Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeline West, PhD Candidate & Lecturer, Deakin University

As I sit at the breakfast table with 12-year-old Martin, awaiting his daily bowl of Weetbix, I ask him, “So, how many do you do?” With a cheeky grin and a twinkle in his eye, he sits up tall and proudly shares, “I have five!”

But as kids enter their teenage years, interest in breakfast is much more hit-and-miss. It can slowly morph into a chore as opposed to an enjoyable morning ritual.

Whether it’s because they’re too tired, sleepy, running late, or just not hungry, it’s worrying watching your empty-bellied teen stroll off towards the school gates. Will they have enough energy for the day? Will they be able to concentrate and learn? And more alarmingly, is there something more serious behind this new breakfast skipping habit?

Read more:
Instagram can make teens feel bad about their body, but parents can help. Here’s how

The most important meal of the day?

We’ve all heard time and again that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, but why is it important for teens?

A nutritious breakfast will provide adolescents with energy for growth and fuel for the day’s activity. What is more, commonly consumed breakfast foods provide whole grains, fibre and calcium – important components of a healthy diet. Breakfast eaters are more likely to eat an overall higher quality diet throughout the rest of the day. Not skipping breakfast might also be good for long-term health, with evidence suggesting skipping may be linked to a greater risk of heart disease and death.

Aside from its health benefits, the consumption of a nutritious breakfast has been associated with better performance at school. A systematic review found eating breakfast (compared to skipping it) may have a beneficial effect on students’ cognitive function when measured within four hours of consumption. However, results were inconsistent depending on the cognitive domain (attention, executive function, memory), and effects were greater in undernourished students.

Another important aspect is that breakfast is when humans break their overnight fast! Considering the poor quality of sleep often experienced by teens, time in bed of a morning may be longer (especially on the weekends), leading to a longer overnight fast. This places a greater importance on replenishing the body’s energy stores with a nutritious morning meal.

Are teens eating breakfast?

Yes and no.

Data collection for the 2011–2012 Australian National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (the most recent research available) took place over two days. On these two days, 87% of boys and 81% of girls consumed breakfast.

Given the convincing evidence supporting breakfast intake, it is concerning that 12% of boys and 15% of girls skipped it on both days. Especially concerning is the higher number of girls not eating breakfast, a phenomenon that has persisted over time.

There are several reasons why teens may intentionally avoid eating in the morning. It’s important to be curious about why your teen might be doing this. A simple conversation may help put an end to your worries.

It’s important to also be aware that teens from lower socioeconomic status households are more likely to skip breakfast, which is where school programs can be vital.

Read more:
Anorexia spiked during the pandemic, as adolescents felt the impact of COVID restrictions

3 reasons teens skip breakfast and some fixes

Talk about it with your young person. Getting to the bottom of why your teen isn’t keen on breakfast will help determine your game plan.

1. They’re not hungry

No worries, the principles of intuitive eating encourage us to honour our internal hunger and fullness signals to guide when and how much we eat.

Encourage them to take something easy to eat when hunger does strike just before school or between classes. Or perhaps, think about some easy morning activity you can do together (like a walk or some yoga) to promote a healthy appetite.

2. They’re always running late

Maybe it’s time to set that alarm a smidge earlier or prepare food the night before. Having ready-to-eat nutritious snacks available would also help for those times between the main family meals.

3. They’re dieting

If they’re trying out a new diet or fasting regime, or want to reduce their overall energy intake to change their body shape, then this is where a closer look is warranted. These could be early symptoms of an eating disorder.

However, if your teen is engaging in behaviours for weight or shape control, it’s also possible they won’t come right out and say so. Most of the time people with an eating disorder don’t realise they need help, but early intervention is so important for treatment success.

If you are concerned, keep an eye on drastic changes in food preferences or avoidance of specific foods or food groups. Aside from food-related behaviours, someone with an eating disorder also experiences psychological symptoms, most commonly depression and anxiety. Talking to a GP about these concerns is an important first step.

Read more:
A nice warm bowl of porridge: 3 ways plus a potted history

Don’t make a fuss

Regardless of your teen’s food behaviours, breakfast or not, this is a vulnerable time and it’s important not to introduce pressure or monitoring at mealtimes as this can interfere with their relationship with food.

Try to keep food chat neutral. Avoid linking food and body size or shape, focus on flavour and enjoyment and leave diet-talk out of it. If you’re concerned about a potential eating disorder, you can access resources online and talk to your doctor.

Read more:
How to manage weight issues with your teenager when you’re not meant to talk about weight

tetyana.rocks@deakin.edu.au is affiliated with Dietitians Australia Eating Disorders Interest Group Leadership Team

Madeline West 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. 3 reasons your teenager might skip breakfast – don’t fuss but do encourage a healthy start – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-your-teenager-might-skip-breakfast-dont-fuss-but-do-encourage-a-healthy-start-177457

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Deane, Associate Professor, Queensland University of Technology

The richness of Earth’s plant and animal species is rapidly declining. In Australia, responsibility for this biodiversity loss lies in many quarters – including agriculture.

To help address the problem, the federal government is pursuing a “biodiversity stewardship” policy to encourage farmers and other landholders to adopt practices that benefit native species, by financially rewarding them for their efforts.

Farmers who restore, enhance or protect biodiversity will receive credits, which can then be sold on private markets.

But a bill before parliament reveals the scheme devised by the Morrison government is potentially problematic. It may fail on two counts: to protect biodiversity and to create new income for farmers.

Will demand meet supply?

The government says farmers already help maintain biodiversity, but to date have not earned income from these efforts.

The bill allows for the supply of tradeable biodiversity “certificates” issued by the government to landholders who, for example, plant native tree species or actively manage their land to protect existing vegetation.

Introducing the bill to Parliament, Agriculture Minister David Littleproud said it would:

“position Australia’s national biodiversity market as a trusted way to invest in robust and assured biodiversity benefits […] It will bring together interest from farmers, on the supply side, and corporate and philanthropic buyers, on the demand side.”

But in reality, there is no guarantee demand for the credits will meet supply.

Biodiversity credits are not products that a business or person needs. Unless a business is seeking to actively boost its environmental credentials, demand for biodiversity credits comes largely from government intervention.

The experience of the United Kingdom shows how governments can create genuine demand for biodiversity credits. In 2021, the UK passed legislation declaring a net gain in biodiversity was required before a development could receive planning permission.

It means, for example, a project which requires cutting down native trees could buy biodiversity credits from farmers to not just compensate for the damage, but leave nature in an overall better state.

No such “net gain” mandate exists in Australia. But federal environment law does include requirements for projects to offset damage caused.

The market proposal for Australia’s biodiversity credits makes reference to this. But it overlooks one important factor.

Under federal law, offsets only apply where the actions to boost biodiversity directly benefit the part of nature being damaged.

For example, say a housing project requires destroying a forest where koalas live. That damage is only offset if that same type of forest is planted or restored somewhere else where koalas will benefit.

But under the proposed biodiversity stewardship scheme, credits will represent different projects – and therefore different environmental benefits. In industry speak, such credits are known as “non-fungible”.

This runs a real risk that the credits on offer from farmers may not match what the market wants.

Read more:
A major report excoriated Australia’s environment laws. Sussan Ley’s response is confused and risky

A subsidy by another name?

Another option proposed under the bill involves the government directly purchasing biodiversity credits – at a potential cost of A$2 billion dollars a year for the next 30 years.

Direct government funding of such schemes is not without merit. Biodiversity is a public good and the benefits of conserving it are widespread. So the conservation costs must be similarly spread.

But such funding means the biodiversity market proposal could be considered a subsidy scheme – and so may be seen as flouting global trade rules.

The government has been at pains to emphasise the bill is not about displacing prime farmland. Actions for which farmers are paid are intended to take place on land that’s not agriculturally productive.

But under World Trade Organisation rules, agricultural subsidies can only replace existing income. So, if the Australian government foots the bill for credits, the scheme suddenly resembles a subsidy which is disallowed under our global obligations.

And finally, direct government funding of the scheme means costs will be borne across the taxpayer base, instead of by those causing the worst damage (and profiting from it).

Looking ahead

The dissolution of parliament ahead of the federal election means the bill has lapsed. We can assume a re-elected Morrison government will reintroduce it.

Labor has promised to reform land management if elected. It’s unclear whether it would support the biodiversity credits scheme as proposed by the Coalition, however it will be under pressure from the Greens to make the measures more robust.

More broadly, creating a market for biodiversity credits is only a very small step in what’s needed to reverse biodiversity loss in Australia. Real change requires a paradigm shift, in which environmental damage forms part of the costs of a project – and influences decisions about whether it’s viable.

This will mean making tough decisions that disadvantage powerful industries, such as mining.

And as Australians head to the polls, we need a government with a big strategic vision to achieve genuine biodiversity conservation. This requires a national plan, rather than considering projects in isolation.

Because if history has taught us anything about environmental problems, it is that they compound over time – to the point they’re very difficult to reverse.

Felicity Deane 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 Morrison government wants farmers to profit from looking after the land – but will anyone want to pay? – https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-government-wants-farmers-to-profit-from-looking-after-the-land-but-will-anyone-want-to-pay-180882

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joey Moloney, Senior Associate, Grattan Institute

If the pre-election budget was designed to address the cost of living, it missed something. In an effort to help those whose wages aren’t growing as quickly as prices, it offered

• a one-off A$250 payment to income support recipients

• a temporary increase in the low-and-middle-income tax offset

• a six-month halving of the fuel excise

But it failed to offer help to some of the Australians who need it the most.

Australians only spend 3 per cent of their incomes on petrol. The typical renter spends more than 10 times as much on rent.

After a minor and temporary reprieve early in the pandemic, advertised rents are again on the rise – up nearly 10% over the last 12 months.

Weekly rents, national

Low-income renters are especially hard hit. More than half suffer rental stress, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent.

One-third have less than $500 of savings on hand in the event of an emergency.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has responded to complaints about rent by saying the “best way to support people renting a house is to help them buy a house”.

Cutting deposits can’t cut it

Morrison points to the federal government’s decision to more than double the size of the Home Guarantee Scheme, which helps people buy a home with less than the standard 20% deposit.

From this year, up to 50,000 people will be able to access the scheme, under which the government offers a guarantee to the banks that cuts the up-front deposit to 5% for ordinary first home buyers and just 2% for 5,000 single parents. There are 10,000 places reserved for regional house buyers.

Read more:
The compelling case for a future fund for social housing

The expanded scheme will help some Australians buy their first home earlier, but for everyone else looking to buy a house, the extra demand created by the scheme risks pushing up prices even higher.

And many renters won’t be able to find even the 5% deposit. Five per cent of $600,000 is $30,000.

Rent assistance assists less

If we really wanted to help low-income renters, we would boost rent assistance.

Commonwealth Rent Assistance is paid to pensioners, other beneficiaries and those receiving more than the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A who rent in the private rental market or community housing.

Paid at the rate of 75 cents for every dollar of rent above a threshold until a maximum, it works out at up to for $72.90 a week for a single and $68.70 for each member of a couple.

Read more:
$1 billion per year (or less) could halve rental housing stress

It hasn’t kept pace with rent. Boosting it by 40%, (roughly $1,450 a year for a single), would restore it to where it was in relation to rent, albeit at a substantial cost – $2 billion per year.

If the new rate was linked to the rents low-income earners actually pay, rather than to overall inflation as it has been, renters would be protected in the future.

Some argue this would lead to higher rents. But that’s unlikely. Most low-income renters first pay what’s needed to put a roof over their heads, then use what they have left to cover food and other bills, rather than offering more rent.

Rents needs properties

The other thing governments can do is to increase the number of homes.

Australian cities are not delivering denser forms of housing – townhouses and apartments – in the quantities Australians say they want.

The people who already live in a given suburb usually want it to stay as it is, whereas the people who would like to live there don’t get a say because they can’t vote in council elections. Their interests are left unrepresented, meaning housing isn’t built where it is needed.

Read more:
Older women often rent in poverty – shared home equity could help

The Commonwealth can help drive change by offering the states incentives tied to how well housing supply keeps up with population growth.

This will only reduce rents slowly, but low-income renters stand to gain the most since they are the first to lose out in the scramble today, just as they seem to have lost out in the pre-election budget.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities, as disclosed on its website.

Brendan Coates 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. Renters spend 10 times as much on housing as petrol. Where’s their cost-of-living relief? – https://theconversation.com/renters-spend-10-times-as-much-on-housing-as-petrol-wheres-their-cost-of-living-relief-180702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naja Later, Academic Tutor in Media and Communications, Swinburne University of Technology

When Troy Kotsur was awarded Best Supporting Actor at the recent Academy Awards, he dedicated his win to the Deaf community. CODA went on to win Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay, making it a major step forward for the Academy’s recognition of marginalised storytelling.

CODA, an acronym for Child Of Deaf Adults, follows the story of teenager Ruby Rossi. She dreams of being a singer, but is trapped by her Deaf family’s dependence on her as their interpreter. Torn between her familial burdens and her longing to fit into hearing culture, Ruby struggles to convince her family to support her own goals.

American sign language in pop-culture

CODA is one of many recent films and TV productions to incorporate sign languages. There’s been a noticeable wave of signing on screen since 2020: Sound of Metal, Eternals, A Quiet Place 2, Hawkeye, and Only Murders In The Building have all featured Deaf actors using American Sign Language (ASL).

Lauren Ridloff’s acclaimed supporting role in Eternals features her as Makkari, a Deaf superhero who can sense speaking vibrations and read lips, but communicates to others using (somewhat anachronistic) Australian Sign Language.

Signing has also appeared in sci-fi: Dune, Godzilla vs Kong, and The Book of Boba Fett all showcase futuristic uses of non-verbal communication.

In Dune, sign language is a practical method of secret communication. King Kong is taught ASL to communicate with humans much like the real-life gorilla Koko .

Troy Kotsur also developed a fictional sign language for the alien Tuskens in The Mandalorian, and the spin-off Book of Boba Fett expands on Tusken signing.

Positive representation

These are positive steps for representation in Hollywood, especially since many of these productions have hired Deaf performers and consultants. This wave could lead to normalising deafness, create more Deaf jobs, and attract more hearing people to learn how to sign.

Some Deaf critics have drawn attention to problematic stereotypes in CODA: the helplessness of the family is exaggerated to show the burden they put on hearing people.

At their core, these productions generally centre a hearing point of view. CODA sympathises primarily with a hearing protagonist, and its key emotional moments happen in speech and song.

There are similar problems with the other films: in A Quiet Place and its sequel, the ASL is often out of shot and poorly communicated. In Eternals, super-powered lip-reading removes any responsibility for the hearing characters to communicate in visually accessible ways.

Captions and accessibility

What makes CODA groundbreaking as a film for deaf people is not the narrative itself, but the accessibility. CODA is one of the first major features where the captions are “burned in” or hard-coded on every screen. what does this mean exactly how is it done? (Even the language of “burning”, mind you, shows how captions are treated as damaging a film.)

When only the signing is captioned, like in Eternals, the assumption is that the audience can understand everything except ASL. Even then, ASL is not a universal language: Deaf British and Australian audiences will be left in the dark. Many deaf people are not raised with sign languages because they have hearing parents, and rely entirely on captions.

Unless speech is captioned equally with signing, the film is packaging a deaf experience for a hearing audience. Captions are a concrete way films can support deaf audiences and ensure they are not just about deaf people but for deaf people.

Without hard-coded captions, the onus is placed on deaf viewers to seek out closed (optional or hidden) caption versions of the films that supposedly represent them. Closed caption technology is notoriously bad in cinemas: the devices are poorly-maintained and difficult to use, because they are designed to obscure the visibility to preserve the hearing audience’s experience.

Recently there have been more calls for open-captioned cinema sessions, where subtitles appear at the bottom of the big screen, but these are still few and far between. Hearing audiences are growing more accustomed to reading captions: as Bong Joon-Ho said of his own Best Picture winner Parasite: “Once you overcome the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films”.

Captions are perfectly normal outside the English-speaking world, where most cinemas will show Hollywood movies with captions. The booming popularity of streaming services has normalised captions on our TV screens, especially as we gain easy access to more international productions. Even the quality of transcription and translation has fallen under scrutiny, as we saw with the different caption track options in Squid Game.

Read more:
Squid Game and the ‘untranslatable’: the debate around subtitles explained

No matter how well Deaf people are represented on the screen, a lack of captioning creates an unequal language barrier for deaf viewers. Until the films and shows themselves are accessible, storytelling continues to favour and centre hearing people’s experience.

While CODA has some issues, it’s explicitly accessible to a deaf audience.

Unless the films themselves are screened equally, the communities onscreen will never be equal. CODA is not only a major win for Troy Kotsur and his fellow Deaf performers Marlee Matlin and Daniel Durant. It is a win for everyone who has struggled to feel included in screen media, on the surface and in the medium itself.

Naja Later 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. From CODA to Hawkeye, the surge of sign languages on screen is a sign of better things to come for the Deaf community – https://theconversation.com/from-coda-to-hawkeye-the-surge-of-sign-languages-on-screen-is-a-sign-of-better-things-to-come-for-the-deaf-community-180304

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

The first on-the-ground day of the election campaign has turned into a damaging loss for Anthony Albanese.

If Labor can find any bright side in the opposition leader’s failure to be able to specify the unemployment rate, or the cash rate, it would be that the gaffe came at the start of this six week marathon, rather than further in.

But that’s minor comfort. This was a really bad lapse. The 4% unemployment rate has been endlessly repeated around budget time.

And when Albanese had a guess, he was all over the place. “I think it’s five point, four – sorry, I’m not sure what it is.”

Was this a case of very inadequate briefing by his campaign team? Or did he have some sort of brain freeze?

Every leader makes slips during a campaign. But equally, they all know they should be prepared for basic questions. The point was reinforced when Scott Morrison earlier this year couldn’t provide the prices of bread, petrol and a RAT test, when asked at the National Press Club.

In a campaign a leader needs a cheat-sheet of basic stats and facts for the gotcha game, as well as the details of the state and seat in which they are at any particular time. Just like they are in an exam. Which is precisely what an election campaign is.

Albanese later came out and admitted he’d stuffed up, saying “when I make a mistake, I’ll fess up to it, and I’ll set about correcting that mistake. I won’t blame someone else. I’ll accept responsibility.”

This was an attempt to embellish a fig leaf by contrasting himself with Scott Morrison, but it hardly helped.

The blunder looks even worse when it’s remembered that after the budget Albanese could not provide a clear answer when repeatedly asked in a TV interview whether a Labor government would increase taxation.

If the problem is inadequate preparation, it should be fixable. If he is not coping well with the intense pressure, that is a major worry for the Labor camp.

Apart from avoiding unforced errors, Albanese needs to tighten his answers in news conferences and interviews. He has the fault that beset Kim Beazley as leader – the habit of waffling.

Meanwhile on the other side, Morrison on Monday tried to bluff his way out of the extraordinary affair of Alan Tudge.

Tudge said last month, after the inquiry into his former lover and ex-staffer’s allegations against him of emotional (and on one occasion physical) abuse, “I have requested not to be returned to the frontbench before the election”. Morrison at the time repeated this.

Now Morrison tells us Tudge is still in cabinet, still education minister, and will have that job if the Coalition is re-elected. “I look forward to him [returning], because it’s Alan Tudge who’s ensuring that he’s standing up for what our kids are taught in school.”

Morrison says the inquiry found nothing that would disqualify him for the ministry. But he doesn’t explain how a person can be in cabinet but not on the frontbench.

