The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine has already seen New Zealand break with long diplomatic tradition and introduce an “autonomous” sanctions regime outside the normal United Nations process.
But as the war nears the one-month mark, there is more that can be done. In particular, the New Zealand government needs to look at five potential ways it can support the Ukrainian people and government and help international efforts to punish Russian aggression.
1. Offer non-lethal military assistance
The New Zealand government actively helped the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to defend themselves. But the current administration seems unwilling to do the same for Ukraine, despite the fact it is the victim of an illegal invasion by a superpower.
If New Zealand doesn’t wish to match the kind of lethal military aid its allies are providing, it could certainly offer non-lethal military assistance: body armour, communications equipment, night-vision technology, rations, medical packs and even cyber-security tools.
It may be small-scale, but the symbolism of helping the Ukrainian defence matters. The excuse that New Zealand has no surplus kit is lamentable. It should provide whatever it has now (via Australia, which can deliver it) and restock as required. At this moment, Ukraine needs it more than New Zealand does.
Ukrainian Territorial Defence Force soldiers in Kyiv: NZ has equipment to spare. GettyImages
2. Control New Zealanders wanting to fight
Both Ukraine and Russia are trying to internationalise the conflict by calling for foreign volunteers. Private contractors or mercenaries are also in high demand. There will undoubtedly be New Zealanders, including current or former Defence Force personnel, who are tempted to go.
While those with dual nationality (New Zealand and Ukrainian or Russian) will have some legal standing in the conflict, those without would risk execution if captured.
Current members of the New Zealand military risk being charged with mutiny if they attempt to serve a foreign power while still in uniform. Fighting as a mercenary overseas is also illegal under New Zealand law.
For New Zealanders motivated by ideology (rather than money), the government also needs to be explicit about the difference between fighting on the Ukrainian and Russian sides. One is acting like a terrorist organisation, and volunteers should be treated as such (much as New Zealand treated those leaving to join ISIS).
3. Open the door to refugees
The 2.8 million people who have already fled Ukraine is an exodus of unprecedented speed and scale. The government will need to extend its annual refugee quota (currently 1,500) and make some emergency decisions.
The recent approval of temporary sanctuary for around 4,000 family members of Ukrainians already in New Zealand is an excellent start. But the government needs to go further, with a focus on actual refugees, and commit to a number above the existing quota.
There is precedent to guide this, not least because the origins of New Zealand’s refugee policy lie in the same part of the world. In 1944 New Zealand accepted 733 Polish children and 102 adults fleeing war-torn Europe (including deportation to the Soviet Union).
The present generation can do better – at least double what was offered during the second world war.
4. Prepare for Russian vodka to become very expensive
Commendable as it is, the new Russian Sanctions Act, which targets specific individuals and entities supporting the Russian war effort, is only a first step.
As part of wider economic pressure already being applied internationally, New Zealand can still allow trade in some Russian products but use import duties to make them uncompetitive.
A number of countries have already started down this road, with the removal of Russia’s “most favoured nation” trade status. New Zealand should be prepared to act similarly – and expect Russia to reply in kind against New Zealand exports.
5. Discourage anti-Russian hysteria
Despite calls by the parliamentary opposition, New Zealand should not unilaterally expel the Russian ambassador. Such actions are normally a last resort, when countries are actually at war or there has been extreme interference in the host nation’s sovereignty.
In the case of Ukraine, for now at least, diplomacy has not run its course. Furthermore, it’s highly likely such a step would result in the New Zealand ambassador in Moscow being made persona non grata in response. New Zealand’s multiple interests in Russia would be left without official representation or support.
At a domestic level, the government should lead by example and not allow anger at Putin’s aggression to harden into anti-Russian sentiment. This means clearly identifying who and what should be subject to sanctions, observing due process and acting as fairly as possible.
Most Russians with citizenship or links to New Zealand will not be sanctions targets, anyway. Many will be opposed to Putin’s war. Ensuring tolerance, respect and protection is not only the right thing to do, it will help avoid reciprocal action against New Zealanders living in Russia.
Alexander Gillespie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When it comes to respiratory viruses, COVID has been our greatest concern over the past two winters. So you might feel some aspects of déjà vu as winter 2022 approaches in Australia.
But this year is different. With relaxed public health measures and the opening of international borders, we will likely see a rise in flu cases. This is on top of a predicted rise in COVID.
The potential double-whammy has prompted the federal government to announce A$2.1 billion to target these expected spikes. The funding has been earmarked for measures including vaccination, testing and measures to protect aged care.
Here’s what to expect and how to protect yourself ahead of winter.
The main reason behind the expected rise in flu in 2022 is the opening of Australia’s international borders.
Tourists and returning residents can arrive without quarantining, provided they have the required COVID vaccinations and have had a COVID test beforehand. However, new arrivals don’t have to be tested for the flu virus, which they may inadvertently bring with them.
Flu, a little like COVID, can be spread by infected others before symptoms arise or even if symptoms don’t appear, something we regularly see in children. So once flu arrives, it will inevitably spread, regardless of whether we use masks, hand sanitiser or other measures.
It’s highly likely we’ll see COVID and influenza circulating at the same time this winter. But less certain is the more catastrophic predictions in the media of a so-called twindemic or syndemic.
COVID is more likely to persist and increase during the winter, and sometime during this period influenza will pop up. But we’re uncertain about the details.
Will flu be mild or more concerning in 2022? Will we see a rise in cases during the usual June-September period, peaking normally in August? The answers to these questions rely on history, the current situation and a good deal of speculation.
History tells us that after two seasons of low or no influenza circulating, we should expect a more severe season. That’s because the majority of people are not vaccinated against influenza each year and peoples’ natural immunity after infection will have waned.
However, current evidence argues against this. In the Northern Hemisphere, there have been low levels of flu circulating in most countries, with shorter outbreaks, compared with pre-pandemic years.
We’ve also seen a number of countries in the Southern Hemisphere – including South Africa, Brazil and Chile – having out-of-season flu outbreaks, during their 2021-2022 summer.
So this may mean the timing of Australia’s normal influenza season might be delayed until spring or even later in 2022.
Will I get ‘flurona’?
We may also see dual infections – when someone has COVID and influenza at the same time – sometimes dubbed “flurona”.
While this has occurred, the rates of dual infections globally have been low. Generally, under 1% of people with COVID also have influenza at the same time. Even with dual infections, people do not seem to be sicker than if they had COVID alone.
We’ll have a better idea of how many people will be infected with both viruses at once with the use of broader laboratory tests now available at many sites. These so called multiplex tests will detect a range of respiratory diseases, including COVID and flu, in a single test.
Fortunately, there is no way a new “hybrid virus” can emerge containing parts of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) and the influenza virus in people with dual infections. These are distinct viruses that cannot combine.
Despite the uncertainties around flu in Australia in 2022, the best way to protect yourself is to get your flu vaccine.
Everyone is susceptible to flu, no matter your age, health or lifestyle. However, some age groups and some people with underlying disease are likely to suffer more severe consequences if infected with influenza.
These include young children (especially those under two years old), people aged 65 and over, pregnant women, people with chronic lung and heart disease, those with asthma, diabetes and people who are obese.
Different flu vaccines target different age groups with different formulations. These vaccines have a proven safety record and usually only cause very mild reactions, such as soreness at the injection site, mild fever or headache. These may last for a 12-24 hours and are easily treated with paracetamol or similar medications.
Flu vaccines are free for children aged six months to under five years of age, people aged 65 or older, pregnant women and all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people six months and older. People not eligible for free vaccines can still get them via their GP or some pharmacies.
This year you won’t have to schedule different visits for your influenza and COVID vaccinations. If needed, you can get them at the same time.
Influenza vaccines will be available from late March and will provide protection for at least 6-12 months. While these vaccines are not perfect they help prevent infection and the more serious consequences of the flu, such as hospitalisation and even death. So in April to May this year, as the cool days and nights return, think about booking in and getting your flu shot.
Ian Barr owns shares in a vaccine producing company. His Centre receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Health as well as a number of commercial pharmaceutical companies.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Van Dijk, Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University
Shutterstock
After the devastating floods, it’s hard to imagine only two years earlier many hard-hit communities suffered extreme heat, drought and unprecedented bushfires. Yet our report, released today, shows Australia’s environment has recovered dramatically since then.
Every year we use a supercomputer to analyse vast amounts of measurements from satellites and field stations to give the condition of Australia’s environment a score out of ten. For 2021, we score it 6.9 – four points higher than the year before.
The improvement is largely thanks to two years of plentiful rains that helped Australia’s forests, pastures and farmland recover well.
But as the rains only increased in 2022, inundating many parts of southeast Australia, you may well be wondering: can there be too much rain for our environment? And what might this all mean for the coming bushfire seasons?
First, let’s look back at 2021
We assessed Australia’s environment using 15 key indicators, such as water availability, bushfire, population pressures and vegetation health. Combined, these help determine the overall “environmental condition score”.
On our website, you can also find regional scores for your state or territory, local government area, catchment and electorate. Unusually, scores improved almost everywhere.
We confirmed that rainfall was near or above average nearly everywhere, thanks to back-to-back La Niña events – a natural climate phenomenon over the Pacific Ocean associated with wetter weather.
What’s more, in the winter and spring of 2021, parts of Australia also felt the effects of a “negative Indian Ocean Dipole” – a little like the Indian Ocean’s version of La Niña that also brings rainier weather.
Here are a few ways all this rain benefited Australia’s environment:
it replenished parched soils that missed rainfall in 2020, and improved growing conditions in both natural and managed landscapes such as farms and plantation forests.
compared to 2020, drought conditions eased across previously drought-ravaged areas of inland northern Australia
river flows across Australia increased by 75% on 2020 figures, and urban water supplies increased for all capital cities
wetlands swelled to their greatest total extent since 2016 (although still 9% below the 20-year average), with no major algal blooms or fish kills
growth conditions in Australia’s cropping, grazing and irrigation lands were well above average and the best since 2000 in all major regions except South Australia and inland Western Australia.
Australia also experienced less population growth and carbon emissions in 2021, mainly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, translating to a slower increase of the pressure on our environment.
Dark clouds on the horizon
Unfortunately, some troubling trends did not get better in 2021. Biodiversity continued to decline. Twelve species were declared extinct, although ten of those probably went extinct more than 60 years ago. A more recent extinction was the Christmas Island pipistrelle, a tiny bat last seen in 2009.
Another 34 species were added to Australia’s list of threatened species, eight of which are birds from Kangaroo Island, which suffered extensive and severe bushfires in early 2020.
While the number of threatened species fluctuate with the condition of their habitat, their long-term decline continues unabated. This is largely driven by invasive species such as feral cats and foxes, logging, urban development, river water extraction and an increasingly hot climate.
For example, despite the good rains and increased wetland extent, researchers counted fewer birds in Eastern Australia than in the previous four years.
Favourable conditions in the Great Barrier Reef led to the rapid, but fragile, recovery of hard corals after three bleaching events in five years. However, a recent heatwave in northern Queensland means a fourth coral bleaching event is on the cards for 2022.
And of course, despite the relatively benign weather conditions in 2021, the spectre of climate change on a global level has not lifted.
World economies recovering from the pandemic saw atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increase by 2.5 parts per million, 6% faster than in 2020 and 11% faster than the average growth rate since 2000.
Because of La Niña, more of the excess heat went into the Pacific Ocean in 2021 than normal, rather than into the atmosphere. So while the atmosphere was 0.14 degrees cooler than in 2021, it was still almost one degree above the 2000-20 average and the sixth-warmest year on record.
Can there ever be too much rain?
Above-average rain already led to major flooding in Queensland and NSW in 2021, even before the more recent deluge. Indeed, the recent, record-breaking rains added more water to soils, catchments, rivers and dams already replenished in 2021.
Does Australia’s environment still benefit from so much rain? Mostly, it can.
Our ecosystems are generally better adapted to wild climate swings, shedding excess water efficiently and recovering quickly from damage.
In normally dry regions, more rain means more vegetation growth and uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere – although much of it will be released again during droughts or fires.
River flooding is a source of life in inland Australia, which may mitigate some of the damage done by the diversion and over-extraction of floodwaters.
The consequences of extreme rainfall for invasive plants and animals are poorly understood but probably very diverse. Invasive species less adapted to drought may spread faster.
But the biggest environmental impacts are where natural vegetation was cleared for farming, housing or mining. Unprotected, bare soil soaks up less excess rainfall, and the rain and runoff can loosen up more sediment.
This erosion degrades farmland, cuts away riverbanks and the washed-out sediment and nutrients end up in rivers and the sea, where it can smother marine life and encourages outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish that attack coral reefs.
What does this mean for bushfires?
The Bureau of Meteorology expects that La Niña conditions reached their peak and rainfall conditions may normalise soon. Some of the excess heat stored in the ocean will be released, causing air temperatures to quickly resume their warming trend.
Combined with the booming growth of vegetation, the extent of bushfires will likely pick up again next fire season: more vegetation means more fuel for fire. And it only takes a few hot and dry weeks for these conditions to increase fire activity.
Unfortunately, the pressures of vegetation destruction, invasive species and climate change will degrade our agriculture and ecosystems for decades to come. Incisive reductions in carbon emissions and more careful ecosystem management can avoid these impacts worsening.
Both are within reach, but require the sort of consensus and resolve shown in response to COVID-19 and Russia’s invasion. Our environmental crisis is no less severe.
Australia’s Environment is produced by the ANU Fenner School for Environment & Society with support from TERN, an NCRIS-enabled National Research Infrastructure. Albert Van Dijk receives or has previously received funding from several government-funded agencies, grant schemes and programmes.
Shoshana Rapley 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nigel Stork, Emeritus Professor in the Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security, Griffith University
Johan LarsonAuthor provided
When you walk through a rainforest, you might feel like you’re missing out. You can hear birdsong and insect noises from way up high. For decades, the rainforest canopy was called “the last biotic frontier,” due to the sheer difficulty of getting up there.
Just over 30 years ago, that began to change. Researchers from the Smithsonian installed an industrial crane in a Panama rainforest to give scientists access. Ten more were installed around the world over the next decade.
In 1998, Australia joined in, building a canopy crane in the Daintree rainforest, near Cape Tribulation. Our new research covers the story of how the canopy crane was installed, and what research has stemmed from it.
While canopies are hard to access, they are well worth the effort. The tree canopy is where the atmosphere meets the biosphere. As much as half of all biodiversity on Earth is found in tropical rainforests – and a large proportion of all these species are found in the canopy.
The Daintree’s canopy crane is Australia’s first. Author provided
What’s it like riding a canopy crane?
Riding the crane is an eerily quiet experience, as the power driving the crane comes from offsite.
You step into a kind of dangling gondola, suspended from the rig of the crane. As you go up, you immediately notice how uneven the canopy is. The crowns of some trees are way higher than others. Some trees are covered in vines and epiphyte air plants. Birds and large insects are abundant, particularly around trees in flower.
The tower crane is 45 metres tall. But even if you’re not great with heights, you may well find yourself too distracted by the sights to be worried. With a 55 metre jib, the crane can pivot to cover an area of forest larger than the size of a soccer field, with more than 80 species of trees.
The canopy crane is nestled so deeply in World Heritage-listed rainforest it can be hard to imagine the mammoth task involved in building a 70-tonne steel crane in the middle of the forest. In a serendipitous twist to the story, a heavy lift helicopter was available right when the crane was being erected, with the effort captured on film.
Funded by the Australian Research Council, the crane forms a key part of a nationally unique research and teaching facility at the Daintree Rainforest Observatory, where school and university students can stay for extended periods.
A view not often seen: the Daintree rainforest canopy from above. Author provided
What knowledge has the crane unlocked?
Over the past 24 years, this industrious workhorse has made possible more than 120 studies across fields as varied as entomology, plant phenology and physiology.
Researchers examine the canopy. Author provided
One important discovery has been the influence on ant communities by honeydew produced by bugs as well as nectar exuded from a plant’s glands other than flowers. Some ant species specialise in extracting these high energy foods to become the dominant species in the canopy.
Not only that, but studies from the crane have shown us our assumptions that rainforest canopies are unusually rich in species may not be entirely correct. It has allowed us to test the theory two thirds of all insect species are found in the canopy. In fact, intensive sampling of beetles showed both canopy and ground habitats are equally important for this hugely species rich group.
What will reduced rainfall mean for the Daintree?
Australia’s canopy crane has given us a bird’s eye view of how rainforests cope with a drying climate and drought conditions, with a large scale experiment under way.
Our Daintree experiment consists of two large areas covered by clear plastic roof panels which prevent almost all the rain from reaching the ground.
Researchers monitor what occurs in these areas. With much less rain, plant productivity drops. Plants change the way their wood grows to cope with lower water availability.
When shrubs and saplings in the understorey are water-stressed, we see reduced rates of photosynthesis occuring alongside higher levels of insect attack on leaves. Wood-boring insects are more common on these saplings, while termites were more active across the drought experiment area.
The Daintree drought experiment we are running examines the effect of much less rainfall on the rainforest. Author provided
Up on the crane, we’ve discovered that insects in the canopy may respond differently to drought stresses compared to those lower down in the forest.
We found more insects feeding on sap and fungi in drought-stressed trees down in the understorey, while we found little change in the canopy insects. This suggests insects up high are either very mobile or that the large canopy trees are less affected by drought.
Australian research could benefit from more canopy cranes
If we are to answer important questions about how ecosystems will function as the climate changes, we could benefit from more cranes. Six cranes have proved vital to Western Sydney University’s large scale experiment on how Australian forests, animals and soils will fare at 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide (we’re currently at 400).
While nimble new technologies like drones give us exciting new data on canopies, canopy cranes will have a place for years to come. That’s because drones cannot give humans direct access to the canopy.
As the Daintree crane ages, questions will arise over whether it’s worth replacing when the time comes. The fact that understorey and canopy plants respond differently to drought shows us we cannot simply extrapolate what happens at ground level to what happens at height in the rainforest.
Canopy cranes give us vital access and make possible studies across whole forest ecosystems. Australia’s only tropical forest canopy crane has proven its worth.
Nigel Stork receives funding from the Australian Research Council
Claire Gely receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Susan Laurance works for James Cook University that runs the Daintree Rainforest Observatory. Susan Laurance has received ARC funding to support her drought experiment at the Daintree Rainforest Observatory.
Most universities created divisions or units commonly known as “safer community”. These have a broad mandate to improve student safety and promote respectful engagement on campus. Safer community units also provide counselling and other therapeutic support for student survivors of sexual violence and harassment, as well as supporting them through internal investigations.
Universities have tried to make clearer their sexual violence reporting policies for students. Some have set up online portals for survivors and bystanders to report sexual harm.
A number of universities have introduced short, one-off online education modules. These include Consent Matters and “first-responder” staff training in how to respond to student disclosures of sexual violence. Universities have also implemented communications campaigns and bystander interventions.
The 2021 Safer Communities Symposium highlighted that these units often have limited resources, high staff turnover and face institutional barriers. Some of their personnel lack training in sexual violence. There is little to no support for university staff who experience sexual harms at work.
As for reporting policies, these are not nationally consistent. The policies are not always written in plain language or easily accessible for staff and students. Reporting options need to be improved, too, to meet best-practice guidelines.
Student and staff training in respectful relationships and appropriate responses to disclosures is a welcome change. However, we know very little about its impact due to a lack of evaluation.
We don’t know, for example, how effective Consent Matters is at preventing sexual violence on campus. We also lack data on the effectiveness of first responder training in supporting survivors – from the perspective of both responders and survivors.
Our research points to the need for a whole-of-university approach to sexual violence. Such an approach factors in all elements of the institution from the individual to the structural, including its place within the broader community.
In practice, this might mean better safer community resourcing. We also need to ensure these services remain survivor-centred, trauma-informed and intersectional, meaning their services are appropriate for survivors with different experiences, identities, backgrounds and needs. Universities must reduce the institutional barriers that can and do undermine the potential for change.
Interventions should include evidence-based primary prevention initiatives. These initiatives must focus on staff as well as students and cover the costs for casual staff to attend training.
At the Safer Communities Symposium, one of us (Jessica Ison) presented findings of a study with staff members from safer community divisions across Australian universities. The study found few evidence-based interventions for staff or students. Nor are interventions consistently evaluated.
An important factor in this is we do not have a strong evidence base about what works in preventing sexual violence. Much of the attention to date has focused on community perceptions of violence against women or bystander interventions. But we still know very little about perpetrators.
Most of what we do know comes from research conducted with convicted sex offenders. Yet most people who perpetrate sexual assault will never be detected by the criminal justice system. We need to build a stronger base of evidence about all perpetrators to enhance prevention interventions.
As for reducing barriers to reporting, we know from the 2016 survey that 87% of those who were sexually assaulted and 94% of those who were sexually harassed did not make a formal report or complaint to their university. Many said they didn’t know where to go or how to make a report.
Survivors worry about possible repercussions and not being believed if they report sexual violence on campus. University hierarchies of power have a major impact on whether or not survivors choose to report. These include: gendered power relations, supervisory relationships (staff-student or staff-staff), employment status, and visa status for international students.
A whole-of-university approach is needed to counter the role that power plays in creating the conditions for sexual violence. Power relations also shape under-reporting and undermine survivors who do come forward.
In this article we have focused on structural change within universities. However, we don’t know whether or to what extent survivors have been (and remain) involved in bringing about change. Survivors continue to express frustration and disappointment at inaction and dismissal when they report sexual violence to their institutions, as well as when they’re left out of decision-making processes.
Universities need to involve survivors and advocacy groups such as End Rape on Campus in efforts to prevent sexual violence. Survivors should be included in policy design and implementation, advocacy work and improvement of reporting portals for students and staff.
At the same time, we should take care not to overburden survivors. Any engagement should be meaningful and grounded in a trauma-informed and culturally safe approach.
Sexual violence and harassment on campuses are preventable. Next week’s release of the National Student Safety Survey findings is an opportunity for universities to redouble their commitment to survivors and their communities.
Nicola Henry receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Institute of Criminology. She is also a member of the Australian eSafety Commissioner’s Advisory Group.
Rachel Loney-Howes receives funding from the Australian Institute of Criminology.
Jessica Ison 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.
Barthélémy Toguo,
The Generous Water Giant, 2022. Courtesy Bandjoun Station & Galerie Lelong & Co. Installation view, 23rd Biennale of Sydney, rīvus, 2022, Museum of Contemporary Art Australia. Phot ography: Document Photography.
