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

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

They canvass the war between Russia and Ukraine, as Western nations continue to ramp up tough sanctions against Russia and uncertainty hangs over the future.

Meanwhile the Quad (the US, Japan, India, Australia) met in the early hours of Friday (Australian time) when leaders reaffirmed “their commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific”. This follows concern by some observers that the events in Eastern Europe could embolden the Chinese to move against Taiwan.

Paddy and Michelle also discuss the devastating floods in Queensland and NSW, as well as the possible disruption COVID could bring for electioneering.

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

– ref. VIDEO: The war, the floods, and COVID and campaigning – https://theconversation.com/video-the-war-the-floods-and-covid-and-campaigning-178519

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bradley J. Moggridge, Associate Professor in Indigenous Water Science, University of Canberra

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) assessment reports have great influence over government decision-making on climate change. The latest report, launched this week, for the first time features Indigenous Knowledges alongside Western scientific research.

Previous IPCC reports have only included evidence on how climate change has affected Indigenous Peoples. It is an historic improvement in this report to include actual Indigenous Knowledges after many years of lobbying by IPCC lead authors and outside organisations.

But, like most other IPCC chapters, the Australasian chapter did not include Indigenous lead authors. Our inclusion could have contributed ways of thinking, knowing and understanding that would have strengthened and deepened the report and subsequent media coverage.

Better representation of Indigenous Voices

IPCC lead authors are selected on the basis of their expertise and approved by their home country’s government.

The five authors of this article recommended to the Australian government that the next IPCC assessment report (AR7) appropriately represent Indigenous voices in the lead author selection for the Australasian section.

Two authors (Lansbury and Pecl) are non-Indigenous lead authors on the current report. We invited three Indigenous scholars (Moggridge, Creamer and Mosby) to be contributing authors to specific sections of the draft report.

These contributing authors brought science and cultural understanding from their respective heritages and Countries of Kamilaroi (Moggridge) and Waanyi and Kalkadoon (Creamer), and the Meriam Nation in the Torres Strait (Mosby).

The invitation to be contributing authors relied on the lead authors’ goodwill, not on government selection. The contributing authors co-wrote sections on Indigenous Peoples and screened the draft of the Australasian chapter for appropriate and respectful portrayal of Indigenous Peoples.

However, as per IPCC’s strict protocols for any contributing authors, this was only a reviewing role. The lead authors had final say on the text. If the lead authors had not asked Indigenous authors to contribute, the Australasian chapter of the report may not have had Indigenous input at all.

Read more:
World-first research confirms Australia’s forests became catastrophic fire risk after British invasion

We are the first to be impacted and the last to be heard

Australia has among the world’s highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. Indigenous Peoples in Australia contribute the least emissions, but are among those most affected by the consequences.

The current severe floods, recent droughts, fish-kills and bushfires of 2019-2020 show the climate has changed. The delay of urgent action means our People and Country are being forced to rapidly adapt.

One-fifth of the Indigenous Australian population lives in remote areas where climate change raises risks to our health and way of life.

This include a loss of access to traditional foods on Country. In some cases, communities have been forced to change their diet, which affects nutrition levels.

Some communities are also experiencing water insecurity, loss of land and cultural resources through land erosion and sea-level rise. Parts of the Torres Strait are seeing their ancestors’ burial sites exposed following saltwater intrusion and sea level rise.

High levels of poverty and underlying health conditions in some First Nations communities make many of our mob even more vulnerable to a warming climate.

Yet, recognition of our role in identifying solutions to problems caused by climate change are only slowly being recognised. This is despite the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples supporting self-determination. This should include Indigenous Peoples as key stakeholders on climate change decisions.

Such self-determination is already occurring in Aotearoa/New Zealand, which has a treaty obligation ensuring Māori Knowledges are considered.

Read more:
We need to design housing for Indigenous communities that can withstand the impacts of climate change

In-built survival and stewardship

Indigenous Peoples manage around 25% of the earth’s territory, containing 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. On average, trends of declining biodiversity have been less severe or avoided in areas managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Clearly, the global population of over 370 million Indigenous Peoples take seriously their responsibility to maintain the land and water for the future.

The Indigenous-led review of climate change impacts on the health and well-being of Indigenous Peoples in Australia, commissioned by the Lowitja Institute, documented our diverse leadership in maintaining the care of Country.

The review highlighted that Indigenous-led initiatives on both climate change adaptation and emissions reduction can strengthen well-being among Indigenous Peoples. It was launched at last year’s COP26 climate meeting in Glasgow.

Read more:
Why the Australian government must listen to Torres Strait leaders on climate change

Positive steps towards recoginising Indigenous Knowledges

The IPCC report is a reminder of how Indigenous Australians have been largely excluded from climate change decision-making. Indigenous Knowledges are often treated as inferior, or described as myth, legend or fable.

But in fact, our Knowledges provide evidence from thousands of years of observations and practices to keep Country healthy.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a powerful proposal to enable a direct voice in decision-making in Australia. But it has been dismissed by two successive prime ministers.

However, this latest IPCC report suggests that inclusion is improving. The IPCC chapter featuring Australia now recognises:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples can enhance effective adaptation through the passing down of knowledge about climate change planning that promotes collective action and mutual support.

It then describes the value of Indigenous Knowledges regarding fire management, cultural flows, Indigenous protected areas and Indigenous ranger programs.

And the IPCC chapter on climate resilient development looks to Indigenous Knowledges in oral histories for improved understanding of ecosystem change over time.

But despite this progress, our Peoples still need better upfront inclusion and representation in climate change research, dialogue and decision-making.

Looking to the next IPCC report

The IPCC and governments can look to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) for leadership on respect and inclusion of Indigenous Knowledges and Indigenous scholars. This platform acts on its policy to recognise:

Indigenous Peoples and local communities possess detailed knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem trends. This knowledge is formed through their direct dependence on their local ecosystems, and observations and interpretations of change generated and passed down over many generations, and yet adapted and enriched over time.

The next iteration of the IPCC’s work will benefit from Indigenous representation and leadership as appointed by governments in their lead author teams.

We Indigenous People are here and ready. Come join us at our sacred fires to listen. We can answer the call for action on climate change, just as our thousands of past generations have done.

Associate Professor Bradley J. Moggridge is affiliated with Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s Committee on Aboriginal Water Interests (CAWI), a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, a Governor with WWF Australia.

Gretta Pecl receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Department of Agriculture Water and the Environment, Department of Primary Industries NSW, Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tasmania), the Fisheries Research & Development Corporation, and received travel funding support from the Australian government for participation in the IPCC process.

Nina Lansbury received travel funding support from the Australian Government for participation in the IPCC process.

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

– ref. IPCC reports still exclude Indigenous voices. Come join us at our sacred fires to find answers to climate change – https://theconversation.com/ipcc-reports-still-exclude-indigenous-voices-come-join-us-at-our-sacred-fires-to-find-answers-to-climate-change-178045

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate R Saunders, Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology

The extreme rain and flooding bombarding Australia’s east coast has inflicted a heavy toll on lives and livelihoods. This, however, could’ve been minimised if weather warning systems had been clearly translated into on-the-ground, local impacts for communities.

Early and detailed impact warnings can give people sufficient time to act. This should include continually updated predictions showing the spatial extent of flooding, timing, and the levels of uncertainty. All this should be easily accessible via a central hub of information.

Access to this sort of information depends on the council. Residents in Brisbane, where half a year’s worth of rain fell in three days, had only a PDF of a map showing the flood extent. It didn’t show the water’s depth, just whether there was predicted water – and a house submerged from floor to ceiling is very different from having some water on your front lawn.

Improved warnings are unlikely to protect houses, as there’s an inevitable loss of infrastructure that goes along with large catastrophic floods. However, it means people can prepare for floods. Possessions can be moved, vulnerable loved ones can be reached, and people can be evacuated in a timely manner – not in the middle of the night.

Weather warning vs impact warning

The Bureau of Meteorology issues warnings about extreme rainfall, river heights and possible floods. These are usually communicated on social media and in the news.

Individual councils translate these weather warnings into possible impacts for their communities, such as how high the floodwaters may rise and what infrastructure may be damaged.

Early weather warnings are often broad in location and time due to large uncertainties in the predictions, even with the best weather models and mathematical and statistical methods behind them. As the event draws nearer, forecasters can make better predictions with more certainty, with greater detail about the location and timing of the event.

Read more:
‘One of the most extreme disasters in colonial Australian history’: climate scientists on the floods and our future risk

Impact warnings must evolve in the same way: broad at first, and becoming more targeted and specific with time. But the available warnings didn’t make the best use of information about the probability of flood water at different locations and times.

The map provided by the Brisbane City Council, for example, showed only one possible predicted scenario for the flood extent at the maximum river height. This doesn’t show people when their place will go under, and many homes were inundated before maximum river height was reached.

The map also didn’t show the predicted water depth at given locations, and didn’t show any uncertainties in its predicted extent. This makes it harder for people to make decisions about how and when to act.

While there are many ways this map could be improved upon, many other councils in flood-affected areas didn’t even have this.

Making good decisions

Broad flood estimates for catchments aren’t always useful for individual action. To make effective decisions for your family and home:

• Location matters: to act, it’s important to know if you’ll be cut off by flood waters

• time matters: knowing your property is at risk of flooding in three days time offers different mitigation options than “likely to flood” in seven hours

• uncertainty matters: people will act differently based on a one in 100 risk than a one in ten risk, and interpret descriptions (such as “likely”) in different ways.

Indeed, research shows communicating forecast uncertainties and probabilities helps people make better decisions, increases trust in the forecast, and even improves compliance with warnings.

There’s also a much lower cost in taking action early. Of course, early warnings need to be balanced with false-alarms. Acting early is often done in the face of uncertainty, but waiting until the event is about to occur doesn’t give people enough time to act.

When events are low probability and high impact, it’s often better to err on the side of caution.

Read more:
Why water inundates a home during one flood but spares it the next

What needs to improve?

In Australia, different councils have different resources and funding for translating complex weather data into usable flood impact information. For most councils, this isn’t part of their day-to-day business, and they likely don’t have necessary expertise on-staff given how infrequent flood events of this magnitude are.

As climate change brings more frequent and intense natural disasters, improving weather impact warnings and the resources of councils is more urgent than ever.

Drawing from the warning systems in place for bushfires is a good place to start. Australia has a highly localised warning system for bushfires, which includes: Monitor Conditions,
Evacuate Now and Shelter in Place. Information about which roads are cut off are also widely communicated.

A similar tiered warning system linking weather and actions would have greatly helped residents make decisions. Low-lying areas with a moderate to high risk of flooding could then better understand how their flood or isolation risks were growing over time.

What’s more, information about where a flood can occur, its depth, when it will happen, and how likely at a given point in time and space needs to be visualised in an accessible way. This could include interactive, local maps showing the predictions and uncertainty in how the event will evolve.

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

Australia can also look to the United Kingdom Met Office, which focuses on impacts in their weather warnings.
It issues colour code warnings based on the impact and the likelihood of the event – for example, a code orange can be issued when an event either has a very high likelihood and a moderate impact, or a very high impact and a moderate likelihood.

Issuing timely, actionable warnings based on impacts isn’t easy. Spatial estimates of floods require advanced modelling techniques, especially when predicting in real time. Uncertainty is also a difficult concept to visualise and communicate, but there is ongoing research to address this problem.

These challenges can’t be tackled in an ad hoc manner in the midst of a natural disaster. Data science, better data, and technology all offer solutions for this challenge, and must be an ongoing focus in the lead-up to future, inevitable floods.

Kate R Saunders receives funding from The Harry Otten Prize for Innovation in Meteorology.

Kate Helmstedt receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Queensland Department of Environment and Science.

Kirien receives funding from The Harry Otten Prize for Innovation in Meteorology.

– ref. People could’ve prepared for the floods better if the impacts of weather forecasts were clearly communicated – https://theconversation.com/people-couldve-prepared-for-the-floods-better-if-the-impacts-of-weather-forecasts-were-clearly-communicated-178309

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Fortescue, Associate Professor, UNSW Sydney

There has been constant speculation for most of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 22 years in power as to what it would take to bring about his departure. Authoritarian leaders tend to depart according to two scenarios (beyond natural causes): forced out by the elite or by the street.

In light of events in Ukraine, has the time finally come that either of those scenarios might come to pass?

Putin appears to be isolated from advisers

It was generally accepted among Russian political experts that the really big decisions in Russia, such as whether to annex Crimea or invade Ukraine, were made by a small circle of advisers from the security services. These are people who also have close personal ties to Putin going back many years.

There is also a technocratic elite in Russia that has kept the economy and social services going under his supervision. And there is a group of rich businesspeople (the oligarchs and others), who in return for obsequiousness, were allowed to keep making money.

The first sign of a potential crack in Putin’s small circle of security advisers came at the meeting of the Russian Security Council on February 21, at which Putin extracted an agreement for Russia to recognise the breakaway Ukrainian regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states. It was this decision that led to parliamentary approval of the use of Russian troops to “protect” those republics from Ukrainian aggression, which brought on the invasion.

The meeting revealed that the security chiefs who were considered Putin’s closest cronies were not in the loop. And many appeared uncomfortable and expressed, very carefully, their reservations. It took humiliating bullying to get them all onside.

It is unclear where Putin gets his advice from today, but a process of elimination suggests it might be just the military and the minister of defence, Sergey Shoigu. Seasoned observers have suggested even Shoigu looked shocked when Putin ordered him to place Russia’s nuclear forces on alert.

Some oligarchs distancing themselves

However, there is no sign these worried and humiliated members of the security elite are so discontented as to take action against Putin. And the technocratic elite claims to be loyally taking on the task of preparing the nation for crippling sanctions.

That leaves the economic elite. And here, there are signs of discontent, particularly the Yeltsin-era oligarchs, such as Oleg Deripaska and Roman Abramovich, who do not totally owe their wealth to Putin.

Deripaska, a billionaire who has been sanctioned by the West, has broken ranks with the Kremlin and called for the war to end, as has Mikhail Fridman, one of Russia’s richest men.

Abramovich, meanwhile, is selling the Chelsea football club he owns and setting up a foundation for victims of the war (although he has yet to condemn the war outright).

Such public challenges by oligarchs have been rare in Russia since ex-oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was targeted by the Kremlin and spent years in prison on charges his lawyers maintain were trumped up.

Even if it’s starting to hit home for some oligarch that their businesses and wealth are under serious threat, there is not enough here to suggest a palace coup. It doesn’t help that the Russian president is directly elected, and can only be removed through impeachment, a drawn-out process that cannot be organised conspiratorially.

Will street protests gather momentum?

Nervous elites might get braver if there is enough tumult on the streets. What are the chances of popular protests bringing about Putin’s downfall?

Putin has always enjoyed high levels of popularity. He brought a style of open bluntness to the presidency that could be charming or brutal, depending on the circumstances. He was lucky with oil prices, which with some judicious economic management allowed him to preside over a dramatic improvement in people’s living standards.

Putin’s once-restrained but constant insistence that Russia was by right a great power and must be recognised as such did his popularity no harm. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 drove his poll ratings through the roof in an outpouring of patriotic fervour (peaking at 89% in June 2015, according to an independent pollster).

Read more:
Putin’s approval has stayed strong over the years – war in Ukraine could change that

There’s been a decline ever since, as the economy stagnated, opposition leader Alexei Navalny was poisoned, and elections were manipulated. His rating dipped to 59% in mid-2020 and has hovered in the 60-70% range since then.

There have been people on the streets countless times over the years, but they have never been able to maintain momentum, fading away before policy brutality, arrests and imprisonment.

Thousands have already been arrested during street protests since the start of the Ukraine invasion.

The mass in the middle

In what direction will things go this time? There are anti-war petitions garnering millions of signatures, and people continuing to gather on the streets, despite the risks. But prior to the invasion, polls showed an improvement in Putin’s rating to 71%.

Anecdotal evidence suggests a mass in the middle who don’t know what’s happening in Ukraine or choose to avoid knowing. For a political scientist, the issue is how to account for the apathetic middle when judging the survivability of a regime. Which side will they take when things get serious, given the fact Western sanctions are bringing about serious economic pain?

Read more:
Ahead of constitutional reform vote, two-thirds of young Russians think Vladimir Putin should step back from power

Those in the middle will put off taking sides for as long as possible. For many, the measure of serious economic pain is the severe hardships of the 1990s, which led many Russians to reject the Western model.

There is no reason to believe a new plumbing of the depths will produce a different response.

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

– ref. As the Ukraine war drags on, how secure will Putin’s hold on power remain? – https://theconversation.com/as-the-ukraine-war-drags-on-how-secure-will-putins-hold-on-power-remain-178312

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terry Goldsworthy, Associate Professor in Criminology, Bond University

The latest report from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) shows the homicide rate is increasing in Australia.

But should we be concerned and how does Australia compare to other similar countries? Is crime in general increasing or is the rise in the homicide rate a standout?

How much has the homicide rate risen?

The AIC runs the National Homicide Monitoring Program, which is Australia’s only national collection of data on homicide incidents, victims and offenders. The report classifies homicides as being domestic, acquaintance, stranger or unknown. The latest report covers the period 2019-20.

It shows the homicide rate has risen in Australia over this period by 16%. The homicide rate in 2019–20 was 1.02 incidents per 100,000 people, the highest rate since 2012–13. Within these incidents the rate of domestic and stranger homicides increased, while the rate of acquaintance homicide decreased for 2019-20.

In this period there were 261 homicide incidents, up 35 from the previous period. This is the highest number of murders since 2005-06.

The biggest increase was in homicides in which the relationship between the victim and offender was unknown or not stated. These accounted for 51 incidents, up 64% for 2019-20. Stranger homicides, 46 incidents, rose 35%. Domestic homicides, 81 incidents, rose only 5%.

What do we know about the homicide incidents

Males accounted for 87% of homicide offenders in 2019-20. The rate of offending for males increased to 2.45 per 100,000. That’s almost seven times the rate of female offending, which increased slightly to 0.36 per 100,000.

