Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania

Small business is “the engine room of Australia,” the “backbone of our economy,” the “hope of the side”.

They are the words used by the then treasurer and now prime minister Scott Morrison to justify special treatment for small businesses, an approach shared by leaders in every political party from Labor to One Nation to the Australian Greens

It’s a belief that underpins a wide range of grants and subsidies, free advice programs and preferential tax treatments, including

• exemptions from payroll tax

• a lower rate of company tax

• discounts on personal income tax if unincorporated

• exemptions in prescribed circumstances from capital gains tax

• up-front tax-deductibility of capital investments

• less onerous arrangements for remitting the goods and services tax.

What is extraordinary about the “engine room of the economy” doctrine is the complete absence of any evidence for it.

Advocates point to the large number of people who work for small businesses.

According to the Bureau of Statistics’ most recent count (in which small businesses are defined as those with fewer than 20 employees), they employed 4.67 million people as at the end of June 2020. That’s equivalent to 37.7% of total employment.

The ‘engine room’ that sheds jobs

What is less often pointed out is that number – 4.67 million – is smaller than it has been in all but four of the past 13 years. At no stage in the past 13 years have more Australians been employed in small businesses than in June 2007.

Rather than being the engine room of job creation, small business has presided over job destruction, creating not one single net new job in aggregate in 13 years.

Employment in small businesses has declined 6.3% in 13 years in which employment in medium-sized businesses has increased by 46.4% and employment in large businesses has increased by 48.4%.

Employment in small businesses as a share of total employment

Nor has the “instant asset write-off” advanced to small businesses in the 2015-16 budget done anything to enhance capital expenditures by small businesses.

Gross fixed capital expenditure by small businesses fell 16.1% between 2014-15 (the year before the instant asset write-off) and 2018-19 (the year before the pandemic) – a much larger decline than in capital expenditures by medium-sized businesses (2.7%) and large businesses (6%).

Another pervasive myth is that small businesses are more innovative.

Less productive, less innovative

While some small businesses undoubtedly are innovative, the ABS surveys of innovation activity have consistently found small businesses are less likely to engage in any form of innovative activity than medium-sized or large businesses.

Productivity is lower at small businesses than at larger ones.

The ABS puts gross value added per person employed in small businesses at A$24,000, or 21% below the average for all businesses in 2019-20. Gross value added per person in large businesses was almost $41,000 – 36% above the average.

Lower productivity might be one reason why, in 2019-20, small businesses paid their employees 35% less than the average wage or salary paid by all businesses. Medium-sized businesses paid an average of around 12% more, and large businesses paid almost 34% more.

Apparent average annual wage or salary by size of business

The obvious conclusion outlined more fully in my new piece in the Australian National University journal Agenda is the widely held belief small business is the “engine room of the economy” is simply wrong – as is the corollary that increased assistance to businesses simply because they are small is a good way to boost employment, investment, innovation and economic growth.

Less keen to pay tax

One thing small businesses are not particularly good at is paying the required tax.

The Australian Taxation Office Tax Gap program finds small businesses (which it defines as those with incomes of up to $10 million per year) voluntarily paid only 86.3% of the personal and company income tax they should have paid if they had fully complied with its interpretation of the 2018-19 tax law.

This is larger than any of the tax gaps calculated by the ATO.

The ATO finds high wealth voluntarily paid 91.4% of what should have been paid had they fully complied. Large corporations paid 91.7%.

Read more:
Is small business really the engine room of Australia’s economy?

The Tax Office numbers suggest small businesses accounted for 49% of what it defines as uncollected money. Large corporations and high wealth individuals accounted for only 10% and 3%.

Again, this is strikingly at odds with the popular perception that small businesses are unfairly persecuted by the ATO and that all of Australia’s fiscal problems would disappear if only “the top end of town” paid its fair share of tax.

During the pandemic, small businesses needed support

That’s not to say the substantial assistance provided to small businesses during COVID-19 were unjustified. Small businesses account for a disproportionately large share of most of the sectors that were hardest hit by the restrictions imposed in order to suppress COVID-19, hospitality among them.

Had governments not provided the extensive support for small businesses they did, it is highly likely the economy would have contracted by more, and the unemployment rate would have risen by more in the middle of last year.

However, it will be important to ensure this support does not become entrenched.

Policies that serve to prolong the existence of small businesses – which, as noted, on average have lower levels of productivity than larger businesses – will slow down the rate at which factors of production can move to higher productivity uses within industries and across the economy.

Post-pandemic, new businesses will matter most

Ideally, existing schemes of preferential tax treatment and other forms of assistance to small businesses, simply because they are small, should be scrapped entirely and replaced with preferential tax treatment for new businesses.

There are at least five reasons for this:

• first, new businesses are more likely to be started in sectors of the economy with more sustainable economic prospects – whereas small businesses are typically in the sector they started in

• second, new businesses are much more likely to create jobs than small businesses – one recent study showed firms aged less than two years created 1.44 million Australian full time equivalent jobs between 2006 and 2011 while firms aged three years or older shed around 400,000 jobs

• third, new businesses are much more likely to innovate than small ones – indeed, the desire to introduce a new product or service, or to produce an existing product or service in a new way, is one of the principal motives for starting a new business

• fourth, since there is no way new business can prevent itself from eventually becoming older, assistance can’t be gamed by new businesses staying new in the same way as it can be gamed by small businesses staying small

• fifth, since almost all new businesses are inevitably small and most small businesses are not new, the budgetary cost of measures designed to help new businesses will be much less than the cost of measures designed to help small businesses, leaving more room to assist all businesses.

The Reserve Bank has repeatedly stressed the importance of lifting wages growth. The government in last year’s Intergenerational Report stressed the importance of lifting productivity growth.

We will emerge from COVID badly if we don’t take the opportunity to realign our programs in line with reality so they best achieve this.

I am a member of the Australian Taxation Office’s “Tax Gap” Expert Advisory Panel

– ref. Post-pandemic, ‘small business fetishism’ could cost us jobs, wages – https://theconversation.com/post-pandemic-small-business-fetishism-could-cost-us-jobs-wages-173653

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Walsh, Professor of AI at UNSW, Research Group Leader, UNSW

In countries like Denmark and Germany, gifts are given on Christmas Eve, rather than Christmas morning. Likewise, on Christmas Eve 2021, 587 groups of researchers at universities around Australia received a festive gift from the Australian Research Council (ARC), in the form of news that their 2022 Discovery Projects were to be funded.

More brutally, 2,508 other groups of researchers also received the less than festive news that their proposed Discovery Projects were to be denied funding.

This acceptance rate was even lower than it should have been. Among the 2,508 unlucky applications were six that had passed the ARC’s rigorous peer-review process, but were vetoed by Stuart Robert, acting federal education minister, on the grounds they “do not demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money nor contribute to the national interest”.

In an open letter published today, I and 62 of my fellow ARC laureate fellows – including one who is also a Nobel Laureate – complain vigorously to the minister and to the chief executive of the ARC about this political interference in the funding of basic research.

Read more:
Ministerial interference is an attack on academic freedom and Australia’s literary culture

Discovery Projects are one of the main mechanisms to fund basic research in the sciences and humanities in Australia. They are an especially vital source of funding for early-career researchers. The Australian government spends around A$250 million of public money each year on these grants. With an acceptance rate of just 19%, these awards are highly competitive and prestigious.

The last time such ministerial intervention became public was in October 2018, when it emerged the then education minister Simon Birmingham denied funding to 11 ARC grants over the preceding two years. There was understandable outrage.

In response to significant criticism about that intervention, the government introduced a national interest test. And it was this very test that Robert used to veto funding last month.

The six grants rejected last month were all in the humanities, and included two on understanding modern-day China, and a third on the mass mobilisation of school students in climate change protests and what that means for their participation in democracy.

It’s hard to think of two topics more important for Australia’s future than understanding China and the climate change movement. But let’s put that aside for a moment.

The value of basic research

How and why should a nation decide to spend its precious tax revenue on basic research? The “why” is easy. Life expectancy has roughly doubled in the past 200 years because of investments governments have made in basic research. These investments have given us vaccines, for example, eliminating many diseases that used to kill us at a young age.

Besides being longer, our lives are also more enjoyable, thanks to inventions such as lasers and smartphones, and more knowledgeable, because of insights about everything from dinosaurs to political history.

The “how” is admittedly trickier. By the very nature of research, you don’t know the outcome before you start. But time and again, it has been shown that the best way to pick winners is not to pick winners. Instead, just let bright minds follow their curiosity.

Let me come back to the laser. It’s hard to imagine our lives without lasers. They are used everywhere from eye surgery to industrial welding, from the undersea cables that connect the internet, to barcode scanners in your supermarket checkout. Charles Townes, who won the Nobel Prize for helping discover them, never imagined these myriad uses when he set out to research the phenomenon of “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation”.

In 1999, he wrote in his book How the Laser Happened:

The truth is, none of us who worked on the first lasers imagined how many uses there might eventually be […] Many of today’s practical technologies result from basic science done years to decades before. The people involved, motivated mainly by curiosity, often have little idea as to where their research will lead. Our ability to forecast the practical payoffs from fundamental exploration of the nature of things (and, similarly, to know which of today’s research avenues are technological dead ends) is poor. This springs from a simple truth: new ideas discovered in the process of research are really new.

I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to do such research. In 2021, I won an ARC Laureate Fellowship, the largest individual grant awarded by the ARC, to learn about how to build trustworthy AI systems. I don’t know yet how it will work out.

But what I do know is there’s no place for government interference in the ARC’s funding decisions. Comparable countries don’t let governments interfere in this way. In the United Kingdom, for example, this is enshrined in the Haldane Principle, whereas in the United States, it is guided by engineer and science administrator Vannevar Bush’s stirring postwar manifesto, Science, the Endless Frontier, which helped power that country’s economic rise.

If Australia wants to come out of the pandemic healthier and stronger, and to tackle the many wicked problems we now face – including societal challenges like dealing with the politics of a changing climate and managing our troubled relationship with China – we must ensure basic research is not subject to political interference.

Read more:
Research funding announcements have become a political tool, creating crippling uncertainty for academics

You can read our open letter here.

Toby Walsh receives funding from the Australian Research Council in the form of a 5 year ARC Laureate Fellowship.

– ref. ARC grants: if Australia wants to tackle the biggest issues, politicians need to stop meddling with basic research – https://theconversation.com/arc-grants-if-australia-wants-to-tackle-the-biggest-issues-politicians-need-to-stop-meddling-with-basic-research-174607

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Zehntner, Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, Southern Cross University

As a kid growing up in one of the hottest parts of Australia, I was always in the water – pond, pool or creek. It was the only way to get cool. I was lucky enough to pick up swimming as I went along – but plenty don’t. As a coach and teacher of swimming for over 30 years I regularly meet adults who can’t swim.

Swimming is one of the most popular physical activities undertaken by Australians, but a large number of Australians are poor swimmers or cannot swim at all. Recent research for for Royal Life Saving Australia found one in four adults are either weak swimmers or can’t swim.

If you’re an adult non-swimmer, you’re not alone. Many new Australians and Australians from non-swimming families don’t have a connection with the water. Some had a fright when learning to swim and avoid the water out of fear, some just never got the opportunity to learn as many Aussie school kids do today.

The good news is people of any age can learn to swim. With patience, perseverance and some expert help, it can be fun too. Just as when kids learn to swim, adults must first get familiar with the different sensations in and underwater.

Read more:
Why should my child take swimming lessons? And what do they need to know?

Start small

It is natural to feel anxious with your face in the water; after all, life is no fun without air. But with practice, the fear will diminish and having your face in the water will feel more natural.

Start with something simple like putting your face in the full flow of the shower. With your eyes open, put your face in the water stream and gently blow air out your nose while your mouth stays shut. Don’t forget to pop your face out for your next breath in (using the mouth).

Once you have developed confidence with fast-flowing water around your mouth and nose, you might try experimenting with how you can balance your body in the water.

Try a shallow pool at your local aquatic centre with a rail along the edge. Holding on to the rail, let your body relax into and be supported by the water.