Review: the 23rd Biennale of Sydney, rīvus.
Artists for generations have shown vision and leadership in addressing society’s most wicked problems. Yet art by itself cannot change the world without a platform. International biennales are the most high-profile exhibition platforms of our times.
As the third oldest continuous international biennale, running since 1973, the Biennale of Sydney is one of the most authoritative and influential contemporary art exhibitions in the world.
Working collaboratively with a team of four Sydney-based curators from Arts & Cultural Exchange (ACE), Artspace, Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA) and the Art Gallery of NSW, the artistic director and Colombian curator José Roca has addressed some of the most pressing preoccupations of the day.
Specifically, the current 23rd edition shows how biennales can make a constructive contribution to debates around environmental sustainability and can advocate for a less ecologically combative inhabitation of Earth.
This is not a dry or didactic exhibition: it is rich with wonder, aesthetically captivating and, at times, viscerally immersive.
Equal status to science and art
Nyikina Warrwa woman Dr Anne Poelina recently co-authored an article about the growing recognition of the legal rights of rivers.
She is featured in one of several similar videos in the Biennale as the personification of the Martuwarra (Fitzroy) River.
The personhood of rivers is a key premise underpinning the entire 2022 Biennale, titled rīvus, or “stream” in Latin.
Leeroy New, Balete, 2022 (detail). Courtesy the artist. Installation view, 23rd Biennale of Sydney, rīvus, 2022, Arts and Cultural Exchange. Photography: Document Photography.
At the entrance to each of the exhibition venues, a different river greets the viewer: its cultural significance and ecological woes embodied by a First Nations custodian narrator. It is a deft curatorial device that serves to link the exhibitions across Sydney and establish the equal status this biennale affords art, science, activism, traditional knowledge and bodies of water.
For the previous Biennale in 2020, artistic director Brook Andrew made a similar curatorial intervention with his “Powerful Objects” installation at each venue, which served to gently reiterate the exhibition’s postcolonial discourse.
This is just one element of continuity between the 2020 and 2022 editions; another is the foregrounding of First Nations cultural knowledge.
If biennales are to retain relevance in these difficult times, they must look to curatorial models that accumulate rather than discard strategies and knowledge gained with each edition.
By not wiping the slate entirely clean, the 2022 Biennale of Sydney strengthens messaging from the 2020 edition, key aspects of which were impacted by COVID-19 with closures and cancellations and for that reason also have been taken up by Roca and his team.
This signals a curatorial generosity not usually associated with biennales, more commonly perceived as the playground of individualistic artists and star curators.
Badger Bates with Anthony Hayward & David Doyle, Barkandji canoe , 2020; Badger Bates, Mungabuttaka, 2021; Karnka, 2021; Wanna, 2019; Coolamon, 2021; Nulla nulla, 2019. Courtesy Badger Bates, Anthony Hayward and David Doyle. Rear: Rex Greeno, Ningher (Reed canoe), 2020 (detail). Purchased 2021 with funds from Gina Fairfax through the Queensland Art Gallery | Gallery of Modern Art Foundation Collection: Queensland Art Gallery | Gallery of Modern Art. Installation view, 23rd Biennale of Sydney, rīvus, 2022, Art Gallery of New South Wales. Photography: Document Photography
In 1982, Beuys – a German artist and environmental activist – launched the project by planting seeds for 7,000 oak trees in Kassel. In 1984, the planting of a single tree was commissioned for that year’s Biennale of Sydney.
Beuys’ work is referenced by two projects at the Art Gallery of NSW. The first is by English artist duo Ackroyd & Harvey, well known internationally for their ongoing tree-planting project Beuys’ Acorns, inspired by 7000 Oaks.
Ackroyd & Harvey, Lille Madden / Tar-Ra (Dawes Point), Gadigal land, Sydney, 2022. Courtesy the artists. Installation view, 23rd Biennale of Sydney, rīvus, 2022, Art Gallery of New South Wales. Photography: Document Photography
For the biennale they have created monumental “living” portraits of environmentalist Lille Madden and her grandfather Uncle Charles “Chicka” Madden. Made in Sydney from a variety of grasses, the commanding portraits are ephemeral like grass itself and will likely fade over time.
The second work connecting back to Beuys is One Beat One Tree. A digital interactive installation by the late Belgian artist Naziha Mestaoui, it invites visitors to “plant” and “grow” a tree with dance-like moves. While these trees grow on the screen, the work also has real-world reforestation outcomes.
Naziha Mestaoui’s One Beat, One Tree, 2017. Felicity Fenner, Author provided
Another response to Beuys’ tree is being performed by artist Mike Parr this week.
The 2022 biennale’s homage to Beuys resuscitates Australia’s iteration of one of the world’s earliest and most iconic environmental artworks, which will be relaunched with the opening of Sydney Modern later this year.
Flow and connection
This seamless flow across time, cultures and natural environments epitomises the 22nd Biennale of Sydney, making it is near impossible to single out individual works as highlights.
Those that conjure the concepts of flow and interconnectedness, inherent to bodies of water, most clearly articulate the exhibition premise. There is Bernie Krause’s audio feast titled The Great Animal Orchestra and Cave Urban’s suspended bamboo river at Barangaroo.
Left to Right: Nicole Foreshew, YIRUNG BILA (SKY HEAVEN RIVER),2022.
(detail). Courtesy the artist; Cave Urban, Flow, 2022 (detail). Courtesy the artists; Hera Büyüktaşçıyan, Fishbone IV, 2019- 2022 (detail). Courtesy the artist & Green Art Gallery, Dubai; and Ana Barboza and Rafael Freyre, Water ecosystem, 2019-2022 (detail). Courtesy the artists & Museode Arte Contemporáneo de Lima. Installation view, 23rd Biennale of Sydney, rīvus, 2022, The Cutaway at Barangaroo. Photography: Document Photography.
Leanne Tobin’s film traces the journey of the Burramatta (Parramatta) River eels at ACE. Hannah Tuulikki’s equally hypnotic film depicts the artist singing to and swimming with seals in her native Scotland.
Carolina Caycedo’s expansive wall map of waterways at the National Art School Gallery is matched in its big picture vision by Barthélémy Toguo’s similarly sweeping painting, The Generous Water Giant, at the MCA.
Installation view Ngalawan – We Live, We Remain 2022. Photograph: Lyndal Irons
The accompanying publication, rīvus: a glossary of water, encapsulates the exhibition’s interdisciplinary approach in a way that, like the exhibition itself, is non-hierarchical and interwoven.
The 2022 Biennale of Sydney invites new audiences through its attention to those international issues also impacting Australia, and in its extensive participation with local artists and communities.
Though still very much part of the international biennale network, this exhibition has all the ingredients to offer Australian visitors inspiration and meaningfulness at a time when art and exhibitions are all too easily overshadowed by the global challenges we face.
The 23rd Biennale of Sydney, rīvus, is at various venues until June 13.
The author’s journal article “De-Beuysed But Not Forgotten: Joseph Beuys in Sydney” (Public Art Dialogue, NY, 2019) appears in the 2022 Biennale of Sydney publication, “rivus: a glossary of water”.
Papua New Guinean police have made a startling revelation that firearms for the National Elections security operations in June have yet to be purchased.
Deputy Police Commissioner Anton Billie says the firearms might not be procured and received by the time the election writs are issued on April 28 when nominations and campaigns start in earnest.
“We haven’t purchased anything yet. I’ve been told that they are doing it (police procurement team) but they need time,” Billie said yesterday.
He said the normal process for procurement of ammunition and guns could take about six to eight months to organise because important procurement protocols that needed to be followed.
Billie believes, however, police will manage with the currently available stock until the new procurement arrives.
A senior employee of the Police Department, who requested anonymity, said there were strict procurement protocols in place. However, due to the urgency the police procurement team had come up with measures to bypass some of these procedures.
The source said this situation would not have come about had the funds for the purchase of the firearms been released in November or December last year.
Funding needed last year “We were supposed to get the funding last year but because we got it this year in February, the funding delayed everything,” he said.
“It normally takes a long time to procure.
“To get the procurement for those major expenditures, like uniforms and guns and ammunitions, we don’t have the time to do that procurement.”
The issue is further complicated because the procurement committee has not approved the police procurement orders.
Items yet to be purchased include guns, ammunitions, and uniforms.
The three-week election is due to begin a week early on June 18.
Claudia Tallyis a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.
New Zealand’s Ministry of Health has reported 19,542 new cases of covid-19 in the community and 24 more deaths today.
The ministry said eight people had died with covid-19 yesterday, while a further 16 people had died in the past three weeks.
“Local public health authorities have notified these deaths to the ministry in the past 24 hours as part of changes to the reporting of deaths announced last week. Delays to reporting can be associated with people dying with, rather than of covid-19, and covid being discovered after they have died,” the statement said.
Tweeting an image of a rapid antigen test, Chris Hipkins said: “The faint line seems out of keeping with how I currently feel!
“Day 7 of isolation and now it’s my turn. So I’ll be clocking off for another 7 days. Take care out there everyone.”
The faint line seems out of keeping with how I currently feel! Day 7 of isolation and now it’s my turn. So I’ll be clocking off for another 7 days. Take care out there everyone. pic.twitter.com/9wt8u7oe3o
Hipkins would normally have fronted today’s covid-19 update, but the media conference has been cancelled for today.
MPs testing positive Hipkins is the latest of several MPs to have tested positive, including Environment Minister David Parker, Police Minister Poto Williams, opposition National Party leader Christopher Luxon and National MP Simon Bridges.
In the ministry’s report today, a person in their 40s was one of the people with Covid-19 whose death was reported today, while another person was in their 50s. The others include four in their 60s, three in their 70s, eight in their 80s and six in their 90s.
Eleven were women and twelve were men. The ministry said the average age was 79 and this had been increasing over the last week.
Eight of the 24 deaths reported today were people who died at aged residential care facilities.
The total number of deaths of people with covid-19 is now 141.
The rolling seven-day average of deaths over the past seven days is seven, up from four yesterday.
The ministry said the trend of increasing numbers of deaths was sadly not unexpected.
Higher numbers “As has occurred with omicron overseas, while covid-19 cases are usually seen in higher numbers among younger people early in the outbreak, over time the more severe and fatal consequences of the virus fall disproportionately on our older and more vulnerable populations.”
There are 971 people in hospital, 21 of whom are in ICU. The average age of the people with covid-19 in hospital is 57.
There were also 17 new cases identified at the border.
Asia Pacific Report adds: Covid-19 modeller Professor Michael Plank was quoted in news reports as indicating the ethnicity of cases could increase the number of severe cases.
Māori make up about 17 percent of the 5 million population, but 20 percent of all cases, and 25 percent of those hospitalised, reports the New Zealand Herald.
Pasifika make up 8 percent of the population, but 21 percent of all cases and 38 percent of those hospitalised.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Three years on from the Christchurch terror attacks on 15 March 2019, Mahvash Ikram writes an open letter to her young son telling him one day he will learn how the Muslim community was targeted, but that shouldn’t scare him from going to a mosque.
Dear son,
You’re not yet two, but you’ve already been to the mosque several times. You don’t understand what happens there, but you love to copy what everyone does. You already know how to say Allah-o-Akbar, and it has become an essential part of your ever-growing vocabulary.
Some would say Muslims start early with their young and I agree wholeheartedly.
So, here’s your first lesson — never be ashamed of your beliefs.
But, remember your vocabulary also includes salam, which means peace. So, practise your faith in peace.
Not long from now, you will understand the concept of standing in prayer behind the imam.
And that’s when we will take you to the mosque for your first ever Friday prayer, Jummah.
We will most likely go as a family, and maybe a few friends will come along too. I will make a big deal out of it. Mothers are embarrassing in all cultures — especially your mum, just ask your older sister.
A white shirt We will dress you in new clothes, probably a white shirt that will be a bit tight around your pudgy little tummy. It will no doubt get stained with your favourite lunch, which will be ready for you when you come home.
Soon you will learn Friday prayer is a bit of a celebration for Muslims — clean clothes, a hearty home-cooked meal and lots of people to meet at the mosque. It will be an important part of your social calendar, second only to the two big festival prayers.
I look forward to all of it, except one thing — one day you will learn about the March 15 terrorist attacks.
You will learn someone targeted innocent members of your community for their faith.
Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch … strewn with flowers and offerings honouring the victims of the terror attack there on 15 March 2019. Image: Alex Perrottet/RNZ
And that’s your second lesson, sometimes you will be treated unkindly for your beliefs. You are not alone, there are other communities that suffer the same fate.
Remember — this has nothing to do with you. You are not responsible for a fault in another person’s head.
Trust me, it will be a rude awakening — just like it was for the rest of our country. It is often called the end of Aotearoa’s innocence. Lots of people, including children, were killed and injured that day.
It still hurts One of those who died was a three-year-old who went to the mosque with his older brother.
Another child was shot but survived. Lots of children lost their parents too. It still hurts.
Tributes and flowers left outside Al-Noor Mosque in Christchurch after the terror attacks. Image: Isra’a Emhail/RNZ
Most grown-ups around you are trying to make sure something like this never happens again in Aotearoa and around the world.
Sometimes we fail, but we are trying.
Hate is an ugly emotion, too big for one’s body. When it takes over, it makes people cruel. They say and do things that can seriously hurt for a very long time. The worst part is these people don’t even realise how horrible they are.
You will also hear of people who practise your faith, but carry a similar hatred. Stay away from them. They, too, destroy families. Denounce them openly.
People may call you names, they may provoke you to fight back and say your religion teaches violence. It is not true. Ignore them.
Keep this verse of the Quran close to your heart and have patience with what they say and leave them with noble (dignity).
Don’t be scared Don’t let all of this scare you from going to the mosque.
In fact, when you are a bit older I encourage you to go to all sorts of places of worship, whether it’s a mosque, a temple or a church, you will find tranquility and calm.
Don’t be afraid to know others and learn about their views, it is how we rid the world of hate.
Our religion teaches us to respect all other humans regardless of their faith, race, ethnic origin, gender, or social status.
I understand all this information might make you a bit nervous. It is a lot to take in for a little boy your age. But some grown ups just never got on to it and look at what that’s done.
So, let’s get started. After all, we Muslims do start a bit early with our young.
All my love,
Xoxoxo
Mummy
Mahvash Ikram is on the staff at Radio New Zealand. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The big new story in the news cycle – in New Zealand but not only in New Zealand – is the rising ‘cost of living’, which is usually conflated with ‘inflation’. These topics – together and separately – are, like Covid19, devolved to ‘social science’ (macroeconomist in this case) ‘experts’; within the policy-making apparatus and within the newsroom.
In fact, these topics – ‘cost of living’ and inflation, as policy topics – have never been dealt with scientifically; monetary and fiscal policies routinely applied are as unmodern as was bloodletting as a commonly prescribed cure in the pre-modern era of medical ‘science’; as in the era when, routinely, medical interventions on balanced caused more cost than benefit.
Just as we do not yet have anything like a consensus about the causes of and recovery from the Great Depression of the 1930s, we have nothing like a scientific consensus about the causes of and recovery from the Great Inflation of the 1970s. It’s mainly because most ‘experts’ take a textual (akin to religious) approach to these questions, and not a scientific approach.
Cost of Living
It is widely understood that a rise in the cost of living and inflation are the same thing, and that they are caused by wicked people ‘price-gouging’ or (as economists might say) ‘rent-taking’. Or that some foolish or wicked bankers have created too much money, allowing the greedy to gain at the expense of the regular ‘mums and dads’. (We may note that Jacinda Ardern spoke of a ‘wicked perfect storm’, before waving a policy wand in the form of waiving some petrol taxes. On Radio NZ [14 March], economist Eric Crampton, more scientific in his approach than most, tried to explain that these measures were little more than wand-waving, but he didn’t say what the host of The Panel wanted to hear.)
The cost of living is a ‘real’ concept, whereas inflation is a ‘nominal’ (or ‘monetary’) concept.
The present rise in the cost of living arises from a number of real factors which cannot simply be waved away or waived. The most important of these real costs are the pandemic (and related restrictions imposed upon businesses and households), the war in Ukraine (and the related impact on world petrol, wheat and other prices), and climate change (causing droughts and floods).
Because these are real rather than monetary contributors to rising prices, ethical policy measures must be about finding fair ways to allocate the cost burden (such as universal benefits and higher taxes), and about creating more incentives to modify and reduce unsustainable economic demands. Examples of such behaviour-modification incentives would be incentives to travel less, and incentives to travel relatively more by public transport (a policy tick here) and through more sustainable transport modes (such as bicycles).
What is unethical is for one group of people to try to shift the entire burden onto other groups of people; eg people in other countries. We need to realise that all people in the world should bear some of the cost burden of the Ukraine war, while also understanding that the combatant countries will disproportionately bear that burden.
Inflation
This is essentially a nominal concept, often thought to be entirely a monetary concept. Thus, in principle, inflation can be suppressed or exported by monetary means. Inflation is more nuanced, however; and can be regarded, in part, as a real but secondary cost. Another example of a real but secondary cost is pain, which is a physiological symptom of some other cost (trauma), and may indeed be a part of a solution or cure to that trauma. Thus, a fever may be both an indication of infection (a real cost) and a part of the curative process. A pain in the arm after a vaccination is an indication that the vaccine is effectively working to prevent disease.
Pain is also a useful analogy to inflation, in that pain has many causes, and therefore many remedies. Choosing the correct remedy depends on a good scientific diagnosis of the cause of any particular pain. A rising cost of living is an economic pain, and inflation is part of the process of working through that pain.
A good example of a real cost is that of a huge boulder falling from a mountain into a lake below, causing a lot of direct damage to the lake and its ecosystem. (In macroeconomics, this would be called an ‘adverse supply shock’; like a war or a pandemic.)
In addition to the direct damage is the secondary ‘ripple effect’. As such the ripples (waves) represent both additional costs and energy diffusion benefits. The ripples may sink boats and/or flood the lakeshore. Nevertheless, we cannot easily imagine how it would serve any purpose to suppress those ripples; the ripples are a necessary part of how the lake-system returns to a new equilibrium. If we are patient, the ripples will eventually subside; albeit with some permanent ripple-damage to the lakeshore.
The only practical way to suppress the ripples – the ripples being the secondary effect of the initial adverse supply shock – is to generate counter-ripples. The problem is that the cost of generating counter-ripples may be greater than the cost of the ripples; and even if that cost is not greater, the cost-burden of the anti-ripple policy may be more inequitable than the cost-burden of the ripples. Even worse, anti-ripple policies in practice often aggravate the ripples before dispelling them.
We should also note that, following the ripple analogy, neoliberal monetary economists believe that, if unchecked, the ripples will never stop and may indeed accelerate over time. Hence, such economists believe that the ‘ripple-problem’ is much worse than it really is.
Using Deflation Policies to Fight Inflation
Again, we must start by reminding ourselves that inflation is typically a necessary part of the adjustment to a new reality, following a ‘cost of living’ shock; or indeed following a ‘perfect storm’ of cost-of-living shocks. So, the best policies are patience (keeping calm and carrying on), combined with other abovementioned incentives and income distribution measures that facilitate the adjustment process.
What policymakers normally do, instead, is to pursue deflationary policies as counter-inflationary policies. In particular, these are likely to be monetary policies – we expect the central bank (Reserve Bank) to raise interest rates as a one-size-fits-all panacea. In addition, there may be ‘fiscal policies’ – most likely reductions in government spending and reductions in social security payments; maybe, also, tax increases. (Together, these are known as ‘contractionary macroeconomic policies’.) These policies are attempts to reduce aggregate spending to match reductions in aggregate output. They work – inasmuch as they do work – by creating a recession in the ‘medium term’; by intentionally creating a cure worse than the disease. In the ‘short term’ these policies aggravate the ‘cost of living’ problem. Increasing interest rates (and increasing taxes) add to, rather than detract from, the cost burden.
The Rationale for Contractionary Policies
The first part of the rationale is that inflation is understood by macroeconomists as a problem of too much spending or too much money. That is, inflation arising from a real cost of living shock (let alone a ‘wicked perfect storm’) is considered to be an atypical form of inflation. Regardless of this, the conventional contractionary policy – like paracetamol as a cure for pain, or bloodletting as a cure for disease – is embarked upon as a ‘one size fits all’ or ‘one curative elixir solves all’ remedy.
The rationale is that, even if there is not too much money, then, nevertheless, reducing the quantity of money will still counter the problem.
While the argument for contractionary fiscal policy is similar to that for contractionary monetary policy, I will comment in coming paragraphs mainly about contractionary monetary policy. We should note, however, that the fiscal policy argument is one for a direct cut in total spending, and is an argument for reduced ‘demand for money’. And it’s a neoliberal argument, in that it assumes that, when money is scarce, it is better spent in the private sector than in the public sector.
We should also note that, while the monetary policy argument is essentially a closed economy argument – ie a global rather than a national argument – governments are by definition agents of national polities rather than a global polity. (We may also note that big countries like USA and China more closely approximate a ‘closed economy’ than do little countries such as New Zealand.) Nevertheless the most pressing argument – as a political argument rather than a moral argument – is an open economy argument about countries’ exchange rates.
Argument One (the classical argument):
Higher interest rates discourage spending, and reduced spending leads to a recession. In a recession it is very difficult for businesses to raise prices, even if their costs rise. This is a closed-economy ‘global argument’; that rising global interest rates lead to global disinflation (reduced inflation rates) despite rising interest costs. Like ‘mask-wearing’ during covid times, the argument is that the benefit (disinflation) is greater than the higher interest costs faced by businesses and households.
The practical problem – especially in circumstances, like today, following a ‘supply-side’ ‘perfect storm’ – is that you get the worst of both worlds: inflation and recession. In pre-modern times, bloodletting would usually weaken rather than strengthen a sick person.
Argument Two (the open-economy argument):
Following one country’s central bank raising interest rates, ‘investor’ money will flow into that country from other countries. The exchange rate for that country appreciates, and the exchange rates for the other countries depreciate. When a country’s currency appreciates, prices in that country fall, or at least rise more slowly. Raising interest rates in one country exports inflationto other countries.
This is by its very nature an immoral policy. It is immoral to export a problem, knowingly.