There were 278 victims, an increase of 38 over the previous year. Of these victims, 65% were female and 35% were male.

The most common cause of death for homicide victims was a stab wound: this accounted for 37% of deaths. This was followed by blunt force (19%) and gunshot wounds (13%). Other causes of death included strangulation, shaking, burns and poisoning.

Domestic homicides include intimate partner, child, spouse or sibling, and other family incidents. In 2019-20, the number of intimate partner homicides decreased to 45 incidents, the lowest number since records began in 1989-90. However, killing of a child by parents increased, while other categories remained stable.

Residential settings accounted for 57% of homicide incidents, while 28% occurred in a public setting such as a park or street.

New South Wales had the most murders with 85, followed by Victoria with 66. The Northern Territory had the biggest increase of 60% compared to the previous period, although the number of incidents remained small at just eight. Of the other states, Victoria recorded the next biggest increase compared to 2018-19, with homicide incidents increasing 46%. Western Australia and South Australia both recorded declines.

How Australia compares

Provisional data from the United States show a dramatic increase in the US murder rate in 2020. It rose from six homicides per 100,000 in 2019 to 7.8 per 100,000.

In England and Wales, the homicide rate for 2019-20 was 1.1 per 100,000 a rate similar to the previous year.

United Nations homicide data indicate the global homicide rate in 2018 was estimated to be 5.8 per 100,000. To put this in perspective, generally homicide rates around the world have been in decline: between 1990 and 2015, the world homicide rate fell by 20%. Indeed, the current rate of homicide in Australia is almost half of the peak rate of 1.88, which was recorded in 1992-93.

What about other crime in Australia?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) produces data on both reported crime to police and experiences of victims gathered through the Crime Victimisation Survey. This survey collects details about a range of personal and household crimes, such as assaults, breaking and entering, and theft. The victimisation survey may capture offences that were not reported to police.

For the 2019-20 period, the survey showed that those who experienced physical assaults, break and enters, sexual assaults, motor vehicle thefts and robberies had similar rates when compared to 2019-20.

In terms of reported crime, the period 2019-20 captures the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which had a significant impact on decreasing crime levels.

The ABS data for reported crime in 2020 show substantial decreases in break and enters, motor vehicle thefts and robbery. However, there was an increase in sexual assault reported during this period.

So why did homocide rates rise?

Some insight can be gained by looking at the motives for the homicides. In 36% of the incidents, there was an argument or personal dispute prior to the homicide. Drugs and money were recorded as a motivation in only 5% of incidents. There was no apparent motive in 10% of incidents, and revenge or jealousy accounted for just 3% of murders.

Alcohol and drugs were often present. Victims had consumed alcohol in 25% of cases and drugs in 28%. Offenders were reported to have consumed alchol in 17% of incidents and drugs in 10%. It should be noted that the results for offenders rely on self-reporting or police observation, whereas toxicology reports are available for victims.

Read more:
Explainer: how do police undertake major crime investigations?

Where to from here?

Data collection needs to be improved to identify why so many homicide incidents are not able to be classified. This would seem to be primarily due to no relationship being stated or known.

Having investigated more than 25 homicides as a police officer, it is hard to fathom how a relationship status remains unknown in so many cases where the offender is identified. Such information is crucial is terms of investigative strategies, risk mitigation and crime prevention responses. This knowledge gap needs to be addressed.

The homicide rate increase is out of step with trends for most other crimes in Australia for the 2019-20 period and Australia compares well to international counterparts.

While the number of incidents is low compared to historical levels, we should be concerned this increase does not continue. For obvious reasons, homicides inflict the most harm on society and we must be vigilant about keeping them as low as possible.

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

– ref. Homicide is on the rise in Australia. Should we be concerned? – https://theconversation.com/homicide-is-on-the-rise-in-australia-should-we-be-concerned-178320

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bhiamie Williamson, Research Associate & PhD Candidate, Australian National University

The flooding crisis that has engulfed much of Australia’s east coast is yet more evidence of the catastrophic impacts of climate change. While all people are forced to confront similar challenges such as forced evacuations, loss of property and damage to businesses, Aboriginal people are once again over-represented in the number of people impacted by disaster.

Northern NSW is home to many Aboriginal people living in large townships such as Lismore, Ballina, Casino and Kempsey. It is also home to a vast array of discrete Aboriginal communities such as Cabbage Tree Island, Box Ridge, Gundurimba, Wardell, Maclean (Hill Crest), and more.

A quick glance at the regions that have been officially declared a natural disaster zone in NSW reveals that approximately 36,509 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been directly impacted by the floods in NSW, or 4.2% of those affected by floods.

Focusing on regional areas outside of Sydney, the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people affected by the floods jumps to 6.2%. Compare this with the fact Aboriginal people make up 3.3% of the general population and it becomes clear Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are once more disproportionately affected by disaster.

But these numbers are just one dimension. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are a youthful population, with more than half being under 24 years old. This means that of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people affected, most are children and young people.

Read more:
5 big ideas: how Australia can tackle climate change while restoring nature, culture and communities

Stories of survival and strength

With such widespread flooding, emergency services and disaster relief organisations have struggled to keep up, and in the midst of the chaos, Aboriginal communities have found themselves isolated and in some cases forgotten.

At Cabbage Tree Island outside of Ballina, the entire community has been inundated. In the midst of the evacuation, elders and families did not want to evacuate because they had nowhere to go. Bundjalung woman Delia Rhodes shared with ABC PM Radio:

You have Elders and families with children sitting around for hours waiting to get accommodation. It’s very frustrating.

Community members with access to boats took it upon themselves to drop food, baby supplies, and medicine to people who found themselves stranded.

Naomi Moran, General Manager of Indigenous newspaper The Koori Mail shared with NITV:

You know what Blackfullas are like, if it happens to one of us, it happens to all of us. The outpouring of offers to support our communities. You know, taking calls from Sydney mob, from Melbourne mob, saying “how can we help?”

In Dubbo, Bundjalung woman Noelle King is organising donations and relief for families in Lismore and surrounding communities, she said to me:

I have lots of family in Lismore who have lost everything but are so grateful they all made it out to safety in time. I have family in Corakai, on the mission who were isolated with no access to supplies and the same seeing Gundurimba and Cabbo going under […] So I’ve reached out to the community of Dubbo and donations have flowed in of clothes, household items, food and other supplies. We will be organising a truck next week and heading over to help where we can.

Sadly, these stories of Aboriginal communities being left behind with little support, or none at all, are all too common. I have written about similar experiences during the 2019-20 bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic in Aboriginal communities.

There are also questions about when or even if communities can return to their home communities, as Dyonne Anderson, Principle of Cabbage Tree Island public school shared with The Guardian:

We may not return for many months.

These disasters have exposed the consequences of a lack of planning and preparation in and with Aboriginal communities. They have also shown how entrenched inequality produces further vulnerabilities in times of crisis. The same consequences are now being felt in northern NSW.

Read more:
The COVID-19 crisis in western NSW Aboriginal communities is a nightmare realised

How can First Nations communities be better supported during climate change?

Disasters such as this have always been a common feature in Australia, but as more and more emissions are pumped into the atmosphere, the impacts of climate change mean the scale and severity of these disasters will continue to increase.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are already bearing the brunt of these disasters. A number of things need to happen now, before climate impacts worsen.

It’s vitally important Aboriginal people throughout flood impacted areas are provided with as much community and government support as they require to return home and recover what has been lost. Aboriginal community members have organised a number of crowdfunding campaigns to support Aboriginal people in flood-affected areas.

Two of note include the Bundjalung community flood relief and Support Aboriginal families of Lismore.

It is also time to look beyond individual disasters and develop an integrated response that is led by and centres Indigenous peoples. I suggest this can be done in two ways.

Firstly, we need a national Indigenous disaster resilience framework. My research has uncovered how Indigenous peoples have been made absent in national disaster resilience policies in the past. Without a framework that focuses on our communities, including the distinct impacts of disasters on our peoples, culture and heritage, and the unique legal and governing arrangements within our communities, future policies and responses will continue to fall short.

Second, there is an urgent need to develop and resource an Indigenous climate resilience and adaptation strategy. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, recognises the specific challenges for Indigenous peoples in a changing climate. While closer to home Future Earth Australia, a peak expert group based at the Australian Academy of Science, is developing a National Strategy for Just Adaptation.

But even these strategies and reports are incapable of capturing and communicating our voices, experiences, and ambitions if they are not Indigenous-led and owned.

What these floods have shown, as the bushfires and COVID-19 have shown before, is the indomitable strength of Aboriginal people.

Perhaps it is fitting the national NAIDOC theme for 2022 is “Get Up! Stand Up! Show Up!” – because that is exactly what we continue to do for our people in times of disaster.

I thank Dr Francis Markham for his contributions in the development of this article.

– ref. Like many disasters in Australia, Aboriginal people are over-represented and under-resourced in the NSW floods – https://theconversation.com/like-many-disasters-in-australia-aboriginal-people-are-over-represented-and-under-resourced-in-the-nsw-floods-178420

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law, University of Auckland

The free trade agreement (FTA) signed between New Zealand and the United Kingdom this week demonstrates the intransigence of political leaders and their official advisers in the face of concerted demands to rethink the country’s trade policy paradigm.

Those demands reached a high point with the deeply unpopular Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which was rescued from the even more unpopular Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) after the US had quit.

Opposition to the TPP/CPTPP was part of an international backlash that saw a series of high-profile negotiations abandoned or seriously stalled.

These included the EU’s mega-deal with the US for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) across 23 mainly rich parties, the Canada and EU Trade Agreement (CETA) and others.

As I wrote in The FIRE Economy in 2015, this backlash was part of a broader rejection of neoliberal globalisation and the massive private power accumulated by global capital, especially finance capital.

The global financial crisis had brought a human face to structural wealth and income inequality in Anglo-American countries (as Thomas Piketty documented in his book Capital in the 21st Century), and to its unequal gender and race impacts.

‘Inclusive trade’

Free trade agreements were powerful vehicles to advance and lock in that failed model. Multinationals could even sue host governments offshore through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitration for moves that undermined their value or profits.

Equally, the secrecy under which trade pacts were negotiated, and the fetters they put on future governments’ policy options, were an affront to democracy and self-determination.

Read more:
New Zealand is overdue for an open and honest debate about 21st-century trade relations

So Labour faced a quandary when it formed a government in October 2017. Having voted against the ratification of the TPPA, it scrambled to justify its U-turn to support the CPTPP as “progressive”.

In April 2018, the then trade minister, David Parker, announced “Trade for All”, a slogan borrowed from the EU, to develop a “progressive and inclusive” trade agenda. A year later he appointed the Trade for All Advisory Board, which delivered its moderate report and recommendations in November 2019.

The government took another seven months to respond. Meanwhile, New Zealand continued pursuing its usual agenda through the 16-country Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, in the World Trade Organisation, in negotiations with the EU – and in informal pre-Brexit talks with the UK.

The one significant change was Labour’s decision not to include ISDS provisions in future agreements.

Trade and the Treaty

Predictably, the government adopted the advisory board’s “soft” recommendations that could be accommodated within the existing trade policy paradigm, including new chapters on “inclusive trade”.

But the government rejected recommendations that could make a substantive difference. These included a moratorium on new commitments pending a comprehensive review of digital trade policy, and reviewing the widely criticised Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi exception that allows “more favourable treatment” to Māori, subject to various conditions, but does not protect treaty compliance measures more generally.

Read more:
The UK wants to join a Pacific trade deal – why that might not be a risk worth taking

Also rejected was a proposal that the “national interest analysis”, which accompanies any FTA text to parliament, be prepared independently rather than by the trade ministry that negotiated it.

Since then, the pandemic has fuelled calls to waive intellectual property rules in trade agreements that guarantee Big Pharma’s patents over medical supplies. The UK and EU oppose the waiver.

In December 2021 the Waitangi Tribunal found the CPTPP’s electronic commerce chapter, especially its rules on offshoring of data, which are now standard in many FTAs, breached the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

‘Clip-on’ agreements

That context explains what we see in the new UK FTA. Of its 33 chapters, two-thirds could be largely cut and pasted from the TPPA.

Those chapters constrain the future policy and regulatory options available to governments on (among other things) import tariffs, food labelling and standards, intellectual property rights, investment, financial services, state-owned enterprises and government procurement.

Many remaining chapters on trade and gender, Māori, development, and small and medium enterprises are clustered under an “inclusive trade sub-committee”. While these are new to New Zealand’s agreements, they mirror the “inclusive trade” agenda designed by the EU, Canada and others to defuse the backlash against these deals.

Read more:
Old wine in new bottles – why the NZ-UK free trade agreement fails to confront the challenges of a post-COVID world

I describe these chapters as “clip-ons”. None is enforceable. Most promise to co-operate on sharing “best practice”, ensuring access to information, promoting exchanges and facilitating opportunities to take advantage of an agreement that works for big business more than ordinary consumers.

The preamble and the Māori trade chapter “note” the UK was the original signatory to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but eschew any ongoing obligations. The UK rejects any inference that it recognises Māori genetic resources and traditional knowledge as forms of intellectual property, or that these affect the UK’s laws.

A footnote records that the UK has no legal or financial obligation to explore or undertake any of the proposed co-operation activities.

The labour and environment chapters reiterate existing international obligations. Each country promises to comply with its domestic laws and try not to dilute them to get a trade or investment advantage, and to promote voluntary corporate social responsibility. These chapters are enforceable through a tailored dispute process.

Did NZ try for a better deal?

Maybe New Zealand’s negotiators sought to do more that was genuinely progressive, but the secrecy surrounding the negotiations means we will never know.

The government must be judged on the deal it agreed to – which fails to confront the need for more fundamental reform, compounded by allowing a mere ten days for submissions on the 1,700-page text.

And for what? There are the usual grand headlines that the FTA is worth NZ$1 billion to exporters with a 50% increase in exports to the UK.

But the government’s own economic modelling projects a mere 0.3% increase on current GDP when the agreement comes into force fully – a rate of 0.02% per year over 15 years. Hardly a bonanza.

Jane Kelsey is a pro bono technical adviser for the Ngā Toki Whakarururanga on trade policy and negotiations.

– ref. Behind the ‘inclusive’ window dressing, the NZ-UK free trade deal disappoints politically and economically – https://theconversation.com/behind-the-inclusive-window-dressing-the-nz-uk-free-trade-deal-disappoints-politically-and-economically-178408

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Vonasch, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Canterbury

Like the many similar movements against vaccine mandates and other pandemic restrictions around the world, New Zealand’s protests have expressed a unifying concern with personal freedoms.

One of the highest-profile groups at the occupation of parliament grounds in Wellington was “Voices for Freedom”. The occupation itself began with a “freedom convoy”, and many of the signs and placards around the makeshift camp made “freedom” their focus.

And while that particular protest ended in chaos, it seems likely the various movements behind it will continue to make “freedom” their rallying cry.

The extent to which personal freedoms are limited as part of living in a functioning society is ultimately a moral concern about the role of government. But this also requires a clear understanding of the nature of freedom in the first place, and what it means to be a free person in a free society.

At the heart of this lies the distinction between a narrow conception of freedom known as “negative liberty” and the wider concept of “positive liberty”. The former, seemingly preferred by the protesters, implies a freedom from imposed restrictions on people’s behaviour – such as lockdowns and vaccine passes or mandates.

The counter-argument is that reasonable restrictions, if justified to prevent significant harm from COVID-19, actually increase overall freedom. In that sense, the freedom to behave in certain ways becomes a “positive liberty”.

Understanding liberty

Drawing on a long intellectual tradition, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin defined the two forms of liberty in an influential 1958 lecture at Oxford University.

Negative liberty, he said, means the absence of external obstacles or constraints, such as coercive interference by governments.

By contrast, positive liberty means the ability to do the things you want to do. It is associated with self-realisation or self-determination – being in control of one’s own destiny. The protest slogan “my body, my choice”, for instance, is an appeal to individual negative liberty – freedom from mandates and restrictions.

Read more:
What are the rights of children at the parliament protest – and who protects them?

But it’s not possible to simultaneously maximise both negative and positive liberty. There are inevitably trade-offs. If the protesters had their way, New Zealanders would have more negative liberty but less positive liberty. Overall, we argue, people would be less free.

Nearly all laws restrict negative liberty, but their effect on positive liberty varies dramatically. For example, laws prohibiting theft restrict negative liberty — they restrict people’s freedom to steal with impunity.

But do such restrictions make you feel un-free? Quite the contrary, laws against theft increase positive liberty. They allow us to feel more secure, and because we don’t have to keep a constant eye on our property, we can do other things.

Justified limits on liberty

Thinking of freedom only through a lens of negative liberty involves a critical problem – it ignores the fact that our actions affect other people: the freedom to drink and drive restricts other people’s ability to use the streets safely; the freedom to smoke in public places exposes others to the potential harms of secondhand fumes.

In general, the choices we make – even concerning our own bodies and what we choose to consume – have moral implications for how and where we can participate in society. Giving people freedom to visit certain places while unvaccinated against COVID-19 restricts other people’s ability to visit those places safely.

Read more:
What the ‘freedom convoy’ reveals about the ties among politics, police and the law

Vaccinated New Zealanders currently enjoy high levels of positive liberty. Life is nearly normal. Crucially, though, this freedom depends on policies designed to reduce the threat of the disease – high rates of vaccination, vaccine certificates and mandates for certain key roles, masks and temporary restrictions on large gatherings to reduce the spread.

Such policies constitute a slight loss of negative liberty. Without these policies, however, positive liberty would be much reduced. New Zealanders could not visit places like gyms, pools, restaurants and shops without fear of catching a potentially deadly disease.

New Zealand has enjoyed more freedom over the past two years than nearly anywhere else, but it has only been possible through restrictions on negative liberty to reduce the risk of COVID-19.

Restriction and risk

Isaiah Berlin was rightly concerned about the potential slippery slope towards totalitarian control inherent in appeals to positive freedom, as witnessed in the USSR where severe restrictions on speech, movement, assembly, literary expression and much else were imposed in the name of “freedom” (namely the freedom to be a good Soviet).