For most people, the big parts of our body will want to float and our legs will probably sink. Finding your “balance” in the water and relaxing while you put your face under is a big hurdle for many non-swimmers. But try to take your time, have fun, and blow bubbles with your nose while your face is under. That keeps the water out of your nose.

Once you’re confident with your face in the water and want to get better at moving forward, it’s time for the next step. Use a floating aid like a pool noodle to help you balance, and experiment with using your arms and legs to push and pull your body through the water. Flippers can help with propulsion if you feel confident with them.

Getting expert help and setting a goal

At this stage it is a great idea to get some expert help. Most learn to swim schools will run classes for adults.

These classes will accelerate your learning so your strokes develop effectively. A few classes will get you started and then it will just be a matter of practice. The more you practice, the better you will get.

Having a goal is a good idea. You might start by trying to get to 10 good strokes in freestyle. Then 20, then 30 and so on.

Next, try to do one lap of the pool. It’s okay if you don’t make it at first, or if your technique isn’t perfect. Once you’ve made it to one lap, try again and see if you can make your technique a little better.

When you feel ready, you might try for multiple laps. See if you can set a goal to go swimming once a week – even better if you can team up with a friend and go together.

Being a swimmer provides huge physical fitness benefits and reduces your drowning risk – but it’s also just a lot of fun.

Don’t spend another summer sitting high and dry on the poolside while others have all the fun in the water. Make 2022 the year you learn to swim!

Read more:
Health Check: why swimming in the sea is good for you

Chris Zehntner 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. Are you one of the many Australians who never learned to swim? Here’s how to get started – https://theconversation.com/are-you-one-of-the-many-australians-who-never-learned-to-swim-heres-how-to-get-started-173055

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renée M. Prokopavicius, Postdoctoral Researcher in Plant Ecophysiology, Western Sydney University

Cities across the world are on the front line of climate change, and calls are growing for more urban cooling. Many governments are spending big on new trees in public places – but which species are most likely to thrive in a warmer world?

Numerical targets such as “one million trees” dominate tree-planting programs in cities such as Los Angeles, New York, Shanghai, Melbourne and Sydney. But whacking a million trees into the ground won’t necessarily mean greener suburbs in decades to come.

Often, not enough attention is paid to selecting the right trees or providing enough water so they survive a hotter, drier climate in future.

In our recent research, we assessed the effects of extreme heat and drought on urban tree species. Some much-loved tree species, widely planted across our cities, did not handle the conditions well. It shows how important decisions must be made today for urban greening programs to succeed in a warmer world.

A hothouse experiment

In January 2020, following several years of drought, Penrith in Western Sydney hit 48.9℃ – the hottest temperature ever recorded in Greater Sydney. Researchers later assessed about 5,500 street trees and found more than 10% displayed canopy damage. Exotic deciduous species fared the worst.

The event showed how simultaneous intense heat and drought can damage urban trees.

Trees cool down in hot temperatures by losing water through microscopic openings in their leaves called stomata. Sufficiently watered trees can often tolerate extreme hot temperatures, while drought-stressed trees may struggle to survive.

Our research involved stress-testing 20 broadleaf evergreen tree species from habitats ranging from tropical rainforests to semi-arid woodlands.

Seedlings were grown in a coordinated glasshouse experiment. After the plants were established and acclimatised, half of them – five plants per species – were exposed to a gradual, five-week drought.

In the final week of water deficit, all plants were exposed to conditions simulating a six-day heatwave.

What we found

The 20 plant species varied widely in their ability to handle these conditions.

Of the plants exposed to both heat and drought, two species suffered modest crown dieback (a decline in health of the canopy) and another four species suffered extensive crown dieback.

Most plants resumed growth after the heatwave but several individual plants died: two swamp banksia (Banksia robur) and one crimson bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus).

Species with dense wood and small, thick, dense leaves use water efficiently and are drought-tolerant. The species which fared best in our study included orange jasmine (Murraya paniculata), inland rosewood (Alectryon oleifolius) and Australian teak (Flindersia australis).

Even when plant species had access to water, their tolerance of heat stress varied widely. Swamp banksia (Banksia robur) and powderpuff lilly pilly (Syzygium wilsonii) suffered extensive crown dieback even with access to water. This shows warmer heatwaves may threaten urban trees in both wet and dry years.

While some species may fare well in heat and drought, they may not necessarily be the best choice for cooling our cities. Many drought-tolerant species such as leopardwood (Flindersia maculosa) grow slowly and have sparse foliage that provides little shade or cooling. But these species could be planted in sunny, dry areas to create habitat and improve biodiversity.

Read more:
More green, more ‘zzzzz’? Trees may help us sleep

So what about trees like the weeping fig (Ficus microcarpa) and London plane tree (Platanus x acerifolia), which are widely planted in Sydney, Melbourne and other Australian cities?

These trees are at greater risk during heat and drought, because they have soft, low-density wood and thin, large leaves that are vulnerable to heat. But they grow quickly and form extensive canopies that help cool urban areas.

So these trees should be planted where water is available, either from rain or through active management such as irrigation.

Looking ahead to a hot future

Our research highlights how access to water is crucial for the survival of urban trees during hotter and drier summers.

That means urban greening programs must also incorporate elements of so-called “blue” infrastructure – retaining water in urban landscapes via engineered solutions and making it available for plant uptake. Such infrastructure comes together under the umbrella of “water sensitive urban design”.

Examples include passive irrigation (where trees draw water from storage pits containing stormwater) or raingardens – garden beds that filter stormwater runoff. Planting young trees in locations where such design is applied will improve their odds of survival.

Such methods offer multiple benefits: increasing the health of trees, helping prevent flooding during storms and reducing the need for additional irrigation from local water supplies.

Across the world, extreme heat in cities will affect citizens, infrastructure and natural environments. Effective planning for urban trees is needed now to strike the right balance between trees that cool our cities and those that will survive increasingly harsh conditions.

Read more:
The years condemn: Australia is forgetting the sacred trees planted to remember our war dead

Renée M. Prokopavicius receives funding from the Australian Government as recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (project DE200100649) and from a NSW Government Greening our City grant (project GoC0000000101); the views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Government or the Australian Research Council. R. M. Prokopavicius worked on the Which Plant Where project from 2017-2020, which is funded by the Green Cities Fund, as part of the Hort Frontiers Strategic Partnership Initiative developed by Hort Innovation, with co-investment from Macquarie University, Western Sydney University, and the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

d.ellsworth@westernsydney.edu.au receives funding from Hort Innovation Australia via the Green Cities Fund, as part of the Hort Frontiers Strategic Partnership Initiative developed by Hort Innovation, with co-investment from Macquarie University, Western Sydney University, and the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. He also receives funding from the Australian Research Council that can be related to this work.

Sebastian Pfautsch 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. Without urgent action, these are the street trees unlikely to survive climate change – https://theconversation.com/without-urgent-action-these-are-the-street-trees-unlikely-to-survive-climate-change-172758

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Glavovic, Professor, Massey University

Decades of scientific evidence demonstrate unequivocally that human activities jeopardise life on Earth. Dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system compounds many other drivers of global change.

Governments concur: the science is settled. But governments have failed to act at the scale and pace required. What should climate change scientists do?

There is an unwritten social contract between science and society. Public investment in science is intended to improve understanding about our world and support beneficial societal outcomes. However, for climate change, the science-society contract is now broken.

The failure to act decisively is an indictment on governments and political leaders across the board, but climate change scientists cannot be absolved of responsibility.

As we write in an article about this conundrum, the tragedy is the compulsion to provide ever more evidence when the phenomena are well understood and the science widely accepted. The tragedy is being gaslighted into thinking the impasse is somehow our fault, and we need to do science differently: crafting new scientific institutions, strategies, collaborations and methodologies.

Yet, global carbon dioxide emissions are 60% higher today than they were in 1990, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its first assessment. At some point we need to recognise the problem is political and that further climate change science may even divert attention away from where the problem truly lies.

Was COP26 too little, too late?

The outcome of COP26, summarised in the draft Glasgow Climate Pact, includes some progress, including an agreement to begin reducing coal-fired power, removing subsidies on other fossil fuels, and a commitment to double adaptation finance to improve climate resilience for countries with the lowest incomes.

But many of the world’s leading scientists argue that this is too little, too late. They note the failure of COP26 to translate the 2015 Paris Agreement into practical reality to keep global warming below 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.

Even if COP26 commitments are fulfilled, there is a strong likelihood that humanity and life on Earth face a precarious future.

What are climate change scientists to do in the face of this evidence? We see three possible options — two that are untenable, one that is unpalatable.

Read more:
The ultimate guide to why the COP26 summit ended in failure and disappointment (despite a few bright spots)

Where to from here for climate change scientists?

The first option is to collect more evidence and hope for action. Continue the IPCC process that stays politically neutral and abstains from policy prescriptions. A recent editorial in Nature called on scientists to do just that: stay engaged to support future climate COPs.

However, this choice not only ignores the complex relationship between science and policy, it runs counter to the logic of our scientific training to reflect and act on the evidence. We know why global warming is happening and what to do. We have known for a long time.

Governments just haven’t taken the necessary action. In a recent Nature survey, six in ten of the IPCC scientists who responded expect 3℃ warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Persisting with this first option is therefore untenable.

The second option is more intensive social science research and climate change advocacy. As Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes recently observed, the work of the IPCC’s Working Group I (WGI, on the physical science basis of climate change) is complete and should be closed down. Attention needs to focus on translating this understanding into action, which is the realm of WGII (on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) and WGIII (on mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions).

In parallel, growing numbers of scientists are getting involved in diverse forms of advocacy, including non-violent civil disobedience.

However, albeit more promising than option one, there is little evidence of impact thus far and it is doubtful this pathway will lead to the urgent transformative actions required. This option is also not tenable.

Halt on IPCC work until governments do their part

The third option is much more radical, but unpalatable. We call for a moratorium on climate change research that does little more than document global warming and maladaptation.

Attention needs to focus on exposing and re-negotiating the broken science-society contract. Given the rupture to the contract outlined here, we call for a halt on all further IPCC assessments until governments are willing to fulfil their responsibilities in good faith and mobilise action to secure a safe level of global warming. This option is the only way to overcome the tragedy of climate change science.

Read more:
Where to find courage and defiant hope when our fragile, dewdrop world seems beyond saving

Readers might agree with our framing of this tragedy but disagree with our assessment of options. Some may want greater detail on what a moratorium could encompass or worry it may damage the credibility and objectivity of the scientific community.

However, we question whether it is our “duty” to use public funds to continue to refine the state of climate change knowledge (which is unlikely to lead to the actions required), or whether a more radical approach will serve society better.

We have reached a critical juncture for humanity and the planet. Given the unfolding tragedy, a moratorium on climate change research is the only responsible option for revealing and then restoring the broken science-society contract. The other two options are seductive but offer false hope.

We would like to acknowledge the work by Andrés Alegría in preparing the graphic.

Bruce Glavovic acknowledges the support of the New Zealand Earthquake Commission in enabling his contribution to this research, and the support by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment through the National Science Challenge: Resilience to Nature’s Challenges.

Iain White acknowledges the support by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment through the National Science Challenge: Resilience to Nature’s Challenges.

Tim Smith acknowledges support by the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects Funding Scheme (Project FT180100652). The views expressed herein are those of the authors, and are not necessarily those of Massey University, the University of the Sunshine Coast, the University of Waikato, the governments of New Zealand or Australia, the Earthquake Commission, or the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Scientists call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments take real action – https://theconversation.com/scientists-call-for-a-moratorium-on-climate-change-research-until-governments-take-real-action-172690

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saul Eslake, Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania

Small business is “the engine room of Australia,” the “backbone of our economy,” the “hope of the side”.

They are the words used by the then treasurer and now prime minister Scott Morrison to justify special treatment for small businesses, an approach shared by leaders in every political party from Labor to One Nation to the Australian Greens

It’s a belief that underpins a wide range of grants and subsidies, free advice programs and preferential tax treatments, including

• exemptions from payroll tax

• a lower rate of company tax

• discounts on personal income tax if unincorporated

• exemptions in prescribed circumstances from capital gains tax

• up-front tax-deductibility of capital investments

• less onerous arrangements for remitting the goods and services tax.

