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

This is an extraordinary giveaway budget, driven by desperate circumstances that would have been inconceivable less than a year ago.

The debt and deficit numbers are predictably eye-watering – but the gamble is whether they are big enough.

The Morrison government is pleading.

In particular, it is begging business to chance its hand and invest, so that activity and jobs can be restored ASAP.

The incentives being handed to business are enormous. But it all comes down to that elusive necessity – confidence. It’s the old question about horses and whether they will drink when the water is shoved into the trough before them.

Equally, the government is also appealing to individuals to spend, and then spend some more.

There will be argument about whether it is making this pitch in the most effective way – the accelerated tax cuts have their critics.

They’ll certainly give many people more ready cash over coming months. The unknown is whether in these uncertain times the purse strings will be loosened.

The modest cash payments for pensioners – two lots of $250 – are also directed to boosting consumption. The first payment is December, nicely timed for some (modest) Christmas presents, to help the retail sector just when it needs assistance.

In its subsidy for businesses to hire younger unemployed people the government is acknowledging the recession will particularly hurt this generation.

It is imperative to get as many as possible of those thrown out of work back into the labour force as fast as possible.

The motive is sound, but how effective the program will be is another matter. Much will depend on whether employers feel confident enough to take on staff.

These younger people have to hope the employers respond, because the Coronavirus supplement that has enhanced JobSeeker is being wound back, and is due to end, while how much the basic JobSeeker payment will eventually be set at is a decision yet to be made.

The budget also notes women have been hard hit by the pandemic, and it includes a “women’s economic security statement”. But its $240 million in measures seems, to put it mildly, modest when compared to other initiatives.

Among the unusual features of this unique budget is the relative absence of cuts. The government has been finding ways to get money out the door, not reining in expenditures.

Frydenberg reprised the messages we’ve been hearing in past months from the government, which has prepared the ground for this tsunami of debt and deficits.

The debt would be a heavy burden, but it was a necessary one to “deal with the greatest challenge of our time”.

Some Liberals might have residual nightmares about debt but it is generally accepted by economists that it is totally manageable, and not even exceptional on international comparisons even if a shock in the Australian context.

Frydenberg repeated that the government’s initial measures to cushion the economic fallout of the pandemic had been “temporary, targeted, and proportionate”.

But the economic support cannot be temporary and this budget represents the next phase of it.

JobKeeper will be wound back, despite many experts believing it should extend much longer than its planned life, but other mechanisms have to be deployed to support the economy.

The budget is attempting to make a successful transition from the direct support represented by JobKeeper to indirect support through the use of tax breaks to encourage business investment.

At some stage, the transition has to be made. That’s recognised by both sides of politics. The debate is around the timing and the mechanism for making it.

While assuring us the government has our backs, Frydenberg had a double message for Australians in his budget speech. “The road to recovery will be hard,” he said. “But there is hope.”

Among the hopeful assumptions in the budget is that “a population-wide COVID-19 vaccination program will be fully in place by late 2021”.

That’s perhaps the biggest call of all.

– ref. This budget will only work if business and consumers play ball – https://theconversation.com/this-budget-will-only-work-if-business-and-consumers-play-ball-147013

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

This year’s budget is something of a play in two acts. Act one involves large economic stimulus to help plug the hole in output generated by the coronavirus pandemic. Act two tries to set Australia up for a bounce back in economic growth and employment that involves more than just waiting for the pandemic to end.

The headline figures that will rightly garner much attention are the $213.7 billion deficit for 2020-21—representing 11.0% of GDP – and the increase in net debt to 43.8% of GDP by 2023-24.

Tax receipts are down, but of course spending has rocketed up to $677.4 billion for 2020-21, compared to a projection of $514.5 billion for that period at the last budget.

The massive JobKeeper wage-subsidy program, the coronavirus supplements to various welfare payments, and a number of smaller schemes to encourage building, hiring of apprentices, and boosting manufacturing all add up to an unprecedented boost in government spending.

There is room for debate about the structure of these programs and even whether they are large enough, but they are basically sound as fiscal mitigation.

Tax cuts and their critics

Much was made in the leadup to the budget about the possibility of bringing forward the already-legislated “phase 2” and “phase 3” personal income tax cuts, due to begin on July 1 2022 and July 1 2024, respectively.

Phase 2, which involves raising the income threshold where the 37% marginal rate kicks in from $90,000 to $120,000, has been brought forward to this fiscal year. Phase 3, which abolishes the 37% bracket altogether, letting the top marginal rate of 45% kick in at a new $200,000 threshold will have to wait until 2024, as scheduled.

Critics of such cuts make two main arguments. The first is that the tax cuts are “unfair” because people on higher incomes get more of them. The second is that the cuts are bad economics, because higher-income households just save the tax cuts, and what we need right now is lots of spending.

Hand-to-mouth consumers

There is, indeed, a compelling case for putting more money in the hands of those who will spend it. Household consumption accounts for nearly 60% of GDP, and during recessions such consumption takes a pounding. 2020 in Australia is no exception.

That said, there is a widespread assumption – more like an article of faith, really – that those at the lower end of the income distribution will spend any temporary income they receive. And this article of faith has a corollary: only those at the bottom of the income distribution will spend such temporary income.

This leads folks to conclude there is downward sloping relationship between income and spending of government stimulus – the lower one’s income the more one spends.

But, as an empirical matter, this just isn’t true.

As economists Greg Kaplan, Giovanni Violante and Justin Weidner have pointed out, Australia has an unusual composition of “hand-to-mouth” consumers – that is consumers who spend all of their available resources every pay period because they have relatively little liquid wealth compared to their monthly expenses.

First, we have many fewer such people than countries like the United States, United Kingdom, or Canada – a little under 20% of the population. Second, and more strikingly, most of the Australian hand-to-mouth consumers – 90% of them – are wealthy. That is, they have a relatively large amount of total wealth – things like real estate assets and superannuation accounts.

Only 2.7% of Australian consumers are “poor, hand-to-mouth consumers”.

Notice this shatters the idea of a downward sloping income-gradient to spending. People across the income distribution spend stimulus payment.

Now, you might not feel too bad for a household with a good amount of equity in an expensive home and solid superannuation balances, but with large expenses like a big mortgage payment and private school fees. Fair enough. But that doesn’t mean they won’t spend additional income.

The effect of the tax cuts

As it stands, those earning $40,000 a year will pay $1,060 less tax this year than in the 2018 fiscal year. Those earning $60,000 will pay $2,160 less, and those earning $100,000 and above will pay around $2,500 less.

As a stimulus measure that’s far from crazy.

And as a growth-enhancement measure the phase 2 and 3 tax cuts make a lot of sense. Taxing labour income tends to lead to people working less. That’s less economic growth, less personal income, less tax, and less spending.

The exact magnitude of this -— what economist call labour-supply elasticities –varies by type of worker and on the exact nature of the tax schedule. But as Michael Keane and Richard Rogerson have noted, these effects are large in the aggregate.

Boosting the economy now and in the future

The economic problem we have been facing since March has been filling a massive drop in economic output. That will remain the central problem unless and until we have a widely-deployed vaccine.

But we cannot wait to tackle the supply side of the economy until after the immediate problems have been addressed. This budget takes a small step in that direction by bringing forward the phase 2 tax cuts. By not bringing the phase 3 cuts forward the government avoids a political fight, but risks waiting too long to begin the task of serious tax reform which is long overdue.

– ref. The budget’s tax cuts have their critics, but this year they make fiscal sense – https://theconversation.com/the-budgets-tax-cuts-have-their-critics-but-this-year-they-make-fiscal-sense-147015

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

Tax cuts aren’t the half of it.

The personal income tax cuts promised in the budget will cost A$17.8 billion over four years.

The measures aimed at supporting businesses – the temporary instant tax write off of capital investments, the temporary ability to use losses to reduce previous tax payments, the JobMaker hiring credit and the enhanced apprentice wage subsidy — will cost $26.7 billion, $4.8 billion, $4 billion and $1.2 billion.

That’s a total of $36.7 billion — a subsidy for private businesses without precedent.

The clumsy wording in the part of the budget that sets out strategy says the aim is to “drive sustainable, private sector-led growth and job creation”.

‘Driving private sector-led growth’

Driving private sector-led growth doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s easy to get a handle on what it means.

By itself, business isn’t in a position to drive much.

Even with the budget measures – even with the Australian Taxation Office allowing most businesses to write off everything they spend on equipment over the next two years – non-mining business investment is expected to collapse 14.5% this financial year and bounce back only 7.5% the next.

The JobMaker hiring credit is intended to be a smarter version of the JobKeeper wage subsidy, which was wound back at the end of September, and will be wound back again after Christmas, before vanishing at the end of March.

JobKeeper relaced with something weaker

Instead of helping pay the wages of all employees in businesses affected by the pandemic —- the budget papers say right now it is helping pay 3.5 million wages, more than a quarter of the workforce —- it’ll help pay the wages only of extra employees taken on. And only if they are aged between 16 and 35 and have previously been on JobSeeker or a related payment.

It’ll last for just a year and be worth only $100 or $200 a week, depending on the age of the person hired.

The government says it will support 450,000 positions. But because a much larger subsidy for millions of positions will be withdrawn, there’s a risk employment will collapse as businesses especially affected by the pandemic (in industries such as tourism) find they can no longer afford to keep the staff they’ve got, let alone take on new ones.

It makes the budget a statement of faith, or hope.

Tax cuts in the hope we spend

There’s hope we’ll spend the tax cuts that have been brought forward.

As of the start of this this financial year (it’ll be backdated), you can earn up to $45,000 instead of $37,000, paying just 19 cents in the dollar tax and nothing on the first $18,200.

High earners can keep paying 32.5 cents in the dollar right up to $120,000 instead of $90,000.

Low earners will get an offset of up to $700, middle earners an offset of up to $1,080 for another year.

Pensioners and recipients of carer payments and family tax benefits will get two extra cash payments of $250, on top of the two of $750 each earlier this yer, to be delivered in December and March.

The government is hoping the payments and the tax cuts will keep the slump in consumer spending to 1.5% this year, followed by a rebound of 7% next financial year.

All being well, unemployment will fall

It expects the unemployment rate to peak at 8% in the last three months of this year and then to fall to 6.5% by mid-2022.

It says the “effective unemployment rate”, which counts as unemployed people who are working zero hours (because of JobKeeper or other reasons) peaked at close to 15% in April, before sliding to around 9.25%.

The economy is expected to grow a larger than normal 4.75% next financial year and then to grow by 3% after falling 1.5% this financial year.

While not returning to surplus at any time in the next ten years, the budget deficit is expected to shrink from an eye-watering $213.6 billion this financial year (11% of gross domestic product) to -11.0 to $66.9 billion in 2023-24 (3% of GDP).

But that’s if everything turns out as assumed.

As the budget says, in words stronger than those used previously, “outcomes could be substantially different to the forecasts, depending upon the extent to which these assumptions hold.”

A lot needs to go right

Those assumptions are that from here on, localised outbreaks of COVID-19 occur but are largely contained, a population-wide vaccination program is fully in place by late 2021, general social distancing restrictions continue until that happens and Victoria’s special restrictions and state border restrictions are lifted by the end of the year — except for Western Australia’s which will be lifted by April 2021.

There are other assumptions. International travel is expected to remain low until late next year and then climb, allowing net overseas migration to reach 201,000 by 2023-24, still less than the 271,000 per year that was common.

For this year and next year, net overseas migration will be negative, as we lose more people to overseas than we gain from overseas. Only a (somewhat diminished) birth rate will stop the population shrinking.

A lot could quickly date

The government’s most-recent economic statement, in July, was rendered out of date within days as Victoria went into stage 4 lockdown.

Anything could happen to render the budget forecasts redundant, and probably will.

From my standpoint, the government is putting too much store on businesses driving the recovery after JobKeeper has been wound back.

But if businesses don’t, it has given every indication it is prepared to do more. It’s hard to fault much of what its done. It has certainly shown its willingness to be flexible.

– ref. Budget 2020: promising tax breaks, but relying on hope – https://theconversation.com/budget-2020-promising-tax-breaks-but-relying-on-hope-147012

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

Accelerated tax cuts, cash splashes for pensioners, massive incentives for business to invest and a subsidy to hire unemployed people are the centrepieces of the Morrison government’s COVID-19 budget.

More than 11 million taxpayers will get a tax cut backdated to July 1, giving lower and middle-income earners tax relief this financial year of up to $2,745. Duel income families will receive relief of up to $5,490, compared to their tax in 2017-18.

Australians on pensions and related payments will also receive a cash handout of $250 from December and another $250 from March next year.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said the Australia economy was “fighting back”, with more than half of those who had lost their jobs now back at work. But “there remains a monumental task ahead,” he said, assuring Australians “we have your back”.

“The road to recovery will be hard — but there is hope,” he said

A budget focused on creating jobs also delivers generous tax breaks to boost business activity, and a new plan to subsidise hiring young people who are unemployed for up to a year.

Frydenberg said the Australian economy had been hit hard, but “we have a plan to rebuild our economy and to create jobs”.

Massive deficit

The budget has a massive $213.7 billion deficit for this year. It will stay in the red throughout the budget period, with deficits totalling $480.5 billion over the next four years.

Net debt will reach $703 billion this financial year – more than 36% of GDP, rising to $966 billion (44% of GDP) by June 2024.

Frydenberg told parliament, “this is a heavy burden, but a necessary one to responsibly deal with the greatest challenge of our time”.

The economy is forecast to contract by 3.75% this calendar year, with unemployment peaking at 8% in the December quarter. In the 2021 calendar year, economic growth is forecast to be 4.25%, with unemployment falling to 6.5% by the June quarter 2022.

In his speech to parliament, Frydenberg reiterated the government’s two-phase strategy.

The first phase is to focus on “boosting consumer and business confidence, growing the economy and creating jobs”.

Once unemployment is “comfortably below 6%” the government will move to phase two, “where there is a deliberate shift from providing temporary and targeted support to stabilising gross and net debt as a share of the economy.”

“We will then rebuild our fiscal buffers, so that we can be prepared for the next economic shock,” Frydenberg said.

The income tax cuts, at nearly $7 billion, are the biggest cost this financial year, rising to nearly $18 billion in total over the forward estimates.

Tax cuts brought forward

The government is bringing forward stage two of its already legislated tax plan, lifting the 19% threshold from $37,000 to $45,000 and the 32.5% threshold from $90,000 to $120,000.

It is also retaining the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset for an extra year.

As a proportion of tax payable, compared to 2017-18, the greatest benefit would flow to people on lower incomes, with those earning $40,000 paying 21% less tax, and people on $80,000 paying about 11% less tax this year.

“Under our changes, more than seven million Australia receive tax relief of $2,000 or more this year,” Frydenberg said.

JobMaker hiring credit and huge tax breaks

A new JobMaker hiring credit will be available for employers who take on people on JobSeeker aged 16 to 35. The subsidy will be $200 a week for those under 30 and $100 a week for older people. These new hires must work at least 20 hours a week. All businesses except big banks will be able to use the scheme and the government says it will support about 450,000 jobs for young people.

The hiring credit will cost $850 million in the current financial year, rising to $2.9 billion in 2021-22.

Tax breaks for business are huge over the budget period.

From budget night, more than 99% of businesses will be able to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase. The concession will be available for businesses with a turnover of up to $5 billion until mid-2022, with the program costing $26.7 billion over the forward estimates.