When on Monday it was put to him he’d said Tudge was not seeking to return to the frontbench, and he supported his decision, Morrison’s replied in Jesuitical fashion. “I never said he had resigned. I said he’d stood aside, and that’s what he’d done, and he wasn’t seeking to return before the election,” he told Nine.

Also on Monday journalist Samantha Maiden reported that the woman, Rachelle Miller, was receiving a settlement of more than $500,000.

Over time Miller made two sets of allegations against Tudge, and chose not to participate in the two inquiries that followed.

The amount reported, if correct, seems huge. Yet Morrison claimed he didn’t know the sum and couldn’t provide any information. “I have no knowledge of that. That’s a private matter between her and the [finance] department and so that is not a matter I have any involvement in or oversight or visibility on,” he said.

This is taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers are voters, and voters are disgusted about what they have learned about the culture around parliament house.

When there are allegations, denials, official inquiries, and a large payout on unspecified grounds, they’re entitled to feel they are being treated like disrespected cash cows.

If they are to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to Miller they are surely entitled to know what for, and who ticked off on this decision.

And when it turns out Tudge is in a ministerial warehouse, after he and the PM indicated he was on the backbench, it looks like wilful deception on both their parts.

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: Albanese trips, Morrison claims ignorance of huge payout in Tudge affair – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-trips-morrison-claims-ignorance-of-huge-payout-in-tudge-affair-181070

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adriana E. Bora, PhD Candidate, Queensland University of Technology

The unimaginable tragedy of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced 4.5 million Ukrainian refugees to flee into neighbouring countries, seeking protection. They’ve been met with overwhelming support and generosity by ordinary people offering clothes, food, transport and even their homes.

These humanitarian efforts quickly gathered traction online, with people using a plethora of WhatsApp and Facebook groups to coordinate support.

Soon websites and platforms popped up, dedicated to connecting those willing to help with those in need. These include A Roof, Shelter 4 UA, Homes for Ukraine, Refugees at Home, AirBnb, Room for Refugees, Host 4 Ukraine, Ukraine Take Shelter, Ukraine Shelter, Refugees.ro, Unitado,Ukraine Now and EU4UA.

These initiatives have allowed the public to support Ukrainian refugees.

However, many of these well-meaning projects have been developed with limited humanitarian knowledge, and without collaboration with governments or experienced NGOs. As such, they also risk opening the door for human trafficking and exploitation.

The risk is real and worrying

People displaced by wars are at risk of human trafficking and exploitation. In 2018, United Nations research showed a drastic increase in the number of human trafficking victims from conflict areas such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Myanmar.

These victims can end up in some of the worst forms of modern slavery, such as forced labour, forced marriage, sexual slavery or exploitation as part of armed groups.

Similar trends have already been seen in the war in Ukraine. Reports indicate perpetrators and traffickers have tried to exploit Ukranian refugees by confiscating IDs, demanding labour or sexual services, or targeting help only to young women.

This builds on an already well-established industry of criminal networks operating between Ukraine and countries in Europe and Central Asia.

According to Unicef, more than 500 unaccompanied children were identified crossing into Romania from Ukraine between February 24 and March 17. Secretary general of Missing Children Europe, Aagje Ieven, has said:

There are so many children […] that we lost track of […] This is a huge problem, not just because it means they easily go missing, and are difficult to find, but also because it makes trafficking so easy.

So while most offers of online support are well intended, the risk for perpetrators to infiltrate is real and worrying.

Read more:
Ukraine refugees: six practical steps to rise to the challenge

Platforms should shoulder responsibility

Ukrainian refugees arriving in neighbouring countries are exhausted and traumatised. When looking for services such as housing, transport, jobs and medicine, they shouldn’t bear the burden of having to ensure the offers presented on platforms are legitimate.

Background checks are a genuinely challenging task, even for mature institutions. And criminals are becoming increasingly skilled at bypassing the barriers built into these checks, such as by forging identities, and falsifying credentials and identification documents.

But without such checks, all parties — including those offering support — are at risk. Platforms have a duty to collaborate with the relevant experts and present only verified offers to refugees.

Some have led efforts on this front. For instance, A Roof, Homes for Ukraine, Refugees at Home, Airbnb and Room for Refugees have all either been led by, or co-created with, a government body or national or international NGO with relevant experience in humanitarian crisis.

These platforms declare that after receiving an offer, they check the credibility of the people making the offer and any conditions attached to it. Only then do the platforms connect the people providing the service with refugees. These platforms also claim to keep a record of all activity, and some present clear rules of engagement for all parties involved.

On the other hand, other platforms leave background checks to the refugees, offering only warning messages such as:

The platform functions as an emergency aggregator and does not ensure the validity of all data. We urge you to confirm the credibility of all those who you contact for any service. (Refugees.ro)

We provide refugees with a guide of some safety notes for contacting hosts. Refugees are ultimately responsible for their own safety. (Ukraine Take Shelter)

Many media outlets have endorsed and promoted these initiatives, including the two above, without asking vital questions regarding safety, security and privacy. Such endorsements can make an entity seem trustworthy to those desperately seeking help.

Protection for those wanting to help

The privacy of those offering support should also be protected by the platforms they are trusting with their data. In most cases these data will include their full name, email address, phone numbers, home address and pictures.

Some of the more reliable platforms declare the personal data received are only used to facilitate contact between hosts and refugees, and only made available to the entrusted organisation (generally a specialised NGO or government agency).

However, even these platforms could do more to ensure they are taking measures against cyber attacks, and have back-up solutions in case data are compromised.

Some platforms display users’ full names, emails, home addresses and pictures for all to see. This places individuals at risk of having their details scraped, sold and used for fraud or exploitation.

Matches between refugees and hosts should be clearly recorded and shared with authorities upon request. Without this, there are opportunities for perpetrators to groom or scam victims without leaving a trace.

We can all do more to help

Those who have developed solutions to help Ukrainian refugees should be celebrated, and this article isn’t intended to take away from their efforts.

However, it’s unreasonable to expect that vulnerable refugees — many of whom are arriving in countries where they don’t speak the local language — should be the ones ensuring the credibility of offers.

Platforms facilitating humanitarian efforts shouldn’t be able to ignore safety, security and privacy recommendations by hiding behind “terms and conditions”. It has been more than a month since the invasion started, so the initial excuse that there was no time to implement these measures no longer holds up.

Moving forward, developers of existing platforms should work closely with experienced organisations to ensure the safety, security and privacy of their users. At the same time, members of the public wanting to offer support are advised to only use platforms which have such measures in place.

Read more:
Russia a ‘real threat’ to Australia as well, Ukranian president Zelenskyy warns parliament

Adriana E. Bora 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. Platforms supporting Ukrainian refugees must prioritise their safety — or risk exposing them to trafficking and exploitation – https://theconversation.com/platforms-supporting-ukrainian-refugees-must-prioritise-their-safety-or-risk-exposing-them-to-trafficking-and-exploitation-180967

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Grimmer, Associate Head Research Performance and Senior Lecturer in Retail Marketing, University of Tasmania

Not only is second-hand shopping good for the planet and your wallet, our new research finds the more style-conscious you are, the more likely you are to shop for second-hand clothes and accessories.

In the 2020-21 financial year, 72% of Australians purchased at least one item of second-hand clothes – but we wanted to know more about people who were shopping second hand.

It is often assumed those who shop for second-hand clothes do so to save money or reduce their impact on the environment.

In our study, we found the higher people rate on style-consciousness, the more likely they are to shop second hand. In fact, style-consciousness was a bigger predictor of second-hand shopping than being frugal or ecologically-conscious.

Style-conscious shoppers are very different from fashion-conscious shoppers. Fashion is all about the “new”: fashion is a novelty and constantly evolving.

Style, on the other hand, is about expressing long-term individual identity.

Read more:
Secondhand clothing sales are booming – and may help solve the sustainability crisis in the fashion industry

The problem with fashion

Fashion shoppers are used to a continuous supply of new trends and “fast fashion” products. Fast fashion works quickly to replicate an ever moving stream of fashion trends, generating large volumes of low-quality apparel.

The impact of fast fashion on the environment is significant and well-documented. Globally, the fast fashion industry creates 92 million tonnes of waste per year and uses 79 trillion litres of water. Less than 15% of clothes are recycled or reused.

Poorly made and low-quality fast fashion items are a significant problem for charity stores, who are forced to send fast fashion items they can’t sell to landfill.

But, going against this fast fashion trend, growing numbers of people are shopping for second-hand clothing and accessories.

Read more:
‘I can only do so much’: we asked fast-fashion shoppers how ethical concerns shape their choices

A growing market

It’s difficult to determine the size of the second-hand market because many sales take place in informal settings such as pre-loved markets and online platforms like Facebook Marketplace.

However, sales data from online platforms shows an explosion in growth. James Reinhart, CEO of online second-hand fashion retailer Thredup, has predicted the global second-hand market will double in the next five years to US$77 billion (A$102 billion).

He also predicts the second-hand market will be double the size of fast fashion by 2030.

Younger shoppers are driving growth in popularity of second-hand shopping, especially via online platforms.

Our research suggests much of this growth is due to shoppers considering themselves to be style-conscious.

What makes a second-hand shopper?

We surveyed 515 Australian female-identifying consumers looking at their “orientation” (the preference to behave in a certain way) when it comes to shopping. Each participant was measured for their orientation towards frugality, how ecologically conscious they are, their level of materialism, how prone they are towards nostalgia, their fashion-consciousness and their style-consciousness.

While we found there are frugal and ecologically-conscious second-hand shoppers, our research revealed overwhelmingly that style-consciousness is the greatest predictor of second-hand fashion shopping.

People who scored highly on the style-consciousness scale were more likely to shop for second-hand clothes than any of the other orientations.

A style-conscious person expresses themselves through their clothes. These shoppers want clothes that complement their personal style and values. They look for authentic and original pieces and avoid mainstream trends and fast fashion.

Style-conscious shoppers buy high-quality, durable clothing and accessories. While fashion-conscious shoppers are constantly buying new clothes to keep up with current trends, style-conscious shoppers buy clothes that are timeless, well-crafted and allow them to express their individual identity over the long-term.

Traditional thrift shops run by charities are responding to consumer demand, reinventing their stores with carefully selected, high-quality clothes, improved merchandising and store design, online sales and improved digital and social media marketing.

The number of independently owned, highly-curated “pre-loved” stores and online sales platforms is also increasing.

Social media influencers have driven much of this growth. Their accounts embrace second-hand fashion, the circular economy (which highlights reuse, repair, repurpose and recycle) and promote the notion of #secondhandfirst.

Helping the planet…with style

We hope with increasing numbers of second-hand stores, markets and online platforms selling a range of quality, pre-loved clothes at different price points for different budgets – coupled with the growing acceptance of second-hand shopping – shoppers will consider buying second-hand more often.

For those who already embrace “not needing new”, not only are you helping the planet – our research shows you are also likely to be doing it with style.

Louise Grimmer occasionally sells clothes and accessories via depop.com.

This research was conducted with Honours student Freya Evans.

– ref. Do you shop for second-hand clothes? You’re likely to be more stylish – https://theconversation.com/do-you-shop-for-second-hand-clothes-youre-likely-to-be-more-stylish-180028

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nic Rawlence, Lecturer in Ancient DNA, University of Otago

Aoteaora New Zealand has experienced a dynamic geological and climatic history. There was the separation from the southern super-continent Gondwana, the near drowning during the Oligocene some 27-22 million years ago, and the dramatic changes wrought by ice ages during the Pleistocene which started 2.6 million years ago.

In concert with these landscape-scale changes, the biodiversity of Aotearoa has undergone an equally dramatic journey, evolving into something uniquely New Zealand. Jared Diamond famously described our wildlife as “the nearest thing to studying life on another planet”.

The arrival of humans from the late 13th century seriously hampered our ability to study this evolutionary history. It resulted in the extinction of around 70 birds, one mammal, a fish, up to three frogs and potentially a skink. Those that survived suffered severe range contractions and significant loss of genetic diversity.

Ancient DNA preserved in bones for tens of thousands of years has allowed scientists to unlock the genetic secrets of some of our taonga species and show how they responded to environmental change.

But most palaeogenetic research has focused on big flashy animals, like moa and sea lions, whose bones can sustain having small chunks chopped out without erasing the landmarks we use to distinguish species, such as a heavy-footed moa from a giant moa. Smaller animals were often ignored because sampling would have destroyed the whole bone, leaving only an angry museum curator to deal with.

Read more:
Ancient DNA suggests woolly mammoths roamed the Earth more recently than previously thought

What if there was a way to extract ancient DNA from these small bones, or taonga tūturu (cultural artefacts), without destroying the very specimen you are interested in? We have developed a technique that does just that – an enzymatic bone bath that soaks out ancient DNA, allowing us to sequence ancient genomes without any observable bone damage.

A dynamic biological heritage

The upshot of our work is we can now reconstruct the previously hidden evolutionary histories of these small and neglected animals.

Take New Zealand’s geckos for example. There are at least 48 species, all of which have been severely impacted by human arrival, masking their true evolutionary history.

It was previously thought you could only distinguish gecko species based on their size, not shape, to the point that pre-human gecko bones were separated into coarse quasi-taxonomic size bins. Considering most living New Zealand geckos show considerable overlap in size, this doesn’t help in discriminating between species.

Using 3D scanning and our new non-destructive extraction method, we focused on the largest size class of gecko bones. It turns out you can distinguish gecko bones by shape but not size (with the exception of the largest extant species), which means our knowledge of Aotearoa’s geckos is now a palaeontological “blank slate”, a rare thing indeed.

3D scanning showed the bones from the largest size class either represented a previously unknown extinct gecko or Duvaucel’s gecko (Hoplodactylus duvauceli) had undergone a large decline in morphological diversity as it was exiled from mainland New Zealand after human arrival.

Our genetic analysis of ancient mitochondrial genomes showed that Duvaucel’s gecko had undergone a major morphological and genetic bottleneck associated with mainland extinction. Not only that – it had a dynamic evolutionary history stretching back through time in response to some of the biggest changes in New Zealand’s geological and climatic past.

North and South Island populations diverged about five million years ago, as Duvaucel’s gecko dispersed across Pliocene straits and ephemeral islands that separated the two main islands of New Zealand long before Cook Strait formed some 500,000 years ago. These populations have now diverged so much that we think they could be different species, though more work remains to support our hunch.

On the South Island, the ice ages forced Duvaucel’s gecko (and its forest home) to retreat into separate northern and southern refugia during cold glacial periods, highlighting that glaciation can be a creative force for biodiversity. As sea levels rose, several populations were isolated on craggy islands in Cook Strait. While these island populations survived the arrival of humans, those on the mainland weren’t so lucky.

In the North Island it was a tale of two different worlds. Ancient lineages lived in remote and rugged areas like Waitomo, Northland and on geologically old islands like the Poor Knights and Great Barrier. In contrast, younger lineages became restricted to offshore islands as sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age some 11,000 years ago. Like their South Island cousins, isolated island lineages are today’s sole survivors.

Read more:
The frog and the gecko: why tropical species are at greater climate risk

Far from being neglected, our small vertebrate fauna is finally coming of age as new scientific techniques are developed to reconstruct their biological heritage, and in turn, help evidence-based conservation management.

Further exciting discoveries are no doubt around the corner with new projects our lab group is conducting on geckos, skinks (they are plagued by sized-based identifications, too), frogs and tuatara. Sometimes the smallest things can unlock the biggest secrets.

Nic Rawlence receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand, and the Department of Conservation.

Lachie Scarsbrook 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. A new method of extracting ancient DNA from tiny bones reveals the hidden evolutionary history of New Zealand geckos – https://theconversation.com/a-new-method-of-extracting-ancient-dna-from-tiny-bones-reveals-the-hidden-evolutionary-history-of-new-zealand-geckos-180327

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lilia Mantai, Senior Lecturer and Academic Lead, University of Sydney

More and more people are applying to do a PhD. What many don’t know is it takes serious skills to do one – and, more importantly, complete it.

We analysed the selection criteria for PhD candidates on a platform that advertises PhD programs. Our analysis of thousands of these ads revealed exactly what types of skills different countries and disciplines require.

Why do a PhD in the first place?

People pursue a PhD for many reasons. They might want to stand out from the crowd in the job market, learn how to do research, gain a deeper expertise in an area of interest, or pursue an academic career.

Sadly, too many PhD students never finish. The PhD turns out to be too hard, not well supported, mentally taxing, financially draining, etc. Dropping the PhD often means significant financial loss for institutions and individuals, not to mention the psychological costs of other consequences such as low self-esteem, anxiety and loneliness.

Read more:
1 in 5 PhD students could drop out. Here are some tips for how to keep going

Our society and economy can only benefit from a better-educated workforce, so it is in the national interest to manage PhD intakes and be clear about expectations. The expansion of doctoral education led to a more competitive selection process, but the criteria are opaque.

To clarify PhD expectations, we turned to a European research job platform supported by EURAXESS (a pan-European initiative by the European Commission) where PhD programs are advertised as jobs. Required skills are listed in the selection criteria. We analysed 13,562 PhD ads for the types of skills different countries and disciplines require.

We made three specific findings.

1. Top 3 skills needed for a PhD

It turns out that it takes many so-called transferable skills to do a PhD. These are skills that can be translated and applied to any professional context. The top three required skills are:

• communication – academic writing, presentation skills, speaking to policy and non-expert audiences

• research – disciplinary expertise, data analysis, project management

• interpersonal – leadership, networking, teamwork, conflict resolution.

Trending skill categories are digital (information processing and visualisation) and cognitive (abstract, critical and creative thinking and problem-solving).

Previous research shows transferable skills are requested for post-PhD careers, including both academic and non-academic jobs. Our research shows such skills are already required to do a PhD. Those keen to do a PhD are well advised to provide strong evidence of such skills when applying.

2. Skill demands vary by country and discipline

Skill demands significantly differ by country and discipline. For example, 62% of medical science ads mention interpersonal skills. This is twice as often as in biological science ads. Digital and cognitive skills score much higher in the Netherlands than in other countries.

Our research article reports on 2016-2019 data and the top five represented countries (Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain and the UK) and the top five represented disciplines (biological sciences, physics, chemistry, engineering and medical sciences). However, you can use this tool for granular detail on 52 countries – including non-European countries like Australia, New Zealand, the US, etc. – and 37 disciplines included in the data sample. For continuously updated data, please visit https://www.resgap.com/.

3. PhD expectations are rising

We see a rise in PhD expectations over time (2016-2019) as more skills are listed year on year. The publish or perish culture prevails and rising demands on academics have led to calls for more engaged research, collaborations with industry, and research commercialisation.

PhD students get accustomed early to competitiveness and high expectations.

Read more:
Is it a good time to be getting a PhD? We asked those who’ve done it

Research-based learning needs to start early

These insights have implications for pre-PhD education and pathways. Undergraduate and postgraduate degrees can further promote PhD readiness by embedding authentic hands-on research with academic or corporate partners, either as part of the curriculum or as extracurricular activities.

Many postgraduate degrees offer authentic research project work opportunities but are shorter. Those entering the PhD without a postgraduate degree miss out on developing essential research skills.

Authentic research experiences need to happen early on in higher education. Organisations like the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR), the Australasian Council for Undergraduate Research (ACUR) and the British Conference of Undergraduate Research (BCUR) are designed to support institutions and individuals to do this effectively. They showcase great models of undergraduate research.