What is extraordinary about the “engine room of the economy” doctrine is the complete absence of any evidence for it.

Advocates point to the large number of people who work for small businesses.

According to the Bureau of Statistics’ most recent count (in which small businesses are defined as those with fewer than 20 employees), they employed 4.67 million people as at the end of June 2020. That’s equivalent to 37.7% of total employment.

The ‘engine room’ that sheds jobs

What is less often pointed out is that number – 4.67 million – is smaller than it has been in all but four of the past 13 years. At no stage in the past 13 years have more Australians been employed in small businesses than in June 2007.

Rather than being the engine room of job creation, small business has presided over job destruction, creating not one single net new job in aggregate in 13 years.

Employment in small businesses has declined 6.3% in 13 years in which employment in medium-sized businesses has increased by 46.4% and employment in large businesses has increased by 48.4%.

Employment in small businesses as a share of total employment

Nor has the “instant asset write-off” advanced to small businesses in the 2015-16 budget done anything to enhance capital expenditures by small businesses.

Gross fixed capital expenditure by small businesses fell 16.1% between 2014-15 (the year before the instant asset write-off) and 2018-19 (the year before the pandemic) – a much larger decline than in capital expenditures by medium-sized businesses (2.7%) and large businesses (6%).

Another pervasive myth is that small businesses are more innovative.

Less productive, less innovative

While some small businesses undoubtedly are innovative, the ABS surveys of innovation activity have consistently found small businesses are less likely to engage in any form of innovative activity than medium-sized or large businesses.

Productivity is lower at small businesses than at larger ones.

The ABS puts gross value added per person employed in small businesses at A$24,000, or 21% below the average for all businesses in 2019-20. Gross value added per person in large businesses was almost $41,000 – 36% above the average.

Lower productivity might be one reason why, in 2019-20, small businesses paid their employees 35% less than the average wage or salary paid by all businesses. Medium-sized businesses paid an average of around 12% more, and large businesses paid almost 34% more.

Apparent average annual wage or salary by size of business

The obvious conclusion outlined more fully in my new piece in the Australian National University journal Agenda is the widely held belief small business is the “engine room of the economy” is simply wrong – as is the corollary that increased assistance to businesses simply because they are small is a good way to boost employment, investment, innovation and economic growth.

Less keen to pay tax

One thing small businesses are not particularly good at is paying the required tax.

The Australian Taxation Office Tax Gap program finds small businesses (which it defines as those with incomes of up to $10 million per year) voluntarily paid only 86.3% of the personal and company income tax they should have paid if they had fully complied with its interpretation of the 2018-19 tax law.

This is larger than any of the tax gaps calculated by the ATO.

The ATO finds high wealth voluntarily paid 91.4% of what should have been paid had they fully complied. Large corporations paid 91.7%.

Read more:
Is small business really the engine room of Australia’s economy?

The Tax Office numbers suggest small businesses accounted for 49% of what it defines as uncollected money. Large corporations and high wealth individuals accounted for only 10% and 3%.

Again, this is strikingly at odds with the popular perception that small businesses are unfairly persecuted by the ATO and that all of Australia’s fiscal problems would disappear if only “the top end of town” paid its fair share of tax.

During the pandemic, small businesses needed support

That’s not to say the substantial assistance provided to small businesses during COVID-19 were unjustified. Small businesses account for a disproportionately large share of most of the sectors that were hardest hit by the restrictions imposed in order to suppress COVID-19, hospitality among them.

Had governments not provided the extensive support for small businesses they did, it is highly likely the economy would have contracted by more, and the unemployment rate would have risen by more in the middle of last year.

However, it will be important to ensure this support does not become entrenched.

Policies that serve to prolong the existence of small businesses – which, as noted, on average have lower levels of productivity than larger businesses – will slow down the rate at which factors of production can move to higher productivity uses within industries and across the economy.

Post-pandemic, new businesses will matter most

Ideally, existing schemes of preferential tax treatment and other forms of assistance to small businesses, simply because they are small, should be scrapped entirely and replaced with preferential tax treatment for new businesses.

There are at least five reasons for this:

• first, new businesses are more likely to be started in sectors of the economy with more sustainable economic prospects – whereas small businesses are typically in the sector they started in

• second, new businesses are much more likely to create jobs than small businesses – one recent study showed firms aged less than two years created 1.44 million Australian full time equivalent jobs between 2006 and 2011 while firms aged three years or older shed around 400,000 jobs

• third, new businesses are much more likely to innovate than small ones – indeed, the desire to introduce a new product or service, or to produce an existing product or service in a new way, is one of the principal motives for starting a new business

• fourth, since there is no way new business can prevent itself from eventually becoming older, assistance can’t be gamed by new businesses staying new in the same way as it can be gamed by small businesses staying small

• fifth, since almost all new businesses are inevitably small and most small businesses are not new, the budgetary cost of measures designed to help new businesses will be much less than the cost of measures designed to help small businesses, leaving more room to assist all businesses.

The Reserve Bank has repeatedly stressed the importance of lifting wages growth. The government in last year’s Intergenerational Report stressed the importance of lifting productivity growth.

We will emerge from COVID badly if we don’t take the opportunity to realign our programs in line with reality so they best achieve this.

I am a member of the Australian Taxation Office’s “Tax Gap” Expert Advisory Panel

– ref. Post-pandemic, ‘small business fetishism’ could cost us jobs – https://theconversation.com/post-pandemic-small-business-fetishism-could-cost-us-jobs-173653

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ursula Kennedy, Lecturer of Wine Science, University of Southern Queensland

So you like drinking wine, but don’t actually know much about it? You want to feel more confident when talking about wine? You would like to know how to choose a “good” wine? You are not alone – but I am here to help.

Many of us enjoy drinking wine but do not really understand or appreciate the complexity of this amazing beverage. And many feel nervous about discussing wines, thinking they may say the wrong thing.

Fear not – there is no right or wrong when appreciating wine, however the more you know and understand, the more you will really treasure and enjoy the experience of wine tasting.

Here are my top tips for giving wine tasting a go.

Appearance, aroma and mouthfeel

When appreciating wine, all of the senses are employed.

Formal wine judges and critics will appraise the appearance, aroma and taste (or “mouthfeel”) of a wine, and anyone who has heard the pop of a cork from a bottle of sparkling has appreciated the sound.

A wine should be clear: free of any haziness or solids (“natural” wines may have some haziness due to yeast residue).

The colour of a wine is also important. A young white wine should be a very pale yellow or “straw” colour, and a young red may have purple notes. Brown tinges of a young wine indicate that the wine may be spoilt – possibly premature ageing due to poor storage.

There are hundreds of aroma compounds which all contribute to the smell of a wine. The term “aroma” refers to the smells originating from the grape, and “bouquet” from the smells resulting from the wine making process.

A good wine should not be simple – it should have an interesting array of aromas. A wine should not have any undesirable or off odours, as this can also indicate spoilage. The smell of a wine should make you want to have a taste of it!

While you are tasting, you can observe how wines range in style from dry (lacking any sugar) to very sweet, still to sparking, and may have varying concentrations of alcohol (ethanol). Pay attention to how acidic the wine is, and notice if the wine has an astringency or bitterness – these are the tannins found particularly in red wines.

Notice the different flavours derived from both the grape and the winemaking process.

All of these components contribute to the mouthfeel of a wine and should be in “balance”: no one component should over-dominate the others.

Read more:
Australians are embracing ‘mindful drinking’ — and the alcohol industry is also getting sober curious

How to taste

There are a number of factors which will improve your wine tasting experience, and three main steps taken when wine tasting.

Make sure you have clean wine glasses which can hold a reasonable volume of wine – at least 100mL with room to swirl! Wine should not be cold or too hot – room temperature is best.

Step 1: look

Is the wine clear and free from any deposits or solids? Does it have any bronzing? Does it have bubbles when it is not a sparkling style?

Step 2: smell

Swirl the glass to coat the insides with wine. This helps to release the aroma compounds. Put your nose right into the glass and take a deep sniff. Does it smell good? Free from any off odours? Can you smell fruity and floral aromas that come from the grape? Are there any oak or yeasty aromas from the winemaking process?

Step 3: taste

Take a big sip and move it about your mouth. Can you taste grape flavours, acid, warmth, some viscosity or oiliness? You can even suck some air in through your teeth which helps to release aroma compounds in your mouth, which can then travel through your nose to help you taste and smell the wine even better.

Is the wine complex? Does the taste last for a long time in your mouth, or does the wine taste quickly disappear?

There are also tools such as aroma wheels and tasting guides which may be beneficial to have on hand when tasting wines – these provide suggestions of wine descriptors. It may also be useful to write down your thoughts in a journal.

And how to appreciate

The best way to really appreciate and enjoy wine is to talk about it. Enjoy wine with others such as a group of friends or a local wine enthusiast group. Taste wines side by side so you can compare the differences.

There is a wealth of information on wine appreciation available – wine critics give reviews of wines in print and online, and most larger wine retailers will also provide wine reviews. Or get out to wineries and talk to the cellar door staff or winemakers about their wines. It is very useful to talk to other people as this helps you to build up your “wine vocabulary”.

Consider the appearance, aroma and taste and then the overall impression of the wine. Your opinion is your opinion – nobody is right and nobody is wrong. If you want to go back for another taste, or another glass, then you have found the wine for you.

Ursula Kennedy 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. Appearance, aroma and mouthfeel: all you need to know to give wine tasting a go – https://theconversation.com/appearance-aroma-and-mouthfeel-all-you-need-to-know-to-give-wine-tasting-a-go-172500

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

A sense of proportion is a very useful quality in politics. In the case of Novak Djokovic, the Morrison government has lost that sense entirely.

Late Monday in the Federal Circuit Court, Judge Anthony Kelly quashed last week’s cancellation of the tennis star’s visa, done on his arrival in Australia to play in the Australian Open.

The judge read a minute, agreed to by both sides, which said Djokovic wasn’t given sufficient opportunity to respond at the border (the saga went through the early hours, when he couldn’t contact people).

With Djokovic’s court win, the government immediately faced an invidious choice – accept its humiliation or launch a fresh, hairy-chested offensive.

Immigration Minister Alex Hawke has the power to move, under his ministerial discretion, to cancel the now-restored visa.

On Monday night, a spokesman for Hawke said “the minister is currently considering the matter and the process remains ongoing”.

Surely, it would have been better for the government to just cut its losses at once. The speaker of Serbia’s parliament, Ivica Dacic, made some sense in saying “the process should have ended when the court ruled”.

Most Australians – in a highly vaccinated population – would struggle with the tennis star’s resistance to the jab. It seems perverse and irresponsible. Many would say he should not have been allowed to get on a plane to come to Australia, whether or not he had met the (unclear) technicalities of the medical exemption criteria.

All fair enough. But the government shenanigans after he was granted a visa and arrived at Melbourne airport blew the matter into a diplomatic incident, and the theatre of the absurd.

Some commentators argue the government calculated that throwing Djokovic out would be a political distraction from the horrors of the escalating Omicron crisis.

But really? Would people struggling with illness, the search for tests, and the disruption to employment and businesses, have their attention so readily diverted? Certainly not for more than an instant.

Looked at rationally, it is near impossible to understand why the government chose to get itself into this mess. Or why it left things hanging after the court decision.

It would be a stretch to argue Djokovic is a danger to public health. Earlier in the pandemic, the unvaccinated player might have been a COVID risk – that is, when we had more or less “suppressed” the virus. That’s hardly the case now, when the latest COVID wave is spreading – and being allowed by the authorities to spread – like wildfire.

The government may have wanted to use a tall poppy to reinforce that “tough-borders” message – you don’t get in if you don’t follow “the rules”, as Prime Minister Scott Morrison said.

But the evidence given in Monday’s court case indicated Djokovic arrived thinking he had followed the rules. And it turns out the government got its comeuppance from the court for not abiding by procedural rules.

Kelly declared during the hearing, “The point I’m somewhat agitated about is what more could this man have done” to comply with the rules. Anyway, it defies common sense to believe Djokovic would have undertaken the trip unless he thought things were in order.

