Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marion Terrill, Transport and Cities Program Director, Grattan Institute

Revising the generous fuel tax credits given to businesses should be a priority for the Albanese government, because keeping them would conflict with two other pressing priorities: reducing carbon emissions and repairing the budget.

Fuel tax exemptions have existed for as long as the federal government has taxed fuel, starting in 1957. With the rationale for the tax being to pay for building and maintaining roads, initially all off-road users were exempt.

But the earmarking of all fuel tax revenue for spending on roads ended in 1959 – more than 60 years ago. With the tax becoming a general revenue-raiser, the rationale for exemptions or tax credits has shifted with the disposition of the government of the day.

The settings inherited by the Albanese government now cost the budget almost $8 billion a year.

As long ago as 1991, the Australian National Audit Office recommended the credit scheme “clarify its purpose and objectives”. Yet those objectives remain unclear today.

Who benefits most?

Previous governments have argued exemptions and tax credits support regional industries, and people living in regional areas.

In 1999, when the credit was extended to marine, rail, and some trucks and buses, the then-deputy prime minister (and National Party leader) John Anderson said the goal was to reduce transport costs, particularly for “those people living in regional, rural and remote areas”.

In 2006, when expanding the credit to include all off-road users and on-road vehicles weighing over 4.5 tonnes, the then-assistant treasurer Peter Dutton said: “This is good news for business, and regional Australia in particular.”

But if the aim of the policy is to support regional areas, fuel tax credits are a poorly targeted way to do so.

Read more:
We pay billions to subsidise Australia’s fossil fuel industry. This makes absolutely no economic sense

In the five industries that receive almost 90% of the value of credits, more than 60% of businesses, and 67% of employees, are in major cities.

There is no evidence fuel tax credits particularly benefit regional areas, or that they are more effective than other policies in doing so.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that fuel tax credits are mostly a gift to the mining and agricultural industries – the only non-care industries that have always received an exemption from paying taxes on fuel, and the major recipients of fuel tax credits today.

Budgetary needs have prompted changes

Changes to fuel tax credits have also aligned with the budgetary needs of the government of the day.

In 1982, when government debt as a share of GDP was rising steadily, the Fraser government narrowed the scheme to just mining, primary industries and care industries. Many businesses previously exempt – including in rail, marine, construction and manufacturing – were forced to pay fuel taxes.

In 2006, the Howard government broadened the scheme during the mining boom when budget surpluses meant no net debt for the first time in 30 years.

Despite the straightened fiscal position the government now faces, the credit scheme remains unchanged.

Out of step with net zero and budget repair

The Albanese government has several growing spending obligations, particularly in health, aged care, disability care and interest expenses on its debt.

After stripping out the effects of temporary factors such as high commodity prices, there remains a stubborn gap between government receipts and spending of about $40 billion a year.

In a new report published by Grattan Institute, Fuelling budget repair: How to reform fuel taxes for business, we argue fuel tax credits should be removed for on-road users, and roughly halved for off-road users. This would save about $4 billion a year.

It would also reflect the environmental and health costs of diesel use.

Read more:
Australia’s government gives more support to fossil fuel research than is apparent

Giving businesses tax credits on for consuming fuel without having to pay for or reduce their carbon emissions is sharply at odds with the government’s goal of net zero emissions by 2050. Diesel combustion currently accounts for 17% of Australia’s emissions.

In 2020, the top five industry recipients of fuel tax credits directly produced more than half of Australia’s emissions. That share is expected to reach 64% by 2030.

As well as helping repair the budget, reducing fuel tax credits would signal to businesses that they need to consider emissions in their investment decisions, minimising the costs to future consumers, taxpayers and shareholders.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and Grattan uses the income to pursue its activities. Marion Terrill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any other company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and Grattan uses the income to pursue its activities.

– ref. How to save $4 billion a year: reform a fuel tax credit scheme with no real rationale – https://theconversation.com/how-to-save-4-billion-a-year-reform-a-fuel-tax-credit-scheme-with-no-real-rationale-198999

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

Australia’s Reserve Bank is set to push up rates once again at its first meeting for the year on Tuesday, according to all but two of the 29 leading economists surveyed by The Conversation at the start of 2023.

Those experts predict we will still be living with higher rates by the end of the year, although they should start to come down in 2024.

Their average forecast is an increase in the bank’s cash rate target from 3.1% to 3.6% during 2023. That’s enough to add an extra A$190 to the monthly cost of servicing a $600,000 variable mortgage, bringing the total increase in the cost of servicing such a mortgage since the bank began hiking rates in May 2022 to more than $1,000.

All but three of the specialists surveyed expect the Reserve Bank’s cash rate target to peak during 2023, and on average the panel expects it to fall back to close to its present level during 2024.

Panelist Jo Masters of Barrenjoey Capital says the bank’s keenness to bring down inflation will be tempered by the knowledge that a large number of borrowers are set to exit the very cheap three-year fixed-rate loans they took out early in the pandemic and are facing very steep increases indeed.

The highest forecast for a peak in the cash rate is from former Reserve Bank research manager Peter Tulip, who expects a cash rate of 5% by December 2024 – enough to add a further $725 to the monthly cost of servicing a $600,000 mortgage.

The panel assembled by The Conversation includes macroeconomists, economic modellers, former Treasury, International Monetary Fund and financial market economists, and a former member of the Reserve Bank board.

Most expect inflation to fall sharply from here on, with all but five believing the quarterly rate will turn out to have peaked at 7.8% in December 2022.

Financial markets economist Warren Hogan says the food and fuel prices pushed up by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are already falling, and the only question is how quickly inflation falls, and how soon it returns to the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band.

Former federal Labor minister Craig Emerson says, unlike in the 1970s, wage rises aren’t helping sustain inflation. Then, more than half the Australian workforce was unionised and wage setting was centralised. Today only one-eighth of the workforce is unionised and most wages are not set centrally.

The panel expects real wages to go backwards for the third consecutive year in 2023, as wages growth of 3.9% is overpowered by prices growth of 4.5%.

Wage growth is expected to fall back to 3.6% in 2024 as the economy weakens and as an increase in immigration helps fill labour shortages. But the average forecast is wage growth to outstrip price rises next year for the first time since 2020, as inflation falls back to 3.2%.

Recession unlikely at home, more likely abroad

The panel assigns a 26% probability to a recession in the next two years, an increase on the 20% it assigned in mid-2022.

Former Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade chief economist Jenny Gordon says if Europe goes into a recession in its 2023-24 winter and China’s recovery is slow, a recession in Australia will become more likely.

While the panel expects China’s decision to end COVID lockdowns will lift its growth rate from 3% in 2022 to 4.7% in 2023, it does not expect anything like a return to the previous growth rates of 8% or more.

Industry economist Julie Toth says China is facing resource depletion and population decline, as well as a cyclical downturn in industrial and residential investment. COVID-19 presents an immediate threat to its people and economy.

Read more:
China’s population is now inexorably shrinking, bringing forward the day the planet’s population turns down

The panel assigns a 42% probability to a recession in the United States within the next two years, a 57% probability to a recession in the European Union, and a 73% probability to a recession in the United Kingdom.

Four of the economists surveyed believe the UK recession has already started. As in the US, it is likely to result from the run of interest rate increases put in place to contain inflation.

University of Tasmania economist Mala Raghavan expects the US to skirt an outright recession and instead experience a “rolling recession”, in which different parts of the economy take time to turn down.

KPMG forecaster Sarah Hunter says while Australia should avoid a recession as commonly described (two consecutive quarters in which production shrinks) economic growth could well turn negative for one quarter at the start of the year, as household spending turns down and mining shipments are disrupted by floods.

Regardless, the economy will be “very weak by historic standards” in 2023. The panel expects economic growth of only 1.7% in 2023, climbing to 2.5% by 2026.

The panel is forecasting very weak growth in household spending of 2.2% over the year to December, and a further decline in the household saving ratio from 6.9 to 5.1%.

Non-mining business investment is expected to hold up, climbing 2.8% over the year to December, up from 1.75%. Mining investment is expected to climb 3.4%, with much depending on demand from the rest of the world.

Read more:
How housing made rich Australians 50% richer, leaving renters and the young behind – and how to fix it

Home prices are expected to fall further in 2023 in response to higher interest rates, slipping another 7% in Sydney and 6% in Melbourne.

AMP economist Shane Oliver says the buying power of someone on average full-time earnings with a 20% deposit has fallen by more than one quarter as a result of interest rate hikes, and prices are yet to fully reflect this.

Jobs to hold up

Australia’s unemployment rate dipped below 4% for the first time in five decades in 2022. It is expected to stay below 4% (at 3.96%) in 2023 and then remain below 5% in 2024 even as immigration builds up, in part because low unemployment has made previously unemployed Australians employable.

As former Deloitte Access director Chris Richardson puts it, previously hard to employ Australians have been “polishing their skills and their resumes”.

Federation University economist Margaret McKenzie also points to the large amount of sick leave being taken, creating demand for workers to fill the gaps.

On average, the panel is expecting a flat share market in the year ahead, but the forecasts range from growth of 8% to a decline of 17%, led down by weaker bank stocks and household spending as interest rate increases bite.

The panel expects the iron ore price to remain roughly steady at US$105 throughout 2023, rather than falling to the US$55 assumed in the budget.

Partly as a result, the panel is forecasting a budget deficit of A$29.4 billion in 2022-23, down from the officially forecast $36.9 billion.

The Conversation’s Economic Panel

Click on economist to see full profile.

Download the 2023 economic survey

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

– ref. Higher interest rates, falling home prices and real wages, but no recession: top economists’ forecasts for 2023 – https://theconversation.com/higher-interest-rates-falling-home-prices-and-real-wages-but-no-recession-top-economists-forecasts-for-2023-198975

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

Enshrining a constitutional Voice to parliament will bring better practical outcomes and give the best chance for Closing the Gap, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will say in a major address on the referendum on Sunday.

Albanese will also flatly reject opposition calls for the government to legislate the Voice at once, pointing out that the call from Indigenous people is for it to be in the Constitution.

The government will introduce the legislation for the referendum, with the wording of the question, before the end of March. This will be followed by a parliamentary inquiry lasting at least six weeks.

The PM, outlining the timing in a Guardian podcast, said the legislation would then be debated and voted on in the May-June budget session. Once it is passed, the referendum then must be held not earlier than two months and 33 days after that, and not later than six months. That put the timeframe between September and December, he said.

In his address to a Chifley Research Centre conference – released ahead of its Sunday delivery – Albanese highlights positive results from the justice reinvestment model in Bourke to argue the value of consultation. Co-designed by Aboriginal people and run by the locals, the community takes responsibility for the rehabilitation of young offenders instead of their being sent to jail.

In this case, “the community’s voice was heard – and that saved lives”.

“We know that when governments listen to the people on the frontline, when we build from the ground up, when we trust in the wisdom and experience and earned knowledge of country and culture and kinship, we get better results.

“And better results are desperately needed,” Albanese says.

“Every Closing the Gap report confronts us with the reality that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people lead lives of lesser opportunity.”

He says the failures in Closing the Gap “are not failures borne of a shortage of goodwill, or good intentions. Rarely even is it a lack of investment or resources.

“Governments on both sides have invested billions. But by and large, we have been repeating the same process and expecting a different outcome.

“Imposing decisions from Canberra. Mostly, with the best of intentions. But assuming that one size will fit all. And ignoring the wisdom of community,” Albanese says.

“Enshrining a Voice in the Constitution is our best chance to change that, because it has come from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves.”

Albanese says that in the course of the year, there will be more information about the Voice for people to examine, but its mechanics will not be written into the Constitution.

He urges the parliament to embrace the Voice “as a vehicle for Closing the Gap and improving lives”.

Rejecting the calls for legislation before constitutional change, Albanese says the Uluru Statement from the Heart was the product of five years of consultation among Indigenous people and “in 2017 they produced a very clear request for recognition and a voice in the Constitution”.

Also, putting the Voice into the Constitution “sends a message about the strength and substance of the body.

“Not just to the government of the day or the parliament of the moment but also to the people we want the Voice to serve, the people we want engaging with it.

“It sends a message to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: we’re serious about making this work, over the long-term.

“Not as a project of one government – but as an enduring national priority.”

Albanese, who has the Uluru statement on his office wall, says the referendum will be an opportunity for Australians “to show their best qualities: their generosity, their sense of fairness, their optimism for the future”.

On Friday at national cabinet all premiers and chief ministers signed a statement of intent to work “collaboratively to support a constitutionally enshrined Voice”.

Meanwhile, in the coming week the federal cabinet and the Northern Territory government will consider a report recommending the reimposition of alcohol bans in NT community. Albanese favours the move.

Michelle Grattan 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. Enshrining the Voice gives best chance for Closing the Gap, Albanese says – https://theconversation.com/enshrining-the-voice-gives-best-chance-for-closing-the-gap-albanese-says-199259

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

There was a lot of build-up to today’s National Cabinet meeting. Federal Health Minister Mark Butler has long said Medicare is in the worst shape it has ever been, and the premiers said health reform should be the top priority at the meeting.

Soon after taking office, Butler appointed a Strengthening Medicare Taskforce to advise on how to fix a system everyone agrees is in crisis. It includes the industry groups for GPs, nurses and allied health workers, as well as academic experts and a patient advocate. Today, the taskforce’s final report was discussed at National Cabinet and publicly released.

It’s only 12 pages long and light on detail, but it lays out clear directions and includes big reforms. While there have been many calls to throw more money into the existing system, the taskforce recommends a trickier, but necessary, course toward the structural, long-term reform general practice needs.

The taskforce’s recommendations fall under four themes: funding reform, multidisciplinary team-based care, data and IT, and supporting change.

Funding reform to improve access to care

The way Australia funds general practice is stuck in the past, and the taskforce recommends a big overhaul.

Today, we have a fee-for-service model which rewards doctors for seeing lots of patients for short, one-off visits.

But Australians have got older and sicker since Medicare was designed 40 years ago. Many of us require longer consultations. There is strong evidence that people will be healthier and live longer if they have ongoing relationships with their care team, not just one-off visits.

Another problem is the current funding model doesn’t do enough to ensure health care is delivered in communities with less access to care, including to First Nations Australians, people in rural and remote areas, and people on low incomes.

Read more:
First Nations people in the NT receive just 16% of the Medicare funding of an average Australian

The taskforce recommends a move to “blended” funding models to overcome these challenges. These models mix visit fees with other types of payments, such a flexible budget for each patient and payments for providing quality care.

The taskforce also recommends voluntary patient registration, where patients are linked with a “home” practice, so they build a relationship with their usual health care providers.

Encouraging multidisciplinary care

Australia’s current model of general practice doesn’t give GPs enough support.

There are many primary care workforces, such as nurses and allied health workers, whose training means they can help GPs manage a growing and more complex caseload. But as it stands, our rules, regulations, and funding model limit the help they can provide.

Changing this will bring big benefits. It can help take pressure off busy GPs, giving them more time for complex cases. And the evidence suggests it can boost quality of care and health outcomes.

The taskforce recommends the federal government work with the states to remove regulatory barriers that stop primary care professionals from using all their skills.

It calls for more investment to help build these new teams into GP practices, and for Primary Health Networks (the regional organisations that are responsible for improving the primary care system) to deploy nurses and allied health workers to GP clinics where they are most needed.

Read more:
How do you fix general practice? More GPs won’t be enough. Here’s what to do

Improving data and digital systems

The right data and digital tools can let primary care teams know when their patients have been in hospital, or had new care recommended by other doctors. They can help practices provide the best care, help patients manage their own health, and help government understand how the system is performing.

