Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt A. Field, Associate Professor – Bioinformatics, James Cook University

Many people know modern dogs evolved from the grey wolf. But did you know most of the more than 340 modern dog breeds we have today only emerged within the past 200 years?

Dogs were first domesticated during the Neolithic period between 29,000 and 14,000 years ago, and have been closely linked to humans ever since. Dingoes – the only native Australian dog – are thought to represent a unique event within canine evolution, having arrived in Australia 5,000–8,000 years ago.

Yet dingoes’ exact place in the evolutionary family tree of dogs has never been known. To find out where they branched away from grey wolves on their evolutionary journey, we used cutting-edge DNA sequencing technologies to discover that dingoes are fundamentally different from domestic dogs.

In research published today in Science Advances, in collaboration with 25 researchers from four countries, we show dingoes are an early offshoot of modern dogs situated between the grey wolf and the domesticated dogs of today. This work has potential implications for the health of all modern breed dogs.

Dog and human history

By studying dogs we can gain insight into how we as humans have influenced their physical and behavioural traits, as well as observe changes in their genome.

For example, dogs only recently developed the ability to raise their eyebrows – a trait likely developed to communicate more effectively with humans. So it seems puppy dog eyes really were “created” just for us.

But some examples aren’t so obvious, and can only be found by looking deeper into dogs’ genomes.

For example, previous scientific studies have shown dogs require a particular gene (amylase 2B) to digest starch. Many dog breeds carry several duplicates of this gene (sometimes more than ten copies). However, the wolf and dingo only retain a single copy of this gene.

This duplication in modern dogs likely resulted from a change in diet for the earliest domesticated dogs, as they were increasingly fed starchy foods such as rice (cultivated through early widespread agriculture).

Interestingly, the same gene duplication has occurred independently in other recently domesticated livestock animals, which indicates how humans can affect the genomes of domesticated animals.

An early offshoot of modern dogs

Dingoes are unique as they have been geographically isolated from wolves and domestic dogs for thousands of years. In our study, we used genetics to help us understand exactly where the dingo fits in the evolution of dogs, and what role it has in the Australian ecosystem.

Initially, in 2017, we only had access to a single dog genome as a point of comparison (a boxer breed). It contained many gaps, due to the limitations of the technology at the time.

However, that same year, the dingo won the “World’s Most Interesting Genome” competition held by US biotech company Pacific Biosciences. This got us thinking about generating a high-quality dingo genome.

But to understand the dingo’s place in dog history, we needed several high-quality dog genomes as well. So we generated a German shepherd genome as a representative breed, followed by the basenji (the earliest dog breed used for hunting in the Congo).

Finally, we were able to sequence the genome of a pure desert dingo puppy, Sandy, found abandoned in the outback (pictured at the top of this article).

The ability to generate high-quality genomes only became possible in the last few years, due to the development of long-read sequencing technology. This technology has also been crucial to the recently announced completion of the entire human genome.

Read more:
The Human Genome Project pieced together only 92% of the DNA – now scientists have finally filled in the remaining 8%

Using our new dog genomes – along with existing genomes of the Greenland wolf and other representative species including the great Dane, boxer and Labrador – we measured the number of genetic differences between these breeds and the dingo to definitively show where the dingo fits in the evolutionary timeline.

We found dingoes are truly an early offshoot of all modern dog breeds, between the wolf and today’s domesticated dogs.

Future work

Collectively, our analysis shows how distinct demographic and environmental conditions have shaped the dingo genome. We can’t say for certain whether the dingo has ever been domesticated, but we do know it’s unlikely it was domesticated after its arrival in Australia.

Future work on more dingo genomes will address whether the dingo has ever been domesticated at all, and also measure the level and impact of pure dingo crossbreeding with domestic dogs. While many hybrid dingoes are similar in appearance, there has been substantial crossbreeding, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria.

This knowledge is important. A better understanding of the effect of dingoes cross breeding with dogs may provide insight into dingoes’ role in the ecosystem, and therefore help with future conservation efforts.

Also, knowledge about dingoes’ evolutionary history ultimately helps us understand how and when domestic dogs evolved alongside humans, and can help us identify and target new ways to improve their health and vitality.

Veterinary applications

Through artificial selection, humans have been selectively crossbreeding dogs for desirable traits and characteristics for hundreds of years.

While this has created modern purebred lineages, it has also resulted in many breed-specific diseases. For example, Labradors and German shepherds are prone to hip dysplasia (improper joint fitting that leads to serious mobility issues over time), golden retrievers are prone to certain cancers, and jack terriers are susceptible to blindness.

Generating high-quality genomes for dingoes and wolves could help us determine the cause of these diseases by serving as a disease-free baseline or reference. These discoveries could lead to new targeted treatment options for breed dogs.

Read more:
Five ways to help your dog live a longer, healthier life

Matt A. Field receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

J. William O. Ballard receives funding from Australian Research Foundation and support from Pacific Biosciences.

– ref. From wolf to chihuahua: new research reveals where the dingo sits on the evolutionary timeline of dogs – https://theconversation.com/from-wolf-to-chihuahua-new-research-reveals-where-the-dingo-sits-on-the-evolutionary-timeline-of-dogs-181605

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

“Well, the boss has got the bug, so you’ve got me.” Labor campaign spokesman Jason Clare fronted the media the morning after Anthony Albanese tested positive for COVID, and the contrast didn’t go unnoticed.

Clare answered questions confidently and without waffling, let alone stumbling. So much so that at the end of the news conference one journalist said, “You come in today and have been comfortable, nuanced and on message. Are you not the Labor leader that many will be looking for?”

If Albanese was watching at home he might have winced at that question.

There was laughter in the room. Clare stayed on course. “It is time to give Albo a go,” he said.

Labor had always anticipated Albanese could come down with COVID during the campaign. Unlike Scott Morrison he had not had a bout of the virus. Contingency plans were put into place, and they swung into action on Friday, after Thursday night’s positive test.

Clare was an obvious choice to front the first “plan B” news conference. As one of the two campaign spokespeople (the other is Katy Gallagher), he is well across the policy and the lines. And indeed a few years ago he used to be in lists of possible future Labor leaders, although he’s dropped out of those more recently.

What Albanese’s COVID means is that we will be seeing a lot more of Labor’s frontbench over the coming few days.

The opposition is fortunate in that it has a strong shadow ministry. Apart from Clare, Jim Chalmers, Penny Wong, Gallagher, Tony Burke and Tanya Plibersek are very good performers before the cameras. Labor is not having a “surrogate” leader take Albanese’s place, which could have created more problems than it solved.

How much Albanese can do from home in the next few days will depend on how hard he is hit by COVID. Morrison said on Friday, a touch competitively, that he was sure Albanese would be able to work on, as he himself had done. “I’m sure he will keep on with the campaign as I kept on with the governing.”

On Friday Albanese did some “virtual” media, while admitting, “I’ve had better days”.

In one sense there might be advantage in having the team more to the fore. Indeed, the frontbenchers have probably been underused in the run up to the election.

On the other hand, given the need in this campaign for Albanese to get himself better known in the electorate, a week out means lost time for that mission. And if his Covid symptoms become serious, requiring him to be absent for longer, that becomes a greater problem.

Albanese was set to fly to Perth when he was diagnosed. But, as things turned out, there would have been no appearances with premier Mark McGowan, who has also now tested positive.

The Labor leader is still confident of being able to do his planned campaign launch in Perth on Sunday May 1. The choice of Perth is notable, out of the groove for federal campaign launches. It indicates the weight Labor is putting in trying to wrest seats in the west.

Meanwhile, as the war of words between Labor and the government continues to rage over the the Solomons security treaty with China, the government on Friday homed in on what Labor deputy leader Richard Marles wrote in his book Tides That Bind: Australia in the Pacific, which came out last year.

Marles argued that for Australia to base its Pacific actions “on an attempt to strategically deny China would be a historic mistake”.

“Not only would this be detrimental to our regional relationships, it would be a failed course of action.

“Australia has no right to expect a set of exclusive relationships with the Pacific nations. They are perfectly free to engage on whatever terms they choose with China or, for that matter, any other country. Disputing this would be resented, as the recent past has shown.”

Marles knows something of the Pacific, serving as Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs in the Gillard government. He became Labor’s defence spokesman after the 2016 election but early last year moved to a “mega” portfolio of national reconstruction.

It’s widely speculated that if Labor won the election, Marles would switch back into defence. While Albanese has indicated he would expect his current frontbenchers to stay in their present roles he hasn’t ruled out some change.

For Morrison, the Marles quotes presented a doubly welcome opportunity. Labor has been on full attack against the government for not being able to head off the China-Solomons security deal. Wong, shadow foreign minister, called it the worst failure of Australian foreign policy in the Pacific since World War Two.

Also, any chance to attack Labor in relation to China feeds into the government’s push to make this, among other things, a khaki election. Part of this is claiming a distinction between government and opposition over policy towards China – which is in fact substantially bipartisan. Thus Morrison accused Marles of thinking “it’s a good idea for Pacific Island nations to sign up to security agreements with the Chinese government”.

How much impact the “khaki” element will have on how people’s vote is up for debate. Most voters are probably more concerned with issues closer to home. On the other hand, national security does reinforce the government’s mantra that a vote for Labor is a vote for uncertainty.

Regardless of how the row over the Solomons plays into the election, what is clear is that whichever side wins, it will face a major challenge in navigating policy in the Pacific against a assertive, determined and apparently persuasive China.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: ‘The bug’ gives Albanese opportunity to sell the team but less time to sell himself – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-the-bug-gives-albanese-opportunity-to-sell-the-team-but-less-time-to-sell-himself-181792

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, University of Adelaide

In Nicolas Cage’s latest film, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, Cage plays a character called … Nick Cage. This meta-commentary on fame and celebrity, wrapped around a thriller plot, is full of Cage-inspired “Easter eggs” and knowing nods to the audience.

Once again, Cage reminds us that he might just be the most interesting and exciting actor working in mainstream cinema today.

As a Cage super-fan, I’ve always been struck by his prodigious work ethic (over 100 films, many shot back-to-back or concurrently); his appeal to venerated auteurs like David Lynch, Werner Herzog and Martin Scorsese; his eclectic, quirky choices that bamboozle us; and his approach to stardom.

Take three other actors of a similar age: Cage is not Tom Cruise, whose precision-engineered career allows no risks to be taken. Nor is he Jim Carrey, whose early career blazed brightly and then faded away. Nor is he George Clooney, who has traded stardom for activism and advocacy.

Cage’s take on stardom is different: a chance to reinvent himself with each role, to try something new, to push barriers and surprise jaded viewers.

Read more:
An easy-going everyman, with vulnerability beneath the bravado: the best performances of Bruce Willis

From character actor to action to schlock

Early in his career, Cage established himself as an off-beat character actor renowned for his eccentric vocal delivery, his commitment to the Method and his ability to effortlessly pivot between genres.

In quick succession, he made Peggy Sue Got Married (1986, directed by his uncle, Francis Ford Coppola), Raising Arizona (1987), Moonstruck (1987) and Vampire’s Kiss (1988). None of these films are alike.

Co-stars were both baffled and bewildered. Some admired his verve that pushed performance to the limits. Others were dismayed at his peculiar decisions and what they saw as a “look-at-me” descent into excess and histrionics.

By 1996, with an Oscar win for Leaving Las Vegas (1995) as an alcoholic screenwriter seeking redemption, Cage had announced himself as a star.

Cage shortly became a fully-fledged 90s action hero, with roles in The Rock (1996), Con Air (1997) and Face/Off (1997).

Watched back now, those performances seem to foreshadow Cage’s descent into self-parody, but at the time it was refreshing to see Cage play roles usually reserved for Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

He was a nerdy everyman, with a lithe, fluid body. His nerdiness and ad-libbing was a refreshing antidote to the muscular action stars.

For sure, there were missteps along the way as he navigated his new-found status: the tabloid press had a field day reporting on his lavish spending. But in an era of changing modes of film distribution, audience fragmentation and the existential demise of the film star, his presence felt both reassuring and addictive.

We looked forward to what he would do next.

But the wheels soon fell off. Cage drifted into generic video-on-demand schlock, such as Rage (2014) and The Runner (2015).

He has vigorously defended this work, but the suspicion remains he was motivated by commerce not art.

At the same time, the internet, and in particular meme and gif culture, began to work alongside Cage’s career, both undermining and reinforcing his peculiar brand of stardom.

Fan edits, memes and YouTube mashups eventually became a source of great frustration for Cage as he struggled to reassure fans and critics alike he was a serious performer.

But this was not always backed up by his career choices or his own pronouncements on his craft. Sean Penn, his contemporary and early rival, disparagingly called him a “performer”. Cage referred to himself as a thespian, a troubadour entertaining the mob.

Most intriguing, he defined his heightened acting style as “nouveau shamanism”: a singular blend of trancelike “being” and pure Kabuki “playacting”.

For some, Cage’s ideas gloriously pointed to the new direction film acting was headed: brave, gonzo, idiosyncratic. For others, it cemented his status as a self-promoting charlatan.

Read more:
Hollywood has got method acting all wrong, here’s what the process is really about

His finest performances

So it comes as a great relief that the last five years or so have heralded a remarkable return to form for Cage.

His career was revitalised in 2018 with a quite extraordinary performance as the grieving lover turned avenging angel in Mandy. There is a scene from that film which distils Cage’s career into 60 magnificent seconds.

Sat alone in a garishly lit bathroom, he chugs a bottle of vodka, moans and mumbles and screams with grief. The “Cage Rage”, as it has become known, is there in full technicolour detail.

He followed that up with two memorably strange films: Colour Out Of Space (2019) and Willy’s Wonderland (2020).

The first is a Lovecraftian tale of meteors, glowing goo and hostile alpacas. In the latter, he plays the silent janitor of a demonically possessed funhouse.

Cage attacks both roles with typical insouciance and stoic resignation.

But best of all is Pig (2021). Here, Cage plays a grieving chef who has retreated to the Oregon wilderness with only a truffle-hunting pig for company. When the pig is kidnapped, Cage re-enters the world, intent on finding his only true companion.

Gone is the Elvis coolness of Wild At Heart (1990), the physical dexterity of National Treasure (2004) and the childlike blankness of City of Angels (1998). In Pig, Cage is bloated and bearded, wracked by grief and remorse.

It is one of his finest performances.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent once more showcases Cage’s skills. He remains an intense, immersive actor whose career blends kitsch and Method commitment and who realises that stardom – and what it means to be a movie star – has changed.

As he once famously said: “You tell me where the top is, and I’ll tell you whether or not I’m over it.”

Ben McCann 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. Nicolas Cage is the most fascinating and exciting actor working today – https://theconversation.com/nicolas-cage-is-the-most-fascinating-and-exciting-actor-working-today-181483

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patricia A. O’Brien, Faculty Member, Asian Studies Program, Georgetown University; Visiting Fellow, Department of Pacific Affairs, Australian National University; Adjunct Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC., Georgetown University

Like the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai volcano that triggered a massive tsunami and sent shockwaves around the world when it erupted on January 15, the recently signed security deal between the Solomon Islands and China has also unleashed geopolitical convulsions of immense magnitude.

The source of the spectacular volcanic eruption that was visible from space came from deep below the surface. Similarly, the controversial security deal, and Australia’s alarmed response to it, also goes deep into history.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has repeatedly described the China deal as an assertion of sovereignty. (Critics say it is the opposite.) China added to this discourse by accusing the Australian government of “disrespectful colonialism” in its unsuccessful attempts to dissuade Sogavare’s government from formalising the deal.

Yet Prime Minister Scott Morrison defended Australia’s response, claiming his government did not want to repeat the “long history” of telling Pacific nations what to do. Morrison added,

I’m not going to act like former administrations that treated the Pacific like some extension of Australia.

Morrison is absolutely right about one thing – there is a long history shaping the recent deal. But were the Solomons treated like an extension of Australia? Did Australia exercise colonial power over the nation? Most crucially, how can Australia correct past mistakes and move forward given the new regional reality?

The 19th-century sugar plantations

Britain colonised the Solomon Islands from 1893. Unlike British New Guinea, where Britain transferred colonial control to Australia after Federation in 1901, the Solomons stayed under British control until 1978, when the islands gained independence.

That Britain was taking control of the Solomons at the end of 19th century was a comfort to Australians in ways that echo the present. At the time, Australia was deeply “concerned” about “Great Powers […] now established in the South Seas within a few days’ steaming distance from Eastern Australia, especially Queensland”, wrote Brisbane’s Courier Mail.
It continued:

It is a great pity […] that the colonial statesmen of former days had not foresight enough to grasp the importance of these South Seas territories and secure them, for their strategic as well as productive value.

And in words that sound remarkably like those being articulated now, the article predicted “we will have to spend millions […] because of the nearness of bases of possible hostile operations”.

The “Great Powers” in question in 1898 were France, which was attempting to control all the islands south of the Solomons (present-day Vanuatu and New Caledonia) and Germany, which had claimed the arc of islands from the northern Solomon Islands into New Guinea (excluding British New Guinea in the southeast).

Australian politicians had aspired to Britain controlling all South Pacific islands on their behalf from the 1870s. This was articulated by Australia’s Monroe Doctrine, which held that Australia, backed by Britain, exclusively presided in its region. France and Germany challenged it in the 19th century, but the notion persisted along with Australian security concerns.

Although Australia did not officially colonise the Solomons, Australians exercised colonial powers there in other ways. The most egregious and devastating was through labour recruiting, which began in the islands around the 1870s.

It is estimated some 19,000 Solomon Islanders worked on Queensland sugar plantations before most were repatriated in 1902. Recruiter mistreament sparked cycles of violence in which white people were killed and then these killings were avenged with official and unofficial punitive expeditions.

During – and after – the second world war

Small numbers of traders and planters, many from Australia, established enterprises in the islands. Missionaries came too. But it was not until the Battle for the Solomons, which stretched from August 1942 to December 1943, that Solomon Islanders experienced colossal intrusions into their island homes.

Some Australians participated in this epic episode, but it was predominantly US forces fighting to halt the Japanese advance on Australia. The importance of these islands to Australia’s security was horrifically demonstrated.

After the war, and with decolonisation happening at a rapid pace, Australian politicians thought about how this wave of independence would affect the islands and how Australia might shape that change to preserve its security.

The idea of a “Melanesian Federation” was suggested. This would bind Dutch New Guinea (which became part of Indonesia in 1969), Papua New Guinea and “The British Solomons”. But this idea relied on the new nations buying into it. They did not.

Another idea was incorporating New Guinea, and possibly the Solomons too, as a “seventh state” of Australia. Future Australian governor-general John Kerr plainly articulated in 1958 the sticking point for this security guarantee. Australia would have deal with “racial problems” that “we would have to solve on the basis of equality and genuine acceptance of New Guinea people in Australia”.

These ideas did not happen and many Pacific nations have remained closed off from economic opportunities that would have drastically improved lives and permanently bound Australia to Pacific nations through transnational communities.

Economics is key

The root causes of the Solomon Islands’ problems since independence can be found in economics. Australia may have played a leading role in peacekeeping through the 2003-17 RAMSI Mission, but it did not take bold action on economic issues.