But slippery slopes can be resisted and the risk here seems slight. For COVID policies that restrict negative liberty to enhance overall freedom, they must be necessary to promote positive liberty, responsive to the evidence, and proportional to the threat.

Read more:
Vaccine mandates for NZ’s health and education workers are now in force – but has the law got the balance right?

One sign we are not on a slippery slope to totalitarianism: COVID restrictions change with, and are proportional to, the risk. Last year, when New Zealand had zero COVID-19 cases, lockdowns ended and restrictions were few; when the threat increased, restrictions did, proportionally.

Restrictions on negative liberty should be adopted with care and subject to continual review. All citizens, protesters included, are right to value freedom and to be wary of heavy-handed, top-down control.

But that is not the same as calling for an end to COVID-19 rules because such rules limit freedom. A clearer understanding of positive liberty allows us to see that restrictions designed to protect us from COVID-19 actually enhance our overall freedom.

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

– ref. How protesters demanding ‘freedom’ from COVID restrictions ignore the way liberty really works – https://theconversation.com/how-protesters-demanding-freedom-from-covid-restrictions-ignore-the-way-liberty-really-works-178287

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Norton, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Auckland

With the effective end of New Zealand’s managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system this week, the outcome of the court battle over the government’s border restrictions may have become moot. But the principles at stake are important nonetheless.

Brought by the lobby group Grounded Kiwis, the case was about the legality of the MIQ system, especially its effect on citizens’ right to return home and whether the border controls were justified in the public good.

There’s no doubt the system disrupted the mobility rights of New Zealand’s global diaspora, causing considerable pain and anguish for some. And the case was seen by many as a day of reckoning for MIQ.

In the end, however, the judicial review proceedings ended up with a much narrower focus. Grounded Kiwis effectively only contested the operation of MIQ during the last few months of last year, with their legal complaint largely boiling down to the system having not been appropriately reformed or phased out quickly enough.

Government lawyers responded by setting MIQ in its emergency context and the government’s “stamp it out, keep it out” approach to the pandemic. While changes were made to the MIQ system over its lifetime, reform was necessarily cautious in the light of the level of risk the government and community were prepared to bear.

Legally, the case was focused on a citizen’s right to return in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Limits on that right are only permissible if “reasonable” and “demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society”. The courts have developed a special way of assessing this – one that carefully weighs public benefits and private burdens and looks closely at alternative ways to achieve the government’s aim.

MIQ design in the spotlight

So, did MIQ unreasonably and unjustifiably limit the right to return more than was reasonably necessary to achieve the public health goal of significantly reducing the outbreak and spread of COVID-19?

Here the court will have to consider a whole raft of objections to MIQ, such as its very existence, its blanket application to all who wished to enter New Zealand, its restricted capacity and its allocation method.

À lire aussi :
Two years on from the first COVID case, New Zealand’s successful pandemic response still faces major challenges

While individual cases have tended to make headlines, the administration of exceptions was not squarely part of this legal challenge. The focus was on the overall design of the system.

Grounded Kiwis spoke about the right to return as a “foundational right”, from which all other rights flowed. This right should have been afforded greater priority, they said, and New Zealanders should not be denied entry to their country of citizenship – even in a pandemic.

Forcing them to wait for a spot in MIQ breaches this right. They accused the government of being myopically focused on public health.

Public health paramount

But public health was precisely what government lawyers emphasised in court. They pointed to the state’s obligations in domestic and international law to protect all New Zealanders’ rights to life and health, and the importance of minimising the impact on the healthcare system. Caution was needed, especially when vaccinations were still being rolled out.

People’s rights were at the centre of all decision making, government lawyers argued. Ministers did not see mobility rights and public health in competition with each other but hard choices had to be made in the circumstances. People have to be alive and well to enjoy their freedom of movement. Sacrifices were made by all New Zealanders, here or abroad, whether through lockdowns or border restrictions.

Those public health priorities also extended to New Zealand’s diaspora, it was argued, as they enjoy the benefit of a healthy country when they return.

À lire aussi :
New Zealand’s border quarantine has intercepted thousands of COVID cases, but is it time to retire the flawed system?

Grounded Kiwis played a delicate game by not explicitly attacking the need for MIQ, but repeatedly arguing there was a tipping point: no one should wait more than three months for entry, regardless of MIQ’s limited capacity or the state of the pandemic.

But there are many within the Grounded Kiwis network who have publicly doubted the wisdom of the government’s elimination strategy. In court, their lawyers spoke of wanting to “put a stake in the ground” so we wouldn’t ever see these border controls again.

In reply, government lawyers stressed the crucial role the elimination strategy played throughout the pandemic and its epidemiological foundation. It’s difficult to see a judge second guessing a public health game plan that has served New Zealand so well.

Was MIQ fit for purpose?

Grounded Kiwis also took issue with the design and operation of the quarantine system, especially the way spots were allocated, initially through a first-in-first-served system and later a virtual “lobby”.

They said alternatives should have been used, including a bespoke risk assessment system for each traveller, more extensive testing and triage, self-isolation and a more sophisticated allocation system. All better, they said, than subjecting returnees to the stress of the random lottery or the earlier free-for-all for open spots.

The government’s lawyers responded by explaining how the systems had evolved over time and why the alternatives Grounded Kiwis wanted either weren’t feasible or generated unacceptable risk in the face of an unpredictable virus.

Self-isolation was ripe for exposure events and would have created its own resourcing challenges, they argued. No alternative priority system, especially one trying to grade every applicant’s reason for travel, would be perfect. A new set of grievances would no doubt emerge.

À lire aussi :
NZ’s confirmed COVID case numbers are rising fast, but total infections are likely much higher – here’s why

Importantly, these alternatives didn’t square with the governing risk tolerances and precautionary approach. Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield’s evidence recorded that he sought to avoid irreversible decisions with potentially severe negative impacts on health – so much so, he sent out his public advice on key design elements for close peer review.

Ultimately, it’s difficult to know what the judge will make of it all. The philosophical attack on MIQ seems unlikely to succeed. But whether the design of systems allocating spots was sufficiently rigorous may still worry the judge.

Given the re-opening border (at least for vaccinated travellers), the best Grounded Kiwis will be able to achieve is a sense of vindication for past burdens – if the judge finds the design or operation of the system in its final throes imposed unjustified limits on the right of return. A decision on that is still some way off.

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

– ref. How will history – and the law – judge New Zealand’s mothballed MIQ system? – https://theconversation.com/how-will-history-and-the-law-judge-new-zealands-mothballed-miq-system-177436

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea Carson, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University

With a federal election expected in May, at a time of great upheaval at home and around the world, the need for trusted media to accurately inform voters’ choices and debunk myths will be critical.

Yet studies show about two-thirds of Australians are worried about misinformation, especially about COVID-19, and do not know who or what to trust.

This is further complicated when politicians are the culprits, making false claims in the news media and online.

So what role should journalists play in calling out these falsehoods? Or should this role be left to third parties, such as independent fact-checkers, to test verifiable claims?

The fight against ‘fake news’

Fact-checking is one global response to countering fake news, which has become a multi-billion-dollar industry. More than 340 fact-checking outlets now operate worldwide.

In Australia, independent fact-checkers include newswires AAP and AFP, and RMIT ABC Fact Check (a collaboration between RMIT University and the public broadcaster). Yet little is known about what effect independent fact-checking has on public trust in news where false claims can be found.

In a new study published in a major international journal, we investigate if third-party fact-checking affects public trust in news. To do this we used the case study of the “sports rorts” scandal.

Read more:
The ‘sports rorts’ affair shows the need for a proper federal ICAC – with teeth

As a quick refresher, the sports rorts scandal unfolded just before the 2019 federal election. Sporting clubs in Coalition and marginal seats disproportionately benefited from a taxpayer-funded community sports grants program.

The Australian National Audit Office later investigated the funding process. It found the then sports minister and National Party deputy, Bridget McKenzie, had not allocated funds based on independent advice given to her. Several senior ministers, including Peter Dutton, defended McKenzie’s actions before she was forced to resign from that role because of the alleged pork-barrelling.

We use this real-life example in an experimental design to see what impact a real AAP fact-check about the scandal had on Australians’ trust in news. We mocked up two news stories – one presented as being from ABC online and another from Newscorp’s news.com.au. The stories contained identical wording and headlines, but used different fonts and banners.

Both stories contained a real quote from the then home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, about McKenzie’s decision-making process. On January 23 2020, Dutton stated:

Bridget McKenzie made recommendations, as I understand it, on advice from the sporting body that these programs that have been funded were recommended.

Dutton restated this position in other media that week, including on Nine’s Today program, suggesting his words were not a slip of the tongue.
The AAP fact-checked the statement and labelled it “false”.

Months after the scandal subsided, public recall of specific details was likely overtaken by pandemic news stories. So, we invited 1,600 adult Australians to do an online survey and randomly assigned them to read either our constructed ABC or News Corp story, and then answer questions about the trustworthiness of that story (and the media outlet more generally). We randomly assigned half the respondents to also read the AAP fact-check.

The findings tell both a positive and negative story about how Australians view political news. On the up side, trust in the news story (without seeing the fact check) was high for both our ABC (86%) and news.com.au stories (79%). Political partisanship has some impact, with Labor supporters the most trusting of the news story overall (87%).

Consistent with other Australian surveys, we found the ABC had higher levels of public trust overall than News Corp. However, some strong Coalition and right-wing supporters had greater trust in the news.com.au story, as other research has also found.

Concerningly, we found that when participants read the AAP fact check after reading the news story, trust in the original story fell sharply (by 13% overall), even after respondents’ political or news source preferences were taken into account. Counter-intuitively, the act of fact-checking had a clear negative influence on readers’ trust in the original news story for both the abc.com.au and new.com.au stories as the chart below shows.

This suggests news audiences may not separate a politician’s false claims within a news story from the news reporting itself. Think about that for a second:

• the politician told a falsehood
• a fact-checker corrects it
• but, as a consequence, the news story itself suffers the loss of public trust.

This finding is particularly important given Australian journalists’ reliance on a “he said/she said” news reporting style (this excludes opinion pieces), in which readers are presented with competing statements, one or both of which may be false, rather than the reporter actively adjudicating the false claim.

In this case, letting fact-checkers determine the truth may be a deeply unwise strategy for journalism. While fact-checkers unquestionably do many positive things such as identify misinformation, in this instance it lowered trust in political journalism.

With the public demanding the truth, it seems journalists have a very important role to play by critiquing politicians’ false claims in news stories at the time of reporting.

While some outlets like Crikey already practise active adjudication in political stories, we acknowledge it might be problematic for an organisation like the ABC, which has impartiality as a duty in the ABC Act 1983.

However, the ABC’s 2019 revised code of practice specifies that “impartiality” does not mean every perspective receives equal attention. Other media have the same policy. For example, The Conversation’s approach to reporting climate change has decided in favour of the scientific evidence and does not give air time to climate denialism.

We see lessons in our findings for independent fact-checkers as well. Fact-checkers might help increase trust in news by more clearly stating they are fact-checking a politician’s specific claim, rather than the media coverage that contains it. Some fact-checkers make this distinction already on their websites, but rarely on every fact-check explanation.

Spelling this out may help audiences avoid conflating a fact-check of a specific political falsehood with the trustworthiness of the news story and media outlet.

With a federal election just months away, this study is a timely reminder of the important role that political journalists can play as sense-makers rather than just conveyers of political information.

Andrea Carson receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Facebook. This project was funded with research grants from La Trobe University (academic start-up award).

Aaron Martin receives funding from the Australian Research Council and this project was funded by University of Melbourne Policy Lab.

Justin Phillips’ individual and collaborative research receives funding from the Facebook, the Royal Society Te Apārangi, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

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

– ref. Fact-checking can actually harm trust in media: new research – https://theconversation.com/fact-checking-can-actually-harm-trust-in-media-new-research-176032

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karen McLean, Paediatrician, Royal Children’s Hospital; Research officer, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

More than 10,000 Victorian children and young people live with a foster or kinship (relative) carer. They enter such care because of court orders aiming to protect them from abuse or neglect.

These children have more physical, developmental and mental health needs than others, which is why they are meant to have a number of health checks when they enter care.

But when we checked the records of more than 6,000 children who were in foster or kinship care for the first time, we found just 41 of them had attended all of the recommended health appointments.

Read more:
For children in foster care, the coronavirus pandemic could be extremely destabilising

High needs

The health needs of children in out-of-home care are high across all areas of health. Around half will have behavioural, mental health and developmental problems. Most have some physical health concern, such as asthma, constipation or hearing difficulties.

These high rates are not surprising, given their experiences of abuse, neglect or trauma and increased likelihood of living in adverse socioeconomic circumstances. This is why there are National Standards for out-of-home care which specifically state that health needs need to be assessed and addressed in a timely manner.

There is also a national framework, adopted by Victoria, that spells out the details: an initial health check by 30 days and a thorough check within three months, led by a paediatrician and including hearing, vision and dental checks.

Nine years ago, specialised health care clinics with paediatricians, psychologists and speech pathologists were established in some areas of Melbourne for vulnerable children to provide a comprehensive assessment and develop health management plans. Such clinics are now in Gippsland too, but they have not been rolled out to the rest of the state.

In the handbook for foster carers, Victorians are told to take a child to a GP, dentist, optometrist and for a hearing test within a month. The comprehensive health check is not mentioned.

We were concerned many children were missing out on these important health visits that could identify health issues and make a plan to address them. So we applied for federal and state de-identified administrative health data for Victorian children in care. This showed us health visits through Medicare (say, for GPs and optometrists) and at Victorian community, mental, dental and hospital outpatient health services.

Read more:
Does the government’s new national plan to combat child sexual abuse go far enough?

Too little, too late

We looked at health visits for all children who entered care and stayed at least three months – long enough to see a doctor. We analysed visits within the first year of care to all the recommended health professionals: GPs, paediatricians, dentists, optometrists and audiologists.

We found only one in every 130 children attended all the services within 12 months (far fewer attended all services within three months). It was good to see nine out of ten children saw a GP – but only 37% saw one within the recommended 30 days.

Using Medicare data meant we couldn’t see why a child had gone to the GP – it’s likely some visits were not for a check-up, but were for a specific issue or illness. About one-third of children made it to a paediatrician within a year, but less than 20% saw an optometrist, audiologist or community dentist. Very few attended these services within three months.

Because we looked at data over more than five years, we could see that in areas where a dedicated specialised health clinic was started up to provide health assessments, more children attended paediatricians, audiologists and optometrists. Even before the strains the COVID pandemic has placed on our health system, foster and kinship carers said there were not enough health services and very long waiting lists at those that did exist.

To make sure access to health care does not depend upon a child’s postcode, we need statewide paediatric health services that can provide health assessments and ongoing care.

Those children in foster care had higher odds of attending all health services than those in kinship care. We think this is because kinship carers do not receive as much training, support or financial compensation as foster carers. While it is good Victoria has world-leading rates of kinship care – children in kinship care tend to have better outcomes for behavioural and mental health than children in foster care – it is important all children in care get access to health assessments and the services they need.

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

Listen to those inside the system

To improve these rates, and to get in early to meet children’s health needs, we need to address what carers have told us present barriers to health care. They report limited paediatric and mental health services and difficulty navigating the systems.

Bureaucratic delays in providing Medicare numbers to carers and getting consent for health care need to be reduced. We could, as in the United Kingdom, make health assessments a legal requirement of care.

More data is also important. Our research only looked at Victorian children – each state and territory has its own approach to health care for children in care. But there are no publicly available data anywhere in Australia, and therefore no public accountability for some of the children who need it the most.

Because it takes years to get permission, analyse data and publish, we do not yet know the impact of COVID upon this group of children. With reports of worsened mental health and longer wait times for services, it is unlikely things have improved.

If we have a system that removes children from families when we believe they are being harmed or their needs neglected, then we need to make sure we don’t overlook them any further.

Karen McLean received funding from the state and federal government and a Learning System Grant (from the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare) for this research.

Harriet Hiscock receives funding from NHMRC

Sharon Goldfeld receives funding from ARC, NHMRC

– ref. We checked the records of 6,000 kids entering care. Only a fraction received recommended health checks – https://theconversation.com/we-checked-the-records-of-6-000-kids-entering-care-only-a-fraction-received-recommended-health-checks-177634

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anita Wreford, Professor, Lincoln University, New Zealand

This week’s major report on climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerability highlights the challenges a shifting climate presents for food- and fibre-producing regions, including Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia.

A chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report evaluates key evidence from Australasia. It shows we are already observing tangible changes in our climate, even at the current 1.1℃ of warming above pre-industrial temperatures. With economies in both countries based on the primary sector, this is a cause for concern.

Climate impacts of particular relevance to the primary sector include increased frequency and intensity of droughts and changes to the seasonality of pasture growth and winter chilling in horticulture. Growing evidence shows these impacts would not be happening in a world without climate change.

These changes will intensify in the future as the planet warms. How much will depend on how successful global and domestic efforts are to reduce greenhouse gases.

The north and east of New Zealand is expected to become drier, and the west and south wetter, with considerable seasonal variation. Extreme events are expected to become more frequent. Droughts will be more frequent and last longer, rainfall will be more intense.

The number of days with temperatures above 25℃ is likely to increase considerably, while we can expect fewer frost days. Hot days cause heat stress in livestock and affect the quality of wine grapes, while fewer frost days can affect crops such as kiwifruit, which need winter chilling for both yield and quality.

All of these changes will have implications for our primary sector. It has developed around a relatively stable climate, with has allowed regional specialisation such as Sauvignon Blanc production in Marlborough, kiwifruit in the Bay of Plenty and dairy in the Waikato.

Read more:
Mass starvation, extinctions, disasters: the new IPCC report’s grim predictions, and why adaptation efforts are falling behind

Current efforts to prepare for impacts will reach limits

Opportunities may present as well, although we need to be careful and examine the full picture. While modelling studies suggest higher levels of carbon dioxide will boost pasture and tree growth, they do not incorporate changes in extreme events, such as drought or wind damage to trees, which counter those benefits.