The federal and Victorian governments, Tennis Australia, Border Force and Djokovic himself all share responsibility for this inglorious episode, which has been laced with confusion.

Assuming Djokovic arrived on a sincere misapprehension, the sensible course would have been for the government to have found a way through rather than resorting to its heavy handedness at the border. This has made Australia look like hicksville, and been bad for the reputation of the Australian Open.

Serbia mightn’t be France, but its president can also pack a punch when national pride is at stake.

Turning Serbia’s national hero into Australia’s national villain has been harder than the government thought. It’s become an own goal for the government’s latest “operation sovereign borders” chapter.

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

– ref. View from the Hill: Morrison government considering whether to cancel Djokovic’s visa – again – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrison-government-considering-whether-to-cancel-djokovics-visa-again-174604

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joe McIntyre, Associate Professor of Law, University of South Australia

Novak Djokovic is – at least for now – free to defend his title at the Australian Open after Judge Anthony Kelly of the Federal Circuit and Family Court quashed the cancellation of his visa following an agreement between the tennis star’s lawyers and the government.

After a confusing day-long hearing involving dense legal arguments, Djokovic was ordered to be released from immigration detention on procedural grounds – the judge said he hadn’t been given enough time to contest the original cancellation of his visa last Thursday morning.

But this left unresolved the bigger question of whether Djokovic was entitled to rely upon a medical exemption from Tennis Australia to enter the country and compete in the tournament without being vaccinated against COVID-19.

It is entirely possible Djokovic’s success in these proceedings is a hollow victory, with the government’s lawyer flagging Immigration Minister Alex Hawke will now consider whether to exercise his personal power to cancel the tennis star’s visa for a second time.

Grounds to challenge the visa cancellation

The saga surrounding the nine-time Australian Open champion has gripped the sporting world since Djokovic was detained upon arriving in Melbourne last week due to questions about his medical exemption from vaccination to play in the tournament starting on January 17.

Djokovic was moved to immigration detention in Melbourne’s notorious Park Hotel following the cancellation of his visa. His lawyers then lodged an application to challenge that cancellation through judicial review proceedings.

The process of judicial review allows a judge to examine the lawfulness of government decision-making. It is a limited process, not concerned with whether a right, preferable or fair decision has been made, but only whether the decision followed the proper legal processes and requirements.

Before the hearing began today, Djokovic’s lawyers had put forth eight distinct grounds for why, in their submission, the decision to cancel Djokovic’s visa was not lawful.

These included some technical issues, such as a contention the notice given to Djokovic to cancel his visa was invalid and the decision was based on nonexistent grounds under the Migration Act.

Similarly, his lawyers argued the process was unfair as Djokovic was “pressured” to agree to a decision on his visa without first consulting his lawyers.

The bigger question around a medical exemption

The substance of Djokovic’s challenge, however, revolved around his assertion that by testing positive to COVID-19 on December 16, he was exempt from any requirement to be vaccinated for six months.

His lawyers based this argument on guidelines set by ATAGI, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, which said:

COVID-19 vaccination in people who have had PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection can be deferred for a maximum of six months after the acute illness, as a temporary exemption due to acute major medical illness.

In response, the government argued this approach was an inaccurate reading of the guidelines, saying that mere previous infection would not be enough to allow an unvaccinated person entry into Australia. In essence, the guidance provides for a deferment of vaccination, not a reason to avoid it altogether.

Moreover, the Commonwealth argued Djokovic’s reliance on the Tennis Australia exemption letter was misguided, and ultimately he did not provide sufficient information to justify entry without vaccination.

Read more:
Secrecy surrounding Djokovic’s medical exemption means star can expect a hostile reception on centre court

The medical exemption from Tennis Australia was a matter of significant disagreement between the parties. In the hearing, Kelly seemed to show some deference to Djokovic’s argument, saying:

Here, a professor and an eminently qualified physician have produced and provided to the applicant a medical exemption. Further to that, that medical exemption and the basis on which it was given was separately given by a further independent expert specialist panel established by the Victorian state government […] The point I am agitated about is, what more could this man have done?

The Commonwealth argued that irrespective of what Tennis Australia or the Victorian government may have decided, it is the federal government’s decision whether a visa ought be cancelled on public health grounds.

And this highlights the significant powers of the federal government in immigration matters, and that ultimately, according to the government’s court filings, there is “no such thing as an assurance of entry by a non-citizen into Australia”.

What could happen next

Both sides agreed late in the day Djokovic hadn’t been given enough time to respond to the notification to cancel his visa. He was informed by border officials he would have until 8:30am on Thursday to respond, but his visa was cancelled at 7:42am. On this basis, Kelly ordered Djokovic to be released.

But the government’s lawyer immediately foreshadowed Hawke would consider using his personal power to cancel Djokovic’s visa again.

If such a decision is made, we should expect further litigation. Kelly said he expected to be “fully informed in advance” if he is required for future proceedings, ominously observing “the stakes have risen rather than receded”.

Kelly also noted Djokovic could be barred from re-entering Australia for three years if the personal power of the minister was used, though reports suggested this exclusion period could be waived.

For now, Djokovic is a free man. But it remains to be seen whether he will be spending the next few days on a tennis court or back in a federal court.

Read more:
Who can’t have a COVID vaccine and how do I get a medical exemption?

Joe McIntyre 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. Novak Djokovic’s path to legal vindication was long and convoluted. It may also be fleeting – https://theconversation.com/novak-djokovics-path-to-legal-vindication-was-long-and-convoluted-it-may-also-be-fleeting-174603

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archa Fox, Associate Professor and ARC Future Fellow, The University of Western Australia

Reports of GPs cancelling or postponing COVID vaccine appointments for 5-11 year olds are piling up, with desperate parents expressing anger and fear about how their as-yet unvaccinated children will fare as Omicron case numbers explode.

Federal COVID-19 Task Force Commander Lieutenant General John Frewen said on Monday:

Supply isn’t the issue; we’ve got enough vaccines. The real challenge now is just getting the distribution to where the demand is greatest.

South Australia’s health deputy chief executive Don Frater, however, has reportedly said that state has “more demand than what we have supply”.

The child’s dose comes in different vials to the adult dose, with different packaging.

The rollout of the Pfizer vaccine for children has come at a difficult time, from a logistics perspective. Many GPs have said “delivery delays” are behind the need to reschedule appointments.

Read more:
Australia may miss out on several COVID vaccines if it can’t make mRNA ones locally

What might be behind the delays?

This is a specialised product, which needs to be stored in special freezers at -80℃, and obviously needs to be transported in a certain way.

There are a lot of steps in the transport process – from the supplier overseas to the shipping service bringing them to Australia, from their landing spot in the country, to specialised storage, to individual GPs.

Each of those steps require staff on the ground to ensure the system works – and many workers in this system are likely being affected by Omicron.

The same staffing issues resulting in empty supermarket shelves could be affecting the vaccine distribution network too.

Thousands of drivers, administration staff, packers and logistics planners could be furloughed, off sick or in isolation because a household member is.

The rollout of the 5-11 year old vaccination program, timed in an effort to get kids vaccinated before school starts, also comes hot on the heels of the Christmas and New Year break; even without Omicron, it’s possible staffing numbers across the supply chain and logistics network are still yet to return to pre-Christmas levels.

There have been anecdotal reports of some people having their booster appointments being cancelled too, so it seems it is not only 5-11 year olds who are affected.

Read more:
Safety, side effects, allergies and doses. The COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine for 5-11 year olds explained

It’s hard to know how widespread the issue is. Frewen told Sunrise on Monday

if you’re having trouble at the moment, maybe with your normal healthcare provider, your GP, then please do try pharmacies, maybe try one of the state and territory clinics as they come online.

He told RN Breakfast that:

We will have more than enough vaccines for every kid to have their first dose before the end of the year.

This must be very frustrating for people who have tried to get in early and are keen to have their children vaccinated as soon as possible.

Clearly, something has fallen over somewhere in the distribution. It would be good to have some clarity from government and industry on exactly where the systemic problems are and what’s being planned to address them.

Domestic production of mRNA vaccines

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) only just provisionally approved the use of Pfizer’s COMINARTY COVID vaccine for people aged 5-11 years on December 3.

Moderna’s application for the use of SPIKEVAX COVID vaccine for children under age 12 is still under evaluation, according to the TGA.

Hopefully, once that is approved, parents of children in the 5-11 year old age bracket will have more choice on where and how they can get their child vaccinated.

Both Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID vaccines are mRNA vaccines, and experts have long called for a boost in domestic mRNA manufacturing capacity so Australia is less reliant on overseas supplies.

Promisingly, Moderna and the Australian government late last year announced an in-principle agreement to build a mRNA manufacturing facility in Victoria. The site will hopefully be up and running by 2024, according to media reports.

That’s something to be celebrated, and domestic manufacturing would hopefully mean a shorter and less complex supply chain with less opportunity for difficulties in future. But it does highlight it would have been good to have something worked out earlier.

It would also be prudent for the government to consider what it might take to lure Pfizer to develop mRNA manufacturing capability in Australia. You could argue, from a market point of view, it could be strategic for Moderna to have a manufacturing competitor here in Australia too.

If we are serious about building our biotechnology sector in Australia, then having monopoly of just one player in the country might not be ideal.

Read more:
Supermarket shortages are different this time: how to respond and avoid panic

Archa Fox receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the Australia New Zealand RNA Production Consortium that has lobbied for establishment of onshore mRNA vaccine manufacturing in Australia

– ref. Why has my child’s vaccination been cancelled? We’re reliant on overseas supply and a complex logistics network – https://theconversation.com/why-has-my-childs-vaccination-been-cancelled-were-reliant-on-overseas-supply-and-a-complex-logistics-network-174605

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ettore Camerlenghi, PhD student, Monash University

One mystery many biologists want to solve is how complexity develops in nature. And among the many social systems in the natural world, multilevel societies stand out for their complexity. Individuals first organise into families, which are members of bands, which are organised into clans.

At each level, associations between components (individuals, families and clans) are structured and stable. In other words, individuals within families usually stay together, and families usually interact with other specific families in a predictable way, to form stable clans.

Such social organisation has probably characterised much of human evolution (and is still common among many hunter-gatherer societies around the world).

In fact, multilevel societies likely played a fundamental role in human history, by accelerating our cultural evolution. Organising into distinct social groups would have reduced the transmission of cultures and allowed for multiple traditions to coexist.

In our research, published today in Ecology Letters, we studied social behaviours in a wild population of superb fairy-wrens. We found these birds also organise into multilevel societies – a level of complexity once thought to be exclusive to big-brained mammals.

Cooperatively breeding birds

Although we have ideas about the advantages of multilevel societies, we know relatively little about how and why they form in the first place.

Of the few species known to live in multilevel societies, there is one characteristic shared among all. That is, they live in stable groups, in environments where food availability is inconsistent and difficult to predict.

This is also true for many cooperatively breeding birds, including the superb fairy-wren – familiar across southeastern Australia’s parks and gardens. They breed in small family groups, with non-breeding helpers assisting a dominant breeding pair. And this social system is common among Australian bird species.

The superb fairy-wren is a well-studied species and is beloved by Australians, even being crowned bird of the year in this year’s Guardian/BirdLife Australia poll.

These birds are notorious for their polyamorous approach to sex, despite being socially monogamous. Breeding pairs form exclusive social bonds, yet each partner will still mate with other individuals.

Our work now reveals this complex arrangement during the breeding season is just the tip of the iceberg.

Read more:
It isn’t easy being blue – the cost of colour in fairy wrens

Associating by choice

We tracked almost 200 birds over two years, by attaching different-coloured leg bands to each individual. We recorded the birds’ social associations and, from our observations, built a complex social network that let us determine the strength of each relationship.

We found that during the autumn and winter months, some breeding groups – (which include the breeding pair, one or more helpers and last summer’s offspring), stably associated with other breeding groups to form supergroups. And this was usually done with individuals they were genetically related with.

In turn, these supergroups associated with other supergroups and breeding groups on a daily basis, forming large communities. In the following spring, these communities split back into the original breeding groups inhabiting well-defined territories – only to join again next winter.