Almost 13% of Solomon Islanders live below the poverty line and just 70% has access to electricity. China now seems to be offering an economic panacea that Australia did not.

Australia has to shed its longstanding aversion to Melanesian migration. Economic (rather than racial) exclusion is now the barrier keeping Pacific Islanders out of Australia. Communities have come via “the New Zealand pathway”, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji, and established themselves in Australia. They have created a vital remittance economy that has been even more important during COVID with the collapse of island economies.

Very few Australian residents originate from the strategic islands that arc around Australia’s north. If people from these nations do come to Australia, it is through temporary means such as educational programs or the Pacific Labour Scheme, which allows for employment in meat works, agriculture, trades and cooking, hospitality and care.

Recently, this scheme has suffered terrible publicity with many workers claiming they were subjected to “slave-like conditions”, bringing to mind the Queensland plantation labour history.

Now the geopolitical situation has become precarious, Australian politicians are again thinking about the islands and how major adjustments are needed to the ways things are done. A parliamentary committee reported in March 2022, suggesting ideas about compacts of free association, similar to those the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia have with the United States. It also suggested more Pacific-friendly migration policies like that of New Zealand. The impacts of climate change are going to make all the pressures of life on Pacific islands more acute in the coming years.

Australia must take bold steps to reinforce its Pacific relationships and secure its strategic interests. Taking the humanitarian approach and integrating with the Pacific islands is not only right – it is also the best way to support Australia’s interests and shed its colonial legacies.

Patricia A. O’Brien received funding from the Australian Research Council as a Future Fellow, the Jay I. Kislak Fellowship at the John W. Kluge Center, Library of Congress, Washington D.C. and New Zealand’s JD Stout Trust.

– ref. In the wake of the China-Solomon Islands pact, Australia needs to rethink its Pacific relationships – https://theconversation.com/in-the-wake-of-the-china-solomon-islands-pact-australia-needs-to-rethink-its-pacific-relationships-181702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Clark, Deputy Engagement Editor, The Conversation

When tennis superstar Dylan Alcott’s post rebuking the Prime Minister for his clumsy “blessed” comment is outperforming election news stories on social media, you know the leaders’ debate didn’t go as hoped for the Coalition.

Scott Morrison effectively lost a day of campaigning on Thursday, which he largely spent apologising to disability groups and families who were offended when he said he was “blessed” to have children without disability during Wednesday night’s leaders’ debate. Alcott posted, “Woke up this morning very blessed to be disabled – I reckon my parents are pretty happy about it too.”

In this episode of Below the Line, host Jon Faine explores the political fallout from the debate and some policy highlights. Our expert panel consider what impact catching COVID and spending a week in isolation will have on Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese’s campaign. Anika Gauja says the virtual campaign will take off and it’s a good opportunity to hear more from Labor’s shadow ministers.

But why have we not seen more ministers and their political counterparts debating policies in the media, asks Faine? Do voters benefit from the media’s focus on the leaders, personalities and polls? Andrea Carson says The Conversation’s #SetTheAgenda survey is a good example of putting voters ahead of the interests of media proprietors and getting away from “horse race” coverage.

Finally, listen to what we make of the Solomon Islands’ security pact with China. Simon Jackman says it’s a major setback for the Coalition’s election campaign and not in Australia’s foreign policy interests.

Below the Line is brought to you twice a week by The Conversation with La Trobe University.

Image: Toby Zerna/AAP

– ref. Below the Line: Albanese has COVID, but Morrison is ‘blessed’ with an even bigger problem – podcast – https://theconversation.com/below-the-line-albanese-has-covid-but-morrison-is-blessed-with-an-even-bigger-problem-podcast-181784

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Georgia Cervin, Honorary Research Fellow, The University of Western Australia

Children forced to train on empty stomachs and falling on their heads. Young athletes told to manage the welfare of their own coaches. Girls starving themselves before enduring skinfold tests to avoid the horror of gaining weight, and sending them into lifelong patterns of disordered eating.

These are the stories that have emerged from a report released this week on the women’s gymnastics program at the Western Australian Institute of Sport (WAIS).

Read more:
As a former elite gymnast, I know sport needs a cultural shift to ensure athlete safety

Calls from former gymnasts

When more than 50 former athletes from the WAIS women’s artistic gymnastics program called for an investigation into their experiences, Sport Integrity Australia was brought in to conduct it.

Sport Integrity Australia is a government agency established in 2020 with a mandate that includes investigating child abuse in sport.

The Sport Integrity Australia review follows the Australian Human Rights Commission’s report nearly a year ago on the “toxic” and dehumanising culture of Australian gymnastics.

A trauma-informed approach

Adopting a trauma-informed approach, Sport Integrity Australia invited gymnasts to agree to the terms of the review alongside WAIS leadership.

This collaboration was an important first step in remedying the power imbalance between the gymnasts and WAIS that has marked many of their experiences.

The review was designed to map the trauma experienced in the WAIS program, examine potential policy failures and recommend ways to make the sport safer.

However, it was not set up to investigate individual claims or make disciplinary recommendations.

Ninety-two participants contributed, including former WAIS athletes, coaches and administrators.

Like the Australian Human Rights Commission’s report a year ago, the stories of those affected are peppered throughout the report – and they make for distressing reading.

Belitted, smacked, humiliated and ostracised

The gymnasts’ experiences are confronting.

Comments like “You’re a pawn in a bigger game,” “We were treated as objects,” and “I thought there was something so wrong with me” reveal the lack of care shown towards young people in a win at all costs culture.

They were yelled at, told they were pathetic, smacked for having a biscuit. For many, this report validates their concerns that these experiences were not OK.

Sport Integrity Australia recommended increased measures for athlete well-being, more child-focused programs, and that WAIS adopt Sport Integrity Australia’s independent complaints processes for child abuse investigations.

Ongoing effects of harm

Gymnasts reported the ongoing effects of their harm including eating disorders, emotionally abusive relationships and opiate addiction.

While the report doesn’t offer any chronology of experiences, it reviewed allegations of harm from 1987-2016 – the entire duration of the WAIS program’s existence. The most recent complaints were only six years ago.

“Times have changed and WAIS has changed with the times,” WAIS chair Neil McLean said in his response to the report (following an apology “to those who experienced abuse and harm”).

In a statement released on Friday, he said Sport Integrity Australia “referred a number of allegations of sexual abuse and/or physical abuse to the relevant authorities who had the jurisdiction to investigate these allegation but none of these allegations progressed to investigation or charges and all have been closed.”

Gymnasts are now calling on the WA government and Gymnastics Australia to take the lead and investigate further.

Gymnast Alliance Australia said, “child abuse has never been acceptable and should never be considered the ‘cultural norm’ of the time”.

Gymnasts lose agency

It’s at this point the review could be seen to depart from the trauma-informed approach it adopted at the outset. The recommendations deny gymnasts the agency and choice they were offered at the beginning of the process.

Without any explanation, the Sport Integrity Australia recommendations omit some of the remedies gymnasts were seeking, including redress and accountability for coaches who harmed them.

The report’s only recommendations for remedy are that WAIS should apologise, and that there be a “restorative and reconciliatory process” facilitated by an independent mediator.

Research shows that closure from traumatic events is not a “one size fits all” process.

Restorative and reconciliatory processes need to be designed around the needs of those affected.

Sports officials may be willing to do this, but without clear guidance from Sport Integrity Australia on how, they risk falling short.

So why no recommendations on disciplinary action?

Further context around Sport Integrity Australia’s mandate may provide some explanation.

Sport Integrity Australia was formed in July 2020 and in the safeguarding context, its task was to convince 93 sporting organisations to sign up to its suite of policies known as the National Integrity Framework.

The National Integrity Framework provides for an independent complaints mechanism and a suite of policies to make sport safer.

Meanwhile, however, Sport Integrity Australia is also entrusted to investigate the same agencies it wants to sign up. Is this a case of conflicted loyalties?

Sport Integrity Australia may argue against this idea. Meanwhile, the question hangs over this and all similar reviews where Sport Integrity Australia is mandated to investigate a sporting organisation it needs to bring into its policy fold.

Read more:
Girls no more: why elite gymnastics competition for women should start at 18

Georgia Cervin worked part time for Gymnastics Western Australia for a brief time in 2017.

Alison Quigley is affiliated with Athlete Rights Australia, a body that advocates for human rights in sports.

– ref. Sport Integrity Australia’s report represents a reckoning for West Australian gymnastics – but has justice really been done? – https://theconversation.com/sport-integrity-australias-report-represents-a-reckoning-for-west-australian-gymnastics-but-has-justice-really-been-done-181246

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

The so-called Doomsday Clock, created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to measure the imminent risk of nuclear conflagration, has been at 100 seconds to midnight since 2020. It’s now looking increasingly out of time with current events.

News that Russia has tested a nuclear-capable missile this week, and warnings by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Russia may resort to nuclear or chemical weapons, suggest the clock’s hands should be moving.

To bring events to this point, Russian president Vladimir Putin has exploited gaps in international law and policy that have failed to better regulate the arsenals of the world’s nuclear powers.

Perhaps following former US president Donald Trump’s lead, Putin has broken with diplomatic norms around the reckless use of nuclear rhetoric, threatening the West it would “face consequences that you have never faced in your history”.

And following the failure of the international community to create a convention that nuclear weapons should be kept at a non-alert status (meaning they can’t be fired quickly), Putin has put his nuclear forces into “special combat readiness”.

Sabre-rattling or not, these are worrying developments in a world that has struggled to pull back from the precipice of nuclear disaster since the Doomsday Clock began in 1947.

Putting back the clock

Even when the United States and Russia were closest to a nuclear conflict during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the clock only got to seven minutes to midnight.

While the clock moved backwards and forwards as threats came and went, the US and Russia extended the bilateral arms control treaty capping the number of deployed warheads, and in January this year the five main nuclear powers agreed that a nuclear war “cannot be won and must never be fought”.

Read more:
Russia is sparking new nuclear threats – understanding nonproliferation history helps place this in context

The very next month this small pause of reason was broken when Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine.

Although Ukraine is hardly comparable to Cuba in the 1960s – there were no missiles on Russia’s doorstep and no blockade – Putin feared the country could potentially become a nuclear base for NATO. His aim has been to force all the former Eastern bloc countries now aligned with the West to agree to their 1997 pre-NATO positions.

To achieve this, Putin violated the United Nations Charter, sidelined the rule of global order set by the International Court of Justice, and possibly allowed his military to commit war crimes.

Tactical nuke fears

Since Trump quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019, Putin has been free to rebuild and redeploy his nuclear land forces.

Perhaps most ominously, Russia (to be fair, not alone) has been interested in developing low-yield tactical nuclear weapons (typically smaller than the 15 kiloton bomb that destroyed Hiroshima) to give battlefield “flexibility”.

These weapons would breach international humanitarian laws and their use could quickly spiral out of control, but there is no international law prohibiting them.

Read more:
Beyond tougher trade sanctions: 3 more ways NZ can add to global pressure on Russia

Finally, Putin has exploited the world’s failure to form a nuclear “no first use” agreement. Current Russian nuclear doctrine doesn’t require an enemy state to use nuclear weapons against it as justification for its own strike.

A nuclear build-up by a potential adversary in neighbouring territories would be justification enough, along with a number of other potential non-nuclear triggers.

While the use of nuclear weapons to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian state might sound reasonable, the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 shows how available such justifications might be.

‘Unpredictable consequences’

The worst has so far been avoided because the US and its NATO allies are not belligerents in the Ukraine war, having carefully avoided direct involvement, declining appeals for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone.

But the West is hardly neutral. Providing weapons to assist one country’s fight with another is an unfriendly act by any definition. While the amount and variety of that military aid has been carefully calibrated, it is growing and it has clearly made a significant difference on the battlefield.

Read more:
Ukraine crisis: how do small states like New Zealand respond in an increasingly lawless world?

In return, Russia continues to ramp up the rhetoric, warning the West of “unpredictable consequences” should military assistance continue.

And while the director of the CIA has moved to quieten concerns, saying there is no “practical evidence” Russia might resort to using nuclear weapons, what happens from here is hard to predict.

As has been the case since the Doomsday Clock was first set 75 years ago, our possible futures lie in the minds and hands of a very small group of decision makers in Moscow and Washington.

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

– ref. Why the war in Ukraine is pushing the Doomsday Clock’s hands closer to midnight – https://theconversation.com/why-the-war-in-ukraine-is-pushing-the-doomsday-clocks-hands-closer-to-midnight-181783

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Davis, Senior Lecturer in Wildlife Ecology, Edith Cowan University

As I write this article, a furry blur of a rodent has just scampered across the room and under the couch. It’s autumn in Australia and, as air temperatures plunge outside, rodents start seeking the warmth and plentiful food inside our houses.

This is a familiar experience for many of us, whether it’s a mouse in your house, or rats invading your chicken cage or eating the fruit from your trees.

In fact, a study last year found rodents have cost the global economy up to US$35.53 billion between 1930 and 2018, largely due to the damage they inflict on farms.

Farmers along Australia’s east coast know this all too well. The rodent problem can amplify to plague proportions following wet years and warmer than average minimum temperatures.

Having personally experienced a mouse plague while staying on the Nullarbor, I can attest that these are horrible experiences. The economic losses are huge and the unrelenting waves of mice day and night are horrifying for those who have to live with them, sometimes for months.

Last year’s plague resulted in a proposal to drop the poison bromadiolone over large parts of eastern Australia. Had it been successful, it would have significantly harmed non-target species of native wildlife such as owls, goannas and quolls, which our research has shown are highly vulnerable to a range of rodenticides as they travel up the food chain.

Indeed, I’m often asked by people grappling with invasive rodents how best to manage them without harming native wildlife. So, here’s some advice.

Mechanical traps

Use them indoors only

Sometimes old-fashioned is best. The snap traps you might remember from your childhood are still a highly effective way of removing pesky rodents from your home. Just keep them away from the exploring toes of children and pets!

Some newer plastic traps with pivoting jaws that close on the mouse are, in my experience, less effective and can risk injuring but not killing the mouse. I’ve had several experiences of traps being dragged away by a mouse caught only by a leg.

A new entry to the Australian market is a type of mechanical trap, the A24. It’s self-resetting with a scent-based lure and can kill 24 mice or rats on one canister. These, however, are not suitable for use outside in areas with native wildlife.

I recently had an horrific experience of a native quenda (bandicoot) killed by one of these traps set on my bush property. I was devastated and, after deploying a monitoring camera on the deactivated trap, I found possums are at grave risk from this type of trap, too.

These traps don’t seem to discriminate invasive rodents from native wildlife and are known to kill native birds, rabbits and hedgehogs in New Zealand.

Governments need to reconsider the ethics and conservation implications of such traps in Australia. It is my view that no mechanical traps should be set outside the home or shed where there’s risk to native wildlife.

The Conversation asked Goodnature, which manufactures A24 traps, whether it is taking steps to address this issue.

Goodnature co-founder and industrial designer Craig Bond said the traps’ threat to native animals is “ideally mitigated by the overall benefit to nature”. He said the company is working on preventative measures such as warning users, through various means, about reducing risks to native wildlife. Bond went on:

We can and do put processes in place to mitigate and hopefully empower our trappers. And we have employed staff with the requisite expertise to do that.

However […] we can be more proactive in our warnings regarding the risk to non-target species.

The issue in the past has not been widespread but [we] understand that Australia is a particularly vulnerable environment.

Bond said Goodnature was keen to learn more about reducing the risks its traps might pose to native Australian wildlife.

Electric traps

Effective and humane

These are battery-powered rat and mouse traps that work by delivering a fatal shock to rodents once they make contact with the two plates in the trap.

These are highly effective and very humane because upon touching two plates, a fatal electric shock is administered, instantly stopping the heart.

Though not cheap, I swear by these traps as they catch and kill quickly using a bait of your choice, such as peanut butter. There is minimal risk of impacts to non-target animals in the home.

But again – they definitely should not be used where native wildlife could enter the trap. The traps are usually labelled as being not for outdoor use and this advice should be followed.

Read more:
‘No one ever forgets living through a mouse plague’: the dystopia facing Australian rural communities, explained by an expert

Live traps

Compassionate or inhumane?

Live catch traps are popular with those not willing to kill animals. These include bucket traps for dealing with large plagues. The main issue is finding ways to dispatch them.

Killing the invasive rodents often requires drowning them and, if the animals are not killed, you are releasing vermin for somebody else to deal with. Unless you address the problem of how they’re entering your home, they may just be back for a visit again that night.

Some live traps are inhumane, such as glue traps, which comprise sticky boards to capture rodents that walk over them. These traps are not recommended under any circumstances.

Glue traps are not only cruel as it can take days for the animal to die, but they do not discriminate. Unless contained and used carefully, they have a high risk of catching reptiles, birds or other non-target species.

Poisoned baits

Best for industrial and broadscale use

Despite the risk to non-target animals, baits will always be needed for large scale rodent problems, such as mouse plagues. However, they are not humane as animals die slowly by blood loss over an average of 7.2 days and have the most potential for poisoning other species.

In Australia, it’s almost always unnecessary to use so-called “second-generation baits” such as brodifacoum. These baits are made in response to rodents developing resistance to some chemical formulations, and require only one feed to be fatal.

The active ingredients in second generation baits have a very long persistence time in the liver of animals that eat them, resulting in widespread secondary poisoning along the food chain.

Read more:
Mouse plague: bromadiolone will obliterate mice, but it’ll poison eagles, snakes and owls, too

Research from 2020 showed invasive rodents in Australia are unlikely to have the gene for rodenticide resistance shared by their kin from Europe and North America. Consequently, some first generation products containing coumatetralyl and some natural alternatives such as zinc phosphide can be safely used in Australia to control rodents.

These products have a much shorter half life in the livers or rats and mice. What’s more, a 2018 study didn’t detect them in significant quantities in dead southern boobook owls, which eat mice.

It’s also important to remember that baits must be deployed according to manufacturer’s instructions. Too often I hear stories of people throwing wax baits or grain baits into their gardens.

This is horrifying given the direct access this provides to possums, bandicoots, birds, small children and pets. Most baits should be deployed in bait holders that prevent exposure to non-target species.

Pest management is holistic

We should recognise that pest management is a holistic activity. Relying on any one technique is unlikely to be sufficient.

Rodent-proofing your house, shed or grain silos as much as possible is essential in the war against pests. This might include sealing water and power inlets, holes in skirting boards and gaps or holes in grain storage facilities.

On a commercial scale, investing in modern vermin-proof facilities such as sealed grain silos and blocking all possible gaps, may well balance out the long-term expense of baiting. They certainly come with a much reduced risk to native wildlife.

Robert Davis is a member of Birdlife Australia, the Ecological Society of Australia and the Society for Conservation Biology. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

– ref. How to control invasive rats and mice at home without harming native wildlife – https://theconversation.com/how-to-control-invasive-rats-and-mice-at-home-without-harming-native-wildlife-180792

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Robinson, Associate Professor Podiatry, Charles Sturt University

Toe jam can be a source of fascination, disgust or barely noticed. It can be a sign you need to wash your feet or rethink your choice of footwear. It can also lead to major health issues.

Toe jam, the gunk and debris between your toes, has even made it to a Beatles song.