Farmers and growers are already adapting to the impacts they experience now. As experts in their systems, they have the knowledge and experience to make changes to their farm management, timing of sowing and harvesting or perhaps experimenting with different crops.

Read more:
Plants are flowering a month earlier – here’s what it could mean for pollinating insects

But as global temperatures continue to rise and the impacts in Aotearoa intensify, these types of adaptations will become less effective. More transformative change may be necessary to maintain the viability of our primary sector.

This could include diversification of production, perhaps incorporating different crops or trees into an existing system, or more widespread land-use change. If planned carefully and for the long term, this could present an opportunity to address other challenges the primary sector faces, including the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve water quality and enhance biodiversity.

People will experience climate change differently

Farmers and growers are all different and have different circumstances that influence how they experience climate change and how well they can adapt. Many have high levels of debt that make further investment or borrowing challenging. Others may be constrained by decisions they have made in the past that lock them into the system they are currently in.

Almost all of them face increasing regulatory requirements that may also limit their ability to implement adaptations to climate change, particularly over the longer term. This might be due to limited financial resources, or lack of knowledge and skills to make changes on different fronts.

Read more:
Transformational change is coming to how people live on Earth, UN climate adaptation report warns: Which path will humanity choose?

However, it is essential any changes and adaptations undertaken now consider the long term. Otherwise we run the risk of “maladaptation” or adjustments that may be effective only on a small scale or short term, with negative or unintended consequences in other areas or into the future.

For example, irrigation can be maladaptive if it results in an associated increase in fertiliser use which in turn adds greenhouse gas emissions and reduces water quality. It can also lead to the loss of places of cultural, social and spiritual significance. And investment in irrigation can lock farmers into systems they are then unable to change.

Nature and land have the potential to support adaptation

The report also emphasises the critical role ecosystems and nature-based adaptation can play.

Land has potential to support adaptation beyond the primary productive sector. For example, using the natural environment as a buffer to avoid flooding from heavy rainfall would have a wider range of benefits than more “hard” engineered solutions. This could be in the form of wetlands or restoring river flood plains instead of constructing stop banks or sea walls which only transfer the problem elsewhere and lead to a potentially misguided sense of security.

This kind of adaptation that generates public good benefits has to be inclusive to ensure everyone’s voices are heard, especially tangata whenua. But it comes with the same urgency, as its effectiveness at higher levels of warming is uncertain.

The report emphasises that effective adaptation requires consistent policies, aligned across different policy areas, sectors and timeframes. Integration and coordination across levels of government and sectors, and the inclusion of all voices and knowledge systems are also critical.

Developing ways to share knowledge and tools, ideally across sectors, will be essential, along with monitoring and evaluating adaptations so that we can learn and develop as the climate changes.

Anita Wreford receives funding from the Deep South National Science Challenge, MPI, MBIE and Lincoln University.
She is a Lead Author on the Australasia Chapter of the IPCC Working Group II 2022 report.

– ref. New Zealand farmers and growers are already adapting to changing climate conditions – just not enough – https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-farmers-and-growers-are-already-adapting-to-changing-climate-conditions-just-not-enough-178161

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Carey, Senior Lecturer in Food Systems, The University of Melbourne

Australia is facing yet another “unprecedented” weather event as extreme flooding across Queensland and New South Wales submerges entire towns.

In the immediate aftermath, there’s a new challenge for many Australians in these flood-ravaged areas. On top of damage to houses, livelihoods and water supply, it’s hard to get food. Stores are running short of fresh food. Major supermarkets have been forced to introduce buying limits on some foods.

Empty supermarket shelves and temporary food shortages are becoming more common in Australia, due to disruptions in food supply related to the COVID-19 pandemic and extreme weather events.

Australia can expect to see extreme weather and disasters such as floods, heatwaves, bushfires and droughts become more common and worse, according to the latest report from the global authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That means food supplies will become disrupted more often and food will cost more.

At present, our governments largely rely on the food industry to ensure our supply chains are resilient to these threats. Governments also rely on charities to feed people who are going hungry after disasters.

As climate threats intensify, these responses are not enough. We need government to take the lead.

These shocks affect the entire food system

Climate and pandemic shocks pose real challenges across the food system, from production to transport to consumption. Just in the past few days, floods have washed away or ruined vegetable crops in low lying areas of the Lockyer Valley near Brisbane, a hugely productive horticultural area.

Read more:
To protect fresh food supplies, here are the key steps to secure city foodbowls

Fresh food has been damaged in warehouses, while the Brisbane Markets had to close due to flood damage.

The Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane is blocked in places, disrupting distribution of food to some supermarkets, while emergency food supplies are being provided to flood-affected residents. Food waste is also likely to increase due to crop losses, delays in food freight and power outages.

Earlier this year, West Australia had food shortages dubbed “the worst in memory” after heavy flooding washed out 300 kilometres of the only railway linking it to the eastern states.

Food supply shocks have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable

Shocks like floods and the pandemic affect a large number of people through temporary food shortages and rising food prices. But the greatest impact is on people already at risk of food insecurity, meaning they may lack regular access to enough safe and nutritious food to lead an active and healthy life.

Rates of food insecurity in Australia are highest among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, asylum seekers, people who are unemployed and low-income households.

During the first 12 months of the pandemic, Australian demand doubled for food relief. More people were pushed into food insecurity, including casual workers who lost jobs, temporary migrant workers and international students.

As of 2021, fully one in six (17%) of Australian adults were severely food insecure and 1.2 million children were estimated to be living in food insecure households.

Even before the pandemic, rates of food insecurity were at worrying levels. Demand for food relief in Australia has risen rapidly over the last decade. This points to more systemic causes, such as low levels of income support.

We must make our food systems resilient

Governments urgently need plans to increase the resilience of food systems to shocks and stresses. At present, governments typically have plans to manage emergency food supplies during a disaster.

That’s no longer enough. What we need is a new focus on building the long-term resilience of our food systems to a range of future shocks related to climate change, pandemic and even geopolitical shifts emerging from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

What would this look like? Our new infographic identifies key features of a resilient food system, based on our research on the resilience of Melbourne’s food system.

One feature is diversity in where and how we source our food – global and local, large and small scale, commercial and community enterprises, supermarkets and other food markets.

Another is a decentralised food supply chain, where food processing, distribution and retail is spread across many locations and organisations. The pandemic has shown us the risks of highly centralised food processing and distribution.

We also need to strengthen local and regional food supply chains. Short food supply chains connecting people directly to sources of locally produced food can increase the resilience of food systems when longer food supply chains are disrupted. They can also build local economies.

Our governments need to lead

There’s a common belief Australia is a food secure country simply because we produce and export a lot of food.

But food security is about more than the amount of food we produce. It’s also about ensuring we all have access to nutritious food and ensuring our food supplies are resilient.

Read more:
What is food insecurity?

We can no longer rely on the food industry and charities to tackle our rising rates of food insecurity and step in after disasters.

Australian governments need food resilience plans where they lay out their strategies to ensure all Australians will have access to enough nutritious food in a world of increasing shocks to food supplies.

Access to adequate food is a fundamental human right. Our governments have a responsibility to help us to realise this right.

Rachel Carey leads the research project Foodprint Melbourne: Building the resilience of Melbourne’s food system, which is funded by the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation. Project partners include the City of Melbourne, the Victorian Council of Social Service, the Open Food Network, Foodbank and the peak bodies representing local government areas in Melbourne’s city fringe food bowl. Rachel was also a Research Fellow on the project ‘Regulating Food Labels: The case of free range food products in Australia’, funded by the Australian Research Council.

Leila Alexandra is a research assistant on the research project Foodprint Melbourne: Building the resilience of Melbourne’s food system, which is funded by the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation.

Maureen Murphy is a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne on the Foodprint Melbourne research project, which is funded by the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation

– ref. We can’t keep relying on charities and the food industry to supply food after disasters – the government must lead – https://theconversation.com/we-cant-keep-relying-on-charities-and-the-food-industry-to-supply-food-after-disasters-the-government-must-lead-178215

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chie Adachi, Associate Professor and Director, Digital Learning, Deakin University

Universities are welcoming international students back to campuses now Australia’s borders are open. So, with these students back in person, is this the end of digital learning at universities? It shouldn’t be.

Continuing multimodal study will be critical for our universities to attract and retain international students whose numbers in Australia halved during the pandemic.

Quality of education is now tied to quality of hybrid in-person and online learning. And quality of learning is one of the three top factors international students consider when choosing a study destination.

Rolling back changes isn’t an option

What was normal practice in pre-COVID education might no longer adequately prepare students for the future.

Our lives and the world of work continue to digitalise. Education must develop the digital literacy and human-centred skills our graduates will need in this world.

Read more:
Digital learning is real-world learning. That’s why blended on-campus and online study is best

The pivot to online learning exposed international students to many new study options. These include:

• flexible online access to classes and learning materials from anywhere
• multi-modality in creating diverse content and in student assignments
• multiple platforms and communication channels for diversified feedback and dialogue
• captions for recorded videos through tech platforms such as Zoom.

However, international students have faced many challenges in their online learning. These include:

• disconnectedness and anxiety
• cross-cultural issues leading to misunderstandings or even conflicts
• time-zone differences
• lack of body language and other cues that aid understanding
• varying levels of digital literacy
• varying access to internet and online platforms due to different circumstances, locations and national policies.

4 ways to keep improving digital education

Continuing to enhance digital education could help Australian universities to secure their future. Looking at the emerging trends and issues for digital education globally, four areas require action to better meet international students’ needs.

1. Offer flexibility and hybrid learning

International students will benefit from further flexibility enabled by hybrid learning. In particular, they will welcome the choice of attending online or campus-based classes. This will help them juggle their studies with jobs and other competing priorities.

Hybrid learning, done well, also offers better access to learning materials and more opportunities for interaction. These interactions might be teacher to student, peer to peer, or peer to community. They can happen in person on campus, or online across time and space.

Read more:
International students are coming back and it’s not just universities sighing with relief

The demands on universities to design flexible, authentic, active and meaningful learning, both on campus and online, are more pressing than ever. International students won’t travel overseas simply to attend didactic lectures anymore.

2. Promote belonging and online communities

International students always long for human connections and social relationships in their learning away from home. Connections built through informal and formal learning in culturally immersive environments have been vital to their academic experiences and achievements.

The emergency remote learning over the past two years limited this opportunity. Digital learning environments usually consist of learning management systems with multiple communication technologies. What they lack is the informal “in-between” interactions that students value on campus.

Cultivating a sense of belonging and community online needs to be an indispensable aspect of educational design. Universities have to invest in this process. Students’ own independently created and temporarily used Facebook and WhatsApp chat groups are no substitute for university experiences.

However, universities must ensure digital safety and data privacy for their online communities.

Read more:
COVID halved international student numbers in Australia. The risk now is we lose future skilled workers and citizens

3. Look after student well-being

Virtual experiences are often framed as transcending various physical and material obstacles. These experiences build on the narrative of being able to “study anytime and anywhere”.

However, the pandemic has made us pay closer attention to our digital well-being, the physicality of human bodies and embodied practices in learning and teaching. With online learning, despite the comfort of students sitting at their desk in their own home, it is taxing to sit in front of a computer all day every day.

In the pivot to online learning, some teachers simply moved their classes online. As those class hours and interactions with computer screens and devices accumulated across days and weeks, many students struggled to focus on their studies online.

Universities need to design more carefully for the receiving end of human bodies interacting with online programs. Online course design needs to allow for students’ practical and holistic human needs, beyond academic needs. A focus on digital health and student well-being is essential for them to learn productively and healthily.

For example, back-to-back online classes should not be timetabled for students. They will struggle to focus if required to be online for hours on end.

Read more:
Australia can rebound to be international students’ destination of choice when borders reopen

4. Internationalise learning for all students

It is crucial for curriculum content and online teaching and learning experiences to be internationalised.

The future world of work is ever more global and digital. To prepare graduates for this highly connected world, universities must develop hybrid curriculum and learning experiences that include international and intercultural dimensions.

By internationalising the hybrid curriculum and digital education, we engage students with both local and global issues. This will enrich learning for all while developing empathy and graduate employability.

The investment will be worth it

International students bring rich educational, social and economic capital to Australia. The revenue they provide also heavily subsidises other university activities such as research.

Even though international students are returning physically, we should not downplay the role of digital education. Instead, we need to pay more attention to their needs for digital learning.

We have the opportunity to work with these students to improve digital education practices holistically and to internationalise hybrid learning for all students. We need to create learning spaces that seamlessly dissolve the boundaries of informal and formal, digital and physical.

Quality digital education will enhance Australia’s reputation for international education.

Ly Tran receives funding from the Australian Research Council and DFAT for her research on international students, geopolitics and student mobilities, the New Colombo Plan, staff professional development in international education and graduate employability in Vietnam.

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

– ref. International students are back on campus, but does that spell the end of digital learning? Here’s why it shouldn’t – https://theconversation.com/international-students-are-back-on-campus-but-does-that-spell-the-end-of-digital-learning-heres-why-it-shouldnt-177545

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paula Jarzabkowski, Professor in Strategic Management, The University of Queensland

As South-East Queensland and New South Wales wade through the devastation of storms and flooding that now threatens the greater Sydney region, residents and businesses will be turning to insurance as their only hope of recovery.

More than 60,000 claims have been lodged in seven days.

Unfortunately, many people will find that they are either not insured or underinsured against this sort of catastrophe either because premiums have become unaffordable or because they have become unavailable because of the increasing frequency of extreme weather events.

Without insurance payouts they will find it hard to recover, causing emotional and economic hardship for them, their communities and the Australian economy.

The insurance gap keeps growing

The potential for disaster and the lack of insurance to pay for recovery were already known. Australia is among the most exposed countries in the world to extreme weather events and also one of the least insured advanced economies.

Floods in March 2021 resulted in A$2.9 billion worth of damage. The current bill will probably be higher and, without individual insurance, taxpayers are likely to have to pick up the bill – even though they shouldn’t have to.

Australia is in a vicious cycle: each disaster increases underinsurance, forcing taxpayers to help out, and the more it happens the more underinsurance grows.

To stop this cycle, the government needs to do two things: reduce the risk of damage to properties, and subsidise insurance for those who remain at risk.

How to end the vicious cycle

The Australian government needs to create a financially-sustainable disaster insurance model.

Known as a Protection Gap Entity and in place in nations including Spain, France and Switzerland, it creates an insurance or reinsurance pool that reduces premiums, provides wide coverage and enables urgent support to be paid out fast.

Our research into protection gap entities overseas finds them effective when coverage reaches 85%-100% of households. Such coverage enables redistribution, in which everyone buys insurance at a flat rate against all types of disasters.

Read more:
After the floods comes underinsurance: we need a better plan

The private insurers pass on the risk to the state-owned protection gap entity, which uses the pooled premiums to ensure everyone is covered for their specific disaster.

Because every type of disaster doesn’t usually happen at once, that risk is likely to be manageable.

That’s one way a government-run protection gap entity could stop the vicious cycle in Australia. The other is by using data to reduce risks. Protection gap entities are well-positioned to do this because they receive every claim, so know what is damaged where and how.

Our research in France and Switzerland sets out how this data is used to reduce risk. These protection gap entities are:

• directly connected to the government system of planning and building regulations, so their data can be used to build future resilience

• have the power to ensure insurance payments for every damaged property are used to rebuild in a disaster-resilient way.

This process is often called Build Back Better, and only works when it uses data for a joined-up approach to financial and physical resilience.

The cyclone reinsurance pool is half-hearted

So, what is Australia doing? The Australian Treasury is in the process of legislating an oddly specifically named Northern Australia Cyclone Reinsurance Pool, due to commence July 1.

As it happens, the pool wouldn’t cover the current flood losses both because they are not caused by a cyclone and also because they are not situated in what the pool defines as northern Australia.

What’s proposed has neither the widespread cover needed for redistribution nor a mandate for disaster risk reduction. It would address past floods in one region, rather than prevent future losses everywhere.

Read more:
Stalled weather: how stuck air pressure systems drive floods and heatwaves

International research finds these partial approaches both fail to deliver affordable insurance and fail to reduce the incidence of disasters.

The proposed pool won’t stop the vicious cycle. It could do so, but only if the government is willing to refashion it along the lines of a protection gap entity.

Meanwhile, the recovery from the Queensland and Northern NSW floods will be largely funded by the public purse, which is you and me – taxpayers.

What we won’t be getting is measures to ensure next time the recovery is better.

Paula Jarzabkowski receives funding for research into the evolving nature of terrorism risk from The Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation. She is also a member of the Expert Advisory Group for Pool Reinsurance Company UK; a Member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) High Level Advisory Board for the Financial Management of Catastrophic Risks; and has been Co-Chair of the Expert Advisory Group of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office, Centre for Global Disaster Protection

Corinne Unger receives funding for collaborative research on terrorism reinsurance with the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation (ARPC).

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

– ref. Victims of NSW and Queensland floods have lodged 60,000 claims, but too many are underinsured. Here’s a better way – https://theconversation.com/victims-of-nsw-and-queensland-floods-have-lodged-60-000-claims-but-too-many-are-underinsured-heres-a-better-way-178294

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

“It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future,” American baseball legend Yogi Berra once quipped. When it comes to predicting where the Australian economy is heading the task is made even trickier in the face of war in Europe and uncertainty about the global energy and other markets.

This week there was some good news. Australia’s economic growth (GDP) bounced back strongly in the last quarter of 2021, up 3.4%, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures.

This was a turnaround from the 1.9% decline in GDP in the September quarter.

Australian quarterly gross domestic product

It is often noted, however, that GDP is an imperfect measure – it doesn’t capture things such as unpaid work. It is also “backward-looking”.

The figures tell us what happened at the end of last year, at a time when what we would really like to know is what is going to happen this year, and beyond.

That said, they provide useful clues.

Splurge-based recovery

The 3.4% growth was generated almost entirely by consumer spending (3.2 percentage points) with the rest due to changes in inventories and trade.

