6.42%.

In the end, the government is right to say it is spending records amounts on defence. However, Labor is also right to say that as a percentage of the actual budget, it spent considerably more than this government has.

As we move from the shadow to the real election campaign in the coming days, expect to hear a lot more about the ins and outs of defence spending.

Peter J. Dean receives funding from Department of Defence, DFAT, ARC and the US State Department.

– ref. Budget 2022: the government spends big on its ‘khaki election’ strategy, but neglects diplomacy and other ‘soft’ power – https://theconversation.com/budget-2022-the-government-spends-big-on-its-khaki-election-strategy-but-neglects-diplomacy-and-other-soft-power-180033

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Maguire, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, University of Newcastle

The budget for Australia’s national human rights institution, the Australian Human Rights Commission, will fall significantly over the next four years.

These cuts are outlined in the budget statements from the attorney-general’s portfolio:

These budget cuts couldn’t have come at a worse time, for two important reasons.

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

The Australian Human Rights Commission is already struggling

First, the commission is already struggling.

Earlier this month its president, Rosalind Croucher, reported the Australian Human Rights Commission was already severely underfunded to perform its statutory functions.

The commission is an independent statutory agency, established by Commonwealth legislation. It has many responsibilities related to its core purpose of protecting and promoting human rights in Australia and internationally. These include:

• the investigation and conciliation of discrimination complaints

• law reform advocacy

• human rights education, and

• monitoring of Australia’s human rights performance in the context of its international legal obligations.

Even before the budget, Croucher expected the Australian Human Rights Commission would need to reduce its staffing by 33% to operate within budget.

Over the course of the pandemic, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

The Australian Human Rights Commission’s 2020-21 annual report noted growing capacity constraints in dealing with this increase in complaints within its allocated budget.

Australia is already distinguished from like countries by its lack of comprehensive domestic human rights protection. This heightens the significance of the commission’s work.

Most Australians have very little recourse to complaints for human rights violations beyond the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Australia has committed to strengthening human rights institutions

Secondly, cutting the Commission’s resources affects more than its capacity to address complaints.

In 1993, the UN General Assembly resolved principles relating to the status of national human rights institutions, known as the Paris Principles.

These are minimum standards for the independent operation of national institutions. Australia has been committed to upholding them through the Australian Human Rights Commission since the principles were first agreed.

The principles say, in part:

The national institution shall have an infrastructure which is suited to the smooth conduct of its activities, in particular adequate funding. The purpose of this funding should be to enable it to have its own staff and premises, in order to be independent of the government and not be subject to financial control which might affect its independence.

This provision indicates that independence from government is essential to the status of a national human rights institution.

The Attorney-General’s department website notes the Australian Human Rights Commission is accredited as an “A status” institution, meaning that it is fully compliant with the Paris Principles.

An organisation known as the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions is responsible for that process of accreditation. It will review the Australian Human Rights Commission’s status this year, and may be compelled to downgrade it to “B status” as only partially compliant with the principles.

That’s because the commission faces a range of threats to its standing and independence, on top of the budget cuts.

In recent years, the Australian government has more than once handpicked a new commissioner for the Australian Human Rights Commission, rather than complying with the obligation to run a transparent, merit-based appointment process.

Former Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs was subjected to extraordinary attacks from government ministers – including former prime minister Tony Abbott – particularly in response to a report it released criticising the treatment of children in immigration detention.

Former attorney-general George Brandis was later censured by the Senate over his failure to defend Triggs or the independence of the commission, and for trying to induce her to resign as president.

As she left office, Triggs called the government “ideologically opposed to human rights”.

All of these developments undermine a central pillar of Australia’s voluntary commitments to the UN Human Rights Council, when it commenced its first ever term as a member state on that body in 2018.

Australia pledged to build capacity and strengthen national human rights institutions, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

Twin crises

The Australian Human Rights Commission now faces twin crises of insufficient funding and threats to its global standing. The potential consequences are not only reputational.

If the Australian Human Rights Commission is downgraded to a “B status” institution, it will lose its right to vote or hold office in the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.

It will be restricted to observer status before the UN Human Rights Council, and stripped of its current independent participation rights across UN human rights institutions.

Having made an historic commitment to human rights leadership through its 2018-20 Human Rights Council term, Australia is increasingly sending an opposite message at home regarding its interest in the protection and promotion of human rights.

Read more:
Josh Frydenberg’s budget is an extraordinary turnaround – but leaves a $40 billion problem

Amy Maguire 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. Budget cuts to the Australian Human Rights Commission couldn’t have come at a worse time – https://theconversation.com/budget-cuts-to-the-australian-human-rights-commission-couldnt-have-come-at-a-worse-time-180308

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natasha Yates, Assistant Professor, General Practice, Bond University

Coughing is a socially awkward symptom, particularly since the COVID pandemic hit.

The problem is, coughing may persist for weeks or months after the infection has gone. Around 2.5% of people are still coughing a year after being infected with COVID.

A recurrent cough can undermine your capacity to work, leave you with medical bills, and prompt a withdrawal from social situations because you don’t want others to fear you’re spreading COVID.

As a GP, I have patients ask whether there’s anything that can fix their post-COVID cough. Here’s how I answer.

What causes a COVID cough?

It’s not surprising COVID causes a cough, because the virus affects our respiratory tract, from our nasal passages right down to our lungs.

Coughing is one of the body’s ways of getting rid of unwanted irritants such as viruses, dust and mucus. When something “foreign” is detected in the respiratory tract, a reflex is triggered to cause a cough, which should clear the irritant away.

À lire aussi :
How does Omicron compare with Delta? Here’s what we know about infectiousness, symptoms, severity and vaccine protection

While this is an effective protective mechanism, it’s also the way the COVID virus spreads. This is one reason the virus has so effectively and quickly travelled around the world.

Why do coughs drag after the infectious period?

Inflammation is a defensive process our immune system uses to fight off COVID. Inflamed tissues both swell up and produce fluid. This can last a long time, even after the virus has gone.

Coughing may persist for any of four key reasons, all of which involve inflammation:

1. if the upper airways (nasal passages and sinuses) stay inflamed, the fluid produced drips down the back of your throat causing a “post-nasal drip”. This makes you feel the need to “clear your throat”, swallow and/or cough

2. if the lungs and lower airways are affected, coughing is the body’s way of trying to clear the fluid and swelling it senses there. Sometimes there isn’t a lot of fluid (so the cough is “dry”), but the swelling of the lung tissue still triggers a cough

3. the neural pathways may be where inflammation is lurking. This means the nervous system is involved, either centrally (the brain) and/or peripherally (nerves), and the cough isn’t primarily from the respiratory tissues themselves

4. a less common but more serious cause may be the lung tissue being scarred from the inflammation, a condition called “interstitial lung disease”. This needs to be diagnosed and managed by respiratory specialists.

Interestingly, people may experience a range of post-COVID symptoms, including coughing, regardless of whether they were sick enough to be hospitalised. Some patients tell me they weren’t particularly unwell during their COVID infection, but the post-infective cough is driving them crazy.

When should you get it checked out?

We need to be wary not to label a cough as a post-COVID cough and miss other serious causes of chronic coughs.

One thing to watch out for is a secondary bacterial infection, on top of COVID. Signs you may have a secondary infection include:

• a change in the type of cough (sounds different, more frequent)
• change in the sputum/phlegm (increased volume, blood present)
• developing new symptoms such as fevers, chest pain, racing heart or worsening breathlessness.

Other potentially serious illnesses can cause a chronic cough, including heart failure and lung cancer, so if you’re in any doubt about the cause of your cough, have a check-up.

À lire aussi :
We can expect more colds and flu as COVID restrictions lift. 5 germs to look out for

What has evidence for helping the cough?

If the cough is mainly from post-nasal drip, it will respond to measures to reduce this, such as sucking lozenges, saline rinses, nasal sprays, and sleeping in an upright posture.

Some people may develop cough hypersensitivity, where the threshold of the cough reflex has been lowered, so it takes a lot less to set off a cough. It’s a common response to colds and it can take a while for our bodies to “reset” to a less sensitive state.

If a dry or tickly throat sets off your cough reflex, solutions include sipping water slowly, eating or drinking honey, and breathing slowly through your nose.

By slow-breathing through your nose, the air hitting the back of your throat is warmed up and moisturised by first passing through the nasal cavities. Your cough reflex is therefore less likely to be triggered, and over time the hypersensitivity should settle.

If the cause originates from inflammation in the lungs, controlled breathing exercises and inhaled steam (in a hot shower or via a vaporiser) may help.

Thick mucus can also be made more watery by inhaling saline through a device called a nebuliser, which turns liquid into vapour and delivers it directly to the mucus built up in your lungs. This makes it easier to clear out with a cough.

À lire aussi :
At home with COVID? 5 easy tips to help you breathe more easily

Are there other options?

Budesonide (a steroid inhaler), when given early after a COVID diagnosis, has been shown to reduce the likelihood of needing urgent medical care, as well as improving recovery time.

Unfortunately, there are no good trials on using budesonide inhalers for a post-COVID cough.

However, anecdotally, it has been of help to some patients who have a post-COVID cough, when nothing else is helping them.

Trials on steroid tablets to treat a post-COVID cough are still underway, and won’t be recommended unless they’re shown to result in significant improvement.

Antibiotics won’t help

Concerningly, some countries have guidelines that suggest using antibiotics to treat COVID, showing just how prevalent this misunderstanding is.

Unless there is a secondary bacterial infection, antibiotics are not appropriate and may contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance.

Post-COVID coughing can last for weeks, be debilitating, and have a variety of causes. Most of the ways to manage it are simple, cheap and can be done without needing medical intervention.

However, if you have any doubts about the cause or the progression of your cough, it is worth a visit to your GP to have it checked out.

À lire aussi :
When the drugs don’t work: how we can turn the tide of antimicrobial resistance

Natasha Yates is affiliated with the RACGP

– ref. Still coughing after COVID? Here’s why it happens and what to do about it – https://theconversation.com/still-coughing-after-covid-heres-why-it-happens-and-what-to-do-about-it-179471

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Director, Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre; Associate Professor of Criminology, Faculty of Arts, Monash University

Halfway through his budget speech on Tuesday night, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg acknowledged the women’s safety crisis in Australia.

one in four women are subject to domestic violence and tragically, every 11 days, an Australian woman loses her life at the hands of her current or former partner.

He announced A$1.3 billion for women’s safety, a slight increase from the $1.1 billion committed last year.

However, in the absence of a new National Plan to end Violence against Women and Children, the commitments are piecemeal and lack detail. Many are not even new.

What has the government announced?

The $1.3 billion budget spend includes:

• $222 million in prevention initiatives, including the previously announced $104.4 million over 5 years to support the work of Our Watch, Australia’s leading prevention organisation and a funds for consent education

• $52.4 million over 4 years to protect victim-survivors against cross-examination by family violence perpetrators

• $20 million over 4 years to establish a women’s trauma recovery centre at the Illawarra Women’s Health Centre

• $3.4 million to support the implementation of recommendations from the Respect@Work report

• $6 million over 4 years to update the federal government’s respectful relationships education online platform

While these are positive moves, we must compare priorities.

Take for example, $3.7 billion for fast rail in the budget, or $9.9 billion for cyber capabilities. The rhetorical commitment to the importance of women’s safety is not borne out by financial investment.

Where does the budget focus attention?

We also have ongoing concerns about the way violence against women is framed by the budget.

The Women’s Statement (a separate budget booklet) focuses on prevention as a women’s issue, with targeted efforts for key populations. It never mentions men as central to this work.

Prevention work is absolutely critical to reducing violence against women, but we need men to be a core part of this, and we need to name the problem of men’s violence.

Funding for First Nations services

The budget repeats the announcement for a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan led by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Council on family, domestic and sexual violence.

This is an important step, but the commitment is overshadowed by stark omissions elsewhere in the budget. Efforts to better support First Nations women experiencing family violence will not be helped by the budget’s failure to adequately fund Aboriginal family violence and legal services.

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

As peak groups such as Change the Record note:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services are suffering from a demand we cannot meet due to severe under-resourcing [and] understaffing […] Adequate funding for [Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services] means that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can access culturally safe legal support when and where they need it.

The budget also announced the continuation of financial and legal support for temporary visa holders if they experiencing family violence. But there is no extension of this measure. Again, it remains a piecemeal response that does not fix the limited access to support for temporary visa holders, or the need for reform to the visa and migration pathways for non-citizens who experience family violence.

Who is accountable?

The budget includes a previously announced $22.4 million over five years to establish the National Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. This would monitor and oversee the implementation of the next national plan.

The commission could be an important accountability mechanism, but we need to get this right. If we’ve learned anything from developing the new national plan, it is that politics and bureaucracy can often get in the way of urgent work.

The current national plan expires in July and as yet, there is no set date for the release of the next one.

Our verdict

Our key message is the detail matters. We need to pay careful attention to implementation, to sustained commitments and to evaluation of what works in practice.

We need to ensure conversations about violence against women always include men. We must recognise it is men’s violence that we are primarily seeking to address and eliminate. Men have been largely absent from the commitments made to address violence against women. The budget repeats this mistake.

We need a federal commitment that is not focused on announcements and addressing the key headline “issues”. Instead, we need a commitment to recognising the systemic ways women’s inequality is linked to violence, and how violence and abuse is sustained via inequality.

Women’s safety does not exist in a vacuum. Glaring concerns continue, around un- and underemployment, slow wage growth, the cost of living, gender inequality and superannuation and the long-term impact on women working in the least valued jobs.

As Frydenberg rightly acknowledged in his speech, the human cost of not getting this right is ever present. In the last week, five women have been killed in Australia, allegedly by male violence.

This is urgent and the budget is not offering the transformational level of funding required to match the Morrison government’s stated objective to “eliminate” violence against women and children.

Kate currently receives funding for family violence related research from the Australian Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety and the Department of Social Services. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her capacity as Director of the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre and are wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as Chair of Respect Victoria.

Marie Segrave receives funding from ANROWS and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. There’s $1.3 billion for women’s safety in the budget and it’s nowhere near enough – https://theconversation.com/theres-1-3-billion-for-womens-safety-in-the-budget-and-its-nowhere-near-enough-180256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Since its debut in 2009, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have seen explosive growth and some dramatic downturns.

Cryptocurrencies now inhabit an increasingly prominent niche in the global financial landscape, offering “pastime” opportunities for young investors, channelling donations to Ukraine’s war effort or simply providing cheaper and faster alternatives to mainstream banking.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Reserve Bank recently decided to investigate crypto as part of a wider conversation about how New Zealanders will pay and save in the future.

So far, crypto has benefited from light regulation in New Zealand, but it’s essential we have a clear picture of all pros and cons, including the risk of criminal behaviour and climate change impacts.

Cryptocurrencies offer a variety of investment and transaction benefits, but concerns about dangers are also growing. Crypto’s volatile track record presents significant risk to investors (alongside significant reward) and the relative anonymity of Bitcoin, Ethereum and others is proving attractive to organised crime, money laundering and tax evasion.

Read more:
Crypto theft is on the rise. Here’s how the crimes are committed, and how you can protect yourself

To date, crypto has largely avoided the traditional forms of financial regulation banks face and it has capitalised on its ability to eschew territorial borders, being everywhere and nowhere at once.

As calls for effective regulation get louder and major markets in the US, EU and Asia seek to subject crypto to greater oversight, it is particularly important to highlight crypto’s growing but often hidden environmental impact.

Bitcoin uses more energy than most countries

How do companies with only virtual assets contribute to environmental damage? The answer is data mining.

Cryptocurrencies and assets use blockchain technology. In essence, transactions are verified and recorded on a blockchain, a public digital ledger that contains information about all transactions.

Blockchain technology ensures the integrity of crypto transactions, but it does so by using huge amounts of electricity. Bitcoin’s annual electricity consumption is more than three times that of New Zealand. This is due to blockchain’s distributed nature and use of cryptography and complex processing, which require considerable computational power.

Read more:
Bitcoin: China’s crackdown isn’t enough – only a global effort can stop crypto’s monstrous energy demand

Verifying transactions, or mining, is so energy intensive it has caused concerns about the resilience of some countries’ electricity supply. Earlier this year, Kazakhstan cut off crypto miners because of the country’s energy crisis.

When the electricity used by crypto comes from fossil fuels, the connection to climate change becomes clearer. Recent developments in the US are setting a worrying trend. Crypto’s colossal energy needs may be met by electricity from coal-fired power stations, at a time when the energy sector should pivot towards renewables.

In Kentucky, a new crypto “blockchain farm” is being built close to four coal-fired power plants, for easy energy supply. Meanwhile, another coal-fired power station in Montana has been brought back from the brink of closure after agreeing to act as the sole electricity supplier to a Bitcoin mining company, Marathon, adding hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Cryptocurrencies and climate change

The need to act decisively on climate change has never been more urgent. Last year, New Zealand announced its new Nationally Determined Contribution to cut emissions by 50% on 2005 levels by 2030 as part of collective efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.

This is an improvement on the previous pledge, but Climate Action Tracker still rates New Zealand’s overall contribution to climate change mitigation as “highly insufficient”.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released last month, details the impacts of overshooting the 1.5℃ target. For Australasia, these include increased heat-related deaths and disease for people and wildlife, loss of livelihoods and a drop in income from agriculture and loss of low-lying coastal areas as a result of rising sea levels. Insufficient action on climate change now will have serious consequences, including close to home.

According to a recent survey, most New Zealanders accept the need to take action to combat climate change. But all too often people’s lifestyle decisions still seem disconnected from their environmental impacts. Confusion remains around what people can meaningfully do to make positive change.