To get a good idea of what undergraduate research looks like, start with this comprehensive paper and catch up on undergraduate research news from Australasia.

We know research-based learning develops employability skills such as critical thinking, resilience and independence.

Embed career development in PhD programs

Doctoral training needs to take note, too, if it is to further build on the skill set that PhD applicants bring with them.

The good news is doctoral education has transformed in recent decades. It’s catching up to the call for better-skilled graduates for a range of careers. The training focus has shifted towards generating practice-based and problem-solving knowledge, and engaged research with other sectors.

Read more:
It’s time to reduce the number of PhD students, or rethink how doctoral programs work

Some institutions now offer skill and career training. Generally, though, this sort of training is left to the graduates themselves. Many current PhD candidates will attest that the highly regulated and tight PhD schedule leaves little room for voluntary activities to make them more employable.

Most PhD candidates also know more than half of them will not score a long-term academic job. Institutions would serve them better by formally embedding tailored career development opportunities in PhD programs that prepare for academic and non-academic jobs.

It’s not only PhD graduates’ professional and personal well-being that will benefit but also the national economy.

Lilia Mantai is an Executive Member of the Australasian Council for Undergraduate Research (ACUR), a non-for-profit association promoting undergraduate research.

Mauricio Marrone developed the data dashboard and is the founder of ResGap.com.

– ref. The top 3 skills needed to do a PhD are skills employers want too – https://theconversation.com/the-top-3-skills-needed-to-do-a-phd-are-skills-employers-want-too-175923

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, Macquarie University

You might have heard of PFAS, a synthetic chemical found in certain legacy firefighting foams, non-stick pans, carpets, clothes and stain- or water-resistant materials and paints.

PFAS stands for “per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances”. These molecules, made up of chains of carbon and fluorine atoms, are nicknamed “forever chemicals” because they don’t degrade in our bodies.

There is global concern about PFAS because they have been used widely, are persistent in the environment and accumulate in our bodies over time.

There was no way to reduce the amount of PFAS found in the body – until now.

Our new randomised clinical trial, published in the journal JAMA Network Open, has found regularly donating blood or plasma can reduce blood PFAS levels.

Read more:
PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ are widespread and threaten human health – here’s a strategy for protecting the public

What’s the concern about PFAS chemicals?

The science is unresolved around what levels of PFAS exposure, if any, are safe.

The historical use of some firefighting foams at fire stations, fire training bases, airports, military and industrial facilities has led to widespread environmental contamination across Australia, Europe and the US.

Major environmental and health agencies, including the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Australian Department of Health have noted PFAS exposure has been associated with adverse health effects.

But now, new research from Macquarie University and Fire Rescue Victoria has found that the concentration of PFAS in a person’s blood can be reduced if that person regularly donates blood or plasma.

Read more:
Wearing shoes in the house is just plain gross. The verdict from scientists who study indoor contaminants

How can PFAS in our bodies be reduced?

The trial aimed to find out whether plasma or blood removal are effective strategies for reducing serum PFAS concentrations. It was funded and supported by Fire Rescue Victoria to find a way to remove the PFAS from firefighters’ bodies.

The trial involved 285 Fire Rescue Victoria staff and contractors with elevated levels of PFOS, a common detected type of PFAS used in some firefighting foams.

They were randomly allocated to donate plasma every six weeks, to donate whole blood every 12 weeks, or to make no donations (the control group) for 12 months.

Their PFAS levels were measured at four intervals: at recruitment, the start of the trial, after 12 months of following their treatment plan, and again three months later to test if the results were sustained.

Both blood and plasma donation resulted in significantly lower PFAS chemicals than the control group, and these differences were maintained three months later.

Plasma donation was most effective, resulting in a roughly 30% decrease in average blood serum PFAS concentrations over the 12-month trial period.

Why would donating blood or plasma help?

Reductions in PFAS levels from blood or plasma donations may be because PFAS are bound to proteins primarily found in the serum; many other organic pollutants are bound to fats.

The finding that plasma was more effective than blood donation might be because firefighters in the plasma donation group donated blood every six weeks, whereas those in the blood donation group donated every 12 weeks.

In addition, each plasma donation can amount to as much as 800mL compared with 470mL for whole blood.

Plasma PFAS concentrations are also about two times higher than blood PFAS concentrations, which could make plasma donation more efficient at reducing the body burden of PFAS chemicals.

Still, plasma donation is more complex and can be more uncomfortable than blood donation. Indeed, the adherence to the study protocol was lower for the plasma group than the other groups.

Overall, the randomised clinical trial — which is the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of intervention — had an exceptional 94% participant retention rate, with the 285 firefighters completing more than 1,000 blood tests and hundreds of blood and plasma donations.

This engagement from the Fire Rescue Victoria staff was a remarkable achievement because it spanned the Black Summer Bushfires as well as the extensive COVID-19 lockdowns in Melbourne.

It is a testament to their tenacity to support the discovery of an effective intervention to benefit others with substantial PFAS exposure.

Fire Rescue Victoria has replaced firefighting foams that contain PFAS and decontaminated fire trucks to eliminate or reduce ongoing occupational exposure to PFAS.

Still, because these chemicals accumulate in the body, many firefighters have elevated levels of PFAS because of historical exposures.

More research is needed to understand the ideal frequency and volumes of donations that will be effective for lowering PFAS, balancing the treatment efficacy with the obstacles to frequent donations.

It is also not clear whether reducing PFAS leads to improved health outcomes in the longer term. More research is needed to evaluate the clinical implications of the findings.

How can these findings be used in practice?

This study provides the first avenue for affected individuals to remove PFAS from their bodies and redress the effects of their PFAS exposure.

In future, more people with significant PFAS exposures may be encouraged to donate blood or plasma. According to the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood program, people who have been exposed to PFAS can still donate. For recipients of donated blood components, no PFAS threshold has been identified as posing an increased risk. Our study didn’t investigate this risk, but blood authorities should continue to monitor the possible health effects of PFAS and consider any implications of elevated PFAS levels in blood donors.

In late March, a Senate joint standing committee looking into PFAS recommended the government examine this research. For people with high PFAS levels who can’t donate blood or plasma – because, for example, of potential exposure to blood-borne illnesses – the committee recommended the government consider finding a way for them to make therapeutic donations.

The inquiry also recommended:

that the Australian government provide funding for further longitudinal studies on potential adverse health effects for firefighters and members of PFAS-affected communities.

Mark Patrick Taylor and co-authors from Macquarie University received funding for their study published in JAMA Network Open (2022): “Efficacy of plasma and blood donation on serum per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) concentrations in firefighters: a randomised clinical trial.”

MPT is an Honorary Professor at Macquarie University and a full time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the statutory role of Chief Environmental Scientist. In his current role as Chief Environmental Scientist for EPA Victoria, part of his work involves working with emergency services, including Fire Rescue Victoria.

Bruce Lanphear receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, Canada Institute for Health Research, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Miri Forbes receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), in addition to the funding received from Fire Rescue Victoria to conduct this study.

This study was funded by a grant from Fire Rescue Victoria.

Dr Yordanka Krastev and co-authors from Macquarie University received funding from Fire Rescue Victoria for their study published in JAMA Network Open (2022): “Efficacy of plasma and blood donation on serum per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) concentrations in firefighters: a randomized clinical trial.”

Brenton Hamdorf 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. New evidence shows blood or plasma donations can reduce the PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ in our bodies – https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-shows-blood-or-plasma-donations-can-reduce-the-pfas-forever-chemicals-in-our-bodies-178771

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jemma Geoghegan, Senior Lecturer and Associate Scientist at ESR, University of Otago

A new hybrid COVID-19 variant dubbed XE has sparked fresh concerns recently.

XE is a combination of the highly transmissible BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron variants and was first detected in the UK in mid-January. Its spike protein derives from BA.2, which is potentially good news for New Zealand since this is the dominant variant (more than 90% of recent infections) and people who have been infected should have some protection against XE.

Globally, around 700 viral genomes have been assigned XE so far. The variant has mainly been detected in the UK and now in a handful of cases elsewhere, including Thailand and US, most likely due to travel-related spread.

According to current estimates from the UK, XE has a slight (5-10%) transmission advantage over BA.2, which would make it the most transmissible subvariant of Omicron identified to date. Any time a new more transmissible variant emerges, it has the chance of becoming the dominant variant over time.

XE has not been assigned its own Greek letter yet. For the moment, it belongs to Omicron until significant differences in transmission and disease characteristics, including severity, are identified.

So far there is not enough evidence to draw solid conclusions about XE’s transmissibility and there is almost no data about its severity or ability to evade immunity.

How hybrid variants emerge

Usually every individual virus is a near exact copy of its single parent virus. But viruses also undergo a process called recombination – they can have two parents.

Recombinant viruses can emerge when two or more variants infect the same cell in an individual, allowing the variants to interact during replication. This can result in a mix-up of their genetic material, forming new virus combinations.

Some viruses, such as influenza, have segmented genomes and can mix up whole segments through a process called reassortment. Viral recombination and reassortment are common among viruses but rates vary markedly, depending on the type of virus and the chance of co-infection.

More than two years into the pandemic and with high infection rates globally, SARS-CoV-2 recombination is both more likely and more easily detectable than during earlier stages. The global Omicron wave has seen a rapid increase in COVID prevalence, which increases the chances of co-infection and gives the virus more chances to recombine.

Read more:
What is the new COVID-19 variant BA.2, and will it cause another wave of infections in the US?

We are also more able to detect recombination than we were previously. Early in the pandemic, there was little genetic diversity in the SARS-CoV-2 virus and recombinants looked much like non-recombinants because the two parent virus were close to identical.

But now there are several genomically distinct variants infecting people in the same area, making recombinant genomes a lot easier to spot among the millions of genomes generated to date. Viral recombination will likely play an important role in the ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2.

Known viral recombinants

Recently there have been several recombinant SARS-CoV-2 variants identified, named XA, XB, XC etc, right through to XS. Some of these variants were sequenced as early as mid-2020. Some have only been seen a few times, while others have several hundreds of genomes assigned to them.

There are two main types of recombinants now frequently detected: mixtures of Delta and Omicron (dubbed Deltacron) and mixtures of Omicron subvariants.

Read more:
Deltacron: what scientists know so far about this new hybrid coronavirus

A few of these recombinants are being watched closely. They include XD and XF, which consist of genetic material from Delta and the BA.1 Omicron subvariant.

XD was first detected in France and contains a mixture of the spike protein from BA.1 and the rest of the genome from Delta. There was some concern it would inherit BA.1’s ability to evade our immune defences and Delta’s high virulence. To date, XD does not appear to be spreading widely or rapidly.

Should we be concerned?

There isn’t yet evidence suggesting recombinant viruses are more of a public health threat than any other variants. But recombinants should be closely monitored so that we can understand if they induce changes to the virus’ transmissibility, disease severity or ability to escape vaccine-induced immune protection.

At this point, there’s no need to be overly concerned about XE. But we need to continue surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 on a global scale to spot new variants and understand the risks they might pose.

Our best approach to limiting the rate of new recombinants or other variants emerging is limiting the spread of the virus. Despite widespread acceptance around the world that SARS-CoV-2 will be with us for the foreseeable future, we can still employ protective measures to slow and suppress the virus.

These include regular testing, isolating when we are infectious, wearing good quality masks and improved ventilation. All these measures reduce the chances of getting co-infected and becoming a host to a new recombinant.

Jemma Geoghegan is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Otago and an associate scientist at ESR. She receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand.

David Welch has received funding from MBIE, MoH and HRC.

Joep de Ligt is a Senior Science Lead at ESR and a Honorary fellow at Otago University. Through the genomics surveillance work at ESR Joep de Ligt receives funding from the Ministry of Health.

– ref. Should we worry about the XE variant? Maybe not yet, but ‘hybrids’ will become more frequent as COVID evolves – https://theconversation.com/should-we-worry-about-the-xe-variant-maybe-not-yet-but-hybrids-will-become-more-frequent-as-covid-evolves-180672

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark A Gregory, Associate professor, RMIT University

For many Australians, the promise of cheap, reliable broadband remains a dream. So why is the National Broadband Network (NBN) still not delivering an outcome that was promised more than a decade ago when the NBN rollout commenced?

Let’s take a look at the current state of the NBN, and what the major political parties have announced in the lead up to the next federal election.

What’s available on the NBN?

The NBN uses a range of different technologies to connect users to the internet, depending on what area they’re in and what pre-existing network infrastructure is available there.

Of the 11.8 million premises able to be connected to the NBN, the approximate number of premises in each “technology footprint” is:

• 2.5 million for Hybrid Fibre Coaxial. This is where older coaxial cables installed for broadband and television services have been adapted for use in the NBN network

• 4.7 million for Fibre to the Node/Basement (FTTN/B). This connection uses both copper and fibre optic wiring. The quality of the connection varies depending on the length of the copper cable, and the technology used to support the data transmission

• 1.4 million for Fibre to the Curb (FTTC). This connection has fibre optic wiring closer to premises, allows faster data transmission than FTTN and services relatively fewer households

• 1.1 million for Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) greenfields. This is a full fibre optic connection directly to the network from new premises. This provides reliable high-speed internet

• 1 million for FTTP brownfields. This is a full fibre optic connection directly to the network from existing premises. This also provides reliable high-speed internet

• and 1.1 million for fixed wireless/satellite. This is where data is beamed to the premises over radio frequency signals. This connection is usually targeted to regional areas and isn’t always stable.

Read more:
NBN upgrades explained: how will they make internet speeds faster? And will the regions miss out?

What have the major parties promised?

On March 22, NBN Co announced further fibre upgrades would be rolled out as part of an ongoing A$4.5 billion upgrade plan.

By the end of 2023, up to eight million premises will become eligible to access the Home Ultrafast plan of between 500Mbps and 1Gbps. Currently, about 4.4 million NBN-connected premises can access this plan.

For the FTTP upgrade to occur, NBN Co has said eligible customers will need to place an order with a participating retail service provider for one of the three highest-speed tiers: 100, 250 or 1,000Mbps.

Of the 4.1 million premises that can be connected to the NBN with FTTN, the current government and NBN Co plan provides an upgrade from FTTN to FTTP for two million of these premises.

Labor’s plan is to provide FTTP access to 3.5 million of these premises — and of the 1.5 million extra premises, 660,000 will be in regional Australia.

In response to the 2021 Regional Telecommunications Review, the Coalition announced a A$1.3 billion investment to further upgrade regional, rural and remote telecommunications. If it wins the election, it has promised to provide A$480 million to partly fund NBN Co’s upcoming A$750 million upgrade of the fixed wireless network, to support regional communities.

This upgrade will shift 120,000 premises from the NBN Skymuster satellite network — which currently provides NBN connections to remote premises — to a fixed wireless connection. This would provide up to 250Mbps service to 85% of the premises in the satellite network.

Removing 120,000 premises from the NBN Skymuster satellite network will also improve the overall performance of the service, offering faster connection speeds and a download capacity boost from 55GB per month to 90GB per month.

Labor has also committed to supporting the planned NBN fixed wireless upgrade, and made a further commitment that “80% of the 7.1 million Australians living in regional and remote areas will have access to speeds of 100Mbps or more by late 2025. Currently this is only 33%”.

Too litte, too late?

In the past, I’ve strongly criticised the Coalition’s decision at the 2013 federal election to move the NBN to a hybrid technology model that included obsolete technologies — namely FTTN, and to a lesser extent HFC and FTTC. The results of this decision are now measurable.

In 2013, the government said the hybrid technology model would mean the NBN could be completed for A$29 billion by 2019, and that Australian households would have a minimum of 25Mbps by the end of 2016.

The true cost of the NBN rollout has now exceeded A$57 billion, and will likely be about A$70 billion by the time the FTTP upgrade is rolled out to some 93% of premises later this decade (hopefully).

But for now, the number of NBN-connected premises using FTTP remains stuck below 30%. And it’s difficult to see this figure rising quickly unless there is a rapid change in direction after the next federal election.

The costs of NBN plans remain high, and ultimately if consumers aren’t able to afford higher-speed tiers then the FTTP upgrade will likely not be taken up by the vast majority.

In the first half year financial report for 2022, NBN Co indicates 76% of customers are now on a 50Mbps speed tier or higher.

NBN Co’s financial report states average revenue collected by per user is A$46 per month, and earning before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA) was A$1.5 billion. Meanwhile, borrowings from banks increased to A$24.7 billion from $23.8 billion in the previous reporting period.

A lack of equitable and universal access to the internet is another important issue. One aspect of universal access is for the internet to be provided for free to people who can’t afford NBN plans.

In November last year, opposition leader Anthony Albanese announced an initiative to provide free NBN connection for one year to 30,000 families with children under 15 at home, who didn’t have internet. No other political party has a comparable plan.

Streaming stress

Another factor that affects the higher-speed tier uptake is the failure by government regulatory bodies to mandate a minimum definition and quality for streamed media, particularly television and movies.

In Australia, the majority of streamed media, such as television and movies, is provided in a very poor quality standard definition format. The very-high media compression used by the online streaming industry (such as Netflix, Stan and Amazon Prime Video) means high-definition and 4K programs are displayed in poor quality.

In Europe and other parts of the world, television is now broadcast and streamed primarily using 4K-enabled technologies. Australians have been purchasing 4K-enabled televisions and other devices since 2017, but haven’t been able to fully use their capabilities.

Final thoughts

At this point, in the lead-up to the next federal election, Labor’s NBN policy is superior to that of the Coalition.

Under the current policies of both major political parties, the NBN will remain in government ownership. But this doesn’t mean it can’t be put up for private sale in the future, if existing policies change.

And the current government’s NBN policy does not alleviate the consequences of the mistakes it has made over the past nine years. The glacial pace at which the government and NBN Co are upgrading services means if the Coalition wins the next federal election, Australians can expect to have second-rate broadband for years to come.

Read more:
Coronavirus: telcos are picking up where the NBN is failing. Here’s what it means for you

Mark A Gregory 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. What’s next for the National Broadband Network? Labor and the Coalition’s plans compared – https://theconversation.com/whats-next-for-the-national-broadband-network-labor-and-the-coalitions-plans-compared-180571

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

The map below shows the 2019 federal election results adjusted for redistributions in Victoria and Western Australia. Victoria gained a seat (Hawke), while WA lost one (Stirling). Hawke is a notional Labor seat, while Stirling was a Liberal seat, so Labor gained one notional seat by redistribution.

ABC election analyst Antony Green published the 2022 election pendulum last August. The Coalition notionally holds 76 of the 151 House of Representatives seats, Labor 69 and there are six crossbenchers. Labor needs to gain four net seats from the Coalition to be the largest party, and seven for a Labor majority.

Of the 151 seats, 142 use the Labor vs Coalition margin in 2019, with the six seats won by crossbenchers using that crossbencher’s margin. The three remaining seats (Grayndler (NSW), Cowper (Vic) and Wills (Vic)) use Labor’s margin against the Greens. The pendulum does not account for Craig Kelly’s defection from the Liberals to the United Australia Party in Hughes, as he was elected as a Liberal.

Electorate colours are blue for Coalition, red for Labor and black for crossbenchers. Distinctions between Liberals, Nationals and Queensland’s LNP have been ignored. Darker colours indicate safer seats. Margins in the maps reflect margins on the pendulum, but crossbench-held seats are always black.

The initial map of Australia appears very Coalition-dominated as the Coalition easily wins most large regional seats. You need to zoom in on big cities such as Sydney and Melbourne to see where Labor dominates.