Just like humans, these little birds don’t associate with each other randomly during the long winter months. They have specific individuals and/or groups they choose to be with (but we’re currently not sure how they make this choice).

While it’s not yet clear why superb fairy-wrens form upper social units (supergroups and communities), we suspect this might allow individuals to exploit larger areas during winter, when food is scarce. It would also provide additional safety against predators, such as hawks and kookaburras.

This theory is supported by our literature study, which shows that multilevel societies are likely common among other Australian cooperatively breeding birds, such as the noisy and bell miners and striated thornbills.

Cooperative breeding is another strategy to deal with harsh condition such as food scarcity. So the conditions that favour cooperative breeding are the same as those that favour multilevel societies.

Multilevel societies in other animals

There are several other species which seem to have a similar social organisation. They include primates such as baboons, and other large mammals that exhibit rich animal cultures, such as killer whales, sperm whales and elephants.

For a long time, researchers thought living in complex societies might be how humans evolved large brains. They also thought this characteristic may be exclusive to mammals with large brains, since keeping track of many different social relationships is not easy (or so the reasoning went).

Consequently, other animals with whom we are less closely related have mostly been excluded from this field of investigation.

This might reflect a bias that we, humans, have towards our own species and species which are similar to us.

As it turns, you don’t need to be a mammal with a big brain to evolve complex multilevel societies. Even small-brained birds such as the tiny superb fairy-wren can do this – as well as the vulturine guineafowl a chicken-like bird from northeast Africa.

We strongly suspect quite a few birds will join their ranks in the coming years as more research is done.

Acknowledgement: we would like to thank our colleagues Alexandra McQueen, Kaspar Delhey, Carly Cook, Sjouke Kingma and Damien Farine who are co-authors on this research.

Ettore received funding from the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment and the Ecological Society of Australia.

Anne Peters receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Program.

– ref. (The most social) bird of the year: why superb fairy-wren societies may be as complex as our own – https://theconversation.com/the-most-social-bird-of-the-year-why-superb-fairy-wren-societies-may-be-as-complex-as-our-own-171494

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Cronin, Professor, Strength and Conditioning, Auckland University of Technology

It’s the time of year to make resolutions to improve fitness and strength, but this may not require a gym membership or even hard work.

Strength training can be effective with small weights, provided by household items like a small can of spaghetti or wearable resistance loads incorporated into clothing.

You might remember from your school physics classes that strength and force are fairly synonymous. The formula for force was given to us by Sir Isaac Newton: force = mass x acceleration.

When you think of getting stronger or improving the force of certain muscles, you may have visions of lifting relatively heavy weights. But because of the large mass, you can’t move a heavy load quickly. As a result your movement velocities and accelerations are small.

But the Newtonian formula shows there is another possibility for improving strength. This type of training highlights the velocity and acceleration of movement, which means the masses have to be small or light – like the wearable resistance 600g weights the sprinter in this video is using on his thighs.

Depending on whether he is doing a tempo run or a sprint, the angular velocity at his hip can be between 400 to 1000 degrees per second, in other words very fast.

Wearable resistance

From a physics perspective, there are two ways to develop strength. You either move heavy loads slowly or light loads quickly.

Wearable resistance refers to strength training where you affix a load to your body in some manner. It takes advantage of the concept of moving small masses (micro-loading) at high velocities.

That small mass is being accelerated and decelerated at high rates, which in turn loads the muscles substantially.

Let’s add one more layer of physics to show how micro-loading with wearable resistance trains strength. Have you heard of inertia? It describes the resistance to a change in motion. Resistance is a function of mass.

For example, if you place a 400g weight on your mid-thigh, then your thigh is 400g heavier and therefore requires more muscular effort to accelerate and decelerate. If you place the same weight further away from the rotating hip joint, you’ll need to put in more muscular effort to get it going because that loading has greater rotational inertia.

It’s this rotational inertia you are really interested in when it comes to assessing the muscle training with limb-loaded wearable resistance. It is important to understand so you can use it safely and effectively.

The formula here is: rotational inertia = mass x radius²

Let’s take the thigh as an example. The thigh requires rotational force (torque) to move it. The larger the thigh mass, the more muscular effort (torque) is required by the hip flexors and extensors.

By simply adding more wearable resistance to the thigh you can increase the rotational inertia, which means more muscular effort or turning force (torque) is required at the hip joint.

But let’s not forget the second part of the formula (r²), which describes where we put the mass. This has a bigger influence on rotational inertia (muscular effort) because the distance between the joint and the added weight (radius) is squared.

Read more:
Resistance band workouts are everywhere – but do they work?

Increasing the training effect

I have modelled the rotational inertia associated with the thigh of a 86kg athlete. In the table you can see the rotational inertia for a variety of loads when they are placed mid-thigh.

By shifting the load further down the leg, you can increase the rotational inertia, for example from 4.7% to 12.1% for a 400g load.

This is called distal loading and it is one of the most important parameters to understand with wearable resistance. For every centimetre you move from the axis of rotation, the distance is squared and hence has a substantial effect on rotational inertia and therefore the muscular work required.

Read more:
Four ways older adults can get back to exercising – without the worry of an injury

Wearable resistance micro-loading provides an alternative to traditional strength training with heavy loads. It also has the added bonus of happening as part of what you are doing anyway, such as walking or swimming. For the time-poor, this is good news as the gym can take on less importance.

By slipping a weight further away from the rotating joint, you can systematically and progressively increase the training effect on your muscles without adding weight.

As a result of the greater mechanical load, your metabolic activity and calorie burning increase. There are many possible applications of wearable resistance training beyond strength and fitness building, including for general health, injury prevention and recovery.

John Cronin has worked for Lila Movement Technology, Malaysia and received shares in the company previously. He no longer receives funding or shares from this organisation.

– ref. Wearable resistance: how to get stronger by simply moving, with a little help from small weights – https://theconversation.com/wearable-resistance-how-to-get-stronger-by-simply-moving-with-a-little-help-from-small-weights-166350

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

Australian children aged 5-11 are eligible to receive their COVID-19 vaccine from today.

For many parents, vaccinating their child is a shared decision with both parents agreeing to go ahead.

But not all parents agree.

As we roll out COVID vaccines to younger children this week, what options are there if one parent wants to vaccinate their child but the other doesn’t?

Why do parents disagree about COVID vaccines?

Before COVID, parents chose to vaccinate their children for a range of reasons. This included a feeling of social responsibility, a belief in the protective medical benefit and safety of vaccines, and possibly a financial incentive, driven by policies including “No Jab No Pay”.

However, for some, barriers to timely vaccination remain. For instance, childhood illnesses may have prevented vaccination, or it may be difficult to get to a vaccine clinic because of work commitments or lack of transport.

Read more:
Why do people not vaccinate?

Others believe vaccination has unacceptable side effects or immunisation is ineffective in preventing disease. Others believe vaccines contain harmful substances, prefer natural or homeopathic alternatives, or mistrust medical evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of vaccination.

A minority of parents also falsely believe these apply to COVID-19 vaccines.

Why are disputes more of an issue now?

As we roll out COVID-19 vaccines to more children, vaccine disputes between parents may rise.

If parents disagree, what happens next partly depends on the age and maturity of the child.

For instance, teenagers aged 16 years and older are usually considered to have the capacity to consent for themselves. So if parents disagree, older teenagers with the capacity to consent can go ahead and get their shot anyway.

Where disputes are likely to arise is for younger children. For those aged 12-15, vaccinators like to see agreement from the adolescent to be vaccinated plus consent from the parent or guardian.

For children under 12, a parent or guardian needs to provide consent as young children are not deemed to have capacity to do so.

Written consent to vaccination is not required in Australia.

What happens next?

When parents disagree over whether to vaccinate their child, the child may be delayed in getting vaccinated or can remain unvaccinated until they can consent themselves.

Depending on the relationship between parents and whether it is safe to do so, parents can look together at reliable sources of information and answers to frequently asked questions about vaccination. These may address any misunderstandings or disagreements.

Seeking external advice from a neutral third party, such as a GP or specialist immunisation service, is also recommended. Other options include getting in touch with community organisations, such as family relationships organisations, or the Family Relationship Advice Line (1800 050 321). These may be able to advise about mediation.

If these methods fail, going to court may be the last resort. This comes with significant financial and emotional costs, so is best avoided.

Australia’s Family Court has set up a COVID-19 list to prepare for hearing disputes about children being vaccinated against COVID-19. The courts have already seen a rise in applications.

We can’t say for certain how the courts will decide. What we do know, however, is what happened when non COVID-19 vaccination disputes went to court.

The court has favoured vaccination

In research we have submitted for publication, we reviewed 27 cases involving parental disputes involving non COVID-19 immunisations. These went to court in Australia between 2002 and 2021.

In 21 of those cases, the court decided in favour of the parent who supported vaccination. In five cases, the court declined to make a decision due to a lack of medical expert evidence presented and asked this be gathered for future hearings. In only one case was parental responsibility awarded to the party opposing vaccination.

In all cases where traditional Western medical expert evidence was presented, the court decided in favour of the parent who supported vaccination.

Read more:
Safety, side effects, allergies and doses. The COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine for 5-11 year olds explained

In many cases, courts made statements on the individual and public benefits of immunisation. Common themes across judgements included:

• any potential risks of vaccination are greatly outweighed by the risk of harm from vaccine-preventable diseases
• failure of a parent to immunise exposes a child to risk of harm
• indirect benefits of immunisation to the community argues in favour of vaccination.

Many of these statements made about non COVID-19 vaccines also apply to COVID-19 vaccines.

Based on prior experience it seems likely courts will decide in favour of immunisation.

Start the discussion now

Almost 80% of Australian 12 to 15 year olds have had one dose of COVID vaccine and about 73% have had two doses. So if vaccine uptake in this age group is an accurate guide of parents’ views, we are likely to see similar high uptake in children aged 5-11.

Over 7 million children aged 5-11 in the US have received the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine and over 4 million have had two doses.

Clinical trial data of children this age showed they made antibodies and the vaccine showed efficacy. Real-world data is anticipated. There have been no safety concerns to date.

So, if you haven’t already started talking about vaccinating your child, now is the time.

Grace Barbara, a 4th year medical student at the University of Sydney, conducted the review of legal cases and contributed to research mentioned in this article.

Nicholas Wood receives funding from the NHMRC for a Career Development Fellowship. He holds a Churchill Fellowship awarded in 2019.

– ref. Should my child have a COVID vaccine? Here’s what can happen when parents disagree – https://theconversation.com/should-my-child-have-a-covid-vaccine-heres-what-can-happen-when-parents-disagree-174395

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

Before COVID-19, global surf tourism spending was estimated at up to A$91 billion per year. And since the start of the pandemic, demand for surfing has boomed as people increasingly turn to outdoor activities.

But surfing’s benefits to human well-being aren’t often studied in economics terms. This is a major knowledge gap we are now trying to fill.

Such research is important. Changes to the coastline – such as from sea walls and groynes – can dramatically reduce the quality of surfing waves. But the consequences of coastal developments on surfing are often poorly understood and rarely quantified before projects start.

It’s crucial we understand the real value of surfing, before we lose the myriad of benefits they bring – not only to Australia’s 1.2 million active surfers, but to hundreds of coastal towns where surfing underpins the local economy and lifestyle.

Surfing economics

There are many studies on the economic value of Australian beach pastimes such as fishing, swimming and diving. But not for surfing.

Internationally, we know surfing is a major direct contributor to the economy of wave-rich places. However, until recently, the value of surfing to human well-being has been largely unaccounted for.

This is despite recent evidence pointing to surfing’s positive social and health outcomes, including among war veterans and children with chronic illnesses.

Surfing Economics is an emerging field of research that documents and quantifies the total economic value of surfing. This can include, for example, increased house prices near good quality breaks, or social welfare benefits people derive from visiting surf beaches.

Read more:
Girls Can’t Surf shows how determined women battled sexism in their sport

Building on the few previous surfing economics studies in Australia, our research aims to calculate the total economic value of surfing.

Our forthcoming study on the Noosa World Surf reserve, so far, demonstrates that the local economic contribution of surfing is in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. This in terms of surfers’ welfare, as well as direct spending on surf gear and travel.