Read more:
Cryptocurrency has an impact on economies. That’s why some are afraid of it – and some welcome it

Regarding crypto, to make informed and responsible choices, New Zealanders need a clear picture of how our consumer and investment decisions affect the planet. Public and private sectors should explore more environmentally friendly blockchain technology based on “proof-of-stake” which uses less energy because of lower processing requirements.

Indeed, the European Parliament considered banning the more energy-hungry “proof-of-work” mechanism Bitcoin and other popular cryptocurrencies use. While it backed off the proposal, cryptocurrencies will likely face further scrutiny as the EU tries to tackle the climate crisis.

Aotearoa also needs a future-facing regulatory framework to limit the use of energy-hungry encryption and support a safer and more sustainable model for consumers and the planet.

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. As cryptocurrencies take hold, NZ must address the climate impacts of their colossal energy demand – https://theconversation.com/as-cryptocurrencies-take-hold-nz-must-address-the-climate-impacts-of-their-colossal-energy-demand-179187

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, The University of Melbourne

The 2022 budget is an election-year budget. So stakeholders have been pushing their wheelbarrows up the hill to Parliament House to lobby for extra largesse to flow their way.

But while plenty of taxpayers’ money was allocated this year to give an ailing government the greatest possible advantage in the upcoming election, health fared poorly.

Although health stakeholders should expect a lean year every now and again, the reform agenda in health is large, and each budget where no progress is made is an opportunity lost.

Small sums for favoured interest groups

A characteristic of all health budgets – and this one is no exception – is there are lots of little throwaways for favoured interest groups.

Commonwealth health spending is big: about A$100 billion a year, with aged care spending an additional A$25 billion.

So an extra A$50 million a year – for programs delivering early intervention for psychosis or better treatment for endometriosis – are enough to get headlines, especially when multiplied by four because the spend is over the “forward estimates”.

But A$50 million a year is still only an 0.05% increase in funding, colloquially referred to as “rats and mice” of the budget.

Read more:
Early intervention for psychosis might cost more initially but delivers a greater return on investment

Announce things you’d do anyway

Another trick is to announce the ordinary as the extraordinary.

Health Minister Greg Hunt has made an art form of politicising decisions about new listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

This year’s budget doesn’t disappoint. It announced that Trikafta – a new life-extending treatment for cystic fibrosis approved for use in Australia in March 2021 – has been approved for taxpayer subsidy.

Cue grateful patients and drug manufacturers to explain the wondrous benefits of this generous government.

No thanks to the bureaucrats and advisers who assessed the cost effectiveness of the new drug and appear to have recommended the listing back in December 2021.

Nor criticism of the delay between advice to the minister and the approval announcement, a delay which maximised political advantage.

Aged care and mental health

Last year’s budget was a big one for health, with significant investments in aged care and mental health. In 2021, the government committed more than A$5 billion extra each year to aged care in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and A$550 million annually for mental health (both amounts are when the initiatives are fully rolled out).

Although the 2021 budget’s aged care commitment is not enough to “fix” the system, it was very welcome and further expansion of services should not have been expected in last night’s budget.

Read more:
Budget package doesn’t guarantee aged-care residents will get better care

Last night’s budget did provide for a once-off expansion of vocational education places to help address contemporary staff shortages in aged care, and A$14.9 million to support clinical placements for nursing and other health sciences students in aged care.

But staff shortages will persist until wages are addressed. A significant item of unfinished business is the pending increase in pay for aged care staff currently before the Fair Work Commission. This will be resolved before the 2023 budget, so the government should have been explicit that it will meet the costs of the increase, and provided an estimate – even as a range – as to the expected cost. Unfortunately, there was no mention of this, despite it being the most critical issue for the aged care workforce.

The 2021 mental health initiative is still being implemented, so again, the additional “rats and mice” spending here is an unexpected bonus. The 2022 budget includes a raft of “rats and mice” initiatives in mental health prevention, suicide prevention, mental health treatment (including A$1.6 million for a youth treatment service in Minister Hunt’s electorate), mental health support for multicultural and other communities, and enhancing the mental health workforce.

But there are still gaps

There’s plenty of work to do in other areas of health which unfortunately didn’t attract any attention in this year’s budget.

In the Grattan Institute’s pre-election Orange Book, we argued for a commitment to roll out universal dental coverage. Dental care is a huge gap in Australia’s health system – an estimated 1.7 million Australians missed out on oral health care in 2020-21 because of cost.

We also called for reform in other areas, such as care by medical specialists, where people are also missing out on care because of cost.

A short-term funding injection for public hospitals is also needed to help states deal with the care deficit caused by widespread deferral of procedures and check-ups at the height of the COVID pandemic.

Primary care

The one area where hopes were particularly raised for extra funding in this budget was primary care, especially general practice.

A recent discussion paper hinted at directions for reform. General practice is under pressure as fewer new medical graduates choose the specialty, preferring higher-paid, narrower specialties.

High out-of-pocket costs for patients when they see allied health professionals and psychologists is also a cause for concern and should have been addressed in the budget.

General practice reform, including progress on voluntary patient enrolment, is desperately needed and yet this has been put in the too hard – or maybe too costly – basket for another year.

Where to next?

Despite the upcoming election, 2022-23 is a standstill year for health and aged care.

The health system adapted well to the pandemic, with innovations such as a pivot to telehealth being implemented remarkably quickly. These changes need to be embedded and made routine across the health sector – rural and urban, for hospital outpatients and in primary and specialist care – and this may require incentives and encouragement, neither of which was forthcoming in the budget.

Read more:
COVID-19 and telehealth may be changing how much you know about your therapist

Australia’s health-care system is good, but it is not perfect. Evidence of public hospitals being under pressure can be seen in every state, with ambulance ramping and long waits for elective procedures.

The answer is not simply shovelling more money at hospitals, it’s for the federal government to get its house in order to fix primary care and aged care, areas of its direct responsibility. Fixing both sectors would reduce demand on admissions and beds.

Unfortunately, progress on both sectors was absent in the 2022 budget.

Stephen Duckett is the outgoing Director, Health and Aged Care Program, Grattan Institute. Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities, as disclosed on its website.

– ref. Health budget 2022 spends a little on favoured interest groups but misses a chance for real reform – https://theconversation.com/health-budget-2022-spends-a-little-on-favoured-interest-groups-but-misses-a-chance-for-real-reform-179835

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Walker-Munro, Senior Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

Drones have played a starring role in Ukraine’s defence against the ongoing Russian attack. Before the invasion experts believed Russia’s own fleets of “killer robots” were likely to be a far more potent weapon, but to date they have hardly been seen.

What’s going on? Ukraine’s drone program grew from a crowd-funded group of hobbyists, who appear to know and like their technology – even if it isn’t the cutting edge. Russia, on the other hand, seems to have swarms of next-generation autonomous weapons, but generals may lack faith in the technology.

Drone vs drone

Ukraine is using Turkish Bayraktar TB2 armed drones, provided under a deal inked last year. Operated by a crew on the ground, these are essentially remote-controlled planes armed with rockets or missiles. Ukraine is also using commercially available drones.

Less is known about Russia’s drones, particularly new models with artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. Last year, the Russian Ministry of Defence announced the creation of a special AI department with its own budget, which would begin its work in December 2021.

Just before invading Ukraine, Russian forces were seen testing new “swarm” drones, as well as unmanned autonomous weapons capable of tracking and shooting down enemy aircraft. However, there is no evidence they have been used in Ukraine for that purpose.

This isn’t the first time these types of drones with lethal capability have featured on the world stage. Russia deployed “interceptor” drones to defend against hostile aircraft when it annexed Crimea in 2014; and, in 2020, Azerbaijan used drones against Armenia during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. And the US has committed to providing Ukraine access to its highly portable “suicide drone”, the Switchblade.

Are drones the future of warfare?

The world has been grappling with the concept of “killer drones” for more than two decades. Despite international and domestic law concerns, defence forces around the world are investing heavily in autonomous weapon technologies because they cost far less than a similar crewed weapon, like a tank or aircraft, and don’t place drivers or pilots at risk.

As military warfare becomes more technologically advanced than ever before, AI-powered drones are creating a new concept of power.

As far back as 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the development of AI raises “colossal opportunities and threats that are difficult to predict”, warning that “the one who becomes the leader in this sphere will be the ruler of the world”.

The Russian leader predicted future wars would be fought by drones, and “when one party’s drones are destroyed by drones of another, it will have no other choice but to surrender”.

Homemade drones

Putin has previously identified the development of weapons with elements of AI as one of Russia’s five major military priorities.

Yet since Russia invaded Ukraine, it seems to be Ukrainian drones that are being used to greatest effect – predominantly by targeting Russian logistic elements supplying fuel or ammunition to frontline forces.

Read more:
Eyes on the world – drones change our point of view and our truths

Ukrainian soldiers have reportedly been using drones bought off the shelf to locate Russian military targets and to help coordinate artillery strikes. Reports have even emerged of Ukrainian soldiers jury-rigging explosives to homemade drones before flying them at Russian tanks.

Footage of drone strikes are also proving a potent information weapon, with Ukrainian soldiers uploading them to social media.

Where are Russia’s drones?

It’s hard to know exactly why we haven’t seen a Russian drone onslaught.

One possible reason is that drones are being held in reserve for a later escalation in the conflict. Drones can deliver chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons without endangering a human pilot – and Russia’s current strategy suggests it may not shrink from using banned weapons.

Another possible reason is logistics. Given widespread reports of Russian military vehicles breaking down, Russia may not be able to support drone operations in Ukraine.

According to RAND Institute experts, however, one of the biggest reasons may be a lack of trust in the technology.

Why is trust so important?

All modern military forces involve trust: trust in subordinates to follow orders, and trust in commanders to give lawful orders. When a machine is used in the place of a human, a commander must be able to trust that machine as much as a human being.

This produces significant problems. Researchers have long been aware of “machine bias”: the idea that we trust machines to make decisions, simply because they’re machines. Yet misplaced trust in machines – especially if they are making life-and-death decisions – can have catastrophic results.

One way to improve trust in military drones could be to limit them to simple roles. A drone acting simply as an airborne camera can’t fake what it sees, whereas a drone scanning video footage to identify targets (what the military call a “decision support system”) is far more likely to make a fatal mistake.

Read more:
Lethal autonomous weapons and World War III: it’s not too late to stop the rise of ‘killer robots’

Another way to improve trust in drones is to refuse to arm them with lethal weapons, or program them to disarm enemy soldiers. In 2007, John Canning, a researcher at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, suggested future autonomous weapons might attack rifles or ammunition instead of attacking the human holding them.

In the age of autonomous warfare, the limit will be how far we trust machines. As lethal drones become more common and familiar, how satisfied are we that these drones will make the right decisions? To use these weapons we will need to trust them, but first we will need to make sure that trust is justified.

Brendan Walker-Munro receives funding from the Australian Government through Trusted Autonomous Systems, a Defence Cooperative Research Centre funded through the Next Generation Technologies Fund.

– ref. Drones over Ukraine: fears of Russian ‘killer robots’ have failed to materialise – https://theconversation.com/drones-over-ukraine-fears-of-russian-killer-robots-have-failed-to-materialise-180244

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Libby (Elizabeth) Sander, Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Bond Business School, Bond University

While there is a general consensus hybrid work is here to stay, going back to the office even some of the time might feel strange and overwhelming. Returning to the commute and re-establishing routines and relationships in the workplace is likely to be partly energising and partly exhausting.

Since research has shown employees can work effectively at home, workers are likely to be coming to the office for different reasons, including collaboration, learning and connecting with others.

And while many are looking forward to some time with their colleagues that isn’t on Zoom, there are downsides to manage. With employers giving up floorspace as more and more companies adopt a hybrid work model, the new office might be smaller, and noisier. For many employees, returning to the office will mean a return to the noise and distraction that is among the leading complaints employees have about their offices.

Read more:
Even Google agrees there’s no going back to the old office life

Managing noise and interruption

In addition to not having to commute, for many employees, fewer interruptions and less noise from coworkers were some of the key benefits of working from home. So returning to the office might feel like quite a shock.

My own research has measured the effects of typical open-plan office noise, finding significant increases in physiological stress and negative mood, even after a short exposure time.

Research has shown it can be difficult to concentrate in large open-plan office spaces. Using headphones and working in quieter break away spaces can help.

Taking breaks and getting outside is essential: spending time in nature has evidence-backed benefits for our physical and mental health.

Reconnecting

In a landscape of virtually no conferences or live work events for the past two years, and long periods of working from home, many employees might feel uncertain about building relationships face-to-face. And with many employees having started their careers or moved jobs during the pandemic, a lot of us have never met some of our co-workers. It’s natural we might be feeling a bit rusty.

Getting out for a coffee, doing a walking meeting in nature or having a team lunch can be good ways to ease back into face-to-face interactions.

Managing stress and anxiety

If you’re feeling stressed or anxious about returning to the office, you’re not alone.

Anxiety is the most common mental health disorder in Australia, and can have a significant effect on both work and our lives. And social anxiety – anxiety associated with social or performance situations – affects up to 13% of Australians.

As experts point towards an end to the pandemic, concerns have been raised about a looming mental health pandemic. Data from the World Health Organisation suggests the COVID pandemic has triggered a 25% increase in the prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide, with young people and women most affected.

Studies by the American Psychological Association prior to the pandemic showed that for 64% of American adults, work was a significant source of stress, and the most common personal stressor. As we return to the office, this issue is more important than ever. In a June 2021 study by McKinsey of 245 employees who had returned to the office, one-third reported negative mental health impacts.

Read more:
Dressed for success – as workers return to the office, men might finally shed their suits and ties

Mindfulness – focusing our attention and awareness in the present – can be a useful tool for managing stress and anxiety in the workplace. Research has shown mindfulness practices are beneficial for our well-being – including emotional exhaustion, psychological detachment, and stress.

Mindfulness has organisation benefits as well, including for intrinsic motivation, work engagement, creativity, and conflict management.

To introduce mindfulness into your work day doesn’t mean you have to sit down for a 20 minute meditation (although that will help). Taking small breaks away from your desk and phone and focusing on your breath or a view of nature is a great start. While taking a few minutes to do this regularly in the day might not seem like much, the benefits add up.

It’s also essential organisations have clear support structures in place to provide assistance to employees, such as knowing who to talk to if they are facing difficulties and access to counselling services in employee assistance programs.

How to make it work

Employers can take practical steps to make the return to the office easier. Starting slowly, with just one day in the office to begin with, can help employees adjust. Retaining flexibility around work hours on the days in the office will be important for employees who have benefited from the increased ability to balance their work and lives while working from home.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach and employers should be cautious about setting blanket policies. Creating a culture where employees feel comfortable to have conversations and to ask for help is essential. While there has been progress around the perceived stigma in discussing mental health at work, it’s important to recognise there is a long way to go.

It’s important to remember there are options outside of just home or office. Third locations such as co-working spaces give employees the ability to connect with others when they choose, as well as to create new networks and enjoy social connection.

Libby (Elizabeth) Sander 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. Feeling socially anxious about returning to the office? You’re not alone – https://theconversation.com/feeling-socially-anxious-about-returning-to-the-office-youre-not-alone-179757

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Kennedy, Research Fellow – Participatory research and engagement, The University of Melbourne

Terra nullius has been overturned. Now we must reverse aqua nullius and return water rights to Traditional Owners.

In recent decades, important progress has been made on land rights for Traditional Owners, with more than 50% of Australia under some form of Indigenous title (including non-exclusive native title). But until now, we’ve had much less progress on water rights.

For millennia, Indigenous Australians maintained all water in Australia. After European colonisation, the rights to water were stolen. Almost none of it has come back. Where did the rest of the water go? Overwhelmingly, to settlers who used them to expand their agricultural interests.

Victoria has now begun to return water to Traditional Owners. Last week, the government returned 2.5 gigalitres (GL) to Gunditj Mirring in Victoria’s south-west. Earlier this year, 1.36GL was set aside for Traditional Owners in northern Victoria, and in late 2020, 2GL from the Mitchell River was returned to Gurnaikurnai in Gippsland. While welcome, this is only a start.

Victoria’s recent returns make it the leader in the eastern states, but competition is scarce. To date, there have been no tangible water handbacks in New South Wales and Queensland.

Why are water rights so important?

Water rights go well beyond commercial and economic gains. For First Nations people, water and the health of waterways are fundamental to health and well-being, including reviving cultural flows, improving physical health, restoring connection to spirit and culture, aiding self-determination, and making it possible to care for Country.

Land is important. But Australia is a dry country, and without water, there is no life. For instance, before colonisation, Gunditjmara in south-western Victoria created one of the world’s oldest and most extensive aquaculture systems to farm short-finned eels. The Budj Bim complex is now UNESCO-listed.

Most Australians are aware of terra nullius, the legal fiction that Australia belonged to no one before European settlement.

But very few know about aqua nullius, a similar fiction suggesting Traditional Owners had no rights to the water they had used for millennia.

To challenge this, First Nations people have long called for redistribution of water, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Since European colonisation, there have been vanishingly few opportunities for Indigenous communities in Australia to advance and strengthen their economies. It is vital that we recognise the central role played by aqua nullius and the long history of colonial resource rationing in stymieing Indigenous enterprise.

Read more:
Australia, it’s time to talk about our water emergency

These first allocations are welcome. But they cannot be an afterthought. Without more, the Victorian government could recreate the water version of the rations regime of government-controlled food distribution Indigenous Australians lived with until the 1960s.

For decades, Indigenous Australians were not permitted to have a voice in how our nation’s water is allocated and used.

While these recent water returns in Victoria are vital first steps, the volumes of water are still too small to underpin the restorative justice approach needed for the environment and Aboriginal peoples.