And it’s self-defeating. Such interest-rate-raising monetary policies generate a ‘race to the bottom’ (indeed a wicked race to the bottom) because they oblige other countries to counter them with similar interest-raising policies. Otherwise, these other countries find themselves importing inflation in addition to the inflation they already have. (This is Turkey’s problem at present; it tried to reduce rather than raise interest rates, leading to a run on its currency.)
A variation of this argument applies to a world with fixed currency exchange rates. This is the argument as it applied in the years before World War 1, and in the late 1920s and early 1930s (the period of the classic gold standard). A ‘surplus’ country with rising gold reserves should cut its interest rates (to reverse that monetary inflow) while a ‘deficit’ country with falling gold reserves should raise interest rates (to reverse its monetary outflow). These were ‘the rules’. The latter (deficit) countries had no choice but to follow the rules; but the rules were in effect discretionary for the surplus countries. The result was global deflation; and recession or worse.
Argument Two; corollary (the pure monetary argument):
In the gold standard times it was understood that the global price level was regulated by the global gold supply. While the data generally did not conform with this proposition, it seemed too good a story to abandon. In many times – eg the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries – the extra gold was generally hoarded or banked rather than spent. So extra gold had no impact on inflation, and often was coincident with deflation.
Nevertheless, the argument was adapted to national currencies, especially at times – like today – of flexible (‘floating’) exchange rates. And the argument seemed to work, some of the time. If one country kept interest rates low and allowed its money supply to increase, then there would be a resulting and matching fall in its exchange rate. The rate of inflation would match the rate of currency depreciation. This sort of thing used to happen a lot in South America. It did not happen in Switzerland and Denmark, where negative interest rate policies have been in place since 2014. Most importantly, this exchange rate argument is about particular inflations in particular countries, and is not an argument that connects world inflation to falling interest rates or rising money supplies.
The Rational Expectations Argument (essentially a closed economy argument):
This is the argument that was pushed during the ‘monetarist’ decade; the 1980s.
The argument is based on the idea that if everyone believes that a policy will work, then the policy will work. So, if you – as a central banker – believe that other people (including other central bankers) believe that any policy (eg raising interest rates; or making a sacrifice to the gods) will lead to a desired outcome, then it will lead to that desired outcome. This is really, in essence, the same type of argument that justified human sacrifices by priestly authorities in ancient ‘civilisations’; such as the Aztecs of Mexico.
It has become a mantra in the world of central banking and neoliberal economics, that whenever inflation threatens, then central banks should raise interest rates; it works because enough people believe it will work. And a credible central bank will maintain that ‘tight money’ stance, no matter what economic pain ensures; because a central bank’s rigidity is what gives that central bank its credibility. When a central bank is being staunch, then workers will demand smaller wage increases because they believe inflation will be low. And businesses will avoid raising prices, because they believe that their competitors – themselves believing that inflation will be low – will not raise their prices.
Summary
‘Inflation’ and a ‘rising cost of living’ are not the same thing. But both lead to authoritative impulses to raise interest rates and to restrain government spending. In reality, the application of deflation to counter inflation leads to both inflation and deflation in the short term, and to recessions (or worse) in the medium to long term.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Recent stories about ‘Cost of Living’ and ‘Inflation’ in New Zealand:
One government, in New Zealand, has already cut its fuel excise, by 25 cents per litre for the three months it hopes will be the worst of the oil price crisis, and in the United States and Australia there’s talk of the same sort of thing.
Before considering whether it should be cut, temporally waived, or removed in this month’s budget, it’s worth reacquainting ourselves with what it is.
As is the case with the goods and services tax, it isn’t explicitly quoted when we buy petrol or other fuels; it is rolled into the advertised price.
At the moment the excise on standard unleaded petrol is 43.3 cents per litre, an impost which itself is subject to the goods and services tax. This brings the total to 47.6 cents per litre, something that would have been significant a year ago when the price of petrol was lower, accounting for one third of the price.
It is now less important, accounting for 22% of the price of petrol.
The fuel excise is imposed by the Commonwealth government. As a matter of law and as required by the Constitution, all revenue raised by the Commonwealth goes into “one consolidated revenue fund”. But from 1926 to 1959 all or part of the fuel excise was earmarked for spending on roads.
Since then, it has generally been available for any sort of spending – although the impression remains that it is a crude form of user fee for roads and associated government-funded infrastructure, and for maintenance of that infrastructure.
Effectively a road user charge
The excise is collected at the points of distribution from local refineries and importers rather than at the petrol pump, making it easy to administer.
Making it much more difficult to administer are the substantial rebates offered to off-road users of petrol and diesel, which have the effect of making it a charge for using roads. They cut the total takings from about A$20 billion to A$11 billion.
State and territory governments impose another set of taxes on the use of motor vehicles. These include stamp duty on the registration, annual registration fees, the charge for drivers licenses, and taxes on vehicle insurance. State taxes on the use of motor vehicles amounted to A$11.3 billion in 2019-20.
These taxes also go into general revenue, and with no specific link to state government decisions on road infrastructure and maintenance or the provision of services such as traffic police and hospitals.
Taken together, the Commonwealth’s takings from fuel excise and the states’ takings from special motor vehicle taxes appear to roughly equal their spending on roads and associated infrastructure and fall short of the total costs imposed by road users on others including the costs of noise, pollution and policing.
There are better ways to do it
In an ideal world we would charge explicitly for road use, pollution and congestion in the cities during peak hours.
Fuel excise is an increasingly inappropriate way of charging for road use because more and more cars (including hybrids) are using less fuel per kilometre, and some (including all-electric vehicles) are using none.
Some states, including Victoria, charge electric vehicles per kilometre travelled. Owners are required to provide a photo of their odometer and the fee is added to the cost of their registration.
While in the spirit of user charging, what Victoria and other states are doing is a limited first step.
Ideally, and subject to considerations of simplicity and operating costs, the user charge would vary by weight per axle, aggregate weight and distance travelled, and perhaps by road type.
Given the fixed cost of much road investment and maintenance, a modified version of current annual registration fees should continue.
The combustion of petrol and diesel generates external pollution costs not considered by businesses and individuals in their use of motor vehicles.
External pollution costs include particulates with adverse effects on health and smog, and emissions of carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change.
A pollution fee that is much smaller than the current 43.3 cents per litre excise should be imposed on fuel used for both off-road and on-road purposes as part of a comprehensive price on greenhouse gas emissions associated with the combustion of fossil fuels.
Congestion causes costs estimated to be in the tens of billions in terms of lost time, uncertainty, and extra fuel use, with only a small portion borne by the road user concerned. An important part of the reform package should be a congestion charge for peak hours along the lines suggested by the Grattan Institute.
This ideal set of changes would be imposed independent of the price of oil.
John Freebairn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sally Inglis, Professor, Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellow, IMPACCT, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney
The risk of an acute event (including heart attack) increases with age for both men and women: from five per 100,000 for women aged 25–34 (13 per 100,000 for men) to 2,100 per 100,000 for women aged 85 and over (2,900 per 100,000 for men).
Around 14% of women aged 45-74 years are at high risk of a heart attack over the following five years.
Effective treatment is available in hospital. But delaying treatment may reduce the benefit of therapies and lead to poorer outcomes.
How to reduce your risk of heart attacks
Taking steps to reduce the risk of heart disease and a heart attack is important for all women. Here are four things you can do today:
1. Get your heart health checked
Australians aged 45 years and older and Indigenous Australians aged 30 years and older can have a Medicare-funded heart health check with a GP.
During this appointment, your GP will calculate your risk of having a heart attack in the next five years. This will be done using information from your medical history, family history, lifestyle factors, and measurements such as your blood pressure and a blood test.
A heart health check includes getting your blood pressure checked. Shutterstock
Tests may also include an ECG (electrocardiogram) and CT calcium score. An ECG looks at your heart rhythm, while a CT calcium score measures the amount of calcium inside the walls of your heart’s arteries. This can indicate a build-up of plaque (a blockage) inside the blood vessel that could increase your risk of a heart attack.
Based on your risk score, the GP will be able to provide treatment advice to reduce your risk of a heart attack. If the risk score is high, they may recommend specific medicines. At lower risk scores, lifestyle modifications – such as changes to diet, exercise and quitting smoking – may be recommended as the initial approach.
Smoking substantially increases the risk of heart disease. It narrows and clogs the blood vessels, reducing blood supply and oxygen throughout the body. Smoking also makes the blood vessels stiff and unable to stretch.
People who smoke are four times more likely to die of heart disease and three times more likely to die of a heart attack.
Stopping smoking leads to better overall health at any age, and especially heart health. Support to stop smoking is available through Quit Line – it’s never too late to stop.
3. Get moving
Exercise has many physical and mental health benefits, including lowering blood pressure and cholesterol.
If you have heart disease, physical activity can help you manage the condition, lower the risk of type 2 diabetes and keep your weight in check. Achieving a healthy weight also reduces your risk for heart disease.
Walking is a great way to start exercising and can be done with a friend to provide peer support, or within community walking groups.
4. Swap unhealthy food
Swap out less healthy food for healthier options, including vegetables and fruits, and cut down on salt and soft drinks.
Making changes can be challenging, but start with a few achievable changes and low-cost, healthy recipes.
Access to preventative care, specialist support and rehabilitation following a heart attack is critical to reducing death and disability of heart disease.
More can be done to improve access to care, especially in priority groups such as women from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, and women living in rural and remote Australia.
Better access to care requires ensuring primary care workforce capacity, especially in rural and remote areas, as well as funding and policies to increase access to primary care nurses, nurse practitioners and cardiac rehabilitation services.
Telehealth is a valuable tool to improve access to GPs and specialist cardiac services, especially in rural and remote areas.
All Australians have had a wake-up call to be aware of their heart health. Reducing your risk of heart disease begins with making a GP appointment for a heart health check to get personalised support to live a healthy life.
Sally Inglis currently receives funding from the Heart Foundation in the form of a Future Leader Fellowship. Sally is Chair of the Cardiovascular Nursing Council of the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) and Deputy Chair of the NSW Cardiovascular Research Network.
Clara Chow has an NHMRC Investigator grant. She is President of the Cardiac Society Australia and New Zealand, a board member of the Western Sydney Local Health District, and on a steering group of the National Health Foundation, which is writing guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment.
Patricia Davidson has received funding from the ARC, NHMRC and National Institutes of Health in the United States.
A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will unpack why the west is losing a strategic deterrence advantage against Russian Federation president Vladimir Putin.
In this episode Buchanan and Manning will analyse whether deterrence, in its various forms, is an effective tool against aggressive authoritarian opponents and specifically why NATO and the United States is at a disadvantage when attempting to use deterrence to gain leverage over Putin and the Russian offensive occurring against Ukraine and its peoples.
We know about the rules and conventions that prevent NATO and the United Nations from defending Ukrainians on Ukraine territory. But what of the Responsibility to Protect principles, RTPs designed to defend vulnerable and helpless populations? The RTP principle was invoked against Serbia and Kosovo in the late 1990s and led to NATO forces bombing Belgrade. Why is it not being used for humanitarian principles in 2022?
Also, Buchanan and Manning will examine the concepts of shatter and peripheral zones when it comes to war, and why Central Europe is the core shatter zone of past and present global conflict.
You are invited to lodge questions and comments via the social media links below, either prior to or during the live recording.
Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.
You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:
Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, Macquarie University
Shutterstock
You probably clean your shoes if you step in something muddy or disgusting (please pick up after your dog!). But when you get home, do you always de-shoe at the door?
We are environmental chemists who have spent a decade examining the indoor environment and the contaminants people are exposed to in their own homes. Although our examination of the indoor environment, via our DustSafe program, is far from complete, on the question of whether to shoe or de-shoe in the home, the science leans toward the latter.
It is best to leave your filth outside the door.
It is best to leave your filth outside the door. Shutterstock
What contaminants are in your home, and how did they get there?
People spend up to 90% of their time indoors, so the question of whether or not to wear shoes in the house is not a trivial one.
The policy focus is typically on the outdoor environment for soil, air quality and environmental public health risks. However, there is growing regulatory interest in the question of indoorair quality.
The matter building up inside your home includes not just dust and dirt from people and pets shedding hair and skin.
About a third of it is from outside, either blown in or tramped in on those offensive shoe bottoms.
Some of the microorganisms present on shoes and floors are drug-resistant pathogens, including hospital-associated infectious agents (germs) that are very difficult to treat.
Add in cancer-causing toxins from asphalt road residue and endocrine-disrupting lawn chemicals, and you might view the filth on your shoes in a new light.
Please don’t do this. Shutterstock
A roll-call of indoor nasties
Our work has involved the measurement and assessment of exposure to a range of harmful substances found inside homes including:
the perfluorinated chemicals (also known as PFAS or “forever chemicals” because of their tendency to remain in the body and not break down) used ubiquitously in a multitude of industrial, domestic and food packaging products
These contaminants – and most importantly the dangerous neurotoxin lead – are odourless and colourless. So there is no way of knowing whether the dangers of lead exposure are only in your soils or your water pipes, or if they are also on your living room floor.
The most likely reason for this connection is dirt blown in from your yard or trodden in on your shoes, and on the furry paws of your adorable pets.
This connection speaks to the priority of making sure matter from your outdoor environment stays exactly there (we have tips here).
A recent Wall Street Journal article argued shoes in the home aren’t so bad. The author made the point that E. coli – dangerous bacteria that develop in the intestines of many mammals, including humans – is so widely distributed that it’s pretty much everywhere. So it should be no surprise it can be swabbed on shoe bottoms (96% of shoe bottoms, as the article pointed out).
But let’s be clear. Although it’s nice to be scientific and stick with the term E. coli, this stuff is, put more simply, the bacteria associated with poo.
Whether it is ours or Fido’s, it has the potential to make us very sick if we are exposed at high levels. And let’s face it – it is just plain gross.
Why walk it around inside your house if you have a very simple alternative – to take your shoes off at the door?
Why walk muck around inside your house if you have a very simple alternative – to take your shoes off at the door? Shutterstock
On balance, shoeless wins
So are there disadvantages to having a shoe-free household?
Beyond the occasional stubbed toe, from an environmental health standpoint there aren’t many downsides to having a shoe-free house. Leaving your shoes at the entry mat also leaves potentially harmful pathogens there as well.
We all know prevention is far better than treatment and taking shoes off at the door is a basic and easy prevention activity for many of us.
Need shoes for foot support? Easy – just have some “indoor shoes” that never get worn outside.
There remains the issue of the “sterile house syndrome,” which refers to increased rates of allergies among children. Some argue it’s related to overly sterile households.
Indeed, some dirt is probably beneficial as studies have indicated it helps develop your immune system and reduce allergy risk.
But there are better and less gross ways to do that than walking around inside with your filthy shoes on. Get outside, go for a bushwalk, enjoy the great outdoors.
Just don’t bring the muckier parts of it inside to build up and contaminate our homes.
Mark Patrick Taylor received funding via an Australian Government Citizen Science Grant (2017-2020), CSG55984 ‘Citizen insights to the composition and risks of household dust’ (the DustSafe project). He is an Honorary Professor at Macquarie University and a full time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the statutory role of Chief Environmental Scientist.
Gabriel Filippelli 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nic Smith, Provost and Professor of Engineering, Academic Division, Queensland University of Technology
Waipapa Marae, University of Auckland campus.Shutterstock
He aha te kai a te rangatira? He korerō, he korerō, he korerō.
What is the food of leaders? It is communication. – Māori proverb
Growing up on the other side of the Ditch, I had the usual dreams and even aspirations of becoming an All Black – despite my lack of size, speed and rugby skill. None of those constraints prevented me from imagining All Black glory when I learnt my first haka as a ten-year-old. I still get goose bumps whenever it’s performed, as I expect do many tourists and rugby followers around the world who know this fierce ceremonial dance as an iconic part of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Māori culture.
The haka is both a unique call to action and a powerful celebration of Māori identity and history. It was because of its importance that I found it confronting several years ago leading a University of Auckland faculty whose own history, specifically with the haka and with Māori more generally, was all too often fraught. Decades earlier, as part of graduation celebrations, engineering students would perform haka that over the years increasingly mocked its heritage and significance in both Māori culture and New Zealand society.
These tensions escalated, resulting in a clash between these students and local Māori, which was uncomfortable and confronting at the time. The offensive haka parodies stopped, but the underlying lack of respect was left unresolved.
Like many unresolved issues it generated constant, ongoing tension, which subtly but relentlessly undermined both an important partnership and the faculty’s aspiration to be a place of respect and inclusion. What had started off with direct conflict had transitioned over 40 years into a less confronting but arguably more insidious combination of understandable resentment on the part of Māori and at best unexpressed guilt and at worst apathetic lip service on the part of Pākehā and others.
Me Hoki Whakamuri Kia Anga Whakamua. The Faculty of Engineering and the Haka – our story.
The day it dawned on me
My frustration about this uneasy truce came to a head one afternoon at a university function celebrating diversity. The main speaker was a Māori member of staff. She was compellingly describing the opportunity we had to create a genuine partnership and enhance our sense of uniqueness, belonging and community in ways that very much transcended any of the many strategic plans the university had produced.
As I listened, I noticed an eminent professor next to me gazing out the window with an expression of polite indifference. He gave the impression of merely waiting for formalities to end so he could leave with his guilt assuaged, having supported the function simply by attending. As I considered this my frustration escalated to anger: here was a white, middle-aged male who to all appearances was simply embodying lip service – playing a proverbial dead-bat not only to the challenge but also to the opportunity.
Then it occurred to me: could I be certain what my colleague was really thinking? And “playing a dead bat” – why had this metaphor sprung to my mind? I had no idea if this man had grown up playing cricket on manicured lawns surrounded by peers dressed in white.
The reason I thought of that metaphor was that cricket was my childhood activity (notwithstanding dreams of All Black glory). The uncomfortable fact was that there was not one but two white, middle-aged men standing next to each other at the function. To all observers I suspect we looked very similar.
I realised then that it was not enough just to ensure that experts had the support and resources they needed to step into the void created when (typically much less expert) leaders such as myself stepped back. Resourcing and support had to be accompanied by my own acknowledgement and celebration of the opportunity to be a student of what these colleagues had to say.
Why humility and courage are needed
The academic culture (and sometimes society at large) lauds and rewards expertise. However, this sometimes deters people from demonstrating ignorance or incompetence even if these states are necessary staging points of a learning process. As people acquire status and acknowledgement in one field, it often only increases the perceived risk of losing face by publicly participating, and possibly failing, when trying something completely different.
Once one has been cast as an expert and a leader, it can be difficult in our academic culture to adopt the humble posture of the pupil. It takes courage. Yet this humility is essential if we are ever to learn and change.
As I stood at that function, I realised this lack of courage had been my chief failing. By standing quietly in the background, despite my good intentions, I had done nothing to lower the risk for other staff to engage and make mistakes – key steps in their own development. I resolved to change how I did things.
From that point on I did engage – and I made plenty of mistakes. I asked ignorant questions that still make me blush. I stumbled over welcomes in te reo Māori – Māori language. I messed up protocols. I mispronounced names. I displayed my ignorance left and right.
But in time, and with the support of patient, generous and incredibly understanding expert colleagues, I learned. And, much more importantly, I saw others join me on that learning path.
Ultimately, that group of others became big enough for us to create and perform our own haka. This haka, with more expert help, was able to respectfully acknowledge our difficult history but also reclaim our right to move boldly into the future.
The All Blacks performed a traditional haka, Ka mate, until 2005, but then developed Kapa O Pango, specifically for and about the All Blacks. Shutterstock
While that ten-year-old never became an All Black, he did get the opportunity – complete with goosebumps – to perform that haka to Māori leaders who were involved in that conflict 40 years earlier. I was surrounded by colleagues, many of whom had become my friends, students, many of whom had become my teachers, and that same eminent professor, who was certainly no longer gazing out the window. Those three minutes remain a highlight in my time as a university leader.
Nic Smith 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.
As COVID restrictions ease, many employers are encouraging staff to return to the office. While some may be looking forward to this, others are dreading going back to places where they previously experienced daily racism and microaggressions.
There is increasing pressure on Black professionals to return to workplaces where racist environments pose serious risks to their well-being and health.
In this article, we use the word Black to refer to political identities connected to ancestry, as well as a cultural and social experience of race. Here, we use it to communicate shared recognition of trauma and fear caused by racism among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Black African peoples.
The shared use of the term also indicates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ ongoing solidarity and connections with other Black peoples around the world.
Working from home arrangements can offer some workers a much needed respite from white corporate culture and racist environments. GettyImages
Examples of racial microaggressions include racialised comments on people’s appearance, speech and identity, as well as unfair scrutiny of their professional expertise and performance.
The 2020 Gari Yala (Speak the Truth) survey of more than 1,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees found substantial experiences of racism in workplaces. Of those surveyed, 44% reported hearing racial slurs sometimes, often or always in their workplace, while 59% reported receiving comments about the way they look or “should” look as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person.
In a 2021 study, social work scholar Kathomi Gatwiri described Australian workplaces as “battlegrounds” for Black African professionals where both overt and covert racial microaggressions are commonplace.
Gatwiri defines racial microaggressions as “everyday” or “passive” racism. These serve to invalidate the expertise of Black people while positioning white expertise as “best practice”.
The racism may not be overt at times, but it is still incredibly damaging and harmful. As race scholar Deb Bargallie demonstrates in her 2021 book on racism in the public service, employers can discriminate under the guise of “merit” and “performance”. This places blame on employees experiencing racism rather than holding the organisation accountable.
Bargallie tells the story of Charles Perkins who, even as a widely respected activist and a high-ranking public servant in Aboriginal Affairs, experienced systematic racism from white executives, managers and colleagues throughout his career. Describing his first six months at the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, Perkins said
People set out deliberately to show me where I belonged (or should belong), and to make me feel completely an inferior person and nonentity.
The US experience
In the US, others have observed a similar reluctance to return to the office among racial minorities.
In a 2021 survey by Slack’s Future Forum, 97% of Black participants in the US reported a preference for remote working conditions. In another Future Forum survey, 64% of Black respondents said they found it easier to manage stress when working from home.
Even before the pandemic, researchers argued close quarters and open plan office designs in many workplaces further exacerbate existing racial tensions and inequalities.
Australian employers have legal obligations to provide their employees with safe work conditions and environments.