Where the biggest swings are likely to occur, and where the Coalition could resist

Last May, I wrote about how whites without a university education had moved to the right in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia. However, better-educated people have shifted to the left relative to the national vote.

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

If this pattern continues at this election, the biggest swings to Labor are likely to occur in seats that have long been seen as wealthy urban Liberal heartland. Such areas include Sydney’s north shore and Melbourne’s inner east.

However, the Coalition is likely to do better in swing terms in regional seats with high levels of whites without a university education. Labor could have difficulty regaining the marginal Tasmanian seats of Bass and Braddon that were lost in 2019, and could be threatened in the coal-mining seat of Hunter (NSW).

I don’t expect Labor to rebound in regional Queensland after it was utterly shellacked there in 2019. Fortunately for Labor, Australia’s population is far more urbanised than in either the UK or the US. I have researched this for a future article.

As price rises on essential items such as food affect low-income people more, inflation may damage the Coalition with these voters, who are also likely to be non-university-educated. So Labor could do better with non-university-educated whites than the above discussion expects.

Polls in WA have had large swings to Labor, but will those swings hold up until election day?

At the March 2021 WA state election, the Coalition was virtually obliterated, but federal elections are different from state elections, and WA has historically been a conservative state at federal elections.

Read more:
As the election campaign begins, what do the polls say, and can we trust them this time?

Don’t trust the Queensland state breakdowns

Australian polls usually release their state breakdowns with every poll, but Newspoll typically does its breakdown once a quarter for all polls conducted in that quarter. The smaller state samples mean that estimates of state votes and swings are far more volatile than the national figures.

The best way to analyse state level data is to aggregate it, which The Poll Bludger does with BludgerTrack.

Labor currently has 53.9% two party in NSW, a 5.7% swing since the 2019 election, 56.5% in Victoria, a 3.4% swing, 50.4% in Queensland, an 8.8% swing, 55.1% in WA, a 10.6% swing and 58.4% in SA, a 7.7% swing. Sub-samples from Tasmania and the territories are not large enough for meaningful analysis.

You can use these state-level swings on the map above, which show the seats most likely to fall to Labor on current polling. You could also plug them into Antony Green’s ABC calculator. But don’t trust the Queensland swing of almost 9% to Labor.

Federal Labor has a long history of underperforming its polls in Queensland, and this was particularly the case in 2019. Polls in Queensland in 2019 suggested a 50-50 tie or 51-49 to the Coalition, but the actual result was a crushing 58.4-41.6 to the Coalition.

The last Newspoll breakdowns for the March quarter gave the Coalition a 54-46 lead in Queensland, and this is likely closer to Queensland’s voting intentions than current breakdowns, as Newspoll now weights by education.

Coalition marginals

These maps show the four most marginal Coalition seats, followed by maps of the four most marginal Labor seats. I will briefly comment on each seat.

As I said above, Bass could resist the Labor swing as it’s a regional seat which was gained in 2019. The new Liberal MP can expect a “sophomore” surge. A Telereach poll had the Liberals well ahead in Bass, but seat polls are unreliable.

Chisholm is an inner city seat that should be easily gained by Labor, although Telereach had the Liberals well ahead here.

Boothby is another inner city seat, and both Telereach and uComms seat polls have Labor way ahead.

Braddon has a bigger Liberal margin than Bass, and was also gained from Labor in 2019. If the Liberals are holding Bass, they should also be holding Braddon. But a uComms seat poll gave Labor a 53-47 lead, although analyst Kevin Bonham estimated 50-50 from the primary votes.

Labor marginals

With a strong NSW swing, Labor should have no trouble in Macquarie.

Lilley is an urban Queensland seat, and Labor should retain easily.

Eden-Monaro is a regional NSW seat, but Labor should hold given the Queanbeyan regional city is located in this electorate.

With a 10%+ swing to Labor in WA, Labor will easily hold Cowan.

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. Where are the most marginal seats, and who might win them? – https://theconversation.com/where-are-the-most-marginal-seats-and-who-might-win-them-179845

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Josh Sunman, PhD candidate, Flinders University

In the run up to the federal election, there is growing discussion of “preference deals” between political parties.

But what are preference deals and how do they work?

In Australian federal elections, voters fill in ordinal ballots for both the house and the senate. This means voters are required to number the candidates who appear on the ballot paper in order of their preference.

On House of Representatives ballots, voters must number every candidate on the ballot paper. Senate ballots meanwhile, afford voters the choice of numbering at least six party groups in above-the-line voting, or numbering at least 12 individual candidates below-the-line.

In the 151 house electorates, candidates must achieve a vote total of “50% plus one” of valid votes in order to be elected. If no candidate achieves this on their primary vote – the number of votes that preference that candidate first – the preferences of unsuccessful candidates are distributed.

To do this, the candidate with the lowest primary is excluded from the count, and the ballots that preference them first are then allocated according to their second nominated preference. This process continues until a candidate achieves the “50% plus one” required to be elected.

Read more:
Explainer: how does preferential voting work in the House of Representatives?

Preferences matter more than they used to

The 2019 federal election saw the continuation of a downward trend in the primary votes of the two major parties. The Coalition and Labor received a combined 74.78% of first preferences in house electorates.

This means more than a quarter of voters gave their first preference to a candidate who was not from either of the major parties.

While the major parties still won 145 of the 151 lower house seats, a record 105 seats had to be decided on preferences. In 12 of these, candidates that were behind on primary votes overtook the person with the most primary votes and reached 50% plus one on the basis of preferences.

Preferences are becoming more decisive in how MPs are elected, and which governments are formed.

In the UK, Canada and the US, the candidates who achieve the most primary votes win their seat. In Australia, a candidate with fewer initial votes can be elected, if the preferences “flow” to them.

The key difference here is between majoritarian and plurality electoral systems. In Australia, preferential voting operates on a majoritarian principle of representation. It does not elect the candidate most preferred by the plurality of people; rather, elects a representative who wins more votes than all other candidates combined.

Where the deals come in

With more seats being decided on preferences, where parties direct their preferences is naturally receiving more attention. Analysis by the ABC’s election analyst, Antony Green, shows 82.2% of Greens preferences flowed to the Labor party, while the Coalition received approximately 65% of One Nation and United Australia Party preferences.

There is an accepted narrative that parties direct preferences through clandestine deals. It is true senior party officials meet with each other to iron out preference recommendations, but these deals do not actually have any power over votes.

Instead, these deals are merely agreements about which preferences political parties recommend to voters on their distributed how-to-vote material.

For the deals to work, parties require volunteers to distribute how-to-vote cards on polling day, as well as postal and online material. Voters then have to follow the material in order for these published recommendations to have effect.

Since the 1960s, there has been a steady decline in voters reporting they used “how-to-vote” cards. At the 2019 election, it was a record low of just 29% of voters.

Read more:
So, how did the new Senate voting rules work in practice?

However, preference recommendations can still have an impact. In the 2018 South Australian election, the Liberal and Labor parties, facing the threat of an insurgent campaign from the Nick Xenophon-led SA-Best party, broke with long standing practice and recommended their voters preference each other in crucial seats, in order to prevent a third-party breakthrough.

The “party controls preferences” narrative does have some historical truth to it.

Under the previous Senate voting system, voters had the option of simply voting one above the line. If voters took this option, their vote would then be distributed according to party lodged preference tickets – essentially controlling what happened to voter preferences.

This had a huge impact on electoral outcomes, as in the 2013 election (the last held under this system), when 96.5% of voters took this option .

The 2013 result had some undemocratic outcomes, with Ricky Muir from the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party winning one of Victoria’s Senate seats on just 0.5% of the above-the-line vote.

This victory was orchestrated by Glenn Druery, dubbed the “preference whisperer”, who arranged preference swaps between micro parties with microscopic vote totals. These then cascaded to deliver Muir the seat.

This result drew scrutiny to above-the-line Senate voting, leading to reforms that abolished preference tickets, and gave more power to voters to direct their preferences conveniently.

Despite the preference deals, it is ultimately the voters who maintain control over which parties receive their preferences.

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

– ref. Explainer: what are preference deals and how do they work? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-preference-deals-and-how-do-they-work-180140

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maja Husaric, Senior Lecturer; MD, Victoria University

Free influenza (flu) vaccines are now available for eligible groups, subject to local supply arrangements, with health authorities encouraging booking in from mid April.

For those who aren’t eligible for a free vaccine, flu shots are available now for a small fee (around A$25) from pharmacies and GPs (though you might also have to pay a consultation fee).

This year, you can get your flu shot on the same day as your COVID booster.

Not ‘just the flu’

Influenza is a disease of the respiratory tract. It can cause a runny nose, coughing, sneezing, sore throat, fever and chills, headache and body aches. It can cause vomiting and diarrhoea, which is more common in children.

Influenza affects people of all ages and can cause severe illness and lead to hospitalisation and death, particularly in young children, the elderly and those with underlying health conditions.

The number of cases and deaths in Australia each year fluctuates. In 2019, before the pandemic, 313,000 lab-confirmed cases and 953 deaths were reported. The 2019 case numbers were 2.7 times higher than the five-year average.

In the first two years of the pandemic, flu numbers plummeted due to prevention measures used to content COVID spread.

When do they start working? How long do they last?

Vaccines don’t cause disease in the person. Rather, they prompt the body’s immune system to respond, much as it would have on its first reaction to the actual virus.

Read more:
You can’t get influenza from a flu shot – here’s how it works

Flu vaccines stimulate antibodies to develop in the body usually within two weeks following vaccination.

While flu vaccines offer the highest level of protection three for four months after vaccination, research suggests antibodies continue to protect against infection 8.5 months after vaccination and 11.8 months after natural infection.

So while antibodies decrease over time, they generally last longer than a typical influenza season.

Current recommendations are to get vaccinated from April, before the flu season, which generally occurs from June to September.

Why do we need a flu vax each year?

There are four types (or strains) of influenza viruses: A, B, C or D. Types A and B cause severe disease in humans, and each year the seasonal flu vaccine protects against two A and two B strains.

The four types are related to the presence of specific proteins on the surface of the virus. These surface proteins aren’t stable and often mutate, or change.

When the body encounters these changes, the immune system cannot be activated.

So although the person may have been vaccinated against or infected by a “old” version of the viral strain, the body won’t easily recognise and neutralise the new strain.

Due to these continuous changes, the World Health Organization reviews and updates its recommendations for the composition of the vaccine annually. It selects the viruses (mutated versions of the virus) most likely to circulate in the coming season.

The Australian Influenza Vaccine Committee uses this recommendation to determine the composition of influenza vaccines for use in Australia.

Our 2022 seasonal flu vaccine protects against:

• an A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus
• an A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2)-like virus
• a B/Austria/1359417/2021-like (B/Victoria lineage) virus
• a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (B/Yamagata lineage)-like virus.

However, some vaccines protect against three strains (trivalent, covering one B strain) rather than four (quadrivalent, covering two B strains).

While it’s generally better to get the four-strain vaccine, the success of the vaccine depends on whether it matches (and therefore protects against) the strain or strains dominating that season.

Who should get vaccinated?

Annual vaccination is the most important measure to prevent influenza and its complications.

Vaccination does more than just protect an individual: sufficient vaccination levels across the community can protect members of the community who would otherwise be left vulnerable.

The seasonal flu vaccine is recommended for all Australians aged six months and over.

It’s available for free to the population groups most as risk of severe disease from influenza:

• people aged 65 years or over
• children aged six months to under five years
• pregnant women at any stage of pregnancy
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged six months and over
• people aged six months or over who have medical conditions that mean they have a higher risk of getting serious disease.

For over-65s, adjuvanted influenza vaccines – which include an immune-stimulant to encourage a stronger immune response – are recommended over standard influenza vaccine.

Read more:
High-dose, immune-boosting or four-strain? A guide to flu vaccines for over-65s

How effective are vaccines?

Vaccine effectiveness varies depending on the outcome being measured, the age group affected (as vaccine effectiveness is generally lower in older people), and the match between vaccine and circulating influenza strains.

Estimates of flu vaccine effectiveness is 40-60% in the United States and 30-60% in Australia. This means 30-60% of those vaccinated are less likely to become seriously ill or die from influenza.

What about side effects?

Most influenza vaccines are safe in adults and children.

However, they can sometimes cause side effects. These include fever, muscle pain, vomiting, nausea, headache, irritability, injection site reaction and rash.

Serious side effects are rare and include anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction to the nonactive ingredients.

Read more:
Should I get the flu shot if I’m pregnant?

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

– ref. Should I get the 2022 flu vaccine? And how effective is it? – https://theconversation.com/should-i-get-the-2022-flu-vaccine-and-how-effective-is-it-179309

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tyrone Lavery, Research fellow, Australian National University

From all accounts, Australia’s blue-grey mouse was a charming little creature. The famous British zoologist Oldfield Thomas of London’s Natural History Museum first described the species in 1910 and named it Pseudomys glaucus.

Within half a century, the species had seemingly disappeared, leaving behind only three scientific specimens. Since then, two of these have been lost.

But is the mouse extinct, or just extremely hard to find?

We decided to explore old museum specimens and correspondence in the hope of finding one of Australia’s most enigmatic extinct mammals. We have not rediscovered it yet – but our new research has shown us where to look.

The importance of questioning extinction

Biologists have rediscovered a number of Australian species long thought extinct. The bridled nailtail wallaby was rediscovered when a fencing contractor and his wife matched one they’d spotted in the wild to a picture in Women’s Day magazine.

The desert bettong was lost, found, and is now lost again. Gould’s mouse was found despite being thought extinct for over a century. It was hiding in plain sight thousands of kilometres away from its original range.

These efforts matter because Australia’s black book of animal extinctions has too many entries already, with 33 species of mammals lost. That’s the worst mammal extinction record in the world. Our native mice are one group suffering the most.

On the trail of the blue-grey mouse

To have a chance of rediscovery, we need to know as much as possible about distribution, habitat and the circumstances under which a species was last seen by humans.

Read more:
Can we resurrect the thylacine? Maybe, but it won’t help the global extinction crisis

The blue-grey mouse has a lower profile than Australia’s better-known extinctions, such as the thylacine, the Christmas Island Pipistrelle, a microbat, and what might have been the first victim of human-induced climate change: the Bramble Cay melomys.

To find out more, we went back to the beginning. The three blue-grey mouse specimens Thomas examined arrived in London in 1892 as a donation from the Queensland Museum in Brisbane. The holotype specimen (an example nominated to define a species) of this mouse was amongst a group of five donated rodents. Four had originally been entered in the register as “Mus” (the house mouse genus which at the time was regularly given to unidentified rodents) from “S. Queensland” and “Cape York”.

Jotted next to the holotype was “Pseudomys glaucus” and “Type 1910”, in text that looked to have been added later. This specimen in London is now the only physical evidence we have that the blue-grey mouse ever existed. The other four rodents are missing.

Later we found a tantalising clue to the existence of a third specimen from New South Wales in the 1957 book The furred animals of Australia by Australian Museum curator Ellis Le G. Troughton.

Here, too, the the details were frustratingly brief. A dried skin. Received in 1956 from “B.N. Parkins of Cryon”. Specimen missing.

Floods, mouse plagues and a bushie’s keen eye

We found a link between the uncommon surname Parkins and the property Coorallie at Cryon, a small region near the famous opal mining town of Lightning Ridge.

Read more:
100 years ago, this man discovered an exquisite parrot thought to be extinct. What came next is a tragedy we must not repeat

Threatened species artist and friend Penny Gale, who was originally from nearby Walgett, told us there was a Bob Neville Parkins, who lived at Coorallie and was able to put us in touch with his daughter, Jill Roughley.

Jill remembered the entire episode clearly. She had kept the original letter her father received from Troughton, the curator, thanking him for the specimen. And she remembered the circumstances of how her father found the rare blue-grey mouse.

In October 1955, record rains hit the region. By March 1956, there was major flooding. Once the rains eased, grasses and crops grew strongly. The conditions were perfect for a plague of introduced house mice.

At Coorallie, the swarms of mice broke into the stock feed rooms to gorge themselves. Desperate to keep the numbers down, Parkins set a steel drum on its end and poured grain into it to make an effective trap.

One night, a blue-grey mouse must have crept atop the drum and dropped inside. When Bob checked the trap, there it was, alongside hundreds of house mice.

Jill told us her dad was a typical “bushie”. He was acutely observant of what was happening in the environment.

Likewise, Jill recalled Coorallie in the 1950s with remarkable detail. She told us the property was on plains of native Mitchell grass, which had reached the height of a horse’s stirrups by early 1956. As the mouse population ballooned, so did their predators. Red foxes arrived in numbers, posing a major threat to the blue-grey mouse.

Jill’s memory has given us vital clues to where the mouse might still be hanging on. Mitchell grass, rural New South Wales, heavy rains. Given the mouse plagues of recent years, now might be a good time to look again.

Does one mouse species matter, amongst all the continent’s species? We believe so. And we hope the clues we’ve uncovered could see Australia’s sad list of extinctions drop by one, rather than keep going up.

Tyrone Lavery receives funding from the New South Wales Government

Chris Dickman receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

David Lindenmayer receives funding from The Australian Research Council and the NSW Government.

– ref. Extinct or just missing? The curious case of the native blue-grey mouse – https://theconversation.com/extinct-or-just-missing-the-curious-case-of-the-native-blue-grey-mouse-179956

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret S. Barrett, Head of School, Sir Zelman Cowen School of Music and Performance, Monash University

The National Music Teacher Mentoring Program was established by Richard Gill in 2015 and implemented through the Australian Youth Orchestra.

The mentoring program uses a simple formula: experienced music specialist teachers (the mentors) are paired with generalist early childhood teachers in primary schools which don’t have music programs to develop music programs collaboratively.

First, the mentors assess the teachers’ music experience and skills, student needs and local resources.

Second, specialist and generalist teachers work together to plan music activities that will work for that school, class and teacher.

The training involves mentors demonstrating music teaching in their own classroom, then demonstrating in the teachers’ classroom, along with joint lesson planning, preparation and team-teaching, where mentors gradually hand over the reins to teachers as they gain more music teaching skills and confidence.

The approach of the mentoring program is very different from typical professional development. Ordinarily, teachers may be presented with a great deal of information during a one-day course but they are not provided with ongoing support as they trial new ideas back in their classroom.

Under this mentorship program, mentors and teachers build an ongoing relationship based on trust, mutual respect and collaboration. Since its inception, 630 primary classroom teachers have been upskilled to teach 50,000 students music in their classrooms.

Read more:
Music can help lift our kids out of the literacy rut, but schools in some states are still missing out

Benefits for children

This mentorship scheme provides a ray of sunshine for children who do not have access to music at school, in particular at disadvantaged schools.

Our research found, regardless of gender or socio-economic status, the singing skills of students in these classrooms improved and children showed a general improvement in their attitudes towards music.

We spoke directly to children who participated in this program. They told us they:

• recognised the intrinsic value of music

• sang and played musical games at home and at school

• made music at home and while travelling in cars

• played musical instruments

• accessed music using technology

• used music for mood and self-regulation

• built social interactions and confidence through music and

• identified music’s positive impact on literacy and numeracy development.

One very wise year two child said:

I think [music] is just as important as English and maths. I think it is just as important because if you don’t know how to express yourself or play or sing, then your life isn’t going to be as fun as kids that have got education in music.