Tinkering around the edges

In the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s most important agricultural catchment, just 0.2% of all surface water entitlements are owned by Aboriginal organisations, and 0.02% of all available groundwater.

Of this tiny fraction, the majority is low reliability. That means Aboriginal people are unlikely to get access to their water at all unless it has been a particularly wet year.

Four years ago, the federal government announced A$40 million to buy water rights for Traditional Owners in the Murray-Darling Basin. Not a dollar has been spent.

In New South Wales, unused water rights across 55 different sources have recently been listed for sale. Not one of these was returned to Traditional Owners.

In the Northern Territory, delays in water allocation planning processes continue to limit access to the Aboriginal Water Reserve – the policy that is supposed to provide Aboriginal people in the NT access to water resources and opportunities for economic development. New laws could make this problem even worse.

Handing out water rights: a new form of rations?

Colonisation of Australia resulted in Europeans gaining control over Aboriginal populations and the resources they relied on. This had a devastating effect on Aboriginal access to traditional resources. From the 19th century until the mid-20th century, Europeans introduced a regime of government distributed rations for Indigenous Australians.

As a result, First Nations peoples were rewritten, both in law and in society, as landless people trespassing on Country once their own.

Given this history, you can see why First Nations groups might be sceptical about these recent handbacks. While the announcements sound good, they represent a very small volume of overall water flows.

Take the recent announcement of 1.36GL set aside for Traditional Owners in Northern Victoria. Where did this water come from? From an extra 4GL of water recovered from the Connections irrigation modernisation project. While that sounds laudable, the allocation for Indigenous use represents just 0.5% of the total volume of water (433GL) recovered from this 12-year project.

What would real progress look like? Over in Western Australia, a major 2020 Indigenous land use agreement in the Geraldton region included rights to around 17% of the available water.

So while Victoria’s recent announcements are a step in the right direction, we cannot help but point out that they reinforce longstanding inequality by giving agricultural interests, who already hold vast land and water entitlements, even more water. By contrast, Victoria’s Aboriginal nations, who have barely any land and water, must divide up these miniscule offerings.

Overturning aqua nullius requires much more

We now have clear pathways for the return of water in ways which adequately tackle the staggering and ongoing injustice of aqua nullius.

To achieve water justice, we would have to see significant transfers of power and agency in water governance.

Read more:
Victoria just gave 2 billion litres of water back to Indigenous people. Here’s what that means for the rest of Australia

There are positive signs. The Victoria government is working with Traditional Owners on a new roadmap for Indigenous access to water. Advocacy groups are helping tailor the shift of water management functions to each Indigenous nation to match their capacity.

These recent handbacks are only the start of what’s needed. In the ongoing quest for self-determination, water is key. If governments are serious about tackling the harm caused by the forced takeover of Indigenous waters and lands, we need more significant transfers of power, agency, and water.

Melissa Kennedy is the CEO of Tati Tati Kaiejin, an Indigenous-owned organisation, and is on a part-time secondment to the Department of Environment, Land, Water, and Planning (Victoria). Melissa receives funding from the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course (Project ID CE200100025) where she is a Research Fellow in the Places Program.

Brendan Kennedy Is the Director of Tati Tati Kaiejin and Deputy Chair of Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN). Brendan receives funding from the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course (Project ID CE200100025) where he is an Enterprise Fellow in the Places Program.

Sangeetha Chandrashekeran receives funding from theAustralian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course (Project ID CE200100025) where she is Senior Research Fellow in the Places Program.

– ref. Terra nullius has been overturned. Now we must reverse aqua nullius and return water rights to First Nations people – https://theconversation.com/terra-nullius-has-been-overturned-now-we-must-reverse-aqua-nullius-and-return-water-rights-to-first-nations-people-180037

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Dale, Research Fellow, University of Auckland

A large number of New Zealanders are facing a perfect storm at retirement, with minimal savings and no house, raising the risk that thousands will enter old age in poverty.

According to the latest retirement expenditure guidelines from Massey University, a two-person retiree household living an urban “choices” lifestyle, which includes some luxuries, would need to have saved NZ$809,000. In the provinces, a couple would need to have saved $511,000.

New Zealanders have traditionally relied on owning a home to support themselves during their retirement years. But many of the New Zealanders now aged between 50 and 65 – a cohort of almost half a million people – will go into retirement as renters after skyrocketing house prices over the last three decades put home ownership out of reach.

At the same time, this generation were already working adults when the Labour government introduced KiwiSaver in 2007, and are less likely to have a significant savings cushion.

Last year, Treasury raised concerns that this mixed group of baby boomers and generation X will not be able to financially manage retirement on their own.

Declining home ownership

Home ownership in New Zealand has fallen to the lowest rate in 70 years, with just 65% of people living in houses they own, down from the peak of 74% in the 1990s.

According to the 2018 Census, around one in four people between 50 and 65 don’t own the home they live in.

Read more:
How New Zealanders miss out on hundreds of thousands in retirement savings

Research by Kay Saville-Smith from the Centre for Research Evaluation and Social Assessment suggests that by 2053 almost half of over-65s would be renting. That would mean 640,000 over-65s renting, including 326,000 renters aged over 85.

This issue of declining home ownership disproportionately affects those who have remained on low incomes throughout their working life. This, in turn, has stark consequences for Māori and Pacific people in New Zealand.

Between 1986 and 2013 the proportion of Māori and Pacific peoples living in owner occupied housing fell at a faster rate than the overall population (down 20% and 34.8%, respectively).

Skyrocketing rents

Also, in the last five years nationwide rents have risen 28% across all property types and regions.

For increasing numbers of people, housing – whether through ownership or renting – has become unaffordable.

The rapidly increasing rental costs have also reduced the ability of people to save for their own home.

KiwiSaver came too late

In 2007, the government of the day set up KiwiSaver as a voluntary savings scheme to help New Zealanders save for their retirement and to lift New Zealand’s low national savings rate.

But New Zealanders aged 50 to 64 were already adults and mid-career when KiwiSaver was launched. In our low-wage economy, they are likely to have contributed only 3% of wages, in addition to the employer’s 3%.

Read more:
NZ’s fossil fuel investment ban for popular KiwiSaver funds is more political than ethical

While some will have used their KiwiSaver account plus the government subsidy to put a deposit on a home purchase, few will have saved a significant nest egg for retirement. The 2021 Financial Markets Authority KiwiSaver Report showed average balances of only $26,410.

Squeaking by on superannuation

There is some support for retirees. When a person reaches the qualifying age of 65 years, they receive New Zealand Superannuation, currently $437 per week after tax for a single person.

But superannuation is predicated on owning your home rather than renting. Home ownership means effectively living rent free, with only rates and maintenance as regular necessary expenses in addition to food, power and phone.

Those people renting are currently confronted by a median weekly rental for a small house or apartment of $390 per week. While they may also be able to access the accommodation supplement and temporary additional support to assist with costs, a new threat has emerged in the form of inflation.

Consumer price index inflation peaked at close to 6.35% in early 2022, its highest level in three decades.

As well as steady increases in the price of electricity, petrol prices increased by 10% over the past year, and annual food prices rose 6.85% in February year-on-year. Fruit and vegetables are the largest contributors to the price rise. Car use can be contained with less recreational outings, but electricity, fruit and vegetables are needed for health.

None of this is going unnoticed. Treasury has raised the alarm about the increase of old age poverty. Many in the 50-65 age group share those concerns, and are approaching retirement with rational trepidation.

Dr Claire Dale is Research Fellow with the Retirement Policy and Research Centre at the University of Auckland.

– ref. The coming storm for New Zealand’s future retirees: still renting and not enough savings to avoid poverty – https://theconversation.com/the-coming-storm-for-new-zealands-future-retirees-still-renting-and-not-enough-savings-to-avoid-poverty-179661

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Hopkin, Deputy Chief of Staff, The Conversation

With rising inflation, a war in Europe affecting global fuel costs, and ongoing supply strain issues, this year’s budget is shaped not just by the upcoming election but a growing cry in the community about the cost of living.

But despite some significant multi-billion dollar spends within the next six months, the deficit is predicted to shrink considerably from last year (and the shock of 2020) to just $79.8 billion – largely due to factors out of the government’s control.

While GDP surged as we began to see a way out of the COVID tunnel, the government forecasts that this will slowly consolidate to around about our pre-pandemic levels, sitting at 2.5% for the remainder of the forward estimates.

Unlike GDP, unemployment is forecast to head further south – and remain there for the majority of the next four years.

And the predicted further increase in overall employment has flown on effects.

Despite an international climate of increasing inflation, and years of wage stagnation, the government is optimistic that the wage price index will overtake the consumer price index by the 2023-24 budget.

Despite a clear explosion in spending in this election year (and amid those cost of living woes in the electorate), the government expects to rein in payments in the coming years, as receipts consolidate.

Josh Frydenberg noted in his address to the Press Gallery that the budget now forecasts gross debt to peak four years earlier than in previous estimates – though this is still a far cry from the “Back in Black” predictions of his first budget in 2019.

So what are the major spends – and few cuts – of this big spending election budget?

While a number of them – like the fuel excise cut and almost no mention of climate change as NSW and Queensland recover from another disastrous summer – are definitely against the recommendations of Australia’s leading economists, it remains to be seen how they will affect the election.

– ref. A cost-of-living budget: cuts, spends, and everything you need to know at a glance – https://theconversation.com/a-cost-of-living-budget-cuts-spends-and-everything-you-need-to-know-at-a-glance-180124

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW Sydney

It’s often said in business circles that good companies manage their balance sheet, and bad companies manage their P&L (profit and loss account). That same aphorism applies to governments.

And by that standard, Josh Frydenberg’s fourth budget is a triumph. Net debt is forecast to peak at 33.1% of GDP in 2024-25, compared to 40.9% in last year’s budget. Net interest payments stay below 1% of GDP—a better result than every year from 1984 to 2000.

This is an extraordinary turnaround, and much of it comes in the year to the end of June this year. Rather than net debt of A$729 billion by June 2022 (as forecast in last year’s budget), it is expected to be $632 billion. This reflects the stronger economy.

Unemployment is lower so welfare payments are, too. High commodity prices have helped the budget bottom line, but so too have the tax receipts from increased employment and consumer spending.

Read more:
Cheaper petrol, cash handouts in Morrison government’s vote-buying budget

At the start of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the government outlined a clear fiscal strategy: spend big to support the economy, and shrink away the debt involved through higher economic growth.

It worked. Australian GDP is 3.4% higher than it was pre-pandemic. Only the United States, at 3.2%, is close to that performance among the world’s seven largest economies. France is up just 0.9%, Canada 0.1%, while Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and Italy have all shrunk.

Amid this good news is a lingering concern. By 2025-26, the budget deficit is still estimated to be 1.6% of GDP. That’s a $43.1 billion gap between government revenues and expenses.

It is a reminder that while two governments — one Liberal and one Labor — have steered the nation through the global financial crisis and the coronavirus pandemic, they have not repaired our structural deficit.

The next government — whichever party that is — faces a difficult task. It needs to close that $40 billion structural gap without a turn to austerity that would damage the economic growth engine that’s put us in this enviable position.

It’s something of a high-wire act. And it is the litmus test of good economic management.

Read more:
View from The Hill: if money talks, the government has the megaphone out

Some big spending

It’s not hard to see why. Defence spending will grow from $35.8 billion this year to $44.5 billion by 2025-26. Given the global security outlook, it could easily go higher.

And spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will grow from $30.8 billion this year to $46.1 billion over the same time frame. That’s growth of 10.6% per annum. In fact, by 2033 the NDIS
is forecast to represent more than $70 billion in government spending.

That spending is life changing for half a million Australians. But those figures tell us such spending is only sustainable with a strong economy. If unemployment doesn’t stay low, and economic growth comparatively high, then spending growth in areas like the NDIS and defence will become unsustainable.

The fuel excise holiday

One hotly anticipated measure in the budget is a 50% cut in the fuel excise from 44.2 cents to 22.1 per litre, for six months. Let’s be clear: this is great politics. The treasurer said in his
speech:

“Whether you’re dropping the kids at school, driving to and from work or visiting family and friends, it will cost less”.

This is a beautiful rendition of the time-honoured political tradition of feeling the voters’ pain.

In one way this makes perfect economic sense, too. Why should households bear the risk of petrol prices bouncing around based on global conflict and decisions by the OPEC cartel? As the Australian Competition Consumer Commission has demonstrated, prices at the pump basically move one-for-one with oil prices.

By setting the fuel excise lower when oil prices and high, and higher when oil prices are low, the government is acting like a big social insurance company. That’s part of their job (see Medicare, NDIS, unemployment benefits).

But there’s a wrinkle to this. According to figures from the Bureau of Statistics’ Household Expenditure Survey, the bottom 20% of households by income spend $27 a week or 3.5% of their income on petrol.

Read more:
Budget 2022: Frydenberg has spent big – but on the whole, responsibly

By contrast, the top 20% of households spend $42 a week or 1.8% of their income on petrol. So, giving a per litre reduction in petrol benefits higher-income
households more in dollar terms. It also doesn’t discourage people from driving less.

It would be more progressive (and better for the environment) to just give all households a flat rebate.

A good plan, well executed

The tone at the budget press conference this year was in striking contrast to that at the announcement of the pandemic fiscal strategy in early 2020. Back then there were sharp questions about fiscal irresponsibility, leading then-Finance Minister Matthias Cormann to exclaim: “What would you have us do?”

This time, there were a series of relatively minor questions about whether Victoria was getting enough GST revenue or if medical students who studied in regional Australia would stay there.

That is the consequence of a government that jettisoned decades of political branding in March 2022, laid out a compelling plan to get Australia through the pandemic, and delivered on it.

Richard Holden is President of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.

– ref. Josh Frydenberg’s budget is an extraordinary turnaround – but leaves a $40 billion problem – https://theconversation.com/josh-frydenbergs-budget-is-an-extraordinary-turnaround-but-leaves-a-40-billion-problem-180123

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

When Josh Frydenberg says his key cost-of-living budget measures are “temporary” and “targeted”, he’s precisely right, though the reasons are more opportunistic than he’d spruik publicly.

He says it’s all about giving help when it’s needed while not baking in long-term spending.

But actually, and equally, the measures are aimed squarely at the imminent election, and firmly directed to purchasing votes. If money talks, the government has taken up the megaphone.

This is a budget for the instant – unashamedly an election bribe, and unconcerned when that involves pursuing some poor policy.

Read more:
Cheaper petrol, cash handouts in Morrison government’s vote-buying budget

The halving of the fuel excise for six months is a large enough cut for motorists to notice. The change will start to flow through in the next fortnight.

Never mind experts who argue this is a bad move on revenue, environmental and equity grounds. At least the designated end point avoids the problem John Howard created in 2001, when he froze excise indexation indefinitely and it took many years for a government to have the gumption to restore it.

The one-off handout of $420 for more than 10 million low- and middle-income earners tops up the LMITO offset they’ll get when they submit their tax return from July 1. But there is no LMITO after that.

The government desperately needs older voters to stick with it to have a chance of survival. So, pensioners will get a one-off extra payment of $250 within weeks.

To cover all bases, and minimise complaints that some people have missed out, the payment will also go to carers, veterans, the unemployed, eligible self-funded retirees and concession card holders.

For voters concerned about debt and deficit – the Liberal mantra of the old pre-COVID days – the forecast deficit of $78 billion for the coming financial year is just over $20 billion better than forecast in the December budget update. The peak for net debt is expected to be in 2026.

The government will rely on its fiscal and job numbers to argue its economic credentials in the campaign for the May election, the date for which Scott Morrison will announce shortly.

The government can reasonably boast about its record on jobs, with unemployment, now 4%, set to fall to 3.75% within months. JobKeeper preserved jobs (although a lot of money was wasted in the process because of the design of the scheme) and the economic recovery has been strong.

But the budget outlook on wages is a more problematic story. Inflation (after a sharp spike) is forecast to be 3% in 2022-23, with the estimated rise in wages just above it, at 3.25%.

Read more:
Budget 2022: Frydenberg has spent big – but on the whole, responsibly

That means, for many people, keeping up with cost-of-living increases will be a close run thing, or not achievable, despite the budget’s temporary handouts.

The government has thrown everything into this budget in the way of election sweeteners.

But how much impact will the sugar have on the intentions of voters who, according to the last Newspoll, have the Coalition trailing Labor 45-55%?

Labor can neutralise some of the budget’s impact by embracing the handouts (the pensioners and beneficiaries will have received theirs before the election anyway).

Even before the budget was brought down, Labor indicated it would not stand in the way of the excise cut. It’s not going to stand in the way of the cash payments.

That’s in line with Albanese’s small target strategy and desire to divert the campaign argument onto other issues.

But the budget and the economy – the government’s preferred ground – will dominate the political discussion over the next few days.

Scott Morrison will be looking for some “bounce” from the budget and this is important in the short term.

If he can peg back Labor’s lead, that will change the atmospherics as the formal campaign starts.

Sometimes budgets give a bounce, often they don’t. It’s hard to see how the government could have done much more to pump air into this balloon.

The big question is whether, despite the handouts and the generally favourable economic conditions, people will continue to feel financially pressed and politically out of sorts with the government – and the PM in particular.

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: if money talks, the government has the megaphone out – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-if-money-talks-the-government-has-the-megaphone-out-180121

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

So good, and so unexpected, has been Australia’s economic improvement over the past four months, it has wiped one-third of the projected 2022-23 budget deficit.
Or it would have, had the government not decided to give away almost half (45%) the windfall.

That’s one way of looking at the difference between the projections in the December budget update and those presented three months later in Tuesday’s March budget.
In December, the deficit for the coming financial year was to be A$98.9 billion.