But it was unlikely John Lennon was thinking about foot hygiene when he wrote the lyrics to the second verse of Come Together:

He wear no shoeshine, he got toe-jam football

He got monkey finger, he shoot Coca-Cola

He say, ‘I know you, you know me’

One thing I can tell you is you got to be free.

What is toe jam, actually?

Toe jam isn’t a medical term. There is no formal medical term to describe the dead skin cells, sweat, sock lint and dirt that combine in the small and often cramped spaces between our toes.

Toe jam can have the consistency of soft cheese or cake crumbs. It can smell or be odourless. And its colour can range from white to grey-brown.

You’re more likely to create toe jam if you wear closed-in shoes when it’s hot, or gumboots that don’t allow sweat to evaporate.

Poor foot hygiene will certainly make it more likely you’ll develop toe jam. That’s because sweaty debris accumulates in between the toes if you don’t pay attention to cleaning these areas in the shower or bath.

Toe jam may also be more likely if your feet sweat a lot for other reasons. For instance, we know sweaty feet can be a problem for children and adolescents, who have more active sweat glands. And some people have a serious medical condition called hyperhidrosis, where they sweat excessively.

Read more:
Anhidrosis: why some people – apparently like Prince Andrew – just can’t sweat

Is toe jam like athlete’s foot?

The collection of sweat and dead skin between toes provides bacteria living naturally on our skin the chance to thrive.

These bacteria, which include ones in the genus Brevibacterium, feed on sweat, releasing molecules that give the characteristic “cheesy” smell of sweaty feet. Brevibacterium is also used to ripen some cheeses.

This warm and damp environment is also a perfect site for tinea pedis, a fungal skin infection you might know as athlete’s foot.

Signs of tinea might be soggy white skin between your toes, which can be itchy, and red areas, a sign of skin damage. Damaged skin between toes might develop small fluid-filled blisters and may also bleed if the weak skin is torn.

So while toe jam isn’t the same as tinea, it might provide the perfect conditions for the fungus to grow.

Read more:
Why do feet stink by the end of the day?

How serious is toe jam?

Generally, toe jam is a minor health problem. You can manage it with good foot hygiene. And if you develop tinea, you can use a short course of an anti-fungal treatment you can buy from a pharmacy (see below).

It is quite a different prospect, however, for a person living with a chronic disease such as diabetes, someone who has poor vision (so can’t see toe jam or its complications developing), or who may be unable to reach their feet due to limited mobility.

Diabetes not well controlled with diet and exercise, or drugs, increases the risk of a person having reduced blood flow (peripheral arterial disease) and reduced feeling in their feet (sensory neuropathy).

Broken skin between the toes caused by tinea can become infected rapidly, increasing the risk of:

• infection spreading to the foot and leg (cellulitis)

• infection of the bone (osteomyelitis)

• gangrene (dead tissue caused by lack of blood flow)

• amputation of a toe, part of the foot or leg.

So early identification of tinea in a vulnerable person is especially important to prevent complications.

Read more:
Life on Us: a close-up look at the bugs that call us home

4 ways to avoid problems

Here are our four tips to avoid problems with toe jam, including developing tinea and its complications:

1. wash the spaces between your toes and dry them carefully after a shower or bath, and after swimming. Gyms and swimming pools are a common place to pick up a fungal infection on your feet so it’s a good idea to wear thongs to reduce the risk of tinea

2. if possible, avoid wearing footwear that doesn’t allow sweat to evaporate (such as closed-in shoes made of synthetic material and gumboots). Going barefoot, when there is no risk of injury, will also allow sweat to evaporate

3. treat sweaty feet by using an anti-perspirant containing aluminium chloride. More severe cases of hyperhidrosis may be managed using drugs, such as Botox injections to the feet. Fungal infections (tinea) should be treated using over-the-counter antifungal creams such a terbinafine or clotrimazole. Resistant infections might require a course of prescribed antifungal medicines

4. pay attention to signs indicating an infection is spreading from the foot. These could be pain and swelling in the toes, or red streaks along the foot and up the leg. This requires an urgent visit to a podiatrist or doctor.

Footnote

Lennon mentions a “walrus gumboot” in verse three of Come Together. The final line of verse two says “you got to be free”. The cover of The Beatles album Abbey Road shows Paul McCartney walking barefoot (second from the left).

Maybe the Beatles did know a thing or two about toe jam and foot health.

Read more:
Beatles: Abbey Road at 50 is a marker of how pop music grew up in the 1960s

Caroline Robinson is affiliated with the Australasian Council of Podiatry Deans and the Australian Podiatry Association.

Luke Donnan is affiliated with the Australasian Council of Podiatry Deans and the Australian Podiatry Association.

– ref. What is toe jam? From harmless gunk to a feast for bugs – https://theconversation.com/what-is-toe-jam-from-harmless-gunk-to-a-feast-for-bugs-177454

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

In May, I wrote that white voters without a university education were increasingly voting for right-wing parties in Australia, the US and the UK.

However, in Australia, this trend is most apparent in regional electorates such as Capricornia in Queensland.

Read more:
Non-university educated white people are deserting left-leaning parties. How can they get them back?

At the 2019 federal election, Labor had no trouble retaining traditional urban heartland seats, such as Scullin in Melbourne, Blaxland in Sydney and Spence in Adelaide – as ABC election analyst Antony Green’s pendulum shows.

It’s possible non-uni whites in big cities such as Melbourne and Sydney have not swung right like those in regional areas owing to more cultural assimilation in cities. Associating with other ethnic groups may mean non-uni whites in cities are less persuaded by anti-immigrant rhetoric than those in regional areas.

Currently, non-uni whites, especially in regional areas, are trending to right-wing parties, while university-educated people are trending to the left. A key question is whether these trends will continue. It’s possible high inflation could reverse this trend among non-uni whites in countries that currently have right-wing governments.

If the trends to the right with regional non-uni whites continue, but urban non-uni whites are not moved, and university-educated voters trend left, then the percentage of the population living in cities becomes important.

I have calculated an urbanisation percentage for four countries based on lists of cities by population. I have used 100,000 people as the minimum required for a city.

In the US, a total of over 97 million people lived in cities with over 100,000 population at the 2020 Census, but the total US population was over 331 million. That’s an urban percentage of just 29% for the US.

In the UK in 2021, 29.8 million people lived in cities with over 100,000 population, while the UK’s total population was 68.4 million people. That’s an urban percentage of 44%.

In Canada, 20.9 million people lived in cities with over 100,000 population at the 2016 Census, with a total Canadian population of 35.2 million people. That’s an urban percentage of 60%.

In Australia, 16.0 million people lived in cities with over 100,000 population at the 2016 Census. I have omitted Central Coast and Sunshine Coast from the population centres as they are not single cities. Australia’s population at the 2016 Census was 23.4 million, so 68% of Australians lived in urban areas.

You can see the large numbers of urban electorates in Australia compared to regional seats on the electoral maps article.

Read more:
Where are the most marginal seats, and who might win them?

Australian implications from the 2021 Canadian election

At the September 2021 Canadian federal election that used first past the post, the centre-left Liberals won 160 of the 338 seats, the Conservatives 119, the left-wing separatist Quebec Bloc 32, the left-wing New Democrats (NDP) 25 and the Greens two.

The Liberals won 41 more seats than the Conservatives despite losing the national popular vote by 1.1% (Conservatives 33.7%, Liberals 32.6%, NDP 17.8%, Bloc 7.6%). The Bloc ran only in Quebec.

The Liberals easily won the most seats by completely dominating major Canadian cities such as Toronto and Montreal, and also by winning seats in Edmonton and Calgary in the Conservative province of Alberta. You can see this in the CBC results map at the above link.

As Australia is more urbanised than Canada, Labor would win elections easily if they dominated our five mainland capital cities to the extent the Liberals do in Toronto and Montreal in Canada.

To become dominant in cities in the way Canada’s Liberals are, Labor would need to gain the high income seats in Melbourne’s inner east and Sydney’s north shore, which have long been seen as Liberal heartland. If polarisation along education lines becomes greater, this will eventually occur – but not necessarily at the upcoming election.

However, some of those seats are facing a genuine challenge from “teal” independents. Is it in Labor’s best interests for independents to win these seats? Once independents are established as sitting members, they are difficult to dislodge.

If Labor can defeat the Liberals in these seats in the future, it would be frustrating for Labor to have independents occupying them; Labor would prefer its own candidates be elected.

There is evidence Labor has indeed gained with high income voters. In the March quarter Newspoll breakdowns, Labor held a 55-45 lead among those on $150,000 or more income per year, up from a 53-47 deficit in the December quarter.

But maybe inflation will reverse the Coalition’s gains among non-uni whites, and the current level of education polarisation could stabilise or reduce.

While this exercise could lead to left dominance in Australia, the same logic implies that the right will dominate future elections in the US, where just 29% live in cities of over 100,000 population.

But in the US, many high income people live in “suburbs” outside cities, and swings to Democrats in the suburbs were responsible for Joe Biden’s narrow victory in 2020, and the Democrats’ decisive midterm victory in 2018.

UK Labour already has difficulties owing to the first-past-the-post system, which will probably be increased by the UK’s population demographics.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Will a continuing education divide eventually favour Labor electorally due to our big cities? – https://theconversation.com/will-a-continuing-education-divide-eventually-favour-labor-electorally-due-to-our-big-cities-180970

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lewis Mitchell, Professor of Data Science, University of Adelaide

Most people who use Twitter have had the experience: you fire off a quick tweet, realise it contains a typo, then get annoyed you can’t click “edit” to fix it. Twitter users have been clamouring for an edit button for years.

Elon Musk, who has recently been buying up shares in the microblogging platform and has made a US$48 billion offer for the whole company, asked his 82 million followers if they wanted an edit button. His (deeply unscientific) poll attracted 4.4 million responses, with 73% in favour.

Other social media platforms let you edit posts after you’ve sent them. It seems like it would be a simple feature to add – so why doesn’t Twitter do it?

Well, the time may at last have arrived. Independent of Musk’s poll, Twitter has confirmed that an edit button may be in the works. Enterprising users have even dug out some hints of what it might look like.

So what’s the fuss about?

Why has Twitter been so opposed to an edit button? The answer might be that it isn’t as simple as it appears.

The first thing to know about tweets is that, unlike posts on many other platforms, there is fundamentally no way for Twitter to pull them back after they are sent. The reason is that Twitter has what’s called an Application Programming Interface (or API) which allows third parties such as other apps or researchers to download tweets in real time.

That’s what powers Twitter clients such as TweetDeck, TweetBot, Twitteriffic and Echofon, which together account for some 6 million users.

Once third parties have downloaded tweets, there’s no way for Twitter to get them back or edit them. It’s a bit like an email – once I’ve sent it and you’ve downloaded it, there’s no way for me to delete it from your machine.

If a user were to edit a tweet, the most Twitter could do is send out a message saying “please edit this tweet” – but the third party could choose whether or not to actually do it. (This is currently what happens when tweets are “deleted”.)

Cats and dogs

More importantly, an edit button might have unintended consequences, and could be weaponised.

Consider this. I, a cat lover, decide to tweet “I love cats!”

Then you, being also a cat lover (because why wouldn’t you be), decide to quote my tweet, agreeing “I do too!” (Remember when Twitter used to be this innocent?)

Now, what happens if I edit my original tweet to declare “I love dogs”? You are now misrepresented as a dog-lover, and when your cat-loving friends see this (which they will when I reply to your tweet, mentioning them all), they disown you.

Yes, this is contrived, but it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the edit button might be used in this fashion, particularly by things such as bot armies. Will Twitter users be happy to trade this possibility for the convenience of fixing typos in their tweets?

‘Warts and all’: a bug or a feature?

Twitter has built its reputation on being the most “real-time” of the social media platforms – the place where earthquakes are reported quicker than by scientific instruments. However, for many people the “warts and all” nature of Twitter postings is starting to look like a bug, rather than a feature.

Will an edit button change Twitter’s unique brand? There may be ways to ameliorate this, such as only allowing edits within a short time of posting, but it is surely a consideration for the company.

More generally, the design of media platforms shapes the type of discussion that occurs on them.

Read more:
Elon Musk’s bid spotlights Twitter’s unique role in public discourse – and what changes might be in store

The presence of the “like” and “retweet” buttons on Twitter encourage users to create content that will entice others to click these buttons, and make their content spread further. This, in turn, shapes the nature of conversation that occurs on the platform.

Similarly, websites use algorithms and design to “nudge” users in particular directions – such as to buy a product.

There is a rich body of research into the ways discourse is shaped by the design of social media platforms, which establishes that every “affordance” a user is given affects the conversation that ends up taking place.

This means that beyond the fundamental technological challenges, Twitter must think about the possible unintended consequences of seemingly simple changes – even to the level of a humble edit button. The medium shapes the message, and Twitter must think carefully about what sorts of messages they want their platform to shape.

Lewis Mitchell receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP210103700), NHMRC, and the Defence Science and Technology Group’s ORNet program.

– ref. Why an edit button for Twitter is not as simple as it seems – https://theconversation.com/why-an-edit-button-for-twitter-is-not-as-simple-as-it-seems-181623

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

The first two weeks of the 2022 election campaign have increased the possibility that neither of the two major parties will gain a majority in the House of Representatives.

While the prospect may make some people queasy, the country’s political history tells us hung parliaments can work effectively and support productive, and even strong, governments.

Indeed, it is possible an indecisive election in 2022 might produce a better government than one that results in a narrow majority in the House of Representatives for one side or the other.

On the Coalition side, especially, there are differences of outlook between the partners as well as within each party that might produce the same kinds of unpredictability the naysayers often attribute to minority government.

There have been several stable minority state and territory governments over the past 30 years. But at the federal level, since the two-party system emerged in 1910, there are really two precedents for a hung parliament and minority governments.

The first was between 1940 and 1943, during the second world war. Robert Menzies and Arthur Fadden each led non-Labor minority governments, and these were succeeded by John Curtin’s Labor government.

The second precedent was between 2010 and 2013, when Julia Gillard, followed briefly by Kevin Rudd, led a minority government supported by the Greens and some of the crossbench.

Minority government in war-time

The 1940 election left the Australian Labor Party with voting support equal to that of the United Australia Party (UAP, a predecessor to the Liberal Party) and the Country Party (predecessor to today’s Nationals) together. Two independents, representing traditionally conservative seats, held the balance. One of those independents, businessman Arthur Coles, soon joined the UAP, but withdrew after it changed leaders.

Coles was elected in 1940 to the seat of Henty, which included the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, some of which now form part of the seat of Goldstein contested this year by another independent, Zoe Daniel.

The other independent seat in 1940 was held by wheat farmer Alexander Wilson, who had wrested the seat of Wimmera in Victoria’s north-west from the Country Party in 1937. In contrast with Coles, he leaned left – toward Labor – rather than right.

In a divided House of Representatives in 1940 and 1941, Menzies more than once invited Curtin to form an all-party or “national” government. Curtin, fearing a split in the Labor Party, declined the invitation and Menzies led a United Australia-Country Party coalition government supported by the independents.

But, while rejecting a national government, Curtin suggested something else that would help minority governments manage the House of Representatives during wartime: he accepted Labor’s membership of an Advisory War Council (AWC). It drew all the major parties in the parliament into the process of making decisions on Australia’s war effort. The two independents eventually switched sides, but not before giving the Coalition government ample opportunity to succeed. The instability of that government had nothing to do with the independents. Its problems were self-inflicted, coming from within.

When Curtin succeeded Menzies and Fadden as leader of a minority government, he kept the AWC. Between 1941 and 1943, one observer noted,

not a piece of legislation could be framed by the [Labor] Cabinet with the certainty that it would be passed in the form in which the Government framed it.

But with the support of the independents and deft use of the AWC, Curtin was able not only to lead a stable government but to implement ground-breaking legislation. These included the Uniform Tax legislation that led to the Federal Parliament monopolising income taxation ever since.

The Gillard-Greens alliance

If this seems like ancient history, we have a more recent exemplar that minority government can be made to work. Between 2010 and 2013, Julia Gillard was able to secure workable and reliable parliamentary majorities in both houses of parliament, despite Labor’s lack of control of either house.

In some areas, she was able to succeed where Kevin Rudd, who had a comfortable majority in the house but no majority in the Senate, had failed. Some 561 pieces of legislation were passed, many more than during the Rudd government and, remarkably, more than when John Howard had control of both houses (2005-2007).

Like the difficulties of the Menzies government in 1940-41, the Gillard government’s major problems did not arise so much from lack of parliamentary numbers as from internal divisions arising from the rivalry between Gillard and Rudd.

Read more:
Farewell to 2021 in federal politics, the year of living in disappointment

Could 2022 be next?

A minority government established in 2022 could consider similar mechanisms to the Advisory War Council: a variation on the existing National Cabinet, consisting not only of the leaders of Commonwealth and state governments, but of representatives of the opposition, minor parties and independents as well. Its remit could be extended beyond COVID-19 to encompass necessary reforms given a mandate by the people, such as a national integrity commission, and climate change and energy policy.

Curtin was helped, too, by the United Australia Party Speaker of the House of Representatives, Walter Nairn, remaining in his post for most of the parliamentary term, giving him a more stable majority in the house. Had Tony Smith remained in parliament, a minority Albanese government might well have welcomed him continuing to perform this role. There would be nothing to stop one of the crossbench, moreover, accepting the role to become an “independent speaker”.

What does history tell us might happen if a divided House of Representatives is the outcome in May?

Most of the crossbench will have won their seats campaigning for a robust national integrity commission, stronger action on climate change and water policy, and more serious action on gender equity. Labor’s policies on these matters place it in a stronger position to negotiate with the independents. But some of the independents, most of whom represent “natural” Coalition seats, might fear the electoral consequences of supporting a Labor minority government.

The experience of independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott is instructive here. They showed they could win historically National Party seats. But their experience would be a warning to an independent in a “natural” Coalition seat about the dangers of supporting Labor. While neither recontested his seat in 2013, there was sufficient evidence of a local backlash to indicate that holding on, in the context of a national swing to the Coalition, would not have been easy. As we pointed out in an earlier article, another scenario after May 21 might be the independents supporting a minority Coalition government supported by someone other than the present prime minister.

Read more:
What if the 2022 federal election gives us a hung parliament, but those with the balance of power want Morrison gone?

Whatever the case, it is entirely possible a hung parliament might provide the circuit-breaker for a parliament that needs to grapple with much needed national reforms.

Australians have many things to fear about the future, but a minority government is among the least of their problems. If it should happen, it would rather reflect the loosening hold of the major parties on the votes of Australians, and so would be an authentic expression of an important turn in the history of our democracy.

Frank Bongiorno is a member of Kim For Canberra (Senate election) and has donated to Climate 200.

David Lee is a member of the Australian Labor Party and has donated to Climate 200.

– ref. Could the 2022 election result in a hung parliament? History shows Australians have nothing to fear from it – https://theconversation.com/could-the-2022-election-result-in-a-hung-parliament-history-shows-australians-have-nothing-to-fear-from-it-181484

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Libby Callaway, Associate Professor, Rehabilitation, Ageing and Independent Living Research Centre and Occupational Therapy Department, School of Primary and Allied Healthcare, Monash University

Ahead of the upcoming election, Labor has promised a rigorous review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), focused on spending and administration, should it win office.