Government spending made no contribution. Investment (both private and public) was actually a drag, knocking 0.3 and 0.1 percentage points off growth.

This isn’t all that surprising. After months of lockdowns in much of Australia, people wanted to spend.

In the September quarter household savings soared to 19.8% of income. In the December quarter they fell to 13.6% as people splurged on things they couldn’t spend on while they had been locked down.

Household final consumption expenditure

Spending on “accommodation and food services” jumped 26.1%. Personal and other services (such as haircuts and beauty treatments) grew 15.4%. Air transport expenditure rose a massive 56.5%, though, as economists say, it was was “strong growth off a low base”.

In other words, many people couldn’t get a haircut or go to a restaurant or fly in the third quarter of 2021. In the fourth quarter they could – and did.

This is reinforced by the fact the strongest ouput growth (6.7%) was in New South Wales, where the lockdown arguably bit the most mid-year.

State final demand, December quarter

Of course, Omicron hit hard in mid-December, but too late to have a big impact on the quarterly figures.

We will see more of Omicron’s impact in the numbers for the March quarter, due to be released after the May election.

On the plus side, households still have a large stock of savings compared with pre-pandemic levels.

The $424 billion consumer “war chest” Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has rightly been talking up puts us in a good position to spend, building a sustained recovery.

Household saving ratio

Can Australia’s spending-led-recovery continue in 2022? Perhaps, but there are reasons to be concerned.

The mechanical point is that the GDP figures for the December quarter are only impressive when you fail to remember they were bouncing back from a decline of 1.9% in the September quarter (so-called negative growth).

Read more:
Wednesday’s GDP numbers are impressive, but they are for the December quarter, when we were bouncing back from Delta

A less mechanical concern is that the world is now awash with uncertainty.

The largest European conflict since the second world war threatens to upend everything from peace and security to global supply chains and financial markets.

The Reserve Bank governor referred to “a major new source of uncertainty” after his board meeting on Tuesday.

Domestically, we still don’t know whether inflation is just returning to regular programming or getting away from us.

What’s ahead

Like many economists, I favour the former interpretation. Anyone who tells you they know for sure is delusional.

Aggressive wages claims, if successful, could be the genesis of a wage-price spiral, sending inflation systemically higher, but we don’t know.

The Reserve Bank is going to raise interest rates sooner rather than later.

It could be mid-year or delayed many months, but eventually rates will climb to align with the so-called “neutral rate of interest” – the level that keeps the economy on an even keel, with unemployment low and inflation stable.

Read more:
Why there’s no magic jobless rate to increase Australians’ wages

There is considerable uncertainty about what that rate is.

In the 1990s and early 2000s the Reserve Bank thought it was between 3% and 4%. Now it’s hard to dispute it is lower, but not as low as 0.1%, where rates are now. Either way, it suggests meaningful rate rises are coming.

All of these factors will feed into future rate rises – which will dent spending by Australia’s highly leveraged households.

In short, getting sustainable GDP growth back to the 3% plus it used to be will require more than just a consumer spending binge. It will require the hard work of productivity growth.

The budget looms

In 2021, for the first time, the federal budget set out four years of “forecasts” instead of two years of forecasts and two years of “projections”.

It has an important implication. It means this year’s budget will need to take a more formal and rigorous view about the next four years – in particular about the international environment in which Australia sits.

The budget is due in less than four weeks. The big question is what will be needed to drive the economy in the years ahead. It will require more than a rebound in restaurant meals and haircuts.

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

– ref. Vital Signs: Australia’s hairdressing-based economic recovery can’t last – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-australias-hairdressing-based-economic-recovery-cant-last-178327

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sheila Fitzpatrick, Professor of History at the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University

One interpretation of the name “Ukraine” is borderland. This needs to be taken seriously.

Borderlands are all about diversity and competing understandings of community and nation. They are always mixtures of people with different languages, religions and customs. Some will think of themselves as kin to the people on one side of the border; some look to the other side.

In Ukraine, the West (Europe) is one side of the border, the East (Russia) the other.

Among those in the eastern parts of Ukraine (Donetsk, Luhansk) who tend to look East are descendants of the Russian peasants, like the parents of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who around the turn of the 20th century came to work in the Donbass mines.

In borderlands like Ukraine, there are generally competing origin stories.

Ukrainians tell a story of the origins of the Ukrainian nation going back to 11th century Kyiv, surviving centuries of oppression by Russia and Poland, and, finally, emerging out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union as a sovereign Ukrainian state in 1991.

For the Russians, the various western and southern provinces now called “Ukraine” were populated by Slavic border people (Ukrainians) who were essentially Russian. They considered this land as a part of the Russian Empire for centuries.

The Australian press has been treating the Ukrainian origin story as “truth” and the Russian one as “lies,” but things are never that simple. Like all origin stories, both are a mixture of historical fact and political imagination.

Read more:
Saint Olga of Kyiv is Ukraine’s patron saint of both defiance and vengeance

A modern country

Ukraine’s modern history as an independent state amounted to a few tumultuous years of a shaky Ukrainian People’s Republic between the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 and the consolidation of the Soviet Union in 1920.

Ironically, its incorporation into the Soviet Union as one of its original constituent republics was an important milestone on the path to national sovereignty.

This incorporation established territorial boundaries, recognised Ukrainians as the republic’s titular nationality, and, for 70 years, offered the republic’s communist leaders a substantial degree of autonomy (increasing over time) in the internal government of their territory.

Post-Soviet Ukraine has built a national identity around the memory of Holodomor, the famine of the early 1930s which is seen by the current Ukraine state and some historians as a punishment Stalin intentionally visited upon Ukrainians.

There were undoubtedly black chapters in the history of Soviet Ukraine, as of the Soviet Union in general.

From the mid 1950s, the top official in Ukraine was always a Ukrainian, and Ukraine had its men in the party Politburo (the top Soviet policy-making body) and substantial influence in Soviet national affairs.

Nationalist and, ultimately, separatist feeling increased in Ukraine during Gorbachev’s perestroika (1985-91), but less than in the Baltic states or even the Caucasus.

As late as March 1991, 70% of the Ukrainian population voted to remain in the Union.

But by December the great majority of Ukrainians voted for independent sovereignty.

Kith and kin

In recent weeks, the depth and sincerity of the commitment to Western democracy, the repudiation of the Communist past and rejection of the Russian connection has been impressively demonstrated by the Ukrainian government and people.

Russians whose memories go back 30 or 40 years might see the Ukrainian situation differently.

This is not just a matter of one deluded autocrat (President Vladimir Putin) leading Russia into a deranged quest for aggrandisement. This is a story of the attitudes and assumptions of the majority of the Russian population, which up to now has supported Putin and (at least pre-invasion), his Ukrainian policy.

Read more:
Remembering the past, looking to the future: how the war in Ukraine is changing Europe

The appalling and tragic decision to invade Ukraine may have been Putin’s alone. Pre-invasion Russian opinion polls are an unreliable guide to the future. It is not clear if the younger post-Soviet generation – in particular, young men liable for military conscription – see Ukraine and its current Western orientation in the same way as their elders.

Putin’s past wars and acts of aggression on the international scene (Chechnya, Crimea) raised his popularity at home, but they were successful wars. So far, Russia’s Ukrainian adventure is not looking like a success.

In the case of Crimea (which, as all Russians know, was transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 on a whim of Khrushchev), this agression was essentially bloodless.

Chechnya was bloody, but the victims were not Slavs.

It remains to be seen how the Russian Army and Russians back home will feel about the killing of Ukrainians: Slavic kith and kin.

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

– ref. Ukraine as a ‘borderland’: a brief history of Ukraine’s place between Europe and Russia – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-as-a-borderland-a-brief-history-of-ukraines-place-between-europe-and-russia-178168

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

If Scott Morrison had contracted COVID two months ago, it would have been a big story. Instead, when the PM fell victim this week, it was also-ran news.

We are finally starting to “live with COVID”, as Morrison has insisted we should. Except in Western Australia, which opened its border this week, and faces a painful transition.

More significantly of course, the COVID story has been pushed aside by two massive events: Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the devastating floods in NSW and Queensland.

Both show, in their vastly different ways, how quickly and dramatically things can change, and consequently shift public attention, throwing a blanket over most else.

Each has highlighted, again so differently, the great courage of ordinary people. And they have put into perspective the smallness and the pettiness characterising much of our day-to-day politics.

We are only weeks from the formal start of the campaign for the May election. Yet we’re having a break in the national argument between the parties.

Or at least it’s been toned down. It goes beyond being drowned out. The major parties are either finding in their research, or intuiting, that people’s tolerance for their usual carry-on is limited in times like this, although the hiatus will be temporary.

The floods will feed into the on-the-ground issues in coming weeks in some areas. Stressed voters trying to get their lives back together will lay blame as the reconstruction begins.

The state governments will cop criticism but the Feds will be vulnerable too.

Morrison (with the lessons of the bushfire disaster in memory) has been anxious to get ahead of critics. On Thursday he convened a virtual roundtable to discuss supply chain and other issues (he tuned in from Kirribilli House); federal funds have been announced for NSW and money for Queensland will follow.

At the start of the week Newspoll, in which the opposition retained its 55-45% two-party lead, was a relief for Labor and a source of further worry for an embattled government. Most immediately, it suggested the Coalition had failed, at least for the moment, in its over-the-top attempt to wedge the opposition on China.

Both sides know the polls will narrow at some point. But the longer Labor can hold that off, the better for its momentum and the more the Coalition’s morale will be sapped.

One danger Labor will need to keep in mind is being caught on the hop as circumstances change. COVID-related government mistakes were fertile ground for the opposition as recently as January. Yet Labor’s strategists know that harking back to these, while tempting, is reaching into a bucket with a hole in it.

It’s always difficult to let go of issues as they pass their use-by date – for example, Labor in 2001 was out of time when campaigning on rolling back the GST on some items.

For its part, the government needs to get attention onto the economy, but it mightn’t have much opportunity until close to the March 29 budget.

Wednesday’s national accounts indicated a strong economic recovery in the December quarter, in a bounce back from last year’s lockdowns in Melbourne and Sydney. (The March quarter will reflect the Omicron hit but we won’t see that until after the election.) The numbers received limited coverage, squeezed by the dominant stories.

Read more:
Labor maintains 55-45% Newspoll lead despite elevation of ‘national security’ issues

The budget, the launch pad for the election, will be affected by both the floods and the Ukraine war, although the estimates of the extent of the impact will of necessity be rough. Apart from bringing direct costs, the floods will hit production. Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe this week drew attention to the uncertainty the war poses for the world economy.

Asked this week about the budget’s priorities, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg laid down some markers.

“Despite the very strong economic recovery that we’ve seen and the resilience, the recovery is not yet locked in,” he told his national accounts news conference. COVID was “still with us” and the international events showed the “downside risks”.

The government had been driving unemployment down – “we are on the verge of full employment” – and the budget would continue to invest in areas that helped create jobs. “So, there will be very significant infrastructure investment […] There will be very significant investment in our regions because they are going to be key to our economic growth.”

Frydenberg named the digital economy as “a major focus” for the government, as well as manufacturing. There’d be attention on skills and on “incentivising investment”, including in energy. National security will obviously be to the forefront, and he also mentioned health and education.

Budgets are full of pea-and-thimble tricks, so in some areas the question will be whether extra spending is real or illusory. But clearly budget repair will not be a priority at this point and there’ll be election “pork” to try to attract voters.

Frydenberg continues to dodge the question of whether the low and middle income tax offset, which costs nearly $8 billion, will be renewed. Despite the price tag, it would be a big call in an election budget not to continue it or have some equivalent.

This budget is not just important to the government’s chance of reviving from a low base, but many in the Liberal Party will also have an eye on the personal performance of Frydenberg, as a prospect for leader if the Coalition is defeated.

As he watched things from isolation at Kirribilli House, Morrison would have registered Anthony Albanese arriving in Perth as soon as the border opened on Wednesday night. Morrison is desperate to get to WA, where the Liberals fear for two or three of their seats.

The PM’s illness has been a sharp reminder of something that’s been preoccupying the parties. We might be “living with COVID” but it still has the ability to disrupt life mightily, including election campaigning.

Frustrated as he might be this week, Morrison may reckon he’s better off to have COVID now than in the campaign itself (assuming no return bout).

Albanese has dodged the virus but knows there are no guarantees it won’t strike him between now and election day. Imagine coming down with COVID in the second-last week of the campaign, say when there was supposed to be a face-to-face debate.

The parties are putting in place contingency plans but nothing is easy. With our “presidential” campaigns, there are no understudies for leaders.

In this era when many people have become fans of working from home, for a leader a week’s electioneering from the domestic office, perhaps while feeling crook, is as bad as campaign nightmares get.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Morrison’s COVID bout a reminder the virus could disrupt election campaign – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-morrisons-covid-bout-a-reminder-the-virus-could-disrupt-election-campaign-178427

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sabrina Pit, Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the University of Sydney, Honorary Adjunct Research Fellow, Western Sydney University

I’m writing this from the flooded far north coast of New South Wales, where all around me people are contending with the awful and unexpected consequences of a catastrophic flood.

I have worked in rural health for a long time and this has been the worst I have experienced it. It is well established that those living in flood-prone areas often already have more financial and health issues than others.

Among those consequences is the need to manage medicines safely, and sometimes urgently find and acquire medicines you need to stay alive and healthy or keep pain at manageable levels.

The far north coast has a high population of older people, many of whom need daily medicines such as insulin to survive.

While I was picking up medicines for a family member this morning, another older person turned up at the pharmacy with a script. She was running out of her medicine today but the pharmacy did not have the required medicines left. She continued her hunt for medicines at the last pharmacy in the area we have access to.

These are just some of the challenges people face when it comes to medicines in a disaster zone.

From ordinary errand to a life or death challenge

A week ago, if you needed to top up your medicine supplies, you could pop down to the local chemist. The script would be filled, and supplies plentiful. It would be an easy trip.

Today during floods, an errand like that means confronting challenges such as:

• many chemists being underwater or badly flooded

• the chemists that are open are contending with a surge of demand as people flock there to buy medicines

• power is down in many places, meaning online systems for managing scripts are impossible to access and fridges used to store medicines such as insulin at home are not working

• phone and internet is down or patchy in many places

• petrol is very hard to get and running out, so many people cannot drive to the chemist

• many people have lost their cars too or have water damaged cars

• some people cannot leave home due to landslides or floodwaters

• roads are being cut off and supply lines disrupted because the highway is blocked off

• getting a new script is not as easy as heading to the doctor’s office; some GPs are also flooded in, their practices inundated or not-operational and many are unable to get to work and/or stuck without power, phone or internet.

These challenges are not unique to our area nor are they unique to floods. People who have survived bushfires and other disasters have faced similar issues.

But with disasters predicted to become more frequent and more intense as the climate changes, it does raise the question what systems we can put in place to deal with these challenges in future without putting people at risk.

What can be done?

Firstly, if you are in an emergency, please contact the SES on 132 500.

When preparing your evacuation plan, ensure you have a list of all your medicines, care plans, scripts, Medicare and other health-care cards details and other important medical information ready.

If an evacuation warning is out for your area, ensure all your information and medicines are packed. Store medicines that need to remain cold in an esky with ice bricks, so you are ready when you need to evacuate. The esky is important; power may not be available for a while when you leave home.

Several apps are available to help in preparing for a disaster and taking your medicines safely, such as the Red Cross’ RediPlan emergency survival plan or the MedicineWise app.

If you know a flood is heading your way, it’s also handy to have extra cash at hand. During this flood disaster, electronic payment systems were not working in many places in the Northern Rivers. Having some cash can further reduce already very stressful circumstances.

If you’re flood-affected, in need of medicines and can get yourself to a pharmacy, it may be OK even if you have lost your scripts in the floods. The pharmacist may be able to call the GP on their mobile.

If you have internet access, use social media to see if others can help with transport or delivery of medicines. Many people feel powerless during disasters and will be keen to help.

And there may be some strictly limited circumstances under which a pharmacist can provide a small emergency supply of certain medicines without a script.

According to Queensland Health:

In an emergency situation where you are not able to reach a community pharmacy, your GP’s prescription can be filled by a Queensland Health public hospital pharmacy. However, please be aware that hospitals may not stock the full range of medicines prescribed by your GP, as the needs of hospital and community patients are different.

You can use My Health Record to get certain key details on your medicines and health details, if you’ve got internet access.

After the floods, it is important to look at replacing medicines that have been in contact with flood water or other contaminated water. This includes pills, liquids, injections, inhalers or creams. Contact your doctor or pharmacist as soon as possible and organise replacement medications.

You can also contact the NPS Medicines Line 1300 MEDICINE (1300
633 424) or the healthdirect helpline (1800 022 222 or Nurse on Call in Victoria) if you are unsure or have questions about your medicines.

More broadly, access to medicines during a natural disaster is complex, and we need to continue strong partnerships and collaboration between organisations to ensure access during disasters.

Having a good spread of chemists around different parts of a town or rural areas helps boost the chances that even if some are hit by disasters, others are able to operate and provide people with medicines (which is what we have seen in the 2022 floods in some areas).

Privately owned and hospital-run helicopters have been used to get medicines to residents in flood-affected areas of Brisbane; ensuring disaster-prone regions have the infrastructure and machines needed for this kind of help is important.

COVID forced us to think creatively about delivering medical supplies to people who need them but are unable to visit a pharmacy. This shows what’s possible when needs must be met.

Thinking carefully about people’s health during and after disaster is crucial to building disaster resilience. Ensuring uninterrupted supplies, extra support for vulnerable people and access to medicines is a core part of that goal.

Sabrina Pit has received funding in the past from NHMRC.

– ref. Getting urgent medicines in a flood zone can be a life or death challenge – https://theconversation.com/getting-urgent-medicines-in-a-flood-zone-can-be-a-life-or-death-challenge-178300

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Turton, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, CQUniversity Australia

Climate change – fuelled by increasing greenhouse gases – is causing more extreme weather events worldwide.