Four months later, the budget papers say it would have been $38 billion lower, were it not for an extra $17.2 billion of spending and tax measures taken since the update and in the budget.

The measures leave the 2022-23 budget deficit at $78 billion, something set to shrink to $43 billion over the following three years, but with no help from savings in this budget. The budget measures expand the deficit in each of the five years for which the government provides projections, by $30.4 billion in total.
Working the other way, improved economic circumstances shrink the deficit by $114.6 billion.

Read more:
Cheaper petrol, cash handouts in Morrison government’s vote-buying budget

It’s a convenient way to examine the projections, but it’s unfair. Most of the budget improvement due to economic circumstances is the government’s own work.
An astounding $98.5 billion of the $114.6 billion improvement is because Australia’s extraordinary and unexpected success in driving unemployment down to a near 50-year low, with a further improvement forecast in the budget.

It is helping the budget in two ways. The government is spending much less than it expected on JobSeeker and Youth Allowance, and taking in more than expected in income tax from people it hadn’t expected to be in work.

It’s what former finance minister Mathias Cormann insisted would happen in 2020 when the first COVID budget threw the switch to massive spending. By throwing everything it could at keeping people in work through programs such as JobKeeper, the government would “grow the economy” and grow tax revenue to push down the resulting government debt as a proportion of GDP.

The budget papers show it happening.

A year ago, net debt was expected to peak at 40.9% of GDP in mid-2025 before sliding as the economy grew. Now it is expected to peak a year earlier at 33.1% of GDP. Net interest payments are expected to peak at a very small 0.9% of GDP in 2025-26 before slipping to 0.8% of GDP.

And there are reasons to think things will turn out better than forecast. Unemployment, now down to 4%, is expected to fall only a little further to 3.75% (within the next few months) and then stay there before climbing back to 4% in 2026.

But that’s because treasury has assumed unemployment can’t stay as low as 3.75% without sparking inflation – an assumption it concedes might be wrong, noting Australia has “limited recent experience” of an unemployment rate lower than 5%.
Treasury has assumed the iron ore price, at present US$134 a tonne, falls back to US$55 in coming months. It has assumed the coking coal price falls from US$512 a tonne to US$130, the thermal coal price from US$320 a tonne to US$60 and the oil price from US$114 a barrel to US$100. Every one of these assumptions looks conservative.

Frydenberg admitted as much in the budget press conference, saying if commodity prices merely stay put for just the next six months instead of falling as assumed, the budget will be $30 billion better off.

Read more:
View from The Hill: if money talks, the government has the megaphone out

About the only forecast that doesn’t look conservative is the one for wages growth. At present an embarrassingly low 2.3%, the budget forecasts a jump in annual wages growth to 2.75% within months followed by a jump to 3.25% in 2023 and to 3.5% by June 2025.

The forecasts conveniently put wages growth back above the forecast inflation of 3% in 2022-23, leaving Australians with only one more year in which the buying power of wages goes backwards.

In the budget fine print (page 60 of Statement 1) treasury concedes it’s none too sure about its forecast of wages growth we haven’t seen in a decade. It shares an alternative forecast that uses different assumptions to produce annual wages growth no higher than 2.5% – below inflation for a further two years.

The cost-of-living measures are well-designed (with the exception of the six-month cut in petrol excise that will benefit most the high earners who typically spend the most on petrol). The one-off payment of $250 to Australians on benefits will go to those who do need it.

And the one-year boost of $420 to the low- and middle-income tax offset (bringing it to as much as $1,500) will only be available to Australians earning less than $126,000. They will get it after they put in their tax return from July – when they are most likely to need it – and then no more. It isn’t being continued.

Frydenberg has spent big in 2022 – but on the whole, responsibly. The budget forecasts and the unemployment numbers show his COVID support spending in 2020 and 2021 has paid dividends. They are forecasts for the true believers.

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. Budget 2022: Frydenberg has spent big – but on the whole, responsibly – https://theconversation.com/budget-2022-frydenberg-has-spent-big-but-on-the-whole-responsibly-180122

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

The Morrison government’s election budget halves petrol excise for six months and gives handouts to taxpayers, pensioners and welfare recipients in a cash splash aimed at clawing back votes.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, who unveiled the giveaway budget in Parliament House on Tuesday night, has been able to juggle big spending with a reduced deficit thanks to high commodity prices and strong employment.

The budget’s centrepiece is aimed at families’ rising cost of living with a package Frydenberg described as “responsible and targeted, delivering cheaper fuel, cheaper medicines and putting more money in the pockets of millions of Australians”.

The excise on petrol and diesel is reduced immediately from 44.2 cents to 22.1 cents a litre, at a cost to revenue of $2.65 billion.

But the government has given an assurance the revenue loss will not hit funding for roads, something some Nationals, including Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, had been concerned about.

Frydenberg said a family with two cars who filled up once a week could save about $30 a week or $700 over the six months.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which monitors fuel prices, said in a statement it expected fuel retailers would pass on the cut “as soon as possible, as existing petrol stock levels are used up”.

Tackled on criticism by economists about a fuel excise cut, Frydenberg told a news conference during the budget: “Australian families will say it’s a good idea to pay less at the bowser”. He added economists always had “a variety of opinions.”

More than ten million taxpayers will get a $420 top-up to the low- and middle-income tax offset (LMITO) after July 1. This would mean a taxpayer getting the full LMITO will now receive up to $1500.

But the LMITO will not be renewed after that.

Six million pensioners and people on a range of welfare payments will get $250 within weeks.

On the health front, people will need fewer scripts to be eligible for free or further discounted medicines.

The budget’s deficit for 2022-23 is expected to be $78 billion, 3.4% of GDP. In the December budget update it was nearly $99 billion.

The cumulative deficit over the forward estimates is forecast to be $224.7 billion.

Frydenberg said net debt as a proportion of the economy was forecast to peak at 33.1% of GDP at June 30, 2026.

The budget forecasts unemployment will fall from its present 4% to 3.75% in the September quarter. Economic growth is forecast at 3.5% next financial year. Inflation is set to climb to 4.25% by June and then to fall back to 3% in 2022-23, when wages are forecast to rise by 3.25%.

The budget includes more than $2 billion in measures for women, including $1.3 billion on women’s safety.

Eligibility for paid parental leave will be expanded and for the first time, single parents will be able to access the full 20 weeks’ leave.

With the government highlighting national security in its election campaigning and strong concern about China’s increasingly aggressive stance, the budget commits to a ten- year $9.9 billion investment in offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton said: “Project REDSPICE – Resilience, Effects, Defence, Space, Intelligence, Cyber, and Enablers – is the largest ever investment in the capabilities” of the Australian Signals Directorate.

This recognised “the deteriorating strategic circumstances in our region, characterised by rapid military expansion, growing coercive behaviour and increased cyber attacks”.

As another round of flooding hits Northern NSW and Queensland, the budget says the government has already allocated $3.6 billion to households, businesses and communities to deal with the earlier devastation. In total, it expects to spend more than $6 billion on flood relief and recovery.

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. Cheaper petrol, cash handouts in Morrison government’s vote-buying budget – https://theconversation.com/cheaper-petrol-cash-handouts-in-morrison-governments-vote-buying-budget-180120

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nigel Stapledon, Research Fellow in Real Estate, Centre for Applied Economic Research, UNSW Sydney

With housing affordability set to be a key election issue, the 2022 federal budget expands the scheme the Coalition put forward at the 2019 election to help first home buyers.

The First Home Loan Deposit Scheme helps those without the standard 20% deposit required by mortgage lenders. For those who qualify, it guarantees up to 15% of a loan’s value, meaning buyers can secure a home loan with a 5% deposit.

In the 2021-22 financial year the scheme was capped at 10,000 places. The 2022 budget is expanding this to 35,000 a year, plus an extra 10,000 places for first home buyers in regional areas.

It will also expand a category for single parents introduced in the 2021 budget, allowing some to enter with a 2% deposit, increasing the cap to 5,000 a year.

Government programs to assist first home buyers are routinely criticised as simply putting upward pressure on prices, providing no real benefit to first home buyers.
This scheme will push up prices, but not by the same amount as the value of the assistance.

So it will help those who qualify, albeit partially at the expense of those who don’t.

What’s driving up property prices

Australia’s relatively high housing prices can historically be attributed to the significant tax advantages for property ownership and rigidities on the supply side, such as zoning and other regulatory constraints.

In the past two years these factors have been supplemented by the potent combination of COVID-19 and low interest rates.

This has been a global phenomenon, by no means unique to Australia. The working-from-home revolution induced a surge in demand for larger houses and a shift to rural and regional areas at the same time as central banks pushed official interest rates close to zero to stimulate faltering economies.

Read more:
Even Google agrees there’s no going back to the old office life

So rather than the property market falling, as many tipped in early 2020, it has surged, pricing even more people out of the market.

A second-best option

The deposit guarantee scheme scheme to assist first home buyers is what economists call a second-best option. An optimal solution would more directly address the demand and supply reasons driving up prices. In lieu of this, the government’s plan is to give first-home buyers a boost over others.

Any criticism such a scheme simply lifts all boats and puts upward pressure on prices is not quite correct.

It will push up prices, but not by the same amount as the value of the loan guarantees. To do that all buyers would have to get the same concession, and there would have to be no effect on the supply of houses. Supply in the housing market may be slow to respond but it does change with demand.

Over the past two years first home buyers have made up about 20% of all buyers. This scheme, even with the expanded cap, will benefit fewer than half that number – about 7% of all buyers.

So the scheme will have some impact on property prices, but not enough to offset the value of the help to those buyers who qualify. On the other hand, those swapping homes will pay marginally more. So will investors, and renters in due course.

Greater leverage, greater risk

The major concern with this scheme is the risk those using it to buy a home may then get into financial trouble and default on their mortgage.

This was a contributing factor in the US subprime mortgage crisis that led to the global financial crisis of 2007-08. Policies designed to get low-income households into the market appeared to work until the crisis hit. Then house prices tumbled and many were forced to sell at big losses.

Read more:
First home buyer schemes aren’t enough to meet young adults’ housing aspirations

When you leverage up, borrowing 95% or 98% of the value of a house, you are more exposed if prices fall. Even a small decline could more than wipe out your equity.

Housing is not risk-free. Timing matters. House prices can fall as well as rise. With interest rates on the rise, and huge global economic uncertainty, some negative consequences from this scheme down the track cannot be ruled out.

Nigel Stapledon 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. Budget expands deposit scheme for first home buyers: a second-best option, with risks down the road – https://theconversation.com/budget-expands-deposit-scheme-for-first-home-buyers-a-second-best-option-with-risks-down-the-road-180242

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ingrid Rowlands, Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

The Coalition has announced a A$58 million funding package to improve endometriosis diagnosis, care and treatment.

This would see new specialised endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics set up in each state and territory, expanded Medicare-funded medical imaging for the condition, and support for women who manage endometriosis with their GP, among other measures.

This announcement would benefit the estimated one in nine Australian women with endometriosis.

However, endometriosis is not just a medical issue. Our recently published research shows there’s a high chance that women surgically diagnosed with endometriosis will leave the workforce.

Read more:
Considering surgery for endometriosis? Here’s what you need to know

Remind me, what is endometriosis?

Endometriosis causes inflammation when tissue similar to the lining of the womb grows throughout the body.

Women often describe “stabbing” pain during their period, back pain, and pain going to the toilet and during sex.

They might have stomach pain, vomiting and diarrhoea, headaches, muscle aches and tiredness. Imagine dealing with this every day or not knowing when symptoms might strike.

Endometriosis is estimated to cost A$9.7 billion each year to the Australian economy. Most of these costs come from lost productivity at work.

Read more:
Endometriosis costs women and society $30,000 a year for every sufferer

How do women with endometriosis struggle at work?

Focusing at work can be difficult because of unpredictable symptoms, side effects of strong painkillers, and frequent trips to the toilet.

Women seeking a diagnosis of endometriosis through surgery need time off to recover and might find themselves having more surgeries in the future.

Trying to explain this to people at work and employers can be embarrassing, feel like an invasion of privacy or may unfairly risk future career opportunities.

Sick leave can disappear quickly, and women may feel pressured to work while unwell.

Emma Watkins, the former Yellow Wiggle, went public with her battle to balance endometriosis and work. Ongoing pain and the need for surgery to treat it forced Emma to pull out of the 2018 Wiggles national tour.

It can take years to be diagnosed

Many women with endometriosis start to see symptoms as adolescents or young adults. However, many women aren’t officially diagnosed until their early thirties. It takes an average of eight years to be diagnosed.

Stories of women fighting hard to get a diagnosis because doctors wouldn’t believe them, or take their symptoms seriously, are common.

To make matters worse, until recently, the only way to tell if someone had endometriosis was to do surgery.

Surgery isn’t the right option for everyone; it has risks, is costly, requires time to recover, and doesn’t always stop women’s pain. Many cannot have, or do not want, surgery and are labelled with “suspected” endometriosis.

Fortunately, international guidelines updated earlier this year say endometriosis can be diagnosed without needing surgery.

Diagnosis is a turning point

A diagnosis of endometriosis was a turning point for women’s participation in work, our research showed.

We used data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health to look at employment for 4,494 Australian women born in 1973-78, with and without endometriosis.

We found 63% of women who had surgery for endometriosis were working full-time before diagnosis. This dropped to 44% after diagnosis.

Women who had surgery for endometriosis were 85% more likely to be unemployed three years after their diagnosis than before it.

Women who had “suspected endometriosis” (diagnosed without surgery) stayed working but were more likely to suffer from severe period pain, tiredness, heavy periods, and headaches or migraines than women without endometriosis.

Women who had surgery for endometriosis may have been in a better financial position to afford to get surgery and to eventually stop working than women who didn’t have surgery.

But we cannot underestimate the emotional and physical challenges of living with endometriosis. The often limited support available in the workplace means women may have been forced to stop work.

How can we support women to stay in work?

The 2018 National Action Plan for Endometriosis attempts to educate employers about supporting women with endometriosis at work.

This includes offering flexibility in the workplace – whether that’s through job modifications and time off in lieu, or flexible work hours and working from home.

Creating a supportive workplace culture is also important. Non-judgemental responses to women’s experiences with endometriosis are also key.

Read more:
Women with endometriosis need support, not judgement

Additional days of sick leave for women with endometriosis may also help to manage the demands of their job and symptoms.

These are great starts for women already in work, but we need to do more, and start earlier.

Girls and women need flexibility early in their education to cope with the unpredictable nature of endometriosis.

Virtual classrooms could help minimise missed days at school, TAFE or university. Programs that offer flexibility and allow women to complete their education over a longer period could help.

More funding will be needed

The recent funding announcement for people with endometriosis includes A$2 million with a portion to fund a workplace assistance program. This is for employees and employers to navigate discussions in the workplace.

The detail of how that will work is not yet available, although this just a starting point. More funding will be needed to address the inequity for women with endometriosis in the workplace, to support women to stay working for as long as they want.

Women with ‘suspected’ endometriosis also need support

Finally, we mustn’t invalidate women’s experiences of endometriosis, and the severity of their symptoms, based on their type of diagnosis.

Policymakers, doctors and employers should acknowledge women with “suspected” endometriosis need just as much support as those with surgically diagnosed endometriosis.

Ingrid Rowlands receives funding from NHMRC Medical Research Future Fund.

Gita Mishra receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council, MRFF and Commonwealth Department of Health

Jason Abbott receives funding from NHMRC, MRFF, the Australasian Gynaecology Endoscopy and Surgery Society and Endometriosis Australia for research. He consults to Vifor Australia, Hologic and Gideon Richter. He is formerly a director of Endometriosis Australia (until 2021).

– ref. Endometriosis can end women’s careers and stall their education. That’s everyone’s business – https://theconversation.com/endometriosis-can-end-womens-careers-and-stall-their-education-thats-everyones-business-179846

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Smith, Adjunct Associate Professor, James Cook University

It’s official: the Great Barrier Reef is suffering its fourth mass bleaching event since 2016. We dived into the reef yesterday and saw the unfolding crisis firsthand.

Descending beneath the surface at John Brewer Reef near Townsville, our eyes were immediately drawn to the iridescent whites, blues and pinks of stressed corals among the deeper browns, reds and greens of healthier colonies.

It’s a depressing, but all-too-familiar feeling. A sense of: “here we go again”

This is the first time the reef has bleached under the cooling conditions of the natural La Niña weather pattern, which shows just how strong the long-term warming trend of climate change is. Despite the cooling conditions, 2021 was one of the hottest years on record.

When coral bleaches, it is not dead – yet. Coral reefs that suffer widespread bleaching can still recover if conditions improve, but it’s estimated to take up to 12 years. That is, if there’s no new disturbance in the meantime, such as a cyclone or another bleaching event.

So what conditions are needed for coral recovery? And under what conditions will coral die?

What it takes for coral to die

Whether a coral can survive bleaching depends on how long conditions remain stressful, and to what level. What’s more, some species are more sensitive than others, such as branching acropora corals, especially if they’ve bleached previously.

If water remains too warm for too long, corals will eventually die. But if the water temperature drops and the ultraviolet light becomes less intense, then the coral may recover and survive.

While the average sea temperatures in the reef currently remain above average, they’ve shown signs of cooling to a more amenable average for coral survival.

Sea temperatures in Cleveland Bay, near Townsville, were above 31℃ in early March, but thankfully have now reduced to below 29℃. Similarly in the Whitsundays, Hardy Reef experienced temperatures as high as 30℃ but has receded to nearer 26℃ in the past few weeks.

If coral does survives a bleaching event, it is still impacted physiologically, as bleaching can slow growth rates and reduce reproductive capacity. Surviving colonies also become more susceptible to other challenges, such as disease.