But workforce shortages present a danger to participants now. To ensure the stated ambitions of a market-based system in which NDIS participants can choose their own supports, Labor’s proposed review must focus on these pressing workforce issues.

Some NDIS participants aren’t having their most basic care needs met, such as assistance to get out of bed each day, because of a shortage of disability workers. Others cannot access assistive technology or other allied health assessments to achieve their goals for social or work participation.

Workforce solutions must focus on attracting a greater number of both international and local workers to the disability sector, while addressing the wage growth and career pathways currently lacking.

Early warnings ignored

Disability has historically been an employment sector that has been challenged by poor perceptions.

Low pay rates, a lack of career structure, supervision and mentoring, and a casualised workforce have limited both supply and growth.

Read more:
Labor vows to tackle the NDIS crisis – what’s needed is more autonomy for people with disability

Five years ago, the Productivity Commission warned that the disability workforce was growing too slowly to meet future demands of NDIS participants and their families. Since then, some NDIS participants have struggled to secure support workers, and have had difficulty accessing allied health workers such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech pathologists.

Then came COVID

No-one could have foreseen the impact a pandemic would have on labour supply across all industries in Australia. With COVID cases surging, many workers have had to isolate.

This has been compounded by the international workforce supply to Australia having been completely shut off by border restrictions.

These multiple issues are now added to what was already causing both direct support and allied health workforce shortages, with the aged care and health sectors also competing for staff.

Policy responses so far inadequate

The Coalition government’s five-year NDIS national workforce plan, released last year, focuses on building capability of existing employment markets.

But it doesn’t address the need to increase the supply of disability and allied health staffing numbers, or include new or innovative ways to grow a quality workforce.

This means people with disability and service providers will continue to compete with other sectors trying to attract the same employees.

Read more:
What we know about the NDIS cuts, and what they’ll mean for people with disability and their families

Without coordinated, supply-side government investment, the workforce growth issues will continue.

Add to this the fact there is currently no actual data on the number of workers in the NDIS.

Due to this data gap, to forecast workforce supply, the government uses modelling estimates from analysis of participant spending, using assumptions on the share of NDIS payments paid as labour costs.

But relying on actual spend is not accurate, as it does not base forecasting on the real demand, or factor in under-spending caused by lack of workforce supply.

Here are three things we can do now to attract a disability workforce and ensure appropriate support for people living with disability.

1. Increase strategic and skilled migration

We need a more targeted skilled migration program that includes a broader range of skilled visa categories, especially for the disability workforce skill shortages and rural and regional market supply gaps.

Both English-speaking and culturally and linguistically diverse groups will be important to attract into a growing and diverse disability workforce, for both direct support workers and allied health workers.

Government should increase migrant intakes for these skill categories.

2. Invest in new approaches to NDIS workforce development

The National Disability Insurance Agency (which runs the NDIS) has been investing in some small-scale pilot projects in areas with staff shortages. However, to date these projects have not been designed for replication, or scaled up to other areas.

More broadly, the Australian government has invested more than A$64 million in an NDIS Jobs and Market Fund – and previous to that an Innovative Workforce Fund – to support the growth of disability workers.

One example of this was the scaling up of mixed telehealth and face-to-face allied health student placements with NDIS participants. It aimed to attract students to work in the disability sector while studying, as well as preparing them for practice in the field.

The project also embedded disability lived experience within the education students received, employing NDIS participants to deliver education content. However, this program can’t be scaled up without supply-side investment.

Read more:
Understanding the NDIS: many eligible people with disabilities are likely to miss out

A low-cost initiative for government would be to invest in NDIS-focused educator roles within universities. By investing in supervision programs, both face-to-face and telehealth services in allied health could be quickly expanded nationally.

This could not only ensure more disability workers, but provide employment for supervisors with disabilities. It would give students experience in the disability sector, give them paid work while they study, and they would graduate ready for NDIS practice.

3. Improve conditions for workers

Moving into the disability workforce needs to be a career pathway, with secure employment benefits and conditions that are competitive against other labour markets. This requires pay that recognises the value of education, training and experience, as well as access to a supportive workplace.

Equipping people with disability to manage and train their own workforce, while offering a safe employment environment, is also important to improve both NDIS participant experiences and worker retention.

Little progress has been made in addressing the disability workforce demand that exists, and competition from the health sector and an ageing population will only grow.

As Australians head to the polls, the incoming government is going to need strategies to ensure the growing disability workforce demand is met.

Libby Callaway receives funding from the Australian Government’s Department of Social Services. She is affiliated with the Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association (ARATA), the national peak body for assistive technology stakeholders, and is the current President.

– ref. Workforce shortages are putting NDIS participants at risk. Here are 3 ways to attract more disability sector workers – https://theconversation.com/workforce-shortages-are-putting-ndis-participants-at-risk-here-are-3-ways-to-attract-more-disability-sector-workers-181473

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Higham, Professor of Tourism, University of Otago

With the arrival in Sydney of the cruise liner Pacific Explorer on Monday – a giant “WE’RE HOME” sign emblazoned on her bow – the pressure is on New Zealand to match Australia and reopen our maritime border to cruise ships.

Chief executive of the New Zealand Cruise Association, Kevin O’Sullivan, called on the government to “stop mucking around”, before leaving to attend an international cruise conference in Miami next week when he would prefer to know when borders will open again.

The government, meanwhile, is awaiting advice from health officials. So the questions now are: should New Zealand rush to welcome back cruise ships, or
should the international cruise industry be given a set of conditions on which any readmission would be contingent?

The world has changed in the past two years. The tourism minister has repeatedly stated there will be no return to the old ways and that the country must make “structural change for regenerative tourism”.

The aim is to align post-pandemic tourism with the government’s Living Standards Framework. The new tourism should enrich Aotearoa New Zealand’s four kinds of capital: natural, financial, social and human/cultural.

To date, little evidence of such structural change exists. Instead, there have been isolated responses to specific tourism management issues – the Milford Opportunities Project and tighter regulation of freedom camping are two examples.

But given its environmental and economic record, the cruise industry should also be subject to close scrutiny before the maritime border reopens.

High impact, low value

The cruise industry trades on an image of luxury and opulence, which implies high economic value. The reality is different.

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research reports that “despite its high visibility, cruise tourism accounts for about 9% of international visitor arrivals (approximately 350,000 cruise passengers and crew) but only 3% of international tourist expenditure in New Zealand”.

Read more:
As borders reopen, can New Zealand reset from high volume to ‘high values’ tourism?

This is because cruise lines are overseas owned, passengers spend less than a day at each port of call and eat meals provided onboard rather than onshore. By comparison, international students account for 23% of international “tourist” spending.

As others have argued, the new direction for tourism in Aoteaora should be underpinned by the Māori values of kaitiakitanga, kotahitanga and manaakitanga – a reciprocal model that values the host as much as the visitor.

That’s a far cry from the kind of exclusion of local tourism businesses highlighted by the use of Filipino staff to perform a “pantomime powhiri” when the Golden Princess docked at Tauranga Moana in late 2019.

Remembering the Ruby Princess

The global pandemic has only magnified the credibility issues facing the cruise industry.

On March 11 2020, the day the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic and 37 days after the Diamond Princess was quarantined in Japan, the industry’s local representative argued against the government’s advisory warning of the risks associated with cruise ships.

Read more:
NZ tourism can use the disruption of COVID-19 to drive sustainable change — and be more competitive

The next day, the liner Ruby Princess visited Dunedin and a week later returned to Sydney, where almost 3,000 passengers disembarked. More than 700 COVID-19 cases and 28 deaths have been linked to the ship, and the case remains a salutary reminder of the risks of under-regulation.

While Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have set testing and vaccination requirements and reopened to cruise ships, Tasmania is yet to make a decision due to community concerns.

The impacts and loss of social licence caused by high cruise passenger arrivals in local communities, as well as claims of exploitation and abuse of international labour , remain unresolved issues.

High environmental costs

One recent headline linked the return of cruise ships to Australia with a “sinking feeling” due to the ships’ high carbon emissions. Research has shown cruise liners emit the highest per-capita levels of carbon within New Zealand’s tourism sector, mainly due to their function as a self-contained floating resort, transporting everything passengers need.

Yet the cruise industry remains largely silent on its decarbonisation ambitions, the uptake of transitional and alternative fuels such as hydrogen and entirely emissions-free cruise design.

Read more:
Can the cruise industry really recover from coronavirus?

According to one Australian MP, “Sydney has been a dumping ground for the cruising industry’s oldest and dirtiest cruise ships – vessels that wouldn’t even be allowed to enter most ports in the northern hemisphere.”

The cruise industry also remains silent on air quality, water quality and degradation of the marine environment, as New Zealand’s parliamentary commissioner for the environment explicitly pointed out about ship impacts on Akaroa and its environs.

Boutique cruises, not mega-liners

A comprehensive and critical analysis of the cruise industry is required to advance the debate beyond simplistic reference to ship and passenger numbers and total expenditures.

Such an analysis should include an explicit account of cruise tourism’s contribution to GDP, social impacts and unaccounted environmental costs, and the distributional issues caused by cruise visits benefiting a small number of businesses while those costs are borne more widely.

Read more:
Cruise lines promise big payouts, but the tourist money stays at sea

It would also highlight the urgent need for a new cruise model that is lower in volume and carbon emissions, and much higher in local onshore expenditures, social and cultural engagement and environmental sustainability.

It would almost certainly show that the maritime border should initially be reopened to small boutique cruise ships rather than mass tourism in the form of mega-liners.

In the meantime, the cruise industry requires strong regulation. Now is the perfect time to hold it to account, rather than be in a hurry to offer good news for an industry conference in Miami.

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

– ref. Without stricter conditions, NZ should be in no hurry to reopen its border to cruise ships – https://theconversation.com/without-stricter-conditions-nz-should-be-in-no-hurry-to-reopen-its-border-to-cruise-ships-181607

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Peetz, Professor Emeritus, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

The Coalition and Labor have been arguing over the “better off overall test”, known as the BOOT. What is it, why are they arguing, and who is right?

The BOOT is a provision in industrial relations law that requires any new enterprise agreement to leave workers better off, compared with the basic award conditions.

It was introduced by the Rudd Labor government in 2009, after the Howard government had abolished its predecessor – the “no disadvantage test” – enacted by the Keating Labor government soon after the advent of enterprise bargaining in 1992.

The BOOT is supported by unions, who see it as protection against wage cuts. It is opposed by employers, who see it as reducing flexibility, increasing costs and leading to “absurd outcomes”.

What is the argument about?

In 2020 the Morrison government introduced into the Parliament an “omnibus” bill that, among other things, tried to override the BOOT for a specific group and for a specific time.

The amendment was targeted at workers employed by companies that could claim they were affected by COVID-19.

It would have allowed those companies to negotiate enterprise agreements without having to worry about the BOOT. These agreements had to be made within two years of the bill’s passage, but the agreements themselves could last much longer.

Read more:
Chance for genuine industrial relations reform thrown under the omnibus

It provoked so much opposition – including from Pauline Hanson – that then industrial relations minister Christian Porter withdrew the provisions in February 2021 before the the bill reached the Senate.

In the end most of the rest of the bill was withdrawn while being considered by the Senate. (It had also contained provisions affecting pay rates for part-time employees, lengthening greenfields agreements and penalising wage theft.) Only changes to the treatment of casuals were passed.

Return of the omnibus bill

A week ago (on April 16) Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated “absolutely” his intention to reintroduce the omnibus bill.

This immediately raised the prospect of the BOOT being undermined again, which the Labor Party seized on.

Shadow industrial relations minister Tony Burke said Morrison had “made clear” the omnibus bill was returning and this meant “every loading, every shift penalty, every overtime rate can be cut”.

In response, Morrison then said there would be “no major changes” to the BOOT.

After further quizzing over what “no major changes” would permit, he said during the Sky News debate with Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese:

We said we’d only go forward with the measures that aren’t the emergency pandemic measures.

Those measures could lead to lower pay for part-time workers or poorer prospects for workers on greenfield sites, but would not directly affect the BOOT.

Can we find the truth of the matter?

In different circumstances Morrison’s latest comments might have been considered the end of the matter. A literal interpretation of his words is that the BOOT will not change, even if his previous comments implied otherwise.

But it’s not simple to be confident.

Parties make claims before an election they often feel they will not be held to afterwards, especially if they are re-elected after modifying previous election promises.

The most radical changes to industrial relations were introduced after the 2004 election, which returned the Howard government for its fourth and last term.

As part of its sweeping “WorkChoices” changes, the Howard government abolished the BOOT’s predecessor and protections against unfair dismissal for workers in medium and small enterprises, along with many other “reforms”. Some of those changes are still with us.

Yet these reforms were not mentioned before that election. Howard later justified this by saying voters should have been aware because his government’s intentions had “been very well known for a long period of time”.

They were, he said in 2005, “an article of faith” for the Coalition.

WorkChoices is widely considered a decisive factor in the Howard government’s defeat in 2007.

Is the BOOT safe or not?

Labor has stated it plans to retain the BOOT – an unsurprising position given it introduced it.

But it’s harder to know the Coalition’s intent, given its past actions and track record of campaigning against wage increases and supporting legislation to reduce workers’ bargaining power.

After the Coalition won power in 2013, the employment minister Eric Abetz warned of a wages explosion. Nine years of historically low wages growth followed, culminating in a period of real wage decline.

That said, even if the Morrison government is returned it would likely face a Senate hostile to the omnibus bill. Whatever gets introduced would depend on what they thought they could get away with.

In the unlikely circumstances it wins well enough to have the numbers in the Senate (as it did in 2004), its ambitions will be far greater and the omnibus bill irrelevant.

Either way, it is impossible to know what a re-elected Morrison government would do with the BOOT. All we can know is what has happened in the past.

As a former university employee, David Peetz has undertaken research over many years with occasional financial support from governments from both sides of politics in Australia and overseas, international organisations, employers and unions. He has been and is involved in several Australian Research Council-funded and approved projects, some of which included contributions from the employer body Universities Australia, the superannuation fund Unisuper, the National Tertiary Education Union or the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The projects do not concern the subject matter of this article

– ref. ReBOOT: what is the ‘better off overall test’, and should you be worried about it? – https://theconversation.com/reboot-what-is-the-better-off-overall-test-and-should-you-be-worried-about-it-181616

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Moore, Honorary Associate Professor in the School of Literature, Languages, and Linguistics, Australian National University

Two-up is an Australian gambling game in which two coins are placed on a small piece of wood called a “kip” and tossed into the air. Bets are laid as to whether both coins will fall with heads or tails uppermost. It is one of the core activities of Anzac Day celebrations – and a beloved tradition.

The word ANZAC was created in 1915 as an acronym from Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. By 1916 it was being used emblematically to reflect the traditional view of the virtues displayed by those in the Gallipoli campaign, especially as these are seen as national characteristics. This cluster of national characteristics includes mateship, larrikin daredevilry, anti-authoritarianism, and egalitarianism.

The game of two-up became indicative of these qualities. Mateship was evident in the way the game brought together people of disparate backgrounds. Larrikinism was evident in the defiant rejection of authority and convention.

Two-up was always illegal, because the game is an unregulated form of gambling (although from the 1980s it became legal in most Australian states on Anzac Day). But in spite of the illegality, it was widely regarded as the fairest of gambling games, and at the time of the First World War the verbal command for the coins to be spun was not “come in spinner” (as it is now) but “fair go”. Indeed, the important Australian concept of the “fair go” was in part cemented by its role in the game.

Two-up was the common pastime of the urban working-class man, and it feeds into the elements of egalitarianism and anti-authoritarianism that are central to both the Anzac myth and the Australian myth.

Two-up and wartime life

From the very early period of the First World War, two-up assumed great importance among the Australian troops. Soldiers reported that two-up was played on the battlefield during the Gallipoli campaign, even when under shellfire. As the war dragged on, numerous stories were told about Australian soldiers’ obsession with playing it.

In 1918 the war correspondent Charles Bean studied the daily life of a company of Australian soldiers stationed at a brewery in Querrieu in northern France. He places great emphasis on two-up, writing in his diary in 1918:

Two-up’ is the universal pastime of the men. … It is a game which starts in any quarter of an hour’s interval or lasts the whole afternoon. The side road outside becomes every evening a perfect country fair with groups playing these games in it – a big crowd of 70 or 80 at the bottom the street, in the middle of the road; a smaller crowd of perhaps twenty on a doorstep further up. … The game is supposed to be illegal, I think; but at any rate in this company they wink at it.

Two-up was important not just in taking soldiers’ minds off the realities of the war, but also in creating a strong sense of community. Photographs from the war that show the men playing two-up reveal how it brought them together physically in a communal activity.

This helps explains why men, who in civilian life may have had little or no interest in gambling, joined in the camaraderie and fun of the two-up fair, and by so doing blotted out the boredom, isolation, and loneliness of much wartime experience.

Anzac Day and tradition

Playing two-up became an integral part of the diggers’ memories of the experience of war, especially when commemorated on Anzac Day. By the 1930s the playing of two-up outdoors after the Anzac Day march had become an entrenched tradition.

As the ranks of diggers from the two world wars declined, so the structure of Anzac Day changed in emphasis. In recent years the Dawn Service has increased greatly in popularity, while the Anzac Day march has suffered from dwindling numbers of veterans. The streets of Sydney and similar cities are no longer dotted with two-up games in the afternoon. The games have shifted to pubs and clubs, and they are largely played by people with no experience of war.

Those people who play the game on this day do so not for any deep-seated gambling impulse or because they would love to play the game on every other day of the year. They play two-up because it has become part of the meaning of Anzac Day.

Anzac Day has always combined solemnity and festivity. The Dawn Service commemorates the landing at Gallipoli, and the sacrifices that ensued. Its mood is solemn.

Read more:
Let’s honour the Anzacs by making two-up illegal again

In the past, returned soldiers reminisced, told war yarns, drank, and played two-up. The soldiers have passed on, but their larrikinism survives in the tradition of the game they have bequeathed to their descendants.

We should not underestimate the significance of rituals of this kind—the playing of two-up is a way in which Australians can become not just observers of, but participants in, their history and their myths. Two-up is a ritual that links the present with the past on this one day of the year.

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

– ref. Two-up, Gallipoli and the ‘fair go’: why illegal gambling is at the heart of the Anzac myth – https://theconversation.com/two-up-gallipoli-and-the-fair-go-why-illegal-gambling-is-at-the-heart-of-the-anzac-myth-181337

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

For months there has been a great deal of debate about Scott Morrison’s “character”.

Now, in the controversy over Katherine Deves, the Liberal candidate for Warringah who Morrison refused to dump despite a string of offensive social media posts, we have seen the prime minister fail a significant character test.

Ignoring the public and private calls by Liberals – not all of them moderates – for Deves to be disendorsed, Morrison said on Thursday, the day nominations closed, “I’ve been in contact with Katherine again today, encouraging her”.

Morrison has not only refused to budge, but tried to turn the argument back on his critics.

He condemned “those who are seeking to cancel Katherine, simply because she has a different view on the issue of women and girls in sport”, and attacked the “pile on”.