Read more:
What’s your school closures playlist? Why music should be part of parents’ pandemic survival strategy

Impact on teachers and schools

As well as talking to children, we interviewed teachers, mentors and principals.

They saw many positive outcomes from the program, including an enriched school curriculum, locally relevant programs that drew on the interests and activities of the school and its community to create music content, the building of teacher resources, increased confidence in teachers’ music skills and a positive impact on student learning and behaviour.

As part of the mentorship, music did not just take place in discrete lessons. The mentoring program integrated music into daily activities and transitions between regular lessons, changing the atmosphere of entire schools.

The morning roll-call became a singing game, short music activities between lessons refreshed children for the next task and children continued singing and playing music games out of the classroom in the playground.

Teachers also noted the particular benefits for children from non-English speaking backgrounds who gained English skills and personal confidence through singing and music activities.

As one teacher described:

30% of our students come to us with no English at all, and now they’re learning chunks of language because of singing. Songs make a huge difference to children learning English, because otherwise they’re just silent.

Children with diverse neurological needs also became calmer in the classroom and more actively engaged in learning. One mentor reported:

The teacher was absolutely speechless about this little boy who had a number of learning difficulties, would not speak, incredibly poor self-esteem. But he got up and sang and had confidence.

Bridging the gap between values and skills

The National Music Teacher Mentoring Program has made it possible to upskill classroom teachers with little previous music experience to deliver quality music programs in their schools.

Programs such as this invest in the expertise of specialist music teachers, linking music mentors and teachers to create music programs in primary schools.

Our research has shown early childhood teachers value music highly, but express low confidence in their skills and ability to deliver music education. The National Music Teacher Mentoring program is addressing the gap between values, confidence and skills.

Margaret Barrett receives funding from the Australian Research Council. the Australian Youth Orchestra, and the Melbourne Recital Centre

Katie Zhukov 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. ‘Just as important as English or maths’: how mentoring is bringing music alive for primary school students – https://theconversation.com/just-as-important-as-english-or-maths-how-mentoring-is-bringing-music-alive-for-primary-school-students-180411

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

When they faced the media to deliver their opening campaign pitches on Sunday, the core messages of Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese were clear. One emphasised the risk of change, the other sold change as an opportunity.

They brought different styles to their appearances.

Morrison just wanted to say his piece and get away. Questions can be slippery territory. He cut the press pack’s interrogation short, after warning he’d take “a few quick questions”. It looked abrupt, and Albanese was determined to demonstrate a contrast.

So when he appeared, the Labor leader let the questioning run. But by the end he sounded verbose – which is a perennial fault his minders seem unable to fix.

The Prime Minister didn’t use the word “trust” in his appeal to voters. Given the debate about his character, that mightn’t play so well in the focus groups these days.

But that was the sentiment, expressed through the word “choice”.

“A choice between an economic recovery that is leading the world, and a Labor opposition that would weaken it, and risk it.”

“A choice between a strong and tested government team that has demonstrated our ability to make difficult and tough choices in tough times and a Labor opposition who has been so focused on politics over these past few years that they still can’t tell you what they do, who they are or what they believe in.”

There was more, but the fundamental choice was “between a government that you know and a Labor opposition that you don’t.”

Morrison rehearsed Australia’s achievements in handling both COVID and the economy.

But he is also aware he has to give a nod to the criticisms of his government, so we got (once again) the acknowledgement it “is not perfect […] you may see some flaws”. And, given he’s personally unpopular, Morrison is talking up the “team”.

Albanese attacked the government for lacking “an agenda for today, let alone a vision for tomorrow”. He warned of the fear campaigns to come, but reached out to people’s “sense of optimism and desire for a better future”. This was the time for Australians “to seize the opportunities that are before us”.

In both his opening remarks and responding to questions, Albanese sold himself as a responsible, experienced leader, countering the way the government paints him.

He wouldn’t be a spendthrift – remember he learned the value of a dollar when young. As for the government’s “absurd” attacks alleging his inexperience, there was a CV of his time in office. A leftwinger? “I am who I am” – a “working class lad”, comfortable in a board room and a pub.

Most of what the leaders said we’ve heard before and we’ll hear it endlessly again. But there were surprises from each under questioning about their frontbenches.

Like the PM’s answer when asked whether Alan Tudge would be in his cabinet if the government is returned.

“Alan Tudge is still in my cabinet,” Morrison said.

Which is very different from what Tudge said after last month’s release of the report into a former staffer’s allegations against him (which said there was “insufficient evidence” to find he bullied or harassed the woman).

“I have requested not to be returned to the front bench before the election,” he said. Morrison also said then that Tudge had told him “that […] he is not seeking to return to the frontbench”.

Neither said “frontbench duties”. Their statements were misleading – although there was a hint of something fishy in Morrison’s, which said Stuart Robert would continue as “acting” minister for education.

It recently came out at Senate estimates that Tudge still has the title of education minister. The government says he isn’t being paid as a minister.

There’s little doubt Tudge – after apparently never leaving the current cabinet– would be in a new Morrison cabinet.

And on the subject of ministers, Morrison told his news conference he will reveal who would be his future health minister (Greg Hunt is retiring) “in the next week or so”. Presumably in conjunction with a health announcement.

Also notable was what Albanese said, when probed, about his frontbench.

There has been speculation deputy Labor leader Richard Marles would want to return to the defence area, replacing Brendan O’Connor, if Labor wins. Also canvassed has been the possibility of Kristina Keneally, shadow home affairs minister, perhaps getting an economic job in government.

But Albanese said: “It’s my expectation that the frontbench will serve in the same positions that they’re in now”, although he also referred to this as “the starting point”. (Caucus, which means the factions, formally chooses the frontbench, the leader allocates portfolios.)

Albanese has left himself wriggle room – and perhaps just wants to shut down the stories – but it was significant that he locked himself in to the extent he did.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Morrison talks risk, Albanese spruiks opportunity, in opening pitches – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrison-talks-risk-albanese-spruiks-opportunity-in-opening-pitches-181039

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Arrow, Professor of History, Macquarie University

After months of speculation, the prime minister has finally called an election for May 21.

Given the events of the past two years, so-called “women’s issues” look set to play an important role in the campaign. Apart from the government’s headline gender problems, most notably their handling of the Brittany Higgins case, the COVID pandemic exposed the ways our culture still relies on women to perform most of the care work that keeps society functioning. Women workers in retail, health and aged care were at the pandemic frontlines; at home, many juggled paid work with care for children and ageing relatives.

How will the major parties speak to these women?

This government is nine years old, and it has had what former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described as a “women problem” in its parliamentary ranks for all of that time. The LNP still has far fewer women in parliament than the Labor party, and since the departure of Julie Bishop, they have few popular female campaigners to draw on.

In contrast, more than 40% of Labor’s MPs are women. According to recent research, Penny Wong is Australia’s most trusted politician, with Tanya Plibersek not far behind.

Yet despite these high-profile women, for most voters, the election is a contest between two white men, close in age and appearance. After the ALP’s demoralising defeat in 2019 on a progressive platform of redistributive tax reform (changes to franking credits and negative gearing) and health (free cancer treatment and abortions in public hospitals), this time they have chosen a small target strategy. The differences between the two parties are far less obvious than they were in 2019.

Yet much has changed since then. The country has experienced a disruptive three years. While Australians rose to the occasion during the pandemic, enduring lockdowns and quickly getting vaccinated, they were let down by the government’s failures in planning and procurement.

The politics of climate change have also changed since 2019, when Labor was caught between “coal seats” and progressive voters. Three years of unprecedented natural disasters and the government’s failure to take meaningful action mean the LNP is now wedged on climate by the “teal” independents in blue-ribbon seats.

And since the last election, the Coalition’s treatment of women has become a defining issue. In 2018, the party’s humiliation of Julie Bishop as a leadership contender raised the hackles of many in the LNP, including Julia Banks, who resigned from parliament, alleging bullying.

But it was the emergence of 2021 Australian of the Year Grace Tame as an eloquent critic of the government on gender issues and Brittany Higgins’ allegation of sexual assault that galvanised Australian women.

Add to that Morrison’s response to the allegations made against Christian Porter, his treatment of former Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate, the expensive stage three tax cuts that will overwhelmingly favour men, failure to enforce a “positive duty” on employers to ensure workplaces free of sexual harassment, and more allegations of bullying against the prime minister from women in his party, and it’s pretty clear the government still has a “women problem”.

Read more:
Making change, making history, making noise: Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame at the National Press Club

The unseemly eagerness with which the government seized on unproven allegations that the late Senator Kimberly Kitching had been bullied showed how desperate they are to level the playing field on “women’s issues”.

But how will all this play out in the election campaign?

How women reshaped the major parties

The last few decades have seen a realignment of support for the major parties along gender lines, and the gender differences in voter bases have been especially stark in the Morrison era.

Historically, Australian women tended to vote conservative. While there were very few women in Australia’s parliaments until the late 1970s, those elected tended to represent the Liberal and National parties. The ALP was regarded as a party with a male-dominated union culture, hostile to women.

The emergence of what historian Judith Brett called a “moral middle class” in the 1960s began a larger political realignment in Australia. The Labor party broadened its appeal to the emerging progressive middle class, and women became a crucial part of this constituency as they moved into the workforce and education, expanding their horizons and changing their priorities.

Read more:
Memo Liberal women: if you really want to confront misogyny in your party, you need to fix the policies

Since the 1980s, the gender gap between women and men’s support for the major parties has waxed and waned. But at the last election, the Liberal Party attracted the lowest number of votes from women since 1987. More women than men voted for Labor) in 2019.

Anthony Albanese’s focus on aged care in his budget reply signalled that care, in the broadest sense, would be a central plank of Labor’s campaign. This should matter to everyone – both men and women have ageing parents or grandparents. But because women largely perform society’s paid and unpaid care work, it is an issue that will resonate more with female voters.

To win government, Labor needs to retain women’s votes while renewing their appeal to blue collar men, many of whom shifted to the LNP in 2019. Polling suggests they have succeeded, though how it will play out in individual seats remains to be seen.

Morrison constantly courting the male (tradie) vote

So what might Morrison do to retain the “men’s vote”? Katharine Murphy has astutely observed that his political attention is always focused on men who “might vote Labor”. This explains why so many women are turned off by his repeated tradie cosplay: he’s not addressing them.

In 2019, Morrison’s “daggy dad” persona served him well: he was happy on the campaign trail, serving up stunts for the 6pm news. However, since then this strategy has faltered. He doesn’t hold a hose when it counts, and his willingness to take credit but never responsibility might represent a kind of masculinity that few Australian men will want to embrace.

In focusing so tightly on the male vote, Morrison has neglected women. It may yet cost him government. The wild card in this election is the number of largely female independents running in safe Liberal seats.

In an alternate universe, most of these women would be Liberal Party moderates, had the party not worked so hard to alienate them. In the early 2000s, John Howard dismissed Liberal-leaning women who disliked the party’s policies on refugees and social issues as “doctors’ wives”: Anne Henderson noted critics regarded them as women with “enough money to afford a conscience”.

Yet in 2022, the Liberal party would do well to remember that many “wives” are also doctors – professional, socially progressive and economically centrist, looking for candidates who represent their values. This is why the “teal” independents have made urgent action on climate, an integrity commission, and better action on gender equity central to their platforms. Their views on aged care reform – which will require increased government spending – are less clear.

The next few weeks will reveal whether they emerge as a new force in Australian politics. Whatever happens, many women voters are clearly signalling they will no longer be taken for granted, and this renewed engagement is a promising sign for a more responsive, representative politics.

Michelle Arrow receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She was a campaign volunteer for the Australian Labor Party at the 2019 election. Michelle would like to thank Shaun Wilson for his assistance in researching this article.

– ref. Women have been at the centre of political debate in the past two years. Will they decide the 2022 election? – https://theconversation.com/women-have-been-at-the-centre-of-political-debate-in-the-past-two-years-will-they-decide-the-2022-election-179749

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

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has called the federal election for May 21. What do the polls say, and how do we know if they are accurate?

There have been five national polls conducted since the March 29 budget. Newspoll gave Labor a 54-46 lead, a one-point gain for the Coalition since mid-March, and Ipsos a 55-45 lead (its first poll since the 2019 election). Morgan gave Labor a 57-43 lead, a 1.5-point gain for Labor since the previous week.

Essential’s “2PP+”, which includes undecided voters, gave Labor a 50-45 lead (48-44 two weeks ago). Analyst Kevin Bonham estimated Resolve would be about 55.5-44.5 to Labor from the primary votes, a 1.5-point gain for Labor since mid-February.

If these poll results were repeated on election day, Labor would easily win a majority in the House of Representatives. While the polls could change between now and election day, or be inaccurate, it’s wrong to say that current polls would result in a minority government.

The Coalition’s main hope is not that the polls are wrong again, but that they improve in the polls over the course of the election campaign. They probably don’t need to win the two-party vote. In both 1990 (Labor) and 1998 (Coalition), incumbent governments won a majority of seats despite losing the national two-party vote.

In 1998, Labor won the two-party vote by 51.0-49.0, while in 1990, the Coalition won by 50.1-49.9. The government can win a majority if the two-party result is fairly close, but if it’s the blowout that current polls suggest, Labor will easily win a House of Representatives majority.

The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack aggregate of all polls currently has Labor winning by 55.3-44.7, while Bonham gives Labor a 54.6-45.4 lead.

Are the polls accurate?

At the 2019 election, the final pre-election Newspoll gave Labor a 51.5-48.5 lead, and other polls were similar. The actual two-party result was the reverse, with the Coalition winning by 51.5-48.5.

Read more:
Final 2019 election results: education divide explains the Coalition’s upset victory

Australian pollsters are assisted by compulsory voting, so they don’t need to estimate the likelihood of various demographics voting. By Australian standards, this was a major poll blunder.

After the 2019 election, the Australian Polling Council was formed so pollsters disclose basic information, like how they weight their samples. Of Australia’s four regular pollsters that conduct national polls, Essential and YouGov, which conducts Newspoll, are APC members, but Morgan and Resolve are not.

Until we know the results of this year’s election, we can’t be completely confident the polls are not messing up again. Our four current regular pollsters use online methods to conduct polls, with Morgan supplementing with live phone interviews. There is not enough variety in methods used to give confidence.

The polls’ problem in the 2019 election was likely caused by failure to weight to educational attainment. I wrote last May that non-university-educated whites in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia have been moving to the right. So it gives me more confidence that Newspoll is now weighting its results by education.

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

Polling of state elections since the 2019 federal election has been good. This polling has somewhat understated Labor. At the recent South Australian election, the final pre-election Newspoll gave Labor a 54-46 lead; it actually won by 54.6-45.4.

At the March 2021 Western Australian election, Newspoll’s final poll gave Labor a 66-34 lead, but it actually won by a record-breaking 69.7-30.3 margin. At the October 2020 Queensland election, the final Newspoll gave Labor a 51.5-48.5 lead, but it won by 53.2-46.8.

It is a pity other pollsters have not attempted to poll close to state elections, so their vote estimates could be tested against actual results.

Morrison’s ratings at about this time before the 2019 election were only slightly negative in Newspoll, while then Labor leader Bill Shorten’s ratings were consistently in the negative double digits. Currently, Morrison’s ratings are in the negative double digits and Albanese is near net zero, so personal ratings are lining up better with voting intentions.

Non-response bias is thought to be the reason US 2020 polls understated Donald Trump. Trump supporters distrusted the established media, including polls, so much that they did not respond to polls. This was not a “shy Tory” effect, when people lie to pollsters, but simply not participating in polls.

State election results so far indicate non-response bias isn’t yet a major factor in Australia. It would be very difficult for pollsters to correct for non-response bias, so hopefully it doesn’t become a factor here.

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

– ref. As the election campaign begins, what do the polls say, and can we trust them this time? – https://theconversation.com/as-the-election-campaign-begins-what-do-the-polls-say-and-can-we-trust-them-this-time-180318

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Kenny, Professor, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University

This piece is the second in a two-part series. Its companion piece, How Labor can win the 2022 election, can be found here.

When the counting’s done, elections obey the iron laws of arithmetic. Yet, in the lead-up to polling day, psychology also plays its part.

At two key federal elections in living memory, the upset winner relied on more malleable things than hard numbers to leaven their poor electoral prospects – unquantifiables such as hope, self-belief, even faith.

Paul Keating’s “victory for the true believers” in 1993, and Scott Morrison’s “miracle win” in 2019, stand out as elections during which the leaders successfully harnessed these most human of motivations.

Each had used them not merely to steel themselves against a corrosive defeatism to which they might have otherwise succumbed, but also to project that confidence within their inner circle and outwards to their wider base. This “build it and they will come” mindset assisted them to beat the odds and ultimately prevail.

Crucially, both campaigns were designed to give tired governments another term against fresher, if more radical, alternatives: John Hewson’s super-specific Fightback manifesto in 1993, and in 2019, Bill Shorten’s comprehensive tax-and-spend plans.

In 2022, though, Morrison faces a tougher task.

First, he’s already pulled off a stealth victory once, and Anthony Albanese has taken clear lessons from that shock. The Labor leader is determined to make election 2022 a referendum on the government’s failures and not, as it became in 2019, a fear-fight about the opposition’s policy plans. Expect Albanese to direct the spotlight relentlessly at the prime minister himself.

Second, Morrison’s advantage in 2019 was that voters didn’t know him well, which allowed the former marketing executive to fill in the gaps.

Cunningly, he presented as a kind of competent accountant who was reassuringly dull. It worked precisely because he was so unthreatening – a politician, yes, but one who was also a suburban everyman. Voters felt little desire to know more.

Three years later though, they do. They see a polarising figure known for blame-shifting, despised by some who have worked with him closely, and described as deceitful, overbearing and ruthless.

Third, the Coalition is probably further behind in 2022.

Yet, for all this, Morrison has told his colleagues he will win, and few doubt his belief. So, is a fourth term possible? Yes, if Morrison succeeds in keeping the focus on his ground – the economy and national security – enabling him to retain the seats the Coalition holds in net terms.

That won’t be easy, given Labor’s eight-point two-party lead and the fact that Morrison is just one point ahead in the most recent Newspoll’s better PM index. Mark, have updated this from last night

Read more:
Coalition and Greens gain in post-budget Newspoll as an Ipsos poll gives Labor a large lead

Yet, as Morrison has told his colleagues, Labor’s path to a majority is more difficult. It’s harder still if you price in the usual narrowing of opinion polls at the business end of this race.

In raw seats, Morrison starts ahead, with 76 in the 151-member house to Labor’s 69. The opposition needs to hold what it has and gain seven to govern in its own right.

Queensland might be the birthplace of the ALP and friendly ground for Labor’s Annastacia Palaszczuk, but it is hardly propitious for federal Labor. Out of 30 House of Representatives seats, Labor holds just six, and has no great confidence in picking up more.

That said, the veteran Liberal Warren Entsch (Leichhardt) admits the slow responses to the floods and the pandemic have left Far North Queensland voters angry, with some now drifting rightward towards populists Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson.

In the Northern Territory it is probably status quo also, although Liberals think Lingiari (5.5%) is “gettable” after the retirement of Labor stalwart Warren Snowden. Solomon (3.1%) is also mentioned.

So what about resource-rich Western Australia? Here, Morrison could live or die. Labor is optimistically eyeing five seats but if by some strange “miracle” Liberals hang on to all of them, Morrison would be a long way towards retaining government. Yet going into the campaign, that looks unlikely.