Frydenberg described the concession as “a game changer” which “will unlock investment”.

“It will dramatically expand the productive capacity of the nation and create tens of thousands of jobs.”

In another business initiative, companies will be able to use their losses earlier.

Frydenberg said the combination of these two measures would create an extra 50,000 jobs.

Infrastructure and water spending

The government is also looking to infrastructure to stimulate activity, with Frydenberg saying “the budget will see $14 billion in new and accelerated infrastructure projects.”

As part of supporting the regions, Frydenberg announced $2 billion in new funding to build water infrastructure.

With women’s jobs particularly badly hit during the recession, the budget has a women’s economic security statement including $240 million in measures.

Thousands of new home care packages

On aged care, Frydenberg announced an increase of 23,000 home care packages, costing $1.6 billion. He said the government would provide “a comprehensive response” after the royal commission’s final report on aged care, which comes early next year.

The government is also implementing reforms to superannuation arrangements.

New superannuation accounts will no longer be automatically created when a worker moves jobs. “Under our reforms, your super will follow you” Frydenberg said. The government had previously flagged that it would implement the change, recommended by the Productivity Commission.

– ref. Budget 2020: Frydenberg tells Australians, ‘we have your back’ – https://theconversation.com/budget-2020-frydenberg-tells-australians-we-have-your-back-147014

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Seale, Senior Lecturer, UNSW

The Australian federal budget, unveiled on Tuesday, bases several assumptions on Australians having access to a COVID-19 vaccine in 2021.

This timeline is possible, according to researchers on the frontline of vaccine development. A survey published in early October asked 28 US and Canadian experts when they thought a COVID-19 vaccine would be available.

They weren’t optimistic a vaccine would be available before mid-2021, but on average thought September or October 2021 was achievable. However, several thought it could take until July 2022.

They also thought a vaccine could be available by March or April 2021 to people with a high risk of either contracting the disease or having serious consequences, such as health-care workers.

But in this scenario, it’s likely healthy adults will have to wait a while longer.

Even if we do get a successful vaccine, it won’t necessarily mark the immediate end of COVID-19. It might only be 60-70% effective, which means it won’t stop transmission completely, and spot fires of infection will continue to crop up.

Unfortunately, this means we have to accept the fact public health measures aren’t going away soon. Social distancing, mask-wearing, contact tracing, and limits on gatherings and workplaces will remain part of our lives for some time to come.

Governments and the media need to start communicating this to the public, rather than relying on the idea of a vaccine as a silver bullet.

The political will is unprecedented

Traditionally, vaccines can take five to ten years from the lab to your arm. One of the fastest vaccines ever developed was for a viral infection called mumps, which took less than five years. A vaccine for ebola was also created in about five years. On face value, these may dampen expectations for our ability to make a successful COVID-19 vaccine in just one or two years.

However, unprecedented resources are being poured into the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. The funding available, the number of candidates, and the amount of researchers involved in development are greater than any vaccine previously. The World Health Organisation is tracking more than 190 candidate vaccines in varying stages of development.

There were vaccine candidates in the pipeline for other coronaviruses including SARS and MERS, but the dwindling nature of those outbreaks meant there wasn’t overwhelming political will to see those completed. But COVID-19 is still at pandemic status, meaning a vaccine is seen as vital.

Read more: Creating a COVID-19 vaccine is only the first step. It’ll take years to manufacture and distribute

An approved vaccine is only one step

There are many things we still don’t know about potential COVID-19 vaccines. Successful candidates might require two or more doses, separated by an as yet unknown interval.

Manufacturing is another issue. Many of us might think once a vaccine is approved, the pandemic is over. But there needs to be enough produced to vaccinate everyone in Australia, which takes time.

What’s more, to reduce the risk of importing the virus, or if we want to travel overseas again, there may be a need to ensure robust COVID-19 vaccine programs have been implemented globally. If we’re looking at a two-shot vaccine, global coverage would require almost 16 billion doses, and probably more when accounting for loss of stock, logistical problems and so on. It will also take time to consistently test new batches and conduct safety monitoring of those who’ve received a shot.

Australians may need to rein in their love of travel for a few years yet. We should think about travelling locally and supporting local businesses, rather than jetting off to another continent.

Read more: The travel bubble with New Zealand includes NSW and the NT. Why have other states missed out?

Getting everyone vaccinated is another challenge

Once we have an approved vaccine, and have made enough of it, there are still hurdles to overcome.

We have a great system of childhood immunisation in Australia, but it’s a very different thing to get healthy adults vaccinated en masse. We don’t necessary have the same strong culture of immunisation towards healthy adults in this country. Public health officials are still battling to increase uptake of yearly flu vaccines.

Although vaccine coverage has surged this year, historically Australia has recorded less than optimal uptake for influenza vaccination for adults who are medically at-risk. And, our vaccine coverage for other recommend vaccines including for shingles, pneumococcal and whooping cough also needs improving.

In a study I led (yet to be peer-reviewed), my colleagues and I found 80% of the Australian residents surveyed agreed “getting myself vaccinated for COVID-19 would be a good way to protect myself against infection”. Another challenge, therefore, is there may be some people who have misgivings about receiving a vaccine.

To support future uptake to the required levels, we may need to focus on the factors that motivate people to get vaccinated. It may be necessary to highlight that getting immunised isn’t just to protect ourselves, but to protect our family, friends, colleagues, and community at large. This is particularly crucial given evidence COVID-19 can spread asymptomatically.

Read more: Young men are more likely to believe COVID-19 myths. So how do we actually reach them?

Beyond ensuring we promote acceptance of a vaccine to the public, we also need to minimise practical barriers. To improve access, we may need to offer the vaccine at multiple locations and times. For example, we could convert existing drive-through testing centres into drive-through immunisation clinics. We could also look to deliver people the vaccine via pharmacies, workplaces or community centres, or in other environments that make sense to them, like their local church, mosque, synagogue or temple.

Ultimately, the federal government’s belief that a vaccine will be available next year is plausible. But it’s not the full picture. The hurdles that exist in ending the pandemic go beyond the approval of a vaccine candidate.

Read more: Australia’s just signed up for a shot at 9 COVID-19 vaccines. Here’s what to expect

– ref. The budget assumes a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available next year. Is this feasible? – https://theconversation.com/the-budget-assumes-a-covid-19-vaccine-becomes-available-next-year-is-this-feasible-147557

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Barnet, Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications, Swinburne University of Technology

Facebook has responded to Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma, saying it “buries the substance in sensationalism”.

The show is currently in Netflix Australia’s top ten list and has been popular around the globe. Some media pundits suggest it’s “the most important documentary of our times”.

The Social Dilemma focuses on how big social media companies manipulate users by using algorithms that encourage addiction to their platforms. It also shows, fairly accurately, how platforms harvest personal data to target users with ads – and have so far gone largely unregulated.

But what are we meant to do about it? While the Netflix feature educates viewers about the problems social networks present to both our privacy and agency, it falls short of providing a tangible solution.

A misleading response

In a statement responding to the documentary, Facebook denied most of the claims made by former Facebook and other big tech company employees interviewed in The Social Dilemma.

It took issue with the allegation users’ data are harvested to sell ads and that this data (or the behavioural predictions drawn from it) represents the “product” sold to advertisers.

Read more: If it’s free online, you are the product

“Facebook is an ads-supported platform, which means that selling ads allows us to offer everyone else the ability to connect for free,” Facebook says.

However, this is a bit like saying chicken food is free for battery hens. Harvesting users’ data and selling it to advertisers, even if the data is not “personally identifiable”, is undeniably Facebook’s business model.

The Social Dilemma doesn’t go far enough

That said, The Social Dilemma sometimes resorts to simplistic metaphors to illustrate the harms of social media.

For example, a fictional character is given an “executive team” of people operating behind the scenes to maximise their interaction with a social media platform. This is supposed to be a metaphor for algorithms, but is a little creepy in its implications.

News reports allege large numbers of people have disconnected or are taking “breaks” from social media after watching The Social Dilemma.

But although one of the interviewees, Jaron Lanier, has a book called “10 Reasons To Delete your Social Accounts”, the documentary does not explicitly call for this. No immediately useful answers are given.

Filmmaker Jeff Orlowski seems to frame “ethical” platform design as the antidote. While this is an important consideration, it’s not a complete answer. And this framing is one of several issues in The Social Dilemma’s approach.

The program also relies uncritically on interviews with former tech executives, who apparently never realised the consequences of manipulating users for monetary gain. It propagates the Silicon Valley fantasy they were just innocent geniuses wanting to improve the world (despite ample evidence to the contrary).

As tech policy expert Maria Farell suggests, these retired “prodigal tech bros”, who are now safely insulated from consequences, are presented as the moral authority. Meanwhile, the digital rights and privacy activists who have worked for decades to hold them to account are largely omitted from view.

Behavioural change

Given the documentary doesn’t really tell us how to fight the tide, what can you, as the viewer, do?

Read more: A month at sea with no technology taught me how to steal my life back from my phone

Firstly, you can take The Social Dilemma as a cue to become more aware of how much of your data is given up on a daily basis – and you can change your behaviours accordingly. One way is to change your social media privacy settings to restrict (as much as possible) the data networks can gather from you.

This will require going into the “settings” on every social platform you have, to restrict both the audience you share content with and the number of third parties the platform shares your behavioural data with.

In Facebook, you can actually switch off “platform apps” entirely. This restricts access by partner or third-party applications.

Read more: How to stop haemorrhaging data on Facebook

Unfortunately, even if you do restrict your privacy settings on platforms (particularly Facebook), they can still collect and use your “platform” data. This includes content you read, “like”, click and hover over.

So, you may want to opt for limiting the time you spend on these platforms. This is not always practical, given how important they are in our lives. But if you want to do so, there are dedicated tools for this in some mobile operating systems.

Apple’s iOS, for example, has implemented “screen time” tools aimed at minimising time spent on apps such as Facebook. Some have argued, though, this can make things worse by making the user feel bad, while still easily side-stepping the limitation.

As a user, the best you can do is tighten your privacy settings, limit the time you spend on platforms and carefully consider whether you need each one.

Legislative reform

In the long run, stemming the flow of personal data to digital platforms will also need legislative change. While legislation can’t fix everything, it can encourage systemic change.

In Australia, we need stronger data privacy protections, preferably in the form of blanket legislative protection such as the General Data Protection Regulation implemented in Europe in 2018.

The GDPR was designed to bring social media platforms to heel and is geared towards providing individuals more control over their personal data. Australians don’t yet have similar comprehensive protections, but regulators have been making inroads.

Last year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission finalised its Digital Platforms Inquiry investigating a range of issues relating to tech platforms, including data collection and privacy.

It made a number of recommendations that will hopefully result in legislative change. These focus on improving and bolstering the definitions of “consent” for consumers, including explicit understanding of when and how their data is being tracked online.

If what we’re facing is indeed a “social dilemma”, it’s going to take more than the remorseful words of a few Silicon Valley tech-bros to solve it.

– ref. Netflix’s The Social Dilemma highlights the problem with social media, but what’s the solution? – https://theconversation.com/netflixs-the-social-dilemma-highlights-the-problem-with-social-media-but-whats-the-solution-147351

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sally Breen, Senior Lecturer in Writing and Publishing, Griffith University

Review: Brazen Hussies, directed by Catherine Dwyer, Brisbane International Film Festival.

The moment feminist author Kate Jennings took to the microphone at a moratorium on the front lawn of Sydney University in 1970 is presented as a galvanising catalyst of Australia’s women’s liberation movement in Catherine Dwyer’s documentary film Brazen Hussies.

We learn it was the first time the paragons of the male left had deigned to allow a woman to speak.

And speak back to them she did.

It suits you to keep women in the kitchen and in underpaid menial jobs. Under your veneer you are brothers to the pig politicians. You’ll say I’m a man hating, bra burning, lesbian member of the castration penis envy brigade … which I am!

Her words and her rage whipped through the gathered crowd like wind. The men erupted, chanting, “You belong on your back. You, ugly bitch.”

Brazen Hussies does an excellent job of condensing and capturing what was a heady and turbulent period of consciousness raising and revolution in Australia.

Many of the women featured in the film describe the sweep of second wave feminism as an awakening, like coming out of a fog, a feeling they’d been hoodwinked into this great con of domesticity, child rearing and menial work. And when those realisations kicked in, they kicked in hard, manifesting in anger, rage and a determined will to shake the cage.

Feminist author Sara Dowse explains: “For three months I didn’t know a single person’s name. Because people couldn’t be bothered with names. We were just women on fire.”

Read more: Damned Whores and God’s Police is still relevant to Australia 40 years on – more’s the pity

A domino effect

I was a kid in the seventies. I don’t remember seeing anything much about the women’s liberation movement on TV but the hum of it, the discord must have been rippling along because all us kids felt it. An already shaky suburban world about to crack right open, teeming with unhappiness.

The introduction of the single mother’s pension in 1973 had a domino effect. Every other day some kid would come to school crying and we understood. D-day. Divorce. Feminism was tearing a hole through the nuclear family at that time because the foundations many of those marriages were built on were illusions as Brazen Hussies highlights. As soon as women were granted the means to get out, many of them did.

In 1965, when Merle Thornton and Rosalie Bognor chained themselves to the public bar at the Regatta Hotel in Brisbane where women were barred from drinking, another key moment in the film, they didn’t look like wild, bra burning lesbians as women’s liberation activists were so often painted in the openly hostile media. They looked conservative — the thick chains around their ankles resting above their low-heeled, sensible court shoes. Looking like my nanna used to in her lavender or lemon coloured two-piece suits. Gleams in their eyes.

When Zelda D’Aprano chained herself to Melbourne’s Commonwealth building in 1971, demanding equal pay for equal work, it was a similar vibe. But in the end the clothes didn’t really matter. These women were warriors.

Later, women started entering male-only watering holes and taking up posts along the bars. The footage in Brazen Hussies is shockingly violent — men pushing and hitting them and dragging them out by their feet or hair. Cops loading them unceremoniously in paddy wagons as they chant slogans in defiance and kick.

The film also doesn’t shy away from documenting the factions and tensions that developed inside the movement, particularly with Indigenous and lesbian women. A similar internal struggle played out in America’s second wave, with demands for more nuanced approaches to resistance underscoring just how difficult it is to navigate the intricacies of patriarchal oppression collectively.

Telling stories to new generations

One of the strongest messages in this film is the importance of revisiting history, of telling these stories to new generations not just so they can understand who blazed the trails in this country — who fought for the equal pay, subsidised childcare, legislative policy for women and abortion rights — but so they can continue the fight.

In the last ten minutes the old black and white footage gives way to coverage of protests today — LGBTI rainbows in full swing, men marching in solidarity with women, toddlers held aloft on their shoulders — a vision artist Suzanne Bellamy, one of the original 70s campaigners, says she would never have seen in her time. A celebration of how far we’ve come and a warning of just how easily everything these women fought for could be lost.

I’m reminded of the importance of a film like Brazen Hussies walking back to my hotel by the Brisbane river. A nondescript, middle-aged dad coming towards me, two kids barrelling ahead on shiny scooters. I move to the left and when the kids pass me, he slows down and I find that odd. I nod and say “hi”.