Many of these events, such as the “rain bomb” inundating Australia’s east coast and the recent heatwave in Western Australia, are associated with “stalled” weather systems.

Normally, Australia’s weather systems are driven from west to east by jet streams: narrow bands of fast-flowing air high up in the troposphere, the lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere.

But when weather systems stall in a particular place, usually because of “blocking” high-pressure systems that stop them moving on, they can produce devastating extended periods of heat, cold or rain. As the climate continues to change, these stalled weather systems are expected to get bigger.

Stalled weather systems

Blocking systems are persistent high-pressure systems combined with one or two low-pressure systems.

High-pressure systems (where air pressure is relatively high) are associated with clear and dry weather, while low-pressure systems are associated with rising air, cloudiness and rain

Blocking tends to be less persistent in the southern hemisphere than the northern as the westerly jet streams are stronger.

Blocking highs are mostly associated with a region of low pressure to the north of the system. Together, the two systems work against each other to effectively “stall” the weather.

Depending on where they occur, blocking systems may cause consistent heatwaves, cold spells, floods and dry spells. They are often associated with record-breaking weather events and human deaths – for example, the deadly heatwaves in France in 2003 and Russia in 2010.

In 2021, persistent blocking systems were responsible for the North America cold wave in February and the record-shattering Western North America heatwave in June and July. The latter event caused some of the highest temperatures ever recorded in the region, including the highest temperature ever measured in Canada at 49.6℃.

Slowing jet streams

Blocking events in the northern hemisphere are often associated with slowing or meandering jet streams. This occurs when the polar vortex – a large region of low pressure and cold air around the pole – breaks down.

While the exact mechanisms driving the slowing of mid-latitude jet streams is debated, the consensus attributes it to “Arctic amplification”.

The Arctic region is currently warming two to three times faster than the rest of the world. This different rate of atmospheric warming between the Arctic and tropics results in a weaker atmospheric pressure gradient and slows down the jet streams.

Stalled weather in Australia

Blocking highs in the Australian region usually occur in the Great Australian Bight and the Tasman Sea. These strong high-pressure systems typically form further south than usual.

These highs remain almost stationary for an extended period, blocking the normal easterly progression of weather systems across southern Australia. They can occur at any time of year, and usually stay in the Australian region for several days to several weeks.

A prolonged blocking high in the south Tasman Sea in January and February 2019 caused record heatwaves for many inland towns in Australia. Adelaide recorded the hottest day for any Australian capital city (46.6℃) on January 24.

The same blocking high prevented the movement of a deep monsoon low in North Queensland, resulting in the equivalent of a year’s rain in a week over the Townsville area in early February 2019.

The rain bomb

In late February 2022, a stalled weather system caused heavy rain and flooding over large parts of Southeast Queensland and Northern NSW. A stubborn blocking high near New Zealand prevented it moving away to the east.

A region of low pressure in the upper atmosphere became cut off from the westerly air current further south, creating a trough of low pressure at surface level. This created the perfect mix of upper and surface atmospheric conditions for what has been called a “rain bomb” or a “river in the sky”.

Read more:
Like rivers in the sky: the weather system bringing floods to Queensland will become more likely under climate change

The rain bomb caused extensive major flooding.

Brisbane, the country’s third-largest city, smashed its three-day record with 677mm of rain. Over four days, the city recorded 741mm – almost three-quarters of its annual average rainfall!

The city endured flooding similar to the disastrous 2011 floods. More than 15,000 homes are estimated to have been inundated in Brisbane by the current event.

Read more:
‘One of the most extreme disasters in colonial Australian history’: climate scientists on the floods and our future risk

The Brisbane River peaked at 3.85 metres, below the 4.46 metres experienced in 2011. However, the two flood events are very different, and some suburbs experienced worse flooding than in 2011.

Gympie, north of Brisbane, and Lismore in northern NSW experienced catastrophic flooding of their central business districts. Gympie has endured its worst flood in 120 years and Lismore its highest ever recorded flood level, smashing the previous record by about 2 metres.

Future events

Recent research has shown extremely high rainfall, and flooding events, will become more likely as the atmosphere and oceans warm under climate change.

What does this mean for the future? Can we expect more rain bomb events? Will we continue to witness more rainfall and flood level records in Australia and globally?

The answer to all these questions is yes, and rising greenhouse gases and warming of the atmosphere and oceans are to blame.

The rise in average global temperatures has driven more extreme rainfall events since the 1950s. Australian land areas have warmed about 1.4℃ since 1910.

Read more:
Global evidence links rise in extreme precipitation to human-driven climate change

A warmer atmosphere can hold more water. For every 1℃ of extra warming, about 7% more water can be saved as water vapour. Given the right atmospheric triggers, vast amounts of stored water can be released as heavy rainfall over unsuspecting human communities.

The jury is out regarding the effects of global warming on high-pressure blocking systems.

Currently, climate models tend to underestimate both the frequency and duration of blocking events. Scientists continue to grapple with this problem in their models, and it forms the basis of ongoing research.

However, one study found climate change will increase the size of stalled high-pressure weather systems in the northern hemisphere by as much as 17% this century.

In the case of an extensive high-pressure system, this will cause impacts such as heat and cold waves over larger geographical areas, affecting more people.

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

– ref. Stalled weather: how stuck air pressure systems drive floods and heatwaves – https://theconversation.com/stalled-weather-how-stuck-air-pressure-systems-drive-floods-and-heatwaves-178157

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alasdair Macintyre, Associate lecturer visual arts, artist, PhD candidate, Australian Catholic University

“Nice outfit” said an approving Jack Nicholson to the caped crusader in Tim Burton’s 1989 movie version of Batman, resplendent in menacing black rubber with bulging pecs, a six pack and very pointy ears.

This is the first of Batman’s many batsuits that visitors see upon entering the Gold Coast equivalent to Bruce Wayne’s bat cave, Movie World’s showcase exhibition Batman Legacy. The Dark Knight mannequin stands resolutely, fists coiled by his side, posed ready to leap into one of the nearby batmobiles.

The exhibition is billed by the theme park as the “largest official Batman exhibition in the Southern Hemisphere”, encompassing multiple bat suits, vehicles, movie props and costumes from the cinematic Batman franchise from 1989 to 2017.

Having been first introduced to readers through comic books in 1939, there would be very few of us around who wouldn’t remember a time when this superhero was a massive part of popular culture – and as the years have gone by, the caped crusader has adapted to suit the era he is in. This is exemplified through the changing nature of his costumes – from grim-dark leather, to bat-nipples to bespoke-emo.

Simple fabric and pantomine aesthetic

Batman made his debut on March 29 in issue 27 of Detective Comics and his immediate popularity saw his first cinematic depiction in a low-budget serial in 1943, followed by a longer series in 1949. In these early depictions Batman’s suit was a simple fabric costume with a pantomime aesthetic filled by burly actors, ill-fitting for the most part.

This remained the case through to Adam West’s caped crusader in the 1960s, when the character was portrayed on screen in full colour for the first time. This depiction of Batman in light grey and blue was very true to the batsuit as seen in the parallel comic series of the era, including the chest-mounted bat-symbol enclosed in a yellow ellipse, which was heavily armoured and sought to act as a target for gunfire (rather than the superhero’s head).

For several generations of fans, West became the established look of the caped crusader.

The dark knight

When Tim Burton’s Batman emerged blacker-than-black in 1989, the aesthetic reflected the darker direction of The Dark Knight Returns comic series earlier that decade.

The casting of Michael Keaton as the titular Batman raised some controversy at the time, as the comedic actor’s slight build didn’t reflect the established muscular look of Bruce Wayne/Batman.

This was resolved with Keaton’s bravura performance and his bat suit (and all subsequent suits) which had external stylised muscles incorporated into it – transforming Keaton into a much more formidable figure. The actor had to endure adding 40 rubbery kilograms to his overall bodyweight, the cape alone weighing in at 18 kg.

External nipples

Although his initial film did well at the box office, Tim Burton’s grim Batman Returns (1993) did not reach the same heights, leading to Joel Schumacher taking charge as director.

Batman Forever (1995) had a more colourful and lighter touch, reflected in Jim Carrey’s sparkly Riddler onesy style jumpsuit, and Tommy Lee-Jones Two-Face fuschia dominated outfit.

Batman Forever also saw the introduction of Robin, with both he and Batman (now played by Val Kilmer) sporting highly stylised suits that further accentuated musculature, with the added addition of external nipples.

The infamous bat-nipples even led to accusations that the openly gay Schumacher was furnishing the superheroes with homoerotic motifs. The director rejected this, stating he was trying to bring the feeling of classical antiquity to the costumes. Co-creator of Batman, Bob Kane was also unimpressed, as Jim Carey recalled hearing him say “I never put nipples on a Batsuit. Whoever heard of nipples on the Batsuit?”.

The final film of the series was Batman and Robin (1997), which was panned by contemporary critics (particularly for multiple glistening chest and butt close-ups in the film) as was the performance of new Batman actor George Clooney, who was later to say that he “killed the franchise”.

By now Batman and Robin superhero’s suits had evolved to resemble life-sized over-stylised glossy plastic action figures, and much of the criticism levelled at the film dealt with the aggressive marketing of the toys associated with it.

Read more:
The Joker’s origin story comes at a perfect moment: clowns define our times

Muscles and reboot

The 2005 rebooted series directed by Christopher Nolan saw method-driven actor Christian Bale physically transform himself into a bulked up Bruce Wayne, reflecting the original comic look of the muscled millionaire – but also mirroring the swathe of men’s health magazines and websites that promoted male body-building in the new century.

In parallel franchises of the 2000’s, Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig and Robert Downey Jr. all similarly buffed up to portray their respective characters Wolverine, James Bond and Ironman.

The heavily fabricated Batsuit reached something of an apotheosis in Batman vs. Superman (2016) and Justice League (2017) where Ben Affleck’s Batman’s popping veins and bulging sinews strain against the fabric. Described as “monstrous”, the suit is heavy, menacing, and unforgiving – with Batman’s maxed-out physical perfection closely resembling his appearance in the 2010’s Arkham series of video games.

Batman today

While not featured in the Batman Legacy exhibition, Robert Pattinson’s new iteration of the caped crusader in The Batman (2022) sees a less bulky muscle tone.

The suit is simplified to angular motifs, the mask and cowl sporting a certain hand-stitched bespoke look, while both the Riddler’s army surplus garb and the Penguin’s gangster chic are much understated, marking a full departure from the Burton/Schumacher films.

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

– ref. From dark knight to bat-nipples: the evolution of the Batman costume – https://theconversation.com/from-dark-knight-to-bat-nipples-the-evolution-of-the-batman-costume-177827

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor and Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney

The extreme weather and flooding in recent days is likely to boost mosquito numbers, even as we say goodbye to summer.

Like all insects, mosquitoes thrive in warm conditions. Water is also critical for the mosquito’s life cycle, as they lay eggs in and around water. More water generally means more mosquitoes.

Disease caused by mosquito-borne viruses can be potentially severe. These include:

• Ross River virus, which causes fever, chills, headache, muscle and joint pain and fatigue. It’s not fatal but it can be debilitating, and is the most commonly reported mosquito-borne disease in Australia

• Barmah Forest virus is also common and causes fever, rash and sore joints

• flaviviruses, including West Nile (Kunjin), Murray Valley encephalitis and Japanese encephalitis virus are extremely rare but can cause severe brain infection and death, in a small proportion of cases.

Health authorities will be closely monitoring flood-affected regions for these diseases.

While mosquito populations peak in summer, even without floods, these diseases generally peak in March and April. That’s because it takes time for the viruses to spread by mosquitoes among the local wildlife, such as water birds and native mammals, before spilling over into humans.

It’s too early to say what impact the floods will have on disease case numbers but it’s best to be prepared.

Read more:
La Niña will give us a wet summer. That’s great weather for mozzies

What happened after previous floods?

Major floods have triggered historically significant outbreaks of mosquito-borne disease in Australia.

Most notable was the outbreak of Murray Valley encephalitis virus in the 1970s. While authorities have been mindful of disease risk associated with flooding ever since, we’ve been spared a significant return of this virus.

Not so for Ross River virus.

In 2014-15, above average rainfall is thought to have provided habitat for freshwater mosquito populations that contributed to the major outbreak of Ross River virus in northern NSW and southeastern Queensland.

Flooding across Victoria over the 2016-2017 summer produced exceptional increases in mosquitoes. This resulted in the state’s largest outbreak of Ross River virus, with almost five times as many cases as the long-term average.

Following the exceptional rainfall that broke the East coast bushfire-swept summer of 2019-2020, NSW experienced its biggest outbreak of Ross River virus on record.

But more mosquitoes don’t always mean more disease.

Sometimes after floods, there is just too much water. It washes away any mosquito already present in the wetlands and displaces the animal hosts of viruses.

It may take some time for mosquitoes to move back in and build up their populations in the stagnant water left behind by the floods.

Read more:
Drinking water can be a dangerous cocktail for people in flood areas

What are health authorities on the look-out for?

Extreme weather events, such as the record-breaking floods we’re currently seeing, may cause more frequent and intense outbreaks of Ross River virus.

But it’s the potential to see the resurgence of more serious local mosquito-borne diseases – such as those caused by Murray Valley encephalitis virus – which has authorities most concerned because it causes more severe disease.

Read more:
Is climate change to blame for outbreaks of mosquito-borne disease?

The recent detection of Japanese encephalitis virus for the first time in southeastern Australia has shocked many, even those who have studied mosquito-borne diseases for decades. The discovery has health authorities on alert given the seriousness of the disease this virus causes.

While La Niña has played a role in new disease emergence, that may also quickly change. If a return to El Niño-dominated weather patterns brings back drought, that would see those wildlife and mosquito populations disappear.

‘Mozzie proof’ your property and family as floodwaters recede

Massive clean-ups will be required in coming weeks. That means long hours outside and much work done to make homes safe and secure again.

There isn’t much you can do to stop mozzies flying into your backyard from nearby flooded bushland and wetland areas.

Insecticide spraying may provide some relief but it is a short-term fix. As many commonly used products are not specific to mosquitoes, beneficial insects may also be killed if not used with caution.

Repairing, replacing, or installing insect screens on windows and doors can provide a physical barrier to mosquitoes seeking to fly inside your home.

Mosquito nets can also be a quickly deployed protection measure.

In your backyard, clean up as much debris as is safe to do so. Water-holding containers will quickly become a home to mosquitoes.

Gutters, drains and rainwater tanks can also be home to mosquitoes, so clean out and screen where possible.

Mosquito repellent may be your best friend over coming weeks. There is a range of formulations available from your supermarket, pharmacy or camping store. Choose a product that contains diethyltolumide, picaridin, or oil of lemon eucalyptus as these products will provide the best protection.

To get the most out of your repellent, ensure you have an even coat on all exposed areas of skin.

There are some alternatives to topical insect repellents, such as mosquito coils and other devices, but they can be limited in the protection provided.

Insecticide-treated clothing may also assist in beating the bites.

Read more:
Insect repellents work – but there are other ways to beat mosquitoes without getting sticky

Cameron Webb and the Department of Medical Entomology, NSW Health Pathology, have been engaged by a wide range of insect repellent and insecticide manufacturers to provide testing of products and provide expert advice on mosquito biology. Cameron has also received funding from local, state and federal agencies to undertake research into mosquito-borne disease surveillance and management.

– ref. How to mozzie-proof your property after a flood and cut your risk of mosquito-borne disease – https://theconversation.com/how-to-mozzie-proof-your-property-after-a-flood-and-cut-your-risk-of-mosquito-borne-disease-178299

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Cook, Lecturer in History, University of the Sunshine Coast

As the floodwaters rose in Southeast Queensland last week, my phone buzzed with texts from friends. We compared this event with the last catastrophic flood of 2011 and tried to calculate whether our homes would be affected this time. I live in Ipswich, not far from the now-flooded Bremer River.

I’m also an expert in the history of natural disasters, including flooding in Brisbane. I watched with interest as social media struggled to keep up with continuous updates on flood levels and photos of rapidly rising water. News reports also made constant references to the 2011 Brisbane floods.

This time, the floodwaters stopped at 3.85 metres at the Brisbane gauge in the central business district – less than the 4.46m peak in 2011. Many homes flooded this year that didn’t flood in 2011 – notably in the northern suburbs of Ashgrove, Windsor and The Gap. Meanwhile, homes in the western suburb of Bellbowrie flooded in 2011 but escaped this time. But why?

As hydrologists will tell you, no two floods are the same. The water may follow familiar paths, but natural and human factors alter flood behaviour each time.

How the rain falls

Rainfall intensity is a key factor in determining the extent of “runoff” – water that flows over the ground rather than soaking in. Heavy rain falling in one hour has a much greater runoff ratio than if the same amount falls over a week.

For example, in January 1974, 872mm of rain fell in Brisbane – including 314mm on one day, January 26. A flood reached 5.45m at the Brisbane gauge.

Last month’s rain was similarly unrelenting, when 611.6mm fell between February 25 and 27. For perspective, Brisbane’s annual rainfall is 1,149mm. That intensity and volume of rain in one weekend meant flooding was inevitable but very hard to predict.

Where the rain falls also matters. In 2011, heavy rain fell upstream of Wivenhoe Dam. But in 2022 vast quantities fell downstream of the dam, including on the Bremer River and Lockyer Creek, where there are few flood-mitigation structures to manage the extra water.

The adequacy of stormwater infrastructure, such as gutters, drains and pipes that carry water away, also influences the extent of flooding.

Across Southeast Queensland, many local stormwater systems could not cope with the heavy rain, causing overland flow that flooded houses. The problem was particularly acute in some suburbs that received about a metre of rain over three days.

Read more:
‘One of the most extreme disasters in colonial Australian history’: climate scientists on the floods and our future risk

What’s happening in the river catchment?

People have compared this year’s Brisbane floods with 2011, but they are in fact more similar to the 1974 floods.