Labor is campaigning hard in Pearce, which has been vacated by Christian Porter and is likely to snare the 5.2% electorate given Porter’s infamy and the shredded Liberal brand in the West.

The next most likely are Swan and Hasluck. The former is being vacated by a retiring Liberal MP Steve Irons. At just 3.2%, it too is a probable Liberal loss. Hasluck, however, held by the respected Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt, would take a 6% Labor swing to change hands.

Moving east, the recent rout of the Liberal state government in South Australia suggests the blue-ribbon jewel of Boothby (1.4%) will fall. But that could easily be the extent of damage in the ten-seat central state. That said, state voting booth-by-booth, if applied to federal boundaries suggests Sturt at 6.9% is also vulnerable.

In Victoria, Labor’s support was high at the last election, which means there are few Labor prospects in 2022 aside from Chisholm (0.5%). However, the Liberal party is under threat in several heartland seats with “teal” independents pushing hard in Higgins, Kooyong and Goldstein.

In New South Wales, Morrison expects to regain Gilmore via a popular ex-state MP for the area, Andrew Constance. In a best-case scenario, the biggest state would otherwise remain fairly static. Still, a squalid factional brawl has left key electoral prospects without Liberal candidates until the death knell. Plus, Liberal seats like Reid (3.2%) and Robertson (4.2%) remain extremely vulnerable.

Liberals say an against-the-play gain in Tasmania is possible, with Morrison eyeing an upset in Labor-held Lyons (5.1%). But the party could also fall short and lose Bass as well, which it holds by a wafer-thin 0.4%.

In the end, all this detail could be swept aside if the electorate is of a clear mind to change government. As they say in political circles, when a swing is on, it’s on.

Read more:
Want to understand how the Coalition works? Take a look at climate policy

Nevertheless, Morrison could actually survive a sizeable swing in some areas if he can pick up the odd win here and there to offset losses.

Of course, the wildcard is the rise of the independents. Their success in Liberal strongholds such as Wentworth, Goldstein, Higgins and Curtin could see the Coalition displaced even if Labor falls short of its own majority. And defending these seats will cost money and resources.

After nearly a decade in office, the Coalition carries plenty of scar tissue into this contest, and Morrison himself has attracted extraordinary personal criticism on character grounds – largely from his own side.

Yet he is an ebullient and disciplined campaigner who has shown how to carry a message, dismantle those of his opponents, and frighten voters.

In 2019, voters didn’t need to like him to stick with the status quo. He’ll be hoping that in 2022, his perceived strengths on jobs, economic growth, and national security, will outweigh his low standing personally.

And who knows? Surely that’s the key lesson of 2019 for both sides: it’s not over until it’s over. Morrison believes this even if others have their doubts.

Mark Kenny 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. How the Coalition can win the 2022 election – https://theconversation.com/how-the-coalition-can-win-the-2022-election-179942

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wallace, Associate Professor, 50/50 By 2030 Foundation, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of Canberra

This piece is the first in a two-part series. Its companion piece, How the Coalition can win the 2022 election, can be found here.

Every election is winnable, by either side, as the 2019 election showed. Labor enters this one in better shape, and with better prospects, than last time.

Providing it’s not bested over the tough weeks of the campaign itself, and barring shock developments before election day, Labor appears to be on track for victory. These are things it needs to do to make sure it gets there.

1. Anthony Albanese should continue to be “the reasonable person”

Compare television footage of Albanese at the beginning of his opposition leadership with now and you see a leader who has worked hard to make himself fit – and to look fit – for office.

He is not perfect, but has not made the perfect the enemy of the good. In the tradition of Bob Hawke making himself electable by forgoing the grog and giving up savaging journalists, Albanese now stands tall, dresses professionally and speaks more clearly. He has gone from looking like someone from the Annandale Hotel’s front bar to a leader one can easily see living in The Lodge.

Albanese has also perfected the “reasonable person” image essential to making voters comfortable about installing him there for the next three years. By vastly improving his public presentation, running a tidy and effective opposition, and not scaring the horses, Albanese has made Labor more competitive at this election than it was in 2016 or 2019 – elections it only narrowly lost.

Crucially, his personal efforts and strategic approach, combined with extraordinary caucus loyalty, have enabled him to turn around the massive net popularity advantage Scott Morrison once enjoyed.

While Albanese’s Newspoll net approval rating of -1 is not stellar, it’s significantly better than the now toxic Morrison’s net approval rating of -12.

The more popular leader doesn’t always win federal elections. However, the last three times governments fell (at the 1996, 2007 and 2013 elections), the opposition leader had a higher net approval rating than the prime minister who lost. Albanese needs to maintain this advantage during the campaign.

Read more:
Coalition and Greens gain in post-budget Newspoll as an Ipsos poll gives Labor a large lead

2. Labor should remain disciplined to keep the focus on government bungles

Morrison overcame the political damage from his truculence during the 2020 bushfire crisis when he reluctantly returned from an Hawaiian holiday and declared he “did not hold a hose”.

Voters forgave him and his standing recovered. Since then, voters have joined the dots between this and several other areas of perceived underperformance. There was the COVID-19 vaccine “strollout”, the punitive and unlawful “robodebt” scheme, the mishandling of the Brittany Higgins rape allegation and historic rape allegations against cabinet minister Christian Porter, and slackness over the organisation of COVID-19 booster shots and RAT tests, among other bungles and integrity clouds.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s response last year “I do not think, I know” to the question of whether Morrison lied in dealings with him over a major defence contract proved a turning point.

Macron’s comment tipped the accumulated weight of the government’s poor performance into a fundamental adverse shift in voter perceptions of the Coalition. The government had not reversed this by the time the election was called.

Labor has to keep attention on the pattern of Coalition incompetence and avoid making itself the issue.

Read more:
Tax cuts? COVID management? On the search for the Morrison government’s legacy (so far)

3. Labor should resist the temptation to exploit the Liberal Party NSW division’s implosion

When you see an opponent digging a hole for themselves, don’t interfere – let them keep digging. The prime minister’s central involvement in the chronic Liberal preselection stoush in his home state of NSW has put the government’s re-election at risk. This is because survival depends on the Coalition picking up enough seats from Labor in NSW to offset expected losses in other states.

Yet Morrison has stubbornly prioritised preselection protection for his unpopular factional ally Alex Hawke over getting the NSW division of the Liberals election-ready. While the NSW court of appeal gave Morrison a victory of sorts this week when it dismissed a claim that the hand-picking of candidates was invalid, the damage within the party has been done and bitterness remains.

This kind of “precipice” politics is extraordinary so close to a poll: the printing of corflutes and campaign literature featuring candidates for a number of seats awaited the exhaustion of legal challenges to Morrison’s plan.

Providing Labor lets Liberal infighting in NSW speak for itself, there will be dividends to the opposition in a populous state with a large number of seats.

4. Labor should continue its ‘smart target’ policy approach and showcase its best frontbenchers prominently in the campaign

Learning from errors last time round, Labor can avoid becoming the subject of a large-scale fear campaign by keeping policy strategic, straight-forward and easily communicated to voters. There is no equivalent this time of Labor’s complicated 2019 franking credits policy or uncosted climate change policy, both vehicles for damaging coalition attacks.

Further, Labor has a higher performing frontbench than last time. Albanese has done a better job than his predecessor Bill Shorten in matching the best frontbench talent with the right portfolios to show Labor as an effective alternative government.

Several strong performers, such as Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers in the vital economic sphere and Shadow Foreign Minister Penny Wong in the sensitive foreign policy area, showcase Labor’s readiness for office.

They and talented colleagues should feature strongly in Labor’s paid advertising, letting voters know Albanese has a strong frontbench and signalling that his government, in contrast to Morrison’s, won’t be dysfunctional.

5. Albanese should draw on voter goodwill by association with Labor’s successful state premiers

Voters strongly supported the approach of state premiers during the most dangerous phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of these were Labor premiers, who benefited in opinion polls and at the ballot box for keeping citizens safe.

Queensland Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk won her third election in a row. Western Australian Labor Premier Mark McGowan was re-elected with a majority so big the Coalition was reduced to just two MPs in the WA parliament’s lower house.

Liberal premiers who replicated the Labor premiers’ approach, and pushed back against Morrison’s pressure to open up early, did well. Those who went with the Morrison approach were punished: Liberal South Australian premier Steven Marshall lost office last month, and the minority government of NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet is deeply unpopular and clinging to power by a thread.

The Labor brand has benefited from the Labor premiers’ pandemic leadership. Albanese should subtly encourage perceptions he is from the same mould, being seen with them in judicious quantities, to get some spillover benefits by association.

Chris Wallace has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. How Labor can win the 2022 election – https://theconversation.com/how-labor-can-win-the-2022-election-179750

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

This election is a contest between a desperate prime minister and an opposition leader who sometimes looks as though he has been promoted beyond his capability.

Neither government nor Labor is putting forward an agenda to seize the imagination of Australians as they struggle out from the pall of the pandemic.

The Coalition, which enters the campaign well behind in the polls, is pitching centrally on economic management, as well as national security. Labor is casting itself as the “caring” party: “Child Care. Medicare. Aged Care. Because Labor cares”. It portrays the government as “out of ideas and out of time”.

This is an election that will be fought on the political low ground, not on the heights of competing ambitious blueprints for the country’s future. It’s a battle between a leader who’s lost the confidence of many of the public and one who has yet to gain it.

If Scott Morrison struggles over the line, we can expect a continuation of the “managerial” style of governing we’ve seen in the last three years.

If Anthony Albanese wins, Labor’s approach is promised to be (as he keeps repeating) “renewal not revolution” – worthy initiatives rather than innovative and bold thinking.

No one rules out the uncertainties of a hung parliament, which would put the spotlight on the crossbench.

Of course whoever is the victor may surprise us – for better or worse. And events, which have shaped politics so dramatically and unexpected during this parliamentary term, will continue to play a major, but unpredictable, part in the next.

Morrison enters the campaign with massive scarring. The ordinary (if little known) bloke from the suburbs, promoted as the so-called “daggy dad” of the 2019 campaign, is now viewed very differently.

Many voters have come to see him more clearly than they did three years ago, and don’t like what they see. He’s widely disliked and distrusted (although “trust” is multifaceted – a leader can be personally distrusted but still trusted on, say, the economy). Women in particular view the prime minister negatively. Colleagues will admit privately he’s a drag on their vote, especially in some traditional Liberal seats.

To state the obvious, Morrison can’t win this election by any sort of charm offensive. His problems are way beyond that.

It will be like the sighting of a rare bird if and when he appears in the seats where Liberals are fighting off high profile “teal” independents. Wooing those voters will have to be left to treasurer and deputy Liberal leader Josh Frydenberg.

Morrison can only win if he manages to demolish his opponent, instilling uncertainty and fear about an Albanese government.

There are parallels between Morrison and Paul Keating, both the Keating of the 1993 campaign and the Keating of 1996.

Morrison hopes to emulate Keating’s (unexpected) win in 1993, when he triumphed with a shock-and-awe negative campaign.

But, unlike Keating, who in that campaign was punching at an enormous target in John Hewson’s radical Fightback program, Morrison’s target is akin to a rolled-up porcupine.

In 1996, the then-prime minister had worn out his welcome with the electorate and grappled with the small-target John Howard opposition. Keating lost. History may or may not repeat itself.

Morrison’s challenge is to inflate, in the minds of voters, an apparently unthreatening Labor alternative into something alarming. “Labor is an unknown in uncertain times,” the PM declares.

Albanese’s strength in a two-horse race is that he is not Morrison (or indeed Bill Shorten, with his excessive policy baggage, of the 2019 campaign).

His weakness is that, after decades in politics, he may not be disciplined enough, under the blowtorch, to avoid errors in the next several weeks. A certain prickly quality could come through under stress. And, although people don’t dislike him, he lacks the charisma of a Bob Hawke or the freshness of a Kevin Rudd. His persona doesn’t drive people away, but it’s no political magnet.

Albanese’s vulnerability was obvious the day after his budget reply, when pressed on Nine’s Today show about whether he’d increase taxes. On this simple and most expected question he faffed around, deflected, talked about the government. It took a couple of days before the issue was cleaned up (Labor would only increase taxes on multinationals).

If Albanese has trouble answering something so predictable, Morrison will often say anything that seems convenient in the moment, regardless of whether it’s true. On the ABC’s 7.30 last week, he asserted Gladys Berejiklian had denied a text message saying he was a horrible person. In fact, she’d pleaded lack of recollection.

When Morrison’s statements are misleading, they tend to come back to bite him. It’s part of his wider “character” problem. The denigration of him from people on his own side (Berejiklian, Barnaby Joyce) via leaked texts and in parliaments (Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, NSW Liberal Catherine Cusack) has done him much more damage than his opponents could inflict.

The Morrison “character” failure delivers a windfall to the “teal” independents who are challenging Liberal seats usually considered safe. While the “teals” are elevating climate change and integrity, they also give Liberal voters who can’t stand Morrison personally a bolthole.

An extensive network of “teals” is appealing to the moderate centre of politics, with the contests in Mackellar, North Sydney, and Wentworth in NSW, and Goldstein and Kooyong in Victoria the core “teal” tests.

The “teals” have already had an impact. Morrison’s determination to have the government embrace net zero by 2050 was at least in part driven by having to sandbag Liberals in these seats. The payoff for the Nationals to agree to the target was billions of dollars for infrastructure for the regions.

These “teals” are well funded, especially thanks to the Climate 200, started by Simon Holmes a Court, and well organised. In Kooyong for example, there are hundreds of volunteers helping independent Monique Ryan, who is running against Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

The high profile independents are diverting Liberal resources and attention. But their difficulty in actually winning should not be underestimated: they have to force themselves into second place on primaries before they can get a leg up on preferences.

There is already a batch of crossbenchers in the House of Representatives. Most will be returned and they’d be critical if the parliament were hung.

The 46th parliament hasn’t had much to commend it. Its legislative achievement was meagre. COVID was a massive limitation, but it wasn’t the sole problem. There was a lack of ambition, which the pandemic masked. For example, the government’s failure to bring in an integrity commission was basically a failure of will, a reluctance by the government to meet the public’s expectations.

For the reputations of individuals, and the institution of parliament generally, this has been a devastating term.

The parliament was rocked by the allegation of former staffer Brittany Higgins that a colleague raped her in a ministerial office. A subsequent inquiry into the parliamentary workplace painted a shameful picture of bad conduct.

Linda Reynolds, the minister who initially dealt with Higgins, was shifted sideways. Indirectly, consequences flowed to the late Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching, ostracised by her own side for allegedly leaking to Reynolds about the matter.

In the wake of a historical rape allegation (which he denied), Christian Porter quits politics at this election. A messy affair with a staffer (in the previous term) saw Alan Tudge effectively shunted from the frontbench (although he formally retained title of education minister).

On a number of fronts, the 46th is a parliament that won’t be missed. Everyone would hope – but not necessarily expect – the 47th, with the worst of COVID behind us, will be one of greater achievement.

As the formal campaign starts Albanese, on the basis of the polls, is in a winning position. But, especially given the experience of 2019, pundits are being careful with predictions. In elections there is not just the national campaign grabbing the headlines but the grassroots contests. If things are close, they can be the difference between victory and defeat.

The current polls guide us as to how people are thinking at this instant; they can’t tell us if or how the formal campaign might reshape that thinking.

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: an election fought on the political low ground – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-an-election-fought-on-the-political-low-ground-180670

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

Offered a menu of issues to choose from as the most important in the May 21 election, Australia’s top economists have overwhelmingly zeroed in on one.

Three quarters of the 50 top economists surveyed by The Conversation and the Economic Society of Australia have nominated “climate and the environment” as the most important issue for the incoming government and the most important in the election.

The 74% who nominated climate and the environment is more than twice the proportion that nominated the four substantial runners up: housing availability and affordability, health, tax reform, and education.

None of the 50 surveyed nominated “lower taxes” as important for the election or the incoming government, and only 8% nominated support for business.

The economists chosen for the survey are recognised as leaders in fields including economic modelling and public policy. Among them are former IMF, Treasury and OECD officials, and a former member of the Reserve Bank board.

Many noted that their priorities were at odds with those of both major parties.

Guyonne Kalb of The University of Melbourne observed that Australia was especially vulnerable to climate disasters, and that the population seemed to recognise this more than the government. Being the last nation to use outdated technologies was “never wise if it can be avoided”.

Read more:
Below the Line: introducing The Conversation’s new election podcast, hosted by Jon Faine

Young Economist of the Year Stefanie Schurer said Australia had fallen so far behind the richer countries on measures to reach net zero it ranked “dead last” according to the Climate Council. It was not only embarrassing, but “incredibly shortsighted” given Australia’s exposure to extreme weather events.

Flavio Menezes of The University of Queensland said the needed transition was massive. To achieve net-zero by 2050 (a target accepted by both sides of politics) Australia would need an 800% increase in large-scale wind, solar and hydro generation, as well as a corresponding increase in the transmission capacity.

The current government’s motto of technology not taxes was “an empty slogan”. Much of the needed spending would have to be funded by taxes.

A carbon tax would help

The University of Queensland’s John Quiggin described the campaign as the most depressing he had seen in more than 50 years of paying attention. Neither major party was offering anything substantive.

Several participants noted that a carbon price (or tax) of the kind Australia had between 2012 and 2014 would provide a permanent incentive for every sector of the economy to find new ways to cut emissions, but was “not on the table”.

Consulting economist Rana Roy said Australia actually had several types of carbon price in place, but their rates varied widely, with emissions in some sectors untaxed, while emissions in other sectors (such as petrol) were overtaxed.

Read more:
Economists back carbon price, say benefits of net-zero outweigh costs

The third of the economists surveyed who nominated tax reform as an important issue said it would be needed to deal with the other issues identified as important: housing affordability, health, and education.

Saul Eslake said in an ideal world both sides of politics should be having an intelligent conversation about the least damaging ways of raising the extra one to two percentage points of GDP in tax revenue that will be needed to fund priorities including aged care and the national disability insurance scheme.

Tax reform would help

The University of Melbourne’s Kevin Davis said next year’s planned stage three tax cuts directed at higher earners (and costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office at $76.2 billion over four years) should be scrapped on equity grounds alone.

Superannuation tax should also be reformed, and capital gains tax concessions reduced or axed. The “massive” tax concessions offered to home buyers and buyers of investment properties were among the chief reasons for high prices.

Curtin University’s Rachel Ong ViforJ said changes that moved away rewarding the ownership of non-productive assets toward rewarding work would be needed to address the intergenerational transmission of debt.

Higher productivity would help

The University of Sydney’s Nigel Stapledon said neither side of politics seemed focused on the emerging risk of 1970s and 1980s-style inflation.

The idea that the government could drive real wages growth without productivity improvements and not feed inflation was dodgy economics and risky policy.

Melbourne University’s John Freebairn said productivity growth had been below world’s best practice for a decade, making it hard to lift incomes and collect tax.

Read more:
Cut emissions, not petrol tax. What economists want from the budget

Tax reform itself could raise more tax by boosting productivity and cutting inequality, as could better regulations and less wasteful government spending.

Former OECD official Adrian Blundell-Wignall said Australia didn’t have a plan that offered less dependence on digging holes. Research and development and a highly educated population were the keys to driving sustainable growth.

But there’s little optimism

None of the 50 members of the panel was optimistic about either side of politics offering what was needed, at least during the campaign.

Eslake (a Tasmanian) said he was more likely to “tread in thylacine-poo on my front lawn of a morning” than to see the intelligent conversations that were needed between now and voting day.