Given racism is endemic in many workplaces, some employers will now be asking Black professionals to return to environments that pose serious risks to our mental and physical health.
In Australia, as with other predominantly white colonial nations, racism against Black peoples is a public health crisis. Race-related stress contributes to significant health and life-expectancy disparities between white and Black peoples.
This is on top of the already serious public health risk of COVID, which has most severely impacted Black and Indigenous communities around the world.
In Australia, state governments have been criticised for rolling back health restrictions without proper consultation with vulnerable communities, even as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people face an increased mortality risk.
If Black professionals can work from home, and feel safer when they do so, this is one measure employers can take to protect staff from the harms of racial discrimination – and an ongoing pandemic.
While working from home does not negate racism, it may offer respite from constant scrutiny and racialised commentary in the workplace, in addition to the more general work-life balance benefits, such as being able to both work and care for loved ones at home.
Workplaces now have a rare opportunity to create viable anti-racist change for Black employees.
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.
First Nations media outlets provide a critical role in the day-to-day lives of Indigenous people. In times of crisis, the service they provide is even more important.
Yet they get little recognition or support for the work they do, and do not receive the funding they need.
The flooding in NSW and Queensland has once again shown what these outlets provide. This is why the government and the general public need to do more to support them.
First Nations organisations are vital for communities
There are more than 60 First Nations community-controlled organisations in over 235 towns, cities and remote communities across Australia, providing tailored, local news.
In some of these places, where internet connection is poor or non-existent, these outlets are the only reliable source of information.
Indigenous Broadcasting Services provide much more than radio – they are community assets that contribute to strengthening culture, community development and the local economy.
The Koori Mail’s response to the NSW floods
The Koori Mail is Australia’s premier and only First Nations-controlled newspaper, started in 1991 by five Bundjalung groups and 100% self-funded. Issued fortnightly, it shares news and events from across the country told from the perspective of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities.
In the wake of the disaster, the newspaper became the central hub for flood relief in Lismore. This is despite the fact the Koori Mail building – located by the Wilson River levee bank – was itself flooded.
Volunteers coordinated activities from the footpath outside their ruined office. They arranged helicopter and boat supply drop-offs, cooked meals, clean-up crews and tradespeople, emergency housing, safety and emergency advice, medical attention, mental health support and more.
The Koori Mail’s GoFundMe campaign has now raised over $640,000 to fund these efforts. The newspaper has just started fundraising for its own much-needed rebuild.
The Koori Mail’s general manager Naomi Moran has said
Even though Koori Mail has suffered a great loss here, our key responsibility is to make sure that our people are OK first, not just our staff, not just our board members, but our community. So we’re really trying to take the lead and be a hub of information for our mob, especially online.
The Koori Mail’s ability to step into the breach and coordinate this effort highlights the unique and invaluable role played by First Nations media organisations in times of crisis.
First Nations media leading the way in crisis responses
A report released in January, co-authored with First Nations Media Australia and the Judith Nielsen Institute, investigated the role of First Nations media outlets throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
It showed First Nations media organisations provide a reliable, trusted source of information, often in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, to combat misinformation and help address mental health and welfare issues, for audiences who often mistrust or feel excluded by mainstream media services.
The report provided case studies of three First Nations media organisations:
PAW Media in central Australia delivered culturally appropriate and locally relevant health advice to people and addressed misinformation in Warlpiri language
3KND in Melbourne helped keep the Aboriginal community across Melbourne connected, informed and supported with mental health advice during extended lockdown periods
Wilcannia River Radio in western NSW provided support for online learning and updated heath messages during the major COVID outbreak in August 2021. In the past, it also distributed fresh water to households when town water supplies dried up.
The report states how First Nations media organisations have played a critical role in keeping communities strong, resilient and connected. These organisations are often going above and beyond broadcasting and communicating through media channels by being physically on the street or communicating with people over the phone or at community events.
How can First Nations media be better supported and more accessible?
First Nations Media Australia notes that 53% of First Nations people cannot access First Nations radio services, including in Adelaide, Canberra, regional Victoria and Tasmania.
This is a missed opportunity to provide these communities with relevant news and information, cultural and community connections, language revitalisation efforts, and job and skill development in media and journalism.
For the first time in decades, however, there are signs that governments are recognising the crucial role of First Nations media. Digital inclusion has been included as a specific target in the 2020 Closing the Gap Agreement, with governments committing to work with First Nations media to communicate with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander audiences.
However, significantly greater government investment is needed to provide the jobs, skills and technical upgrades needed to build the First Nations media sector’s capacity and impact.
First Nations community-controlled media organisations provide much more than information. They provide emergency and community services — and are trusted to do so as place-based, culturally safe services and storytellers.
Dr Daniel Featherstone is part of the Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, which receives Australian Research Council funding. He leads the Mapping the Digital Gap research project, which has Telstra as a key funding partner. He previously worked as General Manager of First Nations Media Australia.
Archie Thomas receives funding from Aboriginal Affairs NSW.
Dr Lyndon Ormond-Parker is part of the Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, receives funding from the Australian Research Council (CE200100005) and Telstra on the Mapping the Digital Gap in Indigenous Communities Project. He has also conducted research in partnership with First Nations Media Australia.
New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.
Editor’s Note: Here below is Dr Bryce Edwards’ New Zealand Political Roundup – which analyses one prominent topic being debated in New Zealand and links to media coverage. You can sign up to NZ Political Roundup for free here.
Political Roundup: Behind Simon Bridges’ shock departure, and what comes next
Last week’s shock 1News opinion poll was the final indication, if Bridges needed it, that his chances of eventually taking back the leadership and becoming PM were slim to none. Any feeling that it was worth waiting around to see if Luxon might stumble over the next couple of years could be put to bed.
Bridges says he had been thinking of departing for some time, beginning with the coup against him prior to the 2020 election, when Todd Muller was installed with the help of Chris Bishop and Nicola Willis.
Despite that setback, Bridges managed to stay energised and clearly wanted to regain the top position. After all, prior to Covid hitting, National was on 46 per cent in the polls in an election year and he had been on track to become New Zealand’s first Māori prime minister.
While in the political wilderness after the coup, Bridges went through a remarkable renaissance, publishing a well-received and thoughtful book, growing his hair, and becoming widely described as rather “Zen”. And although he was sanguine enough about future ambitions to run for leader again just a few months ago, he says he was also mulling a departure from politics.
With Luxon as leader, Bridges played a key role in helping rebalance the party and unify the factions. He returned to form as a frontbench finance spokesperson, being a real threat to Grant Robertson, and more recently pushing a very successful cost of living campaign.
This means that Bridges departs on something of a high. Much like John Key, he goes out when people aren’t expecting it. And, as with Key, many have been looking for the “real” reason for his departure. But a consensus has quickly developed that there is no scandal behind Bridges’ resignation. His explanation can be taken at face value. The attraction of spending more time with his family and developing a new (un-announced) career in Auckland after years of bruising and turbulent times in the bear pit of the National caucus will ring true for most.
What Bridges’ departure says about problems in National
The personal and positive explanations that Bridges has given for his departure shouldn’t blind us from the push factors. He’s not spilling the beans about them at the moment, wanting his departure to be full of grace and positivity.
There is the problem of Jami-Lee Ross’ upcoming trial scheduled for July. Even if there are no more damaging revelations about Bridges’ involvement in the alleged illegal donations, having what has already been revealed dragged into public view again will not be helpful to either Bridges or National, especially if he was still a sitting National MP.
And there are clearly internal political factors at play. Bridges is departing in defeat, and leaving behind a National caucus that is said to be still frustrating him.
He has had to endure working closely with an inner circle including Christopher Bishop and Nicola Willis, who are leaders of National’s liberal faction and were behind the ill-fated Todd Muller leadership coup. He is said to feel betrayed by them and that relationship was never going to recover.
Insiders say that as the leader of the conservative faction in National, Bridges has felt marginalised under the new leadership.
Richard Harman writes today: “That he has decided to go has raised questions among some in the caucus about whether conservatives like him are slowly being squeezed out of decision making. There are also suggestions that he was frustrated with the way things were being run under Luxon, even that he was unhappy with some staff appointments.”
As to who is likely to take over as essentially the conservative faction leader, Harman points to the prospect of Shane Reti (promoted today to number four in the National hierarcy) and Louise Upston moving further into the inner circle of the leadership. This might go some way to helping find greater equilibrium in National’s traditional liberal-conservative ideological balancing act.
At the moment, the liberals dominate, which means National is light on appealing to more conservative voters. Stuff political editor Luke Malpass put it this way: “Bridges was cut from more conservative and confrontational cloth than Luxon. He was not worried about going after some culture wars issues and be tough on crime and gangs and drugs. He represented part of National’s caucus, and an important wider constituency of the party. Without him in that position, someone else will have to step up.”
The big hole Bridges leaves in National
Bridges’ departure also leaves National with plenty of other problems. Losing any high-calibre frontbench politician is unfortunate, but particularly when the caucus is so lacking in experience. With a newbie like Luxon at the helm, it was highly advantageous to have the experienced Bridges there beside him.
National has lost the more mongrel and aggressive way that Bridges took the fight to Labour, but also his intellectualism – he had developed a reputation as one of the more thoughtful contributors to policy development and direction.
Overall, having Bridges depart just when National is climbing fast in the polls is an unfortunate setback in its campaign to return to power next year. As Harman writes today, “Resigning after just over three months of the new leadership team is hardly a vote of confidence.” And the continuity of the caucus with the John Key era also evaporates – Bridges was the last frontbencher standing from National’s last turn at the helm (with Judith Collins and Gerry Brownlee now much further down the rankings).
Bridges was also a key part of his party’s claim to diversity, and this loss could make National even more vulnerable to criticism on this front. Although, as Bridges explained in his recent book, he was often disparaged by liberals for not being “Māori enough”. However, his replacement as Finance spokesperson is a woman, and surely Luxon and the caucus will demand that the new candidate for Tauranga isn’t a white male.
National reshuffle and finance role
The appointment of Nicola Willis as Finance spokesperson is a smart choice by Luxon. Not only does he have strong trust in the deputy leader, respect for her is growing in the caucus. There might be some questions about her qualifications, but her previous role on the Finance and Expenditure select committee was well regarded. National will also stress her time in the corporate world, working for Fonterra.
Of course, Willis has also excelled in the Housing portfolio. As Thomas Coughlan writes today, “she helped to detoxify housing for National to the point where a recent Ipsos poll had National ahead of Labour when it comes to the party most backed to address the housing crisis.”
What’s more, she is a moderate on economics, and not someone who will scare swing voters. Instead, she was a protégé of both Bill English and John Key. And unlike Chris Bishop, who was the favourite amongst many commentators for the Finance role, she doesn’t have a background in lobbying and the tobacco industry – something that is still a blackmark for this otherwise heavy-hitting performer.
By-election fights and outcomes
Perhaps the biggest criticism to be made of Bridges’ decision to depart is that he is leaving halfway through the Parliamentary term, after having just committed 18 months ago to serving a full term. Retiring politicians normally agree to at least serve out their time. In this case, Bridges causes an expensive by-election, estimated by the Electoral Commission to cost about $1m, to say nothing of the extra Covid-related campaign costs, and the expense for campaigning political parties.
Nonetheless it will be a chance for National to renew itself, bringing in fresh talent and perhaps injecting greater diversity into its caucus. The most likely candidate for the role is Rotorua Lakes District Councillor Tania Tapsell, who is a rising star in the party (her great uncle is former Speaker of the House and Labour MP Sir Peter Tapsell). She stood for National at the last election in the East Coast electorate.
Obviously New Zealand First might bite at the chance of a by-election in Winston Peters’ old electorate, where traditional conservative voters still dominate, especially with a very high proportion of superannuants.
Peters may hope for another upset like he caused when he won the Northland seat off National in 2015. This time around, such a feat is highly unlikely, but it would be a good chance for the populist party to rail against Labour’s Three Waters and iwi co-governance model, as well as the decision to deny the Tauranga City Council the right to have an election this year. On the other hand, the by-election is likely to occur just when New Zealand First is set to be in the headlines with their own High Court trial about party donations.
A loss by National in Tauranga is unlikely. But we live in strange, polarised, unsettled times – especially as evidenced by the recent parliamentary protests. And by-elections occasionally throw up surprise results. Bridges’ majority was slashed from 11,252 in 2017 to just 1,856 in 2020, so if Peters can capture a reasonable chunk of the anti-government vote it could get very interesting. If Peters was to stand and actually win, after last losing there to Bridges in 2011, it would certainly be an ironic historical conclusion to Bridges’ career.Further reading on Simon Bridges and National
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): TVNZ and RNZ merger: why I’m dubbing it ‘Ti Kōuka’
The rationale for the Government’s “new public media entity” remains poorly articulated, and funding issues are confused and fraught according to this very thorough dissection of the proposal.
Geoffrey Miller (Democracy Project): Russia’s war on Ukraine puts New Zealand’s refugee policy and China strategy in sharper focus
How well is New Zealand developing its humanitarian assistance for Ukrainians fleeing the war? Not very, according to Geoffrey Miller. And he points out that the Government is failing to fill its refugee quota. Also, if China enter the Ukraine-Russia war, the potential ramifications could be enormous for New Zealand.
Suze Wilson (The Conversation): From ‘pretty communist’ to ‘Jabcinda’ – what’s behind the vitriol directed at Jacinda Ardern?
Management academic Suze Wilson argues that the PM is now one of the most reviled people in the country, mostly for factors beyond her control. Wilson argues that the misogyny and the negativity about Ardern say more about her detractors than about the PM herself.
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): Inflation backlash shows Fortress New Zealand is not a sustainable strategy
According to last week’s 1News opinion poll, 75 per cent of New Zealanders want the borders open to tourists and visitors. This column looks into the big philosophical shift that is occurring in terms of attitudes to globalisation.
Camryn Brown (Democracy Project): Labour’s prescription is always more Wellington (paywalled)
The Government’s instinct for more centralisation is not necessarily healthy. Camryn Brown argues against the public service becoming more physically distant from its people through centralisation.
Max Rashbrooke (RNZ): Government makes inroads on poverty but what’s left in its toolkit?
Some statistics recently publish suggest improvements are occurring in terms of economic inequality. But Max Rashbrooke warns us to take care with such statistics, and concludes the Government urgently needs to find more ways of alleviating problems for those at the bottom of the heap.
Samantha Murton (Herald): Scope of doctor shortage crisis revealed (paywalled)
Research out today confirms that there is a crisis in the number of GPs, and it’s going to get much worse. The president of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners urges the Government to avoid an even greater healthcare crisis by training more GPs.
Andrew Bevin (NBR): Severe shortage sees ‘shocking’ increase in cost of hiring staff (paywalled)
Staff recruitment costs in New Zealand are going up. According to this report, the average cost to hire new staff is $25,300, twice what it was a year earlier.
Bill Hickman and Ellen O’Dwyer (Stuff): Trashed Parliament grounds reopen to the public after occupation’s violent end
Parliament grounds have been officially reopened to the public this morning, after the 23-day anti-mandate occupation. Speaker Trevor Mallard and Te Ātiawa Taranaki held a ceremony at 7.45am today.
The Commerce Commission’s report into New Zealand’s supermarket sector has been criticised for not going far enough to reduce food prices, but the answer to the current duopoly might lie in treating the sector as a public utility instead of a private industry.
When the commission’s report was released last week, many were disappointed the watch dog didn’t propose stronger measures to rein in the sector. The commission called for a mandatory code of conduct between supermarkets and suppliers. It also recommended greater transparency around specials and loyalty programmes.
But even the commission itself indicated that the “one off” market restructuring measures suggested by some might not be effective to reduce grocery costs.
The inherent nature of unregulated food markets means nearly all channels of food distribution will contain a small number of dominant industry leaders, distorting the pricing of food products for other industry participants.
Power is therefore unavoidable, but this does not mean its misuse is inevitable. Properly directed, market power in the hands of a few players could prove beneficial to consumers as well as other businesses in the sector.
New Zealand’s grocery sector is dominated by two companies – Woolworths, which runs Countdown, and Foodstuffs, which operates Pak’n Save, New World and Four Square. Customers have long expressed concerned over high prices in the duopoly. Dave Rowland/Getty Images
This fairer supermarket sector could be achieved if the industry power players were governed as regulated public utilities, much like power and water. But such an approach would need to be legislated and has to combine simplicity with easy and effective enforcement.
To do this, the government should implement some key regulatory principles.
New regulations would need to ensure supermarkets do not engage in wholesale or manufacturing activity. The key to supermarket power is their control of the retail point of sale. If supermarkets are to be regulated as public utilities, then it is essential they are restricted solely to this activity.
As public utilities, individual supermarket sites should only be allowed to charge a single fixed and publicly stated margin on the goods they sell. This is a novel requirement, but it is core to the process of regulating a supermarket as a utility.
Supermarkets act as a middleman between consumers and producers. The mutual ignorance of what is happening on the other side of the retail barrier allows the supermarkets to manipulate consumers and suppliers at will. It is the key process that converts supermarket power to profit.
The requirement that supermarkets must apply a single, publicly posted margin to all the products in their store sets this capacity to zero, and promptly makes the retailer a fully transparent channel for suppliers and consumers.
Regulation should include suppliers
Producers and suppliers should not be overlooked in this new regulatory regime. The concentration of wholesalers allows large businesses to dominate non-retail food sectors such as restaurants.
The primary outcome of this – a lack of difference between supermarket retail and wholesale prices for food products – is noted in the Commerce Commission’s materials.
The Commerce Commission recommended a code of conduct between suppliers and supermarkets to improve suppliers’ bargaining power. Phil Walter/Getty Images
Wholesalers should not be allowed to discount products for individual buyers. At the same time, wholesalers should not be allowed to decline service to any buyers at that price unless they can demonstrate that the goods in question are not available and cannot be procured.
Rule breakers should be punished
The transparency these regulations create means rule breaking can be clearly and directly observed without needing to go to the supermarkets themselves. Any effective regulation must also represent an immediate risk of penalties to those who break the rules.
With this in mind, infringements need to be treated as “per se” offences – meaning a crime is committed simply by infringement without regulators having to prove harm to third parties. Legal action against infringers needs to be available not only to the supervising entity, but also by any private citizen, body corporate or agency of local or national government.
The supervising government entity should be an integral part of a ministry that answers directly to a minister of the Crown. Finally, penalties need to be significant and levied directly against the executive officers with responsibility for breaking the rules.
There is nothing wrong with powerful retailers as long as they are fully transparent to both suppliers and consumers, and their power can then be used for the general public good.
There is also no reason why such regulated and transparent entities should not make a reasonable return on capital for an activity that is effectively risk free. What is a reasonable return? Maybe for any supermarket owner, a reasonable expectation of return might be the equivalent to winning the lottery once a career rather than once a year.
Robert Hamlin 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jake Whitehead, Tritum E-Mobility Fellow & Advance Queensland Industry Research Fellow, The University of Queensland
Shutterstock
As petrol prices soar and climate change impacts make themselves felt, many people are likely wondering if their next car should be a fully electric vehicle.
Yes, the upfront costs are generally higher – but what does the future hold? Will prices fall in coming years and what costs do you need to factor into your decision?
The unfortunate truth is unless policy settings in Australia change, we shouldn’t expect a significant increase in the number of electric vehicles (EVs) available to Australians over the coming years.
It’s important we all start to make the switch to this cleaner technology, but unfortunately that choice is not available to many Australian households and businesses due to a lack of local, supportive policy.
EVs in Australia are currently A$15,000-20,000 more expensive than petrol or diesel cars. But in some market segments – like some sub-premium sedans priced between $60,000 and $75,000 – they are already at parity.
Several manufacturers have promised to bring more supply to the Australian market in 2022 but many of these vehicles were meant to be here in 2021 (with their arrival pushed back).
If you’re thinking of making the switch to an EV, here’s what to consider:
don’t focus only on the price tag. With petrol prices now pushing past $2 per litre, many Australians will find themselves paying more than $2,000 in fuel each year for every car they own. Electric vehicles can be charged for the equivalent of around $0.20 per litre, or even cheaper when using your home solar. These savings add up, totalling more than $20,000 over the life of the vehicle.
EVs are cheaper to maintain, and in some cases have no servicing costs. This equates to thousands of dollars potentially saved over the life of the vehicle.
what about charging? Anywhere you have access to a standard power point you can charge an EV. With cars parked 90% of the time, and mainly driven fewer than 50 kilometres per day, a couple of hours’ charging is more than enough for most. If you want a quicker charge, you can install a wall charger in your garage. And if you park on the street you can use the growing list of public fast chargers across the country or ask your workplace to install a charger.
The reality, though, is that if there’s no change to policy settings, we can expect the EV market in Australia to stay much the same this year and for many years to come.
This means many Australians won’t have a choice but to continue to pay for expensive imported fuel, instead of using cheap Australian energy to power our vehicles.
One of Australia’s disadvantages is we are a market for right-hand-drive vehicles, and many European and American EVs just aren’t built that way. The UK is also a right-hand-drive market, where people have a similar average incomes and quality of life compared to Australia. But the EV market there is very different with more than 160 EV models compared with around 50 in Australia.
The key difference is the UK has a (conservative) government that has embraced the technology and understands the broader economic benefits of making EVs easy for people to get and run.
Yes, Australia has boosted EV charging infrastructure but that’s not enough to encourage manufacturers to bring more models to this country (which would help get more affordable EVs on the market).
There were about 6.6 million EVs sold worldwide in 2021. So 6.6 million x 1.3% equals about 85,000 cars. That’s 85,000 EVs that should have been sold here last year if our market was in line with global trends.
But in fact, the number of EVs sold here was just over 21,000 in 2021. So we are about a quarter of the size we should be.
There’s plenty of demand for EVs in Australia, we just cannot get enough delivered because we haven’t got the right policy settings.
There is plenty of demand for EVs in Australia, we just cannot get enough delivered. Shutterstock
What policies could help?
Policies that would help make EVs more affordable in Australia include:
incentives to bring down the upfront cost of EVs. Some people say this is subsidising rich people but clever policy would support jobs in the Australian energy market. It’s estimated we spend more than A$30 billion on foreign fuel for our cars every year. Redirecting that money to powering EVs would help keep those billions in the country, and support local Australian energy jobs.
we don’t have a fuel efficiency standard, putting us in poor company with Russia as two of the last remaining major economies without such standards. That’s why people say Australia is a dumping ground for vehicles that are illegal to sell overseas. The markets that have fuel efficiency standards are getting all of the EV supply.
having a clear target of EV sales for the next five to 15 years would support achieving net zero by 2050 – in other words, selling the last petrol or diesel car by the mid-2030s.