He says, “G’day sweetheart,” glazed eyes running the full length of my body — the sweetheart, drawn out and slow — with just the right amount of threat in it. A threat that lodges somewhere deep in my spine. I tell him to f… off, surely, he’s not going to retaliate with two kids in tow. I sigh, and I keep on walking.

– ref. Brazen Hussies: a new film captures the heady, turbulent power of Australia’s women’s liberation movement – https://theconversation.com/brazen-hussies-a-new-film-captures-the-heady-turbulent-power-of-australias-womens-liberation-movement-147182

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Beck, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Monash University

A common critique of Australian universities today is that they operate as if they are corporations. The pursuit of endless sales in the form of international student enrolments appears to be their principal purpose, rather than the pursuit of learning and knowledge.

The government seems to view universities the same way it views big business. Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently justified not extending JobKeeper to universities by saying:

[…] these are very large organisations with billion-dollar reserves and they’ve got multi-million-dollar CEOs and they’re making decisions about how they’re running their own organisations, just like many large businesses are going through this.

But there are lots of important differences between universities and big businesses. The difference I want to highlight is accountability. In some respects, there is more accountability in big businesses than in universities. Universities should be made more accountable to their members.

Read more: Governing universities: tertiary experience no longer required

The corporate analogy

Vice-chancellors might get paid like corporate CEOs – as much as A$1.6 million, with an average of nearly A$1 million for Australia’s 37 public universities. However, university governance and VC remuneration decisions are less accountable than corporate governance and CEO remuneration decisions. This should change.

The analogy with corporations makes a little bit of sense. Vice-chancellors are kind of like company chief executive officers: both are the most senior executive officer responsible for running the organisation. And university councils are kind of like company boards of directors: they both have ultimate oversight of the organisation and are responsible for appointing the VC/CEO.

But the analogy largely stops there. Universities might operate like corporations, but they are not accountable like corporations.

Governance accountability

Shareholders, who are “members” of the company, elect a company’s board of directors. By contrast, the “members” of the university do not choose university councils.

The statutes establishing universities say the staff and students of the university are “members” of the university. But university members don’t get to choose most members of university councils. Staff and students elect only a small number of university council representatives. Governments or the councils themselves appoint most members.

This should change. At the very least, appointed university council members should be liable to be removed by a special majority vote of university members.

Read more: ‘Universities are not corporations’: 600 Australian academics call for change to uni governance structures

Remuneration accountability

Just like company boards of directors determine CEO pay, university councils determine VC pay.

CEO pay decisions made by company boards of directors are accountable to company members. The law imposes a “two strikes” rule. If 25% or more of shareholders vote against a company’s remuneration report two years in a row, then a vote on whether to spill the board must take place.

By contrast, university members have no say over VC pay. University councils are not accountable to university members in the same way company boards are accountable to company members.

This should change. A similar “two strikes” rule should apply to universities.

University councils should submit annual remuneration reports covering the highest-paid university executives to university members. If 25% or more of university members vote against the remuneration report two years in a row, then there should be a spill of the university council. Following a spill, appointed members should be subject to strict criteria governing whether they can be reappointed.

Read more: University councils need greater expertise, including staff and student voices

The right kind of corporatisation

To be sure, these kinds of improved accountability measures can’t fix all of the woes of the university sector. Underfunding the education of Australian students and underfunding research are fundamental problems and need to be fixed.

But university accountability is still important. And it would cost the taxpayer nothing to do something about it: just a tweak to legislation, no spending needed.

Ironically, a bit more of the right kind of corporatisation might help remedy the worst aspects of the current model of corporatised universities.

There is no good reason why should there be more accountability and democracy in a private company than in a public university.

Read more: Universities and government need to rethink their relationship with each other before it’s too late

– ref. Unis are run like corporations but their leaders are less accountable. Here’s an easy way to fix that – https://theconversation.com/unis-are-run-like-corporations-but-their-leaders-are-less-accountable-heres-an-easy-way-to-fix-that-147194

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Kingham, Professor, University of Canterbury

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

Q: Does building and expanding motorways really reduce congestion and emissions, or does it increase it?

Historically, building more and wider roads, including motorways, was seen as a way of reducing congestion. This in turn is supposed to lower emissions.

Fuel efficiency is optimised for driving at around 80kmh and it decreases the faster you go above that. But with speed limits up to 110kmh, people are likely to drive above 80kmh on motorways — and this means building and expanding motorways will actually increase emissions.

Many countries, especially in Europe, are now looking to lower speed limits partly to reduce emissions.

Read more: Remove car lanes, restrict vehicles and improve transit to reduce traffic congestion

In addition to speeding, rapid acceleration and braking can lower mileage by 15-30% at highway speeds and 10-40% in stop-and-go traffic. If building or expanding motorways did reduce congestion, the smoother driving would be a benefit.

But this assumption is not backed by evidence. Research shows even on roads with no impediments drivers brake and accelerate unnecessarily, increasing congestion and emissions.

One of the arguments for future autonomous vehicles is that such braking and accelerating should not occur and emissions should reduce.

New roads, new drivers

The most significant impact new and expanded motorways have on congestion and emissions is the effect on the distance people travel.

Historically, engineers assumed cars (and more pertinently their drivers) would behave like water. In other words, if you had too much traffic for the road space provided, you would build a new road or expand an existing one and cars would spread themselves across the increased road space.

Unfortunately, this is not what happens. New road capacity attracts new drivers. In the short term, people who had previously been discouraged from using congested roads start to use them.

In the longer term, people move further away from city centres to take advantage of new roads that allow them to travel further faster.

This is partly due to the “travel time budget” — a concept also known as Marchetti’s constant — which suggests people are prepared to spend around an hour a day commuting. Cities tend to grow to a diameter of one-hour travel time.

City sprawl

The concept is supported by evidence that cities have sprawled more as modes of transport have changed. For example, cities were small when we could only walk, but expanded along transport corridors with rail and then sprawled with the advent of cars. This all allows commuters to travel greater distances within the travel time budget.

Building or expanding roads releases latent demand — widely defined as “the increment in new vehicle traffic that would not have occurred without the improvement of the network capacity”.

This concept is not new. The first evidence of it can be found back in the 1930s. Later research in 1962 found that “on urban commuter expressways, peak-hour traffic congestion rises to meet maximum capacity”.

A considerable body of evidence is now available to confirm this. But, despite this indisputable fact, many road-improvement decisions continue to be based on the assumption that extra space will not generate new traffic.

If you build it, they will drive

A significant change occurred in 1994 when a report by the UK Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Appraisal confirmed road building actually generates more traffic.

In New Zealand, this wasn’t acknowledged until the Transport Agency’s 2010 Economic Evaluation Manual, which said:

[…] generated traffic often fills a significant portion (50–90%) of added urban roadway capacity.

Some congestion discourages people from driving (suppresses latent demand), but with no congestion traffic will fill road space over time, particularly in or near urban areas.

Interestingly, the opposite can also work. Where road space is removed, demand can be suppressed and traffic reduces without other neighbouring roads becoming overly congested.

Read more: Climate explained: could electric car batteries feed power back into the grid?

One of the best examples of this is the closure of the Cheonggyecheon Freeway in the middle of Seoul, South Korea.

When the busy road was removed from the city, rather than the traffic moving to and congesting nearby roads, most of the traffic actually disappeared, as Professor Jeff Kenworthy from Curtin University’s Sustainable Policy Institute notes.

This suppression of latent demand works best when good alternative ways of travel are available, including high-quality public transport or separated cycle lanes.

The short answer to the question about road building and expansion is that new roads do little to reduce congestion, and they will usually result in increased emissions.

– ref. Climate explained: does building and expanding motorways really reduce congestion and emissions? – https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-does-building-and-expanding-motorways-really-reduce-congestion-and-emissions-147024

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Barns, Sessional Lecturer in Law, RMIT University

In early September, Victoria Supreme Court Chief Justice Anne Ferguson issued a statement as COVID cases began to rapidly decline across the state following the peak of the second wave.

Ferguson said she and her colleagues would

carefully consider what changes we can make practically, safely and steadily in line with the easing of each level of restrictions.

For the hundreds of people languishing on remand in Victoria’s jails waiting for their cases to be heard, these changes can’t come quickly enough.

Coronavirus has dealt a blow to the already overburdened and slow-moving Victorian Supreme and County Court systems, where jury trials involving serious criminal offences are heard. Unless there are creative solutions put in place to deal with the backlog of cases caused by the pandemic, the old adage may prove true: justice delayed is justice denied.

How backlogged the system is

The court system was already quite backed up in Victoria — as it is in every state and territory.

In June, there were around 2,800 people in Victoria’s prisons waiting to be sentenced or on remand waiting for their hearing. That month, the County Court also estimated its backlog of cases to be 750.

Read more: Courts are moving to video during coronavirus, but research shows it’s hard to get a fair trial remotely

Last year, the Productivity Commission found around 20% of criminal cases in Victoria’s Supreme and County Courts were over a year old.

This figure is likely to be far greater by the end of this year given criminal trials have essentially been stopped in these courts since March.

In other words, the backlog of cases will only continue to grow and the waiting time for suspected offenders, victims and witnesses to have their day in court will stretch out well into 2022.

New ways of thinking

Short of pleading guilty and hoping for a quick release from prison, or trying to jump over the hurdles of Victoria’s extraordinarily complex bail laws, there is little a person can do but wait.

And this is no doubt challenging for those on remand in prison. During COVID, family visits have been on hold and education and other programs have been sporadic at best.

Read more: Jury is out: why shifting to judge-alone trials is a flawed approach to criminal justice

But with every crisis comes opportunity: we can now make the necessary reforms to drag the criminal trial process into the 21st century.

To be fair, Victorian courts have begun tackling the COVID crisis. The County Court has, for instance, instituted an emergency case management system to help speed up its lengthy court processes.

But COVID presents a not-to-be-missed opportunity for permanent changes to be put in place, such as relying more on early dispute resolution, making better use of technology so the days of crowded courtrooms and long waiting times are a thing of the past, and implementing restorative justice instead of lengthy jail time for offenders.

Many criminal cases could avoid trial altogether

Early dispute resolution is a smart approach that has already been used in magistrates courts for some years now.

In this process, the prosecution and defence meet to discuss the issues of a case with the judge, the likelihood of conviction and what sort of sentence might be available if the suspected offender were to plead guilty. All criminal cases should be subjected to this process now.

The sort of aggressive case management that routinely occurs in the family law and commercial courts — where judges take a very interventionist role and lawyers are expected to be willing to compromise — should also be a permanent feature of the criminal justice process.

The days of prosecution and defence resolving cases only when the trial or hearing date is approaching must end.

Online hearings and judge appointments

Technology must also become a permanent feature of how all courts, including criminal trial courts in Victoria, do business.

In some ways, going to court has not changed since the 19th century. Courts sit from 9:30 or 10am until 4pm each day and generally require individuals, including lawyers, to be physically present for hearings.

Much court time is taken up with short hearings which are essentially about case management and setting timetables. This could be done outside court hours via video conference between legal representatives and the judge instead.

We should also use an appointment system for judges hearing cases. For example, it might suit the judge and the parties to hold a directions hearing online, rather than in the usual courtroom setting.

A new approach to sentencing

The greater use of restorative justice is another way of reducing court backlogs.

Restorative justice is an alternative to a traditional court process that involves victims being able to directly confront offenders who have pleaded guilty about the impact their crime has had on them.

It also forces offenders to come to terms with their crimes, rather than seeking to rationalise or minimise them. Those who take part are typically offered reduced jail time.

This can be particularly effective in historical sexual abuse cases where potential sentences are so high that defendants often proceed to trial rather than pleading guilty, hoping for an acquittal.

Read more: In historic cases, punishment alone is not always the best response to violent crime

Recent surveys in other countries show restorative justice to be very popular among victims. A 2018 survey for the New Zealand Department of Justice found 86% of victims were satisfied with the process, while a 2016 study in the UK found 60% of those who used restorative justice would recommend it to other victims of crimes.

The Victorian criminal justice process is a critical element of the state’s democratic fabric. But business as usual is not an option now that COVID has rendered a creaking system broken. It is the ideal time for realistic and overdue reforms to alleviate the backlog of cases and shorten the time people must spend in the court system.

– ref. Victoria’s criminal courts are critically backlogged. This is how we can speed up justice – https://theconversation.com/victorias-criminal-courts-are-critically-backlogged-this-is-how-we-can-speed-up-justice-146761

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

The government’s controversial changes to higher education fees now appear set to pass the Senate, with Centre Alliance giving its support.

The minor party, whose two federal parliamentarians come from South Australia, has won modest concessions, including 12,000 extra places for students in SA, in return for agreeing to back the bill.

Centre Alliance now has only one Senate crossbencher, Stirling Griff, whose vote will be crucial to get the legislation across the line.

The revamp of fees will mean a major rise in what students have to pay for some courses, including the humanities and law, but reduce the student cost of courses such as nursing and teaching.

The government says the new structure will provide incentives for students to choose courses which are “more job-relevant”.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation will vote for the changes, but crossbenchers Jacqui Lambie and Rex Patrick are opposed.

Patrick, an independent who is formerly from Centre Alliance, attacked that party’s education spokeswoman and member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie, who negotiated with the government.

After Sharkie said on Twitter she would be “forever grateful” for her arts degree, Patrick tweeted: “So, whilst you are forever grateful for the opportunity afforded you, you don’t care for future students in your electorate or state that might want the same opportunity.”

The Senate debates the bill on Tuesday, but it is not clear when the vote will take place. If it is not this week, the next opportunity would be in November. The new fees regime is due to start next year.

Sharkie said the reforms would “encourage universities to strengthen industry relationships and produce job-ready graduates”.

The changes have won support in principle from most universities, with calls for specific alterations. But critics attack the bias against the humanities and dispute the government’s claims about the number of new places that will be created.

– ref. Government wins crossbench support for new tertiary fees – https://theconversation.com/government-wins-crossbench-support-for-new-tertiary-fees-147568

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wilson, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland

What is the relationship between hate crimes and terrorism?

Could we have predicted the terror attacks at Masjid Al Noor and the Linwood Islamic Centre on March 15 last year if we had been able to identify a rising number of verbal and physical attacks against Muslims in the preceding months and years?

In New Zealand, we currently can’t answer these questions. Authorities don’t maintain a register of hate crimes (defined as verbal and physical assaults motivated by hatred of the victim’s group identity). Nor does our legal system recognise hate crime as a separate offence.

Amending the Human Rights Act 1993 has now become an election issue, with Prime Minister and Labour leader Jacinda Ardern saying it is her party’s intention to revise the law to make it illegal to abuse or threaten people because of their religious identity.

This would add to the provisions against intimidation along ethnic, national and racial lines already covered by the law.

But ACT Party leader David Seymour has said any such move would threaten New Zealanders’ freedom of expression. He called proposed hate speech laws “divisive and dangerous”.

A preliminary register of hate crimes

The lack of data means we have no way of knowing if hate crimes against minorities are becoming more common. And we can’t tell if they are more prevalent in certain regions of New Zealand or if particular groups are targeted more than others.

We also can’t determine the relationship between hate crimes and major events such as the Christchurch terrorist attacks or COVID-19. This means we can’t predict when and where identity-related crime might take place, or act to prevent it.