Individual responses:

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

– ref. One issue matters more to top economists than any other this election: climate change – https://theconversation.com/one-issue-matters-more-to-top-economists-than-any-other-this-election-climate-change-180948

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

When will Prime Minister Scott Morrison call the election? And could this be the long-awaited campaign when women take the driver’s seat?

In the second episode of our new election podcast, Below the Line, our expert panel delve into the High Court’s involvement in the election’s timing and its likely impact on the Coalition vote. After we finished recording, the High Court confirmed the dismissal of the New South Wales Liberals’ challenge to Morrison’s hand-picked candidates.

Then, picking up on the PM’s claim this week that he overrode the local preselection process to “get more good women into parliament”, we take a deep dive into what role gender will play in the campaign.

Jointly hosting the episode are award-winning broadcaster and Vice Chancellor’s Fellow at the University of Melbourne, Jon Faine, and University of Sydney’s Professor Simon Jackman. Joining them to talk about gender and politics is an all-female line-up of political scientists including regular panellists Andrea Carson from La Trobe University, Sydney University’s Anika Gauja and special guest Jill Sheppard, a gender expert from the Australian National University.

They look at why Australia is ranked just 50th in the world for female political representation, a drastic fall from 1999 when Australia was ranked 15th . After the March4Justice movement and with increasing numbers of female independent candidates campaigning, could we turn things around in 2022? Don’t hold your breathe, said Jill Sheppard, who reminded us that voters might care more about petrol prices than gender parity.

Below the Line is brought to you by The Conversation and La Trobe University twice weekly until polling day. It is produced by Courtney Carthy and Benjamin Clark.

– ref. Below the Line: what role will gender play in the federal election campaign? – podcast – https://theconversation.com/below-the-line-what-role-will-gender-play-in-the-federal-election-campaign-podcast-180995

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

Scott Morrison has won, in a Friday decision by the High Court, his long running battle over NSW Liberal party preselections, clearing the way for him to call the election.

Former Liberal Matthew Camenzuli – expelled from the party this week over his disruptive tactics – has been fighting through the courts against multiple preselections having been done by a committee headed by Morrison.

The High Court refused Camenzuli’s application for special leave to appeal, after the NSW Court of Appeal earlier found against him.

The court based its refusal on an insufficient prospect of the case being successful.

If the court had agreed to hear the case it would have complicated Morrison’s run up to the election.

The case most immediately focused on the preselections of three sitting members – ministers Alex Hawke and Sussan Ley, and backbencher Trent Zimmerman.

But if successful the effect would have extended to nine other candidates selected by the committee of Morrison, NSW premier Dominic Perrottet and a former Liberal president Chris McDiven.

While Morrison is keeping his counsel about the election announcement, the speculation on Friday was that he would call the election on Sunday. The two available dates are for March 14 and 21, with the latter considered more likely.

Pressed on Friday Morrison said the last election was on May 18 “and the next election will be held at about the same time”. The date would be known “very soon”.

If he delayed beyond Sunday, he would face parliament, with the House of Representatives due to resume on Monday.

Anthony Albanese accused Morrison of delaying an announcement so he could “continue to spend taxpayer funds on election ads in the name of the government”.

Campaigning in South Australia Albanese appeared alongside the popular newly elected premier Peter Malinauskas. 

On the hustings in Victoria, Morrison said “Labor is an unknown in uncertain times”.

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. High Court win for Morrison, as he prepares to fire election starting gun – https://theconversation.com/high-court-win-for-morrison-as-he-prepares-to-fire-election-starting-gun-180981

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Dumay, Professor – Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie University

What do Beyond Good, Alter Eco, Tony’s Chocolonely and Whittaker’s all have in common? Besides producing delicious chocolate, they are the “good eggs” in this year’s chocolate scorecard.

Each is an industry leader in producing sustainable chocolate. By “sustainable” we mean doing the right thing to the planet and its people on measures as important as child labour, pesticide use, and deforestation.

The Chocolate Collective, made up of Australian charity Be Slavery Free and 20 other non-government organisations, with guidance from university experts and consultants, grades 90% of the industry and publishes the results in the lead-up to Easter, the biggest chocolate season of the year.

How we determine what’s a ‘good egg’

We scored 38 companies on six measures:

Transparency and traceability. This is the big one. If companies don’t know where their cocoa comes from, they cannot truly ensure it isn’t tainted by child labour, deforestation, and other abuses.

Child labour. More than 1.56 million children work in the cocoa industry. Around 95% of them are exposed to at least one type of hazardous labour as defined by the International Labour Organization.

Living income. Farmers are poor because of a combination of small farm size, low productivity, high costs, low prices and no alternative sources of income. Most earn about half of a so-called living income, able to provide enough food, water, housing, education, healthcare and provisions for unexpected events.

Read more:
Turning to Easter eggs to get through these dark times? Here’s the bitter truth about chocolate

Deforestation and climate. In 2020 alone, more than 47,000 hectares of forest was lost in the cocoa growing areas of Côte d’Ivoire. We explored how companies are minimising their contribution to deforestation through programs such as satellite monitoring their plans to reach net-zero carbon emissions.

Agroforestry. As opposed to pesticide-soaked monoculture, this is a more ecologically sound way of growing cocoa and restoring farm landscapes. We also looked at assessment, monitoring, and support to farmers using such methods. While we saw improvements, greater coordinated action is needed.

Agrichemicals. This theme is appearing in the chocolate scorecard for the first time. Overall, companies scored poorly, with many still uncommitted to action to reduce agrichemicals and failing to adequately protect farmers (especially children and pregnant women) from being poisoned.

And the winners are…

Beyond Good receives this year’s “good egg” award for a business model which ensures people and the planet are respected and cared for. Its smaller size has enabled this model to be refined, and now it is looking to scale up.

We also gave honourable mentions to previous “good eggs”, Alter Eco, Tony’s Chocolonely and Whittaker‘s.

Also Nestlé receives an honourable mention for its huge steps to address the living incomes of farmers, and for its commitment to plant 20 million shade trees each year.

Finally, Ferrero now joins other companies whose cocoa is 100% or early 100% certified slavery-free, such as Hershey’s, Unilever, Ritter.

We also want to give a shout out to the best Japanese company, Blommer/Fuji. This company has made major improvements over the past year and did particularly well in some aspects of addressing child labour and agrforestry.

And the losers…

“Rotten eggs” were awarded to Starbucks, General Mills, and Storck who did not disclose to us any improvements in their cocoa value chain.

Their online sustainability reports lack the details and transparency many other companies provide to their stakeholders, or are simply out of date.

If they are making progress on increasing the sustainability of their chocolate supply chains, then we (and presumably their customers) would like to hear more about it. There might be improvement, but they are not telling.

What you do makes a difference

The chocolate industry is laced with unsustainable practices. The farmers are extremely poor, and sustainability often takes second place to cheap cocoa. Our scorecard can help.

Also, it helps to look out for products that are 100% organic. You might pay a little more, but you can enjoy your chocolate knowing that in itself protects the lives of farmers, children and the environment.

There’s plenty of room for improvement across the industry – if there’s enough consumer demand for change. For instance, the manufacturers of Cadbury and Lindt chocolate were not among the top band of good eggs, instead only scoring a “Starting to implement good policies”.

As well as using our guide to help your shopping choices, it might also help to send the scorecard to your favourite company via a tweet, Facebook post or Instagram, telling them you would prefer ethical chocolate.

Australians might be asking about local brands such as Darrell Lea, Haigh’s and Robern Menz. They are not big enough to be scored in the global scorecard, but the good news is each is taking sizeable steps. Ask them if you want to know more.

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

– ref. Want to buy guilt-free Easter chocolate? Pick from our list of ‘good eggs’ that score best for the environment and child labour – https://theconversation.com/want-to-buy-guilt-free-easter-chocolate-pick-from-our-list-of-good-eggs-that-score-best-for-the-environment-and-child-labour-180549

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Klugman, Research Fellow, Institute for Health & Sport, member of the Community, Identity and Displacement Research Network, and Co-convenor of the Olympic Research Network, Victoria University

Saturday’s Adelaide Crows versus Melbourne Demons grand final is full of promise. Two superb teams matched up on a day forecast to be warm and clear, playing in front of tens of thousands of passionate fans.

But while the Crows and Demons have been busy preparing for the match, the rest of the league has been in an all-too familiar state of limbo.

The issue this time is when the next AFL Women’s season starts. Players, fans and clubs were blindsided when news broke in early March the seventh season was likely to begin in August 2022 (it has always started in summer).

The problem wasn’t the suggested start date – some, though not all players are in favour of this. The problem was the shambolic process. Players, clubs and fans weren’t initially consulted. A month later, no clarity has been provided.

Even more worryingly, this follows a pattern of devaluing those most invested in the AFLW. Is the AFL even up to the task of running the AFLW?

How the AFL has devalued women’s football

When it began in 2017, the new AFLW league was celebrated as a chance for women to finally be able to play Australian Rules football at an elite, national level.

But at the outset, it did not mirror the men’s competition. The AFL decided it was necessary to amend the AFWL rules to “ensure this is a great game to play and exciting to watch”.

Key changes included making the ball smaller, making the game more than 20 minutes shorter and reducing the number of players on the field.

Such changes sent a message the women’s competition is worth less. For example, the smaller ball was harder to kick accurately and didn’t travel as far, making it harder for women to demonstrate key skills valued by so many fans.

There have also been issues with a slew of injuries that seem related (among other things) to playing on hard grounds in summer, players not being afforded the benefits of professionalisation as well as the exhaustion of combining part-time work with the demands of elite sport.

Read more:
Mark! Kick! Tackle! The reality of fast-tracking women into elite AFL

The AFL doesn’t pay women players enough to sustain a life

Despite the mismanagement of AFLW, players, clubs and fans were nevertheless expected to remain grateful to the AFL. To not complain. The fans were the first to voice their disapproval, building vigorous, joyful, critical communities of support for AFLW.

Players are also no longer prepared to simply be grateful for the competition’s existence.

As recent research has highlighted, although they’re grateful to be included, players know they’re actually key assets.

AFLW players are paid a small fraction of the men. The average salary for men is A$372,224 per year while most women receive $20,239 doled out in a precarious six-month contract.

The economic rationale is the AFLW doesn’t bring in as much income. But this crude accounting fails to factor in the goodwill and positive brand associations of the game.

Nor does it stand up to the realities of the costs of the men’s game. For example, new men’s teams like the Gold Coast Suns have required significant investment by the AFL, without the same backlash as the women’s competition.

Also, over the last decade the enormous growth in women and girls playing Australian Rules football has offset declining numbers of men playing the game, saving numerous local clubs.

Federal, state, and local governments have poured millions of dollars into renovating grounds to support women playing, while the most compelling advertisements featuring Australian Rules football tell stories of girls and women playing the game.

Yet the elite competition on which this economic, cultural and social growth is based doesn’t pay its players enough to sustain a life.

And when the players and fans agitate for more, they are called “whingers” as sports journalist Sam Lane noted in a recent podcast.

Is the AFL the best organisation to run AFLW?

The AFL Player’s Association CEO Paul Marsh recently observed the AFL’s current lack of a clear, detailed plan for AFLW was simply “not good enough”.

After six years of mismanagement the players, fans, and clubs deserve much more from the organisation currently in charge of the elite women’s football competition.

Research on the WNBA, the elite women’s basketball competition in the United States, suggested women players get paid less because of their secondary status within the culture of sport compared to men.

When the sustainability of the AFLW is raised, people tend to ask about the quality of the players, the number of fans, and the attention of the media.

As scholars of sport in history and society we think the spotlight should now focus on the AFL – an organisation that has consistently put the AFLW second to the AFLM, and is yet to invest in it fully, or to work closely and respectfully with the players and fans.

Is it willing to undergo the significant cultural and structural work required to ensure women are valued for the worth they bring? The players and the fans are watching.

Matthew Klugman has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Adele Pavlidis has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

– ref. The AFL has consistently put the women’s game second. Is it the best organisation to run AFLW? – https://theconversation.com/the-afl-has-consistently-put-the-womens-game-second-is-it-the-best-organisation-to-run-aflw-180665

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robin Smit, Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

If you’re thinking about buying an electric vehicle, whether due to soaring fuel prices or to lower your greenhouse gas emissions, where you live can make a huge difference to how climate-friendly your car is.

New research reveals having an electric vehicle would mean less emissions than a fossil-fuelled car – but the extent to which electric vehicles can lower emissions varies in each state. Much depends on how much electricity is generated from renewable sources, such as solar, wind and hydro.

Australia-wide, the study found electric vehicles emit, on average, 29-41% less emissions than a typical fossil-fuelled car for every kilometre driven. But when you break it down into states, Tasmania is expected to see the largest drop, with 70-77% less emissions per kilometre.

This information is important for meeting climate targets, because Australia’s on-road fleet is different from the more commonly assessed fleets in the United States, Europe or Asia in terms of vehicle size, fuel type, emission standards and fuel quality.

Australia’s electric vehicle uptake

Australia won’t meet its climate target of net-zero emissions by 2050 without an overhaul of transport, as the sector accounts for around 17% of national emissions. Passenger cars alone account for around half of all our transport emissions.

Rising petrol prices might just be the incentive we need to swing public sentiment towards electric vehicles in Australia, which have a lower climate footprint.

Read more:
Four ways our cities can cut transport emissions in a hurry: avoid, shift, share and improve

In just two years, electric vehicle sales have tripled from 6,900 in 2020 to 20,665 in 2021. And yet, they still account for only 2% of market share in new cars.

This is a far cry from the rest of the world, where 6.6 million electric vehicles were sold globally last year. Over half were in China alone.

Thanks to a range of financial incentives, Canberrans led Austalia in the number of electric vehicles bought per capita. Motorists bought 825 new electric vehicles last year, accounting for over 5% of all vehicle sales in the territory.

Queensland, too, may see a surge in uptake, as last month the Palaszczuk Government announced a A$55 million electric vehicle package, which includes a $3,000 incentive to buy a car and $10 million for new charging infrastructure.

Comparing car emissions per kilometre

To compare the potential for emissions reduction in each state, Transport Energy/Emission Research (TER) conducted a so-called “life cycle assessment”. This considers all aspects of a vehicle’s life – from production, to operational use (driving it), to when it gets scrapped.

Life cycle assessments are a holistic way of looking at emissions but, confusingly, some studies have reached different conclusions. So TER combined a life cycle assessment with a probabilistic analysis, presenting our findings as a range of possible, but realistic, outcomes.

The average carbon emissions for a fossil-fuelled Australian car are an estimated 349-390 grams per kilometre. This is made up of approximately:

• 72% for operational use
• 13% for vehicle manufacture
• 14% for fossil fuel production and distribution.

An average battery electric car, on the other hand, is estimated to have life cycle emissions around 221-255 grams per kilometre. This is made up of approximately:

• 69% for operational use
• 23% for vehicle manufacture
• 7% for electricity production and distribution.

Infrastructure and vehicle disposal (scrappage) is estimated to have less than 1% contribution for both vehicle types.

These estimates are higher than what has been reported in European studies, reflecting Australia’s unique conditions, including high carbon intensity from coal-based electricity generation, and different fleet characteristics such as having heavier and larger cars than Europe.

Comparing each jurisdiction

The good news is, in all Australian jurisdictions, emissions released from the beginning to the end of the electric vehicle’s life are expected to be significantly less than for fossil-fuelled cars. Each, however, varies in the extent emissions will be reduced.

The largest emissions reductions will occur in Tasmania, as its electricity largely comes from renewable sources: more than 80% comes from hydroelectricity and about 10% comes from wind.

South Australia comes in second, with electric vehicles bringing 55-66% less emissions per kilometre, compared to fossil-fuelled cars. This is because a significant portion of SA’s electricity comes from wind (about 40%) and solar (more than 10%).

At the other end of the spectrum, most electricity generation in Victoria and New South Wales currently comes from coal-fired power stations.

And still, electric vehicle uptake is expected to see substantial reductions: around 9-31% in Victoria, and 17-39% in NSW. These values will improve as the electricity generation system is further decarbonised.

Squandering our potential

Australia has a huge potential for a renewables industry, thanks to our wide open spaces, windy coasts and sunny skies.

So TER also looked at a future scenario, where the national electricity mix is generated with about 10% fossil fuels and 90% renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, biomass). In this scenario, electric vehicles nationwide are expected to provide between 74% and 80% emissions reductions.

Sadly, Australia is still far removed from this situation. Most cars sold in 2020 were large fossil-fuelled SUVs with high greenhouse gas emissions because of their size and weight.

What’s more, fleet turnover is a slow process. The Australian Motor Vehicle Census reports that the average age of Australian cars is about ten years, with an average attrition rate of only about 4% each year.

This means even if all passenger vehicles sold today were electric, it would take more than ten years for the Australian road fleet to be fully electric.

Read more:
We must rapidly decarbonise road transport – but hydrogen’s not the answer

Efforts to boost the share of electric vehicles in the Australian fleet needs to be stepped up urgently, alongside a rapid decarbonisation of the electricity grid. These should, finally, align with international emission standards to reduce delays and increase choice and availability of electric vehicles in Australia.

This will ensure we’ll have at least made a significant start with emission reductions in the road transport sector by 2030.

If Australia was serious about reducing emissions – fast – rolling out electric vehicles could perhaps focus on states with the lowest carbon intensity. But given the slow fleet turnover and the current state of play, it’s essential electrification starts everywhere, now.

Robin Smit is the founder of Transport Energy/Emission Research.

Hussein Dia receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the iMOVE Cooperative Research Centre, Level Crossing Removal Authority, City of Boroondara, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Transport for New South Wales, EmissionsIQ Pty Ltd, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, and Beam Mobility Holdings

– ref. How climate-friendly is an electric car? It all comes down to where you live – https://theconversation.com/how-climate-friendly-is-an-electric-car-it-all-comes-down-to-where-you-live-179003

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Hersh, Professor, Speech Pathology, Curtin University

Aphasia was in the news last week when the family of actor Bruce Willis announced he was stepping back from his career due to communication difficulties. Also last week, performer Lady Gaga was praised for her supportive approach to co-presenting an Oscar with Hollywood great Liza Minnelli, who has previously battled encephalitis and expressed confusion about what to say onstage.

People living with aphasia say lack of awareness of the condition is one of the biggest barriers they face. Two high-profile examples of communication difficulties – one of them involving an aphasia diagnosis and one featuring similar symptoms – present an opportunity.

Aphasia is the loss of access to language due to brain damage, most commonly following stroke but also caused by traumatic brain injury, tumours and a type of dementia called primary progressive aphasia. It is a frustrating and isolating condition, derailing conversations and impacting relationships with family and friends.

But there are ways to help those we love to communicate. Here are five ideas to keep in mind:

1. Acknowledge capacity

Aphasia affects language, not intellect. Aura Kagan from Canada’s Aphasia Institute coined the phrase “I know that you know”. This was a breath of fresh air for people who were used to being treated as lacking capacity because they couldn’t find the words to express themselves.

Acknowledging that people with aphasia remain competent and intelligent lays the groundwork for productive and respectful exchanges.

Read more:
What brain regions control our language? And how do we know this?

2. Partner up

Recognise the responsibility for satisfying conversations does not just rest with the speaker. It is equally shared by those communicating with them. Evidence shows that when communication partners are given information, strategies and a little practice, they can enable much better conversations.

Communication partner training is now commonly offered by speech pathologists. It is also being explored for use with people who have dementia.