In a revealing comment he also said, “I think Australians are getting pretty fed up with having to walk on eggshells every day because they may or may not say something one day that’s going to upset someone”.

This reminded those with long memories of remarks by John Howard in the wake of the maiden speech of Pauline Hanson, who had been disendorsed by the Liberals for the 1996 election over racist remarks but won anyway.

“One of the great changes that have come over Australia in the last six months is that people do feel able to speak a little more freely and openly about how they feel. In a sense, a pall of censorship on certain issues has been lifted,” Howard said.

Howard was trying to tap into a backlash against “political correctness” – although later he had to change his tune, partly because of the feeling in urban Liberal seats. Morrison’s target is “cancel culture”.

Deves was Morrison’s pick. In one of the long-delayed preselections in the NSW Liberal party she was chosen by a committee of three including NSW premier Dominic Perrottet and former Liberal party federal president Chris McDiven. Morrison wanted women in as many of these seats as possible. He later said he wasn’t aware of Deves’ transphobic posts, which is extraordinary given they were recent, numerous, rumoured within the party, and basic vetting would have found them.

One theory has been Morrison believes Deves’ views on keeping women and girls from having to compete against transgender people in sport will resonate in certain seats. The flip side would be that he is dismissing the possible cost of her offensive tweets in “teal” seats where Liberal incumbent face high profile independents.

If he does think she brings wider advantage, it would be an appallingly cynical calculation, and a risky political judgement.

In his defence of Deves, Morrison is framing the issue in a misleading way on several fronts. It is not a case of critics wanting to “cancel” her. It is a question of whether she is a suitable candidate for the Liberals.

People have the right to express all sorts of unsavoury views. But to be accepted as a candidate by a major party, a person should have to pass a much higher test, because by endorsing them the party is telling the electorate their values align with its own.

Morrison also tries to frame Deves’ tweets as “insensitive”. They went way beyond “insensitive” – they were downright offensive.

He suggests she was expressing herself badly on her issue of protection women and girls in sport. But in fact her tweets go far wider.

As the days pass, more and more posts emerge. Sam Maiden this week on news.com.au reported Deves’ posting in 2021: “Surrogacy is a human rights violation. Women’s bodies are not vehicles for a vanity project.”

In another post reported by Maiden, Deves said of people who didn’t fight moves towards gender fluidity, “I have no doubt these people would imagine themselves to be part of the French Resistance in WWII – but no, they are the villagers who watched the trains go by, ignored the clouds of soot and smoke and joined the Party to get good jobs. They are complicit.’’

Morrison says Deves apologised for her posts. But was that the easy way out? It’s a bit hard to see this as a major change of heart, given the posts were multiple and recent.

The row over Deves could have major implications in particular for the fights in two Liberal Sydney seats, North Sydney (Trent Zimmerman) and Wentworth (Dave Sharma), where there are high profile “teal” candidates. Deves came up in the debate between Sharma and teal independent Allegra Spender on Thursday.

Also, it’s hard to see how she can campaign effectively in Warringah, held by independent Zali Steggall. The Liberals were never expected to have much chance of dislodging Steggall – now she is considered a shoo-in.

It is instructive to compare Morrison’s obduracy over Deves and his reaction when he came under attack after Wednesday’s “people’s forum” over saying he and Jenny had been “blessed” to have children that did not have autism.

He was answering a question about the NDIS from the mother of an autistic child.

His remark got a strong reaction on social media, including from Dylan Alcott, disability advocate and Australian of the Year. “Woke up this morning feeling very blessed to be disabled – I reckon my parents are pretty happy about it too,” Alcott tweeted.

Morrison swung into action with a public apology, and was in contact with Alcott.

“I meant no offence by what I said last night, but I accept that it has caused offence to people,” he said.

He said he had been simply saying it was tough and these were hardships he and Jenny hadn’t had to deal with.

That indeed, was the interpretation many people would have taken from Morrison’s remarks (especially as he has often spoken of his brother-in-law, who has a disability). Others would see the line as insensitive and out of touch, especially in today’s context of how we discuss disability.

Whatever one’s interpretation of his “blessed” remark, it is extraordinary Morrison would deal with that immediately but hang onto and encourage a candidate whose comments were a hundred times more offensive.

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. Grattan on Friday: Scott Morrison fails the ‘character’ test posed by his Warringah candidate – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-scott-morrison-fails-the-character-test-posed-by-his-warringah-candidate-181715

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

Labor’s worst fears have been realised with Anthony Albanese testing positive for COVID.

In a statement late Thursday, the opposition leader said: “Following a routine PCR test this afternoon ahead of interstate travel to Western Australia, I have returned a positive result for COVID this evening”. He has been testing regularly.

“I will be isolating at home in Sydney for the next seven days and will continue to follow health guidelines and advice,” he said.

Albanese said while at home “I will continue my responsibilities as alternative prime minister”.

“I am feeling fine so far – and thank everyone for their well wishes, he said. “I am grateful to know that I will have access to the world’s best health care if I need it, because of Medicare”.

Senior Labor figures on Thursday night were discussing reconfiguring the campaign.

Labor had war-gamed the possibility Albanese would get COVID during the campaign because, unlike Scott Morrison, he had not had it previously.

If Albanese remains well he will be able to make some appearances virtually, and conduct media interviews.

But his stepping off the actual campaign trail will mean much more weight will fall on other Labor frontbenchers.

It was not clear on Thursday night whether the leaders plane would proceed on its earlier planned route with a “surrogate” leader.

The setback comes just as Albanese, who on Thursday flew from Queensland to regional NSW before returning to Sydney, appeared to be hitting his straps after a bad first week. An audience of undecided voters scored him the narrow winner in Wednesday’s peoples forum.

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. Anthony Albanese confined to home for seven days after testing COVID positive – https://theconversation.com/anthony-albanese-confined-to-home-for-seven-days-after-testing-covid-positive-181736

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

One of the first things Labor’saor-hasnt-committed-to-jobseeker-increase-and-has-no-plan-to-review-payment-if-it-wins-election/287i8merx) to lifting the unemployment benefit at any time up to and including his first budget.

A promise to review the payment made in the last election by then Labor leader Bill Shorten was no longer operative.

Hawke’s 1983 increase was the first of many. Over 12 years the Hawke and Keating governments lifted the real value of unemployment benefits by 27%.

Albanese said last week Labor had no plan to lift what is now called JobSeeker in its first budget. Government debt was “heading toward a trillion dollars”.

The single rate of JobSeeker is A$642.70 a fortnight, about $46 a day.

Is JobSeeker enough?

Some JobSeekers get more. Single parents and those aged 60 and over who have been on payments for nine months can get up to $691 per fortnight. Partnered jobseekers can get $585.30 each.

There is also a small Energy Supplement of 63 cents to 86 cents per day, and rent assistance offering single people renting privately up to $145.80 per fortnight and renters sharing with other people up to $97.20 per fortnight.

And for some months during the pandemic the temporary Coronavirus Supplement introduced in March 2020 almost doubled the base rate.

Calculations by the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods suggest this cut the share of Jobseeker recipients in poverty from 67% to just under 7%.

But the boost was short-lived. By 2021 the supplement had been removed entirely and replaced with a much smaller increase of $50 a fortnight.

Research by Anglicare found that, while it lasted, the supplement allowed families to pay rent, access nutritious food and avoid emergency relief services

As shown in the chart, that $50 a fortnight has done little to redress the extent to which the living standards of people on unemployment benefits have been falling behind. For the last three decades, they have done little more than increase in line with prices, while the living standards of wage earners have grown strongly.

The base rate has fallen from 84% to 66% of the poverty line, defined as half the median income over that time, even taking account of the latest increase.

And Jobseeker has also fallen further behind the minimum wage

Even for those able to receive the maximum rate of rent assistance, unemployment payments have fallen from 57% of the net minimum wage at the start of the 2000s to 50% now. This is on top of a fall of four percentage points during the 1990s.

This makes it difficult to make a case that unemployment payments are generous enough to discourage jobseekers from seeking the minimum wage.

Compared to the high-income countries Australia normally compares itself with, the JobSeeker “net replacement rate” is low, about the lowest in the OECD.

The net replacement rate is the assistance provided to a single person aged 40 who has been unemployed for two months as a proportion of the average wage.

Australia’s minister for social services has argued these comparisons are not relevant, because Australia’s social security system is based on different principles than those in most other countries.

Australian income support is unrelated to previous earnings. This is correct, but it does not change the fact that when Australian workers lose their job, their income drops by far more than workers in other OECD countries.

Moreover, when the government announced the $50 a fortnight increase in February 2021, the prime minister justified it by saying that this would move the replacement rate back to where it had been under the Howard Government.

It would be:

41.2% of the national minimum wage, which puts us back in the realm of where we had been previously

While this is similar to the replacement rate at the end of Howard’s term, it is nothing like the replacement rate at the start of the term.

But unemployment has fallen…

At just 4%, unemployment is now much lower than the 5.2% that prevailed at the time of the 2019 election when Labor promised to review JobSeeker.

But the number of people receiving Jobseeker and Youth Allowance (Other) is actually higher than it was back then; there were 935,000 people receiving these payments in February 2022, compared to 765,000 in May 2019.

The reasons for this difference are complex, but a significant factor is that a very large share of people receiving unemployment payments are not required to seek jobs and have a reduced capacity to work.

Among them are people whose access to the disability support pension has been cut and Australians who would have been of pension age before the age was lifted.

What would Labor actually do?

On almost any measure, JobSeeker is too low, as the inquiry promised by Labor in 2019 would have discovered.

Labor’s present national platform talks about rewarding

those who work hard to create a better life for themselves. Labor is the party for those who want to get ahead, as well as the party of compassion for those doing it tough

It goes on to pledge that

Labor will make sure people who are looking for work get the financial support they need to live a life of dignity through a strong social security system as well as the support they need to find and keep a job

This offers some hope, but, unlike in 2019, no guarantees.

Peter Whiteford receives funding from the Australian Research Council and has undertaken research for the Department of Social Services. He is a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development and an advisor to the Australian Council of Social Service.

Bruce Bradbury receives funding from the Australian Research Council and conducts contract research for other government bodies. This article is based in part on research conducted as part of the Poverty and Inequality Partnership between UNSW Sydney and the Australian Council of Social Service.

– ref. Albanese has dropped Labor’s pledge to boost Jobseeker. With unemployment low, is that actually fair enough? – https://theconversation.com/albanese-has-dropped-labors-pledge-to-boost-jobseeker-with-unemployment-low-is-that-actually-fair-enough-181256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samara McPhedran, Honorary Associate Professor, The University of Queensland

Men killing their female partners has gone from something that occurred behind closed doors with little public discussion, to the focus of national headlines and high-level policy attention.

Even though shocking and high profile murders rightly prompt calls for law and policy reform, it is a different thing entirely to develop measures that actually work. The risk is that complex problems will be oversimplified.

How much of men killing women can we understand through a purely gendered lens? In other words, how much does looking at this problem through a lens of patriarchal control and toxic masculinity actually explain the problem?

The answer may be: less than we thought.

Read more:
‘She was the most important person to us’ – R. Rubuntja’s story shows society is still failing First Nations women

A distinctly different kind of man

When it comes to understanding why men kill their partners, there are two distinct schools of thought.

One is that offenders share many similarities with men who are violent in other settings (for example, towards people they do not know).

The other is that men who kill intimate partners are distinctly different from other killers, particularly in their attitudes and beliefs about the place of women in society and men’s rights over women.

The latter view has come to dominate policy-making.

Concepts like toxic masculinity, patriarchal power and control, and men’s entitlement, have found their way out of feminist theory and into mainstream dialogue.

However, when one viewpoint becomes all encompassing, the result tends to be loss of nuance, lack of perspective, and limited effect in the real world.

Comparing three groups of homicide offenders

We looked at this question using data from the Australian Homicide Project. This is a unique dataset that contains in-depth interviews with over 300 convicted homicide offenders in Australia.

Our study compared three groups:

• men who commit intimate partner femicide (such as men who kill their female partners or female ex-partners)

• men who kill female non-intimates (such as men who kill a woman with whom they’ve never had romantic relationship) and

• men who kill other men.

We found very few differences between the three groups when it came to their backgrounds.

A considerable proportion in each group had not completed high school, and were under financial stress and/or unemployed in the year before the homicide.

Experiencing physical abuse and neglect during childhood was commonly reported. So was witnessing parental violence, and having insecure relationships with their parents (particularly their fathers).

There were some differences. Men who killed other men were much more likely to have had problems with alcohol and/or drugs in the year before the homicide. They also had far more extensive criminal histories.

All three groups had much higher levels of past criminal offending than the general population. Assault (not specifically against intimate partners) was especially common.

Interestingly, the intimate partner femicide group and the men who kill other men group did not differ significantly in their levels of reported past violence towards an intimate partner.

Attitudes toward women

When it came to attitudes, there were far fewer differences than we expected to find.

The intimate partner femicide group were more likely to endorse using violence within intimate relationships, and to believe that there were no alternatives to violence.

However, the groups did not differ on sexual jealousy (for example, how upset they would be if their partner talked about an old lover).

Nor did they differ greatly on attitudes toward marital roles (for example, the belief that a man should help in the house, but housework and childcare should mainly be a woman’s job).

In terms of male entitlement, the intimate partner femicide group were more likely to endorse “behavioural control” (for example, “If I can’t have my partner, no one can”).

But the groups did not differ in their endorsement of “social control” (for example, “I insist on knowing where my partner is at all times”) and “information control” (for example, “I look through my partner’s drawers, handbag, or pockets”).

Coercive control has become a key focus for intimate partner femicide prevention efforts.

However, our findings suggest that some of the “subtler” behaviours that characterise coercive control – such as checking up on a partner’s whereabouts, insisting that they disclose where they are going, or monitoring their phone calls – may not be as specifically associated with intimate partner femicide as is often thought.

Instead, it may be that overt behavioural control is what we need to consider when we try to assess risk in relationships. This can include things such as expecting a partner to do what she is told, or expecting sex on demand.

Read more:
People in abusive relationships face many barriers to leaving — pets should not be one

Capturing the nuance

Overall, our results warn that policies intended to prevent intimate partner femicide should not become narrowly focussed around gendered factors such as men’s attitudes to women and toxic masculinity.

These results show things like adverse experiences in childhood and financial stress may be common threads across various different “types” of homicide.

Many theories about homicide, and homicide prevention strategies, focus strongly on the relationship between the victim and offender, or the sex of the victim.

Our work, although based on a relatively small sample size, sounds a caution that such an approach can easily fail to capture the nuance and diversity within victim-offender relationships, as well as crucial similarities across different groups.

Ultimately, legal and policy responses to homicide need to be informed by multiple different perspectives and understandings of offending.

While the gendered perspective has a part to play, it is clear this approach cannot offer all of the answers.

This work was also co-authored by Dr Li Eriksson (Griffith University), Professor Paul Mazerolle (University of New Brunswick) and Professor Richard Wortley (University College London). The Australian Homicide Project was supported under the Australian Research Council Discovery Projects funding scheme (DP0878364).

– ref. Does toxic masculinity explain why men kill women? Perhaps not as much as we thought – https://theconversation.com/does-toxic-masculinity-explain-why-men-kill-women-perhaps-not-as-much-as-we-thought-180949

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leon Gettler, PhD, RMIT University

Australia’s regional news outlets are dying a not-so-slow death, and COVID-19 has accelerated their decline.

Over the past two years more than a hundred of the 435 regional and community newspapers that existed in 2019 ceased printing, continuing as digital-only publications or being merged with other mastheads.

More seem set to follow if a federal parliamentary inquiry into regional journalism is anything to go by.

The inquiry, chaired by National Party backbencher Anne Webster, was established in late 2020 to investigate the impact of dozens of local print editions being suspended in 2020, and if there has been any recovery since.

Read more:
Another savage blow to regional media spells disaster for the communities they serve

Its findings, published last month, aren’t optimistic. While some suspended print runs have resumed, global supply shortages have increased printing costs. Meanhwile the internet continues to strip away readers and advertising dollars.

The committee’s recommendations on what to do about it leave even less room for optimism. They show the federal government is ill-equipped to provide meaningful assistance despite committing tens of millions of dollars to support regional journalism.

News deserts

In 2018 the Australian Competition Consumer Commission counted 21 local government areas in Australia lacking a single local newspaper. Sixteen were regional areas.

Such “news deserts” – communities not covered by local journalists – have serious consequences for the quality of local democracy. Newspapers in particular have been cornerstones of local news ecosystems, setting the agenda for local television and radio.

The committee’s report, “The Future of Regional Newspapers in a Digital World”, doesn’t update the competition watchdog’s numbers. It notes only the submission from the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance that in the past two years 68% of 182 news “contractions” – covering masthead or newsroom closures and suspensions – were in regional Australia.

Read more:
Digital-only local newspapers will struggle to serve the communities that need them most

So what do about it?

The committee made 12 recommendations. The first is to have another, more comprehensive inquiry, into the viability of regional newspapers.

Of the other 11, the two most significant are to amend 30-year-old legislation to enable better data collection on the state of the industry, and to effectively subsidise rural papers through government advertising.

Amending the Broadcasting Service Act

The first recommendation relates to the Broadcasting Services Act (1992), which imposed limits on how many TV stations, radio stations and newspapers a media company can control in a media market.

This leglisation was passed by the Keating government in response to Australia’s then richest man Kerry Packer, the owner of the Nine Network and magazine empire Australian Consolidated Press, making a bid for the Fairfax empire in 1991.

The act’s purpose was to avoid media monopolies by limiting the number of broadcast licences and newspapers a company could own in a media market.

The internet has rendered differences between print and broadcast news largely redundant. But the Broadcasting Services Act (1992) continues to be important to bureaucrats as the one piece of federal legislation defining regional media – albeit only for radio and TV.

This could explain why the report is fuzzy on the precise number of regional newspaper closures over the past two years; bureaucrats didn’t have a definition of “regional newspaper” to work with.

The recommendation to amend the act is to give the Australian Communications and Media Authority definitions that enable it to better assess the state of diversity and localism in news media, in line with recommendations the media regulator proposed in 2020.

So this a useful recommendation, though not one that can make any difference on its own.

Subsidising through advertising

The second big recommendation is that at least 20% of federal government print advertising be placed in regional newspapers.

This is a very blunt instrument to effectively subsidise regional newspapers.

Government advertising has long been an important revenue stream for newspapers. But there are good reasons to think government largesse can’t make up for the private advertising dollars lost to better targeted, cost-effective digital alternatives.

The Victorian government, for example, has plans to drop all notices in newspapers. It instead wants to use the internet to publicise things like legislation changes, planning permits and road closures. The economics are clearly on its side.

The problem facing regional media, and all newspapers generally, is that the old advertising model is broken. No amount of government advertising will fix it.

Deeper community connections needed

A better way to help regional media should start with acknowledging print is dead, So is the the old advertising-funded model of news services. The new model is digital only, and user pays – where readers fund the service.

Shifting from advertising to a reader revenue model requires developing diverse streams, collecting money not just from subscriptions but events, e-commerce, mobile messages, event sponsorships, and so on.

This requires developing community-based news gathering.

News organisations overseas are starting to use artificial intelligence to achieve this, augmenting the work of journalists.

