Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Debra Flanders Cushing, Associate Professor in Landscape Architecture, Queensland University of Technology

Well-designed suburban parks could be an antidote to helicopter parenting. As well as giving kids much-needed time outdoors being active, suburban parks offer kids opportunities to decide what activities they do, new research shows. It’s an ideal opportunity for parents to let go of their task-focused daily agendas, even if just for a little while.

Helicopter parenting, or intensive parenting, includes anticipating and solving children’s problems, limiting their risks and enrolling them in many structured activities. Yet this approach often does not lead to positive outcomes for children .

For some families, letting kids take control of their activities is likely a shift from parents’ daily routines of continuously reminding children about chores, homework and bedtime. The constant list of tasks and rules can get tiring, leaving both frustrated and potentially resorting to unhealthy behaviours. Although some children can excel with a “highly driven schedule”, for many it can be a source of stress and anxiety.

Play in general allows children to be imaginative and develop physical, cognitive, and emotional strength. It’s especially true for unstructured free play. This may also offer parents a glimpse into their children’s world and enable them to provide nurturing guidance, instead of strict rules.

For our research, we interviewed adults visiting 12 parks within the Moreton Bay Regional Council area in Southeast Queensland, Australia. A total of 417 brief interviews were completed over four months during the 2017-18 summer.

What has the research found?

According to the parents, grandparents and caregivers interviewed, kids decide what to do when they go to a park. Many indicated they watch over or play with the children, but they let them make the decisions about their activities.

I take their lead. I just let them do what they want to do.

Some parents and caregivers said time at the park was “their time”, meaning the kids had free time to do what they pleased. “She’s the boss at the park,” one said. Playing in the park was a good opportunity for children to make decisions and simply enjoy themselves:

We’re here for them, so they can pretty much do what they want.

As a mostly unstructured activity, visiting a park is an opportunity for parents and caregivers to allow children to make independent decisions in a relatively controlled and contained environment, which allows for some risk-taking and experimentation.

However, safety is still a concern. It was clear from the adults interviewed that children could do what they would like “as long as it’s safe”. As one parent stated:

The kids [decide], unless, of course, they go and try and climb up on that stupid thing. I’ll say, get down, let’s not break an arm today.

What makes for an appealing park?

Not all parks are created equal, nor do they all attract local residents. Playgrounds were the primary areas of the parks where children actively played (82%), followed by sports fields (17%) and pathways (14%).

Offering many different playing opportunities was an important characteristic of a park, participants suggested. A wide variety of equipment helps maintain children’s attention and interest, which prevents them from getting bored.

Some parents also suggested a variety of options allowed children to attempt a range of physical skills and provided enough space to run around, move and expend energy. As one parent said:

I know that we’ve taken them to playgrounds and parks before when there’s only been two or three different things to play on. He gets bored in half an hour. Whereas here he’s quite content just roaming around. Different activities, different swings, climbing apparatus and different colours are always good things as well.

Equipment that requires children to take small risks, which parents can oversee, may help extend children’s skills and self-confidence. For example, climbing was one of the skills that adults “taught” the children while at the park. This enabled children to develop gross motor skills and weigh up risks.

Creating parks for a range of ages is important, as is providing variety for each age group. These findings represent a small portion of a larger study on designing suburban parks for groups of all ages. One of the goals is design recommendations for parks that better meet the needs of all ages for healthy, active living.

– ref. Why suburban parks offer an antidote to helicopter parenting – http://theconversation.com/why-suburban-parks-offer-an-antidote-to-helicopter-parenting-115155

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Warwick Smith, Research economist, University of Melbourne

This article is part of an election series on wages, industrial relations, Labor and the union movement ahead of the 2019 federal election. You can read other pieces in the series here, here, here, here, and here.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has promised that a Labor government will work to increase the wages of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) workers by 20% over eight years. That’s pretty conventional, but the method isn’t.

The government will directly fund the salary increases so that neither childcare providers nor parents bear the costs. These increases will be in addition to any changes to the award over these years.

Internationally, such interventions exist, but they’re rare. In Ontario, Canada, the government tops up the salaries of childcare workers by $2 per hour. For Australia, it’s a first.

Childcare workers are among the lowest-paid in the country, with more than 70% reliant on award rates that are not much higher than the minimum wage.

The perfect storm of market failures

There is also limited opportunity for career progression in childcare. These two facts combine to lead to an extraordinarily high turnover in staff.