But these systems are not working well. Australia’s digital health platform, My Health Record, is not user-friendly and few clinicians use it.

Progress in linking up data from Commonwealth and state systems has been agonisingly slow.

The taskforce calls for improvements to the My Health Record system, making sharing of information from providers the default, and making the system easier for clinicians and patients to use.

The taskforce proposes joining up health data, with new national governance, legislation, regulations and technology.

It also suggests new investment in IT infrastructure and skills for clinics, and building up digital health literacy for patients.

Supporting change management and cultural change

All of this calls for big shifts in how general practice operates. It’s easy to underestimate how hard change is for general practices, many of which already report high levels of stress and burnout.

New funding models and multidisciplinary team-based working go beyond simple tweaks to processes. They involve new ways of thinking about roles, responsibilities, and relationships.

Read more:
GPs are abandoning bulk billing. What does this mean for affordable family medical care?

Past attempts at general practice reform have shown just how hard the journey can be. Australia’s last attempt was the Health Care Homes trial, which ran from 2017 to 2021. It had trouble attracting general practices to participate, and problems with patients and practices dropping out.

The taskforce highlights that the reform journey for primary care can’t be rushed. It recommends a staged approach, supported by evaluation, and with patients and communities at the centre of policy and delivery.

It recommends supporting clinics to help them manage change. That includes training for practice managers so they can help practices transition to new ways of working.

What now?

Minister Butler remarked that the health sector has “a lot of loud voices and sharp elbows”.

Some groups have been quick to criticise the taskforce report. The Australian Medical Association, which represents doctors, said the report wouldn’t have an immediate impact for people who were struggling to get care. The professional body for GPs welcomed much of the report, but has also called for an immediate boost to funding, and cautioned GPs must lead any health care team. The allied health body has criticised the focus on building up teams inside GP clinics.

But this report could never satisfy everyone, or solve every problem.

What the taskforce proposes amounts to the biggest change to general practice in generations. It has recognised tinkering, or even a couple of big reforms, won’t heal a broken system. The proposals rightly span across funding models, workforce roles, and digital systems. And the taskforce emphasises change will be hard, take time, and should be guided by the voices of patients, clinicians, and communities.
This is the right approach to a very complex challenge.

There will be more detail on these reforms in the upcoming budget, but Minister Butler has said it will take years of investment to fix the crisis in general practice.

There is a lot more work needed to flesh out this vision, but it is a promising start.

Read more:
Should pharmacists be able to prescribe common medicines like antibiotics for UTIs? We asked 5 experts

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

– ref. Medicare reform is off to a promising start. Now comes the hard part – https://theconversation.com/medicare-reform-is-off-to-a-promising-start-now-comes-the-hard-part-197914

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

Indigenous Australians are respectfully advised that the following includes the names and images of some people who are now deceased.

The Reserve Bank of Australia has announced that Queen Elizabeth II’s portrait on Australia’s $5 banknote will not be replaced by one of Charles III (as is happening in the United Kingdom). It will instead show a design that “honours the culture and history of the First Australians”.

While some will complain this is a break from the tradition of the reigning monarch’s head being on the lowest-denomination banknote, that has only been the case in Australia since 1966, when decimal currency was introduced.

Before that, navigator and cartographer Matthew Flinders appeared on the lowest (ten shilling) note. The queen was on the pound note (equal to 20 shillings).

The Reserve Bank of Australia consulted the federal government, which supports the change, but the decision is its own.

An opinion poll last year indicated just 34% of Australians wanted to see King Charles replace his mother on the $5 note, with 43% preferring another person, such as a famous Australian, and 23% undecided.

Read more:
Putting King Charles III on British currency bucks a global trend to honor diverse national heroes on coins and bills

What will the new design show?

Will the design honour an Indigenous individual, or a group, or First Nations people more generally? It will likely be several years before we know.

Banknote design is complex, and the central bank will need to consult widely and deeply with Indigenous Australians to avoid the cultural insensitivities that have marred previous efforts to depict Indigenous motifs or individuals.

What we do know is the note’s other side will show an image of Parliament House, as it does now. The current design includes the Forecourt Mosaic, which is based on Michael Nelson Jagamara’s work Possum and Wallaby Dreaming.

A return to tradition

While breaking with one “tradition”, an Indigenous motif on the lowest-denomination banknote restores another.

When decimal currency was introduced in 1966, the lowest-denomination banknote was the $1 note. One side featured a youthful Queen Elizabeth and the Australian coat of arms. The other showed an Indigenous design, based on bark painting by artist David Malangi Daymirringu, a Yolngu man from what is now northeastern Arnhem Land, and others.

The Reserve Bank’s governor at the time was HC “Nugget” Coombs, a strong advocate for Indigenous Australians. But to his later embarrassment, it turned out no one at the bank thought to ask permission to copy the artworks used in the design – nor offer payment.

Only after the banknote was issued did an Adelaide newspaper report on the treatment of Malangi, who came to be known as “Dollar Dave”.

Coombs subsequently sought to make amends. Malangi was paid $1,000 (the same given to those whose art was used on other banknotes), a fishing kit and a special medallion Coombs commissioned.

The $1 note was phased out in 1984 (replaced by the $1 coin, showing a mob of kangaroos, in keeping with animal motifs on Australian coins).

Read more:
‘Dollar Dave’ and the Reserve Bank: a tale of art, theft and human rights

David Unaipon and the $50 note

The first Australian banknote to honour an Indigenous individual was the $50 note in 1996, with the change from paper to polymer notes.

Portraits of scientists Howard Walter Florey and Sir Ian Clunies Ross were replaced by Australia’s first female parliamentarian, Edith Cowan, and David Unaipon, a Ngarrindjeri man from what is now southeastern South Australia.

Unaipon (born in 1872) was a preacher, inventor and author. He was an expert in ballistics and believed the aerodynamics of the boomerang could be applied to aircraft.

His book, Myths and Legends of the Australian Aboriginals, was the first by an Indigenous author to be published in Australia – though without credit (W. Ramsay Smith, SA’s chief medical officer, was listed as the author). The book was finally republished with Unaipon’s name on the cover in 2006.

Gwoya Jungarai and the $2 coin

The first Australian coin to feature an Indigenous Australian was the $2 coin in 1988, showing Gwoya Jungarai (sometimes spelled Tjungurrayi).

Known as “One Pound Jimmy”, he was a survivor of the Coniston Massacre in the Northern Territory in 1928, when police killed at least 31 Warlpiri men, women and children.

This was a time when chief protectors were appointed to “watch over the interests” of First Nations people, and to “smooth the dying pillow” for a race of people who had been brought to the edge of extinction.

The image of Gwoya Jungarai came from a photo of him in 1935. This was used on a postage stamp in 1950, making him the first living Australian to be so featured.

Read more:
Elder, lawman, survivor: stamp research is the latest chapter in Gwoja Tjungurrayi’s remarkable life in pictures

What do other Commonwealth countries do?

New Zealand has the Indigenous name of the country (Aotearoa) and its Reserve Bank (Te Pūtea Matua) on its notes. This is feasible as there is one dominant Indigenous language, whereas in Australia there are hundreds.

One note (the $50) honours a Māori individual Apirana Ngata, the first Māori to graduate from a local university and a parliamentarian for 38 years.

Canada’s $50 note includes the Inuit word for “Arctic”.

The Reserve Bank of Australia is a founding member of the international Central Bank Network for Indigenous Inclusion, along with its peers in Canada and New Zealand. So there may be international discussion of the issues involved.

But the key to ensuring the design fulfils its potential to bring the country together and heal old wounds will be to consult with those whose culture and history the design is meant to honour.

John Hawkins used to work for the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Wayne H Applebee 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. It’s tradition: Indigenous designs have been on Australian money since decimalisation – https://theconversation.com/its-tradition-indigenous-designs-have-been-on-australian-money-since-decimalisation-199091

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabrielle Appleby, Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW Sydney

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed that sometime between August and November this year, the Australian people will go to a referendum for the first time since 1999.

We’ll be asked whether we support changing the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through the establishment of a representative Voice to inform government and parliamentary decisions.

For many people, following the process leading up to the referendum so far has been confusing.

So where are we, and what’s ahead?

Unorthodox and historic

This week, following a meeting of the government’s Referendum Working Group, the Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians Julian Leeser claimed the process leading up to this referendum had been “unorthodox”, in that it hadn’t included a constitutional convention, a parliamentary inquiry or further public consultation.

This statement is both right and wrong.

It’s right in that the process leading up to this referendum has been unorthodox. But that’s because this referendum is historic. It’s about recognising the place of First Nations in the Australian Constitution.

This isn’t the first time we’ve attempted this: some may remember the failed attempt made by Prime Minister John Howard in 1999, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were referred to passingly in a preamble. That was a proposal that involved no consultation with the Australian public or First Nations people.

Leeser is wrong in that, while there is a custom to have a constitutional reform mechanism of some kind prior to a referendum, that hasn’t always been the case. A constitutional convention has only been held three times since 1901. So the type of mechanism isn’t set. And in contrast to the 1999 attempt, behind the current attempt at recognition sits a world-leading deliberative process that was conducted by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

An extraordinary, unorthodox and historic process unfolded across 2016 and 2017. Funded by the government with bipartisan support, 12 regional dialogues with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were held, which culminated in the First Nations Constitutional Convention and the delivery of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in May 2017.

That statement was issued directly to the Australian people, asking for constitutional recognition in the form of a First Nations Voice to speak to Parliament on decisions, policies and laws that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

This constitutional reform process may be unorthodox, but it’s entirely appropriate. This referendum isn’t about what form of recognition Australian people want to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but whether they will accept the form of recognition being sought by First Nations. Australia is engaging in an exercise of mutual recognition that offers a respectful relationship forward for all Australians.

Read more:
Non-Indigenous Australians shouldn’t fear a First Nations Voice to Parliament

But that’s not to say there hasn’t been formal public consultation, or a parliamentary inquiry. That’s where Leeser is also wrong. This is one of the most scrutinised and critiqued proposals ever developed. Since 2010, there have been ten reports on constitutional recognition, many of which engaged in extensive public consultation.

Let’s take a look at just a few.

The Referendum Council, which oversaw the regional dialogues, also conducted an extensive public inquiry, including digital and public submissions. This revealed the strongest support (more than 90%) for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people having a say when parliament makes laws and policies relating to Indigenous affairs.

In 2018, a joint parliamentary inquiry, chaired by Leeser and Labor Senator Patrick Dodson, looked at the question of constitutional recognition. It received almost 500 public submissions, and undertook hearings. While its terms of reference were wide, the committee concluded, based on its public consultations and inquiries, that the Uluru Statement from the Heart “was a major turning point in the debate”, and focused all of its attention on the Voice proposal.

In 2021, the Morrison government’s co-design process in relation to the design of a Voice delivered a report on the design of a non-constitutional Voice. Despite the question of constitutional enshrinement being outside the terms of reference of that body, the final report noted high levels of support for it. Indeed, the Indigenous Law Centre reported that more than 90% of the thousands of public submissions made to that process expressed support for a constitutional First Nations Voice.

What we know already

There has been a lot of political debate about whether we know enough “detail” about the Voice. There is, unfortunately, a fair amount of confusion about what detail we need to make an informed vote on the constitutional amendment, and what detail should – appropriately – be left for future legislation to determine.

But we do know a lot about what we’re going to be voting on. Here’s a brief run-down:

• the referendum is about recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Nations of Australia, and providing a structural change to our Constitution that gives them a body to speak to Parliament and government in order to improve decisions, policies and laws that affect them. It’s about making a practical difference in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

• we have seen a draft version of the words that the Australian people are going to be asked to vote on, which was released by the prime minister at Garma in July 2022. The Referendum Working Group and the Constitutional Expert Group has been working on this drafting for a number of months, with publicly available summaries of their advice

• it’s not about giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people special rights, but providing them input in the decision-making processes of government and Parliament. This is the type of participation right that articles 18 and 19 the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples (to which Australia is a signatory) guarantees

• it won’t have a veto power

• as it doesn’t have a veto power, constitutional enshrinement of the Voice is vital to its success. The extensive submissions to the 2020-2021 co-design process explained constitutional enshrinement was the only way the Voice would be set up for success with the stability, independence and authority it needed to shift the political dynamic in Indigenous law and policy. We know legislated and non-legislated bodies have been tried in the past – and failed. So it’s not a case where we could legislate the Voice first, because that would be a different beast

• it won’t cede the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

There are a lot of other questions out there about the eligibility of individuals to serve on the Voice, the selection of members, the number of members, the cost of the body, and more detail about its operations and accountability. We don’t yet have specific answers to these questions – although there are agreed principles that provide a general guide to some of them.

But these aren’t details that will be included in the constitutional amendment. They won’t be set into the Constitution, unable to be changed. These are details that will need closer consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and within government and parliament, to determine. They’re likely to be subject to change as circumstances change. We are not being asked to vote on these details.

There’s nothing sinister about this, and nothing is being “hidden” from us. The detail will be included in legislation to follow the referendum. Just like legislation establishing the High Court, the number and qualifications of judges, and the scope of its jurisdictions was introduced after the Constitution was passed, and has been amended occasionally subsequently.

The legislation that establishes the detail of the Voice will be subject to the ordinary, public and transparent parliamentary processes, to which the government and Parliament are ultimately accountable to the Australian people.

Read more:
Could the Nationals’ refusal to support a Voice to Parliament derail the referendum?

The next steps

While we know a lot, there’s more to come. Here are three key moments in the referendum timeline which will unfold in the next couple of months:

1. This month, the Yes and No campaigns will launch (these aren’t government-funded or affiliated). On February 18, the Yes campaign will launch a national week of action on the referendum proposal. There will be lots of information and opportunities to learn more about the proposal, and the key arguments for and against it.

2. On February 10, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will report on the government’s proposed changes to how the referendum will be conducted, including removing the partisan Yes/No pamphlet and replacing it with a government-funded information campaign. More information will follow about the government’s planned information campaign, and of course, the campaign itself will roll out soon.

3. In March, the referendum working group will finalise its recommendations to the government, with the constitutional amendment bill introduced into parliament. The bill needs to pass with an absolute majority in both houses, before being put to a referendum within two to six months. The government is saying the referendum will likely be held between August and November, depending on the passage of the bill. The bill will contain the government’s final proposed wording for the constitutional amendment, and it will be subject to robust parliamentary inquiry, including in the Senate’s scrutiny committees, and a public submission and hearing process.

Gabrielle Appleby is a member of the Indigenous Law Centre at UNSW Law & Justice. In 2016-2017 she provided pro bono expert assistance to the Regional Dialogues and the First Nations Constitutional Convention that delivered the Uluru Statement from the Heart. She is a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity.

– ref. The Voice referendum: how did we get here and where are we going? Here’s what we know – https://theconversation.com/the-voice-referendum-how-did-we-get-here-and-where-are-we-going-heres-what-we-know-198299

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The heated (and often confused) debate about “co-governance” in Aotearoa New Zealand inevitably leads back to its source, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But, as its long-contested meanings demonstrate, very little in the Treaty of Waitangi is straightforward.

Two versions of the 1840 document were written, one in English and one in te reo Māori. About 540 Māori, including 13 women, had put their names or moko to the document. All but 39 signed the Māori text.

But the differences in the translations were so significant that there has been debate ever since about what much of this agreement actually meant, especially Articles 1 and 2.