So what’s the market outlook?
Not much will change in Australia unless there’s a change in policy. We are competing with markets that have the right policies to stimulate EV sales. The manufacturers are, of course, going to prioritise supply there.
There will be small increases in EV sales in Australia every year. But it will take a number of years for the supply of these new vehicles to ramp up.
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news. And I do hope your next vehicle purchase is an EV, after considering all of the costs over the life of the vehicle. It is the right thing to do for the climate and the long-term savings are attractive, especially if fuel prices continue to be so volatile.
Unfortunately, though, Australians should not expect EVs to suddenly become cheap and easy to buy here in the next couple of years – unless policy changes.
Dr Jake Whitehead is on unpaid leave from his role as a Research Fellow at The University of Queensland. He is a Member of the International Electric Vehicle Policy Council, is a Lead Author of the AR6 Transport Chapter for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and Director of Transmobility Consulting. He has previously received government funding for several sustainable transport projects, including research on both hydrogen and electric vehicles. He is also holds a part-time position as the Head of Policy at the Electric Vehicle Council.
About three weeks into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s safe to say things aren’t going Russia’s way – and it has yet to achieve objectives that were planned to be completed in the first few days.
The longer Russia’s advance is bogged down, the greater the chance it will consider taking drastic action, which may potentially include using weapons of mass destruction.
As improbable as this is, it’s not impossible. Under what circumstances might weapons of mass destruction be used?
The weapon of mass destruction most likely to be used is a chemical weapon. Russia once possessed the world’s largest stockpile of chemical weapons, ranging from nerve agents such as Sarin and VX, to mustard gas and the toxic gas phosgene.
Although Russia claims to have destroyed its arsenal by 2017, the use of the nerve agent Novichok during assassination attempts in 2018 and 2020 demonstrates it continues to possess chemical weapons, although the quantities and types (aside from Novichok) are unknown.
According to reports, US and allied officials suspect Russia may be planning (or considering) a “false flag” operation involving the use of chemical weapons, to establish a belated justification for the invasion of Ukraine, despite the obvious logical inconsistency.
In this context, Russia could launch a chemical weapon attack and blame Ukrainian forces, or attack a small portion of its own forces with chemical weapons to “justify” a response in kind.
Or it may locate a stockpile of “Ukrainian” chemical weapons and use this as a post-hoc justification of the invasion, similar to how the United States used the claim of alleged weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq in the second Gulf War.
While this is all speculation for now, it demonstrates how the spectre of chemical weapons looms over the Ukraine invasion.
If chemical weapons were used, the effects would be horrific – not just in terms of loss of life, but also because the areas impacted would become uninhabitable.
Many chemical weapons persist in the environment. In the case of some (nerve agents in particular), a single touch on the skin is enough to cause death in seconds or minutes. Decontaminating affected areas would be enormously difficult and dangerous.
For now, we have not seen Russian soldiers equipped with the protective equipment needed to operate in a chemical-hazard environment. This suggests chemical weapons use is not imminent.
The other mass destruction threat relevant here is nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic. It’s estimated Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, with a total of 4,477 nuclear weapons (of which 1,912 are thought to be tactical nuclear weapons).
Tactical nuclear weapons are intended for use on the battlefield, whereas strategic nuclear weapons are used to destroy strategic targets such as cities. In practical terms, the only key difference between them is the delivery system. Tactical nuclear weapons are deployed using shorter-range delivery systems such as artillery, short-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles or tactical aircraft.
Given their focus, they may have lower explosive yields than strategic weapons – but not necessarily. Most modern tactical nuclear warheads have far greater explosive power than the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US during the second world war.
Operationally, tactical nuclear weapons would be capable of blowing wide, deep holes in opposing lines. As such, they could facilitate a breakthrough of Ukrainian defences, or provide a way to destroy significant targets such as airfields or key staging areas.
Preparations for such an attack would be difficult to detect. Many of the weapons systems being used by Russia are “dual-capable”, meaning they can deliver conventional and nuclear weapons.
The Iskander short-range ballistic missile is a ‘dual-capable’ weapon. Defense Ministry Press Service/AP
While nuclear weapons use is unlikely, Russian President Vladimir Putin has increased the alert level of his nuclear forces, and issued poorly veiled threats alluding to Russia’s nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to NATO intervention in the conflict.
The risk of nuclear weapons use by Russia could increase, however, if Putin is further backed into a wall and Russia feels its progress is being increasingly derailed. This is extremely unlikely, but not impossible.
What is unknown is how the West would react to the use of nuclear weapons. While there would be justified outrage, it may well deter the West from further involvement so as to avoid being drawn into a full-scale nuclear conflict.
This would well and truly be uncharted territory. Nuclear weapons have never been used during a time when multiple nations possess them.
Russia’s ‘de-escalation’ doctrine
Should the conflict escalate and NATO get involved, the worst possible outcome would be a strategic nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia. In this scenario, both sides would seek the complete destruction of the other, targeting cities and other key strategic targets.
If a conventional conflict between NATO and Russia occurred (which Russia would almost certainly lose), Russia would immediately seek to “de-escalate” the conflict as per its nuclear doctrine.
While this might sound great on paper, in practice it is anything but. What this strategy actually alludes to is: escalate to de-escalate. Russia would aim for a rapid escalation, to the point of using nuclear weapons, to force NATO to back down.
While this is alarming, it’s also coldly logical. Russia calculates NATO may be willing to risk conventional conflict, but not nuclear war. So an immediate escalation across the nuclear threshold could well give NATO pause.
Should it come to this, Russia would likely not target cities or large troop concentrations (as this would risk galvanising support among NATO populations for retaliation).
Instead, Russia would either conduct a final warning shot (such as by detonating a nuclear weapon over the ocean), or hit several strategic targets while minimising NATO and civilian losses. This could include important airfields, ports, road and rail junctions, munitions dumps or fuel storage facilities, as some examples.
NATO intervention may prove disastrous
The Russian government of course denies it would use this strategy. It insists it would only use nuclear weapons to defend Russia, and not in a preemptive manner.
However, various statements by Russian defence officials over the years indicate a doctrine of de-escalation and preemptive nuclear threats. The US has openly said it considers de-escalation to be Russia’s guiding nuclear doctrine.
Events may transpire that could easily lead to the situation escalating, in which case the risk of a full nuclear exchange is significant.
For example, there have been demands for NATO to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. While this might initially sound reasonable, it means NATO aircraft would need to engage and shoot down Russian aircraft operating over Ukraine. Russia would likely retaliate, and the conflict may well spiral out of control.
NATO intervention of any kind would bring the world closer to nuclear war than at any time in the post-Cold War era. And the potential devastation can’t be ignored.
James Dwyer 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Bartlett, Associate Professor, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, University of Newcastle
When I began drafting this article, COVID cases in Australia were coming down and the situation was stabilising.
New research released in February showed a fourth COVID vaccine dose didn’t add much extra protection on top of a third dose. It looked as if doling out fourth doses to all Australians was unnecessary.
Unfortunately, the situation has changed again, and so has the risk calculation.
New South Wales Health Minister Brad Hazzard said last week Omicron sub-variant called BA.2 was on the rise in Australia, and NSW should expect the variant to overtake Omicron and for cases to more than double in the next six weeks. Experts expect BA.2 to become Australia’s dominant strain in the next few months.
Early estimates suggest BA.2 is between 25% and 40% more transmissible than Omicron (BA.1), and is already taking off in countries including Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) doesn’t yet recommend fourth doses for everyone, but they’re already available for severely immunocompromised Australians.
Coupled with new research detailing the quick waning of our third dose immunity, it’s likely the coming surge means we’ll need a fourth COVID vaccine as we hit winter.
But new research published this month in the New England Journal of Medicine shows immunity from third doses is waning quickly. Vaccine effectiveness against Omicron dropped to around 45% ten weeks after a Pfizer third dose.
The main reason for this is because Omicron has many mutations which mean it looks very different to the original strain, from which our vaccines are based.
Only a subset of the immune cells these vaccines generate can effectively tackle Omicron, which means our immunity wanes quicker. Specifically, we generate fewer “neutralising antibodies” that can tackle Omicron. These are a type of antibody important for protection against infection.
This is almost certainly the case for BA.2, as well, which shares similar mutations to Omicron but some different ones too. Research is only just beginning into BA.2 so we don’t yet know how effective our vaccines are against it. But it’s likely their effectiveness is similarly reduced as with Omicron BA.1.
But by Australian winter – normally the height of cold and flu season – most people will have had their third dose more than four months ago, leaving us at greater risk of infection. So it makes sense to boost our antibodies again.
One pre-print study, yet to be reviewed by other scientists, showed a fourth dose tops up your antibody response to the peak level provided by the third dose.
Though it doesn’t give additional protection, restoring antibodies to third-dose levels will be important as winter approaches and risk of virus transmission increases. But this of course must be weighed against the ethics of dispensing fourth doses when many people in developing countries haven’t had their first two doses.
It’s hard to tell how vulnerable we are
In 2021 health authorities broadly knew the population’s level of immunity against COVID. Authorities knew how many people had two vaccine doses at any one time and how well the vaccines worked against Delta, and there were very low rates of infection.
But now, millions of us have been infected, at different times, some with a third dose and some without. It’s also likely many of us have been infected without knowing it.
So it’s very hard for us to know the level of immunity the population has.
This makes estimating how vulnerable Australia is to BA.2 and future variants very difficult.
In this environment of uncertainty, allowing Australians to get a fourth dose would increase collective immunity and help us weather the rise of BA.2 during a winter where other cold and flu viruses are expected to make a comeback.
Too late for an Omicron-specific vaccine
Evidence suggests Omicron is good at evading the immunity we get from our current COVID vaccines.
This is because the variant has many mutations which means it looks very different to the original strain, from which our vaccines are based.
A vaccine tailored to Omicron would, in theory, provide better protection.
But the question is, how much better than a boost with current vaccines? Early evidence suggests not much.
And by the time an Omicron-specific vaccine is rolled out, BA.2 will likely already be dominant.
So how do we a tackle a virus adept at mutating and evading immunity?
These are vaccines targeting a part of the virus that’s required for infection but that doesn’t readily change (scientists call this “conserved”), meaning they’re more likely to work across different variants. These are in development.
It’s possible we’ll have a prototype for such a vaccine in the next couple of years.
Nasal sprays could be a game changer
The fact mRNA vaccines could achieve over 90% protection against the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 is exceptional, because it’s very challenging for a vaccine injected into your arm to ward off a respiratory virus.
Respiratory viruses replicate in the cells lining the airways. That begins in the nose and throat, and if infection progresses, down into the airways in the lungs.
The airways are at the interface of the body and the outside environment. Getting specialised immune cells from your bloodstream to the airways, particularly the nose and throat, is a big ask for an immune response initiated in your arm.
This is where intranasal vaccines and treatments come in. My team has helped develop an immune-stimulating nasal spray that’s entering phase 2 clinical trials for COVID and influenza.
This works by boosting innate immunity in the tissue lining your airways to attack the virus at the point of entry in the nose and throat.
The aim is to prevent the virus from replicating there and making its way deeper into the respiratory tract where it can cause severe lung disease. It also reduces the amount of virus shedding in the nose and throat which should reduce the risk of onward transmission.
Where to from here?
Managing COVID is becoming more complicated now, and it’s impossible to predict where we’ll be a few months from now. As new variants continue to arise, it’s very difficult to understand how immune we are.
Monitoring and characterising new variants is essential. As new variants emerge, we need to understand how infectious and severe they are, and then adapt our vaccination strategy. This type of surveillance is what we do for the flu every year.
It could take years, but as time goes on and our immunity continues to mature, hopefully COVID settles to become a more stable, predicable, milder disease that can be effectively managed with the help of a range of new variant-proof vaccines and treatments.
Nathan Bartlett consults to and has share options in ENA Respiratory. He has received funding from ENA Respiratory.
Foxes kill about 300 million native mammals, birds and reptiles each year, and can be found across 80% of mainland Australia, our devastating new research published today reveals.
This research, the first to quantify the national impact of foxes on Australian wildlife, also compares the results to similar studies on cats. And we found foxes and cats collectively kill 2.6 billion mammals, birds and reptiles every year.
This enormous death toll is one of the key reasons Australia’s biodiversity is suffering major declines. Cats and foxes, for example, have played a big role in most of Australia’s 34 mammal extinctions, including the desert rat-kangaroo which rapidly declined once foxes reached their region.
Australia must drastically scale up the management of both predators, to give native wildlife a fighting chance and to help prevent future extinctions.
Australia is home to 1.7 million foxes
European colonisers brought foxes (and cats) to Australia. From 1845, foxes were released into the wild in Victoria for the “sport” of hunting them on horseback with a pack of hounds.
Fox populations soon exploded, thanks to the deliberate introduction of rabbits and hares in the 1800s. Rabbits and hares are not only a food source for foxes, they also eat the vegetation that native animals need for food, habitat, and to hide from predators. They continue to boost fox numbers today.
Our study estimates there are now 1.7 million foxes in Australia, spread across 80% of the mainland and on 50 Australian islands. They’re largely absent from tropical northern Australia and Tasmania.
By comparison, cats occur over more than 99.9% of the country, including on far more islands.
Fox densities are highest in temperate mainland regions, including forests and farms, and near urban areas where food and shelter are abundant. The Victorian government estimates there are as many as 16 foxes per square kilometre in Melbourne.
Cats and foxes eat almost 2 million reptiles across Australia every day, such as the central netted dragon. Nicolas Rakotopare (Lerako.net)
What are foxes eating?
The 300 million native animals that foxes kill every year consists of:
reptiles: foxes kill 88 million reptiles each year, and all are native. They’ve been recorded killing 108 different species – or 11% of all Australian reptile species – including the tjakura (great desert skink) and loggerhead turtle
birds: foxes kill 111 million birds each year, and 93% of these are native. They’ve been recorded killing 128 species – or 18% of all Australian bird species – including the mallee-fowl and little penguin
mammals: foxes kill 368 million mammals each year, and 29% of these are native. They’ve been recorded killing 114 species, or 40% of all land mammal species and half of all threatened mammal species. This includes the mankarr (greater bilby), quenda (southern brown bandicoot) and warru (black-footed rock-wallaby).
Foxes and feral cats together kill 2.6 billion animals every year. Stobo-Wilson et al, Diversity and Distributions, 2022.
Foxes also kill another 259 million non-native invasive animals every year, predominately house mice and rabbits. They also kill livestock, such as lambs, piglets and chickens.
While rabbits and house mice form a major part of fox diets, there’s no evidence foxes (or cats) limit their numbers. Changes in rabbit and mice populations are largely driven by climate fluctuations.
Our findings are underpinned by modelling data assembled from almost 100 field studies. This included 49,458 fox poo and stomach samples, and fox density estimates at 437 locations.
Foxes are also known to eat bird and reptile eggs, and threaten the breeding success of many turtle species. However, we didn’t tally their impact on turtle eggs (or on fish, frogs or insects) because of insufficient data – they’re highly digestible and often hard to identify in fox poo.
Carrion (dead animals) account for an average of 10% of fox diets, but we excluded carrion in the estimated numbers of animals killed.
Fairy wrens and other birds that nest and feed near the ground are vulnerable to foxes and cats. Nicolas Rakotopare (Lerako.net)
Foxes and cats: a deadly combination
Although they eat many of the same species, foxes take larger prey than cats and have a bigger toll on kangaroos, wallabies and potoroos.
Cats eat smaller prey, so eat a lot more of them. Nationally, feral cats kill about five times more reptiles, two and a half times more birds and twice as many mammals than foxes.
In total, feral cats kill 1.5 billion animals every year (not including invertebrates and frogs). Pet cats kill another 500 million animals.
The impacts of both predators are concentrated in some regions more than others. And although cats kill more animals overall nationally, in some areas foxes take a greater toll.
This includes the Warren and Jarrah Forest in Western Australia, the Eyre and Yorke Penninsula in South Australia, across Victoria and in NSW’s Blue Mountains.
This is why foxes take a larger toll on forest animals such as possums and gliders, and kill over 1,000 animals per square kilometre each year in these areas.
Cats are widespread across Australia, while foxes are widespread everywhere except Tasmania and tropical northern Australia. Northern Territory Government
To understand and manage these threats, it’s essential to take the cumulative impacts of both introduced predators into account. Many species fall prey to both cats and foxes.
Each day across Australia their combined death toll includes 1.9 million reptiles, 1.4 million birds and 3.9 million mammals.
So what needs to change?
The only way to stem these losses, and prevent the extinction of many vulnerable species, is to step up targeted and integrated cat and fox management.
Foxes and cats kill 4 million mammals every day across Australia. The bridled nailtail wallaby was once common throughout eastern Australia, but foxes and cats (and habitat loss) pushed it close to extinction. Nicolas Rakotopare (Lerako.net)
Cat and fox eradication programs have had success in fenced areas and on islands. For example, cat eradication on Dirk Hartog Island is enabling many native animals to be reintroduced.
And long-term broad-scale management programs have enabled the recovery of threatened species in wider landscapes, such as the Bounceback Program helping yellow-footed rock wallabies and other wildlife in SA’s Flinders Ranges.
Our new research highlights the urgent need to increase investment for cat and fox management across Australia. Management will need to be large-scale and strategically coordinated as both species breed like rabbits, so to speak, and travel great distances.
This means patchy, or small-scale lethal programs can allow their numbers to quickly rebound.
We also need to protect and recover habitat for native animals. Evidence shows good habitat supports healthier native animal populations and gives them more places to hide from predators.
23 scientists contributed to the research described in this article. The research received funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub (which ended in Dec 2021). Jaana Dielenberg previously received funding from the Threatened Species Recovery Hub but does not currently work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article.
Brett Murphy receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He received funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub (which ended in Dec 2021). He is a member of the Australian Government’s Threatened Species Scientific Committee.
John Woinarski is the director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy. The research received funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub (which ended in Dec 2021).
The research received funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub (which ended in Dec 2021).
Alyson Stobo-Wilson and Trish Fleming 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.
The long-standing practice of restricting temporary sponsorship to occupations classified as “in shortage” should be abandoned. Instead, temporary sponsorship should be reserved for higher-wage jobs in any occupation.
The government use these classifications of Australia’s 13 million jobs for a range of purposes.
The National Skills Commission (which advises the federal government on workforce skills needed) and the Department of Home Affairs (which oversees visa programs) use them to compile three lists of skills wanted by Australia’s skilled migration schemes. One list is focused on short-term needs, another on longer-term needs and the third on skills needed in regional areas.
Defining needed skills by occupation, however, is an inflexible way to meet shortages in a rapidly changing labour market – and flexibility is the very thing temporary skilled migration programs are meant to provide.
This rigidity is becoming ever more of a problem as more highly skilled service industries develop. New tasks and roles take time to be classified as official occupations. For example, ANZSCO didn’t recognise the developing and in-demand profession of “data scientist” as an occupation until September 2019.
An occupation ‘shortage’ is hard to measure
For occupations that do exist, deciding which are “in shortage” isn’t clear-cut.
when employers are unable to fill or have considerable difficulty filling vacancies for an occupation, or significant specialised skill needs within that occupation, at current levels of remuneration and conditions of employment, and in reasonably accessible locations.
This is unsound. Wages change over time. Wages for a job where demand is greater than supply will probably increase relative to other jobs. Pegging the definition to “current levels of renumeration” will overstate the roles in which there is a genuine shortage.
But even with a better definition, Australian policy makers would still lack the data – such as timely vacancy and wage data for each of the 1,000 occupations – to identify skills shortages in real time.
Without this information it is difficult to see what, beyond input from industry lobby groups, determines which occupations become eligible for temporary sponsorship.
A system that looks at occupations rather than jobs also misses crucial parts of the story.
A senior accountant working for a multinational corporation in a capital city and a graduate accountant working for a local business in a country town have the same occupation. But the level of education and experience, responsibilities and remuneration offered for each job will vary dramatically.
Grattan Institute
Temporary visas should prioritise high-wage jobs
To get a better deal, Australia must rethink its approach. Temporary sponsorship should be reserved for higher-wage jobs in any occupation.
Our new report calls for the Temporary Skilled Shortage visa – which enables employers to sponsor a employee to stay in Australia for up to four years – to be replaced with a new visa, the Temporary Skilled Worker visa.
This new visa would allow employers to sponsor workers in any occupation, provided the job pays more than $70,000 a year and at least equal to what an Australian doing the same job would earn. This threshold reflects the median earnings of 25-34 year olds working full-time in Australia, and the fact those on temporary visas earning more than $70,000 will experience bigger wage increases than those earning less.
Grattan Institute
By removing occupation lists, the proportion of full-time jobs open to temporary skilled migrants would rise from 44% to 66%.
Conversely, the number of jobs that employers would no longer be able sponsor a temporary migrant to fill – those now on the list paying below $70,000) is tiny. In accommodation and food services, the sector that uses temporary skilled visas the most, these jobs make up just 1.5% of the labour force; in other sectors it’s less than 0.5%
Grattan Institute
Given migrant workers in lower-paid jobs are most likely to be exploited, this reform should reduce employer abuses and increase public confidence in the temporary skilled program.
Targeting higher-wage migrants will better address most genuine skills shortages that emerge. Removing cumbersome and uncertain occupation lists will give businesses greater certainty and a simpler application process to access the skills needed in emerging industries.
High-skilled migrants pay more in taxes than they receive in public services and benefits. Targeting temporary migrants with higher skills will also increase the pool of high-quality candidates for Australia’s permanent skilled migrant intake.
Australia can get the best of both worlds from its temporary skilled migration program by making it simpler for everyone. It will to deliver more for Australian businesses, workers and the economy.
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.
We would also like to thank the Scanlon Foundation for its generous and timely support of this project.
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. We would also like to thank the Scanlon Foundation for its generous and timely support of this project.
Will Mackey 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.
Military bands, with their shiny instruments, formal uniforms and precision marching are one of the most instantly recognisable symbols of a nation’s defence forces. As such, throughout much of history, their membership as been limited to men: Australian defence force bands only formally welcomed women into their ranks after the introduction of the Sex Discrimination act in 1984.