As long as legal minimum wages and awards are being met, the fact that a job is poorly paid isn’t normally enough to justify government intervention.

But childcare is a special case in which multiple market failures coincide.

“Market failure” is a term used to describe a situation economists like to believe is rare – where the workings of the free market lead to bad outcomes. Classic examples include polluting industries where the costs of pollution aren’t borne by the polluter itself (an “externality” in economics speak), and street lighting, for which it is impossible to charge users (economists call that a public good).

In economic theory, a market failure will at least justify the consideration of government intervention.

Childcare’s benefits are direct, and indirect

The provision of childcare creates both private benefits and public goods.

Mothers who can earn more than the cost of childcare benefit from it because they can maintain and build their skills and careers. Society also benefits because it makes better use of the skills of women.

There is also clear evidence that quality early childhood education positively affects the prospects of children for the rest of their lives, particularly those from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

It’s good for them and their families, but it’s also good for the entire community as those children are more likely to make full use of their skills and talents in later life and contribute productively to society. They are also less likely to engage in antisocial or criminal behaviour.

Mothers can’t afford to pay good wages…

But if entirely left to the market, childcare would only be affordable to those who earn high wages (and whose children might be the least likely to benefit). The total costs of the staff, venue, and administration needed to provide childcare are beyond most parents’ means.

This is why we already have government intervention in the form of means-tested assistance, which subsidises the cost of childcare up to A$10,190 per year, per child.

However, despite the existence of this subsidy, most Certificate III qualified childcare workers still only earn about A$850 per week (A$44,000 per year), about half the average full-time wage.

Why aren’t they paid more, given that their work is so important?

…in part because they don’t get good wages

One answer could be that 96% of childcare workers are women, and about 95% of stay-at-home parents are women. The gender pay gap in Australia is currently about 14%. It’s the result of a combination of gender discrimination, gender role expectations in child-raising, and relatively low pay in typically “feminised” industries.

It means mothers cannot easily afford to pay for proper childcare from their wages, and that childcare workers come to accept low pay.

Subsidising quality childcare through both a rebate to parents and a direct increase in childcare workers’ wages addresses these dual aspects of the gender pay gap by helping more mothers maintain careers (that will enable them get paid more) and acknowledging and addressing the extent to which the market won’t pay childcare workers enough.

There’s a case for top ups, but they’re not ideal

While Labor’s commitment to increasing childcare worker pay is welcome and is addressing an agglomeration of genuine market failures, a specific government top-up for a specific profession leave its workers vulnerable to a change of government policy that cuts or abolishes it.

The long-term solution is to do something more systematic about the undervaluation of care work in Australia. It would be best dealt with by adjusting how the Fair Work Commission sets award wages in light of the public value generated by the industry and an understanding of the historic undervaluing of work performed by women.

Labor has announced policies that aim to do this, so presumably this wage top-up is a stopgap that provides much-needed pay rises in the short term while longer-term solutions are being put in place.

Read more: Why Labor’s childcare policy is the biggest economic news of the election campaign

– ref. Labor wants to pay childcare wages itself. A perfect storm makes it not such a bad idea – http://theconversation.com/labor-wants-to-pay-childcare-wages-itself-a-perfect-storm-makes-it-not-such-a-bad-idea-116272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Carlson, Professor, Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University

As part of his re-election pitch, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has promised to crack down on online trolls, increasing the penalties for online harassment.

The Melbourne Demons, meanwhile, have announced a new campaign targeting online bullying. They recently opened a game by running through a banner featuring hateful tweets directed at AFL players, including Noongar man and Demons defender Neville Jetta.

It is good to see the issue of online abuse in the spotlight. However, researchers and policy-makers alike need to be aware that Indigenous peoples may experience social media and online abuse differently to other social groups.

A recent cluster of child suicides has brought closer scrutiny to the relationship between cyberbullying and race. Five Aboriginal girls, aged as young as 12, committed suicide in the first two weeks of 2019.

One 14-year-old wrote on Facebook on the day before her death, “Once I’m gone the bullying and the racism will stop”. This week, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten described the problem of Indigenous suicide as “a national disaster”.

It seems increasingly clear that there is a link between cyberbullying, anti-Indigenous racism, and mental ill-health. But what do we actually know about Indigenous people’s experiences of online bullying?