Article 3, on the other hand, attracts less controversy – which is interesting, because it was and is critical to debates such as the one swirling around co-governance. In effect, Article 3 acted as a mechanism by which the fundamental rights and privileges of British citizenship would be afforded Māori.

In the English language version, the Crown promises the Queen’s “royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects”. In te reo, the Crown gave an assurance that Māori would have the Queen’s protection and all rights accorded to British subjects.

The promise of these rights and privileges, coupled with Articles 1 and 2, conferred a fundamental commitment of a partnership, in which the two sides could be expected to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith towards each other.

Although there were many British laws, practices and principles in existence by this time, four particularly stand out.

Participation

The ideal was that laws reflected the community (or a portion of it at least) and were made with the participation and consent of citizens. This was a long-standing principle, in that law and governance could not be something arbitrary or controlled absolutely by one person.

There had been efforts to control royal abuses of power since the Magna Carta in 1215 and the establishment of a “common council of the kingdom”, by which high-ranking community leaders could be summoned to discuss important matters.

Read more:
A growing number of non-Māori New Zealanders are embracing learning te reo – but there’s more to it than language

Later, the 1688 Bill of Rights required free and frequent parliaments which would contain the right of free speech within them (parliamentary privilege in today’s terms). This meant representatives could speak without fear. Monarchs could no longer suspend laws on a whim, levy taxes at their pleasure, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without the permission of parliament.

The anomaly that only about 5% of British citizens (wealthy and entitled men) could actually vote for members of parliament was not resolved until legal reform in the early 1830s. This began the expansion of the political franchise and the widening of control over parliament.

Individual rights

All were deemed equal in the eyes of the law, and the delivery of justice with integrity could be expected. Clause 39 of the Magna Carta stated:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

Clause 40 added: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 required a court to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner’s detention, thus preventing unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.

The Bill of Rights prohibited excessive penalties, cruel and unusual punishment, and the imposition of fines or penalties before convictions. It also guaranteed the right for all citizens to petition, where they could complain or seek help from the authorities, without fear of punishment.

Tolerance and a free press

After the Reformation, religious tolerance among British subjects took centuries to develop. The 1701 Toleration Act allowed some tolerance of the public practising of different religions, although the monarch could never be Catholic. But it was not until 1829 that Catholics – and some other faiths – could even be elected to parliament in Britain.

The importance of tolerance can be seen in the oral promise made by Governor William Hobson at the time of the signing the Treaty: all established religious faiths would be tolerated in New Zealand, “and also Māori custom shall be alike protected by him”. Although an oral commitment, to many signatories it was just as binding as the written words.

Read more:
Putting te Tiriti at the centre of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public policy can strengthen democracy – here’s how

Public debate and the role of a free press was another important privilege. Although British laws governing libel, blasphemy and sedition were continued after 1688, there was a clear trend toward expanding liberty, allowing both booksellers and newspapers to proliferate.

This helped build the modern belief in the “fourth estate”, and that the media would act as a positive influence on decision makers.

Forward together

Despite the fine sounding language of Article 3 and all the expectations that went with it, the reality was that for many decades after 1840, the promised rights and privileges did not arrive for everyone.

The governor, followed by the early stages of representative government, ruled with a near absolute power that crushed dissent. The law itself was often used to target the rights and privileges of Māori, with some of the darkest examples occurring during and after the New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa.

Equality for most was largely a chimera, tolerance was elusive, and the press did not act as a brake on atrocious decision making.

Read more:
The Crown is Māori too – citizenship, sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi

Thankfully, the world is different today. Positive change has happened through successive generations of Māori defending the rights guaranteed in 1840, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the critical questioning of early and contemporary government policies by Māori, politicians, community leaders, media and scholars.

There have been official apologies, compensation and redress, although only a portion of what was alienated has been returned.

As we move forward and look for new ways to work together to achieve equal and equitable partnership based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it is important to remember the relevance of Article 3 and what it continues to offer in a modern context.

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. Waitangi Day 2023: why Article 3 of the Treaty deserves more attention in the age of ‘co-governance’ – https://theconversation.com/waitangi-day-2023-why-article-3-of-the-treaty-deserves-more-attention-in-the-age-of-co-governance-198976

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Hunter, Lecturer in Art and Performance, Deakin University

Review: Wittenoom, directed by Susie Dee, Red Stitch

Deep in the remote Pilbara region of Western Australia, the town of Wittenoom lies empty, desolate … and contaminated.

Wittenoom is on Banjima country. It was officially established in 1947 as a company town to house those working on the blue asbestos mine in the nearby Wittenoom Gorge. In the 1950s, Wittenoom became Australia’s sole supplier of asbestos. The reported health risks of asbestos led to the shutting down of the mine in 1966 and permanent closure of the town in 2022.

To date, more than 2,000 miners, residents and family members have died from asbestos-related diseases.

Wittenoom, a new play by Mary Anne Butler, is the story of Pearl (Emily Goddard) and her mother Dot (Caroline Lee), who live and work in the town in its functioning heyday of the 1940s.

The pair face a tragic outcome borne of corporate greed and denial.

Read more:
Asbestos still haunts those exposed as kids in mining towns

Dark and spare

As the play opens, Dot and Pearl are perched on the small stage underneath a faded and broken “Welcome to Wittenoom” sign with most of the letters missing. It’s a junky wooden scaffold, propped up with ladders and broken trusses, panels gaping, covered in a fine dust. Pearl begins with a breathy and apocalyptic opening monologue – a lyrical portent that foreshadows the disturbing story to come.

The writing is dark and spare, and the play skips between present and past, shifting from hardscrabble domestic moments to more poetic interludes. Capable, affable Dot opens her house to some of the Greek and Italian mine workers to help them feel at home, even as, over time, the residents of the town begin to question the safety of the mine and the place where they live.

Young Pearl loves her mum, struggles to fit in at school, and grows more and more disturbed by the threat of the mine. These recollections are countered with the horror of a mesothelioma diagnosis and the hard facelessness of the medical fraternity.

As Dot, Lee is confident and centred. Goddard’s performance as Pearl is similarly accomplished, although there is a slightly alarming moment early on when Goddard resorts to that artificial convention of an adult playing a child. This is a brief interlude, fortunately, and for the most part both actors own the space. Together, they are terrific. It is so satisfying to see two performers who match each other’s energy and presence so well.

This presence is complemented by vocally strong delivery and an integrated and embodied physical expression – with each other, with the audience and with the space.

Despite the constrained playing area, there’s plenty of room for the audience to imagine into the world of the play, such is Susie Dee’s specific and attentive direction. Choreographed unison moments of long-recalled gestures and ghostly dances work to hold the piece in a kind of netherworld of memory and sadness.

The sound design by Ian Moorehead is variously heavy and swelling or dark and thunderous, sustained throughout the piece. At times a little tinny, it feels as if there is too much sound in this work, but the long and deep tones at the top of the show establish a suitably ominous feel.

The writing does not shy away from the ghastly medical detail of someone suffering from mesothelioma or the harsh reality that characterises its progression. This grounds the play in an authentic space in which the vulnerability of the human body is laid bare.

The theme of contamination is writ large. The inexorable advance of the disease is manifest as Pearl describes the gobbets of blood coughed up on the floor, the shadows on the lungs, the tumours like tap roots, the tiny poisonous fibres – all while a pale, fine ash gradually settles over the actors’ bodies like bone dust.

Human costs

Wittenoom does have its difficult moments, but Butler’s writing provides enough space and silence to give us time to breathe and Dee’s direction keeps the energetic arc dynamic.

The show is hard and sad, as is the real-life story of many who lived in the town, but it is also necessary. It reminds us of the personal, messy, human cost of such tragedies.

The story of Wittenoom is a stark reminder of the deceptive and immoral practices large corporations maintain in the name of profit. The implications continue to manifest in contemporary Australian life. Asbestos mining was the cornerstone of the housing boom in the 1950s and ‘60s, and many of us grew up – or are still living – in houses built from asbestos sheeting, while companies continue to avoid admission of liability.

The show draws themes of grief, memory and injustice together in an undeniably moving way. It is a powerful and compelling requiem for the people whose lives have been destroyed.

Wittenoom is at Red Stitch, Melbourne, until February 19.

Read more:
Explainer: why the James Hardie asbestos victim compensation fund is running out of money

Kate Hunter 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. More than 2,000 people from Wittenoom died of asbestos-related diseases. A powerful and compelling requiem brings their story to the stage – https://theconversation.com/more-than-2-000-people-from-wittenoom-died-of-asbestos-related-diseases-a-powerful-and-compelling-requiem-brings-their-story-to-the-stage-198779

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Oliver Bown, Postdoctoral fellow, UNSW Sydney

The past few years have seen an explosion in applications of artificial intelligence to creative fields. A new generation of image and text generators is delivering impressive results. Now AI has also found applications in music, too.

Last week, a group of researchers at Google released MusicLM – an AI-based music generator that can convert text prompts into audio segments. It’s another example of the rapid pace of innovation in an incredible few years for creative AI.

With the music industry still adjusting to disruptions caused by the internet and streaming services, there’s a lot of interest in how AI might change the way we create and experience music.

Read more:
Neil Young’s ultimatum to Spotify shows streaming platforms are now a battleground where artists can leverage power

Automating music creation

A number of AI tools now allow users to automatically generate musical sequences or audio segments. Many are free and open source, such as Google’s Magenta toolkit.

Two of the most familiar approaches in AI music generation are:

1. continuation, where the AI continues a sequence of notes or waveform data, and

2. harmonisation or accompaniment, where the AI generates something to complement the input, such as chords to go with a melody.

Similar to text- and image-generating AI, music AI systems can be trained on a number of different data sets. You could, for example, extend a melody by Chopin using a system trained in the style of Bon Jovi – as beautifully demonstrated in OpenAI’s MuseNet.

Such tools can be great inspiration for artists with “blank page syndrome”, even if the artist themselves provide the final push. Creative stimulation is one of the immediate applications of creative AI tools today.

But where these tools may one day be even more useful is in extending musical expertise. Many people can write a tune, but fewer know how to adeptly manipulate chords to evoke emotions, or how to write music in a range of styles.

Although music AI tools have a way to go to reliably do the work of talented musicians, a handful of companies are developing AI platforms for music generation.

Boomy takes the minimalist path: users with no musical experience can create a song with a few clicks and then rearrange it. Aiva has a similar approach, but allows finer control; artists can edit the generated music note-by-note in a custom editor.

There is a catch, however. Machine learning techniques are famously hard to control, and generating music using AI is a bit of a lucky dip for now; you might occasionally strike gold while using these tools, but you may not know why.

An ongoing challenge for people creating these AI tools is to allow more precise and deliberate control over what the generative algorithms produce.

New ways to manipulate style and sound

Music AI tools also allow users to transform a musical sequence or audio segment. Google Magenta’s Differentiable Digital Signal Processing library technology, for example, performs timbre transfer.

Timbre is the technical term for the texture of the sound – the difference between a car engine and a whistle. Using timbre transfer, the timbre of a segment of audio can be changed.

Such tools are a great example of how AI can help musicians compose rich orchestrations and achieve completely new sounds. In the first AI Song Contest, held in 2020, Sydney-based music studio Uncanny Valley (with whom I collaborate), used timbre transfer to bring singing koalas into the mix.

Timbre transfer has joined a long history of synthesis techniques that have become instruments in themselves.

Taking music apart

Music generation and transformation are just one part of the equation. A longstanding problem in audio work is that of “source separation”. This means being able to break an audio recording of a track into its separate instruments.

Although it’s not perfect, AI-powered source separation has come a long way. Its use is likely to be a big deal for artists; some of whom won’t like that others can “pick the lock” on their compositions.

Meanwhile, DJs and mashup artists will gain unprecedented control over how they mix and remix tracks. Source separation start-up Audioshake claims this will provide new revenue streams for artists who allow their music to be adapted more easily, such as for TV and film.

Artists may have to accept this Pandora’s box has been opened, as was the case when synthesizers and drum machines first arrived and, in some circumstances, replaced the need for musicians in certain contexts.

But watch this space, because copyright laws do offer artists protection from the unauthorised manipulation of their work. This is likely to become another grey area in the music industry, and regulation may struggle to keep up.

New musical experiences

Playlist popularity has revealed how much we like to listen to music that has some “functional” utility, such as to focus, relax, fall asleep, or work out to.

The start-up Endel has made AI-powered functional music its business model, creating infinite streams to help maximise certain cognitive states.

Endel’s music can be hooked up to physiological data such as a listener’s heart rate. Its manifesto draws heavily on practices of mindfulness and makes the bold proposal we can use “new technology to help our bodies and brains adapt to the new world”, with its hectic and anxiety-inducing pace.

Other start-ups are also exploring functional music. Aimi is examining how individual electronic music producers can turn their music into infinite and interactive streams.

Aimi’s listener app invites fans to manipulate the system’s generative parameters such as “intensity” or “texture”, or deciding when a drop happens. The listener engages with the music rather than listening passively.

It’s hard to say how much heavy lifting AI is doing in these applications – potentially little. Even so, such advances are guiding companies’ visions of how musical experience might evolve in the future.

The future of music

The initiatives mentioned above are in conflict with several long-established conventions, laws and cultural values regarding how we create and share music.

Will copyright laws be tightened to ensure companies training AI systems on artists’ works compensate those artists? And what would that compensation be for? Will new rules apply to source separation? Will musicians using AI spend less time making music, or make more music than ever before?

If there’s one thing that’s certain, it’s change. As a new generation of musicians grows up immersed in AI’s creative possibilities, they’ll find new ways of working with these tools.

Such turbulence is nothing new in the history of music technology, and neither powerful technologies nor standing conventions should dictate our creative future.

Read more:
No, the Lensa AI app technically isn’t stealing artists’ work – but it will majorly shake up the art world

Oliver Bown receives funding from the Australian Research Council to research dialogic approaches to creative AI. He has an ongoing collaboration with the music production company Uncanny Valley, mentioned in this article, including some commercial creative commissions.

– ref. Text-to-audio generation is here. One of the next big AI disruptions could be in the music industry – https://theconversation.com/text-to-audio-generation-is-here-one-of-the-next-big-ai-disruptions-could-be-in-the-music-industry-193956

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Guastella, Professor and Clinical Psychologist, Michael Crouch Chair in Child and Youth Mental Health, University of Sydney

With childcare and schools starting the new year, parents might be anxiously wondering how their child will adapt in a new learning environment. Some parents may be concerned about their child’s development or that they need specialised support.

One in five children have a developmental vulnerability when they start school. And one in ten will meet criteria for a neurodevelopmental condition, such as autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Getting the right assessment can be surprisingly difficult. But there are ways you can get the most out of the process.

Read more:
What exactly is ‘neurodiversity?’ Using accurate language about disability matters in schools

Reasons for concern

Research shows a lack of support and poor educational environments can contribute to long term disadvantage for children.

Yet it can take many years to get an assessment. We recently found that, for more than 900 children attending a public developmental assessment service in Sydney, the average wait time from when parents first noticed concerns to receiving an assessment was 3.5 years.

Read more:
Bedtime strategies for kids with autism and ADHD can help all families get more sleep

There are some common things caregivers notice that prompt them to consider assessment:

• slowness to talk, missing communication milestones or odd ways of talking, such as repetitive phrases

• a preference for solitary or repetitive play (like lining objects up repeatedly). Difficulties with reciprocal and imaginative play, eye contact and use of gestures

• slowness to walk, uncoordinated movements, repetitive hand gestures or body movements, excessive tip toe walking

• trouble maintaining attention (other than for special interests), excessive irritability or hyperactivity

• difficulties with learning or taking on new information

• persistent challenging behaviours and distress

• extreme picky eating and severe sleep problems.