Key strategies in communication partner training include:

• speaking with your usual tone and volume

• acknowledging communication blocks or problems and trying to respectfully repair them, rather than ignoring them

• writing down key words to keep chat on track

• drawing or using gestures – say, pointing to an object or person

• using yes/no questions to confirm meaning

• summing up what’s been said at regular points in the conversation.

Read more:
What is aphasia, the condition Bruce Willis lives with?

3. Respect the human right to communicate

Communication is an essential and integral part of being human. We express our personalities, histories, aspirations and achievements through spoken or written language. Communication is recognised as a human right, and without it, life quality suffers.

Humanising our approach to aphasia – that is, attending to subtle and empathetic human needs, not just the basics of survival – has the potential to sustain and validate the person with aphasia and to transform health services.

Read more:
In a chatty world, losing your speech can be alienating. But there’s help

4. Ensure accessibility

Everything we do is mediated by language: reading the news, using public transport, buying a coffee, using a smart phone, chatting with colleagues or friends over lunch, negotiating bureaucracy, buying a ticket for a sports or music event.

Accessibility is about ensuring that how language is spoken, written or presented electronically does not exclude people with communication difficulties. Adjustments might moderate the speed, presentation or complexity of information.

Just as people who use wheelchairs should be able to expect ramp access instead of facing a flight of stairs, people with aphasia should be entitled to a communication ramp (another brilliant term from Aura Kagan) where a person or agency makes their verbal or written information aphasia-friendly. This may be particularly vital in health-care contexts.

5. Include people in conversations and events

Inclusion is what keeps people buoyant and gives them opportunities to practice and improve their communication. Aphasia can be a lonely disorder but with communication supports, positive attitudes, friendship, meaningful activity, community aphasia groups and social opportunities, it doesn’t have to be. Don’t leave people out because you assume they might feel uncomfortable. Offer choices and they will tell you.

Awareness of aphasia is key. Despite being relatively common, the word aphasia is not well known, and it is hard to address something when you don’t have a word for it. Knowing the term helps but knowing how to help is even better.

You can find more information on aphasia, conversation partner training and community aphasia conversation groups online.

Deborah Hersh is a member of research teams that receive funding from the NHMRC. She volunteers as chairperson of the not-for-profit Australian Aphasia Association and is an affiliate of the CRE Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation.

– ref. ‘I know that you know’ – 5 ways to help people with aphasia to communicate – https://theconversation.com/i-know-that-you-know-5-ways-to-help-people-with-aphasia-to-communicate-180669

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chay Brown, Research and Partnerships Manager, The Equality Institute, & Postdoctoral fellow, Australian National University

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains mentions and images of someone who has passed away. There are also descriptions of domestic and family violence and murder.

R. Rubuntja was a loving mother and grandmother. She was funny and intelligent, and so very strong.

R. had lived through domestic and family violence. She was a founding member of the Tangentyere Women’s Family Safety Group – a group of senior women from Alice Springs Town Camps. This strong women’s group works to bring visibility to Aboriginal women’s experiences and to end family violence.

One of the last times Tangentyere staff, members of the women’s group and I saw R. was about a week or so before she was murdered. We were at the Tangentyere Women’s Family Safety Group Christmas party. She sat the whole time with her baby granddaughter on her lap.

We remember that in our last workshop for the year, there was no getting anything out of R. that day because she only had eyes and attention for her granddaughter – walking around the room with her, feeding her squished-up bananas, and playing blocks with her.

One of my fondest memories of R. was out at Ross River on a retreat with the Tangentyere Women’s Family Safety Group. She was supposed to be cooking the ‘roo tail, but instructed me – the vegetarian – to cook it while she played cards and shouted over instructions.

In the Tangentyere women’s group’s film about Hope and Healing, R. said:

when I first had my little boy, my partner used to just be violence – fighting. And it’s got to stop. No more violence. It’s not only for me, it’s for everyone. Stop the violence.

On January 7 2021, R. was brutally and publicly murdered by her partner in front of the Alice Springs hospital. Her murder sent shock waves of grief and anguish through our whole community.

On April 1 2022, Malcolm Abbott pleaded guilty to R’s murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.

How was a man with an extensive history of domestic violence – including a previous manslaughter conviction – able to continue to be released from several short prison sentences, and go on to murder R?

Clearly, the justice system failed R. With First Nations women being 11 times more likely than non-Indigenous women to die from gender-based violence, our systems need to do more. In addition, the mostly silent media response to R’s murder also speaks volumes about the way Australia regards the lives of First Nations women.

We need accountability for men who use violence

In court that day, R’s family and friends sat with dignity and listened to the results of R’s post mortem examination, and the list of the horrific injuries the perpetrator inflicted upon her. We listened as we heard that R. had reached out many times for help.

We also sat and listened to the perpetrator’s extensive history of domestic violence.

Abbott had previously killed another woman, and stabbed at least four others in separate attacks. Each time he was convicted and sentenced to jail – 10 years, 5 years, 15 months, 12 months. Each time, he served his sentence. Then he was released a final time, and he murdered R. He will likely spend the rest of his life in jail.

Sadly, R.’s death was not the only domestic violence homicide of a First Nations woman that our community experienced last year. According to reports, this woman’s death was allegedly at the hands of her partner, who also later died. This alleged homicide went under-reported.

The media guidelines talk about how painful it can be to families and communities when deaths are ignored and not reported – or are reported in harmful and culturally unsafe ways. One participant, a First Nations woman, says “it feels like media don’t take all lives equally and as seriously”.

Read more:
Women’s police stations in Australia: would they work for ‘all’ women?

Reporting on domestic, family and sexual violence

My and the Tangentyere Women’s Group and staff’s experience with some media after R’s death ranged from media silence, to others pushing to release a story by the deadline rather than wait for necessary permissions. This prompted my colleagues and me to write the media guidelines for the reporting of domestic, family and sexual violence in the Northern Territory.

In these guidelines, we propose six principles for safe and ethical reporting of violence against women.

• Safety-focused: the safety of women and children is prioritised in reporting

• Victim-survivor centred: the voices of victim-survivors are elevated

• Rapport and relationships: build trust with affected communities and the domestic, family, and sexual violence sector

• Do no harm: always consider the impact reporting may have on victim-survivors, families, and communities, as well as the impact it may have on community attitudes towards violence against women

• Challenge myths and stereotypes: challenge harmful attitudes and beliefs about violence against women and provide the necessary context and depth in the reporting

• Deep listening: listen to Aboriginal people, families and communities about the issues that affect them and their experiences. And listen to experts from the domestic, family, and sexual violence sector

At the launch of the media guidelines, Larissa Ellis, chief executive of the Women’s Safety Services of Central Australia, gave a powerful speech, in which she said:

In the Northern Territory, often victim’s/survivor’s voices are silenced, muted, never heard. These guidelines, entitled ‘Media Changing the Story’ are a call to our media allies, to ensure we get these women’s stories out. That we acknowledge the pain of domestic violence, but also the resilience of survivors.“

Read more:
Consent education needs Blak voices for the safety and well-being of young First Nations people

More needs to be done for women’s safety in Australia

National media coverage and outrage about R’s death and Abbott’s conviction has been minimal. There has been some local coverage, but most mainstream news outlets have largely been silent. There’s been no social media outcry, no opinion pieces questioning how a man with such a violent history was able to kill again, and no national campaign to reform the systems that allowed this to happen.

It is hard to imagine the death of a white woman being met with the same silence as R’s murder, especially when there is such evidence of systems failure. There needs to be a national reflection on why some women’s voices are elevated and why others are sidelined. Why are some stories met with public outrage, while others are met with barely a whisper of acknowledgement – as though their lives did not matter?

In Australia, we are supposed to be undergoing a national conversation about women’s safety. Yet those who are most affected – First Nations women, LGBTQI+ people, women with disability, refugee and migrant women – are often marginalised, silenced, unheard in this conversation.

R’s family said in their victim impact statement, read aloud in court:

she was the most important person to us… it is really sad that she died this way, at the hands of her partner when she was working so hard to make that stop for other women.

R. mattered. Her life mattered. She is loved and terribly missed.

This article was written with permission from R. Rubuntja’s family.

Chay Brown is affiliated with The Australian National University and The Equality Institute.

– ref. ‘She was the most important person to us’ – R. Rubuntja’s story shows society is still failing First Nations women – https://theconversation.com/she-was-the-most-important-person-to-us-r-rubuntjas-story-shows-society-is-still-failing-first-nations-women-180857

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

University of Canberra Professional Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics.

They canvass Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese’s latest campaigning, with both leaders having unwelcome encounters on the trail, the continued ‘character’ pile-on against Morrison, the never-ending trouble with the NSW Liberals, and the implications for the public service if Labor wins.

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

– ref. VIDEO: Handling the unexpected on the campaign trail – https://theconversation.com/video-handling-the-unexpected-on-the-campaign-trail-180951

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richie Poulton, CNZM FRSNZ, Director: Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health & Development Research Unit (DMHDRU), University of Otago

Most people welcomed the opportunity to get vaccinated against COVID-19, yet a non-trivial minority did not. Vaccine-resistant people tend to hold strong views and assertively reject conventional medical or public health recommendations. This is puzzling to many, and the issue has become a flashpoint in several countries.

It has resulted in strained relationships, even within families, and at a macro-level has threatened social cohesion, such as during the month-long protest on parliament grounds in Wellington, New Zealand.

This raises the question: where do these strong, often visceral anti-vaccination sentiments spring from? As lifecourse researchers we know that many adult attitudes, traits and behaviours have their roots in childhood. This insight prompted us to enquire about vaccine resistance among members of the long-running Dunedin Study, which marks 50 years this month.

Specifically, we surveyed study members about their vaccination intentions between April and July 2021, just prior to the national vaccine roll out which began in New Zealand in August 2021. Our findings support the idea that anti-vaccination views stem from childhood experiences.

The Dunedin Study, which has followed a 1972-73 birth cohort, has amassed a wealth of information on many aspects of the lives of its 1037 participants, including their physical health and personal experiences as well as long-standing values, motives, lifestyles, information-processing capacities and emotional tendencies, going right back to childhood.

Almost 90% of the Dunedin Study members responded to our 2021 survey about vaccination intent. We found 13% of our cohort did not plan to be vaccinated (with similar numbers of men and women).

When we compared the early life histories of those who were vaccine resistant to those who were not we found many vaccine-resistant adults had histories of adverse experiences during childhood, including abuse, maltreatment, deprivation or neglect, or having an alcoholic parent.

These experiences would have made their childhood unpredictable and contributed to a lifelong legacy of mistrust in authorities, as well as seeding the belief that “when the proverbial hits the fan you’re on your own”. Our findings are summarised in this figure.

Personality tests at age 18 showed people in the vaccine-resistant group were vulnerable to frequent extreme emotions of fear and anger. They tended to shut down mentally when under stress.

They also felt fatalistic about health matters, reporting at age 15 on a scale called “health locus of control” that there is nothing people can do to improve their health. As teens they often misinterpreted situations by unnecessarily jumping to the conclusion they were being threatened.

The resistant group also described themselves as non-conformists who valued personal freedom and self-reliance over following social norms. As they grew older, many experienced mental health problems characterised by apathy, faulty decision-making and susceptibility to conspiracy theories.

Negative emotions combine with cognitive difficulties

To compound matters further, some vaccine-resistant study members had cognitive difficulties since childhood, along with their early-life adversities and emotional vulnerabilities. They had been poor readers in high school and scored low on the study’s tests of verbal comprehension and processing speed. These tests measure the amount of effort and time a person requires to decode incoming information.

Such longstanding cognitive difficulties would certainly make it difficult for anyone to comprehend complicated health information under the calmest of conditions. But when comprehension difficulties combine with the extreme negative emotions more common among vaccine-resistant people, this can lead to vaccination decisions that seem inexplicable to health professionals.

Read more:
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can be overcome through relatable stories and accessible information

Today, New Zealand has achieved a very high vaccination rate (95% of those eligible above the age of 12), which is approximately 10% higher than in England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland and 20% higher than in the US.

More starkly, the New Zealand death rate per million population is currently 71. This compares favourably to other democracies such as the US with 2,949 deaths per million (40 times New Zealand’s rate), UK at 2,423 per million (34 times) and Canada at 991 per million (14 times).

How to overcome vaccine resistance

How then do we reconcile our finding that 13% of our cohort were vaccine resistant and the national vaccination rate now sits at 95%? There are a number of factors that helped drive the rate this high.

They include:

• Good leadership and clear communication from both the prime minster and director-general of health

• leveraging initial fear about the arrival of new variants, Delta and Omicron

• widespread implementation of vaccine mandates and border closure, both of which have become increasingly controversial

• the devolution by government of vaccination responsibilities to community groups, particularly those at highest risk such as Māori, Pasifika and those with mental health challenges.

A distinct advantage of the community-driven approach is that it harnesses more intimate knowledge about people and their needs, thereby creating high(er) trust for decision-making about vaccination.

This is consistent with our findings which highlight the importance of understanding individual life histories and different ways of thinking about the world – which are both attributable to adversities experienced by some people early in life. This has the added benefit of encouraging a more compassionate view towards vaccine resistance, which might ultimately translate into higher rates of vaccine preparedness.

Read more:
The 9 psychological barriers that lead to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal

For many, the move from a one-size-fits-all approach occurred too slowly and this is an important lesson for the future. Another lesson is that achieving high vaccination rates has not been free of “cost” to individuals, families and communities. It has been a struggle to persuade many citizens to get vaccinated and it would be unrealistic not to expect some residual resentment or anger among those most heavily affected by these decisions.

Preparing for the next pandemic

COVID-19 is unlikely to be the last pandemic. Recommendations about how governments should prepare for future pandemics often involve medical technology solutions such as improvements in testing, vaccine delivery and treatments, as well as better-prepared hospitals.

Other recommendations emphasise economic solutions such as a world pandemic fund, more resilient supply chains and global coordination of vaccine distribution. The contribution of our research is the appreciation that citizens’ vaccine resistance is a lifelong psychological style of misinterpreting information during crisis situations that is laid down before high school age.

We recommend that national preparation for future pandemics should include preventive education to teach school children about virus epidemiology, mechanisms of infection, infection-mitigating behaviours and vaccines. Early education can prepare the public to appreciate the need for hand-washing, mask-wearing, social distancing and vaccination.

Read more:
5 strategies to prepare now for the next pandemic

Early education about viruses and vaccines could provide citizens with a pre-existing knowledge framework, reduce citizens’ level of uncertainty in a future pandemic, prevent emotional stress reactions and enhance openness to health messaging. Technology and money are two key tools in a pandemic-preparedness strategy, but the third vital tool should be a prepared citizenry.

The takeaway messages are twofold. First, do not scorn or belittle vaccine-resistant people, but rather attempt to glean a deeper understanding on “where they’re coming from” and try to address their concerns without judgement. This is best achieved by empowering the local communities that vaccine resisters are most likely to trust.

The second key insight points to a longer-term strategy that involves education about pandemics and the value of vaccinations in protecting the community. This needs to begin when children are young, and of course it must be delivered in an age-appropriate way. This would be wise simply because, when it comes to future pandemics, it’s not a matter of if, but when.

Richie Poulton receives funding from public h good funding agencies in NZ (e.g. the Health Research Council) and subcontracts from The National Institute of Aging in the United States.

Terrie Moffitt receives funding from the US National Institute on Aging, the UK Medical Research Council, and the Covid research program of the American Psychological Association and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Avshalom Caspi 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. Vaccine resistance has its roots in negative childhood experiences, a major study finds – https://theconversation.com/vaccine-resistance-has-its-roots-in-negative-childhood-experiences-a-major-study-finds-180114

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paola Magni, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Science, Murdoch University

As Russian forces withdraw from parts of Ukraine, reports have emerged of thousands dead and mass graves holding unknown numbers of bodies.

After many people die in human-made or natural “mass disasters”, the work of identifying the victims begins. This is a crucial part of the process of grieving the loss of life, and for a community to start recovering from mass trauma.

Forensic experts, which form disaster victim identification teams, have standard operating procedures for these situations. These procedures give the best chance of recovering information, successfully identifying remains, and providing initial psychological support to victims’ families.

Many nations have their own disaster victim identification teams. However, as the world becomes more connected and disasters grow more complex, international cooperation is on the rise.

How disaster victim identification works

Disaster victim identification experts gather the victims’ data at the scene. They then obtain dental records, DNA, fingerprints and other invidual-specific information, such as tattoos and prostheses, during the post-mortem examination.

Information about the victims’ lives is recovered via various sources. These range from the typical medical records and collaboration with suspected victims’ families, to photographs posted on social media and personal items such as jewellery.

Read more:
How do we identify human remains?

All of these data are used to confirm the victim’s identity, so the remains can be released to the family.

Dignity, respect and care

The correct storage of bodies is a priority. While there is a “best practice” procedure, it must often be adapted to the circumstances.

For example, in Ukraine the United Nations reports 1,611 civilian deaths confirmed as of April 7. There are unconfirmed reports of thousands more.

Read more:
Reliable death tolls from the Ukraine war are hard to come by – the result of undercounts and manipulation

When many people die in a short time, and in an active war zone, managing their remains can be difficult.

The best storage procedure would use refrigerated containers or dry ice to keep the bodies cool or frozen. Temporary burials can be considered if electricity is an issue, and for the health and safety of survivors.

If bodies are to be moved or buried, they must be documented first with photographs, fingerprints and DNA samples. Individual and marked body bags are also important, as are geocoding systems to precisely identify the burial location of each individual.

Disaster victim identification teams aim to put in place the highest possible quality standards. This allows victims to be treated with dignity and respect, giving their families the best opportunity to obtain answers as quickly as possible.

A global problem

Mass disasters affect multiple countries, and the victims are frequently citizens of different nations.

International organisations such as Interpol and the International Commission on Missing Persons commonly offer technical and other assistance in such cases, especially in less-developed countries.

However, greater international cooperation between disaster victim identification teams is needed. This is to support in-country authorities and assure ethical, transparent and humane treatment of all victims.

A key part of this cooperation will be strategic planning ahead of disasters, and establishing protocols for bringing in specialists and resources when disasters occur.

There have been several noteworthy projects aiming to test the joint response capacities of different countries. In 2019 the Austrian Red Cross ran a large exercise in the European Alps involving rescue organisations from several neighbouring countries.

In Australia, the Disaster Victim Identification Practitioner’s Course held in the Northern Territory brings together experts from every state. The Australian Border Force also works with the Malaysia Coast Guard in Operation Redback, which aims to combat maritime crime and prevent vulnerable people from risking their lives at sea.

Some mass disaster exercises require thousands of volunteers to play the role of victims for a drill that can run for several consecutive days.

In the past few years I have developed an educational program funded by the Australian government’s New Colombo Plan. This program brings together Australian and Malaysian forensic students with international experts to work on a simulated mass disaster scenario. Students who have taken part in this intercultural experience have improved their practical and communication skills, developed awareness and long-lasting international connections.

Projects like this one should be a priority of every country. All nations should develop plans to prepare the present and future generations of investigators to help heal the physical and psychological scars caused by a disaster.

Paola Magni has received funds from the Australian Government New Colombo Plan Mobility Grant.

– ref. Identifying the dead after mass disasters is a crucial part of grieving. Here’s how forensic experts do it – https://theconversation.com/identifying-the-dead-after-mass-disasters-is-a-crucial-part-of-grieving-heres-how-forensic-experts-do-it-180616