Overseas, the economic contribution is a little clearer. A 2017 study used satellite imagery to demonstrate that economic activity grows faster near good-quality surf breaks, particularly in developing countries such as Indonesia and Brazil.

In the UK alone, the overall annual impact of surfing on the national economy is calculated at up to £5 billion (over A$9 billion).

How coastal projects make or break waves

Swell waves are typically formed by winds blowing many kilometres offshore. It’s perhaps easy to think that this natural, distant origin means there’s nothing we can do about the formation of waves.

But the truth is surfing waves are the product of complex interactions between waves, tides, currents, wind and the shape of the seabed. Shallow coral reefs, headlands and sand banks are responsible for making highly sought-after waves.

By directly or indirectly impacting any of these factors, wave quality has been changed for better – or for worse.

The world-renowned Mundaka wave, in northern Spain, temporally disappeared because dredging of the nearby rivermouth changed ocean dynamics. This resulted in a decline in economic activity and the cancellation of the Billabong Pro World Championship in 2005 and 2006.

In the Portuguese island of Madeira, the construction of a rock-wall severely disrupted the formation of the Jardim do Mar wave in 2005, and a fall in local economic growth rates followed. In Peru, the extension of a fishing pier negatively impacted Cabo Blanco, one of Peru’s best barrelling waves, by shortening its length.

Closer to home, the Ocean Reef Marina, currently under construction in Perth’s north, will significantly impact three local surf breaks. About 1.5 kilometres of mostly unmodified beaches are being redeveloped into a brand new marina.

Read more:
Why surfing is an antidote to the relentless march of capitalism

Studies have shown that well planned coastal management interventions can dramatically increase benefits to surfers and non-surfers alike.

One of the most iconic examples is the “Superbank” at Snapper Rocks in the Gold Coast. There, a world class wave forms thanks to river sediment being relocated through the Tweed Sand Bypassing Project.

The project is costly to operate, but its expenses are outweighed by improvements to surf quality and beach amenity, which underpin the local economy and the nature-based, active lifestyle the Gold Coast is famous for.

Giving waves legal protection

Building on efforts nearly 40 years ago to protect Victoria’s iconic Bells Beach wave, Peru and New Zealand have granted statutory protection to their surf breaks under environmental protection laws.

In practice, this means threats to surf breaks by coastal activities, such as sewage discharges or building offshore structures, must be avoided or mitigated.

Read more:
Australia’s pristine beaches have a poo problem

Similar recognition and valuation of surfing resources is necessary and would be highly beneficial for Australia.

A rigorous, science-based evaluation of surfing’s total economic value could serve to inform cost-benefit analysis of coastal management programs. These may include fighting erosion to protect the coastline, or building artificial surf reefs.

In these uncertain times of COVID-19, many of us cannot yet travel far away. But with 85% of Australians living by the coast, many of us can still catch a wave at our doorstep – and that is priceless.

Read more:
White sharks can easily mistake swimmers or surfers for seals. Our research aims to reduce the risk

Ana Manero is an adjunct research fellow at the University of Western Australia.

From 2005-2010, Neil Lazarow was part of a team that received funding from Gold Coast City Council to produce the Gold Coast Shoreline Management Plan and various other small grants, such as for the development of the ‘Economic and social values of beach recreation on the Gold Coast’. He is also Member of the Planning Institute of Australia, and was a founding member of the Australian Coastal Society.

Alaya Spencer-Cotton and Javier Leon 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. What is the value of a wave? How changes to our coastline could wipe out surfing’s benefits – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-value-of-a-wave-how-changes-to-our-coastline-could-wipe-out-surfings-benefits-173502

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Lakeman, Associate Professor, Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University

Student evaluations, in the form of anonymous online surveys, are ubiquitous in Australian universities. Most students in most courses are offered the opportunity to rate the “quality” of their teachers and the course they take.

The original intention of student surveys was to help improve the learning experience. But it’s now become much more. Student surveys are often the only measure of teaching quality (along with pass rates). For lecturers, positive ratings and comments are often required to ensure continued employment or promotion.

But these anonymous surveys have also become a platform for defamatory, racist, misogynistic and homophobic comments against staff.

Read more:
Read the student survey responses shared by academics and you’ll see why Professor Hambling is justified in burning hers

We surveyed 791 Australian academics from different universities about their experience of anonymous student evaluations. The participating academics shared verbatim some of the non-constructive feedback students gave them. We collated examples of this feedback and published these in the journal Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.

We grouped the feedback into five broad themes: attire, appearance and accent; allegations against character; general insults; projections of blame; and threats or calls for punishment.

1. Attire, appearance and accent

Often the comments about appearance were gendered, misogynistic or racist with variations on being “too fat”, “ugly” and “old”.

One student wrote:

You look like something the cat dragged in.

Another said:

People who’s [sic] mother tongue is not English should not be employed as lecturers.

2. Allegations against character

These typically accused the lecturer of incompetence, racism or having negative attitudes towards students:

She is really rude which is why everyone hates her.

You are a cultural Marxist, your Wokeness undermines everything you do. Not all your students are left wing nut jobs like you. You seriously need to lose some weight.

3. General insults

Most insults were clearly designed to wound the teacher and there was no pretence about the comments having anything to do with teaching – although the following was an exception:

What the fuck did you think you were doing to take a couple of days off for your grandmother’s funeral when we had an assignment due?

Apart from variations on “I hate everything about you”, most insults were a combination of unimaginative adjectives or name calling including “bitch”, “bitter”, “crap”, “devil’s spawn”, “dick”, “dog”, “dinosaur”, “idiot”, “loser”, “mentally unstable”, “mole”, “Nazi”, “needs to chill”, “out of control”, “pathetic”, “psychotic”, “senile shit”, “smiling assassin”, “trash”, “unhappy” and “useless”.

4. Projections of blame

Most student evaluation surveys are done before grades are released but many students anticipated failure and blamed the teacher:

That fucking dyke bitch failed me she’s fucking useless that’s why I failed.

5. Threats and punishment

Hand-in-hand with projection of blame were threats or calls for punishment. Most often these called for the teacher to be sacked but also included far more harsher measures:

I’d like to shove a broom up her arse.

She should be stabbed with a pitchfork.

If I was X, I would jump off the tallest building and kill myself if I was that dumb.

Some managed to combine themes to achieve maximum offensiveness:

Stupid old hag needs a good fucking.

This bitch should be fired immediately. Why is someone this ugly allowed to teach? She better be careful I never see her in the car park. She needs to get a better fashion pick. Her clothes are hideous.

The impacts are serious

An analysis of research on university student evaluations of teaching, published in March 2021, found they were influenced by factors that have nothing to do with teaching quality. These include student demographics, and the teaching academic’s culture and identity. It also found evaluations include increasingly abusive comments.

While much of the criticism may seem like playground-level name calling, the impacts can be serious.

As part of our survey we asked teachers how anonymous student evaluations of their teaching affected their well-being, mental health, and professional and personal relationships. From our ongoing analysis of the survey data (yet to be published) a profile is emerging of a highly traumatised workforce. Early career academics, casual staff, women and minorities are disproportionately affected. Many appear to be triggered by every round of student evaluations.

If Australian universities persist in employing anonymous surveys, university teachers can continue to expect to receive racist, misogynistic, defamatory comments, threats of censure and even death.

Read more:
Our uni teachers were already among the world’s most stressed. COVID and student feedback have just made things worse

Even the Australian government is taking action against anonymous hate speech by announcing an inquiry into trolling on social media. But universities still protect people who want to insult, defame and make baseless accusations about others protected by a veil of anonymity.

Perhaps it is time to unmask the anonymous online trolls in the university sector, or require students to be potentially identifiable. The risk of being identified might at least reduce exposure to hate speech and increase civility in the corridors of higher learning.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

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. ‘Lose some weight’, ‘stupid old hag’: universities should no longer ask students for anonymous feedback on their teachers – https://theconversation.com/lose-some-weight-stupid-old-hag-universities-should-no-longer-ask-students-for-anonymous-feedback-on-their-teachers-173911

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flavio Macau, Associate Dean Teaching & Learning, Edith Cowan University

Australia has experienced plenty of supermarket shortages since the COVID pandemic began. The emerging crisis now is a bit different.

In 2020 and 2021, empty shelves were due to spikes in demand, as shoppers responded to lockdowns by buying more toilet paper, pasta and other consumables. This disrupted the usual rhythms of predictable supply chains. Apart from the first wave in March 2020, shortages were localised.

Now the shortages are due to supply-side problems, and occurring (almost) nationally. As Omicron infections surge in every state apart from Western Australia, supply chains are being crippled by the sheer number of transport, distribution and shop workers now sick or required to isolate.

The major problem now is in transport and distribution. The Transport Workers’ Union says a third to half of Australia’s truck drivers are off work. Woolworths chief executive Brad Banducci said on Friday more than 20% of distribution centre staff and more 10% of store workers are absent.

There are also problems in production, particularly in meat processing – an industry prone to the spread of COVID-19. Hundreds of workers in eastern states abattoirs are off work, according to Meat Industry Council chief executive Patrick Hutchinson. He has warned of severe shortages within weeks due to the lack of rapid antigen tests.

Read more:
Treating workers like meat: what we’ve learnt from COVID-19 outbreaks in abattoirs

A self-fulfilling crisis

Then, of course, there is the response of shoppers to shortages (or the expectation of shortages). We’ve seen how this works multiple times: products disappear from shelves, people buy more in response. Fear of shortages become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Coles has already imposed buying limits on certain meat items (except for WA) and warned customers to expect shortages for all of January. Woolworths and ALDI have not (apart from limits on hard-to-get rapid antigen tests).

But they might be forced to. That depends mostly on what happens in the next weeks in NSW, which plays a large role in national grocery logistics and where COVID-19 infections are surging.

So what to do?

What you can do

Open your freezer, go to your pantry. Do you have three weeks’ worth of essential items? Mince, pasta, rice, flour, beans, toilet paper?

I’ve been following these issues closely over the past two years. All of Australia’s supermarket supply crises were dealt with in less than three weeks. You really don’t need more than that.

If you don’t have three weeks’ supply, and have both the space and money to stock, go for it. If not now, because there is a shortage, then in the next opportunity. This is not about panic-buying or hoarding. I’m not suggesting you buy a year’s worth of toilet paper or tinned food. Just always have enough so you can have peace of mind next time.

Read more:
Disagreeability, neuroticism and stress: what drives panic buying during the COVID-19 pandemic

Supermarket restrictions

The pandemic has exposed the brittleness of just-in-time supply-chain management, which over decades honed the amount of stock held by manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to a minimum. This was fine for maximising profits in good times. Now the times call for more of a just-in-case approach, with enough flexibility to avoid the system collapsing in a crisis.

Supermarkets have already made changes to avoid repeats of the supply crises of 2020 and 2021 by keeping more stock on hand. But this alone can’t solve the problem. The grocery business is competitive. Floor and refrigeration space is finite. They can’t afford to overstock.

What they can do is move to a more decentralised system for restricting quantities of items customers can buy when shortages do occur.

Every store can calculate safety stock levels to protect them from supply-chain fluctuations. When an item is about to go missing from the shelves they shouldn’t have to wait for a decision from the central office to restrict quantities. They should be able to do it on the spot, while corporate headquarters works out alternatives.

When the problem is not lack of inventory but insufficient people to move products from warehouses to stores, the solution is visibility – letting consumers know about staff shortages, that there’s more than enough product on its way as soon as logistics allow, and that other stores are better supplied.

Cooperation is key

It is unlikely every store will be equally hit by labour shortages at the same time. Imagine evolving to a point where a Coles store with empty shelves informs shoppers the product is available two blocks away at the IGA.

For this to happen, of course, requires cooperation between competitors, and therefore easing of the usual anti-cartel rules that expressly prohibit collusion. But there is a clear precedent for this. In April 2020 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission gave temporary authorisation to telcos, banks, medical suppliers and supermarkets to collaborate to ensure supply of essential goods and services.