Signs of stress

Survival also depends on each individual coral’s own resilience: its ability to cope with higher temperatures and increased ultraviolet stress.

For example, fast growing branching corals are the most susceptible to bleaching and are generally the first to die. Long-lived massive corals, such as porites, may be less susceptible to bleaching, show minimal effects of bleaching and recover quicker.

Corals can use fluorescent pigments to shield themselves from excessive ultraviolet radiation – a bit like sunscreen that lets coral manage, filter and attempt to regulate the incoming light.

To the casual observer, fluorescent corals look bright purple, pink, blue and yellow. For reef scientists, fluorescence is an obvious signal that corals are stressed and struggling to regulate their internal balance. As we’ve seen, white and fluorescent corals are currently a common sight on many reefs.

À lire aussi :
Adapt, move, or die: repeated coral bleaching leaves wildlife on the Great Barrier Reef with few options

Most coral species have fluorescent pigments in their tissue. Some are always visible to humans, especially branching corals with bright blue or pink hues on the their branch tips.

Others are never visible, and some are visible only during times of heat stress when coral colonies boost these fluorescent pigments to fight the increasing ultraviolet intensity in warmer seas.

Coral can’t adapt fast enough

Scientists measure heat stress on corals using a metric called “degree heating weeks”.

One degree heating week is when the temperature at a given location is more than 1℃ over the historical maximum temperature. If the water is 2℃ above the historical maximum for one week, this would be considered two degree heating weeks.

Generally speaking, at four degree heating weeks, scientists expect to see signs of stress and coral bleaching. It usually takes eight degree heating weeks for coral to die.

According to Bureau of Meteorology data, many parts of the Great Barrier Reef, such as off Cairns and Port Douglas, currently remain in the window of between four and eight degree heating weeks. But some areas, near Townsville and the Whitsundays, are experiencing severe bleaching stress beyond eight degree heating weeks.

While we hope many coral reefs will recover from this round of bleaching, the long term implications cannot be understated.

When corals bleach, they eject their zooxanthellae – single-celled algae that gives coral colour and energy. Some corals may regain their zooxanthellae after the bleaching event is over, but this usually takes between three and six months.

À lire aussi :
No, sunscreen chemicals are not bleaching the Great Barrier Reef

To make matters worse, full reef recovery requires no new bleaching events or other disturbances in the years that follow. Given the reef has bleached six times since the late 1990s, alongside global climate trajectories, this would appear an unlikely scenario.

While some corals may learn to cope with these new conditions by potentially acquiring more heat-tolerant zooxanthellae, the reality is that change is happening too fast for coral to adapt via evolution.

The severe bleaching in previous years also means future events may appear less severe. But this is simply because most of the heat sensitive corals have already died, potentially resulting in a lower probability of widespread severe bleaching.

We need stronger climate policies and action

Australia has the world’s best marine scientists and marine park managers. And yet, our policies are rated “highly insufficient”, according to the latest Climate Action Tracker.

If global emissions continue unabated, Australia may warm by 4℃ or more this century. Under this scenario, widespread coral bleaching is likely on the Great Barrier Reef every year from 2044 onward.

There has been some glimmers of hope in federal policy in recent years, such as statements recognising the existential threat climate change poses to coral reefs. Despite this recognition, substantial action is lacking, as any policy without action on climate change is ineffective.

If the federal government, reef businesses and individuals are to show leadership and maintain healthy reefs, we need to work together and take rapid, drastic action to reduce carbon emissions.

Committing to a stronger emissions target for 2030 and a carbon neutral footprint for all Great Barrier Reef businesses would go a long way to exhibiting the kind of change required if coral reefs, in their current form, are to survive into the future.

À lire aussi :
Climate change has already hit Australia. Unless we act now, a hotter, drier and more dangerous future awaits, IPCC warns

Adam Smith receives funding from Australian and Queensland Government and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.

Nathan Cook is co-chair of the Australian Coral Restoration Consortium, a regional group of the Coral Restoration Consortium.

– ref. Another mass bleaching event is devastating the Great Barrier Reef. What will it take for coral to survive? – https://theconversation.com/another-mass-bleaching-event-is-devastating-the-great-barrier-reef-what-will-it-take-for-coral-to-survive-180180

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Smith, Adjunct Associate Professor, James Cook University

It’s official: the Great Barrier Reef is suffering its fourth mass bleaching event since 2016. We dived into the reef yesterday and saw the unfolding crisis firsthand.

Descending beneath the surface at John Brewer Reef near Townsville, our eyes were immediately drawn to the iridescent whites, blues and pinks of stressed corals among the deeper browns, reds and greens of healthier colonies.

It’s a depressing, but all-too-familiar feeling. A sense of: “here we go again”

This is the first time the reef has bleached under the cooling conditions of the natural La Niña weather pattern, which shows just how strong the long-term warming trend of climate change is. Despite the cooling conditions, 2021 was one of the hottest years on record.

When coral bleaches, it is not dead – yet. Coral reefs that suffer widespread bleaching can still recover if conditions improve, but it’s estimated to take up to 12 years. That is, if there’s no new disturbance in the meantime, such as a cyclone or another bleaching event.

So what conditions are needed for coral recovery? And under what conditions will coral die?

What it takes for coral to die

Whether a coral can survive bleaching depends on how long conditions remain stressful, and to what level. What’s more, some species are more sensitive than others, such as branching acropora corals, especially if they’ve bleached previously.

If water remains too warm for too long, corals will eventually die. But if the water temperature drops and the ultraviolet light becomes less intense, then the coral may recover and survive.

While the average sea temperatures in the reef currently remain above average, they’ve shown signs of cooling to a more amenable average for coral survival.

Sea temperatures in Cleveland Bay, near Townsville, were above 31℃ in early March, but thankfully have now reduced to below 29℃. Similarly in the Whitsundays, Hardy Reef experienced temperatures as high as 30℃ but has receded to nearer 26℃ in the past few weeks.

If coral does survives a bleaching event, it is still impacted physiologically, as bleaching can slow growth rates and reduce reproductive capacity. Surviving colonies also become more susceptible to other challenges, such as disease.

Signs of stress

Survival also depends on each individual coral’s own resilience: its ability to cope with higher temperatures and increased ultraviolet stress.

For example, fast growing branching corals are the most susceptible to bleaching and are generally the first to die. Long-lived massive corals, such as porites, may be less susceptible to bleaching, show minimal effects of bleaching and recover quicker.

Corals can use fluorescent pigments to shield themselves from excessive ultraviolet radiation – a bit like sunscreen that lets coral manage, filter and attempt to regulate the incoming light.

To the casual observer, fluorescent corals look bright purple, pink, blue and yellow. For reef scientists, fluorescence is an obvious signal that corals are stressed and struggling to regulate their internal balance. As we’ve seen, white and fluorescent corals are currently a common sight on many reefs.

Read more:
Adapt, move, or die: repeated coral bleaching leaves wildlife on the Great Barrier Reef with few options

Most coral species have fluorescent pigments in their tissue. Some are always visible to humans, especially branching corals with bright blue or pink hues on the their branch tips.

Others are never visible, and some are visible only during times of heat stress when coral colonies boost these fluorescent pigments to fight the increasing ultraviolet intensity in warmer seas.

Coral can’t adapt fast enough

Scientists measure heat stress on corals using a metric called “degree heating weeks”.

One degree heating week is when the temperature at a given location is more than 1℃ over the historical maximum temperature. If the water is 2℃ above the historical maximum for one week, this would be considered two degree heating weeks.

Generally speaking, at four degree heating weeks, scientists expect to see signs of stress and coral bleaching. It usually takes eight degree heating weeks for coral to die.

According to Bureau of Meteorology data, many parts of the Great Barrier Reef, such as off Cairns and Port Douglas, currently remain in the window of between four and eight degree heating weeks. But some areas, near Townsville and the Whitsundays, are experiencing severe bleaching stress beyond eight degree heating weeks.

While we hope many coral reefs will recover from this round of bleaching, the long term implications cannot be understated.

When corals bleach, they eject their zooxanthellae – single-celled algae that gives coral colour and energy. Some corals may regain their zooxanthellae after the bleaching event is over, but this usually takes between three and six months.

Read more:
No, sunscreen chemicals are not bleaching the Great Barrier Reef

To make matters worse, full reef recovery requires no new bleaching events or other disturbances in the years that follow. Given the reef has bleached six times since the late 1990s, alongside global climate trajectories, this would appear an unlikely scenario.

While some corals may learn to cope with these new conditions by potentially acquiring more heat-tolerant zooxanthellae, the reality is that change is happening too fast for coral to adapt via evolution.

The severe bleaching in previous years also means future events may appear less severe. But this is simply because most of the heat sensitive corals have already died, potentially resulting in a lower probability of widespread severe bleaching.

We need stronger climate policies and action

Australia has the world’s best marine scientists and marine park managers. And yet, our policies are rated “highly insufficient”, according to the latest Climate Action Tracker.

If global emissions continue unabated, Australia may warm by 4℃ or more this century. Under this scenario, widespread coral bleaching is likely on the Great Barrier Reef every year from 2044 onward.

There has been some glimmers of hope in federal policy in recent years, such as statements recognising the existential threat climate change poses to coral reefs. Despite this recognition, substantial action is lacking, as any policy without action on climate change is ineffective.

If the federal government, reef businesses and individuals are to show leadership and maintain healthy reefs, we need to work together and take rapid, drastic action to reduce carbon emissions.

Committing to a stronger emissions target for 2030 and a carbon neutral footprint for all Great Barrier Reef businesses would go a long way to exhibiting the kind of change required if coral reefs, in their current form, are to survive into the future.

Read more:
Climate change has already hit Australia. Unless we act now, a hotter, drier and more dangerous future awaits, IPCC warns

Adam Smith receives funding from Australian and Queensland Government and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.

Nathan Cook is co-chair of the Australian Coral Restoration Consortium, a regional group of the Coral Restoration Consortium.

– ref. ‘Here we go again’: what it takes for mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef to cause mass coral deaths – https://theconversation.com/here-we-go-again-what-it-takes-for-mass-coral-bleaching-on-the-great-barrier-reef-to-cause-mass-coral-deaths-180180

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Bray, Research Fellow, Australian National University

The federal government introduced the Jobs for Families Child Care Package in July 2018. Then Education Minister Simon Birmingham had said the package would create a “simpler, more affordable, more accessible and more flexible early education and childcare system”.

He said the introduced new activity test and fee subsidy structure would

ensure that taxpayers’ support for child care is targeted to those who depend on
child care to work or work additional hours […] [and] align the hours of subsidised care more closely with the combined hours of work, training, study or other recognised activity undertaken.

The package was also intended to control what had been incessant increases in childcare fees.

When initially announced in 2015, then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described the package as “the most significant reform to the early education and care system in 40 years”.

We were members of a team which conducted an evaluation of the package. This was commissioned by the government and included researchers from the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the Australian National University and the Social Policy Research Centre of the University of New South Wales.

The report of the evaluation, released in recent days, found that, while for a majority of families the package had a positive financial benefit, this tended to be relatively modest. And the policy had little impact on longer term costs, access, flexibility or workforce engagement.

The subsidy helped many lower and middle income families

Simon Birmingham said the package was

targeted to those who need it most – low- and middle-income families who are juggling work and parenting responsibilities.

The package introduced a new subsidy structure. For families with incomes of up to $68,163 in 2019-20, the rate of subsidy was 85% of the actual fee or a benchmark price, whichever is lower. The rate of subsidy reduced with income and stopped at $352,453 of total family earnings.

For the subsidy, families had to meet a tighter activity test than in the previous policy. This more closely linked the hours of subsidised childcare to parents’ approved activity such as work and study. In couples the activity level was based on the partner who had the lowest activity.

Parents who did not meet the activity test were still allowed a certain number of subsidised hours per fortnight, but the hours in this new package were lower than under the previously policy.

Read more:
Childcare package neither bold or sustainable

Our modelling used detailed administrative data. It estimated that, relative to the previous subsidy arrangements, about 686,000 families (62.2%) received more childcare subsidy than they previously would have been entitled to.

On average the net annual cost of childcare for these families fell by $1,386 – from $5,412 to $4,026. For the median family in this group, it fell by $1,036 – from $3,472 to $2,436.

But we also identified that costs increased for 323,000 of families (29.2%). The average net costs for these families, who tended to be on higher incomes, increased by $1,261.

We estimated the remaining 95,000 (8.6%) of families had no change to cost.

The effect of the new subsidy arrangements varied across family income. The figure above shows the distinct pattern of the largest average increases in subsidy being recorded for the lower to middle income groups, with declines for those on the highest incomes. This reflects the intent of the package.

Little impact on families working more hours

Families who work more often find they lose much of the extra income they earn due to what is known as an “effective marginal tax rate”. This is where any extra earnings interact with policies including income tax rates, the Medicare levy and the loss of family benefits, combined with the net cost of child care.

Read more:
Mothers have little to show for extra days of work under new tax changes

Our evaluation found, despite some gains, the effective marginal tax rates on employment still remain high. Families on average incomes see half to almost three quarters of any additional earnings being lost through a combination of reduced transfer payments from government, income tax and the cost of having to use more childcare.

As part of our evaluation we used data from various family surveys commissioned by the education department and conducted by ORIMA Research. Our evaluation found some families reported they had increased their level of employment in response to the package. But most said they had made no change and others said they had decreased employment.

This variation is consistent with economic expectations which see the response as being an interaction of an income and incentive effect. Overall there was a slight balance – some 1.5-1.9% towards higher participation. But this was consistent with the historical trend of increasing workforce participation by parents.

Read more:
We need a new childcare system that encourages women to work, not punishes them for it

We found no evidence of the package having reduced the long-term trend towards increasing childcare costs. Its overall impact on childcare costs was relatively small and has already been significantly reduced by rising prices.

More ‘flexible’ hours, but higher fees

Traditionally most child care centres have operated on the basis of charging on a daily basis for a long session of care. The package, including the “allowed hours” under the activity test, was intended to produce more flexible session lengths.

We found while many services did introduce shorter sessions, these were often charged at a higher hourly rate. Frequently the daily fee was the same, or close to that for long session. The more rigid start and finish time of these sessions made provision less, rather than more, flexible.

The reduction in approved hours from 24 hours of care per week to 24 hours per fortnight for those who did not meet the activity test raised some concerns about children losing access to care, or reducing attendance to just one day a week. But we found no evidence of this.

One reason for this was the potentially high proportion of children in this group who were eligible for support through other safety-net mechanisms such as Additional Child Care Subsidy.

Central to the findings of the evaluation was the larger question of the nature and role of childcare. Our evaluation found this had not been addressed in the package.

Read more:
Quality childcare has become a necessity for Australian families, and for society. It’s time the government paid up

Rather, the evaluation concluded there was a need for a clear, coherent and comprehensive policy environment for childcare. This needs to link the important goals of the package relating to workforce participation with other policies related to quality of care and the critical role of measures such as universal access to preschool in child development and in preparation for schooling. To achieve this, strategies must also account for the federal and state divisions in responsibility for childrcare.

The evaluation, the results of which are reported in this article was commissioned and funded by the Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment. All authors were part of the evaluation team which undertook this.

The evaluation, the results of which are reported in this article was commissioned and funded by the Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment. All authors were part of the evaluation team which undertook this

Ilan Katz receives funding from The Australian and State Governments, The Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council

The evaluation, the results of which are reported in this article was commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment.

– ref. The 2018 childcare package was partly designed to help families work more. But the benefits were too modest to matter – https://theconversation.com/the-2018-childcare-package-was-partly-designed-to-help-families-work-more-but-the-benefits-were-too-modest-to-matter-179934

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Hingley, Research associate, University of Tasmania

Tonight’s federal budget will include more than A$800 million over ten years to provide a “clear marker” of Australia’s “scientific leadership” in Antarctica.

The funds will go towards drones and helicopters amid mounting (although somewhat exaggerated) concerns over Chinese activity in the region.

Read more:
A krill aquarium, climate research, and geopolitics: how Australia’s $800 million Antarctic funding will be spent

But political assets in the polar region include more than expensive state of the art toys. Earlier this month, one of the most famous shipwrecks in history, Sir Ernest Shackleton’s Endurance, was discovered in the Weddell Sea – a part of Antarctica claimed by multiple nations.

The Endurance

There is enormous excitement around the discovery of the Endurance.

The wreck provides a physical connection to a great tale of human survival, as it was the vessel used during the British explorer’s 1914-1916 Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition.

It became stuck in the ice and eventually sunk. Remarkably, none of the men died during the ordeal, despite having to camp on the ice for months during an austral winter.

But now the Endurance has been found, who owns it and who should look after it?

The Antarctic Treaty

Antarctica is governed differently from other parts of the world. The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959, with its first provision stating “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only”. It also provides for free and cooperative scientific investigation on and around the frozen continent.

Read more:
Finding Shackleton’s ship: why our fascination with Antarctica endures

At the time of signing, seven countries – Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom – had territorial claims in the region. But under the treaty, no country can assert (or deny) a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.

Despite this strong legal foundation, cultural heritage provides an opportunity for nations – in this case Britain – to assert their past, as well as their intended future, presence in the region.

Historic sites in Antarctica

The Antarctic is governed via annual meetings, attended by signatories to the treaty. At these meetings, countries can designate historic remains as official historic sites or monuments.

At the 2019 meeting, the UK successfully proposed the Endurance wreck as an official historic site, despite not knowing its location or state at the time. After learning of plans by NGOs to search for the wreck, the UK said it wanted to “confirm the protection status of the vessel in the event that it is located”.

The “historic site” status protects:

all artefacts contained within or formerly contained within the ship, which may be lying on the seabed in or near the wreck within a 150-metre radius.

Who is responsible for the sunken ship?