Read more: Far-right extremists still threaten New Zealand, a year on from the Christchurch attacks

To address this gap and begin to answer these questions, we, along with students from the University of Auckland, have searched media reports for any verbal or physical assaults motivated by the perpetrator’s hatred of the victim’s ethnic or religious identity. Hate crimes also include targeting people because of their gender or sexual identity, but we have focused on ethnicity and religion.

This is far from the most ideal way to collect data, but it is a first step in gaining a more systematic view of identity crime in New Zealand. The result is a preliminary dataset of hate crime incidents in this country between 2013 and August 2020.

Our data demonstrate a steady if slight increase in hate crimes until 2019 when the number of incidents rose sharply. Here, we focus on the relationship between the Christchurch terrorist attacks and verbal and physical hate crimes against Muslims.

Academic studies show hate crimes sometimes act as a “red flag” of an impending terrorist attack. More commonly, terrorist attacks can spur a rise in hate crimes, as members of the group targeted by terrorism exact revenge against the terrorists’ ethnic or religious community.

After the September 11 twin-tower attacks in the United States in 2001, hate crimes against Muslims and Arabs increased 1,600% from 28 incidents in 2000 to 481 in 2001. A smaller but still substantial increase in hate crimes occurred after the 7/7 London bombings in July 2005.

We have found a similar pattern in New Zealand. Rather than rising before the attacks, hate crimes against Muslims instead increased dramatically afterwards. All types of incidents — verbal, online and physical abuse — went up markedly in 2020, the vast majority (35 of 42) after March 15.

Most notably, Islamophobic abuse rose by a staggering 1,300% from three to 42 incidents. The largest number (15) occurred in Christchurch, although eight were in Auckland and the remainder distributed throughout the country. These attacks have a major psychological impact, not only on the victims but their community as a whole.

Hate crimes against victims of terrorism

Our findings mirror research elsewhere, which finds hate crimes most often rise after terrorist attacks. But there is a key difference.

Elsewhere, these crimes took the form of “vicarious retribution”. Victims were targeted because they were seen to be of the same community as the terrorists. Following the Christchurch attacks, there was a surge in hate crimes against the victims of the attacks.

This targeting also occurred elsewhere in the West. In the week after Christchurch, hate crimes against Muslims in the UK rose by 593% with 95 incidents reported to police. Perpetrators mimicked firing a weapon at Muslims or made the noises of a gun as they walked past.

These crimes are therefore a perpetuation of the Christchurch attacks. Their increase after March 15 demonstrates that, despite the best intentions of many in New Zealand, the attacks have made the country more, not less, dangerous for Muslims and other minorities.

Read more: Four ways social media platforms could stop the spread of hateful content in aftermath of terror attacks

The rising incidence of verbal hate crimes against Muslims also underlines the importance of legislating against such intimidation and abuse along religious lines (currently excluded from the Human Rights Act). Resources should be provided to police or other government agencies, or to an independent research centre, to maintain a register of such offences to better monitor patterns in offending.

Studies elsewhere have shown more minor forms of identity-related crime sometimes develop into more extreme and ideological violence. Each unpunished attack normalises intimidation and violence and emboldens those with racist or extremist world views.

The next government should therefore take these preliminary indications of rising hate crimes extremely seriously.

– ref. Hate crimes against Muslims spiked after the mosque attacks, and Ardern promises to make such abuse illegal – https://theconversation.com/hate-crimes-against-muslims-spiked-after-the-mosque-attacks-and-ardern-promises-to-make-such-abuse-illegal-147347

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoffrey Ford, Lecturer in Digital Humanities / Postdoctoral Fellow in Political Science and International Relations, University of Canterbury

When Health Minister Chris Hipkins recently quipped that the Green Party is “to some extent the conscience of the Labour Party” he was not simply referring to polls suggesting Labour may need the Greens’ support to form a government.

Hipkins was also suggesting Green policies help keep Labour honest on environmental and social issues. So, what difference has the Green Party really made to New Zealand’s political debate?

Drawing on a study of 57 million words spoken in parliament between 2003 and 2016, our analysis shows the presence of a Green party has changed the political conversation on economics and environment.

In the recent Newshub leaders’ debate, both Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins agreed that “growing the economy” was the best way to respond to the economic crisis driven by COVID-19.

Their responses varied only on traditional left-right lines. Ardern argued that raising incomes and investing in training would grow the economy. Collins suggested economic growth should be advanced by increasing consumer spending through temporary tax cuts.

By contrast, Green parties in New Zealand and elsewhere have long questioned the impact of relentless growth on the natural resources of a finite planet. Green thinking is informed by ecological economics, which aims to achieve more sustainable forms of collective prosperity that meet social needs within the planet’s limits.

The language of economic growth

The impact of this radically different view can be observed in New Zealand parliamentary debates. When MPs from National and Labour used the word “economy” they commonly talked about it in the context of “growth” (“grow”/“growing”/“growth”).

On average, National MPs said “growth” once every four mentions of “economy”. Labour MPs said “growth” once every six mentions.

Read more: Ardern’s government and climate policy: despite a zero-carbon law, is New Zealand merely a follower rather than a leader?

Green MPs used “growth” once every 20 mentions of “economy”. When they did mention growth it was primarily to question the idea and to present alternative ideas about a sustainable economy.

Our analysis of the most recent parliamentary term (2017-2020) is ongoing. However, while Labour has recently introduced “well-being” into discussions of the economy, it is striking how the COVID crisis has reinvigorated the party’s traditional focus on growth economics.

The research also shows Green MPs mention “economy” primarily in relation to the environment, climate change, sustainability and people, rather than in relation to growth. Their distinct focus is on the connections between the economic system and the environment.

From Labour to the Greens

Despite criticism that the Greens have not focused enough on “environmental” concerns, Green MPs used words related to environment, climate and conservation more frequently than Labour or National MPs over the 13-year study period.

For example, after controlling for the number of words spoken by each party’s MPs in parliament, Green MPs mentioned “climate change” four times more than National or Labour MPs.

Read more: NZ election 2020: survey shows voters are divided on climate policy and urgency of action

This represents something of an historical shift. Atmospheric warming and CO₂ were first talked about in parliament by Labour MP Fraser Coleman in 1979. And Labour’s Geoffrey Palmer was the first prime minister to place climate change on parliament’s agenda.

But it has been the Greens who have maintained the momentum, using their speaking opportunities in the House to hold governments to account, including progressing legislation on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019.

Making women’s voices heard

The Green Party has also made a difference to who speaks. By institutionalising gender balance in their leadership and party organisation, and in the way they select their party list for each election, the Greens have consistently elected a higher proportion of female MPs than the other parties.

Historically, female Green MPs have contributed significantly to debates and policy action on inequality, child poverty, Treaty of Waitangi issues, gender equality and action on domestic violence.

Read more: Climate explained: are consumers willing to pay more for climate-friendly products?

This is significant. Analysis of political language globally, particularly on social media, has shown that politicians who identify as women and people of colour are subject to far higher rates of verbal abuse than their male counterparts. This is also the experience of female MPs in New Zealand, including women representing the Greens.

A history of disruption

Minority parties often struggle to maintain their identity in coalition arrangements with larger parties, but the Greens have retained a unique position in New Zealand.

In 1972 the Values Party became the first “green” party to contest a national election anywhere in the world. Former Values activists, including the first Green Party co-leaders Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, were later successful in taking the Greens into parliament.

The language of green politics in New Zealand and the questioning of growth can be traced back to these origins. Language and words are significant as vehicles for articulating new ideas and provoking transformative action.

Linguistic analysis therefore shows how influential the Green Party has been in presenting alternatives to the idea that economic growth based on unlimited use of New Zealand’s natural resources is a sustainable option.

If Chris Hipkins is correct and the Greens are Labour’s conscience, it is because they have effectively disrupted a historical near-consensus among the major parties that economic growth is the only driver of prosperity.

– ref. Analysis shows how the Greens have changed the language of economic debate in New Zealand – https://theconversation.com/analysis-shows-how-the-greens-have-changed-the-language-of-economic-debate-in-new-zealand-144492

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Walker, Adjunct Professor, School of Communications, La Trobe University

History tells us the month of October in a US presidential election year has a tendency to produce an unforeseen moment that may, or may not, have an impact on the election itself.

William Casey, Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager in 1980, is credited with coining the phrase “October surprise”. It referred to the concern Tehran would announce, on the cusp of the election, the release of American hostages seized after the overthrow of the shah of Iran.

In 2020, it would be hard to top an “October surprise” that resulted in a president falling ill with a virus he frequently dismissed and downplayed, then did little about while it ravaged his country.

But if we speculate on a possible additional surprise, some sort of mishap in the Persian Gulf might figure.

This is far from saying an incident in the Gulf is foretold, but recent developments indicate the temperature is rising at a moment when America is preparing to impose unilateral economic sanctions on any party that sells armaments to Iran.

Nuclear deal set to expire

A United Nations arms embargo, imposed in 2006, is set to expire on October 18 under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany. That is in less than a fortnight.

Washington had sought to extend the arms embargo via a UN Security Council resolution, but was rebuffed by, among others, signatories to the JCPOA – Britain, France, Russia and China.

The US now seems likely to fully impose unilateral sanctions on Iran as part of its “maximum pressure” approach to dealing with the Islamic state. It is not clear whether Russia and China will fall into line.

Russia, for example, has extensive military-to-military ties to Iran. Along with China, it has conducted joint naval exercises in the region with Iran’s navy.

Moscow also has its eyes on possible naval base facilities on Iran’s Indian Ocean coast, just as the Russians have used their relationship with Syria to secure a warm water port in the Mediterranean.

So the Gulf region is emerging not simply as a flashpoint in US-Iran tensions, but a focus of big-power rivalry in an era in which Russia is seeking to extend its influence deep into the Middle East.

This is driven partly by President Vladimir Putin’s desire to restore Russia’s footprint in the region, after the former Soviet Union was effectively banished but for a few toeholds. It is also partly driven by a perception in Moscow that US domination is eroding.

Read more: Sanctions, a failing economy and coronavirus may cause Iran to change its involvement in Syria

Oil-rich and fiercely contested

The oil-rich Gulf has become a kaleidoscope of shifting ambitions and alliances. Recent announcements by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain they were moving towards normalising relations with Israel are significant pieces in this kaleidoscope.

In this mix is Iran’s conspicuous efforts to increase its strategic leverage over the Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf. On any day, 20% of the world’s tradeable oil passes through the area.

Read more: Infographic: what is the conflict between the US and Iran about and how is Australia now involved?

The conservative American Enterprise Institute has this to say about Iran’s efforts to strengthen its ability to apply a chokehold to what is arguably the most important and most vulnerable stretch of water globally:

The Islamic Republic is laying the groundwork for greater Iranian influence around the strait […] by expanding its military footprint and building key infrastructure in the area. Tehran’s efforts reflect contingency planning for a larger potential conflict with the US and its Gulf partners since tensions have spiked in recent months.

In the past few years, Iran has invested heavily in its ability to conduct an asymmetric naval campaign against a US naval presence in the region. This includes heavy investment in cruise missile technologies.

Iran is also building a 1,000-kilometre pipeline from oil-producing Bushehr province to its Bandar-e Jask naval base outside the Strait of Hormuz. This would enable it to export oil if tanker traffic through the strait is shut down.

The AEI report concludes that tensions may well rise after the UN arms embargo expires this month as the US seeks to maintain its “maximum pressure” campaign. This would extend to sanctions threats to countries like Russia and China that might be tempted to transfer military technology to Iran.

In all of this, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is more than a sideshow. Russia wants Iran to stay out of the conflict on its southern boundaries. A price for this might be greater Russian military assistance to Iran as it gears up for possible conflict with the US, Israel and Sunni Arab states.

Surprise?

Princeton University research fellow Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian ambassador to Germany and nuclear negotiator, speculated in September that if electoral prospects for the Republicans looked bad in the weeks before the November 3 election, Trump might be tempted to stage an “October surprise” in the form of a military operation.

Mousavian reflected a view in Tehran that the US assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Qassem Soleimani in January was part of a broader US plan to effect regime change in Iran.

In a region awash with all sorts of conspiracy theories, it matters less whether these theories have merit than that, in a hair-trigger environment, people believe them.

Adding to speculation about a possible game plan that might involve some sort of military confrontation, Washington has vastly increased its firepower in the Gulf.

In September, the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier transited the Strait of Hormuz accompanied by guided-missile cruisers USS Princeton and USS Philippine Sea and the guided-missile destroyer USS Sterett.

This is the first time in about a year the US has deployed a carrier battle group in the Gulf at a time when tensions are on the rise.

The US now has enormous firepower in the Gulf on top of its existing deployments of 60,000-80,000 troops in the region. It also has base facilities in Bahrain, headquarters of the Fifth Fleet, and Qatar, which houses the forward headquarters of the US Air Forces Central Command.

None of this is meant to suggest there is anything inevitable, or even likely, about conflict in the Gulf. On the other hand, these are tense moments in an American election season like few others.

In any threat scenario, an incident in the Gulf cannot be discounted.

– ref. Why (another) ‘October surprise’ may yet take place –
this time in the Persian Gulf – https://theconversation.com/why-another-october-surprise-may-yet-take-place-this-time-in-the-persian-gulf-147354

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Musker, Senior Research Fellow, South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute

For many of us, becoming ill with a virus might put us on the couch for a week or two. It’s frustrating, but after recovering we can generally get back to the things we’re used to.

But for some people, contracting a viral infection can be life-altering. It can cause months, years or even a lifetime of debilitating symptoms that drastically reduce their quality of life.

These symptoms, sometimes called “post-viral fatigue syndrome”, have been reported by sufferers of many viral diseases including influenza, glandular fever, SARS, and now COVID-19.

Read more: Here’s what we know so far about the long-term symptoms of COVID-19

What are the symptoms?

The World Health Organisation has classified post-viral fatigue syndrome under the section of “diseases of the nervous system”. It’s defined as:

…a complex medical condition, characterised by long-term fatigue and other symptoms. These symptoms are to such a degree that they limit a person’s ability to carry out ordinary daily activities.

Despite the word “fatigue”, the symptoms can be broader and more debilitating than simple tiredness. They can include a sore throat, aches and pains across the body, blood pressure changes, gastric upsets such as irritable bowel syndrome, headaches, sleep disturbance, depression, and dizziness. More severe neurological symptoms can also occur, including new sensitivities or allergic reactions, and burning or prickling sensations in the limbs. Many COVID-19 patients, for example, report a prolonged loss of smell and taste.

A key feature of the condition is that symptoms can suddenly worsen following only minimal physical or mental activity.

The symptoms are essentially the same as those of chronic fatigue syndrome, also called myalgic encephalomyelitis or ME, which is why the WHO places them under the same category of neurological disorders.

If you went to see a doctor, the clinical assessment for post-viral fatigue syndrome would be the same as for chronic fatigue syndrome.

However, not everybody who gets chronic fatigue syndrome has had a virus, which may explain why both terms persist. There are no current diagnostic tests for post-viral fatigue syndrome, and a diagnosis can only be made based on a series of symptoms.

Read more: What causes chronic fatigue? What we know, don’t know and suspect

It’s being reported in COVID-19 survivors

Post-viral symptoms have been reported following outbreaks of often unexplained viruses in many different countries. One of the earliest outbreaks recorded was in 1934 in California, where people infected with an unknown virus (thought to be polio) experienced “bursting headaches”, aching limbs and muscle weakness for a prolonged period. Other episodes were recorded in Iceland in 1948, and in Adelaide in 1949.