Read more:
Look who’s talking: Australia’s telcos, banks and supermarkets granted exemption to cartel laws

There is a clear case for supermarkets to cooperate now – and for the foreseeable future, with the Australian Retailers Association expecting the supply chain issues to continue for at least 12 months.

Both federal and state governments can help set the rules of engagement, and provide accurate and actionable information to give the correct dimension of the problem. They have, for example, data from past decisions such as the effect of Victoria’s restrictions on abattoirs in 2020.

If everyone is ready, doing what they can, we may reach a culture of resilience in Australia where empty shelves in supermarkets is but a bitter memory.

A/Prof Flavio Macau is affiliated with the Australasian Supply Chain Institute (ASCI)

– ref. Supermarket shortages are different this time: how to respond and avoid panic – https://theconversation.com/supermarket-shortages-are-different-this-time-how-to-respond-and-avoid-panic-174529

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

For two years, COVID has dominated our world. In Australia, we’ve tested every sniffle, undergone extensive lockdowns, and double-vaccinated more than 90% of adults to combat this lethal virus.

So, it’s understandable our first reaction when we test positive to COVID ourselves is to panic.

However, a positive test doesn’t mean you will necessarily end up in hospital.

As a GP, here’s my advice on what you should do.

When you test positive

If you test positive on a rapid antigen test at home, you’re no longer required to get a PCR test.

If you have symptoms and cannot get either a PCR or a rapid antigen test, you should assume you have COVID and self-isolate until you can get tested.

Who should you tell?

Tell a support person – someone who will be able to check on you every day, either in person (taking appropriate precautions) or by phone.

Also notify your work and cancel any other commitments you have coming up for the following week.

Contact tracing is completely overwhelmed in most states and territories, so make sure to notify your close contacts yourself.

Currently, this is defined as a person who has spent four hours or more with you in a household or “household-like” setting while you’re infectious, which includes the two days before you got symptoms. Realistically, someone can catch it from you in much less than four hours, so notifying anyone you spent time with (even if less than four hours), would make medical sense.

In some states you are asked to notify the public health unit that you’ve tested positive. But at the time of writing there’s no national approach to self-reporting.

Only inform your doctor if you have certain conditions

Don’t automatically notify your GP. In many cases, if you’re young, fit and healthy there’s no benefit to you.

The current national recommendations for treating COVID suggest adults with mild illness and no other risk factors may manage their symptoms at home.

With tens of thousands of people being diagnosed daily – and GPs rolling out booster vaccines, vaccines for children, and continuing our usual work – we don’t have capacity to review every person in Australia who’s a positive test each day.

However, certain people testing positive should arrange a telehealth consultation with a GP regardless of how well they feel on receiving the news.

This includes people who are over 65, pregnant, immunocompromised, unvaccinated, or have certain diseases like diabetes, obesity, kidney, heart, liver or lung disease.

As people in this group are at higher risk of deteriorating, they may be able to access medications such as antiviral therapy to reduce that risk.

Read more:
It’s still not too late to fix the rapid antigen testing debacle. Why the national cabinet decision is wrong and must be reversed

Treating ourselves at home

Most of us will be treating ourselves at home.

This will usually apply to people who are under 65, aren’t pregnant, have had at least two doses of a COVID vaccine, and don’t suffer from any chronic conditions.

Here are some things to consider:

• make sure your home is as safe as possible for others who live there. It’s not inevitable everyone at home will catch it from you, especially if you keep it well ventilated

• as you’re not allowed to leave the house at all (except for urgent medical care), ensure you have ways of getting food and medication, such as via home delivery services

• rest, keep up your fluids, and treat pain and fever symptoms with over-the-counter medications if needed, like paracetamol and ibuprofen

• nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea aren’t uncommon. If you experience any of these, eat small meals more often, stick to “white coloured” foods (pasta, rice, potato, white bread), and drink enough for your urine to look pale

• continue your usual medications. It’s very important you don’t stop taking these, unless your GP specifically advises otherwise

• if you have access to an oxygen monitor, use it three times a day or if you feel your breathlessness is worsening. If your levels are 92% or lower, you need urgent review. Don’t rely on a smart watch for oxygen monitoring.

Here are some further helpful guides to managing COVID at home.

Read more:
5 tips for ventilation to reduce COVID risk at home and work

When to get medical help

The national Healthdirect website suggests asking yourself these questions morning, afternoon and night:

• can I get my own food?

• can I drink?

• can I go to the toilet normally?

• can I take my regular medication?

If you answer “no” to any of these questions, call your GP for a telehealth assessment.

Some parts of Australia have systems where home monitoring takes place under a management plan devised by a health-care provider. Your GP will help you access this if appropriate.

You may also like to complete a daily symptom checklist.

When to go to hospital

Bypass your GP, go to straight to hospital, or call 000 if you develop any of the following:

• breathlessness, so you’re unable to speak in sentences, for example you cannot count to 20 in a single breath

• fainting, unusually sleepy (difficult to rouse) or lethargic, or become unconscious at any point

• skin turning blue or pale, or becoming clammy and cold

• pain or pressure in the chest

• confusion

• passing no urine or a lot less urine than usual

• coughing up blood.

When will you be safe to stop isolation?

Current guidelines on this are complicated, vary from state to state, and change frequently.

For starters however, you can expect at least seven days of isolation.

Rules around safely stopping isolation centre on protecting both yourself and others. Therefore, as a general rule, you may stop isolating once you’re no longer infectious (evidenced by a negative PCR or rapid antigen test), your symptoms have passed (mild/occasional coughing is OK as this can last weeks) and you feel well enough to return to your normal life.

It’s best to check local requirements before stopping your isolation.

Finally, if you’re reading this before having tested positive, now is a great time to do some planning and put preparations in place, just in case you do.

Natasha Yates is affiliated with the RACGP

– ref. I’ve tested positive to COVID. What should I do now? – https://theconversation.com/ive-tested-positive-to-covid-what-should-i-do-now-174458

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jess Marsh, Research fellow at the Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University

Have you recently spotted a spider peeking out from a brown, curled-up leaf in your garden?

Chances are you’re sharing your yard with the leaf-curling spider, Phonognatha graeffei (pronounced fon-og-natha greef-e-i), a fascinating member of the orb-weaving spider family Araneidae (pronounced aran-ee-i-dee).

This spider – found in each state and territory in Australia – builds its orb web in plants and places in it a special custom-built hiding spot: a curled up leaf.

Similar to other orb-weaving spiders, the leaf-curling spider lives for only one year and is most commonly seen in late summer.

They are found in woodlands as well as urban gardens and greenery and have particularly interesting family arrangements.

Why and how do they curl the leaves?

To make their leafy retreats, these spiders use silk to lift a leaf up from the ground and into their orb web.

Using their legs, they then carefully curl it up and secure it with silk in a funnel or cone shape. They weave this curled leaf into the web using more silk.

If they can’t find a suitable leaf, they might use other objects such as snail shells and pieces of paper.

Young spiders, which aren’t as strong as adults, start by curling up small, fresh green leaves for their retreats and move on to bigger dry leaves as they get older.

The curled leaves – or bits of paper – protect the spider from hungry predators, such as birds. They also shield the spider from parasitic wasps, which lay their eggs on or in the bodies of other insects and spiders, eventually killing their hosts.

The spider can sit safely in their retreat, while keeping their front legs extended and in contact with their orb web. That way, the spider can sense any vibrations caused by an insect trapped in its web – and nip out to grab the food.

Like most other orb-weaving spiders, leaf-curling spiders are not fussy and will eat any insect that happens to get tangled in their web, such as flies, bees, moths and butterflies. They can even handle prey quite a bit bigger than them.

The spiders will spend most of their time in their retreat, only venturing out to get food in the day, or to repair and rebuild their webs (usually at night).

Venomous? Yes. Dangerous? No.

Nearly all spiders you come across are venomous – in other words, they have venom.

But being venomous isn’t the same as being dangerous to humans, and like most spiders, leaf-curling spiders aren’t dangerous to us.

The leaf-curling spider has small fangs that point together, a bit like pincers. Bites are rare. If you hassle one, the spider could try to bite, which may cause localised pain and swelling at the site – but the symptoms are generally mild.

If you spot one, just “leaf” it alone and it will do the same to you.

And remember: having leaf-curling spiders in your back yard is something to be proud of! These fascinating little creatures are great for keeping down pest insects and are a gardener’s friend.

Are there eggs or baby spiders inside the curled leaves?

These spiders have interesting family arrangements.

Unusually for spiders, males and female leaf-curling spiders form pairs and share a leaf retreat.

The male moves in with the female when she is young and once she is mature he will mate with her. According to one study

Females may cannibalise cohabiting males, which occurs independently of whether the female has been deprived of food.

After mating, the female makes another curled leaf retreat in vegetation away from her web. This one is a “nursery” retreat, in which she will lay her eggs.

A fascinating and beautiful world

Spiders aren’t top of most people’s favourite animal list, I get that.

But, if you are able to spend a bit of time observing their lives and getting to know them and their stories, it can open up a fascinating and often beautiful world.

Spiders and other invertebrates such as beetles, flies, snails and millipedes are really important for the workings of our natural world, and so for us.

And when you get to know them, they are also pretty cool.

Jess Marsh 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. Leaf at first sight: how leaf-curling spiders pair up and build a family home – https://theconversation.com/leaf-at-first-sight-how-leaf-curling-spiders-pair-up-and-build-a-family-home-170775

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Karnon, Professor of Health Economics, Flinders University

Following considerable public pressure over the past few weeks, the federal government has announced concession card holders will soon be able to collect up to ten free rapid antigen tests over three months.

But everyone else will continue to have to purchase their own rapid antigen tests, which cost upwards of A$10 a test.

In countries like Singapore, the UK and Germany, rapid antigen tests are free for everyone.

We’ve developed a model that estimates how cost-effective a policy of government-funded rapid antigen tests for all Australians would be. We’ve released our economic analysis as a pre-print online, which is yet to be independently reviewed by other researchers.

We found a policy of government-funded rapid antigen tests for all is highly likely to be cost-effective.

Even minor reductions in COVID transmission rates due to increased early isolation would justify the additional costs associated with the policy.

Here’s why.

Read more:
It’s still not too late to fix the rapid antigen testing debacle. Why the national cabinet decision is wrong and must be reversed

Why is testing so important?

Testing and contact tracing have been the primary measures used to interrupt the spread of COVID around the world.

One of the benefits of testing for cases is it allows countries to rapidly identify new cases, isolate affected people and their close contacts, and thereby slow further transmission of the disease.

Australia has relied on PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests to confirm COVID cases, which are funded by the federal government and free for Australians.

But the emergence of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, coinciding with a relaxation of public health restrictions and the social festive season, has led to a surge in COVID cases in Australia, swamping the PCR testing system.

Governments are pivoting towards using rapid antigen tests to confirm positive cases, which can give results in 15 minutes, although they’re not as accurate as PCR tests.

Read more:
Taking your first rapid antigen test? 7 tips for an accurate result

How does our analysis work?

We created a “decision tree” model, which represents the testing pathways for a hypothetical group of people without COVID symptoms.

We used it to estimate the number of COVID-positive people isolating before developing symptoms.

It’s key people isolate as early as possible, to reduce the risk of spread to others.

We analysed a range of possible scenarios.

A key parameter is the proportion of people who use a rapid antigen test who have COVID.

Let’s play out one scenario.

Let’s say a group of 10,000 people get free rapid antigen tests funded by the government. Assume 1,000 out of 10,000 users have COVID, and that a rapid antigen test costs $10.

Let’s also assume 2,000 of the 10,000 would buy rapid antigen tests if not government-funded. (The real-life proportion who would be willing and able to buy a rapid antigen test is impossible to know, given the current shortage.)

What did we find?

In the group where everyone had access to free rapid antigen tests, the model estimates this policy would result in successfully isolating an additional 464 people early, compared with a group in which 20% purchased their own rapid antigen tests.

Providing free rapid tests for 10,000 people would cost the government $100,000, but spending less on PCR tests (which are about $150 each) reduces the additional costs to the government to around $52,000.

Rapid antigen tests are less effective in people with no symptoms, so they wouldn’t catch everybody in the group who’s COVID-positive.