The Endurance22 expedition, backed by the Falklands Maritime Heritage Trust, located the wreck in remarkable condition just over three weeks ago. This expedition had set itself the task of searching for and surveying the shipwreck.

Since 2019, the UK has effectively designated itself as manager of the site – which includes the personal possessions within and all artefacts lying on the seabed nearby. The UK has also stated the wreck should not be not moved or disturbed and only photographed according to strict heritage guidelines.

This is also in line with comments from Shackleton’s granddaughter Alexandra Shackleton, who says there should be no “rummaging” and “whatever there is will stay there.”

These preemptive steps are somewhat controversial because the seabed on which the Endurance rests is an area contested between the UK and Argentina.

Although, by definition, a seabed is not within claimed territory, it rests below waters belonging to claimed territory – meaning the wreck could be interpreted by the wider international community as lying outside of the UK’s jurisdiction.

Also worth noting is that the very heritage trust in charge of the expedition originates from hotly contested territory between the two countries – the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas.

Other complications

Another challenge is posed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This sets out that archaeological and historical objects found at sea should be protected.

Read more:
The wreck of Endurance is a bridge to a bygone age, and a reminder of Antarctica’s uncertain future

The ship used to search for the wreck was provided by South Africa, while funding was provided primarily by UK private and commercial sources. South Africa has signed the convention, while the UK has agreed to abide by its rules, but is not a signatory.

This has created a feeling of unease among the expert community, who understand that even though the wreck is not currently easy to access (for one, it is more than 3 kilometres below the surface), with technological developments, this situation may change.

What happens now?

Ultimately, the management of the site will set a precedent for the treatment of underwater cultural heritage in the region more widely.

The big question policymakers and diplomats now face is whether a line will be drawn when it comes to having not-yet-found shipwrecks internationally recognised as heritage sites.

Two more sites will likely test this question: the San Telmo and the SS Hampson. Spain proposed the San Telmo – a Spanish naval ship that sunk in the Drake Passage in 1819 supposedly carrying the first “humans to live and die” in Antarctica – as an official historic site at the 2021 meeting.

The SS Hampson is expected to be the large unidentified wooden sailing boat wrecked at Hampson Cove, Elephant Island. The UK is again the manager of the site, given it established the cove’s official heritage status back in 1998.

Like the recent discoveries of other wrecks, the Erebus and Terror in the high Arctic, these sunken ships represent more than just deteriorating artefacts.

They provide a way for countries to demonstrate their historical occupation of a region where traditional displays of territorial sovereignty are banned.

Rebecca Hingley is affiliated with the International Polar Heritage Committee.

– ref. Now Shackleton’s Endurance has been found, who determines what happens to the famous shipwreck? – https://theconversation.com/now-shackletons-endurance-has-been-found-who-determines-what-happens-to-the-famous-shipwreck-179752

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Anastasiou, Research Dietitian (CSIRO), PhD Candidate (Deakin University), Deakin University

Our world is facing a huge challenge: we need to create enough high-quality, diverse and nutritious food to feed a growing population – and do so within the boundaries of our planet. This means significantly reducing the environmental impact of the global food system.

There are more than 7,000 edible plant species which could be consumed for food. But today, 90% of global energy intake comes from 15 crop species, with more than half of the world’s population relying on just three cereal crops: rice, wheat and maize.

The rise of ultra-processed foods is likely playing a major role in this ongoing change, as our latest research notes. Thus, reducing our consumption and production of these foods offers a unique opportunity to improve both our health and the environmental sustainability of the food system.

Impacts of the food system

Agriculture is a major driver of environmental change. It is responsible for one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions and about 70% of freshwater use. It also uses 38% of global land and is the largest driver of biodiversity loss.

While research has highlighted how western diets containing excessive calories and livestock products tend to have large environmental impacts, there are also environmental concerns linked to ultra-processed foods.

The impacts of these foods on human health are well described, but the effects on the environment have been given less consideration. This is surprising, considering ultra-processed foods are a dominant component of the food supply in high-income countries (and sales are rapidly rising through low and middle-income countries too).

Our latest research, led by colleagues in Brazil, proposes that increasingly globalised diets high in ultra-processed foods come at the expense of the cultivation, manufacture and consumption of “traditional” foods.

How to spot ultra-processed foods

Ultra-processed foods are a group of foods defined as “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes”.

They typically contain cosmetic additives and little or no whole foods. You can think of them as foods you would struggle to create in your own kitchen. Examples include confectionery, soft drinks, chips, pre-prepared meals and restaurant fast-food products.

In contrast with this are “traditional” foods – such as fruits, vegetables, wholegrains, preserved legumes, dairy and meat products – which are minimally processed, or made using traditional processing methods.

While traditional processing, methods such as fermentation, canning and bottling are key to ensuring food safety and global food security. Ultra-processed foods, however, are processed beyond what is necessary for food safety.

Australians have particularly high rates of ultra-processed food consumption. These foods account for 39% of total energy intake among Australian adults. This is more than Belgium, Brazil, Columbia, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico and Spain – but less than the United States, where they account for 57.9% of adults’ dietary energy.

According to an analysis of the 2011-12 Australian Health Survey (the most recent national data available on this), the ultra-processed foods that contributed the most dietary energy for Australians aged two and above included ready-made meals, fast food, pastries, buns and cakes, breakfast cereals, fruit drinks, iced tea and confectionery.

Read more:
The rise of ultra-processed foods and why they’re really bad for our health

What are the environmental impacts?

Ultra-processed foods also rely on a small number of crop species, which places burden on the environments in which these ingredients are grown.

Maize, wheat, soy and oil seed crops (such as palm oil) are good examples. These crops are chosen by food manufacturers because they are cheap to produce and high yielding, meaning they can be produced in large volumes.

Also, animal-derived ingredients in ultra-processed foods are sourced from animals which rely on these same crops as feed.

The rise of convenient and cheap ultra-processed foods has replaced a wide variety of minimally-processed wholefoods including fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, meat and dairy. This has reduced both the quality of our diet and food supply diversity.

In Australia, the most frequently used ingredients in the 2019 packaged food and drink supply were sugar (40.7%), wheat flour (15.6%), vegetable oil (12.8%) and milk (11.0%).

Some ingredients used in ultra-processed foods such as cocoa, sugar and some vegetable oils are also strongly associated with biodiversity loss.

Read more:
It takes 21 litres of water to produce a small chocolate bar. How water-wise is your diet?

What can be done?

The environmental impact of ultra-processed foods is avoidable. Not only are these foods harmful, they are also unnecessary for human nutrition. Diets high in ultra-processed foods are linked with poor health outcomes, including heart disease, type-2 diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer and depression, among others.

To counter this, food production resources across the world could be re-routed into producing healthier, less processed foods. For example, globally, significant quantities of cereals such as wheat, maize and rice are milled into refined flours to produce refined breads, cakes, donuts and other bakery products.

These could be rerouted into producing more nutritious foods such as wholemeal bread or pasta. This would contribute to improving global food security and also provide more buffer against natural disasters and conflicts in major breadbasket areas.

Other environmental resources could be saved by avoiding the use of certain ingredients altogether. For instance, demand for palm oil (a common ingredient in ultra-processed foods, and associated with deforestation in Southeast Asia) could be significantly reduced through consumers shifting their preferences towards healthier foods.

Reducing your consumption of ultra-processed foods is one way by which you can reduce your environmental footprint, while also improving your health.

Read more:
We each get 7 square metres of cropland per day. Too much booze and pizza makes us exceed it

Kim Anastasiou has worked on research funded by a variety of Australian government agencies, industry bodies and private companies.

Mark Lawrence receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the World Health Organization. He is a Board member at Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the organisations with which he is associated.

Michalis Hadjikakou receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Phillip Baker receives funding from The Australian Research Council and the World Health Organization.

– ref. Ultra-processed foods are trashing our health – and the planet – https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-foods-are-trashing-our-health-and-the-planet-180115

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Schuijers, Deputy Director, Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law and Lecturer in Law, University of Sydney

The Federal Court recently quashed a duty of care owed by the environment minister to Australian children, to protect them from the harms of climate change.

The duty was attached to Australia’s federal environment law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. In reversing the decision that had established the duty, the new judgment shone a spotlight on the EPBC Act’s limitations. Or at least, it should have.

Much of the commentary around the judgment focused on lamenting the hands-off position the court took in its unwillingness to delve into so-called political territory.

Less attention was paid to a key take-home message: the EPBC Act gives the minister power to approve coal projects, even if they’ll have adverse effects.

It doesn’t, in a general sense, protect the environment from these effects. It doesn’t protect the public from consequent harm, even if deadly. And it doesn’t, actually, tackle climate change at all.

Alarmed? You should be.

Read more:
Today’s disappointing federal court decision undoes 20 years of climate litigation progress in Australia

Why the duty was quashed

The appeal was heard by three judges, each with a different opinion on why there shouldn’t be a duty.

One key problem was that the class of victims won’t just include the children represented in the case. Currently unborn children will be affected too. The judges also found issues with the minister’s relationship with the children given the intervening steps that will lead to climate change, extreme weather events, and future harm.

To help resolve novel disputes, courts look to previous cases. One case that featured prominently was about protecting the public from contaminated oysters. In that case, a council wasn’t liable for failing to prevent water pollution that caused hepatitis infection. In another case, where there was no way of identifying the source of asbestos fibres that caused mesothelioma, it was found that whoever materially increased the risk of harm could be liable for it.

The fact these were considered the most relevant cases just goes to show how unprecedented the problem of climate change is. There was no case directly on point, which could help with the complex and cumulative cause-and-effects.

The problem of ‘incoherence’

Another important problem for two of the three judges was that the duty wasn’t coherent – meaning consistent or compatible – with the EPBC Act. That’s because the EPBC Act doesn’t squarely address climate change or human safety, and yet the duty concerns precisely those two things.

For decades, it’s been recognised that humans depend on the environment for survival, and that a stable climate system is necessary for life as we know it.

The third judge thought the minister’s obligations, embedded in an environment protection framework, could therefore sit side by side with a duty of care. Our environment, he said, “is not just there to admire and objectify.”

But the other two were dissuaded by their view that the EPBC Act doesn’t in fact protect the environment in a general sense. Nor does it explicitly aim to mitigate climate change. It operates in a piecemeal way, rather than concerning ecosystems as a whole, or our dependency on them.

Can this really be how the EPBC Act operates in practice? Well, yes.

We heard this same message just recently via the ten-yearly, independent review of the legislation. It concluded that the EPBC Act is outdated, and not fit for the purpose of environment protection.

What does the EPBC Act do, then?

For the most part, the EPBC Act is an impact assessment law. It’s triggered when specific environmental matters, like individual threatened species, are likely to be harmed by a proposed project (such as a coal mine). When it’s triggered, it sets in motion a procedural process that requires the minister to consider whether to approve the project given its impacts.

Year after year, nearly every single project that is put forward is approved. In fact, the coal mine that was the subject of the case was approved even before the appeal went to court. This explains why so many, including the independent review, feel the EPBC Act doesn’t really do enough to adequately safeguard against environmental loss.

The review recommended the introduction of science-backed environmental standards. If this happened, it may be easier for courts to judge ministerial decisions, with a legal reference point for what’s considered politically acceptable. It also recommended decision-making incorporate climate scenarios.

A call to action

Back in 2020, I wrote that whether the children win or lose, their case would make a difference.

Although not over yet (they have two more weeks to lodge an application to appeal to the High Court), it already has. It’s drawn attention to the fact that Australia doesn’t have a climate law to protect its children. That it has no law to protect against harmful floods and fire that have already manifest since the case began. And it’s forced the Federal Court to acknowledge the uncontested risks of climate change.

Let’s look at this case as a call to action. The Federal Court has essentially said it can’t act. Reading the judgment closely, there are hints to suggest the High Court might be able to, and that eventually, the law will have to evolve to manage complex causation.

But the decision certainly doesn’t mean the government can’t act. In fact, that’s exactly who the judges indicated must.

Read more:
A major report excoriated Australia’s environment laws. Sussan Ley’s response is confused and risky

Laura Schuijers 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. Australia’s environment law doesn’t protect the environment – an alarming message from the recent duty-quashing climate case – https://theconversation.com/australias-environment-law-doesnt-protect-the-environment-an-alarming-message-from-the-recent-duty-quashing-climate-case-179964

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Newling, Honorary Associate, History, University of Sydney

In this series, academics explain the ways they are recreating historical practices, and how this impacts their research today.

Old recipes and cookery books are increasingly being recognised as archival records, documenting more than just the food that was eaten in the past. They help us track consistencies and changes in our tastes and traditions, and in the techniques and technologies we employ or rely on to prepare a dish or meal.

Whether hand written or commercially produced, the fact that the recipes were recorded indicates the author felt the resulting foods were worth eating.

When you flick through old Australian recipe books, you will find some of the dishes are familiar, if not the same (“fricasees” and “ragouts” we now know as casseroles), while others, such as flummery and blancmange are echoed in today’s more sophisticated bavarois and pannecotta.

Other dishes which were once common in old cookbooks are curious or even peculiar to the contemporary cook, especially those made with meat cuts that some Australians might balk at: mock turtle soup (made with a calf’s head), brawn (made from a pigs’ head), calves’ feet jelly and boiled tongues being standouts.

As a historian with a Le Cordon Bleu Master’s degree in gastronomy, (which I describe as the study of food and food cultures), I am an intrigued by foods such as these. They are still popular in many other cultures’ cuisines, but have lost their place in Australia’s everyday culinary repertoire.

Why have they disappeared from our menus, and what does their absence from our kitchens, dining tables – and cookbooks – say about contemporary food choices?

Sensory and visceral

I take a very hands-on approach to researching our food heritage. My gastronomy degree is an academic qualification – I am not a formally trained cook, let alone chef. I have an Anglo-Celtic background that has not exposed me to the majority of “lost” dishes mentioned above in the normal course of life.

In order to understand them – and, importantly, the processes involved in making them – reading recipes is not enough. To write or speak about them with any authority, I need to experience them myself.

I do not profess to be exactly recreating the past or replicating the techniques and resulting dishes. Technological and food safety standards have changed the ingredients and necessary equipment to cook with them, but my experimental and explorative “forensic” exercises have been enlightening and instructive.

They have provided me with a far more intimate connection with these dishes and appreciation of the time, skills and effort required to create them – even with modern cooking facilities – than words on a page could ever conjure.

The sensory and, at times, visceral nature of making these dishes has been particularly educational, but often challenging and discomforting.

I recognise now the vague, nondescript but distinctive smell that is emitted when reconstituting jelly crystals as that which emanates from boiling calves’ feet: the fruity flavours and colouring a thin veil for the true origins of animal-derived gelatine.

Just the thought of handling an ungainly, surprisingly large, dense and heavy ox-tongue, trimming away the unsightly connecting ligaments and peeling its thin but leathery skin from the organ makes me uncomfortably conscious of my own tongue’s anatomy.

Cooking whole animal heads – their eyes staring back at me (accusingly? beseechingly?) as the pot bubbled away on the stove – was quite disarming.

Dismembering the pig’s face to retrieve the edible parts for brawn (cheeks, jowls, palate, tongue and snout) is a sticky, slippery and messy job.

While these experiential and embodied forms of self-education have elicited feelings of repugnance, to me they are tangible ways of connecting the past and the present, sharing experiences with cooks who also made these dishes or followed these recipes.

Slippery, slimy and oozy

Emotional responses are of course individual, and imbued with cultural and personal meaning. My feelings of distaste or revolt may not have been experienced by cooks and diners who welcomed these dishes onto their tables.

With the gradual disappearance of local butchers’ shops working with whole animals, our meat, poultry and fish is often sold in plastic packaging, often deboned or filleted with skin removed, trimmed of fat and sinew, ready-portioned, perhaps marinated and ready to cook without further handling.

Moisture sachets and packaging that help absorb fluids and odours make us less tolerant of the natural realities of animal parts that are messy, bloody, sinewy, gristly, viscous, gelatinous, slippery, slimy and oozy.

While convenient and time-saving for consumers, these preparations distance and disconnect consumers from the source animal. We are losing practical skills, but also the sensory connections and emotional sensibilities that come with working with them.

Many meat eaters who are comfortable with conventional flesh-meats recoil at cuts that are reminders of the once-living animal, finding heads, tongues, feet and tails revolting, perhaps horrifying, even barbaric.

Conversely, nose-to-tail dining, which makes use of every edible part of an animal is lauded as a respectful and responsible acknowledgement of the environmental impacts of meat production and a way of honouring the life taken from an animal bred for consumption.

If we consider the adage that food should not simply be good to eat but good to think about – morally and ethically – is resisting or rejecting these foods prejudice or a mark of refined taste? Were past generations crude and uncouth in their tastes and dining habits, or do they in fact hold the higher moral ground, coming face-to-face with the reality of their food sources?

A recipe to try: mock turtle soup

Get a calf’s head as fresh as possible, split it and take out the brains, wash and clean it well and lay it to steep in cold water for an hour. Then put into a stewpan with enough water to cover it, and two or three pints over; set it on the fire to boil, let it simmer 1½ hours; take out the head, and when cold enough cut [the meat] into pieces, from 1 inch square, and peel the tongue and cut it into pieces, only smaller, and put these into a pan till the next day, covered with a little of the liquor.

Then put all the bones of the head, and about 4 lbs of shin beef into the liquor in the stewpan. To this liquor when boiling, must be added the rind of a lemon, 1 turnip, and a little mace and allspice, and a bunch of sweet herbs with white peppers and salt to taste. Let these boil slowly for 5 hours and then strain.

Warm up the next day with the pieces of meat, egg balls and two or three glasses of white wine (sherry preferred).