If you are concerned, the first step is to speak to an early childhood nurse or general practitioner about your concerns. They may refer your child for a hearing and vision test first. A developmental specialist is usually next, such as a paediatrician, psychologist, occupational therapist, speech therapist, or social worker.

Read more:
How to talk to your child about their autism diagnosis – the earlier the better

What assessment is not

Assessment is not about identifying something that is wrong with your child, but determining what supports might be needed to help them reach their potential.

Children might have a specific delay that will respond to a specific intervention. A smaller proportion of children may have a more complex developmental condition requiring comprehensive assessment and management. Some common neurodevelopmental needs are addressed by national guidelines for assessment and support for ADHD and autism. They can be helpful for caregivers, educators and clinicians to understand evidence-based practices.

Up to 80% of children who have one neurodevelopmental condition will have multiple conditions requiring support. These children are also at a higher risk of other medical conditions, such as genetic conditions, epilepsy, skin conditions, allergies and asthma.

That’s why multidisciplinary assessment teams, consisting of professionals with different expertise, are often recommended. In the private sector, families may need to navigate several costly specialist appointments. Multidisciplinary assessment teams in the public sector can coordinate assessment in a matter of days, but waiting lists are long.

Read more:
ADHD affects girls too, and it can present differently to the way it does in boys. Here’s what to look out for

How to prepare for assessment

Caregivers know their children best and your input during the assessment is crucial. Bring school reports or doctor referrals to help the service understand your child better.

In the days before assessment, complete any questionnaires and explain what’s happening so your child knows what to expect. Some services have resources for this, including pictures and videos.

On the day, let the service know if your child is behaving very differently to usual or is stressed about any recent social or family changes.

Let the service know if there is a favourite activity for your child to play or whether there are any triggers that may cause them distress or to run away. Bring a favourite toy, snacks or activity with you if that helps make your child feel comfortable.

Once the assessment is complete, you will be given a clinical report of outcomes. In our recent study we evaluated 85 reports from one developmental assessment service. We found the report could not easily address all of the child’s needs. We also found reports were often too complex for many caregivers to understand and they would likely need further explanation and guidance.

While reports focused on developmental needs (speech, diagnosis, motor and cognitive development), they were less likely to investigate challenging behaviours, mental health concerns or broader family needs. So it is very important you understand what further assessment might be needed after this process.

How to get the most out of assessment

• discuss your child’s support needs with the service and make notes about these conversations

• don’t be afraid to ask questions and check how to ask follow up questions of the service. Better understanding will increase the likelihood your child will benefit

• ask if a repeat assessment is required and when

• communicate reports to any key professionals involved in your child’s care. Discussions between assessors and learning support teams in schools are particularly encouraged and should focus on practical supports for your child as they grow

• follow up with your health professional or service to ensure recommendations are being implemented.

The disconnect between assessment and support

A frequent frustration for parents is the disjointed relationship between assessment and support. After waiting years to receive a developmental assessment, families are often left waiting years longer for services to support child needs.

Access must be improved, particularly for families from disadvantaged backgrounds who are more reliant on public services. Our research shows that these families who need the support, with lowest education and financial resources, are waiting the longest to get what their child needs.

Two years ago, the Mental Health Commission recommended the establishment of regional and urban hubs where families could get developmental, medical and mental health assessments completed in one place. A small number of hubs will be announced soon. Unless these are linked to immediate support and interventions, however, we will continue to see longer wait lists and frustration for families.

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions to this article by Angela Papanicolaou, who is a researcher and senior social worker within the Child Development Unit, Sydney Children’s Hospital Network.

Adam Guastella works for the University of Sydney and is the scientific chair of Neurodevelopment Australia. He receives no funding from this organisation.

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

– ref. Wondering about ADHD, autism and your child’s development? What to know about getting a neurodevelopmental assessment – https://theconversation.com/wondering-about-adhd-autism-and-your-childs-development-what-to-know-about-getting-a-neurodevelopmental-assessment-197528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brian Tweed, Senior lecturer, Massey University

As we approach another Waitangi Day, we should be thinking again about what Te Tiriti o Waitangi means.

As the late Moana Jackson commented, the meaning of Te Tiriti will be talked about in each generation because it is about a relationship between Māori and Pākehā and relationships must always be worked on. Here, we focus on the learning of te reo Māori by non-Māori in relation to Te Tiriti and the Māori concept of whakapapa in the hope of continuing the conversation and the relationship.

For full disclosure, we are married. Pania is Ngāti Porou and her father is a native speaker. Brian is Pākehā. We both learned te reo Māori as a second language as adults. We will come back to this later.

The learning of te reo Māori by non-Māori has become cool. Growing numbers of non-Māori are enrolled in te reo courses and there are many new resources to support their learning. It cannot be separated from Tiriti concerns and whakapapa.

Several authors have commented on this phenomenon of non-Māori enthusiasm for te reo Māori and Māori knowledge, highlighting the complex nature of the motivations involved.

Alison Jones, a Pākehā scholar in Indigenous education, notices how the demand by non-Māori to have te reo echoes the colonising demand to have Māori land.

Catherine Delahunty, a Pākehā activist in environmental and social justice, reminds non-Māori to “stay in our lane”, and warns that if we don’t, we effectively co-opt and attempt to control things that don’t belong to us.

Nicola Bright, a senior researcher of Tūhoe and Ngāti Awa descent at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER), tells us Māori should benefit first from the revitalisation of te reo Māori.

Georgina Tuari Stewart, a scholar who explores the nexus between culture and education, alerts us to the need to accept the limits of our ability to know in relation to Māori knowledge.

In our own work, as academics focused on Indigenisation and decolonisation of education systems, we talk of New Zealand and Aotearoa as two different countries occupying the same land. Te Tiriti is about relations between these two countries.

Read more:
Tokenism and te reo Māori: why some things just shouldn’t be translated

A whakapapa perspective on language

We see the learning of te reo Māori with a whakapapa lens. We refer to whakapapa as the emergence of new entities from their previous forms. Inherent in our understanding is an acceptance that entities have a natural right to have their whakapapa respected.

For most non-Māori, languages have been commodified and are available on demand. We liken this to having a language supermarket. Customers can buy various products “off the shelf” to allow them to learn any language they like.

These days, the supermarket is virtual and the products are digital apps. We see the dark irony in Māori having to shop for their own language in this supermarket.

Read more:
Bilingual road signs in Aotearoa New Zealand would tell us where we are as a nation

In this commodified world, language is understood as a symbolic code that can be learned to express your thoughts. Learning a new language just means learning a new code. This is a distinctly colonising and capitalist view of language which cuts right across whakapapa, treating language as a disembodied entity, fixed through a vocabulary and a set of rules.

Viewed through whakapapa, a language is inherent in the worldviews and experiences of the people who emerge with it. Seen this way, languages cannot be separated from the people who speak them and who have inherited them from their ancestors.

Could non-Māori learning te reo be akin to colonisation?

The learning of te reo Māori, whether we like it or not, is already in the public domain. Anyone can learn it and we encourage everyone to do so. But if not done well and ethically, it could be another wave of colonisation.

If we go about learning te reo Māori as if it were a symbolic code or a commodified product that will provide certain (economic and self-investment) benefits, several things become apparent.

Since we learn a commodified version of te reo, we are not part of any processes of emergence alongside the people whose heritage te reo Māori is. This commodified form is in fact part of whakapapa for many non-Māori. It has emerged from our experiences and worldview and is a form of appropriation.

The taking of other people’s stuff and refashioning it for our purposes is indeed colonisation. But there is also great potential for growth as people and as a nation because learning a language can change you.

In whakapapa terms, the presence of te reo Māori in your life has become part of the emergence of the next versions of you and your descendants. The bottom line is to understand and respect whakapapa.

Read more:
Learning to live with the ‘messy, complicated history’ of how Aotearoa New Zealand was colonised

Honouring te Tiriti

Non-Māori people must first acknowledge the right for te reo to emerge in the world along with the people whose own emergence is intimately entwined with it through whakapapa. That’s iwi Māori.

This is a difficult task because many non-Māori are so used to believing that, in theory at least, they can know and possess anything (if they want to and put in the effort). Respecting whakapapa then involves non-Māori in a necessary self-limitation which runs counter to their own cultural development in a capitalist, exploitative and predatory culture.

Non-Māori must figure out how to acquire te reo Māori without possessing it.
It might help to return to our idea of two countries overlapping in time and space – New Zealand and Aotearoa. Honouring Te Tiriti then asks those of us who live in New Zealand to honour what happens in another country, Aotearoa.

We would never say, for example, that we have claims over what happens in China, nor that because we speak Chinese we have some special insight or claim over China or Chinese people. Adopting a similar stance with respect to te reo Māori as the native language of Aotearoa will bring us closer to being able to respect its right to have natural emergence through whakapapa.

For us, even though we converse with each other every day in te reo Māori, one of us speaks Māori and the other doesn’t.

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. A growing number of non-Māori New Zealanders are embracing learning te reo — but there’s more to it than language – https://theconversation.com/a-growing-number-of-non-maori-new-zealanders-are-embracing-learning-te-reo-but-theres-more-to-it-than-language-198154

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Wolf, Associate Professor, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Australian National University

Black holes are bizarre things, even by the standards of astronomers. Their mass is so great, it bends space around them so tightly that nothing can escape, even light itself.

And yet, despite their famous blackness, some black holes are quite visible. The gas and stars these galactic vacuums devour are sucked into a glowing disc before their one-way trip into the hole, and these discs can shine more brightly than entire galaxies.

Stranger still, these black holes twinkle. The brightness of the glowing discs can fluctuate from day to day, and nobody is entirely sure why.

We piggy-backed on NASA’s asteroid defence effort to watch more than 5,000 of the fastest-growing black holes in the sky for five years, in an attempt to understand why this twinkling occurs. In a new paper in Nature Astronomy, we report our answer: a kind of turbulence driven by friction and intense gravitational and magnetic fields.

Gigantic star-eaters

We study supermassive black holes, the kind that sit at the centres of galaxies and are as massive as millions or billions of Suns.

Our own galaxy, the Milky Way, has one of these giants at its centre, with a mass of about four million Suns. For the most part, the 200 billion or so stars that make up the rest of the galaxy (including our Sun) happily orbit around the black hole at the centre.

Read more:
Are black holes time machines? Yes, but there’s a catch

However, things are not so peaceful in all galaxies. When pairs of galaxies pull on each other via gravity, many stars may end up tugged too close to their galaxy’s black hole. This ends badly for the stars: they are torn apart and devoured.

We are confident this must have happened in galaxies with black holes that weigh as much as a billion suns, because we can’t imagine how else they could have grown so large. It may also have happened in the Milky Way in the past.

Black holes can also feed in a slower, more gentle way: by sucking in clouds of gas blown out by geriatric stars known as red giants.

Feeding time

In our new study, we looked closely at the feeding process among the 5,000 fastest-growing black holes in the Universe.

In earlier studies, we discovered the black holes with the most voracious appetite. Last year, we found a black hole that eats an Earth’s-worth of stuff every second. In 2018, we found one that eats a whole Sun every 48 hours.

But we have lots of questions about their actual feeding behaviour. We know material on its way into the hole spirals into a glowing “accretion disc” that can be bright enough to outshine entire galaxies. These visibly feeding black holes are called quasars.

Most of these black holes are a long, long way away – much too far for us to see any detail of the disc. We have some images of accretion discs around nearby black holes, but they are merely breathing in some cosmic gas rather than feasting on stars.

Five years of flickering black holes

In our new work, we used data from NASA’s ATLAS telescope in Hawaii. It scans the entire sky every night (weather permitting), monitoring for asteroids approaching Earth from the outer darkness.

These whole-sky scans also happen to provide a nightly record of the glow of hungry black holes, deep in the background. Our team put together a five-year movie of each of those black holes, showing the day-to-day changes in brightness caused by the bubbling and boiling glowing maelstrom of the accretion disc.

The twinkling of these black holes can tell us something about accretion discs.

In 1998, astrophysicists Steven Balbus and John Hawley proposed a theory of “magneto-rotational instabilities” that describes how magnetic fields can cause turbulence in the discs. If that is the right idea, then the discs should sizzle in regular patterns. They would twinkle in random patterns that unfold as the discs orbit. Larger discs orbit more slowly with a slow twinkle, while tighter and faster orbits in smaller discs twinkle more rapidly.

But would the discs in the real world prove this simple, without any further complexities? (Whether “simple” is the right word for turbulence in an ultra-dense, out-of-control environment embedded in intense gravitational and magnetic fields where space itself is bent to breaking point is perhaps a separate question.)

Using statistical methods we measured how much the light emitted from our 5,000 discs flickered over time. The pattern of flickering in each one looked somewhat different.

But when we sorted them by size, brightness and colour, we began to see intriguing patterns. We were able to determine the orbital speed of each disc – and once you set your clock to run at the disc’s speed, all the flickering patterns started to look the same.

This universal behaviour is indeed predicted by the theory of “magneto-rotational instabilities”.

That was comforting! It means these mind-boggling maelstroms are “simple” after all.

And it opens new possibilities. We think the remaining subtle differences between accretion discs occur because we are looking at them from different orientations.

The next step is to examine these subtle differences more closely and see whether they hold clues to discern a black hole’s orientation. Eventually, our future measurements of black holes could be even more accurate.

Christian Wolf receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). He is a member of the Astronomical Society of Australia (ASA).

– ref. Why do black holes twinkle? We studied 5,000 star-eating behemoths to find out – https://theconversation.com/why-do-black-holes-twinkle-we-studied-5-000-star-eating-behemoths-to-find-out-198996

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Revell, Associate Professor in Environmental Physics, University of Canterbury

The ozone layer is on track to heal within four decades, according to a recent UN report, but this progress could be undone by an upsurge in rocket launches expected during the same period.

The ozone layer protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. Destruction of the ozone layer became a major international issue in 1985 when the “ozone hole” was discovered over Antarctica.

Thanks to a coordinated global effort, the Montreal Protocol came into effect in 1987, leading to a ban on a class of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were used in aerosols and refrigeration. A global crisis was avoided as a result.

But the global space industry is growing rapidly, with an increasing number of annual rocket launches. As we show in our new review, the gases and particulates rockets emit as they punch through the atmosphere could lead to delays in the ozone layer’s recovery.

Rocket fuel emissions are not regulated

The launch industry today relies on four major fuel types for rocket propulsion: liquid kerosene, cryogenic, hypergolic and solid. The combustion of these fuels means contemporary rockets create a suite of gaseous and particulate exhaust products, including carbon dioxide, water vapour, black carbon, alumina, reactive chloride and nitrogen oxides. These products are known to destroy ozone.

In the stratosphere, an upper level of the atmosphere where the protective ozone layer resides, emissions linger for much longer than lower down. Small amounts of an exhaust byproduct can have greater destructive effects in the upper atmosphere than when close to Earth’s surface.

A new fuel is methane, which is used in multiple rocket engines under development by major launch companies. The emissions products of methane are as yet poorly understood.

As we outline, rocket emissions in the upper atmosphere can affect the ozone layer but are not regulated. We argue this policy gap must be filled to ensure sustainable growth of the rocket launch industry and protection of the ozone layer.