Despite this, during World War II, a groundbreaking group of women serving in the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force (WAAAF) performed alongside their male Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) counterparts to form some of the earliest documented mixed-gender defence force bands in the world.
At the beginning of World War II women were only allowed to serve in the defence force as nurses. As the war progressed, women’s auxiliary services were formed by the army, navy and air force to fill non-combat positions left vacant by men serving overseas.
I first became aware of the existence of WAAAF performers in supposedly all-male RAAF bands while I was conducting research on the history of Australia’s defence force bands. I was contacted by Olive Jardine (née McNeil), who had joined the WAAAF during World War II and who had played with her local RAAF band during that time.
I was so sure that these bandsmen had, indeed, all been bandsmen that I almost dismissed her, politely informing Olive the parameters of my study meant I couldn’t include women’s auxiliary bands.
But Olive was resolute.
She assured me that although she had served with the WAAAF, she had been invited to join her base’s RAAF band due to a shortage of male musicians during the war.
I was soon to discover she was just one of many such women: up to a quarter of RAAF bands had at least one female member during World War II.
World War II saw a rapid increase in the number of all-female bands and orchestras, and in Australia the army, navy and air force all formed women-only auxiliary bands. While women-only bands were becoming a more familiar sight, mixed-gender military bands were much rarer.
Women’s only bands, pictured here leading RAAF personnel in 1944, were common.
In the USA, a couple of bands featured visiting women – but RAAF bands are the only defence force bands known to regularly feature men and women playing together at this time.
Australia’s army and navy were well established by World War II, and so had more ingrained traditions, including professional bands. But as a newer division of the defence force, only formed in 1921, RAAF bands were still volunteer bands made up of any interested members serving on base.
In the army and navy, musicians served together as a unit and the different regulations for members of women’s auxiliary forces made it impossible for them to join these bands.
However RAAF bands worked more like the many volunteer sports clubs on bases, with little (if any) oversight from air force hierarchy, opening the door for members of the WAAAF to join.
Ladies to the front
Olive’s story is typical of the young women joining these bands.
Keen to help with the war effort, she signed up to the WAAAF as an accounts clerk and was stationed at Uranquinty in New South Wales. An experienced piano teacher, she volunteered to play organ at church services where she was approached by members of the base band who were looking for new musicians. They offered to teach her to play tenor horn, and she became the band’s only female member.
It wasn’t always a case of the odd-woman out. The Mallala band in South Australia had as many as six female members at any one time.
A combined RAAF and WAAAF Band marching in 1944. Australian War Memorial
Other women even held leadership positions in their bands. In Perth, Hannah Colley, whose father was a bandsmen in World War I, was given the prestigious role of playing the bugle calls at Perth’s 1944 Armistice Day ceremony, a role usually given to the most skilled bugler in the band.
She would go on to post-war career playing in concert parties as a musician in the Army’s Entertainment Unit.
Meanwhile, Mary Palmer stood in as acting Drum Major in her band in Ascot Vale, Victoria, after learning to swing a mace by practising with a broom.
Drum Major Mary Parker, photographed in Melbourne in 1943. Australian War Memorial
The loss – and return – of women
The pioneering women serving in RAAF bands during World War II performed proudly, and even held leadership positions alongside men.
After the war, the RAAF introduced its first professional band service. Entry was now restricted to men who had auditioned and who were employed by the air force solely for their musical skills. The WAAAF was discontinued in 1947 and reformed as the Womens Royal Australian Air Force (WRAAF) in 1950, however, women were not eligible to join the band corps until the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act some 40 years later.
Perhaps one of the most refreshing aspects of these stories is the way these ground-breaking women were supported by their communities. Olive’s male bandmates taught her to play tenor horn, local newspapers proudly reported on the performances of their local WAAAF members and Hannah chose to follow in her father’s footsteps to become a defence force musician.
The musicians of the WAAAF proved to the Australian public that women could work as equals alongside men, both on the parade ground and on stage, paving the way for the generations who came after them.
Anthea Skinner is a McKenzie Fellow at the Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne. She also receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australia Council for the Arts.
With recent polling showing National edging ahead of Labour for the first time in two years, Jacinda Ardern’s previously strong support has eroded rapidly since winning a remarkable outright majority at the 2020 general election.
But the dip in electoral fortunes is only part of the story. It’s probably not an overstatement to say Ardern is presently one of the most reviled people in Aotearoa New Zealand, attracting vitriol that violates the bounds of normal, reasoned political debate.
During the recent illegal occupation of parliament grounds, the apparent hatred was fully evident. There were ludicrous claims the prime minister is a mass murderer, and demands she be removed from office and executed for “crimes against humanity”.
Even on the supposedly professional social networking site LinkedIn, false claims that Ardern is a “tyrant” or “dictator” have been increasingly commonplace. For those making such claims, factual, constitutional, electoral and legal realities seemingly hold no weight.
So, what fuels these levels of antagonism? I suggest three factors are at play.
A protester with a fake arrest warrant in Christchurch. GettyImages
Context matters
How a leader is judged and what they can achieve is never simply a reflection of their individual characteristics and abilities.
Rather, as leadership scholars have long emphasised, the expectations of followers and the wider political, economic, social and historical context influence both how they are judged and their ability to achieve desired results.
In Ardern’s case, the public’s main concerns right now – food and fuel prices, rental and home ownership costs, and the effects of the Omicron outbreak – are beyond the direct control of any political leader. Some will require years of transformative effort before significant improvements are seen.
A paradox of leadership is that while followers will often hold unrealistic expectations that leaders can solve complex problems quickly, they are also quick to blame leaders when they fail to meet those unrealistic expectations.
Ardern is caught in the maw of these dynamics, and that’s one of the factors fuelling the attacks on her.
COVID controversies
The second obvious reason lies in the COVID-related policies – including vaccine mandates, crowd limits and border controls – that have disrupted people’s lives and been heavily criticised by vested interests such as expat New Zealanders and various business sectors.
Anti-mandate protests, in particular, have become a front for wider anti-vaccine movements and extreme right-wing conspiracists. While the prime minister must balance restrictive policies with the greater public good, detractors are not bound by such considerations.
Ironically, by demonstrating a firmness of resolve to act in the nation’s best interest – something leaders might normally expect praise for, and for which Ardern has won international admiration – leaders become open to accusations of being inflexible and unresponsive.
Echoed by opposition politicians and some media commentary, these elements combine to feed a sense of growing frustration.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon: up in the polls and a good fit for traditionalist voters? GettyImages
Old-fashioned sexism and misogyny
But these first two factors alone, while significant, don’t explain the full extent of the violent and hateful rhetoric directed at Ardern, albeit by a minority. Rather, it’s clear this is rooted in sexist and misogynistic attitudes and beliefs, further amplified by conspiratorial mindsets.
Research shows both men and women with more traditional views desire “tough”, “bold” and “authoritative” leadership. A man displaying traditionally masculine behaviours, who is an assertive risk-taker, dominating and commanding others, is their ideal leader. This aligns with an assumption that women should follow, not lead.
Ardern’s emphasis on traditionally feminine ideals, such as caring for vulnerable others, and her strongly precautionary COVID response run counter to what traditionalists respect and admire in leaders.
What’s known as “role incongruity theory” further suggests that Ardern jars with what traditionalists expect of “good women”. Overall, the sexism and misogyny inherent in these traditionalist beliefs mean Ardern is treated more harshly than a male prime minister pursuing the same policies would be.
Worryingly, the 2021 Gender Attitudes Survey (carried out by the New Zealand National Council of Women) showed such traditional views about leadership and gender are on the rise.
Traditionalist myths
Insults and abuse commonly directed at Ardern on social media reflect the generally gendered nature of cyberviolence, which disproportionately targets women. These insults translate traditionalist beliefs into sexist and misogynistic acts.
Referring to Ardern as “Cindy”, for example, infantilises her. Calling her a “pretty communist” not only reflects the sexist and misogynist view that a woman’s worth is measured by her appearance, but also suggests her looks disguise her real aims.
This plays on the traditional trope of woman as evil seductress. From there it’s a short leap to the conspiracy theories that depict Ardern as part of an evil international cabal.
Unfortunately, for traditionalists and extremists alike, the evidence shows that effective leaders do not conform to their ideal or play by their rule book. Instead, they tend to be collaborative, humble, team-oriented and able to inspire others to work for the common good – qualities women often exhibit.
Of course, Ardern’s performance is not beyond criticism. But a fair-minded analysis, free from sexist and misogynist bias, would suggest the hatred directed toward her says more about the haters than Ardern.
Suze Wilson 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.
Australia and the Netherlands have launched legal proceedings against Russia over the downing of flight MH17, which killed 298 people in 2014.
What’s so unusual about this new legal action is that it’s being brought before the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Australia, the Netherlands and Russia are all contracting parties to what is known as the Chicago Convention of 1944, which set up the ICAO to provide standards and recommended practices for international aviation.
Normally, proceedings like this would be brought in domestic courts like the existing prosecution being mounted by the Dutch authorities against the four individuals they believe were responsible for the downing of MH17.
But the ICAO is a body responsible for setting standards for international aviation and doesn’t frequently settle disputes between nations.
ICAO doesn’t police the skies
The ICAO has been quite successful in its role. There are 192 nations that are contracting members to the Chicago Convention and are obliged to comply with its various standards and recommended practices.
And we have a very harmonised international aviation sector as a result, with requirements for flight crew licensing, aircraft manufacturing and environmental regulations that are all routinely met by the member states.
The ICAO does have provisions for settling disputes between member countries under article 84 of the convention. This is where the Australian and Dutch authorities have brought their action.
Normally, if there’s a dispute brought before the organisation, it’s against a particular airline, not a country itself. So, if an airline has done something wrong, ICAO can impose restrictions on where it can fly. This can’t happen when you bring a case against another nation.
In the 78 years of ICAO’s existence, only five disputes have been brought under this article. It’s not used that often because ICAO can’t really compel states to comply with it. It’s a bit of a toothless tiger when it comes to disputes of this nature.
Russia could also be held accountable under article 3bis of the Chicago Convention, an amendment signed in 1984 after the Soviet military shot down a South Korean airliner the previous year.
This article says member states “must refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight”. A state can initiate proceedings to the ICAO Council, which could then be appealed to the International Court of Justice.
But the council has previously been described as “less as a court of law than as a facilitator for settlement”, limiting itself to technical issues and avoiding political matters. Only one council dispute has ever been referred to the ICJ.
So what can ICAO do in this case?
Australia and the Netherlands are using the legal action to try to force Russia back to the negotiating table to resolve the dispute over compensation for the families of the MH17 victims. Russia unilaterally withdrew from the talks in 2020.
Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said the ICAO is “the sole body that has jurisdiction to deal with this matter”, asking the body to order
the parties immediately enter good faith negotiations to resolve expeditiously the matters of full reparation for the injury caused by Russia’s breach.
ICAO can say to Russia that it must return to the negotiating table, but in terms of being able to enforce it, the most it can do is suspend Russia’s voting rights in the ICAO Council and ICAO Assembly.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to care very much about that because Russia would still be part of the Chicago Convention.
And expelling a member from ICAO has never been tested to date.
Relatives of the victims of flight MH17 walk along 298 empty chairs in a park opposite the Russian embassy in the Netherlands, each chair representing one of the 298 people killed. Peter Dejong/AP
Other international treaties that could be relevant
This convention imposes an obligation on states to provide for the safety of civilian flights and refrain from using weapons against civilian aircraft. It also has near-universal ratification, including Russia.
Article 14 of the Montreal Convention also allows disagreeing states to refer their dispute to the ICJ when negotiations fail. As Russia withdrew from negotiations with Australia and the Netherlands regarding the liability for the downing of MH17, this is an increasingly possible route.
The current case being brought before the ICAO demonstrates what the Chicago Convention was designed to do and what it wasn’t designed to do.
The fundamental objective is to increase cooperation and standardisation between states with respect to international aviation. We’re talking here about a specific dispute over compensation for an act of aggression – it’s outside the ambit or jurisdiction of what the ICAO was set up to do.
This is probably a last-ditch attempt by Australia and the Netherlands to get an outcome for the victims of the tragic MH17 crash.
Ron Bartsch AM 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.
The federal court today unanimously decided Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley does not have a duty of care to protect young people from the harms of climate change.
The ruling overturns a previous landmark win by eight high school students, who sought to stop Ley approving a coal mine expansion in New South Wales. While the judge did not prevent the mine expansion, he agreed the minister did indeed have a duty of care to children in the face of the climate crisis.
Ley’s successful appeal is disappointing. As legal scholars, we believe the judgment sets back the cause of climate litigation in Australia by two decades, at a time when we urgently need climate action to accelerate.
So why was Ley successful? The federal court’s 282-page judgment offers myriad reasons for why no duty should be imposed on the minister. But what emerges most clearly is the court’s view that it’s not their place to set policies on climate change. Instead, they say, it’s the job of our elected representatives in the federal government.
This required the minister to take reasonable care when exercising her powers to avoid causing Australian children under 18 personal injury or death from carbon dioxide emissions.
Ley appealed this decision in July last year. She also approved the coal mine extension, arguing her decision wouldn’t contribute to global warming because even if the mine was refused, other sources would step in to meet the coal demand.
And today, in a live-streamed proceeding, the full bench of the federal court ruled in her favour: the stated duty should not be imposed on the minister. While the outcome was unanimous, the three judges had separate reasoning.
One judge saw climate change as a matter for government, not the courts, to address, saying the duty would be an issue “involving questions of policy (scientific, economic, social, industrial and political) […] unsuitable for the Judicial branch to resolve”.
Another said there was insufficient “closeness” and “directness” between the minister’s power to approve the coal mine and the effect this would have on the children. But he left open the possibility of a future claim if any of the children in the class action suffered damage.
The third judge had three main reasons. First, the EPBC Act doesn’t create a duty-of-care relationship between the minister and children. Second, establishing a standard of care isn’t feasible as it would result in “incoherence” between the duty and the minister’s functions. Third, it’s not currently foreseeable that approving the coal mine extension would cause the children personal injury, as the law is understood.
The good news: climate science remains undisputed
In the original case, the judge made landmark rulings about the dangers of climate change, marking a significant moment in Australian climate litigation.
He found one million of today’s Australian children are expected to be hospitalised due to heat stress, they’ll experience substantial economic loss, and when they grow up the Great Barrier Reef and most eucalypt forests won’t exist.
According to the judge, this harm was “reasonably foreseeable”. This is important from a legal point of view, as courts have previously considered climate change to be speculative, and a future problem.
As part of her appeal, Sussan Ley argued that these findings, based on presented evidence, were incorrect and went beyond what was submitted to the court. Today, these arguments were unanimously rejected.
The federal court found all the minister’s criticisms on the evidence of climate change were unfounded and all of the primary judge’s findings were appropriate to be made. As Chief Justice Allsop concluded:
[B]y and large, the nature of the risks and the dangers from global warming, including the possible catastrophe that may engulf the world and humanity was not in dispute.
But while this reaffirms acceptance that climate science is unequivocal, it does nothing to prevent mounting climate change harms, most recently made clear by the devastating floods across NSW and Queensland.
Indeed, it only turns this responsibility back to the current federal government, which has policies increasingly at odds with what the science and concerned citizens say is needed.
Bucking the trend
This was a test case in Australian law, as it explored a novel legal argument. Its failure will likely put a dampener on innovative climate litigation in Australia.
Today’s judgment asserts that the courts are limited in what they can do to address climate change. It goes against the trend of successful climate change court rulings overseas, and the widespread mobilisation across community groups, business and local governments for action.
Just last year, for example, we saw a court in The Hague order oil and gas giant Shell to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030, relative to 2019 levels, and a German court ruling that the government’s climate goals were not strong enough.
Today’s federal court finding that dealing with coal mine emissions is for governments alone seemingly reimposes barriers to climate litigation in Australia, carefully dismantled by the previous two decades of climate change cases.
We’ve seen a number of landmark climate cases in Australia. This includes the Rocky Hill verdict where a judge rejected a new coal mine on climate grounds, and the Bushfire Survivors case where the court found the NSW government had a legal obligation to take meaningful action on climate change.
These brought the glimmer of hope that where the federal government fails to act, the courts will step in. Today’s ruling suggests this is no longer the case.
In the lead up to the Australian federal election, the appeal outcome emphasises the importance of changing government policy if we’re going to get better outcomes on climate change in this country. Climate change certainly will not wait – the fight for a safe climate future continues.
Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council for projects on climate change litigation and investor action on energy transition.
Rebekkah Markey-Towler previously worked as an associate at the Federal Court of Australia.
Australia and the Netherlands have launched legal proceedings against Russia over the downing of flight MH17, which killed 298 people in 2014.
What’s so unusual about this new legal action is that it’s being brought before the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Australia, the Netherlands and Russia are all contracting parties to what is known as the Chicago Convention of 1944, which set up the ICAO to provide standards and recommended practices for international aviation.
Normally, proceedings like this would be brought in domestic courts like the existing prosecution being mounted by the Dutch authorities against the four individuals they believe were responsible for the downing of MH17.
But the ICAO is a body responsible for setting standards for international aviation and doesn’t frequently settle disputes between nations.
ICAO doesn’t police the skies
The ICAO has been quite successful in its role. There are 192 nations that are contracting members to the Chicago Convention and are obliged to comply with its various standards and recommended practices.
And we have a very harmonised international aviation sector as a result, with requirements for flight crew licensing, aircraft manufacturing and environmental regulations that are all routinely met by the member states.
The ICAO does have provisions for settling disputes between member countries under article 84 of the convention. This is where the Australian and Dutch authorities have brought their action.
Normally, if there’s a dispute brought before the organisation, it’s against a particular airline, not a country itself. So, if an airline has done something wrong, ICAO can impose restrictions on where it can fly. This can’t happen when you bring a case against another nation.
In the 78 years of ICAO’s existence, only five disputes have been brought under this article. It’s not used that often because ICAO can’t really compel states to comply with it. It’s a bit of a toothless tiger when it comes to disputes of this nature.
Russia could also be held accountable under article 3bis of the Chicago Convention, an amendment signed in 1984 after the Soviet military shot down a South Korean airliner the previous year.
This article says member states “must refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight”. A state can initiate proceedings to the ICAO Council, which could then be appealed to the International Court of Justice.
But the council has previously been described as “less as a court of law than as a facilitator for settlement”, limiting itself to technical issues and avoiding political matters. Only one council dispute has ever been referred to the ICJ.
So what can ICAO do in this case?
Australia and the Netherlands are using the legal action to try to force Russia back to the negotiating table to resolve the dispute over compensation for the families of the MH17 victims. Russia unilaterally withdrew from the talks in 2020.
Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said the ICAO is “the sole body that has jurisdiction to deal with this matter”, asking the body to order
the parties immediately enter good faith negotiations to resolve expeditiously the matters of full reparation for the injury caused by Russia’s breach.
ICAO can say to Russia that it must return to the negotiating table, but in terms of being able to enforce it, the most it can do is suspend Russia’s voting rights in the ICAO Council and ICAO Assembly.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to care very much about that because Russia would still be part of the Chicago Convention.
And expelling a member from ICAO has never been tested to date.
Relatives of the victims of flight MH17 walk along 298 empty chairs in a park opposite the Russian embassy in the Netherlands, each chair representing one of the 298 people killed. Peter Dejong/AP
Other international treaties that could be relevant
This convention imposes an obligation on states to provide for the safety of civilian flights and refrain from using weapons against civilian aircraft. It also has near-universal ratification, including Russia.
Article 14 of the Montreal Convention also allows disagreeing states to refer their dispute to the ICJ when negotiations fail. As Russia withdrew from negotiations with Australia and the Netherlands regarding the liability for the downing of MH17, this is an increasingly possible route.
The current case being brought before the ICAO demonstrates what the Chicago Convention was designed to do and what it wasn’t designed to do.
The fundamental objective is to increase cooperation and standardisation between states with respect to international aviation. We’re talking here about a specific dispute over compensation for an act of aggression – it’s outside the ambit or jurisdiction of what the ICAO was set up to do.
This is probably a last-ditch attempt by Australia and the Netherlands to get an outcome for the victims of the tragic MH17 crash.
Ron Bartsch AM 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.
As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan now includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.
This week Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn talk about the continuing “blame game” after the floods, the pressure on the government over petrol prices, the coming weekend’s South Australian election, and the PM’s campaigning in Western Australia, now its border is finally open.
Then there’s that Morrison crack about Anthony Albanese’s ‘makeover’!
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.
One of the important indicators of a society’s living standards is the ability of its people to stay alive. Covid19 is seen as a problem mainly because, like the road toll, it represents a cause of death that has the potential to reduce that society’s life expectancy. Deaths averted may indeed represent a key performance indicator (KPI) for a government.
The objective exists in the context that all deaths are, by definition, a failure with respect to this KPI. In principle, all deaths are treated equally – deaths from one cause are no less tragic than deaths from another cause. Deaths averted treat all causes of death equally, and all ages of death equally. Yet this KPI is somewhat artificial. Everyone must die sometime, deaths of young people represent more years of life lost; and most of us think that some deaths are more horrible than others.
New Zealand is a country, more than most, with rising annual deaths. This is mainly because New Zealand has more rapid population growth than most economically developed countries, and because older people are becoming a bigger proportion of that rising population.
Actual deaths
Chart by Keith Rankin.
The first chart shows weekly deaths in New Zealand for each year from 2015. The first thing most people will notice is the winter peak, and in particular how large that peak was in 2017. (This was in fact an influenza pandemic – much worse than the 2009 pandemic – though it was never labelled a pandemic by the World Health Organisation.) In general, this chart tells us that ‘winter infections’ contribute significantly to deaths in New Zealand.
The second main feature of the chart is that the general tendency is for deaths to be higher in more recent years. This is, as already noted, exactly what would be expected in a country with both a rising and an aging population. Having noted this, we can also say that 2016, 2018, and 2020 were good years on the mortality front.
Two more points to note. The impact of the Christchurch mosque tragedies (three years ago today) is shown, in dark blue, as an upward blip in mid-March of 2019. And the winter peak in 2021 looks rather high, given that there were very few deaths that winter from either coronaviruses or influenza.
Chart by Keith Rankin.