One example is Trib Total Media, a newspaper company in Pennsylvania. It partnered with AI company Crivella Technologies to develop its Neighbourhood News Network.

This platform enables the building of neighbourhood-level websites that deliver “hyper-local content based on the reader’s geography, habits and interests”. The platform also enables local contributors to submit and publish.

To help local news organisations emulate these efforts requires funding for specific technological innovations and partnerships. It also requires deepening links between regional newspapers and the communities they serve.

These are the issues the next review of the viability of regional newspapers in Australia ought to look at in more depth.

Leon Gettler 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. Regional journalism is dying: advertising subsidies won’t help – https://theconversation.com/regional-journalism-is-dying-advertising-subsidies-wont-help-181255

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zara Mansoor, Clinical Psychologist and PhD Candidate, University of Otago

The transition from childhood to adolescence is a vulnerable time for the development of mental health difficulties and brings a marked increase in anxiety and depression.

The push away from family to peers at this age can leave parents feeling adrift. But parents can have a positive role in how young people navigate the challenges of adolescence.

Untreated, mental health conditions often have an impact into adulthood. Supporting a young person with a mental health difficulty also places enormous stress on parents and whānau (family).

So how can parents be there for their children?

Research into how young people develop emotional skills found that a parenting style which encourages understanding and acceptance of emotions is associated with better mental wellbeing compared to styles which are dismissive, punitive or avoid emotional experiences.

As well as general emotional response style, there is an array of other factors linked to anxiety and depression which parents can play an important role in mitigating.

Supporting parents in these areas can have a positive preventative effect on the development of anxiety and depression. By better involving parents in mental health care, we may also improve outcomes for teens with mental health challenges.

Addressing how we treat teen mental health is of increasing importance with rising rates of anxiety and depression in teens and the likely impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 has taken a toll on teen mental health

In a survey of youth in Aotearoa, reported symptoms of mental distress were already increasing prior to the global pandemic – particularly for females and Māori.

While the full effects of the pandemic remain to be seen, key factors related to well being in adolescence have been severely affected, including school attendance, social engagement and the ability to develop independence.

Read more:
New ways to treat depression in teenagers

Preliminary evidence from overseas suggests there has been an increase in mental health difficulties above general trends in this period for adolescents.

A report of data from paediatric hospital admissions in New Zealand identified greater admissions related to mental distress and parasuicidal behaviour during lockdown.

A survey of adult New Zealanders also confirmed a range of psychological impacts, with the younger adult group particularly affected.

These trends will continue to put strain on our mental health services.

Stretched services

Referrals to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) have been increasing over recent years, particularly for the early adolescent age group.

Chronic resourcing and staffing issues mean the situation is already at crisis point for many needing support.

While there has been a substantial government commitment to increased funding, there are still deficits and long term skill shortages for specialist child and adolescent clinicians.

Adequate resourcing is essential to providing better support. We also need to ensure we are providing high quality interventions to those seeking help.

Gaps in how we understand teens

There are gaps in the evidence base for working with this age group, including how we can best include parents in treatment.

Read more:
Teenage depression: If a parent doesn’t get treatment for a child, is that abuse?

Most current treatments for adolescent anxiety and depression have evolved from the adult evidence base and a generally Western, individually-oriented model. This approach can fail to take in the unique needs of teens and cultural norms that place value on a person’s role in a larger whānau or community.

Cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) and antidepressant medication have been the most researched and are generally the first treatment recommendations. While these treatments have a good body of evidence and are helpful for many young people, effect sizes are modest and may be significantly smaller for teens compared with similar therapies for adults, particularly for depression.

Parents can play an important role

To improve outcomes, mental health treatments need to consider the specific needs of this age group, including the role of parents.

This also fits with Māori and other important cultural perspectives in New Zealand. For example, Te Whare Tapa Wha, a model of Māori health developed by Sir Mason Durie, describes the foundations of health, with whānau (family) as a key pillar. Strengthening our focus on this aspect of health can help make care more resposive for all New Zealanders.

While there is a clear rationale for including parents in treatment, and many clinicians are aware of this in practice, research into parental involvement in care is limited.

Reviews to date have suggested a small but positive impact but these reviews have been limited by the number and quality of studies.

Rather than general parent involvement in existing treatment (e.g. parents included in CBT), one promising avenue is programmes focused on boosting emotional skills.

Our research is focused on a one programme developed particularly for teens, Tuning in to Teens, developed by a team at Melbourne University from a programme for parents of younger children (Tuning in to Kids).

The programme targets emotion regulation difficulties by teaching parents to be “emotion coaches” and respond to their young person’s emotions in the accepting and understanding style which has been found to promote positive mental health.

Read more:
Antidepressant trial’s upended results show need for sharing all data

In a randomised control trial of early adolescents about to transition to high school, those with parents who completed this programme had lower levels of symptoms associated with anxiety and depression compared to those who did not.

This programme has been adopted by several mental health services in New Zealand with positive feedback. We are now investigating how we can further evaluate its impact in this setting.

These are challenging times to be growing up in and challenging times to parent in, too. While more research is needed to determine what works best for this age group, parents have an important role from prevention to treatment. The better we can support parents, the better equipped they will be to support their young people to navigate what is ahead.

“He moana pukepuke e ekengia e te waka” – A choppy sea can be navigated.

Zara Mansoor receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. She has previously worked for a Child Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) in New Zealand.

– ref. The transition into adolescence can be brutal for kids’ mental health – but parents can help reduce the risk – https://theconversation.com/the-transition-into-adolescence-can-be-brutal-for-kids-mental-health-but-parents-can-help-reduce-the-risk-180487

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

Close contacts of people with COVID in New South Wales and Victoria will soon no longer need to isolate for seven days. Other states and territories, including Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, are considering or will likely announce similar moves.

In NSW from 6pm tomorrow and in Victoria from just before midnight tomorrow, close contacts of COVID cases no longer need to isolate at home, so long as they test negative for COVID, and follow other rules designed to limit the spread of the virus.

The move frees up close contacts to return to work outside the home, but carries a slightly increased risk of the virus spreading to the wider community. However, not everyone agrees whether even this small risk is worth taking.

So what is the risk of a household contact catching COVID? And what else could we be doing to minimise the risk to the wider community after isolation rules are relaxed?

Read more:
Many places are starting to wind back COVID restrictions, but this doesn’t mean the pandemic is over yet

What’s changing?

The upcoming changes in NSW and Victoria relate to the isolation requirements of close contacts only. People with COVID still need to isolate for seven days.

Details of what this means for close contacts in NSW or Victoria differ slightly. However, governments are sensibly asking close contacts to take a number of measures to reduce the risk of them infecting other people. These include:

• working from home where possible

• telling their employer they’re a close contact

• wearing a mask indoors when they are outside the home

• taking multiple rapid antigen tests over seven days

• avoiding contact with immunocompromised and elderly people

• avoiding vulnerable settings such as residential aged care services or hospitals

These will reduce the already low risk of passing on the virus even further.

Read more:
Time to remove vaccine mandates? Not so fast – it could have unintended consequences

Why now?

These changes come after much lobbying from business groups and some unions who say their members are struggling with so many workers off with COVID, or from being a close contact of someone infected.

We’ve also seen schools, airports and other sectors struggling to find workers.

The changes also follow the loosening of isolation requirements for close contacts made in January for several categories of essential workers, such as emergency and childcare staff.

Read more:
Latest isolation rules for critical workers gets the balance right. But that’s not the end of the story

So many of us are immune

All states and territories have now gone past the second Omicron peak, caused by the BA.2 subvariant. Western Australia never had the BA.1 wave because of its closed borders, and is now also coming off the peak of its BA.2 wave.

With about 50,000 diagnosed cases a day, Australia is still in the grip of a massive outbreak, and the true number of daily cases is likely several times this.

This is because the percentage of asymptomatic infections is estimated at 25-54%, so many individuals wouldn’t think to get tested. Not everyone who feels unwell will get tested. And even if people test positive with a rapid antigen test, not everyone will report it to the authorities.

So, the majority of people in the community either have natural immunity from infection, vaccine-induced immunity, or both (hybrid immunity). It is timely, therefore, to ask whether isolation is still essential for close contacts.

What is the actual risk at home?

If you live in a household with someone infected, what is your risk of catching the BA.2 subvariant of Omicron, which is dominant in Australia?

Despite being highly contagious, there appears to be only a 13% chance you will get infected. So the risk is actually quite small.

Read more:
BA.2 is like Omicron’s sister. Here’s what we know about it so far

How about the risk to the wider community?

At the moment, about 20% of PCR tests in Australia are positive on any single day, reflecting a massive amount of infection in the community, much of it undiagnosed.

However, because of the high degree of immunity in the population, and the relatively low contribution of the close contact rule changes to transmission risk, I don’t believe the changes will have a major impact on case numbers. The changes will also bring a big relief to business.

What needs to happen next?

For these changes to avoid driving up case numbers, we need to assume close contacts do the right thing – mask up, avoid contact with vulnerable people outside the home and regularly test themselves. Let’s hope this happens.

Finally, daily rapid antigen tests (under some circumstances) for close contacts will be expensive. Imagine a family of five where one person is infected. That is up to 28 rapid antigen tests for the four close contacts, at about A$10 per test.

At the moment, only concession card holders get a free limited supply of rapid antigen tests. So governments will seriously have to consider some sort of subsidy for close contacts, or better still, supply them for free.

Adrian Esterman receives funding from the NHMRC, the MRFF and the ARC.

– ref. Isolation rules for close contacts are changing. What happens next? – https://theconversation.com/isolation-rules-for-close-contacts-are-changing-what-happens-next-181592

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Steer, Deputy Director, Institute for Space (InSpace), Australian National University

When United States Vice-President Kamala Harris was at the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California earlier this week she said the US would not conduct tests of destructive, direct ascent anti-satellite missiles.

This is the first time any country has made such an explicit commitment, and the US has called for other nations to do the same.

Australia would do well to take up the invitation, and put ourselves – and our new Space Command – on the map as responsible actors in space who demand the same of others.

Read more:
An Australian ‘space command’ could be a force for good — or a cause for war

Shooting down satellites

Last year, Russia destroyed one of its own defunct satellites in orbit to test an anti-satellite missile.

The incident was condemned internationally as irresponsible, in particular by the chief of space operations of US Space Force, because of the amount of debris it created.

The path of space debris is completely uncontrollable, and in the lower orbits where most satellites are, concentrated debris can travel at ten times the speed of a bullet.

A piece of debris the size of a pea can critically damage a satellite. Indeed, debris this small has damaged the International Space Station.

Read more:
Why the Russian anti-satellite missile test threatened both the international space station and the peaceful use of outer space

But Russia is not the only culprit.

In 2007, China was the first nation to successfully conduct a direct-ascent anti-satellite missile test. In 2008 the US demonstrated the same capability, though at a lower altitude and creating less debris. And in 2019 India surprised the world with what it proudly declared to be a successful test.

Debris from all these tests is still in orbit. However, the Indian and Russian tests have led to the greatest concern for an emerging space arms race, because these nations openly declared they were testing weapons.

I was part of a team of experts who wrote an open letter last year, signed by space leaders around the world, petitioning the United Nations to ban such destructive, debris-creating tests. The risk posed by these tests is very real, and the potential for a conflict extending into space would be catastrophic for all of us.

Critical civilian and military tools

Satellites are integral to our day-to-day lives in ways many of us don’t realise: personal tools, such as Google Maps navigation; daily communications; critical services, such as civil aviation and weather forecasting; military tasks such as GPS weapons guidance and secure communications. All depend on satellites.

Many space-based services (and individual satellites) serve both civilian and military purposes. If these services or satellites were to be attacked, we would all feel the impact.

The risk of attack, or at least interference, is not hypothetical.

The military depends on space-based technologies for strategic and tactical decision-making, intelligence gathering, weapons deployment, and navigation. If one party wants to compromise their adversary’s ability to see, hear and move, targeting space systems is a very effective way to do it.

To take one example, both Russia and Ukraine rely on data from commercial Earth observation satellites in the current conflict. The companies providing that data might become targets, which may then impact civil users.

International law and treaties

There is little international law to limit the weaponisation of space. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans nuclear weapons in orbit, and prohibits the future establishment of military bases on the Moon.

As discussed in a book I edited on the subject, the treaty also determines international law applies in space. This includes the laws of armed conflict, which impose some limits on the weaponisation of space. But further attempts at arms control in space have been stymied by consensus decision-making at the UN and by geopolitics.

China and Russia have for years promoted a Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, but the US and its allies have refused to engage in this. The US has consistently refused to be bound by any new space treaty, even blocking a UN proposal to develop a space arms control treaty.

Read more:
The US plan for a Space Force risks escalating a ‘space arms race’

The creation of a US Space Force in 2019 was in some ways destabilising, since Russia and China saw it as a threat and have since increased their own space military programs.

In an attempt to establish a consensus about space security, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in October 2020 to draw up a list of rules and principles about responsible behaviours to reduce threats in space.

Twenty-nine countries, including Australia, submitted statements. Committing “not to undertake activities that deliberately or foreseeably create long-lived debris” was among them.

An opportunity for Australia

Just last month, Australia established a Space Command in our armed forces, as have Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom.

This was accompanied by Australia’s first Defence Space Strategy and a public “Space Power eManual”, outlining the main lines of effort in advancing our defence capabilities in space.

We have arrived at an opportune moment for Australia to assert itself as a pro-active nation in securing space, and to put our new Space Command on the map.

Read more:
What will Australia’s new Defence Space Command do?

Australia should join the US in stating we will never conduct destructive, direct ascent anti-satellite missile tests, and in encouraging other nations to make the same commitment. We have no capability to conduct such tests, nor any stake in developing them, so the statement carries no risk.

Such a statement would clarify some of the less nuanced messages that have recently appeared in the media. These include the suggestion we will one day need an armed Space Force, or we are developing kinetic capabilities to counter China in space. Neither suggestion is desirable, nor accurate.

And it is a statement that could win us international kudos, showing Space Command can be an effective diplomatic vehicle as well as a key strategic organisation within our defence forces.

Cassandra Steer is affiliated with the Space Industry Association of Australia. She has consulted to the Australian War College, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Canadian and US departments of defence on issues of space law and space security. She has previously received funding from the Canadian Department of National Defence.

– ref. Anti-satellite weapons: the US has sworn off tests, and Australia should follow suit – https://theconversation.com/anti-satellite-weapons-the-us-has-sworn-off-tests-and-australia-should-follow-suit-181613

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Thorpe, Professor in Sociology of Sport and Physical Culture, University of Waikato

During the global COVID-19 pandemic, women have carried much of the unpaid emotional and domestic burden of caring for their families and communities, often simultaneously holding down paid jobs, many on reduced hours or salaries.

Women have also been disproportionately affected by job losses, particularly women of color and ethnic minorities. Worldwide, women lost more than 64 million jobs in 2020 alone, resulting in an estimated US$800 billion loss of income.

Mirroring these trends, women in Aotearoa New Zealand faced greater economic, social and health challenges than men. In 2020, women made up 90% of pandemic-related redundancies. In 2021, many more women were working in “precarious” jobs. Wāhine Māori and Pacific women, already facing greater inequalities, have been even harder hit by job losses.

During this time, rates of domestic violence against women and girls surged in New Zealand and around the world, prompting some to refer to a “double pandemic” or “shadow pandemic”. Women’s physical and mental health has been heavily affected for both frontline workers and in the home.

As ongoing research by a cross-cultural team of feminist scholars has been documenting, New Zealand women have found different ways to cope through the various stages of the pandemic. But with the pandemic exacerbating gender inequalities in most areas of life, the fear is that decades of (albeit uneven) momentum towards gender equity is being lost.

Recovery designed for women

While some governments have taken steps to address women’s well-being during the pandemic, such as introducing shorter or flexible work hours, they remain the minority.

Organisations such as the United Nations and the OECD have identified the need to develop better support for women within pandemic recovery programmes. And some countries have advocated more progressive strategies, including prioritising local feminist and Indigenous knowledge. But the uptake of such initiatives has been minimal at best.

Read more:
NZ Budget 2021: women left behind despite the focus on well-being

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the 2021 Wellbeing Budget sought to “support into employment those most affected by COVID-19, including women”. But the focus on male-dominated industries (such as construction and roading), and lack of initiatives aimed at women as primary carers, meant this was largely a missed opportunity.

While this general lack of gender-responsive policy has been troubling, women have been far from passive in their own responses, both individually and collectively.

As the stories of women from diverse backgrounds in Aotearoa New Zealand have shown in our own and others’ research, many have turned to their own cultures, social networks and religions to help them through the pandemic. Others have used sport and exercise, nature and digital technology to build a sense of belonging and support during difficult times

Read more:
Working out at home works for women – so well they might not go back to gyms

Such strategies have helped them manage unprecedented levels of stress in their own lives, and the lives of those around them. Women have been active and creative in the ways they’ve found to care for themselves and others.

Yet these everyday acts of care by women for their families and communities are rarely seen, valued or acknowledged.

Questioning roles and expectations

As the pandemic continues, women everywhere are suffering the “hidden costs of caregiving”. In Aotearoa New Zealand, as elsewhere, new COVID variants have seen them even busier caring for sick family members – often while unwell themselves.

The effect has been to rethink priorities, who and what is most important, and to question the expectations shaping their lives.

Read more:
Fewer than 1% of New Zealand men take paid parental leave – would offering them more to stay at home help?

Some of the women in our studies have taken bold steps – starting a new business, moving town, reorganising work-life balance, putting their own health first. Others have simply acknowledged their own vulnerability and need for community. As two of the women we interviewed said:

I think for me it’s been more of a reaffirmation that what I am doing is good enough […] Like I don’t need to be all of these things. We put so much pressure on ourselves […] we spread ourselves too thin […] trying to be a whole bunch of other people’s ideas of being the best person.

You need to be real about how you are feeling and a little bit vulnerable, not hide things or bottle things up or try to be everything to everybody. I learned the power of being vulnerable, of people and community, and the importance of connection and the importance of kindness and being okay with whatever you’ve got in your mind.

Learning from women’s experiences

The stress and mounting fatigue characteristic of life during COVID-19 are undoubtedly prompting many women in Aotearoa New Zealand and overseas to ask questions about the gendered economic and social systems that may no longer be working for them, and the infrastructures that are failing to support them.

Some are turning away from their busy working lives, opting instead to find a slower pace, to live more sustainably, and to give back to their communities in a range of ways.

Read more:
The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates the pressures faced by women caregivers

Some even refer to the gendered effects of the pandemic economy as the “great she-cession”. But it’s clear we need to better understand the social, economic and cultural conditions prompting these changes.

What we can say, however, is that genuinely gender-responsive policies are urgently needed. The often used mantra of “building back better” must prioritise the knowledge of local women in all their diversity, and there is much we can learn by listening to women’s everyday experiences of the pandemic.

Not doing so risks decades of gender equity work slipping away.

Holly Thorpe receives funding from a James Cook Research Fellowship.