Read more:
Cornwall space launch: why the environmental cost of rocket launches is large even when they fail

Charismatic technology

Solid rocket fuel contains a chemical that releases chlorine in the upper atmosphere and destroys ozone. CFCs were banned because they contain chlorine.

Fortunately, the number of launches to date is so small that the impacts on the ozone layer are currently insignificant. However, over coming decades the launch industry is set to expand considerably. Financial estimates indicate the global space industry could grow to US$3.7 trillion by 2040.

Read more:
Space tourism: rockets emit 100 times more CO₂ per passenger than flights – imagine a whole industry

Rockets have exciting potential to enable industrial-level access to near-Earth space and exploration throughout the solar system. This makes them “charismatic technology” – and the promise of what the technology can enable drives deep emotional investment.

The allure of possibility can get in the way of even discussing how to make rockets achieve these aspirational goals without damage. We have to be able to have clear discussions.

Collecting and sharing data

Many communities – rocket launch providers, environmental regulators, atmospheric research scientists and government agencies – need to move forward together on an international level. Discussions on how to build best-practice operations for sustainability needn’t be stifling for space industry growth as potential actions are well within reach.

The greatest contribution each community can make, first off, is the collection and sharing of data. For example, those who build and launch rockets could estimate emissions during their design work and then measure actual emissions for their launch vehicles.

Read more:
A new era of spaceflight? Promising advances in rocket propulsion

Working with researchers to sample emission plumes in the atmosphere would help develop understanding of the real-world impacts of emissions on the ozone layer. The current lack of these measurements for modern launch vehicles limits the predictive power of atmospheric modelling. Making data easily accessible to researchers is necessary for meaningful progress.

To evaluate emissions at early stages of rocket development, we also need accurate models of the impact emissions have on the atmosphere. This is where coordination between the space industry and the ozone research community is essential – each community holds a complementary puzzle piece, both of which together inform regulatory discussion.

Creating sustainable global rocket launches is going to need coordination across aerospace companies, scientists and governments: it is achievable, but we need to start now. This is our chance to get ahead of the game.

Laura Revell receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden fund, Deep South National Science Challenge and Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment for research related to airborne microplastics, climate modelling and stratospheric ozone. She is funded by the Rutherford Discovery Fellowships from New Zealand Government funding, administered by the Royal Society Te Apārangi.

Michele Bannister is funded by the Rutherford Discovery Fellowships from New Zealand Government funding, administered by the Royal Society Te Apārangi, for research related to Solar System exploration. She is a member of Aerospace Christchurch.

Tyler F. M. Brown is a member of Aerospace Christchurch

– ref. A rapidly growing rocket industry could undo decades of work to save the ozone layer — unless we act now – https://theconversation.com/a-rapidly-growing-rocket-industry-could-undo-decades-of-work-to-save-the-ozone-layer-unless-we-act-now-198982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Clune, Honorary Associate, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

At the New South Wales election on March 25 a 12-year-old Coalition government will be seeking re-election.

Hoping to return as premier is Liberal leader Dominic Perrottet – a political conservative and devout Catholic with seven children, who was this week forced to respond to allegations aired on Four Corners about curriculum concerns at a Sydney school linked to Catholic group Opus Dei. Perrottet attended Redfield College, one of the schools featured in the the ABC report.

It is just the latest headache for Perrottet, leader of a government whose 12-year term in office has only been exceeded in NSW by Labor from 1941-65 and 1995-2011.

Long-serving governments inevitably face the charge they are tired, worn-out and bereft of new ideas. The newly elected Albanese government has been a breath of fresh air at the federal level across a range of policy areas.

The Perrottet government, by contrast, is showing signs of having been in office too long: disunity, lack of discipline, inferior quality personnel, lack of vision.

In short, this will be a tough election for Perrottet to win.

À lire aussi :
Berejiklian says Maguire was part of her ‘love circle’ but was not significant enough to declare – will this wash with ICAC?

A succession of short-term premiers

One way of rejuvenating a government is through a new leader, who sometimes brings the prospect of renewal. However, replacing a capable, well-regarded leader with a neophyte can bring electoral danger.

In NSW, for example, Willis at the end of the Askin era, Unsworth after Wran, Fahey after Greiner, and Keneally after Carr were all defeated the first time they faced the voters.

The NSW Coalition government is unusual in that it has had a succession of relatively short-term premiers: Barry O’Farrell (2011-14), Mike Baird (2014-17), Gladys Berejiklian (2017-21), Dominic Perrottet (2021 – present).

Each of the first three won an election and contributed significantly to the government’s longevity.

O’Farrell established the governmental road map that emphasised careful planning and avoidance of hasty, politically-motivated decisions. But caution did not preclude achievement; there were major reforms in economic management, infrastructure, and the public sector.

However, O’Farrell resigned prematurely after it was revealed he had inadvertently misled the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) over the gift of a bottle of wine.

Baird was more of a technocrat, strongly interested in economic management. He also dealt with ICAC’s serial slaughter of Liberal MPs and won the 2015 election with an unappealing policy of electricity privatisation.

He left office with the NSW economy booming, the public finances in good shape and a massive infrastructure program underway.

Berejiklian will be remembered for her resilience, crisis management skills, and administrative competence. In 2019 she became the first female NSW premier to win a general election but resigned in December 2021 over an ICAC investigation into her relationship with discredited former MP Daryl Maguire.

Against the odds, Perrottet established himself as a trustworthy if dorky premier. Even the leaking by factional rivals of the fact he wore a Nazi uniform at his 21st birthday party didn’t seem to damage him too much.

The great irony is many expected Perrottet to be an unpopular premier who would drag the government down. In fact, the behaviour of members of his government has dragged his electoral prospects down.

A series of unfortunate events

Virtually nothing has gone right for Perrottet. Damaging revelations about the short-lived appointment of former Nationals leader John Barilaro as senior trade and investment commissioner in the Americas led to the resignation of deputy Liberal leader and minister for trade, Stuart Ayres.

On July 20, an ICAC investigation found former Liberal MP for Drummoyne, John Sidoti, had engaged in serious corrupt conduct.

On August 5 Perrottet sacked a minister, Eleni Petinos, over bullying allegations.

There was bitter rivalry between Transport Minister David Elliott and Treasurer Matt Kean, who indulged in unrestrained public criticism of each other. Relations between Kean and Perrottet, who had been long-term allies, became strained.

Perrottet tried to refute allegations about the Liberal party’s lack of women candidates by replacing three incumbent male upper house members with women. But the arrangement almost fell apart when the Liberal factions, who had not been consulted by their leaders, revolted. A face-saving deal was patched together at the last minute, involving the replacement of one of the proposed female candidates.

To top it off, the government introduced legislation about the clearing of native vegetation on private land that it was forced to abandon after vehement protests from environmentalists and its own backbench.

The teal threat

The NSW government faces challenges in safe seats on Sydney’s north shore from “teal” and independent candidates hoping to replicate their counterparts’ federal success.

Although there will probably be a groundswell of support, particularly given the lacklustre nature of some Liberal candidates, the optional preferential voting system will make their task difficult, as it did in Victoria.

All the federal “teals” came second on first preferences and won on a favourable distribution of preferences. NSW, by contrast, has an optional rather than compulsory preferential system, which means many voters will just vote one.

No easy win for Labor

That’s not to say Labor will romp home. The ALP needs a high 6% swing to form majority government, although a hung parliament is a distinct possibility.

Experience shows voters are very reluctant to change government unless they have faith in the alternative: the “time for a change” vote competes with the “fear of change” vote.

Opposition leader Chris Minns is plausible and presentable – but is that enough? A Resolve poll showed him slightly behind Perrottet as preferred premier, although the ALP was ahead on the primary vote – 37% to 34%.

Given the terrible lead up to the election Perrottet has had, this must be a disappointing result for Labor. Previous opposition leaders who defeated long-term governments, such as Neville Wran, Bob Carr and Barry O’Farrell, were aggressive political carnivores. Minns comes across as a mild herbivore.

From here, Minns must go hard on the government over its mistakes, divisions and scandals. At the same time, he needs to outline convincing policies and persuade the voters that life under his leadership will be an improvement.

À lire aussi :
Stadiums, bushfires and a pandemic: how will Gladys Berejiklian be remembered as premier?

David Clune ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. It’ll be tough for Perrottet to win the NSW election. But Labor won’t romp home either – https://theconversation.com/itll-be-tough-for-perrottet-to-win-the-nsw-election-but-labor-wont-romp-home-either-198892

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Trauer, Associate Professor, Monash University

The XBB.1.5 subvariant, known informally as “Kraken”, is the latest in a menagerie of Omicron subvariants to dominate the headlines, following increasing detection in the United States and United Kingdom.

But there have been few cases of XBB.1.5 in Australia so far. And its nickname – a mythical sea monster – may be causing unnecessary fear.

Yet XBB.1.5 and other subvariants do signal a change in how the virus is mutating. Here’s what this means for Australia and globally.

À lire aussi :
FAQ on COVID-19 subvariant XBB.1.5: What is it? Where is it prevalent? How does it differ from Omicron? Does it cause serious illness? How can I protect myself? Why is it nicknamed ‘Kraken’?

We’ve had multiple Omicron waves

From Australia’s first major wave of transmission in the summer of 2021/22 through to late 2022, we have had a series of COVID waves, each dominated by a single Omicron subvariant: BA.1, then BA.2 and then BA.5.

Although each new subvariant has played an important role in driving these waves of transmission, we should expect waves like this even in the absence of new variants.

This cyclical pattern of waves of increased infections alternating with periods of much lower transmission is an expected feature of endemic infections that confer short-term immunity, such as COVID.

This pattern arises because the natural protection we develop against the virus from infection declines or “wanes” over time. Markers of the immune response that protects against initial infection (especially antibodies) can be clearly observed to decline with time.

Reassuringly though, the protection we develop against severe outcomes is sustained for much longer.

À lire aussi :
Why are there so many new Omicron sub-variants, like BA.4 and BA.5? Will I be reinfected? Is the virus mutating faster?

Then there was a shift

In late 2022, following the rise of BA.5 around the globe, we started to see a shift in the evolution of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

The result has been an explosion of subvariants, sometimes called a “variant soup”. This has led to the emergence of a plethora of genetically diverse Omicron subvariants: BA.4.6, BA.2.75, BQ.1, XBB, and on the list goes.

The recent evolution of the virus is markedly different to what we saw earlier in the pandemic. Before this proliferation of subvariants, there were complete shifts from wild-type (the original viral strain) to Alpha, Delta, Omicron and the earlier Omicron subvariants (BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5) – each with substantially different effects on COVID transmission and immune protection.

This brings us to XBB.1.5

XBB.1.5 was first detected in the US in October 2022. Since then, it has spread steadily, and has now been detected in more than 50 countries. In some countries, such as the UK and US, its share of COVID cases is increasing. Although importantly, in the UK the total number of sequenced XBB.1.5 cases remains small and there is uncertainty around these growth estimates at this early stage.

The potential of XBB.1.5 to outcompete other subvariants and take a bigger piece of infection pie is likely driven by its ability to evade parts of the immune system that prevent us getting infected. This is due to a specific mutation that might help it to better enter the human cells it first comes in contact with.

These properties have led to its monstrous social media moniker “Kraken”. It joins other subvariants given mythical nicknames, including “Centaurus” (BA.2.75) and “Aeterna” (BA.4.6).

Some argue these names make these subvariants easier to remember and more accessible to the general public than the often cumbersome official scientific terms used to describe these subvariants.

However, we must also acknowledge the considerable fear still associated with COVID, which could be exacerbated by attributing such terrifying names to each new form of the virus that emerges.

While a high level of concern may have been appropriate – or even beneficial – during the COVID-zero phase of our response, we now need to look to sustainable policies as we transition out of the emergency phase of our response.

À lire aussi :
Even bivalent updated COVID-19 boosters struggle to prevent omicron subvariant transmission – an immunologist discusses why new approaches are necessary

So how about Australia?

At the time of writing, only 29 XBB.1.5 sequences have been recorded across Australia, making predictions about its trajectory uncertain.

For XBB.1.5 to become established in Australia, it would have to outcompete a range of established subvariants, including two that appear to be more common here than overseas: BR.2 and XBF.

In countries in which XBB.1.5 is established and contributing a substantial proportion of samples, such as the US and UK, the number of COVID cases and hospitalisations already appear to be declining.

À lire aussi :
China’s COVID cases may have hit 900 million. What’s headed our way?

What can we expect next in Australia?

We can expect recurrent waves of infection in Australia, even without the emergence of dramatically different variants.

However, the health-care burden of these waves should get progressively less severe, due to high levels of hybrid population immunity (from vaccination, natural infection or both).

XBB.1.5 may come to be the dominant circulating subvariant, although it is very unlikely we will need to introduce restrictive measures to curb transmission.

As time goes on, it is likely that transmission waves will settle into a somewhat more predictable or cyclical pattern.

For other coronaviruses, this manifests as a winter epidemic every one to two years, and a pattern like this would also fit with the characteristics of COVID.

However, we are not there yet, as subvariants such as XBB.1.5 contribute to transmission waves and the epidemic continues to wax and wane unpredictably.

What should we do next?

Given this background of endemic transmission with fluctuating levels of transmission, our public health response needs to focus on sustainable measures, including through optimising population immunity.

This should include focusing on vaccines and medicines to protect the most vulnerable, as well as shifting towards considering how recently a person was last vaccinated rather than just the total number of vaccines, as proposed in the US.

A sustainable response also requires continued investment in surveillance systems to monitor COVID, its evolution and impact.

The Epidemiological Modelling Unit at the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (led by James Trauer) has received funding for COVID-19 research from the NHMRC, the MRFF, the World Health Organization, the Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services (now the Victorian Department of Health) and the Northern Territory Government.

Angus Hughes ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. The ‘Kraken’ subvariant XBB.1.5 sounds scary. But behind the headlines are clues to where COVID’s heading – https://theconversation.com/the-kraken-subvariant-xbb-1-5-sounds-scary-but-behind-the-headlines-are-clues-to-where-covids-heading-198158

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeline Combe, Doctoral student, University of Technology Sydney

As the economist Herman Daly pithily said, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment – not the reverse. Nature makes our lives possible through what scientists call ecosystem services. Think healthy food, clean water, feed for livestock, building materials, medicine, flood and storm control, recreation, and attractions for tourists.

Despite this, Australian businesses and financial institutions have so far failed to track how their activities both rely on and affect nature. This means our investments and superannuation could be exposed to hidden financial risks because of nature loss – and may also contribute to the destruction of nature.

That’s set to change. The private sector is waking up to nature’s value (and the risks of losing it). The world’s biodiversity rescue plan agreed to last year could help motivate governments and businesses to clean up their investments by directing more money to protect nature and less towards bankrolling extinction.

There’s one crucial plank we’re missing though – mandatory reporting of how businesses both depend on and impact nature.

Nature and financial health are inextricably linked

Fully half of the world’s total economic activity – around A$61 trillion – is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services.

In Australia, that figure is very similar: around half of our GDP – $896 billion – has a moderate to very high direct dependence on ecosystem services provided by nature.

What happens when we breach nature’s limits? Ecosystem services seize up or collapse, eventually disrupting these sectors. The tireless pollination work of honeybees, for instance, is valued at $14 billion a year. Or take Australia’s wheatbelt, where poor soil health is now costing farmers almost $2 billion a year in lost income.

Ecosystem services are not hypothetical. They have real value – and we will absolutely notice if they are gone.