Although we’re in the early stages of understanding COVID-19, there have been many reports and some research into post-viral symptoms in sufferers.

For example, an Italian study from July found 55% of the hospitalised COVID-19 patients studied suffered at least three debilitating symptoms, two months after their apparent recovery from the initial infection. And a UK study in August estimated 10% of those with COVID-19 go on to develop post-viral symptoms.

This is not necessarily surprising, given research on other similar viruses. One Canadian study found 21 health-care workers from Toronto had post-viral symptoms for up to three years after catching SARS in 2003, and were unable to return to their usual work.

A 2006 Australian study examined 253 people from Dubbo after they caught infections including glandular fever, Q fever, and Ross River virus. It found 11% of cases went on to develop chronic post-viral symptoms that lasted at least six months.

What causes it?

The condition, alongside chronic fatigue syndrome, is poorly understood. Researchers are still trying to understand how the body is affected, and for a way to objectively diagnose it.

Any viral infection can apparently trigger the condition, if it leads to long-term complications. It can follow a bout of common influenza, the herpes HHV-6 virus, gastric ailments such as Coxsackievirus, or life-threatening conditions like COVID-19, SARS and MERS.

Another potential trigger is glandular fever, also called mononucleosis or the Epstein-Barr virus. It infects more than 90% of the world’s population, but affects mostly people aged 18-25. For some, catching the commonly known “kissing disease” can be the start of a chronic and debilitating illness.

While a virus might be the trigger, scientists don’t yet know the actual cause. One theory is that post-viral fatigue syndrome may result from an overreaction of the body’s immune system, inducing widespread inflammation. This is highlighted by elevated levels of immune messengers called cytokines, which can cross the blood-brain barrier and potentially cause long-term toxic brain changes affecting the whole nervous system.

Almost every part of the body is affected by a virus, and some lay dorment in our system and can be reactivated when our immune system is weakened. A good example of this is shingles, which is a reactivation of the chickenpox virus.

Researchers are also focusing on whether there’s an autoimmune component to the disease, where our immune system provides a rapid response which can inadvertently damage healthy tissue, affecting all of the body’s systems such as the heart, digestion, and may even cause diabetes.

Others are looking into why mitochondria, the structures that generate energy within cells, are affected and may result in fatigue. Researchers are also working toward finding “biomarkers” in the body — objective indicators that can help with diagnosing the condition — though no reliable ones have been located yet.

Read more: Chronic fatigue syndrome: new evidence of biological causes

How is it treated?

Sadly, there is no specific medication or speedy treatment for post-viral fatigue or chronic fatigue syndrome. Treatment options include using a variety of health professionals with diverse approaches, typically tailored to the individual.

The most effective current treatment is total rest. This means relaxing as much as possible, with no mental stimulation such as television or reading. People who have experienced the condition talk about lying in a darkened room for long periods to promote mental and physical rest.

Other treatments focus on specific symptoms. If pain is the main feature, a rheumatologist might be used, who specialises in managing diseases of the joints, bones and muscles. Psychological treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy or mindfulness might also help relieve some symptoms.

If you are supporting someone with the condition, it’s important to respect their need for rest and help them through the anxiety of endless tests in their search for answers.

Many patients, particularly with chronic fatigue syndrome, say they aren’t believed and are made to feel like they’re faking their symptoms by both friends and doctors. The shame and stigma associated with it can be crushing and hurtful and may even result in depression.

And, the experience of getting a virus during a pandemic is stressful, causing anxiety and even PTSD for some.

– ref. What is post-viral fatigue syndrome, the condition affecting some COVID-19 survivors? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-post-viral-fatigue-syndrome-the-condition-affecting-some-covid-19-survivors-146851

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Britta Denise Hardesty, Principal Research Scientist, Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship, CSIRO

Nowhere, it seems, is immune from plastic pollution: plastic has been reported in the high Arctic oceans, in the sea ice around Antarctica and even in the world’s deepest waters of the Mariana Trench.

But just how bad is the problem? Our new research provides the first global estimate of microplastics on the seafloor — our research suggests there’s a staggering 8-14 million tonnes of it.

This is up to 35 times more than the estimated weight of plastic pollution on the ocean’s surface.

What’s more, plastic production and pollution is expected to increase in coming years, despite increased media, government and scientific attention on how plastic pollution can harm marine ecosystems, wildlife and human health.

These findings are yet another wake-up call. When the plastic we use in our daily lives reaches even the deepest oceans, it’s more urgent than ever to find ways to clean up our mess before it reaches the ocean, or to stop making so much of it in the first place.

Breaking down larger plastic

Our estimate of microplastics on the seafloor is huge, but it’s still a fraction of the amount of plastic dumped into the ocean. Between 4-8 million tonnes of plastic are thought to enter the sea each and every year.

Read more: Eight million tonnes of plastic are going into the ocean each year

Most of the plastic dumped into the ocean likely ends up on the coasts, not floating around the ocean’s surface or on the seafloor. In fact, three-quarters of the rubbish found along Australia’s coastlines is plastics.

The larger pieces of plastic that stay in the ocean can deteriorate and break down from weathering and mechanical forces, such as ocean waves. Eventually, this material turns into microplastics, pieces smaller than 5 millimetres in diameter.

Their tiny size means they can be eaten by a variety of marine wildlife, from plankton to crustaceans and fish. And when microplastics enter the marine food web at low levels, it can move up the food chain as bigger species eat smaller ones.

But the problem isn’t as well documented for microplastics on the seafloor. While plastics, including microplastics, have been found in deep-sea sediments in all ocean basins across the world, samples have been small and scarce. This is where our research comes in.

Collecting samples in the Great Australian Bight

We collected samples using a robotic submarine in a range of sea depths, from 1,655 to 3,062 metres, in the Great Australian Bight, up to 380 kilometres offshore from South Australia. The submarine scooped up 51 samples of sand and sediment from the seafloor and we analysed them in a laboratory.

We dried the sediment samples, and found between zero and 13.6 plastic particles per gram. This is up to 25 times more microplastics than previous deep-sea studies. And it’s much higher than studies in other regions, including in the Arctic and Indian Oceans.

While our study looked at one general area, we can scale up to calculate a global estimate of microplastics on the seafloor.

Using the estimated size of the entire ocean — 361,132,000 square kilometres — and the average number and size of particles in our sediment samples, we determined the total, global weight as between 8.4 and 14.4 million tonnes. This range takes into account the possible weights of individual microplastics.

How did the plastic get there?

It’s important to note that since our location was remote, far from any urban population centre, this is a conservative estimate. Yet, we were surprised at just how high the microplastic loads were there.

Few studies have conclusively identified how microplastics travel to their ultimate fate.

Larger pieces of plastic that get broken down to smaller pieces can sink to the seafloor, and ocean currents and the natural movement of sediment along continental shelves can transport them widely.

But not all plastic sinks. A 2016 study suggests interaction with marine organisms is another possible transport method.

Scientists in the US have shown microbial communities, such as bacteria, can inhabit this marine “plastisphere” — a term for the ecosystems that live in plastic environments. The microbes weigh the plastic down so it no longer floats. We also know mussels and other invertebrates may colonise floating plastics, adding weight to make them sink.

Read more: Plastic pollution creates new oceanic microbe ecosystem

The type of rubbish will also determine whether it gets washed up on the beach or sinks to the seafloor.

For example, in a previous study we found cigarette butts, plastic fragments, bottlecaps and food wrappers are common on land, though rare on the seabed. Meanwhile, we found entangling items such fishing line, ropes and plastic bags are common on the seafloor.

Interestingly, in our new study we also found the number of plastic fragments on the seafloor was generally higher in areas where there was floating rubbish on the ocean’s surface. This suggests surface “hotspots” may be reflected below.

It’s not clear why just yet, but it could be because of the geology and physical features of the seabed, or because local currents, winds and waves result in accumulating zones on the ocean’s surface and the seabed nearby.

Stop using so much plastic

Knowing how much plastic sinks to the ocean floor is an important addition to our understanding of the plastic pollution crisis. But stemming the rising tide of plastic pollution starts with individuals, communities and governments – we all have a role to play.

Reusing, refusing and recycling are good places to start. Seek alternatives and support programs, such as Clean Up Australia Day, to stop plastic waste from entering our environment in the first place, ensuring it doesn’t then become embedded in our precious oceans.

Read more: The oceans are full of our plastic – here’s what we can do about it

– ref. We estimate there are up to 14 million tonnes of microplastics on the seafloor. It’s worse than we thought – https://theconversation.com/we-estimate-there-are-up-to-14-million-tonnes-of-microplastics-on-the-seafloor-its-worse-than-we-thought-146403

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirsty Duncanson, Senior Lecturer in Crime, Justice and Legal Studies, La Trobe University

From the first rumblings of its spread, COVID-19’s impact on women academics was immediate. In a sign of the gendered nature of the pandemic’s impacts, men’s research submissions to academic journals almost instantly increased by 50%, single-author articles by women dropped.

The structure of labour and reward at universities has long followed gendered lines. During the pandemic, these lines have become more entrenched.

We brought our research together to map how resources at Australian universities are distributed along gendered lines. Our work shows the impacts of the pandemic have compounded the inequities of that resource distribution.

Read more: Why degree cost increases will hit women hardest

Why resource distribution matters

Ostensibly, teaching is a central function of universities. Yet the number of publications you amass and the amount of money you earn through research grants are valued more. Year to year, these measures affect your research and teaching time allocations (many universities penalise low publication rates with increased teaching load), teaching support, applications for promotion, grants and, in this climate, keeping your job.

Academic research and publication require resources: time, money and networks.

Before COVID-19, resources were already tight. Continued cuts to research funding have led to massive financial gaps.

The resulting restructuring left fewer staff to deliver teaching and less money and time to allocate. And as revenue from international students became an economic necessity for many tertiary institutions, teaching loads did not decrease.

Read more: $7.6 billion and 11% of researchers: our estimate of how much Australian university research stands to lose by 2024

Unequal resources reinforce gender inequity

In this climate, a forthcoming research paper by two of us (Khan and Siriwardhane) shows the most important barrier to academic women’s career progression is resource distribution. Surveying over 500 academics (men 51%, women 49%) in the STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine) and business disciplines across Australia, this research found these resources were unevenly spread before COVID-19.

Female researchers reported excessive workloads were the greatest constraint on undertaking research (male median rating 4, female median 5, with the higher number indicating a higher level of constraint). But lack of academic mentoring (male median 3, female median 4) and weight of family responsibilities were significant barriers to publication (male median 3, female median 4) and thus to career progression.

And then came the pandemic

COVID-19 hit universities at several levels.

The drop in international enrolments was instantly financially devastating.

This was followed by a mid-semester reconfiguration of face-to-face teaching for online delivery. There was no on-site access to libraries, laboratories were closed and fieldwork was halted. Academics and students were working from home.

And then the schools closed. Academics working from home now had to oversee their own children’s remote learning too.

Two of us (Weir and Duncanson) got together to track how COVID-19 policies were affecting academics across Australia. A survey of academics from all over Australia and abroad showed the impacts follow similar gendered lines. There was also a broad increase in workloads and care responsibilities across gender categories.

One woman academic told us:

The workload has been exponential since moving to teaching online. Coupled with normal workload responsibilities it has been impossible to complete in the 35 paid hours per week.

In this survey, academics reported that, while they already worked more hours than they were being paid, their hours increased greatly due to COVID-19. They reported workloads of at least 50 hours a week, working nights and weekends.

The transition to online teaching was the main factor. And because women delivered the majority of teaching they felt this impact more acutely. One said:

We have been asked to redesign the course I co-ordinate to fit the new course architecture. Meetings are often on days when I don’t work. I can probably get my co-ordination role done in the time I am paid for but if I want to do research then that is often on my own time – even though I am supposed to have a 50% research role.

Despite working more hours, the majority of respondents reported having less time for research. Again, women felt this most acutely. Many women reported their research was suffering due to increased teaching and service workloads.

Gender non-binary participants are mainly employed in the teaching-heavy, casualised levels of the academic hierarchy. Thus, they were more vulnerable to non-research focused increases in workload. One-third of these respondents were providing care for people in need of support.

Women with caring responsibilities are suffering the most. Although over 50% of academics with primary-school-aged children recorded that they share home-schooling responsibilities, over 50% of women respondents with caring obligations reported being solely responsible for home schooling and the care of adults requiring support. One told us:

Children simply can’t/won’t stay out of the room while I’m teaching. I have just incorporated their presence into my delivery of material. In meetings, I can often go off-screen and mute to manage.

In contrast, 8% of male respondents were solely responsible for home-schooling.

What work-life balance?

Many women academics are working around the clock to meet the needs of their work and their families.

The survey during the pandemic found women are also less likely to have a dedicated workspace. They work at dining room and kitchen tables, in living rooms and even garages. Women academics report being unable to dedicate even 20-minute periods to teaching, let alone research.

COVID-19 restrictions are laying bare structural discrimination at the heart of universities across Australia and making it worse.

Universities represent a microcosm of middle-class society. Academic life is understood to be comfortable and progressive. The heavily gendered structure of labour and reward even in this environment indicates how entrenched structural disadvantage and privilege are. And these conditions are calcifying as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.

– ref. How COVID is widening the academic gender divide – https://theconversation.com/how-covid-is-widening-the-academic-gender-divide-146007

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simone Casey, Research Associate, Future Social Service Institute, RMIT University

As soon as the COVID-19 pandemic caused businesses to shut down, state governments acted to avoid evictions by introducing moratoriums, and the federal government introduced the Coronavirus Supplement of A$550 on top of the fortnightly JobSeeker payment. These measures were intended to enable 1.6 million Australians to ride out the pandemic-related business shutdowns.

This welcome but temporary support is being withdrawn. The JobSeeker supplement was reduced to A$250 a fortnight from September 26. It will end in January 2021.

Our modelling for Victoria shows the tapering down and withdrawal of the JobSeeker supplement will cause crippling rental stress for unemployed and underemployed private renters. In Melbourne, we have found the unemployed will face the same problem of rental stress as those on the former Newstart allowance experienced before the pandemic. (Rental stress is defined as a low-income household spending more than 30% of its income on housing costs.)

Read more: City share-house rents eat up most of Newstart, leaving less than $100 a week to live on

Before COVID, private rentals in nearly all capital cities were already unaffordable for unemployed and low-income renters even in typical share households. What makes the scenario worse than before COVID are the sheer numbers affected. Many of these people may have had incomes prior to the shock that enabled them to maintain higher rents.

To illustrate the extent of the rental stress crisis we modelled rental affordability for the typical low-income household types in Victoria. The first chart shows the effects of the withdrawal of the supplement on rent affordability for two and three sharers and lone-parent families. The second chart later in this article shows the effects across a range of household types.

The modelling shows the interim rate (A$250) of the Coronavirus Supplement will help for a limited number of household types, particularly in the outer part of Melbourne and regional towns like Ballarat. However, it will not help many households in the inner region of Melbourne where rentals will remain unaffordable. This pattern is worrying because that’s where many of the jobs will become available once economic recovery is under way.

Read more: Why coronavirus will deepen the inequality of our suburbs

Households with more than one adult receiving the supplement will be better off than lone-parent households. That is because all the adults in those households receive the supplement, and lone-parent households generally need to rent properties with more than one bedroom.