Simone Fullagar receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Allison Jeffrey 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. The pandemic’s disproportionate impact on women is derailing decades of progress on gender equality – https://theconversation.com/the-pandemics-disproportionate-impact-on-women-is-derailing-decades-of-progress-on-gender-equality-180941

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Foster, Postdoctoral Research Associate, UNSW Sydney

In his 1989 book Wonderful Life, evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould famously argued that, if we could “replay the tape”, life on Earth would evolve to be fundamentally different each time.

Was he right? Convergent evolution, in which similar features evolve to perform similar functions in distantly related organisms, offers an excellent model in which to run Gould’s thought experiment.

One classic example of convergent evolution is the independent evolution of wings and flight in insects, birds, pterosaurs, and bats. Another is live birth (or “viviparity”), which has evolved independently from egg-laying more than 150 times in vertebrates (animals with backbones).

To understand how this happened, we studied the genes involved in pregnancy and live birth in six different live-bearing species. We discovered that, despite broad similarities in the anatomy and physiology involved, each species used a completely different set of genetic tools to give birth to live young.

Is live birth controlled by a universal set of genes?

In nearly all live-bearing vertebrates examined so far, changes to the gestational tissues and biophysical processes during pregnancy appear remarkably similar.

Some common elements of the process are:

• tissues in the bodies of the mother and fetus which grow more blood vessels to exchange gases and water with each other
• protection of the fetus from the mother’s immune system
• allocation of nutrients to the fetus.

The changes that occur during pregnancy and birthing must be mainly controlled by genetics, and we know that the expression of genes changes during pregnancy in different live-bearing animals.

However, the generality of these changes is less clear. For example, are the same genes used during pregnancy in mammals and fish? Or are similar outcomes driven by entirely different genes?

That’s what we set out to discover in our study, newly published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Queensland and James Cook University.

Measuring gene activity during pregnancy

An animal’s development is controlled by its genes, its environment, and an interaction between the two.

Not every gene within an animal is always active. Genes are switched on (or “expressed”) when needed, and then switched off again when no longer needed.

Gene expression levels naturally vary over time as an animal interacts with the environment and undergoes physiological changes, such as those associated with pregnancy. Using a technique called “transcriptomics”, we can take snapshots of these changes in gene expression as they occur.

To investigate the genetic changes occurring in the uterus during pregnancy in different species, we collected samples or used existing data from six live-bearing animals: the Australian sharpnose shark, three species of Australian lizards, the gray short-tailed opossum, and the brown lab rat.

Sampling this wide range of animals allowed us to determine whether the same gene expression changes occur during pregnancy across species in which live birth evolved independently.

Our work is the first quantitative study into the genetic basis of live birth at such a broad evolutionary scale.

There are many different ways to grow a baby

We expected to find many of the same genes used during pregnancy to support the growth and survival of embryos in each of the live-bearing species we sampled.

This hypothesis seemed logical, given the many similarities in anatomical changes during pregnancy across live-bearing vertebrates, along with qualitative findings from previous research.

Read more:
This lizard lays eggs and gives live birth. We think it’s undergoing a major evolutionary transition

Instead, we found there was no one set of “live-bearing genes” utilised during pregnancy across our sampled range of animals. In other words, evolution has converged on similar functions for successful pregnancy but those functions have been achieved by recruiting different groups of genes.

Despite not being what we expected, this finding also makes sense. Different animal lineages may have different “toolboxes” of genes to draw from, due to their unique evolutionary histories.

A genetic “toolbox” can be thought of as a broad class of genes that perform similar basic functions. Over the long timescales of evolution, different genes from this ancestral toolbox can be recruited to carry out the same physiological functions in different animals.

For example, developing babies require access to a supply of amino acids for successful development. In many species these amino acids are transported from the mother to the fetus across the placenta via “solute carrier” genes.

We identified more than 75 different solute carrier genes in the combined genetic toolbox of our study species. However, each species recruited different genes from the toolbox to transport amino acids during pregnancy.

Rethinking live birth

Our findings force us to rethink the idea that the cross-species similarities in live birth are controlled by the same genetic changes.

We can also consider our results in the context of Gould’s thought experiment about “replaying the tape of life”.

Was the evolution of live birth predictable? It depends on how you look at it.

Large-scale similarities, such as the anatomy and functions of the uterus, seem predictable. They appear to have evolved repeatedly to solve the biophysical challenges of successful pregnancy.

However, our results show this predictability does not extend to the underlying genes.

Charles Foster has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council, and is currently employed via funding from the Medical Research Future Fund (Australian Government Department of Health) and the University of New South Wales.

Camilla Whittington receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the University of Sydney.

James Van Dyke receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources.

– ref. There’s more than one way to grow a baby – https://theconversation.com/theres-more-than-one-way-to-grow-a-baby-181593

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Partlett, Associate Professor, The University of Melbourne

As the war in Ukraine drags on and sanctions start to bite, key questions are being asked. How long can President Vladimir Putin remain in power? Will he be overthrown in a palace coup, as recent rumours have suggested? And can the system of centralised rule he built outlast him?

We can find neglected answers to these questions in the Russian Constitution. This document, and its forgotten importance to Putin’s authority, suggest that although Putin is likely to remain in office in the short term, Russia faces significant long term instability.

Russian crown-presidentialism

The conventional story of Putin’s grip on the presidency rightly points to his informal power over Russia’s elites, grounded on his training in spycraft. But these accounts forget the central role of formal constitutional rules in keeping Putin at the top.

The story starts almost 30 years ago, amid the ruins of the collapsing Soviet Union. After Russia nearly descended into a civil war in the autumn of 1993, then-President Boris Yeltsin made key changes to the working constitutional draft.

He did not change the provisions protecting individual rights, but he did insert rules that created the basis for a vastly powerful presidency, one that could dominate both formal and informal politics. This “crown-presidential” constitutional design has undermined Russian democratic state-building ever since.

In the 1990s, Yeltsin and his Western supporters saw these powers as a necessary expedient, a kind of “democratic battering ram” able to make the difficult (and often unpopular) choices seen as necessary for building free market economics. Yeltsin used these constitutional powers to pursue neo-liberal economic reforms and wage a brutal war in Chechnya.

But, constrained by the West and some of his advisors, Yeltsin also decentralised power to the regional governors and tolerated a pluralistic media. Focusing on these checks on presidential power, as well as the long list of rights and democratic guarantees in the constitution, most observers and commentators declared Russia to be a young democracy.

This all changed in 2000, when Vladimir Putin became president. Declaring a “dictatorship of the law”, Putin empowered central legal institutions to enforce Russia’s constitutional system of presidential dominance.

Read more:
How can Russia’s invasion of Ukraine end? Here’s how peace negotiations have worked in past wars

This allowed Putin to assert personal control over the oligarchs and the regional governors. It also allowed him to monopolise television media, giving him control over the type of political information being given to the Russian people.

Since then, Putin has continued to rely heavily on the constitutional order to maintain his personal power. In the aftermath of the fraudulent 2011 election, Putin used his control over prosecutors and courts to crack down hard on a growing opposition movement.

In 2020, he changed key provisions in the constitution to further consolidate personal control over Russian politics. These presidential powers remain a critical aspect of his personal power today.

What does this mean for Russia’s future?

This central role of constitutional law in Russian governance tells us a great deal about Russia’s future. In the short-term, the vast powers granted to the office of the president will ensure Russian stability, allowing Putin to retain loyal associates and remove any dissenters.

However, in the long-term, these presidential powers will foster Russian instability. The personalisation of power in this kind of system has already weakened institutions (such as the Russian military) and triggered poor decision-making (such as the decision to invade Ukraine). These problems will worsen.

Read more:
What can the West do to help Ukraine? It can start by countering Putin’s information strategy

The question of who will replace Putin will also trigger a bitter and destabilising struggle to gain control over the Russian presidency. A post-Putin Russia must change these constitutional rules to not only build democracy, but also ensure long-term stability.

Moreover, the fact the West backed this constitutional system in 1993 shows how much we have to learn about the centrality of constitutional provisions ensuring checks and balances on presidential power in ensuring democracy and human rights.

William Partlett 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. How long can Vladimir Putin hold on to power? – https://theconversation.com/how-long-can-vladimir-putin-hold-on-to-power-181500

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Fisher, Associate Professor of Communication, University of Canberra

During the federal election, politicians of all persuasions will use a range of campaigning and spin tactics. But there is a difference between “gilding the lily” and lying with strategic intent, a trend that is growing in western democracies.

The February 2022 Edelman global trust survey finds citizens increasingly expect government leaders will “purposefully mislead them by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations”. In Australia, that expectation has risen three percentage points to 61% since last year.

In a “post truth” world, we are seeing lies proliferate online. Recent election campaigns in the United States and United Kingdom suggest lying is now a successful strategic campaign tool.

Australian voters need to be on high alert.

The ‘strategic lie’

As we argue in our recent journal article, “strategic lying” has evolved from political spin tactics, intensified by the growing ranks of political communication professionals and the rise of social media.

It is a campaign device used to shape what issues are discussed in the media and how they are framed. It is designed to grab media attention with an initial, deliberate lie. This shifts the news agenda onto a politician’s preferred territory.

It doesn’t matter if the lie is easily corrected because the subject of the lie is then amplified and kept on the news agenda. The distribution of the lie is further increased by social media and amplified by the mainstream media.

The more outlandish the lie, the better.

The Trump approach

Former US president Donald Trump used strategic lies before, during, and after his time in office.

His first most obvious strategic lie came in 2011 when he claimed to have “proof” Barack Obama was not born in the United States, making him ineligible to occupy the White House (the so-called “birther controversy”).

Over the next three years, Trump continued to raise the issue, despite the lie being comprehensively rebutted. He did so not because he expected people to believe it but, as a strategic lie, it kept the issue of Obama’s origins and his “otherness” on the mainstream news agenda.

More recently, Trump’s baseless claims of the “election steal” have fuelled riots and generated support for a possible presidential re-election campaign, while distracting attention from the simple fact that he legitimately lost the election.

Brexit lies

In the UK, lies about the cost of staying in the European Union featured heavily in the Brexit campaign. The false claim “we send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead” was central to the “Leave” campaign and ensured the “cost” of EU membership dominated the referendum.

Its architect, political adviser Dominic Cummings, subsequently gloated the falsehood was designed “to provoke people into argument. This worked much better than I thought it would”. He also described it as “a brilliant communications ploy”.

The Australian federal election

The issue of truth and lies is at the core of the 2022 federal election.

Labor argues it goes to the heart of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s character, who has already been criticised for being loose with the truth by members of the Coalition and French President Emmanuel Macron.

The Labor party also has form when it comes to political dishonesty. It’s “Mediscare” campaign in 2016 paved the way for the Coalition’s “Death Tax” scare campaign in 2019. Both campaigns were gross misrepresentations of the truth, the latter arguably a local example of strategic lying.

A brief search of the Facebook Ad library shows signs both parties are running similar scare ads in the 2022 election about the Coalition making cuts to Medicare and Labor increasing taxes.

Labor is also arguing the Coalition wants to put all pensioners on a cashless debit card, while the Liberal Party has alleged Labor wants a “retiree tax”. Neither claim is true.

In the lead up to the election, the Morrison government alleged Labor leader Anthony Albanese was China’s preferred choice as prime minister and his deputy Richard Marles was a “Manchurian candidate”. This was roundly rejected by leaders of the intelligence community.

What can be done?

There is renewed debate about the need for federal laws about truth in political advertising.

The Hawke government introduced provisions in 1983 but they were deemed “unworkable” and scrapped the following year partly because

political advertising involves ‘intangibles, ideas, policies and images’ which cannot be subjected to a test of truth, truth itself being inherently difficult to define.

Despite this, South Australia has had laws prohibiting political ads that are “inaccurate and misleading to a material extent” since 1985. These are generally seen to set positive boundaries, even though adjudication of complaints is time consuming. New provisions came into force in the ACT in 2021 but are yet to be tested.

The Australian Electoral Commission has launched a campaign to combat misinformation, but its aim is to “debunk mistruths about federal electoral processes”, not the veracity of political claims made by candidates.

Twitter banned political advertising in 2019, and Google and Facebook have increased transparency around spending on political ads. Facebook is also fact-checking misinformation from third parties such as unions and advocacy groups.

Read more:
Fact-checking can actually harm trust in media: new research

The real solution is in the hands of politicians and political parties. As the Edelman trust suvey finds, improving the quality of information would help lift trust across institutions. If politicians care about the quality of debate, the integrity of the election result, and public trust, then they can’t give in to the temptation of strategic lies.

In the meantime, media outlets need to be very careful about how they refer to these claims once they have been proven to be false.

Caroline Fisher was a ministerial media advisor in the Beattie Labor government 1998-2001.

Ivor Gaber 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. ‘This worked much better than I thought.’ Why you need to watch out for strategic lies in the federal election – https://theconversation.com/this-worked-much-better-than-i-thought-why-you-need-to-watch-out-for-strategic-lies-in-the-federal-election-177449

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

Given what’s happening in some places in the world right now, we should take a moment to appreciate how lucky we are to live in a peaceful democracy. We all have a vote and a say in who should lead our country.

But just as we take our democracy for granted, we don’t often stop to appreciate the logistical challenges involved in conducting an election. Holding fair elections is one of the biggest and most complex logistical undertakings that occur in democracies around the world. And this already challenging responsibility has become a lot more difficult given we’re in the middle of a pandemic. At least 80 countries and territories around the world have postponed elections due to COVID since February 2020.

In compelling Australian adults to vote, we’re asking people to do things we have discouraged over the past two years. That is, leave their houses and come together in large numbers in a few selected locations. Looking at this through a narrow health lens, this appears to fly in the face of good sense.

However, the risks COVID poses to the community are lower now than at any time since 2020. So while this is not the time for complacency, casting your vote in 2022 doesn’t have to be a scary proposition.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is doing what it can to make voting as safe as possible. However, from a personal perspective, there are also things you can do to reduce your risks when you exercise your democratic duty to vote.

Vax the vote and mask up

First, while it’s important to highlight that no one is going to be excluded from attending voting centres on the basis of vaccination status, the best thing you can do to protect yourself and others as you cast your vote is to be fully vaccinated.

Should you be exposed to someone who is infected, this will reduce your chances of getting ill, getting severe disease, and spreading disease to others. If you haven’t already made sure you’re up-to-date with your COVID vaccinations, now is the perfect time to do this to ensure you have something close to optimal immunity come May 21.

Wearing a mask is also an effective way to reduce your risk of being infected and spreading COVID. Attending a polling booth on election day might mean coming into contact with a large number of people you don’t know in an uncontrolled situation where you may not always be able to socially distance. And you’re likely to be indoors at some stage. In this situation, wearing the best mask you can get your hands on is a sensible way to protect yourself and others.

While surfaces don’t pose a major risk, it’s still possible to contract SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, from contaminated surfaces. So resist the urge to bite your democracy pencil, and maintain good hand hygiene when you vote.

Read more:
COVID mask mandates might be largely gone but here are 5 reasons to keep wearing yours

Vote early (not often)

The AEC is doing what it can to provide options for voters, both to ease the crowds on election day and to provide alternatives for those who aren’t able to attend polling booths on the day.

Pre-poll voting is becoming more popular at each election. This option will be available in the two weeks before election day and means you can avoid the crowds by voting ahead of time.

Less queuing time and less crowded polling booths reduce the likelihood of disease transmission. The only downside is if you’re a swinging voter. A lot can happen in the final two weeks of an election campaign, so voting early can have a different sort of risk!

Postal voting is available to people who know much further out from the election day they won’t be able to visit a polling booth.

The various eligibility criteria for postal voting include having “a reasonable fear for your safety”. One could reasonably consider this to apply if you’re at higher likelihood for severe COVID illness and don’t want to risk voting in person.

Read more:
Fresh research says Omicron lasts much longer on surfaces than other variants – but disinfecting still works

Phone it in if necessary

The big change at this federal election is the availability of telephone voting. In early 2022, legislation was passed to allow for COVID-affected voters to cast their vote by telephone. Telephone voting is available as an emergency measure that will only be available in the final three days before election day.

The AEC website is short on specifics on how telephone voting will work at the moment but it will probably involve one telephone call to register and obtain and personal identification number and then a second call to lodge a vote. This will protect voter anonymity.

Telephone voters will need to make a declaration about their need for the service, the electoral commissioner has said.

Like many things since 2020, telephone voting is going to be a real-time experiment and it is unclear what the demand for this may be. It’s hoped that if only those who really need this service use it, it will be able to cope with the demand. But this will no doubt be a significant source of anxiety for the AEC.

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

Weighing your options

So while there is more to consider this election over and above who you will give your precious vote to, there is no reason to be anxious about voting. Even if you are in a high-risk group for COVID, you have plenty of options as to how you navigate the logistics of casting your vote to limit your exposure to risk.

And even if you wake up with respiratory symptoms or to news of a positive COVID test on May 21, you’ll have the new option of telephone voting to ensure you get a say. Of course, voting by telephone means you will have to cook your own democracy sausage.

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. Don’t bring COVID home on election day. Plan your vote to stay safe – https://theconversation.com/dont-bring-covid-home-on-election-day-plan-your-vote-to-stay-safe-181067

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

China’s plans to boost energy security and cut carbon emissions mean this year’s sudden boom for Australian coal exporters is just a blip.

Our new research explores the double pressures of China’s plans to bolster energy security in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine while aiming to hit net zero within 40 years.

Our model suggests that if China sticks to its current climate pledges, thermal coal imports will drop by a quarter within three years from 210 megatonnes (Mt) in 2019 to 155Mt by 2025. That means Australian exports could fall by 20% by 2025, while Australian coking coal exports could fall even more. This is in stark contrast to predictions of stable demand or even continued growth by the Australian government.

How could this happen so quickly, when coal prices have roughly tripled compared to the last decade? In short, better infrastructure. China has invested in major rail projects, including a direct rail line to a major coking coal mine in Mongolia, as well as increasing use in scrap steel.

Coal’s wild ride in the volatile 2020s

The last few years have been a rollercoaster for coal producers. For Australia’s major coal exporters, it’s been a wild ride.

After falling for some years, coal prices fell sharply as the COVID pandemic and resulting lockdowns led to a sharp decline in energy consumption. Adding to the pressure, China banned the imports of coal from Australia.

Read more:
Suddenly we are in the middle of a global energy crisis. What happened?

Before the disruption of the 2020s, China bought roughly a quarter of Australia’s exports of thermal coal (burned in power stations) and a similar share of coking coal exports (used in steelmaking).

In 2021, coal consumption and emissions shot back up after an unexpectedly strong economic rebound. Coal supplies were also disrupted due to COVID-related restrictions and workforce shortages. Together, these factors tripled coal spot prices to US$300 a tonne for thermal coal and US$450 a tonne for coking coal.

In China, the sudden scarcity of coal led to Australian coal held at its ports rushed through customs clearance. While the import ban formally remains in place, government data shows Australia has managed to divert most of its coal exports to countries such as India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Chinese energy security means a drop in Australian seaborne coal

We expect all of these issues to be fairly short-lived. The big picture is China’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2060, and its interim target to peak emissions before 2030.

How will it do that? By expanding renewable power generation, increasing coal power station efficiency while reducing dependence on coal power longer term, and increased use of steel scrap. Better steel recycling will reduce demand for new steel, which requires two of Australia’s key exports, iron ore and coking coal. Reduced demand will inevitably affect China’s need to import coal.