What does this have to do with my super?

Australia’s super sector is responsible for the retirement savings of around 12 million Australians. Super funds are directly exposed to financial risk from nature loss through their investment portfolios.

Just as farmers can’t grow crops without healthy soils or pollinators, developers can’t build apartments without timber or environmental permits. In turn, that has implications for their value as investments.

Read more:
Taking care of business: the private sector is waking up to nature’s value

And because so many sectors are exposed, classic investment strategies such as diversification may no longer protect your super from losses.

So what are our super funds and banks doing about it?

To find out, we surveyed ten super funds and ten retail banks about their responses to nature-related risks. The survey – commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation – is the first time this has been done in Australia.

The findings? Not ideal. Every participating super fund and bank agreed the loss of nature now presented a serious risk to investment returns. They all agreed it was part of their responsibility to members and customers to measure and manage these risks. But only 20% of super funds and 10% of banks had attempted to assess how exposed they were.

Again, this is not abstract. Super funds often have large holdings in the big four banks. Together, these banks have $170 billion in exposure to agriculture, mining, fisheries, and forestry – sectors directly reliant on a functioning natural world.

So why isn’t it a higher priority? One issue may be that many financial institutions are currently focused on climate change, given how rapidly impacts are mounting. But climate change and the breakdown of natural systems are twin crises. Nature offers far and away the largest method of taking carbon back out of the atmosphere, for instance. But that only works if salt marshes and wetlands and forests are intact.

Net zero targets for our banks and super funds are not fully credible unless there is a commitment to end the financing of deforestation. Only one organisation, Australian Ethical, had made such a commitment.

You would think Australia’s super funds and banks would be interested to find out how exposed their investments were to this growing risk. Tools to do this such as IBAT and ENCORE are readily available.

But to date, our survey findings don’t indicate banks and funds will do this voluntarily.

Banks and super funds may soon have to report these risks

The biodiversity rescue plan agreed to last year – known as the Kunming-Montreal agreement – is intended to set expectations for responsible finance and business globally, as the Paris Agreement did for climate change.

That means Australia will be expected to introduce disclosure requirements. If this comes to pass, banks, super funds, and the businesses they invest our savings in will have to measure and publicly report their impact on nature – as well as how much they rely on nature to make a profit.

First, though, the Australian government must introduce mandatory nature risk reporting. It’s already moving ahead with plans to make climate risk disclosures mandatory.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has indicated nature is also on his radar.

The question then will be whether making this information public will actually do what we hope it will and use money to help natural systems rather than extract from them.

What happens next?

Since taking office, the Labor government has pledged to take action on the perilous decline of the natural world with plans such as bringing the value of nature into our national accounts.

While positive, the real action won’t happen until nature risk reporting is mandatory, environment laws with teeth are introduced, and until both governments and private industry direct serious money into helping nature, not harming it. Risky nature credit markets aren’t going to cut the mustard.

You don’t have to sit back and wait. Why not ask your super fund and bank what nature-related risks they are exposing your money to?

Read more:
The historic COP15 outcome is an imperfect game-changer for saving nature. Here’s why Australia did us proud

Madeline Combe receives funding from the University of Technology, Sydney.

Dr Megan Evans is one of Madeline’s PhD supervisors.

Megan C Evans receives funding from the Australian Research Council through a Discovery Early Career Research Award. She received funding from the Australian Conservation Foundation to support this research. She has previously been funded by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, WWF Australia, and the National Environmental Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub.

Nathaniel Pelle is an Honorary Associate of the Sydney Environment Institute, University of Sydney, and works for the Australian Conservation Foundation.

– ref. Losing the natural world comes with major risks for your super fund and bank – https://theconversation.com/losing-the-natural-world-comes-with-major-risks-for-your-super-fund-and-bank-198669

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Jefferson, Lecturer in Education, Edith Cowan University

Grit. Don’t quit.

That’s the mantra many parents may have in mind when they, like me, spend what feels like years ferrying children to a seemingly endless variety of sports and activities. From enduring sheets of almost vertical icy rain while cheering them on a hockey pitch, to obscenely early morning starts for rowing, I can happily say my own grit and resilience has been tested to its upper limits. But what about the children’s?

When it comes to grit, resilience and kids sport, the question around their enrolment, ongoing participation and right to quit is often the topic of much conversation – and consternation. As parents, what should we do when kids announce, often mid-season, they want to “take a break” or quit altogether?

As a parent and educator this raises the question of that invisible line we often tread about how much to push them, when to let them take a break and when it’s OK to just let them quit.

À lire aussi :
If you want your child to be more resilient, get them to join a choir, orchestra or band

Grit matters

More than mere buzzwords, the terms grit and resilience have themselves been the subject of extensive research. US-based researcher Angela Duckworth has defined grit as “perseverance and passion for long-term goal”, saying it involves

working strenuously towards challenged, maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity, and plateaus in progress.

Grit has been associated with growth mindset, satisfaction and a sense of belonging.

One US study found

perseverance of effort predicted greater academic adjustment, college grade point average, college satisfaction, sense of belonging, faculty–student interactions, and intent to persist, while it was inversely related to intent to change majors.

A study of children coping with reading disorders found

strong evidence that grit and resilience is significantly related to mental health, academic success, and quality of life.

Duckworth suggests resilience is a component of grit but there are other models, too.

For instance, Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) veterans Dan Pronk, Ben Pronk and Tim Curtis (authors of the book, The Resilience Shield) propose groups of resilience factors as a series “layers” (such as a professional layer, a social layer, an adaptation layer) which interact with each other. They note the challenge of defining resilience, referring to it as “an outcome better than expected given the adversity being faced”.

Giving grit a chance to grow

As adults, perhaps we can reflect on experiences we’ve had in life that have helped build our resilience. But kids and adolescents are still developing grit and the ability to work strenuously towards a goal. Their brains are undergoing significant developmental changes.

My research has a focus on teacher education and what helps teachers stick with a career that can occasionally be extremely challenging.

Learning to help children and adolescents navigate challenging situations and being able to cultivate your own resilience in the face of trying circumstances is a crucial skill for teachers.

So how do we handle those difficult conversations when kids announce they want to quit a sport or activity?

Firstly, remain neutral and check the temperature of the conversation. Is this a heat-of-the-moment conversation? Right after a big loss or a less-than-stellar piano recital? Good decisions are not usually made in those moments.

Talk to the coach or tutor to figure out what may really be going on. Sometimes the problem can be peer related and again, it is important for kids to learn to navigate those challenges.

All told, when kids announce they want to quit, keep the dialogue open. Listen carefully when they explain their reasons, but talk to your children about grit, too.

Share with them research that compares a growth mindset (which teaches that even when things get hard, we can learn and grow and get better) with a fixed mindset (which posits that either you’re good at something or not and there’s little room to change). Research suggests having a growth mindset can foster persistence and positive long-term outcomes.

The key is that parents don’t teach resilience to children just by telling them about it. It is truly built through experience.

À lire aussi :
True grit – we measured it and found it protected doctors from career burnout

Sarah Jefferson ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Grit or quit? How to help your child develop resilience – https://theconversation.com/grit-or-quit-how-to-help-your-child-develop-resilience-195195

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Humphery-Jenner, Associate Professor of Finance, UNSW Sydney

A few weeks ago, Gautam Adani was indisputably India’s richest man.

Now his fortune is slipping away as the stocks of his many companies crash, thanks to the efforts of a relatively obscure US company named after the 1937 Hindenberg disaster (in which a hydrogen-filled airship caught fire, killing 98 people).

Adani’s personal fortune was an estimated US$150 billion in 2022. He catapulted past the previous richest Indian, Mukesh Ambani, on the back of the meteoric rise of Adani Group, a multinational conglomerate with holdings in mining, energy, airports, cement, food processing and weapons manufacturing.

Since January 25, Adani Group’s stock price has fallen 45%. The catalyst? An explosive report published on January 24 by Hindenburg Research, alleging Adani Group engaged in “brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud scheme over the course of decades”.

What complicates this report is that Hindenburg Research isn’t just a research company. It’s an “activist short seller”, with a financial incentive in seeing Adani’s stock price fall.

Hindenburg makes its profits by identifying “man-made disasters floating around in the market”. It bets on the stock falling, then publicises that company’s negatives – including doing so in Adani’s case:

After extensive research, we have taken a short position in Adani Group Companies through US-traded bonds and non-Indian-traded derivative instruments.

Adani’s response includes calling the report a “calculated attack on India” and “intended only to create a false market in securities to enable Hindenburg, an admitted short seller, to book massive financial gain through wrongful means at the cost of countless investors”.

Activist short selling is certainly controversial. But it’s not necessarily illegal, nor unethical.

Read more:
Unpicking the labyrinth that is India’s Adani

How does short selling work?

Short selling (also known as having a “short exposure”, or “shorting”) is essentially betting on a company’s stock falling.

The process is more complicated than betting on a share price rising, for which all you have to do is buy the stock and wait for it to appreciate.

It can be done in several ways. The most common is to sell borrowed stock. The “short seller” makes a contract with a share owner to borrow shares for an agreed period. They then sell that stock, banking the proceeds. When the time comes to return the stock, they buy shares on the market to “repay” the loan. If the price has fallen in the meantime, they make a profit.

There are also methods that involve “derivatives”. These are financial instruments that allow investors to “bet” on financial outcomes. For example, a “put option” involves betting a stock’s price will fall below a specific level (called the strike price). Similarly, a futures contract pays out the difference between the current stock price and the future stock price. This allows the investor to effectively bet on price movements.

Investors might also invest via bonds. A corporate bond is much like a loan. Investors can short sell a bond like they would a stock. Alternatively, they can buy “credit default swaps”, which enable betting on a company defaulting on on its debt repayments.

There are even more complicated strategies than these. For fun explanations, check out the 2015 movie The Big Short, about the guys who bet on the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.

Is short selling legal?

There are two main legal issues arising with short selling.

Market manipulation. It is illegal in most jurisdictions for activist short sellers to profit by spreading false or misleading information. This is the case in Australia and the US (where Hindenburg and some of its positions in Adani are based). But this is relatively easy to discover.

Insider trading. it would be illegal to bet on a company’s future share price using information that is not generally available, then reveal that information.

On this, Hindenburg Research is skating on thin ice with some of its assertions. For example, its report says of Adani’s deals to build a rail line to transport coal in Queensland:

None of the transactions were specifically disclosed in the Adani Enterprises annual reports. We uncovered them only by reviewing financials for the private Singaporean Carmichael Rail entity.

If those financials were publicly available in a database or online, Hindenburg Research is in the clear. But if the financials were not generally available, it risks being accused of insider trading.

However, Hindenburg’s report contains many allegations involving a large volume of public information, which means it would be difficult to establish whether it also used any non-public information to assemble the report.

Read more:
Vital Signs: ASIC’s crusade against activist short sellers will be bad for regular folk

Is this ethical? Should we be concerned?

There are some concerns about the ethics of profiting from a company’s demise.

Ethics can be arbitrary. However, we can consider some guidelines. These include:

• Does society benefit from information about fraud coming to light?

• If there were no financial incentive, would a company really spend two years doing detailed forensic analysis?

• Does anyone unfairly lose to justify rules or laws to discourage such profits?

Exposing fraud is in the public interest. There must be some financial incentive to do such work. Existing shareholders are losing from Adani’s stock tumble, but that should properly be credited to the alleged fraud, not the report.

Ultimately, then, companies such as Hindenburg are generally a net positive if they comply with all relevant laws, securities regulations and privacy guidelines.

If the report is truthful, blaming Hindenburg for Adani’s crash is like blaming an alarm for a fire.

Mark Humphery-Jenner receives funding from the Australian Research Council and AFAANZ.

– ref. Short selling Adani: how an obscure US firm profited from triggering the Indian giant’s price plunge – https://theconversation.com/short-selling-adani-how-an-obscure-us-firm-profited-from-triggering-the-indian-giants-price-plunge-198991

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Divna Haslam, Senior Research Fellow, Queensland University of Technology

Have you ever found yourself scrolling through social media and noticed you felt a bit down? Maybe a little envious? Why aren’t you on a yacht? Running a startup? Looking amazing 24/7?

The good news is you are not alone. Although social media has some benefits, it can also make us feel a little depressed.

Why does social media make us feel bad?

As humans we inherently compare ourselves to others to determine our self-worth.
Psychologists call this social comparison theory.

We primarily make two types of comparisons: upward and downward comparisons.

Upward comparisons occur when we compare ourselves to someone else (in real life or on social media) and feel they are better than us (an unfavourable comparison for us) in whatever domain we are assessing (such as status, beauty, abilities, success, and so on).

For example, comparing your day at work to your friend’s post from the ski fields (we’re looking at you Dave!) is likely to be an upward comparison. Another example is making appearance comparisons which can make you feel worse about yourself or your looks .

Although upward comparison can sometimes motivate you to do better, this depends on the change being achievable and on your esteem. Research suggests upward comparisons may be particularly damaging if you have low self-esteem.

In contrast, downward comparisons occur when we view ourselves more favourably than the other person – for example, by comparing yourself to someone less fortunate. Downward comparisons make us feel better about ourselves but are rare in social media because people don’t tend to post about the mundane realities of life.

Comparisons in social media

Social media showcases the best of people’s lives. It presents a carefully curated version of reality and presents it as fact. Sometimes, as with influencers, this is intentional but often it is unconscious bias. We are just naturally more likely to post when we are happy, on holiday or to share successes – and even then we choose the best version to share.

When we compare ourselves to what we see on social media, we typically make upward comparisons which make us feel worse. We compare ourselves on an average day to others on their best day. In fact, it’s not even their best day. It’s often a perfectly curated, photoshopped, produced, filter-applied moment. It’s not a fair comparison.

That’s not to say social media is all bad. It can help people feel supported, connected, and get information. So don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, keep your social media use in check with these tips.

Concrete ways you can make yourself feel better about social media

Monitor your reactions. If social media is enjoyable, you may not need to change anything – but if it’s making you exhausted, depressed or anxious, or you are losing time to mindless scrolling, it’s time for change.

Avoid comparisons. Remind yourself that comparing your reality with a selected moment on social media is an unrealistic benchmark. This is especially the case with high-profile accounts who are paid to create perfect content.

Be selective. If you must compare, search for downward comparisons (with those who are worse off) or more equal comparisons to help you feel better. This might include unfollowing celebrities, focusing on real posts by friends, or using reality focused platforms like BeReal.

Redefine success. Influencers and celebrities make luxury seem like the norm. Most people don’t live in pristine homes and sip barista-made coffee in white sheets looking perfect. Consider what real success means to you and measure yourself against that instead.

À lire aussi :
Want to delete your social media, but can’t bring yourself to do it? Here are some ways to take that step

Practise gratitude. Remind yourself of things that are great in your life, and celebrate your accomplishments (big and small!). Create a “happy me” folder of your favourite life moments, pics with friends, and great pictures of yourself, and look at this if you find yourself falling into the comparison trap.

Unplug. If needed, take a break, or cut down. Avoid mindless scrolling by moving tempting apps to the last page of your phone or use in-built focus features on your device. Alternatively, use an app to temporarily block yourself from social media.

Engage in real life. Sometimes social media makes people notice what is missing in their own lives, which can encourage growth. Get out with friends, start a new hobby, embrace life away from the screen.

Get amongst nature. Nature has health and mood benefits that combat screen time.