— Mrs. Arthur Hardy’s recipe. The Kookaburra Cookery Book, The Lady Victoria Buxton Girls’ Club, Adelaide, South Australia. 1912.

Jacqui Newling is a curator at Sydney Living Museums

– ref. Remaking history: cooking slippery, slimy and oozy historical recipes made me uncomfortably conscious of my own anatomy – https://theconversation.com/remaking-history-cooking-slippery-slimy-and-oozy-historical-recipes-made-me-uncomfortably-conscious-of-my-own-anatomy-179283

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stuart Rollo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Sydney

Quantum technology, which makes use of the surprising and often counterintuitive properties of the subatomic universe, is revolutionising the way information is gathered, stored, shared and analysed.

The commercial and scientific potential of the quantum revolution is vast, but it is in national security that quantum technology is making the biggest waves. National governments are by far the heaviest investors in quantum research and development.

Read more:
Explainer: quantum computation and communication technology

Quantum technology promises breakthroughs in weapons, communications, sensing and computing technology that could change the world’s balance of military power. The potential for strategic advantage has spurred a major increase in funding and research and development in recent years.

The three key areas of quantum technology are computing, communications and sensing. Particularly in the United States and China, all three are now seen as crucial parts of the struggle for economic and military supremacy.

The race is on

Developing quantum technology isn’t cheap. Only a small number of states have the organisational capacity and technological know-how to compete.

Russia, India, Japan, the European Union and Australia have established significant quantum research and development programs. But China and the US hold a substantial lead in the new quantum race.

And the race is heating up. In 2015 the US was the world’s largest investor in quantum technology, having spent around US$500 million dollars. By 2021 this investment had grown to almost US$2.1 billion.

However, Chinese investment in quantum technology in the same period expanded from US$300 million to an estimated US$13 billion.

The leaders of the two nations, Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, have both emphasised the importance of quantum technology as a critical national security tool in recent years.

The US federal government has established a “three pillars model” of quantum research, under which federal investment is split between civilian, defence and intelligence agencies.

In China, information on quantum security programs is more opaque, but the People’s Liberation Army is known to be supporting quantum research through its own military science academies as well as extensive funding programs into the broader scientific community.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning

Advances in quantum computing could result in a leap in artificial intelligence and machine learning.

This could improve the performance of lethal autonomous weapons systems (which can select and engage targets without human oversight). It would also make it easier to analyse the large data sets used in defence intelligence and cyber security.

Improved machine learning may also confer a major advantage in carrying out (and defending against) cyber attacks on both civilian and military infrastructure.

The most powerful current quantum computer (as far as we know) is made by the US company IBM, which works closely with US defence and intelligence.

Unhackable communication

Quantum communication systems can be completely secure and unhackable. Quantum communication is also required for networking quantum computers, which is expected to enhance quantum computational power exponentially.

China is the clear global leader here. A quantum communication network using ground and satellite connections already links Beijing, Shanghai, Jinan and Heifei.

Read more:
China’s quantum satellite enables first totally secure long-range messages

China’s prioritisation of secure quantum communications is likely linked to revelations of US covert global surveillance operations. The US has been by far the most advanced and effective communications, surveillance and intelligence power for the past 70 years – but that could change with a successful Chinese effort.

More powerful sensors

Quantum computing and communications hold out the promise of future advantage, but the quantum technology closest to military deployment today is quantum sensing.

New quantum sensing systems offer more sensitive detection and measurement of the physical environment. Existing stealth systems, including the latest generation of warplanes and ultra-quiet nuclear submarines, may no longer be so hard to spot.

Superconducting quantum interference devices (or SQUIDs), which can make extremely sensitive measurements of magnetic fields, are expected to make it easier to detect submarines underwater in the near future.

At present, undetectable submarines armed with nuclear missiles are regarded as an essential deterrent against nuclear war because they could survive an attack on their home country and retaliate against the attacker. Networks of more advanced SQUIDs could make these submarines more detectable (and vulnerable) in the future, upsetting the balance of nuclear deterrence and the logic of mutually assured destruction.

New technologies, new arrangements

The US is integrating quantum cooperation agreements into existing alliances such as NATO, as well as into more recent strategic arrangements such as the Australia–UK–US AUKUS security pact and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (“the Quad”) between Australia, India, Japan, and the US.

China already cooperates with Russia in many areas of technology, and events may well propel closer quantum cooperation.

Read more:
China’s quest for techno-military supremacy

In the Cold War between the US and the USSR, nuclear weapons were the transformative technology. International standards and agreements were developed to regulate them and ensure some measure of safety and predictability.

In much the same way, new accords and arrangements will be needed as the quantum arms race heats up.

Stuart Rollo 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. Better AI, unhackable communication, spotting submarines: the quantum tech arms race is heating up – https://theconversation.com/better-ai-unhackable-communication-spotting-submarines-the-quantum-tech-arms-race-is-heating-up-179482

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fethi Mansouri, Professor/UNESCO Chair-holder; Founding Director, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

Australia’s political leaders often talk about its multicultural credentials, making sweeping statements about its unmatched success in diversity.

According to Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Australia is the “most successful” multicultural country in the world.

This self-congratulatory speech, however, masks the reality that we are a country with a deep racism problem that is not getting better.

Racism in Australia

My recent co-authored book Racism in Australia Today with Amanuel Elias and Yin Paradies looks at various manifestations of racism in our history and across key institutions.

Australia’s history since 1788 began with brutal acts of racism. Its colonisation was yet another example of white Christians going into other societies thinking they were ethnically and culturally superior. And could therefore take over peoples, resources and cultures.

These attitudes of cultural superiority have not gone away. Indeed,national survey results have seen almost 11% of respondents self-identified as “prejudiced” against other cultures. A further 26% neither agreed or disagreed.

We do have a problem

It is perhaps easy for white people to assume racism is no longer a big issue. There is legislation like the Race Discrimination Act and we have formally abandoned the White Australia Policy. It is illegal to segregate people based on their skin colour and overt racism is thought to be socially unacceptable.

Yet racism remains an everyday experience for non-white Australians.

In 2021, the Scanlon report found an unprecedented rise in respondents’ answers to the question “how big a problem is racism in Australia?”. Some 60% of survey respondents indicated it was a “very big” or “fairly big problem” as opposed to 40% in 2020.

Meanwhile in March 2022, a Diversity Council report found 43% of non-white Australian employees commonly experience racism at work, while only 18% of “racially priviliged” workers reported racism as a problem. This not only highlights how widespread racism remains but how often often dismissed by those benefiting from white privilege.

Racism also plagues Australia’s key institutions, including ASX 200 companies, universities, the public service and federal parliament.

In 2018, the Australian Human Rights Commission found of those who occupy 2,490 of the most senior posts in Australia, 76% per cent have an Anglo-Celtic background, 19% have a European background, less than 5% have a non-European background and 0.4% have an Indigenous background.

Crises and racism

Racism is not a steady phenomenon. We have seen peaks of racism towards particular groups in Australia, coinciding with major crises.

COVID-19 has led to a sharp spike in reported incidents of racism around the world. Many Asian Australians, and particularly Chinese Australians, reported increasing hostility towards them, including vandalism and racist slurs.

Read more:
‘Let’s rip it off her head’: new research shows Islamophobia continues at disturbing levels in Australia

These experiences, in many ways, mirror the significant increase in Islamophobia since the September 11 attacks and the “war on terror”.

In the wake of the 2019 Christchurch massacre, the Human Rights Commission found

80% of Muslim Australians had faced unfavourable treatment based on their ethnicity, race or religion. This racism takes the form of hate, violence or negative comments in public.

But as shocking as these upswings in racism are, even more shocking is our collective failure to develop a credible strategy to address the root causes of racism – be it against Indigenous peoples, refugees, temporary migrant workers or other minority groups.

We remain incapable of even talking about the racism in our midst, let alone what should be done to stop it.

Discrimination costs

The cost of racism to individuals, families and society is immeasurable in many ways.

But we do know racism has an impact on people’s mental health.

When young people are suffering from racism, even if they can turn up to school, they are not likely to feel happy or safe. This has an impact on their academic progress and therefore their further training and career trajectories.

At a macro level, we also know racism costs the national economy billions of dollars. Research shows the economic cost of experiences of racial discrimination was between A$21.1 and A$54.7 billion dollars from 2001 to 2011.

A proper strategy

While many would argue Australia is not a racist country, racism remains a serious problem. So, where is the national vision to fix this?

The first thing we need to do is acknowledge racism does exist across many sectors and we should be able to talk about it in a mature way.

This is, at times, a sensitive and difficult task because some of our political leaders cannot even accept the basic fact that we even have a serious problem.

Racism is not simply an inappropriate behaviour by individuals. It reflects a history of white privilege that has sustained colonial practices and political and cultural oppression of non-white nations.

Therefore, it is absolutely essential we call racism out in the short-term. But more importantly we need a longer-term strategy. One that comes to grips with justice for Indigenous peoples as well as the meaningful social and political incorporation of all groups in Australia, especially those from non-European backgrounds.

As we approach another federal election, it remains to be seen if our political leaders will offer a national strategy that treats racism as a serious threat to social cohesion, human rights and democracy itself.

Fethi Mansouri also talks about racism on the latest episode of Seriously Social podcast by the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.

Fethi Mansouri receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is the UNESCO Chair for Cultural Diversity and Social Justice.

– ref. Racism is still an everyday experience for non-white Australians. Where is the plan to stop this? – https://theconversation.com/racism-is-still-an-everyday-experience-for-non-white-australians-where-is-the-plan-to-stop-this-179769

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Bolleter, Deputy Director, Australian Urban Design Research Centre, The University of Western Australia

Australia’s population is projected to grow to over 50 million people by 2101. This will have enormous implications for the country’s long-term infrastructure planning and prized livability, particularly in the capital cities where most growth is occurring.

Our recently published research examined ways we can start planning for this doubling of our population now, while we still have time to address it. Our survey asked more than 1,000 people where they think these new Australians should live, to gauge their support for different settlement patterns.

We presumed a net-increase of 28 million people over the next 80 years, with half of those people dispersing across existing Australian cities and towns. We then asked our respondents where would they support the other 14 million people living.

The study is the first of its kind to gauge community opinion on these questions at a national scale.

Not surprisingly, our survey found strong opposition to continued growth of the state capital cities. Instead, our participants showed a strong preference for encouraging people to move to new and expanded satellite cities and rail hubs in regional areas. This finding aligns with the general urban-to-regional migration that was kindled by the pandemic.

Our aim was to understand people’s preferences for managing population growth at the national scale, with the hope it will inform a national urban policy to prepare for the coming population surge.

Read more:
New cities? It’s an idea worth thinking about for Australia

Where do we want to live?

We devised our settlement pattern scenarios based on possibilities that have been proposed by academics and policy-makers. Here’s how they ranked in order of popularity with our respondents:

1. Satellite Cities: Due to the affordability and livability issues confronting the state capitals, this scenario siphons long-term population growth to 14 satellite cities like Gold Coast, Geelong and Wollongong. Respondents considered this scenario to be the most sustainable and feasible, while also ensuring livability.

2. Rail Cities: Inspired by rail hubs in other countries, this second placed scenario funnels population growth to 18 regional cities connected to the state and federal capitals by major high-speed rail links (yet to be built).

3. Inland Cities: This scenario distributes population growth to 29 key inland centres, many with at least hypothetical capacity to take on more people.

4. Western Cities: Western Australia comprises one-third of the continent but houses just over one-tenth of the population. Accordingly, this scenario boosts the populations of nine cities and towns along the west coast.

5. Northern Cities: Given northern Australia’s considerable economic output and proximity to Asia, this scenario envisions an increase of the population of the nine largest northern cities.

6. Sea Change Cities: Given the ever-escalating costs of coastal real estate in the capitals, this scenario channels population growth to 25 alternative sea-change cities.

7. Secondary Capital Cities: Given the livability and affordability issues in Sydney and Melbourne, this scenario sees more people moving to the smaller state and territory capital cities.

8. Megacities: Melbourne and Sydney generate the bulk of Australia’s GDP and historically have attracted the most migrants. This lowest-ranked scenario would see this trend continue with concentrated population growth in two future Australian megacities. Respondents universally loathed this scenario.

Why satellite and rail hubs are so appealing

As the rankings show, Australians generally support population decentralisation away from state capitals (in particular Melbourne and Sydney) with the expansion of satellite and rail cities.

Such sentiments could stem from a case of national-scale NIMBY-ism (“not in my backyard”). However, over a third of our respondents were from regional and remote areas, and most of these people supported population growth in their home towns.

Read more:
FactCheck: is Australia’s population the ‘highest-growing in the world’?

We argue that expanding satellite and rail cities is a smart plan for the future because it can achieve equitable distribution of population growth and protect urban livability. Moreover, these schemes allow for better adaptation to climate change by generally avoiding coastal areas that are vulnerable to sea-level rise.

However, expanding regional centres into major cities comes with considerable challenges, such as attracting industries and jobs away from the capital cities, delivering the crucial enabling infrastructure of ports, airports, rail lines, schools, housing and medical centres, and overcoming environmental challenges like water security.

Why we need a national urban policy

This type of ambitious planning requires a national urban policy, which is currently lacking in Australia. Our current population planning is too fragmented and uncoordinated, with states, territories and local governments all having divergent views about our common future. It resembles a patchwork quilt.

As we emerge from the disruptive restrictions caused by the pandemic, which led many to embrace tree- and sea-change moves away from the capitals, there’s no better time to pursue such a coordinated national plan.

There’s already some semblance of political will. The Coalition has spruiked policies for “smart cities” and negotiating “city deals”, which unite local, state and federal governments on key projects. Labor, meanwhile, is fixated on building high-speed east coast rail.

With an election looming, will either party take a harder look at the bigger question here and announce plans for a national urban policy? We can’t pretend this population boom isn’t happening – and our cities need to be ready.

Julian Bolleter receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Robert Freestone receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Our population is expected to double in 80 years. We asked Australians where they want all these people to live – https://theconversation.com/our-population-is-expected-to-double-in-80-years-we-asked-australians-where-they-want-all-these-people-to-live-176889

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne), Curtin University

With everything going on over the past couple of years, many people have changed their drinking habits.

We’ve seen an increased demand for support, suggesting more people are trying to cut back or quit.

There are so many options for cutting back or quitting alcohol it’s hard to know what will be most effective.

Read more:
Australians are embracing ‘mindful drinking’ — and the alcohol industry is also getting sober curious

What works depends on how much you drink

Most people successfully quit or cut back their alcohol consumption on their own.

People who drink more frequently are much more likely to have symptoms of dependence and might find it more difficult.

You might be dependent if:

• you can’t easily go a day without drinking alcohol, or find it hard to cut back

• a lot of your social activities include or are based around drinking

• you find yourself thinking about or wanting alcohol a lot

• you find it difficult to control the amount you drink once you start

• you need to drink a lot to feel the effects

• you experience withdrawal symptoms, even mild ones, such as feeling unwell or a slight shaking in your hands when you go a day or two without alcohol.

The more of these signs you have and the more severe they are, the more dependent you’re likely to be. You can check your risk of dependence here.

If you have a mild dependence on alcohol, you may be able to cut back on your own. But if you are moderately dependent, you may need to get some kind of support.

If you are severely dependent, you should seek medical advice before you make any change to your drinking because stopping suddenly can cause severe health problems, including seizures and even death in some people.

For people who are severely dependent, the usual recommendation is to take a permanent or temporary break from alcohol. It may take six months to a year or more before you are able to start drinking again. Some people find it’s better for them not to drink again at all. With severe dependence, there’s a high risk of quickly going back to heavy drinking if you just try to cut back.

If you experience any symptoms of dependence, once you stop or cut back your drinking, you might need specialist treatment or ongoing support to prevent going back to heavy drinking.

Read more:
Heavy drinkers increased their alcohol consumption the most during lockdown – new research

‘Cold turkey’ or reduction?

If you’re not dependent, you should be able to either reduce the quantity or frequency of drinking or quit altogether. You may do this on your own or choose to get some support. If one method doesn’t work, try a different way.

If you experience mild to moderate dependence, every time you have a drink it can become a trigger to drink more. So it’s sometimes easier to increase drink-free days, rather than reducing the quantity on drinking days, or to quit altogether for a period of time.

People who are severely dependent usually require some kind of withdrawal support to stop drinking. It is usually better to stop altogether (“cold turkey”) as long as you have medical support. You can undertake withdrawal treatment in a hospital, at home with the help of a GP or nurse, or via telehealth. Alcohol withdrawal typically lasts about five to seven days.

Zero-alcohol drinks

Zero-alcohol drinks are alcoholic drinks with the alcohol removed but which retain a taste similar to the alcoholic version. There is now a huge variety of options for spirits, beer and wine.

If you are not dependent but are trying to reduce your alcohol intake for health or other reasons, these can be a good option. By replacing some or all of your usual alcoholic drinks with zero-alcohol drinks, you can still enjoy the social aspects of drinking without the health risks of alcohol.

If you are dependent on alcohol, the smell and taste of zero-alcohol drinks can act as a trigger for drinking alcohol. They might make it more difficult to make permanent changes to your drinking.

Read more:
Why are young people drinking less than their parents’ generation did?

Treatment apps and online support

A range of computerised, web-based, and mobile apps have been developed to support people cutting back or quitting alcohol. They have shown promising results in early trials. The benefit of these apps is accessibility, but the outcomes are modest and they seem to work best in conjunction with professional support.

Hello Sunday Morning’s Daybreak program is a large online alcohol support community, accessed through a mobile and desktop app. It’s designed for moderate drinkers who want to cut back or quit. Early research suggests it’s effective in reducing drinking, as well as improving psychological well-being and quality of life.