For the next few years, coal will remain vital to China’s industrial strength and ability to power its cities. That’s where energy security comes in. China has invested heavily in freight railway capacity, in order to bring its own coal to its power and steel plants more cheaply.

It has also built rail connections to Tavan Tolgoi in neighbouring Mongolia, one of the world’s largest and cheapest sources of high-quality coking coal. With the new railway capacity, coking coal can now travel 1,200 kilometres to China’s steelmaking heartland in Hebei province, near Beijing.

We took these factors into account in modelling different scenarios for Australian coal. We assume China will follow through on its existing climate policies.

In our scenarios, the largest losses would be borne by the biggest current suppliers of thermal coal to China. Number one exporter Indonesia could see its exports almost halved by 2025, falling from 125Mt in 2019 to as low as 65Mt.

Overall, China’s thermal coal imports should fall rapidly, dropping from 210Mt in 2019 to 155Mt by 2025. That means even if the embargo on Australian coal is lifted, our exports of thermal coal to China could still fall from 50Mt in 2019 to between 40 and 30 Mt in that timeframe, depending on China’s level of climate ambition. Coking coal exports could fall from 30Mt to as low as 20Mt.

If the embargo remains in place, the drop in Chinese demand for seaborne coal will mean China’s current suppliers will shift back to competing in the global market, and push out Australian suppliers. The net effect on Australian exports will likely be comparable.

We also explored the scenario in which all of Australia’s currently planned coal mine expansions actually go ahead. We found even in this scenario, there would be little impact on the loss of market share in China. By contrast, if Mongolian mines expand, our model predicts they would readily fill Chinese market demand at the expense of Australian coking coal imports.

To get these predictions, we ran a cost optimisation model with greatly improved representations of transport networks. The model finds the lowest cost at which different mines could supply all of China’s power and steel plants. We did not factor in political choices based on energy security or concerns about “just transitions”, such as, for instance, a Chinese push to limit the pain for its substantial coal mining and trucking workforce.

Read more:
China’s energy crisis shows just how hard it will be to reach net zero

Overall, our model makes clear China’s demand for coal – expected to plateau or fall over the next few years – coupled with its expansion of domestic mine and transport capacity will reduce the role for Australian coal. The world’s top buyer of coal will increasingly be able to supply its power and steel plants with domestically mined coal at competitive costs.

In turn, that means it will be less costly for China to depend on what it considers to be volatile markets. It will also be easier to impose politically motivated import restrictions on suppliers from what it considers unfriendly countries.

China’s ability to cut seaborne coal imports will grow further if its government increases its decarbonisation ambitions. These plans will be a key influence on the the remaining demand for seaborne coal.

Australia’s government and investors would be wise to consider these macro-level changes and plans as they look ahead, rather than focusing on short term gains from current market volatility.

Alex Turnbull, fund manager at Keshik Capital, contributed to this article and was a co-author of the published research. He personally holds no coal stocks.

Frank Jotzo has led research projects funded by a variety of funders; none present a conflict of interest on this topic.

Jorrit Gosens 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. China’s demand for seaborne coal is set to drop fast and far. Australia should take note. – https://theconversation.com/chinas-demand-for-seaborne-coal-is-set-to-drop-fast-and-far-australia-should-take-note-181552

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sue Ollerhead, Senior Lecturer: Language and Literacy Education, Macquarie University

Proposed changes to the New South Wales English syllabus reinforce the misguided idea that the teaching of language and literacy skills should fall chiefly to English teachers, leaving other teachers to focus more on their subject content.

The plan follows a report by the NSW Education Authority (NESA) that found students’ writing standards had fallen sharply over recent years.

The draft NSW English syllabus includes specific language and literacy outcomes such as grammar, punctuation, paragraphing and sentence structure, unlike the draft NSW maths syllabus which has no specific language outcomes.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported the English Teachers Association said the changes “would hand them an unnecessary burden because literacy skills differ from subject to subject.”

Linking language and literacy outcomes to the English syllabus in an attempt to improve students’ writing across all subjects is a flawed approach.

It ignores important research on what all teachers need to know about language and gets in the way of students developing the different language skills they need in different subjects. It also risks disadvantaging students who are still learning English.

Read more:
STEM education in primary schools will fall flat unless serious issues are addressed

How does language work differently in different subject areas?

Rather than learning lists of vocabulary or abstract grammar rules, students learn best when they get actively involved in their classroom learning.

This means using many different language skills, such as listening to teachers’ explanations, taking notes and developing written arguments.

But not all of these language skills can be transferred to different subjects in the same way.

Take science, for example.

We often think of it as a practical, hands-on subject rather than one focused on reading and writing. But students also need to read scientific explanations and write scientific reports. They also need to use complex language skills to explain, present and test scientific ideas.

Skilled science teachers understand and plan for those bits of scientific language that students find difficult.

Confusion can arise when a word that means one thing in everyday language means quite another thing in science – like “culture”, when we mean to grow bacteria or cells, or “medium”, when we mean the liquid that bacteria or cells grow in.

Students also need to know that in science, unlike in English, the subject of the sentence is not as important as the concept or process we are talking about.

So instead of saying, “we saw the water droplets”, we would often say “water droplets were observed”.

We also tend to use more economical language in science than in the English classroom.

So, it’s a “saltwater solution” rather than “a liquid solution with salt in it” and “condensation” rather than “that thing that happens when water condenses”.

We can’t expect English teachers to anticipate these science-specific language challenges.

Maths is also often thought of as a “language-free” subject, even though language is essential for understanding and communicating maths.

But mathematical language is best taught in the context of doing maths. Some everyday words such as “product” and “domain” mean something quite different in maths, while different terms like “times” and “multiply” mean the same thing. This can be challenging when English is not your first language.

What about students who don’t speak English as a first language?

In NSW schools, 24% of students speak English as an additional language. They have to learn multiple facts, figures and skills in a language that they are still learning.

They need their teachers to be able to understand their language challenges and to give them subject-specific language support so they can succeed at school like everyone else.

Yet, many teachers say they don’t feel well prepared to teach English language learners. Teachers need to have professional development opportunities available to make sure they are supported to meet the challenges they face in the classroom.

Read more:
Language matters in science and mathematics – here’s why

What does the research say?

Researchers argue that because all learning involves language, language and literacy should be taught explicitly across all school subjects. Language must be understood and learned in context, not outsourced to English teachers and taught as generic “skills”.

If we want to improve the writing of all students, we need to give them lots of practice in using different vocabulary, grammar and text structures in their different school subjects. Then they can learn language at the same time as they are learning about new concepts and contexts.

This is particularly important for students who are new to English. Simply dropping them in an all-English learning environment or giving them simplified English will not work.

In Australia, the language challenges faced by students from different backgrounds are all too often invisible to teachers. We need this to change.

If we are serious about making education fair and inclusive, then all subject teachers should share responsibility for teaching language.

Sue Ollerhead 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. All teachers need to teach language and literacy, not just English teachers – https://theconversation.com/all-teachers-need-to-teach-language-and-literacy-not-just-english-teachers-180498

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Merve Küçük, PhD Candidate, Deakin University

Understanding the true cost of natural disasters is critical for governments to develop policies to deal with them.

Historically, calculations have been based on toting up insurance claims and government aid. But these don’t account for intangible social costs such as lower mental health and higher substance abuse in the years that follow. Nor do they account for lower economic output in affected areas.

Our latest research calculates, for the first time, the effect of a natural disaster on income tax revenue.

For this we’ve used data from the 2010-2011 floods that ravaged Brisbane and other towns in south-east Queensland. Our analysis covers about a third of Queensland’s population.

Our results show income tax revenue from the population analysed declined by 5% in the 2010/11 financial year, due to both lower incomes and higher tax-deduction claims.

Even though we can’t extrapolate this result to all disasters – type, location and size matter – our findings clearly show natural disasters have widespread financial effects, and that more frequent and severe natural disasters have clear implications for government revenue.

Queensland’s floods in context

The Queensland floods occurred between December 2010 and January 2011. As with recent floods, they were driven by the La Niña weather pattern bringing heavy and persistent rain. This was topped off by severe storms when Cyclone Yasi made landfall in northern Queensland in February 2011.

Read more:
One in 1,000 years? Old flood probabilities no longer hold water

All but one of the state’s 73 local government areas were declared disaster zones. An estimated 2.5 million of the state’s 3.4 million population were affected, with 33 people killed.

The total cost calculated by Deloitte Access Economics was A$14.1 billion (in 2015 dollars). This comprised A$6.7 billion in tangible costs (such as damage to private properties and infrastructure) and A$7.4 billion in intangibles (such as impacts on health and well-being).

Brisbane River catchment area

For our research we focused on the effects on the Brisbane River catchment area in south-east Queensland. This includes Brisbane, the city of Ipswich to Brisbane’s west and smaller townships.

These were flooded in mid-January. Thousands had to evacuate and tens of thousands of homes and businesses were inundated to some degree.

The population of this catchment area in 2010 was about 1.4 million. About 912,000 were taxpayers.

We examined data from the Australian Taxation Office’s Australian Longitudinal Individuals Files (ALife) data set, which contains an anonymous 10% random sample of all Australian tax returns filed over the past three decades. Our sample set comprised 91,208 taxpayers.

Our method, called difference-in-differences, compared the changes in economic conditions of taxpayers living in the Brisbane River catchment area with taxpayers in demographically and economically similar zones in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.

Lower income, less tax

We estimate the income tax revenue from the Brisbane River catchment area was reduced by about 5% in the disaster year. This amounted to about A$400 million less tax revenue. Total income tax revenue from the area in 2009/10 was A$7.7 billion.

The decline was due both to lower incomes and higher tax deductions.

We estimate average incomes were 2.4% lower in the 2010/11 financial year.

Those on lower incomes tended to suffer the bigger percentage losses. For the bottom third of income earners – on an average A$16,200 in the 2009/10 year – average incomes were 4.2% lower in 2010/11. Those in higher-income groups lost about 1.5%.

This is consistent with previous research (using census data) showing low-income earners, part-time workers and small-business owners tend to lose the most income after disasters.

Read more:
Natural disasters increase inequality. Recovery funding may make things worse

Higher deductions, less tax

Along with income losses, the value of tax deduction claims in the Brisbane river catchment area increased by about 2% in 2010/11.

These covered such things as deductions on work-related travel, clothing and “other” expenses. They also included more tax-deductible gifts and donations, which is commonly observed after a disaster.

Higher income groups claimed more deductions, reducing tax payable.

Those in the top third of incomes – earning an average of AU$91,600 – paid 3% less tax. Those in the middle third – earning an average of AU$39,000 – paid 8.7% less. There was no discernable change in income tax paid for those in the lowest income group.

Financial impacts reach far beyond direct victims

Our findings add to the growing body of research showing natural disasters have significant socio-economic effects, with income losses compounding inequality.

Our research also underlines that everyone is to some extent affected financially, as every natural disaster reduces the tax revenue collected and increases demands on the the public purse.

Read more:
It can’t all be insured: counting the hidden economic impact of floods and bushfires

Quantifying the full extent of disaster costs is crucial for governments to budget and build sustainable policies investing in disaster mitigation and recovery.

With scientists predicting more frequent and severe natural disasters, we need a full picture of their likely costs, who is going to pay, and how.

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. Natural disasters cost the nation: we’ve calculated the income tax revenue lost in their wake – https://theconversation.com/natural-disasters-cost-the-nation-weve-calculated-the-income-tax-revenue-lost-in-their-wake-180505

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

The vote among the 100 undecided voters at Wednesday’s Sky News/Courier Mail people’s forum was a modest 40% victory for Anthony Albanese. Morrison was rated the winner by 35% of the audience, while some 25% were undecided.

The debate won’t have any great impact on the election. These encounters usually don’t, regardless of the hype.

But the result was important to Albanese for negative reasons. If he had had a disaster, it would have been a fresh setback just when he seems to be getting back on his feet after last week’s problems. And it would have hit his confidence for six.

Morrison’s strong theme, unsurprisingly, was the economic one. The election is a choice – all about the economy, with the flow-on effects for families, the communities, and services.

Albanese had his well-tried lines of no one being left behind, and no one being held back.

He claimed the mantle for Labor as the party that did the “big reforms”, notably the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Morrison countered that it was always the Liberals and Nationals “who have to work out how to pay for these things”.

The PM attracted negative comments from critics on social media when, in answer to a question from a mother with an autistic child, he said he and Jenny were “blessed – we’ve got two children who haven’t had to go through that”.

The Opposition leader was stronger than Morrison in response to questions on integrity and people’s disillusionment with the political system.

But he made the one significant stumble of the night. He seemed flummoxed when Morrison challenged him on why, when he was deputy PM in 2013, he didn’t support boat turnbacks.

He replied, “you weren’t proposing that then,” which Morrison could knock down as untrue.

Albanese sought to dig himself out of the hole with the line, “Why is it, Scott, you’re always looking for a division, not looking for an agreement?”

It was a strange error given that Albanese knew he would be pressed on this area, perhaps underlining he is still uncomfortable with his history on turnbacks, on which he has had to do a complete u-turn.

But if he can convince voters he’s firm on border policy for the future, arguments about 2013 are not likely to resonate strongly.

Another notable moment came when the two debated the government’s performance in relation to the Solomon Islands’ security pact with China, which had received a workout on the campaign trail earlier on Wednesday.

The government has been anxious to have national security as a major plank in its campaign but until now, despite all the hardware announcements, it hadn’t featured much.

Then came the signing of the long-mooted security pact – in spite of Australian diplomatic efforts to head it off.

At first glance, this might have seemed likely to play into the government’s hands, by reinforcing the narrative of an expansionist China and turning the situation into a wedge against Labor.

But Labor jumped onto the offensive early Wednesday, with shadow foreign minister Penny Wong telling the ABC, “This is the worst failure of Australian foreign policy in the Pacific since the end of World War Two”.

Labor attacked the government’s sending “a junior woodchuck”, the minister for the Pacific, Zed Seselja, to the Solomons at the last minute.

Morrison insisted at a news conference the government had done all it could and that it had been more appropriate to have a junior minister go rather than the foreign minister. That made it clear Australia was “not looking to go and stamp around” but was dealing with the Solomons respectfully.

But his argument was somewhat undermined when former foreign minister Julie Bishop told Ten that Payne “should be on the next plane” to the Solomons.

Come the leaders’ face-off in the debate and Morrison, on the spot, went for the wedge. He asked, why did Labor take China’s side on this, suggesting “somehow it’s Australia’s fault”?

Albanese hit back at what he described as “an outrageous slur”. The opposition leader said this was “not so much a Pacific step up” but “a Pacific stuff up”.

The truth, however, is that whether or not she should have been sent, Payne probably would not have had any more success than the “junior woodchuck” and no Australian government could necessarily have prevented the pact.

The 25% of the audience who came out of the debate with no firm view was another pointer to the fact there are many undecided votes floating around, with more than four weeks to go in this campaign. These are up for grabs by not just the major parties but the minor parties and independents. It still looks to be a very fluid contest.

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. View from The Hill: Undecided voters give narrow victory to Albanese – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-undecided-voters-give-narrow-victory-to-albanese-181495

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

Before each federal election, the heads of the Commonwealth departments of treasury and finance release a report on the state of the government’s budget, together with updated economic forecasts.

It is known as the pre-election fiscal and economic update, or PEFO.

The 2022 PEFO came out on Wednesday afternoon.

The Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 requires publication of a PEFO “within 10 days of the issue of the writ for a general election”.

This year’s was easy for Treasury and Finance to compile. PEFO came a bare three weeks after the budget on March 29, and not a lot had changed.

The economic forecasts are identical. Treasury would have heaved a large sigh of relief when last week’s unemployment numbers came out unchanged at about 4%.

Unemployment forecast like budget’s

If they had come out significantly lower, Treasury would have had to update not only the economic forecasts but also revenue and spending forward estimates.

The unemployment rate affects both income tax and welfare spending. In PEFO the forecast is the same as at budget time, so no recalculations are required.

Yes, the economic outlook is volatile – but it is the same volatility as at budget time. It does not provide a reason for changing the forecasts.

There are a few small adjustments to spending. They net out at almost nothing. The estimated deficit in 2022-23 is $77.9 billion, close to the budget’s $78.0 billion.

Secret spending that never was

New spending since the budget includes some infrastructure projects and community development grants (unsurprisingly, prior to an election) but no significant new programs.

A mystery in this PEFO is the removal of provisions for some secret decisions taken but not yet announced. Reversing those decisions amounts to a saving, which has been used to offset some new spending.

Decisions taken but not yet announced have become so common that this year PEFO refers to them by their own unlovely acronym: DTBNYAs.

They are recorded in Appendix B as “Across Portfolio. Various Agencies. Reversal of measures reported as a decision taken but not yet announced in prior rounds”.

They amount to $50.6 million in 2022-23, climbing to $110.2 million in 2025-26.

What were these decisions? We don’t know. They weren’t announced. We do know the government has had second thoughts and reversed them.

Second thoughts

It might have been because the needs the measures were designed to meet have changed, which would be a sensible and rational reason for their reversal.

Or it might have been because they were foolish and misguided decisions, meaning someone put a pencil through them to save the government embarrassment. We can’t tell.

Either way, it is not a great look for budget transparency.

Read more:
Labor’s budget reply goes big on aged care, similar on much else

This is not the same as the separate provision in the contingency reserve for items that cannot be disclosed for commercial or national security reasons.

Often, these relate to procurement negotiations still underway – including, as noted in PEFO, the Australian Electoral Commission’s information technology modernisation program.

There is a good argument that the amount of money the government is willing to pay to a private provider should not become public until negotiations are over.

That’s normal, and the 2022 PEFO continues the practice.

PEFO is an opportunity to speak the truth

PEFO is written by the secretaries of the departments of finance and treasury rather than their political masters, meaning they are about the only time the secretaries can speak freely.

Sometimes, the small details they include give an insight into what they are thinking. In 2016, for example, the media identified an inclination on the part of the departmental heads to push harder than the government in cutting spending.

It is a concern that seems quaint now. A return to surplus is a distant prospect.

So if PEFO is essentially the same as the budget, do we need it? The answer is yes.

It makes budgets and elections more honest

For a start, it makes the budget or budget update that precedes it more honest.

If ministers know that the top budgetary officials will soon release an independent report, they will be less inclined to interfere with budget forecasts or invent over-optimistic numbers, knowing they will be found out in PEFO.

Even more important, it means election promises are more likely to be kept.

Before PEFO was introduced in 1998, when a government changed hands it was routine for the newly-elected government to renege on its promises by saying something along the lines of:

…we are shocked, just shocked! We had no idea how bad the country’s finances were!

PEFO has done away with that excuse forever. It means both sides of politics know the state of the books going into the election.

Parties’ promises are made with that full knowledge. Incoming governments no longer have a budgetary policy excuse for dropping their promises.

For that reason alone, PEFO is worth keeping.

Stephen Bartos 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. PEFO tells us Morrison has abandoned some secret promises, but his books are in order – https://theconversation.com/pefo-tells-us-morrison-has-abandoned-some-secret-promises-but-his-books-are-in-order-181538