Be the change. Avoid only sharing the picture-perfect version of your life and share (in a safe setting) your real life. You’d be surprised how this will resonate with others. This will help you and them feel better.

Seek help. If you are feeling depressed or anxious over a period of time, get support. Talk to your friends, family or a GP about how you are feeling. Alternatively contact one of the support lines like Lifeline, Kids Helpline, or 13Yarn.

Divna Haslam has received funding from various granting bodies and the Australian Government. These are unrelated to this piece.

Sabine Baker ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Why social media makes you feel bad – and what to do about it – https://theconversation.com/why-social-media-makes-you-feel-bad-and-what-to-do-about-it-197691

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zahid Shahab Ahmed, Senior research fellow, Deakin University

Earlier this week, a suicide blast ruptured the relative calm that had returned to Pakistan in recent years. The attack at a mosque in the northwestern city of Peshawar killed more than 100 people and stunned many Pakistanis who thought the days of such horrific suicide bombings were long behind them.

While Monday’s attack was among the worst in the country in a decade, the blast doesn’t necessarily signal a return of terrorism so much as an escalation of a problem that never really went away.

The Pakistan Taliban, also known as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), denied responsibility for Monday’s blast. Instead, a TTP faction, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, claimed to be behind it.

But in many ways, Pakistan’s deteriorating security situation is directly linked to a resurgent TTP and the increasing fragility in neighbouring Afghanistan since the Taliban’s takeover in August 2021.

Read more:
How Pakistan stands to gain — or lose — from the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan

The Pakistani government had supported the Afghan Taliban for years, but the relationship began to break down after the Afghan Taliban offered shelter to TTP fighters and released thousands of terrorists from prison after taking power.

The TTP not only appeared to be strengthened and energised by the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, it also drew closer to the group.

Last year, the Afghan Taliban facilitated dialogue between the Pakistani government and the TTP that led to a ceasefire deal. But by November, the TTP ended the five-month truce, claiming the government had not complied with all its requests, most notably the freeing of important TTP members.

The result has been a slow but steady uptick in terrorist attacks.

Documented acts of terrorism hit a high of 3,923 in Pakistan in 2013, with more than 2,000 deaths. The number of fatalities plunged to 267 in 2021, but last year, started to climb again to 365.

Pakistan also only registered four suicide attacks in 2021, but there were 13 last year and four already this year. The TTP has claimed responsibility for most attacks.

Decade-long war on extremism

Pakistan had achieved enormous strides against terrorism over the past 15 years, in large part because of its significant “Rah-e-Rast” military operation in 2009 and the “Zarb-e-Azb” operation in 2014.

The TTP retaliated to the latter with an attack on an army public school in Peshawar in 2014, killing more than 130 children. This prompted the army to intensify its activities, and by 2017, it had largely routed the TTP.

These security operations, however, only addressed the symptoms of the problem by pushing most TTP fighters across the border into Afghanistan. Terrorist attacks in Pakistan declined, but the problem didn’t go away.

Despite the development of a counter-terrorism blueprint called the National Action Plan in 2014, the government’s security operations have been too limited in scope. They do not focus on all terrorist groups, but selectively target a few, such as the TTP.

The National Counter Terrorism Authority has registered 78 terrorist organisations in Pakistan, but little is known what the government is doing to counter them. The National Action Plan also does not focus much attention on preventative measures like education.

Read more:
‘It is a big relief for me’: how the welfare provided by madrassas holds a key to fighting the Taliban

Addressing the root causes of extremism

Nonetheless, there is growing interest in Pakistan to invest more in promoting a stronger national counter-narrative against extremist ideologies, such as the Paigham-e-Pakistan, which the government developed with the help of hundreds of Islamic scholars.

Moreover, there is a growing desire in policymaking circles to address the root causes of extremism, including the grievances of locals in the region previously known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas on the Afghan border and Balochistan in southwestern Pakistan.

The growing insecurity in Balochistan, for instance, is in part driven by Chinese investment, which is opposed by the militant Baloch Liberation Army. The group believes the government has exploited the region’s resources and ignored its development needs. It has targeted Chinese citizens in numerous attacks.

The stakes here are very high for Pakistan, which is desperate for foreign investment. As such, Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal has urged the government to focus on addressing the socio-economic concerns of locals, in particular young people, so they don’t turn toward extremism.

The same grievances exist in the former tribal areas, where millions have suffered due to the government’s neglect.

Until 2018, this region was governed under the notorious, colonial-era Frontier Crimes Regulation. This meant Pakistani laws did not apply and there were no local courts or political parties, allowing armed groups to thrive. The first time residents participated in any election was in 2019, more than 70 years after independence.

When the government merged the tribal areas with a neighbouring province in 2018, residents believed their lives would improve. But this coincided with the resurgence of the TTP in the region, bringing new concerns about security and stability.

What the state should do now

For now, Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts are largely focused on TTP, but the country needs a broader approach.

First, Pakistan needs to have its own house in order by addressing the ongoing governance challenges in the former tribal areas and Balochistan.

Second, the government can no longer limit counter-terrorism operations to only a few areas. This will only increase the grievances of locals, who continue to suffer due to displacement and disempowerment. As terrorist groups are spread across the country, it is time the state tries a more holistic approach.

With the TTP, it is already clear that attempting dialogue has not worked. It only provided the group more legitimacy and time for recruitment and fundraising.

Instead of playing into the hands of terrorist groups, the government needs to address the structural causes of extremism, such as the marginalisation of millions living in peripheral areas, in particular highly vulnerable young people.

Zahid Shahab Ahmed receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Is terrorism returning to Pakistan? – https://theconversation.com/is-terrorism-returning-to-pakistan-198995

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eric Nordberg, Senior Lecturer (Applied Ecology and Landscape Management), University of New England

Australia’s renewable energy transition has prompted the construction of dozens of large-scale solar farms. The boom helps reduce Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels, but requires large areas of land to be converted to host solar infrastructure.

Solar farms are mostly built in rural areas. This has raised concerns about a potential decline in both agricultural production – as arable land is used for solar energy production – and wildlife habitat.

But there are ways to expand solar infrastructure so both nature and people win. We’ve already seen this in so called “agrivoltaics”, where land under and around solar panels is used to grow crops and graze livestock. But what about “conservoltaics”, combing conservation and solar energy?

My new research examines whether solar farms could also be used to help conserve native species. I found solar panels can provide valuable habitat for wildlife – and potentially benefit both the land and farmers.

A new place to call home

Our wild landscapes are diminishing and protected areas, such as national parks, cover only about 9% of Australia.

Many agricultural landscapes have been cleared of trees to provide pasture for livestock. It means wildlife that rely on trees have lost vast tracts of habitat.

So we must find new places for wildlife to forage, rest, shelter and breed.

My work examines how solar parks on agricultural land can double as wildlife habitat. It involves surveys and trapping to identify what plants and animals occupy solar farms, how long they take to recolonise, and how we can promote even more biodiversity.

My new paper coins a new term for this dual land-use: conservoltaics. I highlight research from overseas into how solar parks can bring conservation benefits, and describe the research still needed.

Solar panels add three-dimensional structure and complexity to an environment. They can provide animals shelter from predators and the elements, much like artificial reefs in lakes and oceans. They can also act as perch or nesting structures.

Solar infrastructure also creates a mosaic of sun and shade patches – and so provide many “micro-habitats” for plants and animals.

Research from Europe has shown large solar farms can enhance the diversity and abundance of plants, grasses, butterflies, bees and birds.

What’s more, vegetation between solar panel rows can also provide travel corridors, nesting sites and shelter for wildlife.

Read more:
Why Queensland is still ground zero for Australian deforestation

Management is key

Research suggests several management strategies that can maximise the benefits of solar farms for wildlife.

Land managers should provide a diverse mix of flowering plant species to encourage pollinators. And grass between solar panels should not be mowed too short or too often. Pollinators prefer tall vegetation where they can forage – though vegetation should not be so tall that it shades the solar panels.

The use of herbicides and other chemicals should be avoided where possible. And solar farms should be connected to other vegetated areas, using features such as hedgerows and wildflower strips, so wildlife can move between the solar farm and other habitats.

Landholders who combine solar farms with wildlife habitat may reap several benefits.

They could receive financial returns by earning environmental credits through schemes that reward carbon sequestration and biodiversity improvements.

They may also improve the health of their land by, for example, increasing pollination or providing habitat for predators such as raptor perches or nest boxes – which in turn could help control pests.

Much work remains, however, to understand these opportunities.

Looking ahead

The benefit of renewable energy in reducing carbon emissions is well known. But more work is needed to understand how solar farms can benefit wildlife.

Research is also lacking on how to locate, configure and manage solar farms to best enhance biodiversity. Collaboration between industry, land managers and researchers is needed so clean energy production and conservation can go hand-in-hand.

Read more:
Australia needs much more solar and wind power, but where are the best sites? We mapped them all

Eric Nordberg 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. Win-win: how solar farms can double as havens for our wildlife – https://theconversation.com/win-win-how-solar-farms-can-double-as-havens-for-our-wildlife-194920

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Dyer, Associate Professor, Monash University

If you’ve ever compared a frozen pizza to the photo on the box, you know the feeling of being duped by appetising looks.

In our latest study we show that animals – in this case, bees – are also prone to being tricked into making poor decisions, which explains a lot about how gaps in perception are exploited in nature.

When Charles Darwin was testing the theory of evolution 150 years ago, he looked at the interaction between flowering plants and the animals that forage to collect nectar.

This helped establish that flowers have adaptations to promote easier pollinator access, making it beneficial for the animal who gets a food “reward” from them. At the same time, it means the plants get pollinated and can reproduce.

One perplexing problem is some flowering plants that reproduce by pollination are non-rewarding – the animal doesn’t get nectar from visiting the flower. This is true of certain orchids, yet these flowers are still visited by pollinators and survive well in nature.

A mistaken identity

With the benefit of modern scientific tools like a spectrophotometer that measures the amount of colour, digital ultraviolet (UV) photography and computer modelling of how bees see the world, our international team set out to understand how some orchids have evolved dazzling floral displays.

Our chosen species was the winter donkey orchid (Diuris brumalis), endemic to Western Australia. This non-rewarding, food deceptive plant blooms at the same time as rewarding native pea plants (Daviesia).

As a result, native Trichocolletes bees appear to mistake the orchid for legume plants frequently enough that the orchid gets pollinated.

We quantified the flower colour signals from both plants, revealing the main component of the visual information perceived by a bee was in the short wavelength UV region of the spectrum.

This made sense – while our vision sees blue, green and red wavelengths of light as primary colours, bees can see UV reflected light but lack a channel for perceiving primary red.

By using computer models of bee pollinator perception, we observed the orchid mimic species and the native pea plant species did actually look similar in colour to bees.

Putting a UV block on flowers

What was surprising, however, was the non-rewarding orchid flowers – pollinated by deception – actually have more conspicuous advertising for bee vision.

For example, the main display outer flower petals were significantly larger on the orchid plants, and also produced a stronger UV colour signal.

To understand if such signalling was biologically relevant, we next conducted field experiments with the plants. We used a special UV sun-blocking solution to remove the strong UV signals in half of the orchid species, whilst the other half retained their natural appearance.

At the completion of the field season, several months latter, we could measure which plants were more successfully pollinated by bees, revealing the strong UV signals had a significant role in promoting pollination in the orchids.

A second interesting finding of the field experiments was the distance between the pea flowers and their copycat orchids was a major factor in the success of the orchids’ deception strategy.

If the orchids with strong UV signals were within close proximity – a meter or two – to the rewarding native pea flowers, the deception was less successful and few orchid flowers were pollinated. However, if the deceptive orchids were about eight meters away from the rewarding model species, this produced the highest success rate in pollination.

Why deception works

It turns out a distance of about eight meters is important because of the way bee brains process colour. When bees see a pair of colours in close proximity, they can evaluate them at the same time. This leads to very precise colour matching. A similar process happens in human brains – we also have to see colours at the same time.

However, seeing colour stimuli with a time interval in between means the brain has to remember the first colour, inspect the second colour, and make a mental calculation about whether the two samples are indeed the same.

Neither bee brains, nor our own, are good at successive colour comparisons. This is why when we purchase paint for a repair job we take a sample to get a precise match, rather than try and remember what we thought the colour should look like.

Deceptive flowers are successful by exploiting this perceptual gap in how brains have to code information when bees need to fly several meters in search of more food.

By using a “look at me” strategy (essentially, better advertising than other plants) it is possible to survive in nature without actually offering a food reward to the pollinators. To do this, the plants need to be at an optimal distance from the plants they are mimicking. Not too close and not too far, and success is assured.

Read more:
‘Like finding life on Mars’: why the underground orchid is Australia’s strangest, most mysterious flower

Adrian Dyer receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

Endeavor Fellowship Program grant ID 5117_2016 (Daniela Scaccabarozzi)
Templeton World Charity Foundation grant TWCF0541 (Monica Gagliano)

– ref. This strange donkey orchid uses UV light to trick bees into thinking it has food – https://theconversation.com/this-strange-donkey-orchid-uses-uv-light-to-trick-bees-into-thinking-it-has-food-198980

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicola Helps, Research fellow, Monash University

Identifying perpetrators of domestic and family violence is critical to ending violence against women.

Practitioners across different sectors, including mental health, alcohol and drug services, have a vital opportunity to “screen” clients to identify if they’ve experienced or perpetrated domestic violence.

However, our new research reveals practitioners across a range of services are missing opportunities to identify people who choose to perpetrate violence.

The research, funded by the Australian Institute of Criminology and led by Griffith University’s Silke Meyer, reveals there’s significant work to be done to embed screening practices across a range of different services.

States and territory governments across Australia have repeatedly committed to increasing perpetrator accountability. This research shows we need to improve the training of practitioners across various sectors to ensure perpetrators are consistently identified at the earliest opportunity.

Identifying and assessing risk

People who perpetrate domestic violence routinely come into contact with a range of services for other, often co-occurring issues, such as mental health concerns. Each contact with a service presents an opportunity to screen for perpetrators of such violence, and to support the safety of victim-survivors.

Screening for potential perpetrators involves practitioners reviewing available information and asking questions. It can require them to identify warning signs that may signal the perpetration of violence.

Read more:
See What You Made Me Do: why it’s time to focus on the perpetrator when tackling domestic violence

Practitioners use risk assessment tools, such as Victoria’s Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework, as well as their professional judgement. This is highly skilled and challenging work.

Without effective screening and risk assessment practices, people who perpetrate violence may go undetected, may not be referred to intervention services, and their ongoing risk of violence remains unaddressed.

Our research found missed opportunities are evident in child protection, health settings, mental health settings, drug and alcohol interventions, and in corrections.

We need to invest more in training

Our findings demonstrate that enhancing specialist training increases practitioners’ likelihood of screening. Yet practitioners in our study reflected on the often limited training available. One corrections staff member commented:

People coming into our agency generally don’t have a good understanding of domestic and family violence, and it’s something that they’re learning either on the job or through a DV person […] There’s nothing really consistent, as a whole agency.

Practitioners consistently said they want more domestic violence training. This will require substantive investment in specialist workforce training across all relevant service sectors.

In our study, mental health practitioners were least likely to report regular screening of clients for potential domestic violence perpetration. Practitioners described mental health services, in particular emergency settings and crisis responses, as fast-paced and under-resourced.

A mental health practitioner told us:

Everybody’s under the pump, and you just see people […] meeting just the bare minimum to cover your back and meeting the minimum standards.

This environment increases the likelihood that perpetrators will be missed.