The scenario here plays out across Australia, but is particularly bad for Victorians because the extended lockdown has deferred recovery.

COVID impacts have hit low-income households hardest

Is is important to note that the COVID economic shock has hit low-income households particularly hard. Those in precarious work, young adults and women have had the biggest hits to their incomes and jobs.

Read more: Coronavirus puts casual workers at risk of homelessness unless they get more support

In Melbourne increases in unemployment are concentrated in inner-city suburbs like Brunswick and St Kilda. This reflects the loss of jobs for young people in hospitality and retail.

Job losses have also occurred in working-class areas such as Brimbank, Melton and Hume. These losses reflect the impact of shutdowns in the processing, manufacturing and transport sectors.

It is predicted it will take some time for earnings to return to pre-COVID levels. This means renters who have not been able to get jobs will once again be in dire rental stress in most capital cities when the Coronavirus Supplement cuts out in January 2021.

What about household savings?

The Finder Consumer Sentiment Tracker shows household savings have temporarily increased. But it is difficult to assess how much reserve people on JobSeeker payment have been able to lay down, relative to the loss of normal earnings. Any optimism on this count needs to be tempered by the observation that the Coronavirus Supplement did not start until late April and early May — five to six weeks after the job losses started.

Our modelling shows that even during the temporary tapering down of the supplement until January 2021, there will be a rental crisis in cities like Melbourne. These findings can be extrapolated to other capital cities and the scenario will be worse in Sydney.

Cutting the JobSeeker supplement is risky policy because the labour market has not “snapped back”. People who depend on unemployment payments will now face the same problem of rental stress as those on NewStart experienced before the pandemic. But this stress will be more widespread than before. This underscores the need to develop policy that counters the risk of rental stress.

Read more: If we realised the true cost of homelessness, we’d fix it overnight

– ref. Cutting JobSeeker payments will cause crippling rental stress in our cities – https://theconversation.com/cutting-jobseeker-payments-will-cause-crippling-rental-stress-in-our-cities-147198

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Wood, Chief executive officer, Grattan Institute

After two decades equating budget surpluses with good economic management, it might seem convenient that the federal government has changed its fiscal strategy just before the budget to focus on jobs over keeping the deficit in check.

But it’s the right move. The world has changed in ways that make government spending more necessary and government debt more sustainable than ever.

Debt talk still dominates newspaper headlines and many of Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s media appearances. But it shouldn’t. Here’s why.

We are in the middle of a major economic shock

The COVID-19 recession is the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression. GDP fell 6.3% in the year to June, the worst annual result since 1929.

The federal government should use its balance sheet to spread the costs of such a large shock over time. The alternative would be to leave those who lost their jobs or businesses in poverty.

The government’s emergency response saved businesses and jobs from going under in the short term. Now, as we emerge from the crisis into the recovery phase, large-scale stimulus is needed to boost demand and create new jobs.

Debt has never been cheaper

It has never been cheaper for governments to borrow. As the next chart shows, the interest rate on 10-year Australian Government Bonds is less than 1%. If inflation stays above 1%, as the Reserve Bank and Treasury expect, the “real” interest rate the federal government pays on the bond will be negative. That is, it will effectively be paid to borrow.

These very low interest costs change the dynamics of managing debt we accrue now. Investments that boost future growth – including spending to reduce unemployment and close the output gap – will pay for themselves.

This is the fiscal “free lunch” spoken about by the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, and the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Guy Debelle.

Extra stimulus won’t spook financial markets

To get the unemployment rate below 5% by the end of 2022, the Grattan Institute estimates a further A$100 billion to A$120 billion of fiscal stimulus is needed on top of what governments have already announced.

Read more: Now we’ll need $100-$120 billion. Why the budget has to spend big to avoid scarring

This is unlikely to cause financial markets to break a sweat. Even if gross debt was to nudge 50% of GDP in the next few years, it would still be far below that of most other developed nations before the COVID crisis. At the end of 2018-19, the gross public debt in the UK was 85% of GDP, in the US 103%, and in Japan more than 200%. All have borrowed substantially more since then at very low rates.

There’s also no risk that significant government spending will cause wages or inflation to rise dramatically. In fact, Australia has the opposite problem. Wages were stagnant before the crisis and are forecast to remain so for years. Inflation has been persistently below the Reserve Bank’s inflation target and is forecast to remain so for years.

We can manage debt without austerity

Frydenberg has signalled that, as employment recovers, the government’s fiscal strategy will shift to stabilising and then reducing debt as a share of GDP. Although his stated threshold of “well under 6% unemployment” is not ambitious enough, the idea makes sense.

The good news is that with interest rates on government borrowing so low, debt as a share of GDP can be reduced without pursuing austerity in the form of deficit reduction.

The interest rate is one of three factors that affect the size of debt relative to GDP. The other two are the budget balance (the incremental contribution to debt) and nominal GDP growth, which depends on economic activity and inflation.

Even if interest rates were a little higher than now (say, 1.5%), the government can reduce debt relative to GDP even while continuing to run large deficits, provided that nominal GDP growth returns to a moderate level (say, 4.5%, as it was before the pandemic).

The next chart shows that under these circumstances the government can run deficits of up to $50 billion and still reduce debt as a share of GDP.

Different rates of GDP growth would change this story, as the next chart shows. With an even higher nominal growth rate, debt would shrink even faster relative to GDP. In a scenario of prolonged low growth, debt would increase relative to GDP a little, but remain very modest.

The government can do things to boost nominal growth in areas such as tax reform, education and skills, workforce participation, energy and climate policy, and land-use planning. The Reserve Bank should also do more by boosting inflation, which would support nominal growth.

Don’t scrimp on stimulus

There are many urgent and valuable priorities for government spending right now, such as permanently raising JobSeeker, boosting child-care support and building more social housing.

More debt might impose a small cost over a very long time. But the cost of insufficient stimulus and a prolonged recession would be vastly bigger.

The choice is simple. We should not let debt panic distract us from making it.

– ref. Don’t worry about the debt: we need more stimulus to avoid a prolonged recession – https://theconversation.com/dont-worry-about-the-debt-we-need-more-stimulus-to-avoid-a-prolonged-recession-147369

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darren Paul Fisher, Head of Directing, Department of Film, Screen and Creative Media, Bond University

Hollywood’s heavyweights joined forces last week to ask the US government to help save cinemas. Directors James Cameron, Patty Jenkins and Martin Scorsese warned that cinemas “may not survive the impact of the pandemic,” with more than two thirds likely to fold without a bailout.

Meanwhile, the release of the next James Bond film has been delayed yet again following disappointing ticket sales for Christopher Nolan’s Tenet.

COVID-19 has done something two world wars were not able to achieve. It closed cinemas. But to borrow from Mark Twain, reports of the death of cinema have always been greatly exaggerated. First it was television, then home video, then computer games, interactive movies, downloading and virtual reality that spelled the end of the big screen.

There will always be people who want to get out of the house (a desire made more keen by COVID lockdown), buy popcorn and experience the communal magic of the picture palace. Still, that doesn’t mean the new normal will look like the old one. There are three probable scenarios.

Read more: A love letter to cinema – and how films help us get through difficult times

Scenario 1: more ‘day-and-date’ new releases to stream at home

The previous “cinema-killers” didn’t finish off the industry, in part because it has a history of reacting well to threats. When television arrived it was small and black-and-white, so feature films became all-colour and cinemascope. When torrenting (largely illegal downloading) emerged, cinema responded with the return of 3D — and now 4DX.

That said, the film industry has had tense relations with Netflix. The streaming giant has had a huge impact on how films are made, distributed and screened, thanks to its completely different financial model.

Read more: Pass the popcorn – Scorsese cinema boycott will shape the future of movies

The Will Smith movie Bright (2017), for example, had a Netflix budget of US$90 million (A$125 million). Usually, cinemas take two-thirds of the ticket price, so the studio has to make three times the budget just to break even. But because Netflix sells subscriptions, not movie tickets, that imperative is removed. We may never know how successful Bright was for Netflix but it makes content purely to convince us that a subscription is a necessity.

Newer players (Disney, Apple, Amazon) have financial models that are even further removed, as their core businesses aren’t in production or screening. If a movie tanks, it won’t make them shut up shop. They have almost bottomless pits of money to support their platforms.

Cinemas do not. Most of their battles pre-COVID were concerned with “windows”: the period of time between a cinema and home release. Currently in the US, it’s 70 days.

COVID has changed all that, as the recent deal between Universal and American Multi-Cinema demonstrates. In July, a historic deal saw the 70-day window cut to just 17 days with the companies agreeing an undisclosed profit-sharing deal.

So, we’ll see short windows or “day-and-date” releases (meaning audiences can see a film at home the same day as in the cinemas) for most new films. You’ll likely be able to see a new release online or on a streaming service on opening day, just with a large premium compared to the cinema ticket price.

That premium may take a while to settle. Disney+ released Mulan online only in Australia for A$34.99. Although it made US$33.5 million (A$48 million) on its opening weekend, the film didn’t increase subscriptions as much as the recent release of the musical Hamilton on Disney+.

Still, Mulan has done reasonably well compared to Tenet, which didn’t give big-budget filmmakers much solace.

Read more: Tenet is marvellous: a staggeringly ambitious blend of popular effects and complex storytelling

Scenario 2: a studio system with some new (familiar) owners

In this take, cinema chains can’t make it work financially, and begin to close venues. Regional areas will certainly be affected, potentially less so in cities. But even if the big chains fail, it is highly possible they will be bought out by those disruptive streamers. Indeed Netflix bought its first cinema in 2019.

This could see a return to the old studio system of vertical integration, where production, distribution and exhibition is owned by one company. Theatres then run at cost or as “loss leaders” where new material can be showcased with the profits coming largely from home sales and merchandising.

In fact, in August, a New York judge granted the US Justice Department permission to end a set of rules called the Paramount Consent Decrees. This 1948 legislation outlawed vertical integration with the aim of promoting competition and stopping Hollywood studios from owning cinemas.

Those restrictions have now been cleared meaning the likes of Disney+ and Amazon as well as the major film studios could now become cinema owners.

Scenario 3: just like old times

In this scenario, film exhibitors survive the massive financial hit from the loss of attendance and production and, once pandemic restrictions are lifted, it’s business as usual.

Business is even better than before, due to a glut of high-end product hitting the screen and a highly motivated audience.

Unfortunately, this third scenario is highly unlikely. Although some filming — including Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible 7 has resumed — COVID is not going away any time soon.

Read more: Australia’s drive-ins: where you can wear slippers, crack peanuts, and knit ‘to your heart’s content’

– ref. Picture this: 3 possible endings for cinema as COVID pushes it to the brink – https://theconversation.com/picture-this-3-possible-endings-for-cinema-as-covid-pushes-it-to-the-brink-146917

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

Not many stories can compete with the run up to a federal budget, especially one with a deficit like none of us has ever seen, income tax cuts, and much else besides. But Donald Trump’s COVID infection certainly has done so in the last few days, especially given the official lying surrounding it and the antics of his “drive by” to rally supporters.

It’s impossible to know how Trump’s illness will play out. Or how disruptive the cases will be in the White House and among other political figures. Or the implications of what’s happening for the November presidential election.

But we do know it adds just another element of uncertainly – via ripple effects it might have for the world economy – to the multiple uncertainties surrounding Josh Frydenberg’s second budget.

Routinely on budget night many journalists and experts question the assumptions, forecasts and projections in the budget. In this budget, it goes without saying they are all rubbery. For months the government has been revising fiscal numbers repeatedly as it has battled to put a floor under the economy.

Among the unknowns is whether we’re over the worst of COVID. The indication is Victoria has got its situation under control although restrictions remain tight and the easing timetable uncertain. But will there be future serious outbreaks that could again transform the situation?

Scott Morrison anticipates Australia living with the virus as some sort of normal condition but this assumes a virus that behaves.

Morrison is also looking to a vaccine next year, as is the budget. He may be right, or not. And even if he is, there are questions about how effective such a vaccine would be and how quickly its distribution. As all along in this crisis, health will play into economics, and affect whether the budget numbers will be vindicated.

The course of the pandemic abroad will determine when and how Australia can open its international border generally (it is starting to open to New Zealand).

Frydenberg told Sky said he expects net overseas migration to be negative or zero for a couple of years. Lack of migrants has already removed one of the important drivers of the economy.

While the budget numbers will be flaky, with a deficit of more than $200 billion precision hardly matters. It’s not like last year when the difference between reaching the forecast “back in black” and staying in red was supposed to be an estimated several billion dollars.

Though the budget can’t be precise in its numbers and doesn’t have to be, it must meet some other criteria.

Primarily, by its individual measures and the sum of its parts, it has to inspire confidence, in consumers and in business. We can expect plenty of upbeat rhetoric, and the central promise of jobs, but will it sound believable?

It must maintain enough stimulus to prevent an economic fall off as JobKeeper and the Coronavirus supplement are phased back. It should make up for the uncertainty around numbers by indicating more will be done if needed.

It has to give business strong incentive to invest and employ, to take some risks.

It needs to be seen as fair, and to take account of the fact young people will be especially hard hit by this recession.

We know already central elements of the budget. There’ll be much spending on infrastructure. A wage subsidy for apprentices and trainees has already been announced, and more is anticipated. There is expected to be an investment allowance, and maybe more targeted assistance.

Part of the tax cuts already legislated – the tranche for middle income earners that was due to start in July 2022 – is set to be brought forward, with people benefiting from a backdating to July 1 this year.

Critics say tax cuts are not as good a stimulus measure as direct payments or increases to welfare benefits, because more of the tax cuts will be saved. On the other hand, the backdating would act as a windfall and thus may increase the likelihood of people opening their wallets.

There has been chatter about how the tax package could “wedge” Labor but the opposition can’t credibly complain about the acceleration of this tranche.

The government has been releasing various initiatives over the past few weeks ahead of the budget, ranging from energy policy to liberalised arrangements for credit. It remains to be seen whether there will be significant “reforms” in the budget that we haven’t heard of. But the important area of industrial relations is left until later. As is (on what the government has said) a decision on the level of the basic JobSeeker payment for the longer term.

Once he’s done with this budget Josh Frydenberg relatively soon will be turning his attention to the next one, in May 2021, some seven months away.

The election is due in early 2022 but could be held late in 2021, which would make next year’s budget a pre-election pitch, as well as one still dealing with the legacy of COVID. More big spending, you would think. The same would likely apply if the government squeezed another budget in before a 2022 election.

The question would be, if the Coalition won the next election, how quickly its thoughts would start switching back to fiscal repair.

– ref. View from The Hill: A money tree budget delivered during a pandemic of uncertainty – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-a-money-tree-budget-delivered-during-a-pandemic-of-uncertainty-147491

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

A Labor government would set up an Australian Centre for Disease Control to strengthen the country’s preparedness for future pandemics as well as boost efforts to deal with chronic illnesses.

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese, announcing the initiative, said Australia was the only OECD country not to have such a centre.

The country went into COVID-19 “with less than one mask for every Australian in the National Medical Stockpile, an over-reliance on global supply chains, and badly stretched aged and health care systems.

“These failures have contributed to the tragic deaths of almost 900 Australians – 673 of whom were aged care residents and 28 linked to the Ruby Princess debacle – and more than 27,000 infections.”

The centre would have three broad functions

• ensuring ongoing pandemic preparedness

• leading a federal – not just Commonwealth – response to future infectious disease outbreaks

• working to prevent non-communicable (chronic) as well as communicable (infectious) diseases.