The second chart estimates baseline ‘normal’ for each year (meaning deaths not resulting from seasonal or one-off factors), and then shows ‘excess deaths’ relative to that norm. Thus, both seasonal and one-off death events will show. The normal demographic rise in death numbers is corrected for (so does not show).
While all years show seasonal mortality peaks in winter, 2020 has easily the smallest peak, mainly due to Covid19 pandemic public health measures largely keeping out colds and influenzas. The main direct impact on deaths of the lockdowns shows as low deaths in May and September 2020, as well as a generally lower winter death toll that year.
2021 was surprisingly normal; no impact in New Zealand of Covid19, nor much impact of the ‘delta’ lockdown (except that delta-covid itself had no discernible influence on mortality, thanks to the lockdowns). The winter mortality peak in 2021 is a matter of concern, though; a matter that needs further explanation from our small community of expert epidemiologists.
So far, 2022 is looking completely normal. Omicron-covid will probably see March 2022 looking much like March 2019.
Excess Death by Age
Chart by Keith Rankin.Chart by Keith Rankin.Chart by Keith Rankin.
These three charts use ‘excess death’ estimates published by ourworldindata.org. I have been unable to locate the raw data used to calculated ‘projected deaths’ for each age group. ‘Excess deaths’, for each age group, is actual deaths minus projected deaths, calculated as a percentage of projected deaths.
In the first chart, we see that, in the first quarter of 2020, there were excess deaths of people aged 75 to 84; but an apparent shortfall for other age groups, especially working-age adults (15-64). It is likely that some of these differences are random, though we also know that there will be more deaths of people aged 75-84, because there are now many more New Zealanders in that age group. It is therefore surprising how few deaths there were, in 2020 pre-covid, of people aged 65-74.
The second chart adjusts these estimates to put all age groups on an equal footing at the beginning of the pandemic. It suggests a dramatic fall in deaths of older New Zealanders, compared to what would have been had there been no Covid19 modifications to New Zealanders way of life.
In the final chart, I simply average the previous two charts, giving a more robust estimate of excess deaths. It looks as though people aged 75 to 84 have died in slightly larger numbers in 2021 and 2022 than would have been expected had normal times prevailed until 2022. People in that age group who avoided death triggered by colds or influenza in 2020 may have died in 2021 from underlying conditions, and perhaps in some cases from treatment delays.
In addition, there are signs that the other older age groups may be dying in slightly larger numbers this summer than would have been expected given the public health mandates.
Finally, this last chart shows the overall mortality ‘excess’, which has been negative through out the pandemic period. Thus, lives have been saved. It does not mean that lives will continue to be saved. Indeed, we see that the annual excess of deaths in New Zealand to October 2021 was close to zero. My prediction is that in the year to October 2022, excess deaths in New Zealand will be significantly above zero, even if the Russian conflict has not by then brought about World War Three.
A word of caution. Until January 2022, Hong Kong – with similar covid policies to New Zealand – will have had a similar profile of excess deaths to New Zealand. That is certainly not the case in February and March. In the last week, Hong Kong’s recorded Covid19 death toll has been five times worse (per capita) than the next worst country (Brunei, which has a similar story to Hong Kong).
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
In February this year, reports surfaced on Twitter and Facebook that the Ukrainian government was undertaking a mass genocide of civilians. Around the same time, conspiracy theorists began saying Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was an agent of the “New World Order”.
These claims have been thoroughly debunked, but not before attracting millions of views and offering a purported justification for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. More recently, Russian and Chinese officials have claimed the United States has funded bioweapons research in Ukraine.
Social media has played a crucial role in the spread of these and other false claims. We have identified a network of dozens of Russian government Twitter accounts using a loophole in the platform’s rules to run a coordinated program of disinformation.
The dangers of disinformation
By “disinformation”, we mean factually incorrect material distributed with the aim of unsettling or damaging something or someone: a politician, a political party or system, or a way of life.
Democracy relies on citizens’ ability to make informed decisions about policy, politics and world affairs. This ability is severely compromised when fake and (deliberately) misleading claims are promoted as fact.
Disinformation itself is not new, but over the past decade it has found an ideal place to flourish on social media platforms.
Why disinformation loves social media
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and many other platforms are designed as amplification systems. They are built to be open to all comers and increase the volume on any type of content.
Anyone with an internet connection can access social media, where all kinds of content can be shared with a speed and reach that was impossible with heritage media.
The sheer speed at which disinformation is disseminated – especially via automated “bot accounts” – makes it hard for content moderators to keep up. The emotive, partisan nature of much online disinformation also means internet users and journalists are more likely to spread it without checking it too closely.
Russian accounts on Twitter
Russian government Twitter accounts have played a key role in the spread of pro-Russia disinformation. While Twitter has fewer users than Facebook or Instagram, it is a pivotal site for the production and dissemination of news.
We tracked the Twitter activity of 75 official Russian government accounts and found they are a major source and amplifier of disinformation. At time of writing these accounts together have a total of 7,366,622 followers. They have been retweeted 35.9 million times, received 29.8 million likes, and 4 million replies.
Between 25 February and 3 March 2022, about these accounts made 1,157 tweets – and around three quarters were about Ukraine. The accounts have tried to spread false narratives to justify the invasion.
Daily tweet volume in 2022 of Russian government accounts (coloured by tweets about Ukraine versus other).
The tweets below show Russian government accounts spreading disinformation narratives: delegitimising Ukraine as a sovereign state, sowing doubt and mistruths about the Ukraine government and neo-Nazi infiltration, spreading “whataboutisms” that downplay the Ukraine invasion by drawing attention to alleged war crimes by other countries, and spreading conspiracy theories about Ukraine/US bioweapons research.
Russian government accounts have tweeted and retweeted disinformation about Ukraine.
A loophole for governments
Twitter has recognised the disinformation possibilities of state-affiliated media, putting warning labels on their content and not recommending or amplifying them.
However, these rules do not apply to government-controlled accounts not labelled as media, such as foreign embassies.
As a result, these accounts are flooding the platform with propaganda. This is a critical gap in Twitter’s moderation practices, and one that has received little attention.
A coordinated network
The 75 Russian government accounts we studied are also working together to amplify disinformation. We analysed their tweets and found they often retweet the same content at about the same time.
This is a well-known tactic of coordinated disinformation or “astroturfing”, where a network of accounts retweet content together repeatedly to amplify it and maximise its reach.
Coordinated retweeting of disinformation by official Russian government Twitter accounts.
The picture above shows a network visualisation of coordinated retweet behaviour among the 75 Russian government accounts. Larger nodes coordinate more often, links indicate retweeting within 60 seconds of one another, and the colours represent “communities” of accounts that tend to co-retweet especially frequently.
The most prominent accounts re the two Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accounts (@mfa_russia and @mid_rf), the Russian Mission in Geneva (@mission_russian), and the Russian Embassy in USA (@rusembusa).
What can be done?
Twitter needs to do more to safeguard the platform from harmful content by state actors. Government accounts are still free to flood the space with false information.
Twitter’s policies and rules need to be modified to suit special circumstances such as war. They also need to adapt to non-Western contexts where disinformation is easily missed by automated moderation tuned to the English language and the norms of the US and western Europe.
Platforms have traditionally taken their cues from the techno-libertarian adage that “information wants to be free”. This has turned out to be a disaster for liberal democracy and public health.
Some positive changes have been made, particularly after the January 6 Capitol riots in the US, but platforms are still designed on the principle that the other side should always be heard.
This design is not simply the result of an impoverished understanding of political theory by young white male Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. It’s good for business: blocking government disinformation could result in governments blocking platforms in retaliation, cutting off valuable users.
Do your homework
Individual Twitter users can also help stem the spread of state-issued disinformation by doing exactly what conspiracists and disinformation actors have long encouraged: their own research.
Users can and should ask themselves: How accurate is this claim? How can the claim be verified? Who is posting this information about Russia? What stake does that person or persons have in Russian state affairs? How might amplifying this content, even to criticise it, unwittingly spread it further?
If a piece of information cannot be verified, or appears to be driven by bias or prejudice, it is in everyone’s best interest not to tweet or retweet.
Timothy Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council for his Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE220101435), ‘Combatting Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Social Media’. He also receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Defence.
Jay Daniel Thompson 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.
The Russia-Ukraine crisis is already a human catastrophe. And it could also prove disastrous for climate action by slowing the global energy transition.
Both Russia and Ukraine are key suppliers of crucial metals used in the manufacture of green technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicle batteries. The conflict threatens global supplies of these materials.
Concerns over energy security are also spurring fossil fuel imports and have triggered calls in Australia to delay emissions reduction efforts.
But the war in Eastern Europe must not cause global climate action to falter. We must ensure the renewables industry is better able to withstand such global shocks – which in the long run will aid the transition.
The Russian-Ukraine conflict is a disaster for humanity, and may slow the energy transition. Evgeniy Maloletka/AP
The threat of sanctions
The world needs a secure, steady and affordable supply of clean energy to meet emissions reduction targets. This supply relies on access to so-called “energy transition metals” such as copper, nickel, platinum, palladium, aluminium and lithium.
The Russian-Ukraine conflict has already prompted nations to impose trade sanctions on Russian oil and gas, coal and other commodities, affecting global energy security.
Russia’s metals have so far escaped this punishment. But such sanctions are not out of the question. In 2018, sanctions were imposed on Russian aluminium producer Rusal, causing global prices to skyrocket.
Russia accounts for 7% of the world’s mined nickel – a scarce metal needed to make electric vehicle batteries. The current conflict reportedly pushed nickel prices up 250% in 48 hours last week.
Russia also produces a third of the world’s palladium. The metal is used in the car industry to control vehicle emissions. Palladium prices reached an all-time high following the Ukraine crisis, but have since slumped.
Ukraine is the world’s largest supplier of a group of chemical elements known as “noble gases”. These include neon and krypton, and are used to make semiconductor chips. The latter are a critical component of all electronic systems including those found in automobiles, renewables machinery and other technology.
Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 triggered a rise in neon prices. Some chip manufacturers reportedly stocked up on neon ahead of the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, but the longer-term outlook is uncertain.
Global nickel prices have soared since the Russia-Ukraine crisis began. Courtney Crow/AP
A boost for fossil fuels
Before the Russia-Ukraine conflict, global progress towards reducing our reliance on fossil fuels was already too slow. In just one example, the development of solar and wind projects was recently found to be 30% below what’s needed to achieve the world’s climate targets this decade.
A shortfall in materials used to produce such technologies will only put the world further behind.
Concerns over energy security are also driving coal imports as nations race to shore up fossil fuel supplies. In Europe, for instance, fears over disruptions to Russian gas supplies led to a rush on coal imports.
The German government is also under pressure to reconsider its short-term plans to exit coal and end the use of nuclear power.
And in Australia, rising fuel prices have prompted calls by pro-coal members of the federal government for Australia to pause its plan for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The Ukraine conflict is driving demand for coal imports. Wang Kai/Xinhua-AP
Ripple effects
Despite all the bad news for the energy transition, disruptions caused by the Eastern European conflict provide important lessons in the longer term.
Together with the COVID-19 pandemic, the crisis has highlighted the need for countries to strengthen their domestic capacity to build clean technologies.
And in Australia, the federal government’s manufacturing strategy supports investments in critical resources processing.
The crisis has also provided a wake-up call for countries to reduce their reliance on Russian fossil fuels by investing in renewable energy, and better managing domestic energy demand.
The spike in the prices of critical minerals is likely to drive new mining, manufacturing and renewable energy projects outside Russia. In the Philippines, for example, a dozen new nickel mines are expected this year.
This push may indeed diversify global supplies. But it could also unleash a suite of environmental and social harms.
So wherever these large projects are undertaken, communities and environments must be protected.
Vulnerable communities must be protected when expanding any mining operations. ILYA GRIDNEFF/AAP
Where to from here?
The Russia-Ukraine conflict casts a cloud of uncertainty over the world’s supply of resources necessary for the energy transition.
Investors, governments, and industry must ensure any disruptions to the world’s transition goals are short-lived. And we must seize this opportunity to make the renewables sector more resilient in the longer term.
We cannot afford to let the Russia-Ukraine conflict derail our focus on an even broader crisis: Earth’s worsening climate catastrophe.
Vigya Sharma thanks Professor Deanna Kemp for her insights and helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article.
Eleonore Lebre receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Julia Loginova 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.
Thousands of people have been displaced from the floods in New South Wales and Queensland. Across the Northern Rivers, the floods have damaged at least 5,500 homes, with at least half of these expected to be uninhabitable.
Floods expose social inequities and exacerbate the housing crisis for people with disability and carers in the region.
In 2020, the disability royal commission raised concern that people with disability were more at risk of homelessness during emergencies.
This followed our research after the 2017 Northern Rivers floods, which showed people with disability and carers were more likely than others to have their homes flooded, to be evacuated and still displaced from their homes six months after the flood.
We found people with disability and carers were at greater risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
People with disability are disproportionately impacted by flooding because of socioeconomic disparities.
Floods intersect with social, cultural and economic factors to shape people’s exposure to risk and their ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from flooding events.
Housing in flood-prone areas is generally cheaper to buy and to rent, which means people with the least resources – including those with disability and carers – are more likely to be living in areas prone to flooding.
People with disability are more likely to live in cheaper, flood-prone areas. Shutterstock
As one person told us:
Some of my friends lived in places in the centre of Lismore CBD that perhaps should never have been rented due to the vulnerability of their buildings in floods. These types of rooms/places were really vulnerable in the flood, it would have been impossible to get possessions to safety quickly enough. And people who rent these types of places have the least resources (mental, emotional, physical –cars etc – financial) to cope with this type of event quickly.
– Person with disability
Stories from the ground
Due to socioeconomic disparities, people with a disability or carers affected by flooding have greater need for emergency housing in the short term and more secure housing in the long term.
In many cases, people affected by this flooding event will have experienced other climate-related traumas. It was only five years ago the Northern Rivers experienced its last major flood event and just over two years since bushfires devastated the region.
Following a disaster, people with disability must navigate two complex and often inaccessible bureaucracies: the emergency response and recovery arrangements, and disability services, which which are likely to be compromised by the same disaster.
In the 2017 flood, people felt left behind. As one person explained to us:
The disgusting way people were left to fend for themselves and then the lack of proper response from our federal government […] The lack of help for the homeless and vulnerable. The anxiety and stress that occurred and the amount of people left homeless and still trying to find a home five months later. Services that were desperately needed were very hard to find.
– Person with disability
The lack of affordable and accessible accommodation resulted in people with disability and carers returning to, or moving into, unsafe accommodation. Floods can affect the integrity of buildings: they are more likely to leak, develop mould, and suffer from draughts.
Our research highlighted the lack of affordable accommodation for displaced people with disability, a situation exacerbated by many temporary accommodation and homeless services being flooded.
Where the flood did affect me was the housing crisis borne of a shortage of rental properties. I was given notice to move from my rental property just before the flood. It was extremely tough to find anything affordable on the pension […] in the months after. I am currently in temporary accommodation till March, then who knows?
– Person with disability
People with disability may not be able to access affordable accommodation. Shutterstock
Some become homeless.
I am currently homeless with three children, looking for help from community organisations and there are big waiting lists.
The right to safety and well-being in emergencies is now built into Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-31. It includes, for the first time, targeted action on disability inclusive emergency planning. This must include safe and accessible housing.
Improving housing outcomes for people with disability affected by flooding requires the removal of pre-existing barriers that increase inequitable access to safe living situations. This should happen during pre-planning, and we have direction with the new disability strategy.
6 steps to minimise the housing crisis when disasters strike
But we’re in the middle of an unfolding flood disaster now. So here are six steps governments could take now to minimise the housing crisis for people with disability and carers:
provide accessible short-term emergency housing and support access to secure, safe and accessible long-term housing options
relocate displaced people with their family, carers and support networks to ensure continuity of support from the people they rely on for personal, practical, and emotional support
include local housing and homelessness services in human and social recovery planning now and for long-term recovery
resource disabled people’s organisations to enable person-centred emergency preparedness (P-CEP) tailored to people’s local flood risk, living situation, and other support needs to increase choice and control during recovery
support social housing and homelessness services to develop effective emergency plans for how they will sustain services and continuity of supports during and after disasters.
Jo Longman has received research funding from the NSW Dept. of Planning, Industry and Environment.
Michelle Villeneuve receives funding from the Australian Research Council to support partnership research on Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction with support from Resilience NSW. Michelle leads partnership research on inclusive emergency planning with people with disability, the services that support them, and emergency personnel in Queensland and Victoria. This research receives funding support from the Queensland and Victorian governments.
Ross Bailie receives research grant funding from the NHMRC and the ARC.
Jodie Bailie 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.
Many people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may not receive a diagnosis until adulthood. Adult symptoms can look a little different to those of childhood.
Knowing what to look for is important, so people can get support to help them better understand themselves and meet their full potential.
People, including some clinicians, may not be aware of adult ADHD and how symptoms may change as a person develops and grows. We aim to change this through the development of an Australian ADHD guideline, which is based on evidence and now open for feedback.
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition that impacts the brain’s executive functions – like the ability to focus and sustain attention, plan and organise, and exert self-control.
It affects around 6–10% of children and is the most common neurodevelopmental condition in childhood. Yet many people with ADHD don’t receive a diagnosis in childhood, for a variety of reasons. Some may have grown up in an environment well-suited to them, so symptoms were not obvious.
For example, they may have been interested and motivated by academic topics, allowing them to focus and sustain their attention on schoolwork. They may have had high intellectual capacity which can mean minimal independent study is needed to pass school subjects. They may have only had ADHD inattentive symptoms – like daydreaming, or trouble completing tasks – which can be less noticeable than hyperactive-impulsive symptoms.
ADHD symptoms in childhood can include having difficulties focusing attention. This might appear as not taking in or remembering the teacher’s instructions, being forgetful about homework or losing things like school jumpers, and being disorganised with a messy bedroom or desk at school.
Children with hyperactive-impulsive symptoms may have difficulty sitting still during school lessons or when eating dinner at home, being noisy and talkative, intruding on other people or interrupting them, and finding it hard to wait their turn.
A clinical guideline that is evidence-based and can help guide treatment is needed. Shutterstock
By adulthood, symptoms may still be present but they may be more internalised and less obvious. Here are some ways adult ADHD symptoms may present that are slightly different to childhood:
1. No time to stop
Rather than climbing on things and being obviously hyperactive, adults may have an inner sense of restlessness. They may have difficulty relaxing and have a constantly busy mind. They may feel driven to always be doing something, and to try and be constantly productive. This can mean even on a holiday, there is an inability to relax and the person needs to be busily doing activities.
2. Organised, then overwhelmed for a bit
Rather than always being disorganised, adults may experience periods of being highly organised to overcompensate for their ADHD symptoms, followed by periods of feeling overwhelmed and not being able to get things done. This period of overwhelm, which may last a few days, can be due to the extra effort required to be organised when one has ADHD.
3. Severe procrastination
This can result in failing university subjects and struggling to complete work tasks. Procrastination can impact on completing chores around the house and getting severely behind in general life administration, like paying important bills. Putting things off to an extreme degree – such that an impending deadline results in a last minute “smash it out”, “all nighter” effort – is common in ADHD.
4. A poor sense of time
In adults, this can result in constantly underestimating how long things will take, causing frequent lateness. A person might not factor the coffee stop and traffic into their calculations.
Many of us experience occasional times when we feel or act in the ways described above. When multiple instances of these occur, and result in significant negative impacts across different areas of life – like our ability to study, work, socialise, take care of the house – or cause a negative self-view, it may be time to consider the possibility of ADHD.
Recently, there has been greater public awareness of adult ADHD, including on social media and websites with people describing their lived experience. This has increased demand for adult ADHD assessment and treatment services and highlighted a significant gap in Australian health care provision.
There are simply not enough clinicians with expertise in ADHD, no public services for adults with ADHD and no uniform standards of care for ADHD. This creates long waitlists for diagnosis and treatment.
Receiving the right diagnosis, treatment and support is crucial. Evidence-based treatment for adult ADHD can include making lifestyle changes and environmental modifications, medication and psychological treatments, such as cognitive behaviour therapy. The right treatment for ADHD results in better outcomes including improvements in life expectancy, reduced accidents, and reduced substance use disorders.
A key barrier to effective care for people with ADHD has been the lack of an Australian guideline for clinicians that outlines evidence-based, best practice diagnosis, treatment and support.
The Australian ADHD Professionals Association has developed a practice guideline for the identification, diagnosis and support of children, adolescents and adults with ADHD. The public can now comment on and contribute to the draft guideline.
Public consultation is important to ensure the Australia guideline addresses issues relevant to those with a lived experience of ADHD, and those involved in the diagnosis and support of people with ADHD. It is hoped these guidelines can help people identify their ADHD as early as possible and receive the support they need to fulfil their potential.
Tamara May works in private practice as a psychologist with people with ADHD. She is affiliated with the Australian ADHD Professionals Association.
Mark Bellgrove receives research funding from the NHMRC and the Australian Government’s Department of Health. He is Director of Research and Professor at the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University. He is President of the Australian ADHD Professionals Association (AADPA). He is the Project Lead for AADPA for the development of an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for ADHD.
Cutting petrol tax to bring down the cost of living used to be the political version of a joke. Failed US presidential candidates John McCain and Hillary Clinton both tried it in 2008. Their bipartisan advocacy of a “summer gas tax holiday” was derided as dumb, a turkey and a “metaphor for the entire campaign”.
When 230 economists released a letter opposing it in 2008, Clinton said: “I’ll tell you what, I’m not going to put my lot in with economists”.
Her opponent for her party’s nomination, Barack Obama, labelled it a gimmick and went on to win both the nomination and the presidency.
But it isn’t being treated as a joke now. There’s talk about it in the US, New Zealand has just cut in its fuel excise 25 cents to ease cost of living pressures, and Australia is considering a budget measure along the same lines.
What has happened to the price of petrol is shocking. In capital cities the unleaded price is about A$2.18, up from $1.60 at the start of the year. That means that whereas it might have cost $80 to fill up a Toyota Corolla at the start of the year, it now costs one third as much again – $109.
If you fill up fortnightly, as many people do, the extra impost is greater than if the Reserve Bank lifted its cash rate by 0.25% and pushed up the cost of payments on your mortgage.
If you own an SUV, by now Australia’s biggest selling type of new car, the extra impost will be greater. And (as with interest rates) there’s every chance petrol prices will climb further.