Increased resources, specialist training, and improved information sharing across the mental health system as well as other services is needed to ensure perpetrators are more consistently identified, their risks assessed and monitored.

Also, the need for improved practices doesn’t stop at the point of identifying risk. Practitioners in our study said there are limited services available for referrals. There’s a need for more early intervention referral options for domestic violence perpetrators.

The study also highlights the importance of organisational leadership and the need to prioritise risk assessment of domestic violence as “core business”. Practitioners in these service settings are well placed to screen potential perpetrators for use of violence. Embedding this in everyday practice will ensure screening occurs at every opportunity.

Achieving perpetrator accountability

This study focused on Queensland and to a lesser extent Victoria. However, the research findings have national importance.

Launched in 2022, Australia’s National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-2032 includes a key principle to hold perpetrators to account. To achieve this goal we must ensure they’re identified at every opportunity.

Read more:
To end gender-based violence in one generation, we must fix how the system responds to children and young people

Australian governments are currently preparing the first five-year Action Plan. This strategy will identify the actions needed to progress the National Plan’s goal to eliminate gender-based violence in one generation. Our research highlights why consistent and improved screening and risk assessment processes must be included.

This research was funded by the Australian Institute of Criminology. Nicola also receives funding for family violence related research from No to Violence and Family Safety Victoria.

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

– ref. We’re missing opportunities to identify domestic violence perpetrators. This is what needs to change – https://theconversation.com/were-missing-opportunities-to-identify-domestic-violence-perpetrators-this-is-what-needs-to-change-198071

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

As we enter the fourth year of living with COVID, we are all asking the predictable question: when will the pandemic be over?

To answer this question, it’s worth reminding ourselves that a pandemic involves the worldwide spread of a disease that requires an emergency response at a global level.

This week, World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared COVID continues to be a public health emergency of international concern.

As Ghebreyesus notes, we still face significant challenges, with high rates of transmission in many countries, the risk of a game-changing new variant ever-present, and an unknown impact of long COVID.

Yet COVID pandemic “fatigue” means it’s harder to reach people with public health messaging, while misinformation continues to circulate. In addition, many countries have deprioritised COVID testing and surveillance, so we don’t have accurate data about the extent of transmission.

But while we’re still in the emergency phase of our COVID response, three years after the original declaration, the WHO also acknowledged we’re at a transition point. This means we’re moving towards the “disease control” phase of our response to COVID and learning to live with the virus.

What are we transitioning to?

Moving out of the emergency response phase for COVID doesn’t mean ignoring COVID or returning to exactly what our lives looked like before March 2020. Rather, we need to learn to coexist with COVID.

Living with COVID means applying appropriate prevention and control measures for COVID as we go about our lives. This is what we do for other infectious diseases, including other respiratory diseases.

Read more:
We’re entering a new phase of COVID, where we each have to assess and mitigate our own risk. But how?

The most effective thing we can do to reduce the risk of COVID is to be up-to-date with our vaccinations and boosters. COVID vaccines don’t completely stop transmission, but they greatly reduce your likelihood of becoming seriously ill.

We can also reduce the likelihood of spreading COVID by masking up in high-risk settings, socialising in well-ventilated spaces, and staying away from others when unwell.

Living with COVID also involves government continuing with public health actions to monitor disease transmission and to prevent, control and respond to infections.

What has prompted the transition?

We’ve entered the transition phase because the risk associated with COVID has shifted. Thanks to safe and effective vaccines, along with high levels of prior infection, we have increased immunity at the population level and COVID infection is less likely to lead to severe disease.

This, combined with the emergence of less virulent variants (for now) and the addition to our armoury of a number of effective treatment options, has reduced the overall threat COVID poses to health. The position we are in now is very different to where we were at the beginning of the pandemic.

Read more:
How has COVID affected Australians’ health? New report shows where we’ve failed and done well

One of the main characteristics of this transition phase of the pandemic is a shift towards a risk-based approach to COVID. The focus of public health interventions will be to target the most vulnerable to COVID in the community. This means ensuring older age groups, those with underlying health conditions and others at increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID are adequately protected.

What might get in the way?

A smooth path through this transition phase and into the next phase is reliant on continuing to maintain a high level of population immunity overall. One of the biggest challenges is how to promote the uptake of vaccines as the perceived threat of COVID fades.

The difficulty in ensuring a high uptake of boosters is a worldwide problem. Waning immunity, which could be topped up with additional vaccine doses, remains a significant concern and we need to find better ways to address this issue.

The main challenge for health authorities right now is to, on the one hand, acknowledge the reduction in the risk COVID poses while, on the other hand, ensuring people don’t become complacent and completely ignore COVID.

Health authorities are also propping up very fatigued and stretched health systems.

So when will it end?

The WHO’s recognition we are entering a transition phase of the pandemic means we’re one step closer to the end of the pandemic. But while pandemics begin with a bang, they don’t end that way.

Pandemics fade as individuals and populations gradually return to living their lives in a more “normal” way as their risk changes. This can be incredibly messy, with countries transitioning out of the emergency response phase of the pandemic at different times.

So the pandemic isn’t over but an end is in sight.

Read more:
COVID will soon be endemic. This doesn’t mean it’s harmless or we give up, just that it’s part of life

Hassan Vally 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. COVID remains a global emergency, the World Health Organization says, but we’re at a transition point. What does this mean? – https://theconversation.com/covid-remains-a-global-emergency-the-world-health-organization-says-but-were-at-a-transition-point-what-does-this-mean-198876

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Brook, Associate Professor of Applied Geology, University of Auckland

The January 27 storm that hit Auckland broke all previous rainfall records and has caused widespread damage, mostly from flooding and landslides. But while climate change helps explain the intensity of the rainfall, the way land has been used and built on in the city is a major factor in what happened.

Such rainfall events generate significant landslides, probably in the thousands. What geologists refer to as “multiple-occurrence regional landslide events” (MORLEs) are sometimes also triggered by earthquakes (such as happened in Kaikoura in 2016).

But predicting where and when land might slide is not easy. Influencing factors include local geology, the properties of the slope material (soil and/or rock), slope geometry and angle, surface vegetation cover, drainage, and any buildings which can add weight and “load” to a slope.

Combinations of these factors were involved in Auckland, and understanding what happened and why will be important for ensuring the city is protected from similar events in future.

Weak saturated soil

Auckland has weak, clay-rich soils formed by the weathering of underlying (often) weak rocks. It also has a lot of steep slopes. Even in their natural state, these slopes can be prone to sliding if the soils become saturated enough.

A further issue is the seasonal drying and wetting of soils. Auckland’s clay-rich soils show high “shrink and swell” properties, meaning there is a natural annual cycle of wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking).

This can cause a progressive weakening of the soils over years and decades, called “strain-softening” (a bit like taking a steel fork and bending it back and forth). The soil is then more prone to failure when a large rainfall event occurs.

Read more:
The Auckland floods are a sign of things to come – the city needs stormwater systems fit for climate change

In theory, then, more extreme climate effects could lead to an increased rate of soil deterioration, causing the properties of the soil to change more rapidly.

Rainfall “thresholds” are also important to consider. These are the rainfall totals – measured across either 24, 48 or 72 hour intervals – that can initiate landslides on a given slope. But using rainfall forecasts to predict landslides oversimplifies the issue because the prevailing (“antecedent”) soil moisture conditions are also important.

Soils are made of solids (the grains), water, and air which creates “pore” spaces. If it’s been a very wet few weeks preceding a storm event, water increases within the pores (“porewater”), creating an increase in pressure. This lowers the strength of the soil, meaning less rainfall may be required to trigger landslides.

Too close to cliffs

While climate change and the warming of oceans that pump-prime extreme weather events are certainly pressing issues, changing land use is also of growing importance. Indeed, some studies now suggest it is as important as, or possibly exceeds, the effects of climate change on landslides.

These changes include the removal of vegetation, which allows more water to directly enter the soil; the creation of impermeable surfaces; and the cutting and filling of undulating slopes to enable roads and buildings to be constructed. All of these affect the near-surface drainage and hydrology.

Read more:
Auckland floods: even stormwater reform won’t be enough – we need a ‘sponge city’ to avoid future disasters

A further problem in Auckland is often the lack of adequate building “set-back” distances. This is the distance between a dwelling and a slope or cliff edge. In some countries and jurisdictions this is specified within regional plans and taken very seriously.

One way used to calculate these distances is to project an imaginary 45 degree plane from the bottom of a slope. One third of the cliff height is then added to this. For example, a 30-metre high slope would have a set-back distance of 40 metres.

But local geology and climate is also important. With weak soils in a humid climate, a conservative rule of thumb could be a set-back distance of three times the height of the slope or cliff. So, a house on a 30-metre high North Shore cliff, with superb views across to Rangitoto Island, should be set-back around 100 metres from the cliff edge.

Yet there are many houses within just a few meters of cliff edges in parts of the North Shore and eastern Auckland. Swimming pools constructed on slopes can add to the loading and stress, making the slope more prone to failure during a significant rainfall event.

Set-back from the bottom of slopes is also important, because inundation (“runout”) from landslides on slopes above houses can occur, as witnessed in various parts of Auckland.

Three ways forward

Looking ahead, there are three broad approaches to mitigating rainfall-induced landslides in Auckland. First, it will be interesting to see how set-back distances are applied and whether changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan are made in light of recent events.

The Earthquake Commission (EQC) covers land within eight metres of homes and outbuildings. But many houses will now be much closer to the edge of properties. For houses still more than eight metres away from a failing slope, gradual slope creep may suggest future failure is only a matter of time.

Second, landowners should limit vegetation removal and make sure stormwater drains properly into reticulated systems, rather than informal soak-aways.

Read more:
Climate change is already putting the heat on insurance companies – Auckland’s floods could be a turning point

Any surface cracking or bulging, cracked masonry, or difficult-to-open doors or windows should be checked by a chartered engineer. This can be useful in determining what is generally benign (but annoying) seasonal cracking due to soil shrinkage, and what is more serious.

Third, for scientists, engineers and local authorities, a more sophisticated region-wide approach to identifying unstable land is needed. The Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) uses space-borne radar to measure ground surface movement at a scale of millimetres-per-year.

I led an EQC-funded team that successfully applied this technique to Gisborne from 2016 to 2021 using the European Space Agency’s Sentinel satellite constellation. This provides measurements every 12 days, with the raw data being free. It has proved very useful to Gisborne District Council in their planning and decision making.

In Europe, the EU-sponsored European Ground Motion Service displays almost real-time measurements of slope movements across the continent that anyone can access. Such a service would be useful across New Zealand – and the events in Auckland suggest this should be a priority.

Martin Brook receives funding from the Earthquake Commission (EQC).

– ref. Slippery slopes: why the Auckland storm caused so many landslides – and what can be done about it – https://theconversation.com/slippery-slopes-why-the-auckland-storm-caused-so-many-landslides-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-198984

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pii-Tuulia Nikula, Principal Academic, Eastern Institute of Technology

An increasing number of businesses in Aotearoa New Zealand are changing how they operate to reduce their overall climate impact. These measures, which include reducing carbon emissions, are largely voluntary outside of specific sectors, such as the fuel, energy and waste industries.

So, what motivates businesses to take climate action when they do not have to?

As part of my research, I interviewed 13 businesses in Aotearoa New Zealand to better understand their climate mitigation efforts and experiences.

All of the businesses had made a voluntary commitment to reduce their emissions. Many of these businesses had reduced their carbon footprints by changing how they approached freight, business travel, energy use and waste.

Understanding the drivers and challenges businesses face when implementing climate-friendly measures is important as we consider how to accelerate the fight against climate change.

Driven by values

Underlying values were one of the key reasons for the introduction of voluntary climate mitigation measures. Climate action was often framed as simply the “right thing to do”.

My work found that more traditional economic considerations did not appear to explain the initial decision to reduce the carbon footprint of the business.

Read more:
Plastic pollution in Nigeria: whose job is it to clean up the mess?

That said, many interviewees reported benefiting financially thanks to cost savings – for example, from improved energy efficiency or lower business travel and freight-related costs. These types of activities could be framed as “win-win” situations, where environmental and financial goals aligned.

Many of the interviewees also believed that climate action contributed to their brand image and reported positive feedback from customers or employees.

Barriers to climate-friendly action

On the flip-side, most businesses also reported challenges that limited further sustainability efforts.

Many of those interviewed did not think there was sufficient customer willingness to pay the price premium for climate-friendly products or services in New Zealand.

Furthermore, interviewees felt customer expectations meant lower-carbon practices were not always possible. Most customers expected to receive their products as soon as possible, for example, making it difficult to choose slower transport modes that would have a lower carbon footprint.

Read more:
Davos: three ways leaders can use these summits to create a more sustainable world

The businesses also identified specific issues around infrastructure in New Zealand as a barrier to increasing their sustainability efforts.

These issues included the limited availability of e-vehicle charging stations and limited rail infrastructure. Also the lack of available or affordable low carbon technology was mentioned as a barrier.

In addition to issues with infrastructure, small and medium-sized businesses reported struggling to have any real influence on their supply chains.

Finally, many of those interviewed believed that both public and private sector procurement processes failed to sufficiently take into account climate-friendly practices.

A way forward?

Besides reducing the carbon footprint of their own operations, many of the businesses interviewed attempted to influence their peers. They actively talked about the importance of climate action to others. This included suppliers and distributors, other businesses, industry networks and local communities.

Considering the looming climate crisis, the voluntary sustainability measures of these companies are laudable. These businesses have shown leadership by mitigating their own emissions and influencing others.

But if we want more businesses to introduce and embrace sustainability measures, we need to promote the “win-win” elements of making the change – such as efficiency and savings.

Small and medium sized businesses often have limited resources and knowledge of how to get started with accounting and reducing their emissions. Low-cost and easily accessible resources, emission calculators and other support is important in the beginning of the climate journey.

Read more:
‘Boys will be boys’: why consumers don’t punish big polluters for greenwashing lies

At national and regional level further investment in low-carbon infrastructure – such as rail and e-vehicle charging stations – would make climate friendly choices easier.

Large businesses and national and local governments should encourage further low-carbon transformations by requiring and using emission data in their procurement processes.

The interviews provided some evidence of emerging climate-friendly business ecosystems, in which firms prefer to purchase from – and work with – other businesses that are also taking climate action. The impact of these ecosystems will increase as they grow in size.

Call for action

Considering the emerging impact of climate change, all businesses should start considering their emissions and finding ways to reduce their footprint.

The challenges faced and solutions offered will differ somewhat between industries. To accelerate this transition, customers and employees can make their low-carbon preferences clear.

It is unlikely that all businesses are interested in taking climate action on a voluntary basis and in the current business-as-usual mindset financial gains are prioritised over climate considerations. Therefore, it is likely that further government regulation will be required if New Zealand and other countries are to meet their zero carbon pledges.

Current policies and actions are not compatible with the science-based climate targets. The IPCC report published last year highlighted the urgency of rapid and decisive action.

That means that a more radical transformation of our economies is needed if we are to reduce emissions to achieve the set climate targets. It is important that businesses involved in climate mitigation are actively part of that discussion and share their own practices and insights.

Pii-Tuulia Nikula is co-founder and a board member of Climate Action Network for International Educators (CANIE).

– ref. Business owners see cutting carbon emissions as ‘the right thing to do’, despite the challenges of making change – https://theconversation.com/business-owners-see-cutting-carbon-emissions-as-the-right-thing-to-do-despite-the-challenges-of-making-change-197675