Some previously face-to-face support groups like SMART Recovery and Alcoholics Anonymous have moved online, which has increased accessibility. These are typically more suited to people who are dependent on alcohol.

Psychological interventions

Brief interventions

As little as five minutes of advice from a GP can reduce alcohol consumption by 30%, especially for people who are in the mild to moderate dependence category. So it’s worth chatting to your doctor if you need a little help getting started.

Counselling and psychological therapy

The main treatment type to help with alcohol issues is counselling. Sessions are usually once a week with a qualified professional, such as a psychologist. Sometimes they are delivered in group settings. Counselling is suitable for any level of drinker who is trying to make changes.

Some of the main evidence-based counselling treatments in Australia are behavioural and cognitive therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness-based relapse prevention. These types of treatments have been shown to be at least as effective as medication

Intensive group programs

A number of more intensive group programs are suited to people who are dependent on alcohol or who are having significant problems, including:

• residential rehabilitation, which is usually for people who have tried other treatments unsuccessfully or who may be unsuitable for non-residential treatment because their home life is not supportive of making changes. It has been shown to be effective in increasing abstinence in dependent drinkers

• day programs, which are similar to residential rehabilitation programs but participants live at home and go in each day. These are a relatively new treatment type and there is limited good quality research on their outcomes.

Read more:
Four reasons why your tolerance for alcohol can change

Medication

A number of medications can help people who are moderately to severely dependent on alcohol. They tend to work best in conjunction with counselling.

• disulfiram is an older medication that works on the alcohol metabolism system and induces nausea and vomiting if alcohol is taken at the same time

• acamprosate can help prevent relapse in people who have already been through withdrawal

• naltrexone reduces cravings in heavy drinkers.

Self-help groups

Alcoholics Anonymous’s 12-step movement has a long history dating back to the 1930s, when there was very little available in the way of real alcohol treatment. There is relatively little research on AA and much of that has been conducted from within the organisation. The known outcomes are modest – the success rate is estimated to be around 10% and the dropout rate appears high.

AA can be helpful for some people and also provides a very well-established peer support network if you need support. It seems to be more effective in conjunction with professional treatment.

There are many options if you are trying to reduce your drinking and no single strategy works for everyone. The best approach is to start with something that looks appealing and feasible to get the outcomes you are looking for. If that’s not effective, try something else or seek professional help.

Read more:
Another Round? What really happens when you microdose alcohol

Nicole Lee works as a consultant in the alcohol and other drug sector and a psychologist in private practice. She has previously been awarded funding by Australian and state governments, NHMRC and other bodies for evaluation and research into alcohol and other drug prevention and treatment. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Hello Sunday Morning. She is a Fellow of the Australian Association for Cognitive and Behaviour Therapy and was previously President.

– ref. Trying to cut back on alcohol? Here’s what works – https://theconversation.com/trying-to-cut-back-on-alcohol-heres-what-works-179664

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janine Mohamed, Distinguished Fellow and CEO, The Lowitja Institute

The urgency of tackling climate change is even greater for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and other First Nation peoples across the globe. First Nations people will be disproportionately affected and are already experiencing existential threats from climate change.

The unfolding disaster in the Northern Rivers regions of New South Wales is no exception, with Aboriginal communities completely inundated or cut off from essential supplies.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have protected Country for millennia and have survived dramatic climatic shifts. We are intimately connected to Country, and our knowledge and cultural practices hold solutions to the climate crisis. Despite this, we continue to be excluded from leadership roles in climate solution discussions, such as the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Read more:
Why the Australian government must listen to Torres Strait leaders on climate change

This continued exclusion is why investigation of the impacts of climate change on First Nations people is needed.

In October last year, the Lowitja Institute, in partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander National Health Leadership Forum and the Climate and Health Alliance, brought together researchers, community members, young people and advocates from across the country at a round-table discussion.

Together, they put together the findings for the Discussion Paper Climate change and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

Read more:
IPCC reports still exclude Indigenous voices. Come join us at our sacred fires to find answers to climate change

How climate change impacts Indigenous peoples

As the paper tells us, climate change threatens our social and cultural determinants of health, including access to Country, traditional foods, safe water, appropriate housing and health services.

Aboriginal health services are already struggling to operate in extreme weather, with increasing demands and a reduced workforce. All these forces combine to exacerbate already unacceptable levels of ill-health within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations and compound the historical and contemporary injustices of colonisation.

During the round table, we heard powerful and moving stories from communities on the front line of climate change.

Norman Frank Jupurrurla, a community leader from Tennant Creek, spoke of sacred waterholes drying up, ancient shade trees dying, temperatures rising, inadequate housing, power going out and spoiled essential food and medicines.

Vanessa Napaltjarri Davis, a Warlpiri/Northern Arrente woman and Senior Researcher at Tangentyere Council in Mparntwe/Alice Springs, spoke of changes to the availability of bush foods and medicines – essential to our health and well-being – due to changing temperatures and seasons.

For example, as Norman Frank Jupurrurla wrote:

…now the country is burning, getting destroyed, because of climate change. Already, I cannot see sand goannas any more.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold a deep and painful knowledge of the role dominant culture, racism and colonial power dynamics play within climate change. Although there have been many suggested solutions to climate change, access to these solutions is not equally or equitably available across Australia.

Norman Frank Jupurrurla demonstrated this when he shared the almost impossibly drawn-out process he has completed to become the first person to install solar panels on public housing in Tennant Creek, Northern Territory.

Read more:
What climate change activists can learn from First Nations campaigns against the fossil fuel industry

Indigenous peoples’ voices excluded from climate change conversations

Colonisation has ignored Indigenous ways of knowing, doing and being, right down to the weather. Colonisers insisted we live according to just four seasons, instead of the many seasons our people knew and respected.

This experience of marginalisation continues today where we have not been sufficiently included in national and international conversations about climate change, including being pushed to the sidelines at COP26.

The IPCC acknowledged this globally in its report last year. The report states that data and most reporting on climate change do not include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or local knowledge in the assessment findings.

The IPCC’s most recent report looks to recognise this omission and focuses specifically on the importance of our role and knowledge in addressing the climate crisis and the need for climate justice.

Read more:
We need to design housing for Indigenous communities that can withstand the impacts of climate change

The calls from our work are clear. We must elevate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices within climate change action and centre Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as leaders in protecting Country. In the words of Seed Mob, “We cannot have climate justice without First Nations justice.”

In seeking solutions, we must consider how colonial ideologies and practices around climate change can impact on our peoples. As Rhys Jones wrote, “It is not possible to understand and address climate-related health impacts for Indigenous peoples without examining this broader context of colonial oppression, marginalisation and dispossession.”

The Uluru Statement from the Heart, a gift to the Australian People, provides the road map for action:

• We must correct power asymmetries and establish co-governance arrangements and become strong advocates of, not only our interests, but our capabilities to tackle climate change.

• We must restore access to basic rights that will lay the groundwork for action that includes appropriate community participation/decision-making and incorporates cultural, environmental and sustainable design.

• We must weave our knowledges and strengthen partnerships to ensure that our collective wisdom and knowledge as Australia’s First Nations is integrated into climate adaptation and mitigation planning, directly benefitting the whole nation.

Indigenous people know about this continent; we’ve looked after it for millennia.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart gives the opportunity to restore that ancient power – for the benefit of us all and the survival of the planet.

Pat Anderson receives funding from the Lowitja Institute, Batchelor Institute, Remote Area Health Corps, and UNSW-ILC (Uluru Statement from the Heart)

Veronica Matthews receives funding from the NHMRC and the ARC.

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

– ref. Indigenous peoples across the globe are uniquely equipped to deal with the climate crisis – so why are we being left out of these conversations? – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-peoples-across-the-globe-are-uniquely-equipped-to-deal-with-the-climate-crisis-so-why-are-we-being-left-out-of-these-conversations-171724

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Moore, Doctor of Botany, The University of Melbourne

You may know of marvellous tree-lined roads that lead into your favourite rural and regional towns. Sometimes they have an arched, church-like canopy, while others have narrow ribbons of remnant vegetation.

But have you noticed they’ve changed over the past decade? Some have gone, some have thinned and others are now declining. This is because in general, roads are not safe places for plants and their ecosystems.

There are the obvious dangers from collisions with cars. But there are also more subtle dangers from road construction and maintenance that increase the chances of plant (and animal) deaths, such as by altering the chemical and physical environment, which introduces weeds and segregates wildlife.

This network of vegetation reserves and corridors along Australian roads must be properly valued and better protected. They stitch the landscapes and ecosystems of our nation together and, as they diminish and disappear, will become an unrecognised part of road toll. We will all be the poorer for it.

Ecosystems found on the roadside

Roadside vegetation are often important corridors connecting wildlife to their habitats. In some cases, they are the last bastions of rare and endangered plant species. Indeed, some of the grass and smaller flowering species of Australia’s once extensive grassy plains only persist on roadside refuges in parts of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia.

These corridors are also important habitats for smaller birds, mammals, insects and reptiles. They not only provide access to food and water sources, but allow breeding with a broader animal population.

Read more:
Destroying vegetation along fences and roads could worsen our extinction crisis — yet the NSW government just allowed it

For example, nine different mammal species have been recorded along the roadside of Victoria’s Strathbogie Ranges, including koalas, brushtail possums, gliders and phascogales.

Roads also increase water run-off and carry nutrients, which can allow a diversity of species to flourish on verges (nature strips). Plants that may not survive elsewhere get a toehold on edge of the bitumen using the precious extra resources it provides.

Australian road authorities often acknowledge the importance of these habitat corridors when roads are set to be upgraded or widened. But when it comes to the crunch, it’s the engineering and bottom line demands that generally win out – and plants invariably suffer.

This has an impact to cultural heritage, too. We saw this all too clearly in 2020 when a Djab Wurrung directions tree was bulldozed in Victoria for a new highway, despite valiant protest efforts.

Likewise, people rallied in Hong Kong to protect a significant banyan tree from removal from railway works. And the 300-year-old Bulleen river red gum, which won the National Trust’s Victorian Tree of the Year in 2019, awaits its fate in a major freeway project.

Read more:
This centuries-old river red gum is a local legend – here’s why it’s worth fighting for

The dangers of roads

Trees are supposed to be cleared according to codes of practice, such as the Australian Standard for Pruning Trees and the Australian Standard for Protecting Trees on Development Sites.

But based on my experiences over many years, when contractors breach one of these protections, there’s rarely enforcement or penalty.

For example, breaches can occur during powerline clearing across Australia, where old roadside trees can be decimated by losing much of their canopy. Trees may not survive such damage and if they do it will takes years for recovery.

Read more:
Dodgy tree loppers are scamming elderly homeowners and hacking up healthy trees. Here’s what you need to know

Clearing roadside vegetation can occur on a monumental scale after bushfires. While burnt, dead trees may be dangerous and need to be removed or pruned, the clearing can far exceed the safety requirement.

Local communities have been left to lament the loss of their green and leafy road reserves from fires, as well as losses to the trees themselves from unnecessary clearing – it’s a double blow.

Herbicide is another very common, but rarely spoken of, cause of death for roadside trees and vegetation, with roadside verges routinely sprayed to reduce weeds encroaching onto the edges of roads and tarmac.

Herbicide spray can drift and kill non-target vegetation, such as crops on adjacent farms and even ancient remnant trees nearby. While such events have occurred in Australia, they are seldom reported and farmers are rarely successful in obtaining compensation for losses.

Vandalism is another major issue, with many local examples of street trees being poisoned, lopped or cut down, for instance, to secure prized coastal views.

This not only affects Australia. In 2012 thousands of roadside and rural trees were illegally poisoned or cut down in the United States by billboard advertisers. Similar advertising-related tree removals also occurred in India.

Love your trees

More of us should take stock of roadside trees: they are links to Australia’s past, refuges of once more widespread natural communities, and remain an important part of cultural heritage.

Importantly, they connect us to a future under climate change. We cannot possibly fight to mitigate global warming without urban trees. If we do not value them, it is inevitable that we will be lamenting an expanding list of endangered species and possible extinctions.

Read more:
Here are 5 practical ways trees can help us survive climate change

Gregory Moore 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. Roadside trees stitch the ecosystems of our nation together. Here’s why they’re in danger – https://theconversation.com/roadside-trees-stitch-the-ecosystems-of-our-nation-together-heres-why-theyre-in-danger-175337

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert McLachlan, Professor in Applied Mathematics, Massey University

After two years of entry restrictions, New Zealand is re-opening its borders. Already, New Zealanders can re-enter the country without quarantine; they will be followed by Australians on April 12 and the rest of the world on May 1.

Families will be able to reunite. Grandparents will be able to visit new grandchildren for the first time. And the tourist industry is very keen to get cracking again.

But as international travel resumes, we should make sure flying doesn’t return to 2019 levels. That was incompatible with a safe climate and global emissions targets. At 2019 levels, there would be just ten years of flying left in the carbon budget for 1.5℃.

In 2019, New Zealand aviation emissions were 4.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂), having risen 43% since 2014 to become the sixth highest in the world per capita. At 12% of New Zealand’s total CO₂ emissions, they were a substantial chunk to be dealt with.

Domestic aviation is included in New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme (NZETS) and carbon budgets. International aviation emissions are measured but are not included in national targets or regulations.

Last November, at COP26 in Glasgow, New Zealand joined the International Aviation Climate Ambition Coalition and committed to:

Preparing up-to-date state action plans detailing ambitious and concrete national action to reduce aviation emissions and submitting these plans to ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization] well in advance of the 41st ICAO assembly.

This assembly of the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization will take place in September 2022.

How to cut aviation emissions

In a new report, economist Paul Callister and I look at all the options. What would “ambitious and concrete action” to reduce aviation emissions look like for New Zealand?

Change is in the air. There are new proposals for net zero aviation by 2050 from the EU, the UK, the International Air Transport Association, the International Energy Association, and Air New Zealand.

In New Zealand, a two-seater electric plane with a 130km range crossed the Cook Strait for the first time in November last year. Unfortunately, its larger cousins won’t be here soon enough or in large enough numbers to affect emissions overall.

Despite the media attention on electric and hydrogen aircraft, they do not feature strongly in New Zealand’s plans. Larger electric aircraft don’t exist yet and we need to act sooner than they will become available.

Better fuel technology

Offsetting (by planting trees, for example) is a temporary fix. It transfers risk to the next generation and does not get at the root of the problem, which is burning fossil fuels. Most pathways do not rely on much offsetting.

For the next few decades, emissions will be determined by traffic volumes, efficiency and sustainable aviation fuel.

Efficiency can be encouraged by using the most fuel-efficient planes (and possibly banning the others), filling them as much as possible, flying efficiently and increasing the price of fuel through a carbon charge or a sustainable fuel mandate, or both.

Read more:
NZ tourism can use the disruption of COVID-19 to drive sustainable change — and be more competitive

Sustainable aviation fuel is the main technological solution on the table. By 2035, New Zealand could conceivably build two NZ$520 million wood-based biofuel plants, producing 57 million litres a year each, and one 100MW e-fuel plant producing 40 million litres a year. Together they would provide 8% of New Zealand’s jet fuel at 2019 levels of demand.

However, neither of these technologies are yet in commercial use; the first demonstration plants are only now under construction. The uncertainties are large.

Traffic volumes are affected by price and regulation. Industry projections of very high growth (up to 120% by 2050) are not compatible with the Paris Agreement.

The present free ride for international aviation (no GST, no carbon charge, no fuel tax) is an obstacle. But now that the EU is considering a tax on jet fuel, this could change.

Curbing frequent flying

Flying less is the main remaining tool in the toolkit. Air travel is strikingly unevenly distributed. In Europe, 90% of households have aviation emissions of 0.1 tonnes of CO₂ per person per year (equivalent to one Auckland–Sydney return trip every four years); 9% emit 0.8 tonnes (Auckland–LA every two years); and the top 1%, 22.6 tonnes (Auckland–London six times a year).

So less frequent flying, especially by the hyper-mobile, has to be part of the solution. Non-flyers cannot reduce their aviation emissions. The Jump campaign asks people to limit flights to one 1500km return flight every three years, a level derived from a study of urban lifestyles compatible with 1.5℃.

Read more:
NZ tourism can use the disruption of COVID-19 to drive sustainable change — and be more competitive

The natural experiment of the COVID pandemic prompts the question of how essential such frequent flying is to well-being.

Stats New Zealand monitors well-being following international guidelines. While 81% of the population reported high overall life satisfaction in 2018, this rose to 86% in 2021. People adopted substitutes for international travel, including telecommunications, domestic tourism and local tourism.

The economy also grew, up 3.4% from 2019 to 2021.

However, there are confounding factors, namely the government stimulus, social solidarity and knowledge of the health risks of travel.

A recent UK study considers the role of curbing excess energy consumption in a fair transition. After comparing ten possible definitions of “excess”, they conclude that:

excess is whatever people can agree it is, based on ideas of “fairness” and “just” levels of consumption that can be rationalised, defended and justified to others … any policies that are used to target excess consumption and excessive consumers must be similarly reasonable and justifiable, based on the principles of deliberative democracy and exploring options, impacts and fairness with members of the public.

Two key events of the past decade reinforce the urgency of the situation. The first is the proven ability of the New Zealand aviation industry to increase emissions at a staggering rate when unregulated, as observed from 2014 to 2019. The second is COVID. Ensuring that aviation emissions remain permanently well below 2019 levels will make the longer-term task significantly easier.

Robert McLachlan 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. As borders open and international travel resumes, will New Zealand’s sky-high aviation emissions take off again? – https://theconversation.com/as-borders-open-and-international-travel-resumes-will-new-zealands-sky-high-aviation-emissions-take-off-again-179941