But the net effect is preventing an additional 464 people from infecting more people, thereby reducing costs to the economy of further infections. The costs of these people isolating only after developing symptoms would likely be far higher than the extra $52,000 spent on tests.

Dividing the $52,000 by the 464 earlier isolating cases gives us an estimate of the cost to the government per additional earlier isolating person with COVID – $112. This allows us to compare alternative scenarios.

For example, if only 500 of 10,000 users of government-funded rapid antigen tests had COVID, 232 more people would isolate early and the cost per additional earlier isolating person with COVID would be $328.

If only 100 of 10,000 users have COVID, the corresponding value is $2,052.

The less COVID circulating, the less effective a policy of free rapid antigen tests for all would be. But even with low prevalence, it’s still highly likely to be cost-effective.

The expected benefits of early isolation are difficult to quantify, but it can only help to constrain the spread of COVID and the number of people infected by each person with COVID (the reproductive number). Modelling shows that in Australia the reproductive number increased from around 1 to 1.5 over the course of December 2021, and daily reported COVID cases increased from around 1,000 to over 30,000. This illustrates the importance of the reproductive number and the magnitude of the potential effects of increasing early isolation of people with COVID. Even a minor reduction in the reproductive number will have a significant effect on the number of daily cases.

There are high costs to health and the economy of not successfully isolating COVID positive people early.

COVID positive people, who don’t know they’re positive, will spread it to others, many of whom will get sick, require medical attention, and take time off work. Some will need to go to hospital, be in intensive care, and be put on a ventilator. And some will die.

A proportion of those who do recover from the initial phase of the infection will have lingering symptoms from the virus, known as “long COVID”.

All of these outcomes impose significant costs to people and society. We could make a conservative assumption that each early isolated case prevents at least one new COVID case and that the broad range of costs associated with one COVID case are far higher than the $112 it might cost the government per additional early isolated person with COVID.

Are there any downsides?

One thing to consider is overuse. If people used rapid antigen tests too much, for example when people are highly unlikely to have been exposed to COVID, this would reduce the cost-effectiveness of the policy.

In saying that, the unpleasant nature of the testing process should limit such overuse – no one enjoys sticking the swab up their nose!

Hoarding is another risk, as with toilet paper in the early days of the pandemic. So it would be important to ensure confidence in the supply and distribution of the tests.

Read more:
Why are people stockpiling toilet paper? We asked four experts

Constraining the spread of COVID is important for many reasons, including avoiding short- and long-term health effects, reducing burden on the health system, and increasing availability of essential workers.

Easy and equitable access to testing is a cornerstone of the public health response to COVID. It also makes economic sense.

Jonathan Karnon receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund.

Billie Bonevski receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, NSW Ministry of Health, National Heart Foundation and The Hospital Research Foundation.

Hossein Afzali receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

– ref. Free rapid antigen tests makes economic sense for governments, our analysis shows – https://theconversation.com/free-rapid-antigen-tests-makes-economic-sense-for-governments-our-analysis-shows-174342

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris J Jolly, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Charles Sturt University

The estimate that one billion animals were killed by Australia’s 2019-20 Black Summer fires drew international attention to the fate of wildlife during fire.

This estimate assumed all animals in the fire’s path were killed by the flames, or in the immediate aftermath due to injury, predation, dehydration or starvation.

However, our new research, published today in Global Change Biology, suggests that, on average, the vast majority of animals (more than 90%) actually survive the immediate passage of a typical fire. But there are precious few studies of animal survival through catastrophic fires, such as those observed during Australia’s Black Summer.

We urgently need data on how animals cope with megafires, given these are expected to increase in a warming world.

How do we know how many animals are killed by fire?

How do researchers actually know the fate of wildlife exposed to fire? The most reliable way is to track animals wearing radio or GPS collars.

As fire passes through a landscape, animals in its path unable to flee or find shelter often die from the the flames, radiant heat, or smoke. By tracking these individuals, as well as those that survived, we can calculate the proportion of animals that live and die during fire.

We systematically reviewed all studies tracking animal survival during fires from around the world. The 31 studies we found came largely from Australia and North America. The fires included planned burns, as well as opportunistic studies where an unexpected wildfire passed through an existing animal tracking programme.

Studies mostly tracked mammals and reptiles, though some included birds and amphibians. Animals studied ranged from tiny red-backed fairywrens weighing only 8 grams through to African bush elephants, the world’s largest terrestrial vertebrate at up to 4.4 tonnes.

So what did we find? The most remarkable finding is that almost two-thirds of studies (65%) found zero animal deaths directly caused by the fires. It turns out animals are surprisingly good at avoiding oncoming fire. Some animals may have evolved these tricks over time.

Read more:
3 billion animals were in the bushfires’ path. Here’s what the royal commission said (and should’ve said) about them

For instance, all mountain brushtail possums tracked through Victoria’s intense 2009 Black Saturday fires survived.

It’s important to note the 31 studies often tracked only a handful of animals (half tracked less than ten individuals), with a wide variation in death rates. In one study, for instance, up to 40% of rattlesnakes were killed. However, this study only tracked five snakes, two of which perished in the fire.

When we aggregated the studies we found something interesting. On average, fires killed just 3% of tracked animals. This figure rose to 7% for studies tracking animal survival through high severity fires.

Not all fires are the same, and some animals are good at surviving one kind of fire, but succumb to other fires. Take frill-necked lizards, who typically shelter in the tree canopy during fires in northern Australia. When they employed this tactic during cool, early dry season fires, all tracked lizards survived.

When more severe fires occurred later in the dry season, a quarter of the lizards were killed. Many that remained in place were killed by flames that scorched the canopy. Those savvy enough to shelter in termite mounds survived.

The silver lining: All is not lost after fire

When you read a headline about the number of animals killed in fires, it can be easy to despair.

That’s why we believe our research is good news. Why? Because it means there may be a narrow window of opportunity after fires to have a real impact, by helping animals survive the challenging post-fire period.

You might remember stories of helicopters dropping sweet potatoes and carrots to starving rock wallabies immediately following the Black Summer fires.

Our research suggests this is exactly the time to act to help as much wildlife as possible.

That’s because the post-fire landscape is exceptionally challenging for surviving wildlife. For months afterwards, home has turned hostile for animals.

It’s very hard to find shelter, with food and water also scarce. Predators roam, looking for easy pickings.

So what can be done? Efforts to reduce these dangers are key, such as supplementing food and water, and even dropping in temporary shelter options. Controlling foxes and cats might also help.

Taken together, this package could help save threatened species after wildfire – even from high-severity megafires. But these interventions need to be monitored to assess their effectiveness.

Read more:
Some animals have excellent tricks to evade bushfire. But flames might be reaching more animals naive to the dangers

Can animals cope with megafires?

At present, we know next to nothing about animal death rates during catastrophic fire events like the megafires raging over the Black Summer.

Although animals might survive typical fire, there are increasing instances of fires around the world that display extreme behaviour. For instance, the numerous fire storms that occurred during the Black Summer probably left a narrow pathway to survival for many species.

We simply lack the data to provide justifiable estimates of how many animals are killed across such vast areas during such extreme fires.

As climate change intensifies, megafires are likely to become more common.
Even if populations are resilient to individual megafires, their cumulative impacts may gradually erode that resilience. We also need to consider the major impact fires can have on habitat, which can last for decades or centuries.

We will urgently need to find ways of helping wildlife before and after these fires.

Chris J Jolly receives funding from Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program (Threatened Species Recovery Hub).

Dale Nimmo receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, and the World Wildlife Fund.

– ref. Surprisingly few animals die in wildfires – and that means we can help more in the aftermath – https://theconversation.com/surprisingly-few-animals-die-in-wildfires-and-that-means-we-can-help-more-in-the-aftermath-174392

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

Federal Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese this week announced a commitment to funding high-speed rail between Sydney and Newcastle.

At speeds of more than 250km/h, this would cut the 150-minute journey from Sydney to Newcastle to just 45 minutes. Commuting between the two cities would be a lot more feasible.

The Sydney-Newcastle link would be a first step in a grand plan to link the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane corridor by high-speed rail.

Albanese also wants the trains to be built at home, saying “we will look build as much of our fast and high-speed rail future in Australia as is possible”.

Of course, this idea has been around for a long time. Nobody has ever got the numbers to stack up before.

Federal infrastructure minister Paul Fletcher made the obvious but reasonable point that such a rail link would be very expensive.

“It is $200 to $300 billion on any credible estimate,” he said in response to Labor’s announcement. “It has to be paid for, and that means higher taxes”.

Or does it?

Social cost-benefit analysis

Traditional cost-benefit analysis is how governments tend to make decisions about big infrastructure projects like this. Figure out the costs (such as $300 billion) and then figure out the benefits. Adjust for timing differences and when money is spent and received, and then compare.

This generates an “internal rate of return” (IRR) on the money invested. It’s what private companies do all the time. One then compares that IRR to some reference or “hurdle” rate. For a private company that might be 12% or so. For governments it is typically lower.

An obvious question this raises is: what are the benefits?

If all one is willing to count are things such as ticket fares, the numbers will almost never stack up. But that’s far too narrow a way to think about the financial benefits.

A Sydney-Newcastle high-speed rail link would cut down on travel times, help ease congestion in Sydney, ease housing affordability pressures in Sydney, improve property values along the corridor and in Newcastle, provide better access to education and jobs, and more.

The point is one has to think about the social value from government investments, not just the narrow commercial value. Alex Rosenberg, Rosalind Dixon and I provided a framework for this kind of “social return accounting” in a report published in 2018.

Newcastle might make sense, Brisbane might not

I haven’t done the social cost-benefit analysis for this rail link, but the social return being greater than the cost is quite plausible.

The other thing to remember is that the return a government should require has fallen materially in recent years. The Australian government can borrow for 10 years at just 1.78%, as opposed to well over 5% before the financial crisis of 2008.

Read more:
Let’s get moving with the affordable medium-speed alternatives to the old dream of high-speed rail

I’m less sure about the Brisbane to Melbourne idea. The cost would be dramatically higher for obvious reasons, as well as the fact that the topography en route to Brisbane is especially challenging.

Nobody is going to commute from Sydney to Brisbane by rail, and the air routes between the three capitals are well serviced.

Transport policy is not industry policy

The decision about building a Sydney-Newcastle rail link is, and should be kept, completely separate from where the trains are made. Transport policy shouldn’t be hijacked for industry policy.

To be fair, Newcastle has a long and proud history of manufacturing rolling stock, at what was the Goninan factory at Broadmeadows – much of it for export.

But ask yourself how sustainable that industry looks in Australia, absent massive government support. Can it stand on its own?

Read more:
Look beyond a silver bullet train for stimulus

It’s also true there have been some recent high-profile procurement disasters buying overseas trains.

Sydney’s light-rail project has run massively late and over budget, with Spanish company Acciona getting an extra A$600 million due to the project being more difficult than expected.

Then cracks were found in all 12 trams for the city’s inner-west line, putting them out of service for 18 months.

These are terrible bungles due to the government agreeing to poorly written contracts with sophisticated counterparties. When contracts don’t specify contingencies there is the possibility of what economists call the “hold-up problem”.

But these problems could have occurred with a local maker too.

The Tinbergen Rule

An enduring lesson from economics is the Tinbergen Rule – named after Jan Tinbergen, winner of the first Nobel prize for economics.

This rule says for each policy challenge one requires an independent policy instrument. This can be widely applied. But here the lesson is particularly clear.

Addressing housing affordability is a good idea, and a Sydney-Newcastle link could help with that. But if Labor want a jobs policy it should develop one.

The more TAFE places Labor has already announced is a reasonable start.

Read more:
Vital Signs: we need to make things in Australia, but not like in the past

Reviving 1970s-style industry policy – something that has almost never worked – is not a good move. Governments are lousy at picking winners. The public invariably ends up paying more for less, and the jobs are typically transient.

But aside from this conflation of policy goals, Albanese deserves credit for being bold about the future of high-speed rail in Australia.

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

– ref. Vital Signs: Sydney to Newcastle fast rail makes sense. Making trains locally does not – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-sydney-to-newcastle-fast-rail-makes-sense-making-trains-locally-does-not-174341