The centre would run regular drills like Exercise Sustain in 2008. This was the last time such a pandemic preparedness exercise was held.

It would manage the National Medical Stockpile, and work with other countries on regional and global preparedness.

Albanese said Australia’s response to COVID was “too slow, too reactive and too un-coordinated.

“We can’t be left playing catchup again.”

Labor’s health spokesman, Chris Bowen, said health experts had been calling for such a centre for more than three decades.

“We know that almost 90% of Australian deaths are associated with chronic disease – but 38% of the chronic disease burden is preventable.” An Australian centre “would save lives and ease the pain of chronic illness,” Bowen said.

– ref. Albanese promises new body to strengthen defence against future pandemics – https://theconversation.com/albanese-promises-new-body-to-strengthen-defence-against-future-pandemics-147507

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

One hundred years ago officials from nations representing about four-fifths of the world’s population met in Brussels hoping to reset the global economic order, and promote prosperity and peace, after a disastrous world war and pandemic.

The International Financial Conference convened by the new League of Nations and held in Brussels from 24 September to 8 October 1920 was not quite “a gathering unique in the history of the world” as some publicity material claimed. There had been international finance conferences before – four, in fact, between 1867 and 1892, which mainly discussed the operation of the gold standard.

Read more: The slow recovery after the combined shock of Spanish flu and the first world war – Recovery podcast part three

But the 1920 conference was by far the most representative, as delegates attended from 39 countries. What they achieved, or failed to achieve, might be judged by the outbreak of the Great Depression within a decade, and another world war within two decades. It’s a lesson for policy makers now about the folly of seeking to recreate an old order, rather than building something fit for the times.

Who went to Brussels?

The Brussels conference was in a sense the equivalent of the better known Bretton Woods conference of 1944, which agreed on the framework for the global economic order following World War II.

Memoranda were prepared for the delegates by five eminent economists: Gijsbert Bruins from the Netherlands; Gustav Cassel from Sweden; Charles Gide from France; Maffeo Panetaleoni from Italy; and Arthur Pigou from England.

It is a pity none of them participated in person. It might have made for a much livelier debate. Gide was from the left, Cassell and Pigou were then liberals, Bruins more conservative while Panetaleoni became aligned with Italy’s fascists.

As it was, the conference’s delegates held surprisingly homogeneous views.

Governments had been asked to send experts “conversant with public finance and banking” rather than politicians.

There were no women. Nor were there radicals or trade unionists. The labour parties in Britain and New Zealand had yet to win government while the Australian Labor Party was in opposition. Soviet Russia sent no delegates. Progressive tax policies such as wealth taxes were quickly dismissed.

The British delegation typified the establishment figures sent. It included Robert Chalmers, former head of the UK Treasury; Brien Cokayne (1st Baron Cullen of Ashbourne), the former governor of the Bank of England; and Henry Bell, the general manager of Lloyds Bank.

European powers accounted for two-thirds of the nations represented, they generally sent larger delegations and the proceedings were in English and French. Unsurprisingly, Europeans then dominated the discussion.

The economics of nostalgia

The upside to the similar world view of most participants was that it probably helped the conference reach a consensus. The downside was that this consensus reflected much of the conventional wisdom of the time. The delegates were wedded to the fiscal orthodoxies of 19th century “Gladstonian liberalism”, which stressed keeping budgets balanced and taxes low.

Implicitly, the delegates paid little regard to the economic rivalries or pressures that had contributed to World War I. Nor did they pay much attention to the significant changes the conflict wrought. The general aspiration was to revert to pre-war arrangements.

The correspondent for the New Statesman (a leading leftist magazine) described the discussion of fiscal policy as producing “a number of platitudes which might have been warmly cheered by a gathering of young politicians in the middle of the nineteenth century”.

As well as stressing the importance of balanced budgets, the delegates agreed on national currencies returning to the gold standard (which many countries had abandoned during the war). As Cokayne put it:

If we are to secure that stability of prices which is so essential to the healthy development of trade, we must endeavour gradually to readjust our internal purchasing power so as to bring down our prices to gold prices.

On monetary policy, the priority was to reduce inflation. This partly reflected concerns about the distortions inflation causes to economic activity. It also reflected the desire to return to pre-war exchange rates (ignoring the advice of Cassel, whose memorandum warned against this).

This was one the few areas where there was enthusiasm for doing things differently. Delegates endorsed independent central banks with the power to resist government pressure to fund extra government spending through printing money. It would be many decades, though, before most governments recognised the value of independent central banks.

With the Great War’s adversaries slow to return to their pre-war trade, the conference also called for trade barriers to be dismantled. There was some progress on this during the 1920s until the Great Depression, which saw many nations revert to tit-for-tat tariffs.

What did Brussels sprout?

The conference recommended governments cut spending to balance budgets. The transcripts of proceedings reveal no shortage of platitudes and calls for austerity. Gerard Vissering, chairman of the Netherlands’ central bank, for example, warned against “the superfluous consumption of dainties, waste of petrol for pleasure drives and excessive illumination of shops”.

Chalmers declared: “We must all work hard, live hard and save hard.”

Read more: Lessons of economic history: Nixon, Obama and the politics of austerity

More than a decade before his ideas challenged the orthodoxy of government austerity during economic downturns, English economist John Maynard Keynes was among those who gave the conference little regard. It “did absolutely no harm whatever”, he wrote to a friend in October 1920.

But in retrospect, knowing how the continuation of economic orthodoxies would contribute to more crises, feeding totalitarianism and war, we can see how much harm flowed from wasted opportunities.

Read more: ‘Guaranteed to lose money’: welcome to the bizarro world of negative interest rates

Some may see a parallel with today.

We live in a period when wage growth has been low for years, with interest rates at record lows and many prices falling. Yet it has taken the coronavirus recession for some to reconsider the shibboleths of fiscal rectitude.

Let us hope policy makers today are more imaginative than those a century ago, with their eyes fixed on the future rather than recreating the past.

– ref. The Brussels Finance Conference of 1920: a lesson in the perils of focusing on the past – https://theconversation.com/the-brussels-finance-conference-of-1920-a-lesson-in-the-perils-of-focusing-on-the-past-142822

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Dunn, Associate professor, University of Sydney

Discussion of online misinformation in politics and public health often focuses on the role of bots, organised disinformation campaigns and “fake news”. A closer look at what typical users see and engage with about vaccines reveals that for most Twitter users, bots and anti-vaccine content make up a tiny proportion of their information diet.

Having studied how vaccine information spreads on social media for several years, I think we should refocus our efforts on helping the consumers of misinformation rather than blaming the producers. The key to dealing with misinformation is to understand what makes it important in the communities where it is concentrated.

Vaccine-critical Twitter

In our latest study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, we looked at how people see and engage with vaccine information on Twitter. We showed that while people often see vaccine content, not much of it is critical and almost none comes from bots.

While some other research has counted how much anti-vaccine content is posted on social media, we went a step further and estimated the composition of what people saw and measured what they engaged with. To do this we monitored a set of 53,000 typical Twitter users from the United States. Connecting lists of whom they follow with more than 20 million vaccine-related tweets posted from 2017 to 2019, we were able to track what they were likely to see and what they passed on.

In those three years, a typical Twitter user in the US may have seen 727 vaccine-related tweets. Just 26 of those tweets would have been critical of vaccines, and none would have come from a bot.

Read more: Anti-vaxxers appear to be losing ground in the online vaccine debate

While it was relatively infrequent, nearly 37% of users posted or retweeted vaccine content at least once in the three years. Only 4.5% of users ever retweeted vaccine-critical content and 2.1% of users retweeted vaccine content posted by a bot.

For 5.8% of users in the study, vaccine-critical tweets made up most of the vaccine-related content they might have seen on Twitter in those three years. This group was more likely to engage with vaccine content in general and more likely to retweet vaccine-critical content.

Studying people, not posts

Many social media analyses about misinformation are based on counting the number of posts that match a set of keywords or hashtags, or how many users have joined public groups. Analyses like these are relatively easy to do.

However, these numbers alone don’t tell you anything about the impact of the posts or groups. A tweet from an account with no followers or a blog post on a website that no one visits is not the same as a major news article, a conversation with a trusted community member, or advice from a doctor.

Information consumption is hard to observe at scale. My team and I have been doing this for many years, and we have developed some useful tools in the process.

In 2015 we found that a Twitter user’s first tweet about HPV vaccines is more likely to be critical if they follow people who post critical content. In 2017, we found lower rates of HPV vaccine uptake across the US were associated with more exposure to certain negative topics on Twitter.

Read more: COVID-19 anti-vaxxers use the same arguments from 135 years ago

A study published in Science in 2019 used a similar approach and found fake news about the 2016 US election made up 6% of relevant news consumption. That study, like ours, found engagement with fake news was concentrated in a tiny proportion of the population.

I also think analyses focused on posts are popular because it is convenient to be able to blame “others”, including organised disinformation campaigns from foreign governments or reality TV hosts, even when the results don’t support the conclusion. But people prone to passing along misinformation don’t live under bridges eating goats and hobbits. They are just people.

Resisting health misinformation online

When researchers move beyond counting posts to learn why people participate in communities, we can find new ways to empower people with tools to help them resist misinformation. Social media platforms can also find new ways to add friction to sharing any posts that have been flagged as potentially harmful.

While there are unresolved challenges, the individual and social psychology of debunking misinformation is a mature field. Evidence-based guides on debunking conspiracy theories in online communities are available. Focusing on the places where people encounter misinformation will help to better connect data science and behavioural research.

Connecting these fields will help us understand what makes misinformation salient instead of just common in certain communities, and to decide when debunking it is worthwhile. This is important because we need to prioritise cases where there is potential for harm. It is also important because calling out misinformation can unintentionally help it gain traction when it might otherwise fade away.

Vaccination rates remain a problem in places where there are higher rates of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, and are at higher risk of outbreaks. So let’s focus on ways to give people in vulnerable populations the tools they need to protect themselves against harmful information.

Read more: Vaccine refusers are health literate and believe they’re pro-science. But this just reinforces their view

– ref. Do Twitter bots spread vaccine misinformation? Research shows it’s not that simple – https://theconversation.com/do-twitter-bots-spread-vaccine-misinformation-research-shows-its-not-that-simple-147192

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Lynch, Lecturer in Chemistry, University of Southern Queensland

What happens if you breathe pure oxygen and why? Stephen, age 9, Muntinlupa City, The Philippines

Hi Stephen!

That’s a great question. We can’t live without oxygen. But too much can harm us. Let’s find out why.

Our bodies make the energy we need to run around, play and do schoolwork, by burning the food we eat. Think of this a bit like a candle burning. To burn our food, we need oxygen, which we get from breathing in the air around us.

Oxygen isn’t the only gas in the air. In fact, air’s mostly made of nitrogen. This has a very important job. Nitrogen slows down the burning process so you get enough energy through the day, bit by bit.

If you breathed pure oxygen, the energy from your food would be released all at once. So forget candles. This is more like a firework exploding. Bang! If you breathed pure oxygen, you wouldn’t actually explode. But you would damage your body.

Read more: Curious Kids: when I swipe a matchstick how does it make fire?

Breathing pure oxygen sets off a series of runaway chemical reactions. That’s when some of that oxygen turns into its dangerous, unstable cousin called a “radical”. Oxygen radicals harm the fats, protein and DNA in your body. This damages your eyes so you can’t see properly, and your lungs, so you can’t breathe normally.

So breathing pure oxygen is quite dangerous.

But breathing pure oxygen can sometimes be necessary. Astronauts and deep-sea scuba divers sometimes breathe pure oxygen because they work in very dangerous places.

The length of time they breathe pure oxygen, and how much they breathe, is carefully controlled so they’re not harmed.

Sick people, including premature babies in hospital or people in hospital with the coronavirus, might also need some extra help breathing. They might be given a bit of extra oxygen on top of what’s in the air. It acts like a medicine to help calm and settle their breathing.

Again, too much oxygen can be dangerous. That’s why doctors and nurses keep a close eye to make sure people get just the right amount they need.

So we need oxygen to help us get energy from our food. We might also need a little extra if we’re sick in hospital, or if we’re an astronaut or deep-sea diver. But too much oxygen can harm us.

Hello, Curious Kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

– ref. Curious Kids: what happens if you breathe pure oxygen? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-happens-if-you-breathe-pure-oxygen-145181

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott McKinnon, Research associate, University of Wollongong

The Boys in the Band, a remake of a 1970 film based on a 1968 play, has arrived on Netflix with little fanfare.

The film tells the story of Michael, a Hermés scarf-loving, Manhattan-dwelling gay man who is hosting a birthday party for a friend. Intended as a small event for seven gay men, a straight former college buddy of Michael’s also arrives unexpectedly. The party, to put it mildly, does not go well.

The guest of honour is Harold, a former figure skater who, in his spectacular party entrance, describes himself as “a 32-year-old, ugly, pockmarked, Jew, fairy.” That description sums up much of the film’s mood.

First performed a year before the New York Stonewall Riots, when LGBT people fought against police brutality, igniting a revolution, this is a pre-gay liberation story in which homosexual men swap barbed insults, indulge in a cruel party game and seem to be drowning in a sea of self-loathing.

The original play, written by Mart Crowley, was regarded as a breakthrough in the telling of gay stories. It was revived on Broadway in 2018 and the cast of that production star in the Netflix film.

Read more: With Moonlight’s Oscar win, Hollywood begins to right old wrongs

But the 1970 film was initially banned in Australia, judged “indecent and obscene” by the Film Classification Board. It wasn’t until 1972, with the introduction of the “R” rating system that Australians could watch the movie.

The differing responses to versions of Crowley’s drama, 50 years apart, offer an intriguing case study in how historical context alters the way we understand a story.

Outdated and harmful?

In 1970, a film almost entirely about homosexual people was rare. As a result, The Boys in the Band was unlikely to be assessed purely on its merits as cinematic art or entertainment. Instead, it was read by censors as a threat to Australia’s inviolable heterosexuality.

When it finally screened here, in 1972, the gay liberation movement had burst into life and the response to the film from gay activists was wary.

Watching the party goers decry each other as “faggots,” (one character declares, “Show me a happy homosexual and I’ll show you a gay corpse”), Australian gay activists deemed the film outdated, harmful and cruel.

It was seen as a memory of a time happily left in the past, before gay liberation arrived with its messages of pride and freedom beyond the closet. But if this story was labelled a tired, outdated memory almost 50 years ago, what can a remake offer today?

Read more: Why are we still scared of seeing two men kissing?

A memory of a memory

As it turns out, plenty. Freed of much of the burden of representation it carried in 1970, The Boys in the Band now arrives as a funny, tense and heartbreaking memory of a memory.

The film is a fond, nostalgic replica of its predecessor. Some scenes are almost shot-for-shot copies. Others act more like the workings of memory, in that they evoke a sense of the earlier film without quite managing to create a direct duplicate.

The performances similarly call to mind the original cast. At times, they sand the edges of some of the harsher earlier stereotypes, particularly Robin de Jesus, whose portrayal of the proudly “nelly” (or effeminate) Emory feels more real than the original one did.

Others add some new complexity or depth, including Andrew Rannells as Larry, who must negotiate his desire for free love with a partner looking for monogamous romance.