The Brisbane River catchment is a complex network. It comprises three rivers – the Stanley, Brisbane and Bremer – and many creeks, the largest of which is Lockyer Creek. Heavy rain can cause any, or all, of these rivers and creeks to flood.

In 2011, rivers were the biggest cause of the floods. But this year, while Ipswich and Brisbane experienced river flooding, suburban creeks caused the most extreme flooding, just as they did in 1974. This was because rain fell heavily throughout the entire catchment, filling even the smallest watercourses.

For example, Ithaca Creek last month flooded the suburb of Ashgrove for the first time since 1974. Kedron Brook flooded Windsor and The Grange, which were left dry in 2011.

And rain filled the Enoggera Reservoir to more than double its capacity, overfilling the Fish and Ithaca creeks and flooding the suburb of The Gap.

Read more:
After the floods comes the disaster of underinsurance: we need a better plan

Humans affect floods, too

Humans can significantly influence the extent of floods. Every time a tree is felled, wetland drained or land developed, the local flood risk is potentially heightened.

Housing estates are built densely – small subdivisions occupied by large houses. And homes are constructed on slabs, rather than elevated to allow water to pass underneath.

Soil and vegetation can absorb water and slow the rate of flooding. But impermeable surfaces such as roads, footpaths and carparks increase surface runoff.

Bridges, ferry terminals and pontoons intrude on waterways, made worse by debris that becomes entangled. Buildings, railway embankments and roads can block waterways, effectively creating dams.

Read more:
IPCC report: Coastal cities are sentinels for climate change. It’s where our focus should be as we prepare for inevitable impacts

Learning from history

History can help us measure the likelihood of flooding and prompt us to prepare, but it’s not that simple. Past experience can also confuse and reduce the perception of risk.

Increasing public awareness is important in mitigating flood risks, as is individual responsibility. But planning authorities must also make hard decisions.

Developers have been allowed to increase the urban footprint and density throughout southeast Queensland. This has created more hard, impermeable surfaces and replaced absorbent green spaces, increasing the likelihood of flooding.

This comes as climate change is predicted to increase the frequency and intensity of floods, and make flood predictions more difficult.

We can’t directly control the rain, but we can change how we respond to future flood hazards.

Margaret Cook is the author of A River with a City Problem: A History of Brisbane Floods.

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

– ref. Why water inundates a home during one flood but spares it the next – https://theconversation.com/why-water-inundates-a-home-during-one-flood-but-spares-it-the-next-178163

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Cook, Lecturer in History, University of the Sunshine Coast

As the floodwaters rose in Southeast Queensland last week, my phone buzzed with texts from friends. We compared this event with the last catastrophic flood of 2011 and tried to calculate whether our homes would be affected this time. I live in Ipswich, not far from the now-flooded Bremer River.

I’m also an expert in the history of natural disasters, including flooding in Brisbane. I watched with interest as social media struggled to keep up with continuous updates on flood levels and photos of rapidly rising water. News reports also made constant references to the 2011 Brisbane floods.

This time, the floodwaters stopped at 3.85 metres at the Brisbane gauge in the central business district – less than the 4.46m peak in 2011. Many homes flooded this year that didn’t flood in 2011 – notably in the northern suburbs of Ashgrove, Windsor and The Gap. Meanwhile, homes in the western suburb of Bellbowrie flooded in 2011 but escaped this time. But why?

As hydrologists will tell you, no two floods are the same. The water may follow familiar paths, but natural and human factors alter flood behaviour each time.

How the rain falls

Rainfall intensity is a key factor in determining the extent of “runoff” – water that flows over the ground rather than soaking in. Heavy rain falling in one hour has a much greater runoff ratio than if the same amount falls over a week.

For example, in January 1974, 872mm of rain fell in Brisbane – including 314mm on one day, January 26. A flood reached 5.45m at the Brisbane gauge.

Last month’s rain was similarly unrelenting, when 611.6mm fell between February 25 and 27. For perspective, Brisbane’s annual rainfall is 1,149mm. That intensity and volume of rain in one weekend meant flooding was inevitable but very hard to predict.

Where the rain falls also matters. In 2011, heavy rain fell upstream of Wivenhoe Dam. But in 2022 vast quantities fell downstream of the dam, including on the Bremer River and Lockyer Creek, where there are few flood-mitigation structures to manage the extra water.

The adequacy of stormwater infrastructure, such as gutters, drains and pipes that carry water away, also influences the extent of flooding.

Across Southeast Queensland, many local stormwater systems could not cope with the heavy rain, causing overland flow that flooded houses. The problem was particularly acute in some suburbs that received about a metre of rain over three days.

Read more:
‘One of the most extreme disasters in colonial Australian history’: climate scientists on the floods and our future risk

What’s happening in the river catchment?

People have compared this year’s Brisbane floods with 2011, but they are in fact more similar to the 1974 floods.

The Brisbane River catchment is a complex network. It comprises three rivers – the Stanley, Brisbane and Bremer – and many creeks, the largest of which is Lockyer Creek. Heavy rain can cause any, or all, of these rivers and creeks to flood.

In 2011, rivers were the biggest cause of the floods. But this year, while Ipswich and Brisbane experienced river flooding, suburban creeks caused the most extreme flooding, just as they did in 1974. This was because rain fell heavily throughout the entire catchment, filling even the smallest watercourses.

For example, Ithaca Creek last month flooded the suburb of Ashgrove for the first time since 1974. Kedron Brook flooded Windsor and The Grange, which were left dry in 2011.

And rain filled the Enoggera Reservoir to more than double its capacity, overfilling the Fish and Ithaca creeks and flooding the suburb of The Gap.

Read more:
After the floods comes the disaster of underinsurance: we need a better plan

Humans affect floods, too

Humans can significantly influence the extent of floods. Every time a tree is felled, wetland drained or land developed, the local flood risk is potentially heightened.

Housing estates are built densely – small subdivisions occupied by large houses. And homes are constructed on slabs, rather than elevated to allow water to pass underneath.

Soil and vegetation can absorb water and slow the rate of flooding. But impermeable surfaces such as roads, footpaths and carparks increase surface runoff.

Bridges, ferry terminals and pontoons intrude on waterways, made worse by debris that becomes entangled. Buildings, railway embankments and roads can block waterways, effectively creating dams.

Read more:
IPCC report: Coastal cities are sentinels for climate change. It’s where our focus should be as we prepare for inevitable impacts

Learning from history

History can help us measure the likelihood of flooding and prompt us to prepare, but it’s not that simple. Past experience can also confuse and reduce the perception of risk.

Increasing public awareness is important in mitigating flood risks, as is individual responsibility. But planning authorities must also make hard decisions.

Developers have been allowed to increase the urban footprint and density throughout southeast Queensland. This has created more hard, impermeable surfaces and replaced absorbent green spaces, increasing the likelihood of flooding.

This comes as climate change is predicted to increase the frequency and intensity of floods, and make flood predictions more difficult.

We can’t directly control the rain, but we can change how we respond to future flood hazards.

Margaret Cook is the author of A River with a City Problem: A History of Brisbane Floods.

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

– ref. Why water submerges a home during one flood but spares it the next – https://theconversation.com/why-water-submerges-a-home-during-one-flood-but-spares-it-the-next-178163

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Layton, Visiting Fellow Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

There’s a problem with Australia’s brand new fighter jet – it’s just not that reliable. As a result, it flies about 25% less than it should. Less flying means fewer well-trained pilots, but it also hints at other problems lurking in the background.

Everybody who buys a house or apartment off the plan knows there may be some surprises along the way. Australia’s fighter jets are the same.

Why Australia bought these jets

Australia committed to its new F-35 fighters off the plan in 2002. At the time, the F-35 was still a twinkle in the eyes of Lockheed Martin’s marketers. The US and several European countries had commissioned the aerospace company to design, build and manufacture the F-35, with the first step being a prototype.

Australia’s plan was to buy four squadrons – about 72 jets in total – at a cost of around A$16 billion. The F-35 was intended to replace the air force’s ageing Hornet fighters and F-111 bombers. And back in 2002, when Middle East wars were raging, a short-range stealth fighter seemed more than adequate.

But by 2010, with China firmly on the rise, it became apparent this was a poor strategy. In retrospect, a key error was looking at the F-35 simply as a replacement aircraft without first assessing the changing strategic environment. But by then, too much money had been sunk into the F-35 program to change course.

Then, the F-35 development ran late, and the first tranches of Australia’s fleet weren’t ready to be deployed on operations until December 2020.

Escalating problems

Building the aircraft proved harder than anticipated and this inexorably fed into higher costs.

Much of the money that should have been spent on building the maintenance support system went into trying to fix the aircraft’s continuing hardware and software problems. Accordingly, there are now fewer depots to fix broken parts and fewer spare parts than there should be.

Little of this is in Australia’s control. America’s global support solution (GSS) is used to keeping Australia’s F-35 fleet flying. The GSS manages spare parts, maintenance, supply chain support, training systems and engineering. But the program is new, creating problems both now and into the next decade.

Read more:
What do we need of a military fighter aircraft?

There was a second compounding problem arising from the drawn-out development process: the F-35 jets were constructed at different times over the past ten years in seven different configurations. Think about the maintenance staff having to repair individual aircraft in a large fleet with no single standard configuration. Every repair is an adventure – and a learning experience.

The configuration complexity, insufficient spare parts and slow spare part repair times mean there are fewer serviceable aircraft on the flight line now than was expected even a couple of years ago.

In 2019, the Department of Defence estimated the F-35 fleet would fly 11,800 hours in the fiscal year 2021-22. The real figure, however, is 3,000 hours below that.

In simple terms, Australia is short the flying hours needed to keep a squadron’s worth of pilots combat ready. This is very worrying, as Australia only has three operational F-35 squadrons in total.

Continuous upgrades at tremendous cost

A perfect solution to this is probably not possible. For example, the two F-35 aircraft Australia bought in 2013 for more than A$280 million are now arguably too old to be upgraded to the current configuration. In terms of flying combat missions, these two aircraft are obsolete.

The US Air Force frets its similarly old F-35s are now just crushingly expensive training aircraft.

Most of Australia’s fleet is planned to be upgraded to be broadly similar to the US fleet, although this will cost even more money. It may seem strange to have to pay extra to upgrade a brand new aircraft on delivery, but that’s not the end of the problems. There is another complication.

Australia’s latest F-35s (as well as the upgraded older ones) use the Block 3F software, a digital operating system designed by Lockheed Martin. It is proving to be just as costly to keep updated as the jets themselves.

Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the US Air Force’s deputy chief of staff, has serious concerns about the outdated software, saying last year,

the block that is coming off the line right now is not a block that I feel good about going up against China and Russia.

He noted recent war games focused on the prospect of defending Taiwan from Chinese air attack showed

Every [F-35] that rolls off the line today is a fighter that we wouldn’t even bother putting into these scenarios.

This means Australia’s F-35s appear not to be as good as the potential opposition. It seems Australia is paying to lose the air combat battle.

The only solution: another upgrade

So, what is the solution to these seemingly intractable and eye-wateringly expensive problems?

Lockheed Martin is advocating a major operating system software upgrade: the Block 4. It might not be surprising to hear this is now running years late, with delivery expected in 2027 or later. It is also significantly over budget.

In a small piece of good news, the last nine F-35 aircraft Australia will get off the production line next year, and may be partly Block 4 compatible. Hinote thinks these F-35s might be capable of fighting against first-rate adversaries.

Read more:
With China-US tensions on the rise, does Australia need a new defence strategy?

The bad news is the full Block 4 upgrade now requires a major engine upgrade or even a new engine. So, this means Australia’s current F-35 fleet might not be able to use all the Block 4 software until after 2030 – and at a substantial cost.

Buying another hugely expensive upgrade for a brand new fighter is actually the cheap way out. The US Air Force’s focus is already shifting to the Block 4 upgraded aircraft. Countries like ours with older F-35s will be left to fend for ourselves if we don’t embrace the new technology, as well.

But the costs do keeping going up, and the problems with these F-35 jets haven’t seemed to stop. It’s the price of buying off the plan, which anyone who’s bought a house or apartment would surely know.

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

– ref. Australia spent billions on jet fighters off the plan. Now, we’re having trouble even flying them – https://theconversation.com/australia-spent-billions-on-jet-fighters-off-the-plan-now-were-having-trouble-even-flying-them-177156

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Hamilton, Visiting Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

It was only on Sunday that I wrote about the radical escalation in the economic and financial side of the war between Russia and Ukraine.

That was before the financial markets opened on Monday, and before Russia had a chance to respond.

But even by then – early Sunday morning Moscow time – enormous lines had begun to form at Russian automatic teller machines with many running dry, and reports had begun to emerge of Russians swarming luxury retailers to swap their rubles for anything that might retain its value.

These were the beginnings of what is sure to be the most significant financial crisis in Russia since the 1998 Russian financial crisis which brought it to its knees.

So damaged was the Russian economy following that event that the Russian government would eventually ask the International Monetary Fund for food aid.

1998 on steroids

The 1998 crisis triggered massive capital flight, a sharp devaluation of the ruble, default on public debt, hyperinflation, and a huge increase in interest rates.

It was devastating, and left Russia’s global financial reputation in tatters.

The parallels in the last few days have been striking. When foreign markets opened on Monday, the ruble immediately fell more than 30% to record lows after foreigners began desperately selling out of Russia.

Read more:
‘Just short of nuclear’: these latest financial sanctions will cripple the Russian economy

Perhaps the most devastating measure is the freezing of at least half of the Bank of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves held by the central banks of cooperating nations. This is the war chest Russia built up with great discipline over many years precisely to guard against sanctions.

Central banks are typically treated as off-limits for sanctions – sacrosanct, if you will. Russia presumably thought so.

Freezing reserves no longer off-limits

But just as Russia seems to have underestimated the will of the Ukrainians to fight militarily, it also seems to have underestimated the will of the West to fight financially.

Without the ability to use those foreign reserves to support the ruble, Russia was forced to revert to a range of desperate measures.

The Moscow stock exchange was kept closed on Monday and is yet to reopen. After all, you can’t have a market crash if the market never opens.

Russia more than doubled its key central bank interest rate, lifting it from 9.5% to 20%.

This might seem curious amid an economic crisis.

But when your currency is in freefall because people are dumping it, you need to provide a very big financial incentive for people to hold onto it, including by paying higher interest rates on the remaining rubles in savings accounts.

Economy tanking, yet higher rates

The higher rates immediately flowed through to higher mortgage rates for ordinary Russians – the last thing an economy on the brink needs – as well as to loans funding business investment.

This is the diabolical conundrum Russia faces as it’s hit with a financial crisis with at least one hand tied behind its back by the West.

Russia also banned Russians from buying Russian assets from foreigners, to stop foreigners bailing out of Russia. It required every Russian firm to convert 80% of its foreign earnings into rubles – essentially confiscating foreign dollars to use in lieu of its own frozen foreign reserves.

Read more:
How disrupted Russian gas supplies will hit global and Australian prices

And, most recently and most worryingly, it has halted interest payments on three trillion rubles (US$27 billion) in Russian government debt held by foreigners.

Another way to put that is the Russian government is now in default.

That makes one thing certain: there is no going back for Russia now. The damage will be permanent.

Ultimately, each of Russia’s moves is intended to rebuild foreign currency holdings inside Russia. Even with the sanctions, Russia receives billions each day in foreign earnings on the exports still permitted including oil, gas and wheat.

Russia’s goal is to hoard that cash and rebuild its war chest, giving it more room to manoeuvre. Given that US$300 billion of reserves are frozen, this will take time.

How long before collapse?

While the West has made efforts to exempt energy from the sanctions, the interconnectedness of global financial markets and jittery participants fearful of inadvertently falling foul of sanctions have already seen energy deals disrupted.

Contracts for future Russian oil supply are failing to sell, even at sharp discounts.

This raises the key question Western leaders are asking right now: how long can the Russian economy – and thereby its people, and its leadership – survive?

It’s a confounding irony that just as the Russian army encircles Ukrainian cities in a bid to besiege them, Western governments have encircled the Russian economy in a bid to besiege it.

More draconian measures likely

Despite everything Russia has thrown fighting the sanctions so far, the ruble remains 26% below its level last week and 32% below its level a month ago.

It seems likely that to properly stabilise its financial system it will need more draconian measures – such as bans on bank withdrawals and rationing. They will do even more damage to the economy than 20% interest rates and sanctions.

Is this degree of economic damage enough to get Russia to change course in Ukraine? Can the Ukrainians hold on long enough that the economic costs to Russia become unsustainable?

Read more:
US-EU sanctions will pummel the Russian economy – two experts explain why they are likely to stick and sting

If necessary, will the West be willing to double down, and really put some skin in the game by limiting their purchases of Russian oil and gas?

That could well be the nail in Russia’s coffin – but also highly damaging to the European and global economy. Only time will tell.

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

– ref. Russian sanctions are biting harder than it could have imagined, and it’ll get worse – https://theconversation.com/russian-sanctions-are-biting-harder-than-it-could-have-imagined-and-itll-get-worse-178322

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s COVID diagnosis has barely registered a blip in the media.

Although admittedly there is a lot in the news – with war in Ukraine and major floods on Australia’s eastern seaboard – the lack of newsworthiness of Morrison’s diagnosis says so much about where we are in the pandemic right now.

It highlights a significant shift in both the reality and the perception of what being infected with COVID means in Australia, for the vast majority of us.

Let’s do a time-travel thought experiment.

If we go back in time

To highlight just how far we have come, let’s imagine how this diagnosis would had landed if Morrison had contracted COVID towards the start of the pandemic, in March 2020, rather than March 2022.

Regardless of your political stripes, a March 2020 diagnosis would have provoked genuine concern for his health. We knew so little about COVID with certainty back then, and what we did know was truly frightening.

The most obvious change since 2020 is the availability of safe and effective vaccines. These have completely transformed the risk the virus poses for individuals and the community.

Read more:
How well do COVID vaccines work in the real world?

Vaccination, by priming the immune system, takes away one of the virus’ greatest weapons – the ability to catch the immune system by surprise.