In New Zealand, where petrol costs more than NZ$3 per litre (A$2.80) the government has cut petrol excise by 25 cents per litre for three months, in the hope that by then the worst effects of the Russia-Ukraine war will have passed.
Australia taxes petrol lightly
Eagle-eyed readers will have noticed that even with the cut, New Zealand petrol prices will still be way above Australia’s. That’s because, like most developed nations, New Zealand charges more in tax for using roads than does Australia.
Until the cut on Tuesday, New Zealand petrol excise was a touch over NZ$0.77 per litre (A$0.72) compared to around A$0.43 in
Australia.
The goods and services tax charged on top of that in both nations brings the NZ excise to about NZ$0.89 per litre (A$0.83) compared to Australia’s A$0.48.
If these figures sound low, it’s because the price of petrol has soared. One of the peculiarities of taxes that are set in cents per litre (climbing only with inflation) is that when the petrol price jumps, the tax as a proportion of the total price shrinks.
N ew Zealand prices exceed NZ$3 per litre. Benjamin McKay/AAP
A year ago fuel excises accounted for 40% of the cost of New Zealand petrol, and 35% of the cost of Australian petrol. At 28% and 22%, they’ve become self-cutting.
If we abolished fuel excise altogether, cutting the Australian unleaded price 22%, we would only bring the price back to where it was five weeks ago.
And then (as I imagine will happen in New Zealand after three months) the government would find it hard to reintroduce it.
It is finding it difficult to end the $1,080 low and middle earner tax break that was meant to finish two years ago.
The mess it has got itself in by hinting that it will cut the excise and by not ending the A$7.8 billion per year low and middle earner offset hint at a way out.
The offset is poorly designed. It is paid out as a tax refund after the end of each financial year, making it the opposite of the “stimulus measure” Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said it was when he last extended it. If he extends it again for the coming financial year, it won’t get paid out until the second half of 2023.
The petrol component of the fuel excise brings in A$5.8 billion per year. The government might be able to hang on to that and use the A$7.8 billion that would have been spent on the offset to support people now when they need it and when petrol prices are high, rather than a year into the future when they might not be.
The A$7.8 billion would be directed to Australia’s lowest earners, the ones who are being hit hardest by the horrendous petrol prices. Low earners (the bottom 40%) on average spend more than 3% of their income on petrol. High earners spend less than 2%.
Support shouldn’t be tied to petrol use
The direct support to low earners should be delivered in cash rather than as a subsidy to petrol prices. Recipients would be able to spend it on petrol should they need to, but would be able to spend it on other things.
If it was delivered as a petrol subsidy it would go disproportionately to the highest earning households for whom high petrol prices are a mere annoyance. High income households spend more on petrol in absolute terms (on average 50% more) than low income households.
If it is delivered as cash rather than a petrol subsidy it won’t blunt the push that high prices give for people will switch to more efficient cars and use petrol less by doing things such as working more from home.
It’s hard to find a case for a cut in Australia’s petrol tax, but it is easy to create a mechanism to help the people high prices are hurting. The budget is due in a fortnight.
Peter Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Review: Sex and Death_ and the Internet, directed by Samara Hersch
My last experience as an audience of one at an Adelaide Festival show was the Belgian theatre company Ontroerend Goed’s The Smile Off Your Face in 2013.
Strapped to a wheelchair, we were led from room to room blindfolded. When the mask was taken off we were confronted with a series of unexpected and sometimes shocking encounters.
Unlike the Belgian’s wacky work, which featured multiple performers, the encounter in Sex and Death_ and the Internet is strictly between you and one other person. It is also far gentler – though no less powerful.
“Performers” here are simply people being themselves. Listed as “protagonists” in the program, the 17 seniors participating in the project possess a willingness to ask and answer some of life’s most delicate questions.
Billed as an opportunity for frank conversations, the pre-show publicity prepares us for an encounter along the lines of truth or dare, You Can’t Ask That or a Catholic confession.
To choose to participate in such an encounter with one’s self and a stranger is itself an act of self-selection.
Totally disarming
Conceived and directed by Melbourne-based performance maker Samara Hersch with key artistic collaborators Bec Reid (dramaturgy) and Ponch Hawkes (photography), participants select a time to be paired with a senior. In the weeks prior to the show participants are asked to send in a photo of themselves taken at least ten years ago.
Participants are given instructions on where to meet and told to arrive no more than 15 minutes early. Upon arrival, an attendant seats us, provides us with a headset, and asks us to listen to a short audio file with our eyes closed.
We hear children responding to a series of questions. Many answers are unexpected, even shocking in their insight, occasionally funny, and ultimately totally disarming. I find myself crying and the show hasn’t even started. Fortunately, there’s a box of tissues nearby.
A gentle, kind woman (who I later recognise as Hersch) lets me collect myself and leads me into a narrow, heavily draped, dimly lit room. Lit dramatically, I seat myself at a small desk in front of a computer monitor. Beside it sits a pad of paper. Some clear and simple verbal instructions are given.
The encounter takes place alone and through a screen. Roy Vandervegt/Adelaide Festival
What unfolds next is a face-to-face encounter with a senior at an undisclosed remote location.
After two years of COVID, we are all used to talking to people on screens.
Set up as a game, participants ask set questions of one another. Four cards linked to questions appear on the screen, and both parties can shuffle the deck for another question if it is not to their liking. Patrons have the option of passing on any question asked by their senior.
The “truth”, we are told, is “whatever it means to you today”. The process feels remarkably safe, ethical and fair, a far cry from being strapped down in a wheelchair (mind you, I loved that experience — but that’s a story for another day).
Given that this work is still running and future iterations are likely to follow a similar format, it would be inappropriate to restate any of the questions. The truth and the willingness to tell it come from not knowing what is coming next.
These questions act to unlock our most deeply held dreams, goals and values. They have the potential to reveal both what we fear and what we cherish most.
As a newly minted “senior” myself, I came into the experience with a bit of suspicion around what someone older than I am could offer me. I expected something sweet, perhaps cute, but not particularly moving.
My human pairing in our all-too-short Q and A was beautiful and deeply impactful. What happened felt like a kind of deep communion, a sharing of what matters in life, safely revealed under the conditions of an ethics of care that Hersch and her team set up.
As for what happens with the photo, to say anything here would undermine the power of the final moments of the encounter.
Leaving the venue, I walked down the steps into the open courtyard of the Adelaide University Union building. It was 5.30pm on a Friday and the place was packed with young people: vibrant, noisy and full of energy after two years of COVID restrictions.
Usually, when walking through such a crowd I would have felt a bit old and alone. Instead, I felt connected to youth and age, even old age. And it was a good feeling, one that is still with me.
In that respect, Sex and Death_ and the Internet was less a performance event than a gift.
Sex and Deathand the Internet plays at Union House, University of Adelaide, for Adelaide Festival until March 20.
William Peterson 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.
In a speech to the United Kingdom’s House of Commons on March 9, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky quoted Shakespeare’s Hamlet:
The question for us now is to be or not to be. Oh no, this Shakespeare question. For 13 days this question could have been asked, but now I can give you a definitive answer. It’s definitely yes, to be.
That Bell Shakespeare’s production of Hamlet – a domestic revenge tragedy set against the larger political backdrop of Denmark’s invasion by its neighbour, Norway – re-opened after two years of COVID delay on the day Zelensky made this speech is an extraordinary coincidence.
When originally mounting this production two years ago, director Peter Evans could not have foreseen the peculiar timeliness of this Hamlet. But, as Hamlet tells Polonius, actors “are the abstract and brief chronicles of the time”.
Alongside reflecting global politics, this stylish and understated production plays upon the melancholy prince’s youthfulness and his emotional sensitivity.
As Hamlet, Harriet Gordon-Anderson continues a 300-year tradition of women playing Hamlet. The first recorded female Hamlet was Charlotte Clarke’s London performance in the early 18th century.
The French actress Sarah Bernhardt, the first female Hamlet on film in 1900, said the prince had to be played by a woman:
I cannot see Hamlet as a man. The things Hamlet says, his impulses, his actions, all indicate to me that he was a woman.
This perception of Hamlet’s femininity is not so much produced by his initial distaste for violence and inability to avenge his father’s murder, but by his unrestrained mourning for his losses.
In casting Harriet Gordon-Anderson as Hamlet, the prince’s emotions are able to come to the fore. Brett Boardman/Bell Shakespeare
Hamlet’s “fruitful river of the eye” – his crying – is mentioned at several points in the text. Disturbed by his nephew’s tears, the murderer King Claudius tells Hamlet “‘tis unmanly grief” to weep for those lost.
Hamlet’s copious weeping goes beyond the bounds of acceptable masculinity. Perhaps it is only with a female Hamlet that the intensity of the prince’s tears can be depicted.
In her bravura portrayal of the melancholy prince, Gordon-Anderson is unafraid to show Hamlet’s sensitivity. Delivering soliloquies directly to the audience, Gordon-Anderson plays Hamlet as an extraordinarily emotional young man. This Hamlet is acting more in sorrow than in anger, crying freely and wiping his eyes.
The performance is disturbingly realistic. How else should one respond to their father’s murder and their mother’s marriage to their uncle?
This Hamlet highlights the love and loss shared by two families. Besides playing Hamlet as the text directs – at various points tearful and manic – what is also remarkable about Gordon-Anderson’s prince is his youthfulness.
Unlike most staging and films of Hamlet, the young characters in Bell Shakespeare’s production are performed by people in their 20s, rather than actors in their 30s or 40s.
A young cast helps anchor this production in realism. Brett Boardman/Bell Shakespeare
This youthful casting gives the production a sense of domestic realism many others lack.
Throughout the text the characters are keen to point out how “young” the prince, Laertes, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern all are. When we first meet Hamlet, he is in the midst of his university degree.
As the foil to Hamlet, “the very noble youth” Laertes is equally young, and is played by Jack Crumlin with a brash, boyish energy. Rose Riley plays Ophelia as a sassy and self-aware young woman who rolls her eyes at Polonius’ moralising.
The older Polonius is touchingly played by Robert Menzies: he does not appear as a conniving political operator, but instead as a naïve and tender old father.
The performances make the characters feel like people we know, rather than legendary, tragic characters from a faraway world.
The generational difference is played to tender effect. Brett Boardman/Bell Shakespeare
But while this realism is refreshing – and what draws the audience to connect with the characters – paradoxically, these performances make the revenge at the play’s core seem somewhat unrealistic. It is difficult to believe these gentle and sensitive-seeming characters could commit a series of murders.
Evans’s Hamlet is more interested in claustrophobic personal dynamics than the terror of invading forces that concludes the play. But it is a testament to this production’s power that it can make the audience reflect on the world beyond while witnessing personal, familial breakdowns.
“The time is out of joint”, Hamlet tells the audience. Not so for this most timely production.
Bell Shakespeare’s Hamlet plays at the Sydney Opera House until April 2, before touring to Canberra and Melbourne.
Gabriella Edelstein 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.
Today we release the third Islamophobia in Australia report. We are doing this on the third anniversary of the Christchurch terror attacks to once again highlight the ongoing threat to Muslim people in their everyday lives.
This report is based on incidents reported to the Islamophobia Register Australia by victims, proxies and witnesses during 2018 and 2019.
This includes 247 verified incidents (138 physical and 109 online). It follows 349 incidents in the second report (published in 2019) and 243 incidents in the first report (published in 2017).
Although the analysis of reported cases may not represent all incidents occurring across Australia, they remain a critical and valuable source for understanding manifestations of Islamophobia in the Australian context.
Men attacking women
The third report found perpetrators were predominantly men (74%), while victims were predominantly women (82%). Of the 103 victims, 85% were women wearing hijab, 15% were children and 15% were women with children.
A Queensland woman reported she was yelled at when walking past three young boys.
I was with my two small children and they started saying ‘let’s rip it [her hijab] off her head!’ I quickly got nervous and started pacing to get away with my children before the incident escalated. Alhamdullilah [thank God] we made it to safety before anything serious happened.
Another woman reported this comment after the Christchurch massacre:
I have had the father of my eldest daughter friend say to me directly […] ‘the Muslims had it coming’. I was shocked and could only stare back in disbelief. The daughter of that gentleman would call me ‘ghost’ in front of myself and my daughter, referring to my hijab/scarf.
Perpetrators were overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon (91%) and they were mostly aged in middle and late adulthood (57%). In contrast, victims tended to be in early and middle adulthood (61%).
In most cases, the victim was alone with the perpetrator (54%), and in one in five cases, there was an existing relationship between the perpetrator and victim such as a work (10%), school (5%) or social (3%) relationship.
According to the reported incidents, the perpetrator profile was diverse, ranging from homeless people to university staff and art gallery visitors. Some perpetrators carried out hate while in the presence of their own families, showing how socially acceptable this form of racism can be.
Where is safe?
The location of incidents showed anti-Muslim harassment often happens in crowds and busy public places (63%).
Since incidents were first logged in 2014, reports of anti-Muslim abuse have risen in areas with security guards and surveillance cameras – from 37% in the first report to 75% in the present report.
Incidents occurred in places including shopping centres, public transport, pools and playgrounds and education settings. This suggests there is no public space that is safe from Islamophobia.
Christchurch’s impact
The abuse Muslims suffer is centred on the unfounded and highly offensive idea that Muslims are “terrorists” and “killers” – this is despite Muslims suffering from white supremacist terrorism in the Christchurch attacks.
Unfortunately, in the wake of the Christchurch massacre, the Islamophobia Register Australia saw a spike in reporting of offline and online incidents. Reports of offline cases increased four fold – this included ten mosque vandalism cases.
Mass shootings in Christchurch mosques in 2020 killed 51 people. Mark Baker/AAP
Reports of online cases increased 18 fold within the two weeks of the attacks.
Especially in online platforms, sympathisers with the Christchurch terrorist justified or glorified his attack, called for more deadly and bloody attacks on Muslims or declared their willingness to follow the Christchurch terrorist by killing Australian Muslims once a “civil war” starts in Australia.
Along with this hyper-violent rhetoric, we saw an escalation in xenophobic language, from telling people to “go home” to expressing supremacist conspiracies such about a “demographic invasion by Muslims”. These xenophobic attacks was the most popular form of online hate rhetoric (43%) after associating Muslims with terrorism (58%).
Not a ‘Muslim’ problem, a social cohesion risk
The Islamophobia report is yet more evidence of the abuse Muslims face in Australia – just for going about their lives.
Positive action from our political leaders is required to safeguard the dignity, equality and safety of every citizen and minority group, including Muslim Australians.
The increase in Islamophobia in the aftermath of the Christchurch attacks is not a coincidence. The incitement to violence on social media suggests the need for intense monitoring and strategic moves by counter-terrorism organisations.
Islamophobia is not a “Muslim” problem, it is a risk to our social cohesion. It requires national engagement if Australia is to live up to its multicultural legacy.
Derya Iner works at Charles Sturt University and provides consulting for the Islamophobia Register Australia.
Editor’s Note: Here below is Dr Bryce Edwards’ New Zealand Political Roundup – which analyses one prominent topic being debated in New Zealand and links to media coverage. You can sign up to NZ Political Roundup for free here.
Political Roundup: Labour responds to the “Costpocalypse, but should it go further?
The “Costpocalypse” is finally getting serious Government attention. Yesterday’s announcement of cuts to fuel taxes and cheaper public transport was a response to rising electoral pressure on Labour over the “cost of living crisis” – something the Government had until now refused to accept existed. Last week’s shock opinion poll obviously helped focus minds around the Cabinet table.
It’s a smart move. As the Herald’s Thomas Coughlan writes today, the cut to fuel taxes “was the right thing to do, easing short-term pain on struggling households… and it makes sense for the Government to smooth the impact of those price rises by lowering fuel costs. It’s not difficult to do either.”
Something had to give. Pressure from across the political spectrum was proving too much for Jacinda Ardern to keep up the pretence that there was no crisis and therefore no action was required. Crucially, this political pressure reflects a reality that the public, especially those on lower incomes, are really struggling at the moment.
Stuff political editor Luke Malpass sees the Government’s shift as a return to political flexibility: “For Labour, this is a significant move and shows that it might be regaining some of its political agility that has been lost over the past year or so as it has become tied up with Covid and wedded to the righteousness of to its big bang reforms in water, health, climate change, housing and elsewhere.”
Government decision widely welcomed, but more is demanded
There is a consensus today that the Government’s announcement is a step in the right direction but more is needed.
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer pointed out that there are much bigger problems in terms of food and housing that the Government appears unwilling to address. She complains, “Fuel is the last thing on the list creating real material hardship for our families.”
The Green Party is relatively cold on the fuel tax cuts – not because of climate change, but because they would prefer direct welfare payments. They argue that petrol retailers could also just take the 25 cent per litre cut in taxes for themselves in profits.
Many consider the level of the fuel tax cuts are inadequate and that three months might not be enough, with an extension likely. BusinessDesk’s Ian Llewellyn suggests the 25 cent cut could be bigger, saying “Someone paying $3.20 a litre at the pump on Monday was paying about $1.42 in levies, taxes, GST and carbon prices.”
Blogger Martyn Bradbury urges the Government to go further and make public transport entirely free: “Here’s the reality, Putin is in this for the long haul and the face saving measures Labour have scrambled together will inoculate us for about 2 weeks before more measures are required.”
Bradbury emphasises the need to go beyond transport costs, saying today: “Great. Do Child Poverty, Inequality and Housing next! Isn’t it amazing how fast a Government will move when polls tank? We need this same urgency on a whole raft of issues.”
Leftwing blogger Steven Cowan points out that electricity costs are about to increase for poor people: “at least 40 percent of Kiwi households will see a jump in their power bills as the electricity industry, with the blessing of the government, does away with low-use plans. Those whose power use is very low will be hardest hit. As part of the phasing out, power companies will be able to double the daily fixed rate for low users from 30c a day to 60c a day, which works out to an increase of around $110 over the next year.”
Should public transport fares be permanent cut, or made entirely free?
The cuts to public transport fares have been met with particular enthusiasm. Thomas Coughlan sees this element of the package as the “most politically significant”, and points out it’s occurring despite fares not actually increasing at the moment.
Here’s his explanation for the fare cut: “That detail was a signal to households to consider public transport use to cut energy bills (public transport will now be far, far cheaper in many places than driving), and it was a clear signal that the Government was wedded to its “mode-shift” approach to transport, which seeks to economise road use by shifting people from private vehicles on to bikes and public transport.”
But many feel public transport should be made entirely free, and permanently rather than for three months. Today’s Stuff newspaper editorial says “with our climate change commitments in mind, that should arguably be a permanent change.”
In Auckland it’s set to become a core part of the local government election campaign, with mayoral contenders Leo Molloy and Labour-endorsed Efeso Collins both pushing for this. There is also hope that the Government will deliver something for public transport in the upcoming Budget (which Grant Robertson gave some hints about yesterday).
Currently, the Government is only budgeted to allocate about a tenth of the cost of the petrol tax cut to public transport. While the tax cut will cost about $350m, the fare cut is estimated at around $35m. It wouldn’t cost too much more to make all such transport free, and only cost a tiny fraction of the Government’s climate change budget and roading costs.
How does the drop in fuel taxes work with climate change?
There’s always going to be tension between cost of living problems and climate change. In the case of yesterday’s announcement, there is a major problem, because the Government’s climate change strategy is based on the need for fossil fuels to increase in price significantly. So, was the tax cut a mistake for the environment?
Richard Harman writes today, “The decision to lower the fuel price does raise questions about the Government’s commitment to phasing out our dependence on fossil fuels.” He says this paradox is why the Government also had to cut public transport fares – so that it would be less vulnerable to criticism about their climate change agenda.
Rightwing commentator Matthew Hooton says it’s hypocrisy, as the tax cuts come just as the price of fuel was seeing people talk about not driving as much: “When it comes to it, the polls will always trump the Labour-Green Government’s commitment to Jacinda Ardern’s ‘nuclear-free moment’ and climate change ’emergency’, and her fake pledge to halve net greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by 2030. For anyone who is serious about climate change, the one silver lining of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the surge in the price of oil”.
So, perhaps the bigger lesson from yesterday’s announcement is that at least in the short term, cost of living politics trumps the climate change agenda.
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): A Fork in the road: Which way should Labour go?
Responding to the latest shock poll for Labour, Chris Trotter says that Labour should embrace radicalism as well as a close working relationship with Te Pāti Māori and the Greens.
Verity Johnson (Stuff): Why I am thinking of ditching Labour
A former Government supporter feels very disappointed by how the Government has dealt with non-Covid issues over the last few years.
Michael Johnston (Stuff): Teaching children to participate in the contest of ideas
An educationalist argues “the importance of teaching students how, rather than what, to think” particularly when it comes to contentious areas of politics, history and current affairs.
Martyn Bradbury (Waatea News): Why Labour are slumping?
Labour needs to go back to leftwing basics to beat National, according to Martyn Bradbury.
Shane Jones (Herald): Beware – Treaty co-governance is contagious (paywalled)
The former New Zealand First Cabinet Minister argues against the Three Waters reforms and other areas of constitutional change involving co-governance, saying the “public does not recall giving the Labour Party permission to impose its Treaty of Waitangi co-governance master plan. A dogma that thrives where visibility is weak, debates are shallow and agendas are murky.”
ODT: Editorial – Turbulent Three Waters for Government
The Otago Daily Times argues the Government’s water reform programme could “become a lightning rod on Māori issues”, and it’s now time to explore some alternatives.
Gavin Ellis: Fundamental flaws in public media plans call for big fixes
Media commentator and scholar Gavin Ellis argues that the Government has got it wrong in the way RNZ and TVNZ are being merged, and he worries about the new organisation’s political independence.
Will Trafford (Māori TV): ‘Tragedy’ if TVNZ destroys RNZ amid mega merger – CEO
RNZ boss Paul Thompson is warning that it will be a “tragedy” if RNZ is taken over in the merger with TVNZ by commercially-minded TV executives. Thompson says the merger is “bittersweet” as his preference for the new entity was for it to be a fully-funded public broadcaster, though it’s still a big step forward.
Graham Adams (The Platform): The ‘Listener’ professors chalk up another win
The Royal Society has dropped its disciplinary action against 2 academics, and Graham Adams argues that they had little choice if it wanted to avoid further embarrassment