This distancing through layers of memory switches the central question of the story from “Is this who we are?” to “Is this who we used to be?”. Which isn’t to say present-day gay men won’t see something of themselves in the film.

The jokes, the relationships and the inner workings of gay friendship circles at times still ring true. But the stakes are lowered by the passing of time and the nostalgic haze.

Gay artists in the Hollywood mainstream

With an openly gay cast (many of them TV stars), a gay director and gay producers, the new film shows how gay artists, no longer on the fringes but working within mainstream Hollywood, have reclaimed and repositioned this story.

In so doing, they reveal an element of gay culture that simply didn’t exist in 1970. Gay men’s mainstream cultural memory as displayed in the original film revolves around the popular divas of the day (Judy Garland, Bette Davis and Marlene Dietrich are all quoted or imitated by the cast).

Read more: Why Dorothy’s red shoes deserve their status as gay icons, even in changing times

Today, that cultural memory also incorporates stories about gay people, written by gay people, including The Boys in the Band itself.

If the first film was Hollywood’s earliest attempt at revealing gay lives, the remake wraps its predecessor in layers of historical meaning.

Netflix’s film doesn’t carry the burden of being a landmark. Instead, it recalls the earlier film’s breakthrough as something worth remembering.

– ref. The Boys in the Band: once banned in Australia, this pre-gay liberation story is now a fond, funny Netflix remake – https://theconversation.com/the-boys-in-the-band-once-banned-in-australia-this-pre-gay-liberation-story-is-now-a-fond-funny-netflix-remake-147005

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Williams, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities, Griffith University

The Queensland election campaign officially begins this week, with the government entering caretaker mode on Tuesday, and the election set for October 31.

But the crystal ball for this election, which will see a number of significant firsts, is frustratingly cloudy.

Palaszczuk vs Frecklington

This is the state’s first election for a four-year fixed term of parliament since 1893. It’s also the first occasion at which the leaders of the two major parties — Labor’s Annastacia Palaszczuk and the Liberal-National Party’s (LNP) Deb Frecklington — are women.

Meanwhile, apart from August’s Northern Territory election, Queensland’s poll will be the first major electoral test of any Australian jurisdiction since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

All of this makes the election extremely difficult to forecast, especially given the marked difference in how voters rate the parties, as opposed to their leaders.

That’s before you throw in the pull of four significant minor parties and their unpredictable preference flows.

A change of government is possible

Even so, we might say Labor is Queensland’s “natural” party of government, given it has held office for 26 of the past 31 years, and for 70 of the past 105 years (since the birth of the modern party system).

This stands in sharp contrast to Queenslanders’ predilection to back conservative parties at federal elections. In 2019, for example, the state swung toward the Morrison-led Coalition at a rate about four times the Australian average.

Read more: Queensland to all those #Quexiteers: don’t judge, try to understand us

Heading into the election, Labor holds a razor-thin buffer, with just 48 seats in the 93-seat parliament. A tiny after-preference swing of 0.7% would see Labor lose two seats and its majority.

The LNP, currently on 38 seats, must win nine additional seats, via a 3.4% swing to form majority government.

Ironically, that’s virtually identical to the 3.5% swing against the NT Labor government last month.

In June, a YouGov poll had the LNP in front of Labor, 52% to 48%, two-party preferred. In July, Newspoll had the LNP ahead, 51% to 49%.

The implications are clear: victory for the LNP is eminently possible.

A hung parliament is also on the cards

With polls putting Labor’s primary vote as low as 32%, preferences will be crucial and minor parties will once again play a significant role.

Because of recently introduced election spending caps, Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party is expected to walk away empty-handed. This comes after Palmer donated almost $84 million to his own campaign during the 2019 federal election.

But with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation likely to maintain its lone seat, Katter’s Australian Party its three, and the Greens almost certain to double their representation to two, a hung parliament – a repeat of the 2015-17 term – is also a real possibility.

Referendum on three questions

For these reasons and more, the political eyes of Australia will be on Queensland on October 31. And it will invariably be a referendum on three questions.

The first is whom Queenslanders trust more as their premier for the next four years.

In late July, Newspoll found 81% of those surveyed approved of Palaszczuk’s handling of the pandemic, with 57% preferring her as premier. Just 26% preferred Frecklington.

But a late September, Newspoll saw a marked dip in Palaszczuk’s ratings, with 69% of respondents saying the premier was performing well over coronavirus.

Health vs economy

A second question is which public policy frame — public health or economic buoyancy — do Queenslanders rate more highly? This comes down to simple arithmetic.

Read more: Did someone say ‘election’?: how politics met pandemic to create ‘fortress Queensland’

If those angry at hard border closures and damaged hospitality, tourism and other small businesses outweigh those grateful for a government that has overseen just 1,160 coronavirus cases and six deaths, then Palaszczuk has a problem.

But with border and pub relaxations introduced last week, even that anger might be quelled by election day.

COVID recovery

If not, these concerns would be compounded by a third question: which party do Queenslanders trust more to navigate the state out of the COVID-19 economic quagmire?

Labor has reason to feel secure here, despite state debt nearing $100 billion and an unemployment rate above the national average. In June, a YouGov poll found Labor enjoyed an 11 point lead on the question of preferred economic managers. That figure alone has panicked LNP strategists.

But since then, the LNP has come out with economic guns blazing. It has re-embraced the 1930s Bradfield Scheme — a largely debunked populist dream to divert northern rivers westward. More pragmatically, the LNP also launched a $33 billion plan to upgrade the entire Bruce Highway from Gympie to Cairns.

Given more than half the state’s seats are outside Greater Brisbane, this policy pays the sort of regional homage that wins elections in Queensland.

The Prime Minister will be watching

Beyond Queensland, who will be watching the Queensland poll most closely?

Morrison found his way back to government last year via regional Queensland, which is now torn between border closures and economic survival. He will certainly be keeping a close eye on the contest, even if it is impossible to visit in person.

There are just four weeks to go.

– ref. Queensland’s unpredictable election begins. Expect a close campaign focused on 3 questions – https://theconversation.com/queenslands-unpredictable-election-begins-expect-a-close-campaign-focused-on-3-questions-146927

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hall, Senior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of Technology

Back in pre-COVID times last year, when New Zealand passed the Zero Carbon Act, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern insisted “New Zealand will not be a slow follower” on climate change.

It struck a clear contrast with the previous National government’s approach, which the then prime minister, John Key, often described as being “a fast follower, not a leader”.

He had lifted this language from the New Zealand Institute’s 2007 report, which argued against “lofty rhetoric about saving the planet or being a world leader”. Instead, it counselled New Zealand to respond without “investing unnecessarily in leading the way”.

Key was eventually accused of failing to live up to even this unambitious ideal — New Zealand came to be known as a climate laggard.

With her hand on the nation’s rudder since 2017, has Ardern done any better? Is New Zealand a climate leader, and not merely a symbolic leader on the international speaking circuit but a substantive leader that sets examples for other countries to follow?

Finally a fast follower

On my analysis of Ardern’s government, New Zealand is now, finally, a fast follower.

The government’s climate policy is best evaluated from three perspectives: the domestic, international and moral.

Read more: NZ has dethroned GDP as a measure of success, but will Ardern’s government be transformational?

From a domestic perspective, where a government is judged against the governments that preceded it, Ardern is entitled to declare (as she did when the Zero Carbon Act was passed) that:

We have done more in 24 months than any government in New Zealand has ever done on climate action.

But at the international level, where New Zealand is judged against the actions of other countries and its international commitments, it is more a fast follower than a leader, defined by policy uptake and international advocacy rather than innovation.

At the moral level, where New Zealand is judged against objectives such as the 1.5°C carbon budget, its actions remain inadequate. A recent report by Oxfam notes New Zealand is off-track for its international obligations.

The nation’s record looks even worse when we factor in historical responsibilities. From this perspective, New Zealand, like other countries in the global north, is acting with an immoral lack of haste. It is for the next government to go from being merely transitional to truly transformational.

Turning in the right direction

The formation of the Ardern government in 2017 inaugurated a phase of rapid policy development, drawing especially from UK and EU examples. But the evidence of substantive climate leadership is much less clear.

The government’s most prominent achievement is the Zero Carbon Act, which passed through parliament with cross-party support in November 2019. This establishes a regulatory architecture to support the low-emissions transition through five-yearly carbon budgets and a Climate Change Commission that provides independent advice.

Its other major achievement, less heralded and more disputed, was the suspension of offshore oil and gas permits. This supply-side intervention is surely Ardern’s riskiest manoeuvre as prime minister, not only on climate but on any policy issue.

It stands as an exception to her careful, incremental style. It signalled that the Crown’s historical indulgence of the oil and gas sector was coming to an end.

But both policies involve followership. The Zero Carbon Act is closely modelled on the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 and the leadership came from outside government. It was initially championed by the youth group Generation Zero. The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment then picked it up.

Similarly, the offshore oil and gas ban builds upon longstanding activism from Māori organisations and activists. In 2012, Petrobras withdrew prematurely from a five-year exploration permit after resistance from East Cape iwi (tribe) Te Whānau-ā-Apanui. New Zealand was also only following in the footsteps of more comprehensive moratoriums elsewhere, such as Costa Rica in 2011 and France in 2017.

Towards climate leadership

There are many other climate-related policies, including:

Only the last policy is a world first. Even then, private companies throughout the world are already adopting this approach without a mandate from government.

Read more: New Zealand will make big banks, insurers and firms disclose their climate risk. It’s time other countries did too

In all likelihood, New Zealand’s greatest claim to pioneering policy is its decision to split targets for carbon dioxide and methane in the Zero Carbon Act, which means agricultural methane is treated separately. If the science behind this decision eventually informs the international accounting of greenhouse gases, it will have major ramifications for developing countries whose economies also rely heavily on agriculture.

Not all proposed policies made it through the political brambles of coalition government. Most conspicuously, commitments to an emissions-free government vehicle fleet, the introduction of fuel-efficiency standards, and feebates for light vehicles were all thwarted.

This is symptomatic of this government’s major weakness on climate. Its emphasis on institutional reforms rather than specific projects will yield long-term impacts, but not produce the immediate emissions reductions to achieve New Zealand’s 2030 international target under the Paris Agreement. This is where a future government can make the rhetoric of climate leadership a reality.

This article is adapted from an upcoming book – Pioneers, Leaders and Followers in Multilevel and Polycentric Climate Governance.

– ref. Ardern’s government and climate policy: despite a zero-carbon law, is New Zealand merely a follower rather than a leader? – https://theconversation.com/arderns-government-and-climate-policy-despite-a-zero-carbon-law-is-new-zealand-merely-a-follower-rather-than-a-leader-146402

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alina Dini, Industry Fellow at the Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology

Many Australians say they would consider buying an electric car. But unfortunately, new electric vehicles don’t come cheap.

Even at the more affordable end of the market, a new Nissan Leaf or Hyundai Ioniq cost around A$50,000. The popular Tesla Model 3 would set you back A$66,000.

But there’s another option: buy second-hand. A used electric vehicle can be yours for under A$20,000. However supply is limited and, like with any major purchase, there are pitfalls to watch for.

I’m an energy consumer advocate, researcher and electric vehicle owner, and have helped friends and family buy their electric cars. So let’s take a look at where to find second-hand electric cars in Australia, and what to think about before handing over your cash.

Where to find one?

The supply of used electric vehicles in Australia is limited. Numbers are obviously tied to new vehicles sold, and the rate at which they end up in the used car market.

In 2019, 6,718 fully electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars were sold in Australia – triple the previous year, but still a relatively small number. And the young age of Australia’s electric vehicle fleet means there hasn’t been much turnover into the used market.

Used electric vehicles are generally found in the same places you’d find other second-hand cars. These include car dealerships and private sellers.

At the time of writing, about 120 used electric vehicles were for advertised on Carsales – the cheapest was a 2013 Nissan Leaf in Victoria for A$11,500. Sites such as Autotrader and Gumtree also sell them – however electric vehicles are a tiny proportion of overall listings.

Read more: Owners of electric vehicles to be paid to plug into the grid to help avoid blackouts

Tesla, by far the most popular electric vehicle producer in Australia, offers second-hand cars on its website, but currently none are available.

Former government electric vehicles can appear for sale on auction sites such as Pickles or Manheim.

In recent years, specialist electric vehicle importers have emerged in Australia. These include Good Car Company, which has brought in about 50 second-hand vehicles to date, mostly from Japan. They sell for as low as A$19,000.

The following graph gives a breakdown of second-hand electric vehicles available in Australia in August this year. Prices range from A$19,000 for a first-generation Nissan Leaf to A$180,000 for a Tesla Model X.

Buyers’ guide

Naturally, anyone buying a second-hand electric car wants to know they’re getting a good deal, and the vehicle is reliable.

You should check the usual things such as mileage, body condition, maintenance records, safety ratings and tyre condition. You should also keep in mind other things specific to electric vehicles:

1. Battery health

Over time, batteries in electric vehicles lose “range” – the distance they can drive on a single charge. The rate of loss can depend how and where the vehicle is driven. Batteries typically respond poorly to extremes – heat, cold, or other harsh driving or charging behaviours. So the condition of your battery should be top of mind when buying and maintaining an electric vehicle.

Many second-hand electric cars come with a battery diagnostic report from the seller. If they don’t, you can request this test or check the car’s onboard computer. Ideally, the battery should be at 80% or more than its original rated capacity.

2. Warranty and servicing

Warranties are a big consideration when buying any car. For electric vehicles, the battery and vehicle have separate warranties, and most offer greater coverage for the battery than the car. An eight-year warranty on a new car battery, which passes to successive owners, is standard. Good Car Company offers a two-year warranty on the battery of its imports.

The good news is electric vehicles have few moving parts, and require less servicing than conventional cars. Specialist servicing companies such as EVolution support the budding second-hand market. Still, it’s a good idea to check the terms of a car’s warranty, and how it can be serviced locally.

3. Charging needs

Electric vehicle charging is done at home or at public or private charging points.

Most used electric vehicles in Australia will be compatible with highway chargers, but early models and imports may require an adapter. Be sure to check your car’s plug type, and when charging outside of your home, use an app like Plugshare or Nextcharge to ensure the charging station works for your car.

Home charging can be done via a normal domestic electricity supply. But installing a dedicated electric vehicle charger at home is the safest and most efficient option.

An electric future

Unfortunately, Australia lacks the strong policies required to stimulate new electric vehicle sales, which would flow on to the second-hand market.

For example, unlike most of our international peers, Australia has not imposed fuel efficiency standards to discourage the use of polluting cars. It has also failed to follow the lead of nations such as the UK and France, which have set a target date for banning sales of new petrol and diesel cars.

If all levels of government in Australia transitioned their vehicles to an electric fleet, this would provide a regular influx into the used car market as the fleets are updated.

In New Zealand, electric vehicle registrations have steadily increased since 2016 when targeted policy was introduced. As of this month, 63% of electric vehicles sold in New Zealand were second-hand.

Electric vehicles are affordable to run, easy to maintain and good for the planet. Now we need to ensure as many Australian motorists as possible can go electric – and the second-hand market is key.

Read more: We thought Australian cars were using less fuel. New research shows we were wrong

– ref. Want an electric car, but think you can’t afford one? Here’s how to buy second-hand – https://theconversation.com/want-an-electric-car-but-think-you-cant-afford-one-heres-how-to-buy-second-hand-147173