Vaccination allows us to be pre-exposed to viral antigens (its spike protein), allowing the immune system to respond quicker and more effectively when exposed to the virus itself. This reduces the likelihood of symptomatic illness, and perhaps more importantly, severe disease.

More recently, we have also started to see more effective COVID treatments. These are also making a huge difference in preventing COVID deteriorating and causing severe illness.

Read more:
Pfizer’s pill is the latest COVID treatment to show promise. Here are some more

Let’s contrast the circumstances facing Morrison today with the challenges UK’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson and former US President Donald Trump faced when they caught COVID earlier in the pandemic.

This really rams home how much difference advances over the past year or so have made.

Johnson spent time in ICU

In March and April 2020, Johnson’s trajectory followed what we have now seen many times over. What started off as relatively mild symptoms took a drastic turn a week later and he was admitted to intensive care. He spent three days in a critical condition before being moved to a general ward, then released to recover at home.

Remember, at the time, there were no vaccines and very limited treatments.

Despite these barriers, Johnson made a full recovery. But we need to remember that even now, not all patients admitted to ICU survive or come out of the experience unscathed. Johnson was incredibly lucky.

Read more:
We’re two frontline COVID doctors. Here’s what we see as case numbers rise

Trump used experimental therapies

Trump, who had previously played down the threat of COVID, contracted it in October 2020.

Although the full story is still a mystery, he also became very ill, perhaps more so than was officially acknowledged. Being overweight and 74 at the time were legitimate reasons to fear the worst.

Once again, context is important. Trump’s diagnosis was also before vaccines were available.

However, as United States president, he had access to experimental treatments not available to other Americans.

Specifically, Trump was only one of only a handful of people at the time to be given Regeneron, an experimental antibody cocktail, which many believe played an instrumental role in his recovery.

Like Johnson, Trump, after a troubling time, appeared to make a full recovery.

One can only speculate what his fate would have been if he were just an average 74 year-old overweight American and not the president of the United States. Like Johnson, Trump was lucky.

What does this tell us about Morrison’s chances?

If we look at the circumstances Morrison faces, there really is no comparison. Vaccines, along with the other advances we have made, means he is most likely to have mild symptoms while he isolates, will continue working, and make a full recovery.

Of course, this is not to underplay the very real risk any of us have of developing more severe illness, such as if we have a weakened immune system or an underlying health condition.

Read more:
What does it mean to be immunocompromised? And why does this increase your risk of coronavirus?

But the likelihood of serious illness if fully vaccinated, even if we are at greater risk of severe COVID, is much lower thanks to vaccines.

If someone at high risk of severe COVID was infected, we also now have medicines to reduce the risk of developing severe illness.

Read more:
Australia approves two new medicines in the fight against COVID. How can you get them and are they effective against Omicron?

As we wish Morrison a speedy recovery, the lack of noteworthiness of his diagnosis is something we should celebrate as the most remarkable aspect of this situation.

COVID is not to be underestimated and recent history says there will be challenges to come. This includes ensuring vaccines are distributed globally to everyone who needs them.

But the huge advances we have made in the past two years mean the threat COVID causes in March 2022 is very different to the threat it posed in March 2020.

Read more:
Australia is failing marginalised people, and it shows in COVID death rates

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

– ref. Scott Morrison has COVID. It’s a big deal but not how you think – https://theconversation.com/scott-morrison-has-covid-its-a-big-deal-but-not-how-you-think-178298

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marianne Hanson, Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

Russian forces in Ukraine may have used thermobaric weapons and cluster bombs, according to reports from the Ukraine government and human rights groups.

If true, this represents an escalation in brutality that should alarm us all.

While cluster munitions are banned by international convention, thermobaric munitions – also known as fuel-air explosive devices, or “vacuum bombs” – are not explicitly prohibited for use against military targets.

These devastating devices, which create an oxygen-eating fireball followed by a deadly shockwave, are far more powerful than most other conventional weapons.

What are thermobaric weapons?

Thermobaric weapons are generally deployed as rockets or bombs, and they work by releasing fuel and explosive charges. Different fuels can be used, including toxic powdered metals and organic matter containing oxidant.

The explosive charge disperses a large cloud of fuel which then ignites in contact with the oxygen in the surrounding air. This creates a high-temperature fireball and a massive shockwave that literally sucks the air out of any living being in the vicinity.

Thermobaric bombs are devastating and effective in urban areas or open conditions, and can penetrate bunkers and other underground locations, starving the occupants of oxygen. There is very little that can protect humans and other life forms from their blast and incendiary effects.

A 1990 CIA report, cited by Human Rights Watch, noted the effects of a thermobaric explosion in a confined space:

Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness.

A history of horror

Crude versions of thermobaric weapons were developed by Germany during World War Two. Western states, as well as the Soviet Union and latterly Russia, have used them since the 1960s.

The Soviet Union is believed to have used a thermobaric weapon against China during the Sino-Soviet conflict of 1969, and in Afghanistan as part of its takeover of that country in 1979. Moscow also used them in Chechnya, and has reportedly provided them to separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine.

The United States has used these weapons in Vietnam and in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Why some weapons are banned, even in war

Although thermobaric weapons are not yet unequivocally banned, there are several points that argue against their development and use.

International humanitarian law stipulates what is and is not permissible during warfare. There has long been an understanding that even wars have their limits: while some weapons are considered legal, others are not, precisely because they violate key principles of humanitarian law.

A new report from Human Rights Watch makes it clear the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal. It draws on the Geneva Conventions to define the illegitimacy of Moscow’s actions, including its use or potential use of particular weapons.

Read more:
International law says Putin’s war against Ukraine is illegal. Does that matter?

The use of weapons in indiscriminate attacks – those that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians – is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.

A thermobaric weapon might be targeted specifically at military installations and personnel, but its effects cannot be contained to one area. In all likelihood, many civilians would be killed if such bombs were used in any city.

Using explosive weapons in populated areas would result in indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. Aerial bombs, even if aimed at military objectives, pose a grave threat to civilians because of their wide blast radius.

Unnecessary suffering

Efforts to ban these weapons have not yet produced a clear prohibition. The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (commonly called the “Inhumane Weapons Convention”) addresses incendiary weapons, but states have managed to avoid an explicit ban on thermobaric bombs.

In addition to the impacts on civilians, thermobaric bombs would cause superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. Under international humanitarian law, they should not be used.

There is a point at which – even if a war is deemed legitimate or “just” – violence must not involve weapons that are excessively cruel or inhumane.

If a weapon is likely to prolong the agony of soldiers (or civilians) or result in superfluous and unacceptable injuries, theoretically its use is not permitted. Thermobaric weapons clearly seem to meet this definition.

Cluster bombs and nuclear weapons

It is not only thermobaric weapons that cause us concern in the current war.

Ukraine’s government and human rights groups say Russia has also used cluster munitions. These are bombs or rockets that release a cluster of smaller “bomblets” over a wide area.

Cluster munitions were banned under an international convention in 2008. Russia has not signed (nor has the US, China or India), but until now it has largely respected the convention’s provisions.

Perhaps of greatest concern, however, is Moscow’s nuclear weapons arsenal. President Vladimir Putin has hinted strongly that he would potentially be willing to use them, putting Russian nuclear forces on high alert and warning that countries which interfere in the invasion will face “consequences you have never seen”.

Read more:
As Putin puts nuclear forces on high alert, here are 5 genuine nuclear dangers for us all

Russia has around 6,000 nuclear weapons and an escalation of conflict could result in their use – either deliberately or inadvertently during the fog of war.

Putin is not the only one to have made threats like this. The US holds around 5,500 nuclear weapons of its own, and its nuclear policy promises nuclear devastation to opponents.

Even the British and French resort to nuclear pressure, and former US president Donald Trump, when threatening North Korea, used similar language. But Putin’s statement goes beyond even these threats.

Read more:
The nuclear weapons ban treaty is groundbreaking, even if the nuclear powers haven’t signed

It is these very real dangers that led 122 states at the United Nations to vote in favour of developing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2017.

The war in Ukraine is the latest reminder that we must act to eliminate thermobaric, cluster, and nuclear weapons, under strict international control. The stakes are simply too high to allow these dangers to remain.

Marianne Hanson has previously received funding from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the University of Queensland to conduct research on weapons and international law. In a voluntary capacity, she is currently Co-Chair of ICAN Australia (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons).

– ref. What are thermobaric weapons? And why should they be banned? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-thermobaric-weapons-and-why-should-they-be-banned-178289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Wilson, Associate Professor in Education, University of Sydney

You may think “not another article on school funding”. But this important story has to be told and the book, Waiting For Gonski: how Australia failed its schools, should be read by every parent, economist and Australian committed to “the fair go”.

The title is apt and who would have thought a book on school funding would be a riveting read? Authors Tom Greenwell and Chris Bonnor have all the angles covered.

What went wrong?

The much-lauded Gonski reforms, recommended ten years ago, have not been effectively enacted. The book provides a clear account of how it all went wrong in “the Gonski we got” and “postmortem” analysis chapters.

Rather than levelling the playing field, it is clear the system has become more unfair. More funding has gone to less needy schools. Government funding to non-government schools grew at five times the rate of funding for government schools over the past decade.

The review introduced the concept of the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS). The review panel said this was the funding “needed as the starting point for […] transparent, fair, financially sustainable and educationally effective” resourcing. The SRS uses a base funding amount each student, plus “loadings” for particular school and student needs.

The majority of government schools are yet to be fully funded to the SRS. At the same time, many non-government schools are overfunded, well beyond the standard (and fees sit on top of this government funding).

Shortfalls and excesses in SRS funding by state and territory, 2018-2023

A 2019 federal government review of needs-based funding makes it clear government schools’ needs are not being met and the system lacks transparency. New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania committed to reach 75% of SRS funding for government schools beyond 2023. NSW and Tasmania will reach 75% in 2027, Victoria in 2028 and Queensland in 2032.

A quote from the then Grattan Institute school program director, Peter Goss, is instructive:

“The federal government has locked in a model where every private school will get fully funded by 2023, whereas very few government schools will ever get fully funded. By 2030 we’re going to be having this same argument and it’s all predictable from now.”

Unlevel playing field has a long history

While many schools are still waiting to receive the Gonski needs-based funding, Greenwell and Bonnor make it clear there was also a sense of waiting in the lead-up to the review and 2011 report.

Pre-Gonski history provides important insights, including coverage of mistakes in the original establishment of Australia’s inclusive public education system. The system wasn’t really inclusive and created the first unlevel playing field, with well-resourced free education for most, alongside struggling Catholic schools. This changed after the 1960s, when the private sector successfully lobbied for funding. But, as the authors point out, “one unlevel playing field replaced another”.

The 1973 Karmel report followed, but was criticised because, as Simon Marginson wrote in 1984:

“[The report] did not develop an understanding of the dynamics of the dual system of schooling that operates in Australia […] [and] failed to go to the roots of inequalities in schooling”.

Gonski also failed on this score

Bonnor and Greenwell point out this criticism also applies to the Gonski review. Rather than tackle the complexities of the public-private system, Gonski left untouched the issues of school fees and very different school sector obligations, operations and accountabilities. Inequities in school operations, including enrolment policies, were not addressed.

While recommending adequate funding for schools where students had greater needs, the review did not question or seek to resolve why these students concentrated within disadvantaged schools, most of them government schools. The segregation of schools has since increased. Both the OECD and UNICEF have identified this as a key weakness in Australian schooling.

Greenwell and Bonnor point to the significance of the review’s focus on the impact of peers on student achievement, in a structure where fees sort and segregate students into different schools on the basis of socio-educational advantage. Bonnor says:

“The review panel couldn’t, or chose not to, join the dots between this phenomenon and Australia’s increasingly mediocre levels of student achievement.”

Gonski review panel member Ken Boston now agrees and attributes much of our educational woes to weaknesses in the report and failures of implementation. Noting the model was to be needs-based and sector-blind, he says: “Quite the opposite has occurred”.

Waiting for Gonski is a riveting, but depressing, account of how that happened. Drawing on interviews with key figures, the authors describe the manoeuvrings to get the funding legislation passed, the distorting of Gonski’s recommendations, the intensity of the activities of the lobby groups, and the eventual sabotage of the remnants of Gonski that managed to get over the line.

Students – and Australia – continue to miss out

The story is complete with a coming-of-age personal drama highlighting the impacts of funding on two young students as they move through their schooling.

It is important to remember that many thousands of children have completed all their schooling in the post-Gonski era, without the funding deemed necessary for the system to be “educationally effective”. The pathways of those lives have missed out on the educational enrichment funding to the Schooling Resource Standard would have brought.

Alongside Waiting for Gonski, a Why Money Does Matter conference marked the 10th anniversary with further sobering analysis, available here.

Gonski made “needs-based” equity funding part of our vocabulary but not part of our system. It is clear that action to fully implement true needs-based funding is urgently needed.

Waiting for Gonski ends with a call to action. For our education system to thrive nothing short of substantial structural change will do.

Greenwell and Bonnor also argue public funding brings public obligations, and a public contract is needed, requiring non-government schools to operate with policies comparable to those of government schools. Such an approach would “level the playing field”, which would undoubtedly strengthen Australian education and our economy. Do we have to wait much longer?

“Let us do something, while we have the chance! … Let us make the most of it, before it is too late!” ― Samuel Beckett, Waiting For Godot.

I previously published a report “Structural failure: Why Australia keeps falling short of its educational goals” co-authored by Chris Bonnor, one of the authors of ‘Waiting for Gonski’

I am also on the Board of the Centre for Public Education Research that hosted the conference mentioned in this article.

– ref. Still ‘Waiting for Gonski’ – a great book about the sorry tale of school funding – https://theconversation.com/still-waiting-for-gonski-a-great-book-about-the-sorry-tale-of-school-funding-178016

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Higgins, PhD candidate, UNSW Sydney

The Northern Territory has some of the most pristine rivers in the world. But amid the big push to develop northern Australia, industries are lining up to take water from these wild waterways.

The agriculture industry – and in particular, large-scale cotton growers – are seeking up to 5.2 billion litres of water a year from the Daly River near Katherine. But our research published today suggests water allocations based on recent gauge data might be too generous.

We found since the 1960s, flows in the Daly have been higher than at any point in the past 600 years. If flows return to lower levels in future, extracting large volumes of water may cause big problems for the river.

Over-allocating water resources can degrade rivers and harm aquatic life that needs wet season flows to thrive. Before granting water rights to big business, authorities must better understand the ancient history of Australia’s river flows.

Going back in time

Every year when the monsoon arrives in Northern Australia, rivers spread over the floodplains and sustain a kaleidoscopic variety of plant and animal life.

To sustainably develop the north while keeping river ecosystems healthy, we must get a full picture of high and low flows over time. But in many rivers, including the Daly, we don’t have enough data to do this.

Streamflow gauges have only been in place for the last 60 years in the Northern Territory. However the climate – and subsequent river flows – can vary across decades and generations.

Luckily, tree rings can tell us how the climate behaved for hundreds of years before streamflow gauges were installed.

The rings indicate how old a tree is and what the weather was like during each year of its life. For example, a ring wider than others indicates greater-than-average growth, and might reflect a year of high rainfall or warm temperatures.

Read more:
Floodplains aren’t separate to a river — they’re an extension of it. It’s time to change how we connect with them

Nature’s weather stations

Tree rings are examined by drilling a narrow hole in a tree to extract a core – a process that does not harm the tree. All up, we used cores from 63 different sites in our study.

We obtained existing cores from Northern Territory trees, then sought to interpret how the tree rings related to past climate changes. Usually, the correlation between tree rings and streamflow can be used to build a model of past streamflow. But the gauge data for the Daly is too short to develop a reliable model.

So we used a new method using much older rainfall data. It meant we could develop a much better and longer reconstruction of the river’s flow.

But we faced another challenge. The oldest Northern Territory tree core we had to work with was 250 years old, but we wanted to look further back.

So we also used cores from older trees in Southeast Asia. These trees also experience monsoon rainfalls and so record similar climate variations.

Rivers of change

Our reconstruction showed over that, with the exception of dry years in 2019 and 2020, flows over the last 57 years were higher than at any point in the past 600 years.

This is because more rainfall is falling during the monsoon season than ever before. Records from ship logs suggest the increase is part of a much longer trend which began in the 1800s.

Theories abound about why monsoon rainfall has increased, and include changes in sea surface temperatures and changes to the timing of the monsoon onset. More research is needed into this phenomenon.

However, the increase suggests flows in the Daly River may return to low levels in future. So allocating water to industry based only on data from the past few decades may mean too much water will be extracted and the river’s health will suffer.

Even during these unusually wet decades, we found the annual monsoon – and therefore streamflow – varies a lot from year to year.

In La Niña years, the Daly’s flow is higher than in other years – but during El Niño there is no difference. So, while low flows lead to higher water demand and risk to rivers, we don’t really understand why they occur.

Read more:
The hydropower industry is talking the talk. But fine words won’t save our last wild rivers

An uncertain future

Global climate models differ on whether northern Australia will experience higher or lower rainfall in future. So we don’t know if the Daly and other Northern Territory rivers will remain high in decades to come.

Climate models do suggest monsoon rain will become more variable. This means managing river resources in the territory will be even more complex in coming years and needs careful planning.

The proposed water allocation from the Daly River comes on the back of record dry years and much lower wet season flows than normal. And it follows other industry proposals to extract huge amounts of water from territory rivers.

Monsoon rivers are the lifeblood of the Top End. They’re unique, precious and need to be protected. We can’t hold back development, but we can make good decisions to ensure ecosystems are managed sustainably.

Let’s listen to the message of the trees – and make sure these rivers are still healthy in another 600 years.

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

Fiona Johnson receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW and Victorian State Government.

Jonathan Palmer receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Martin Sogaard Andersen receives funding from ARC, NSW State and Federal Government.

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

– ref. As industry lines up to take water from a wild Top End river, trees tell the story of a much drier past – https://theconversation.com/as-industry-lines-up-to-take-water-from-a-wild-top-end-river-trees-tell-the-story-of-a-much-drier-past-177221