More than a third of the participants in our recent national research project looking at Indigenous social media use reported that they had personally been subjected to racism online.

Twenty one percent had received direct threats by other social media users; 17% indicated these had impacted their “offline” lives, in the forms of physical violence or mental ill-health. But this is only a snapshot of an issue that deserves much greater attention.

Read more: Indigenous voices are speaking loudly on social media but racism endures

We also recently reviewed literature on cyberbullying against Indigenous Australians and found that there was insufficient research into the problem. There is an urgent need to engage Indigenous communities, elders and youth in conversations about online bullying and safety. It is only through engaging with cyberbullying as a phenomenon that affects different social groups differently that its causes, effects and mitigating factors might be understood.

A crisis online

Indigenous peoples are enthusiastic social media users. These technologies have brought many benefits. They help Indigenous families and communities connect intimately across vast distances; allowing users to share and maintain cultural knowledge, fulfil cultural protocol, such as Sorry Business, and engage in political activism.

But they have also brought negative consequences, and research has been slow in keeping up with recent shifts in online practices. Social media facilitates racist abuse against Indigenous peoples and the perpetration of widespread cyberbullying. In recent high-profile cases, abuse has been directed at West Coast Eagles player Liam Ryan and Arrernte union organiser and freelance writer Celeste Liddle:

I love it when people tell me to just ignore racists. Like, have you ever flicked through my Twitter feed? Just this afternoon I’ve been called ‘Abo’, ‘oogabooga’ and been reduced to a percentage several times. How do you ignore what you cannot escape?

— Celeste Liddle (@Utopiana) April 5, 2019

More research needed

Cyberbullying affects somewhere between 10-40% of young social media users in Australia. A recent Australia Institute survey found 39% of Australians have experienced some form of cyber-hatred and violence, and that it has cost the economy around $3.7 billion.

Victims of cyberbullying are significantly more likely to experience psychological ill-health, most seriously in the forms of depression, anxiety, and thoughts of suicide. There are also significant social consequences, with victims and perpetrators being more likely to truant school, take leave from employment, and experience social isolation more generally.

International research suggests that culture and ethnicity are significant factors in the occurrence of cyberbullying. Perpetrators of cyberbullying often target markers of social difference, such as being Indigenous.

Despite being identified as a significant public health concern, however, cyberbullying against Indigenous Australians has largely escaped the attention of researchers. Indigenous peoples constitute a distinct social group in Australia. Yet this has rarely been factored into sustained studies of cyberbullying. Research has tended to assume a normalised “white” subject, failing to differentiate participants along these potentially significant demographic lines. But it is well established that different social groups use and experience social media differently.

The Department of Indigenous Studies at Macquarie University recently partnered with the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council to produce a range of resources to better inform Indigenous communities about cyberbullying.

This includes a series of posters designed by the Indigenous creative agency Iscariot Media, that can be shared on social media or printed and displayed in places like community centres and schools.

Treating all online abuse as the same risks ignoring the different rates, causes, and consequences of online violence. By paying more attention, we can build a better understanding of how cyberbullying is related to racism and the legacy of colonisation in Australia.

If you or anyone you know needs help or is having suicidal thoughts, contact Lifeline on 131 114 or beyondblue 1300 22 46 36.

– ref. We need to do more about cyberbullying against Indigenous Australians – http://theconversation.com/we-need-to-do-more-about-cyberbullying-against-indigenous-australians-115297

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

Two moments stood out in Wednesday night’s debate, which substantially canvassed issues that have been chewed over endlessly through the campaign.

These moments were significant not for the impact they’ll have on voters – who are probably over debates, if not the whole election – but for what they revealed about the leaders.

The first was Bill Shorten appearing genuinely torn over the issue of Israel Folau, found guilty of breaching Rugby Australia rules for saying homosexuals would go to hell unless they repented.

Shorten, speaking on the question about religious freedom, said Folau was “entitled to his views. And he shouldn’t suffer an employment penalty for it.”

But there was the other side – the hurtful impact of a public figure putting out such views on social media. “I don’t think it’s a clear-cut issue when the edges bump up against each other,” he said.

So often, especially in campaigns, leaders talk in black and white, failing to acknowledge nuances. Freedom of speech, especially when it involves religion, is an issue full of nuance, because of the conflicting values in play. Sometimes there is no right answer.

The second, very different, notable moment was Scott Morrison declaring Melissa Price would be environment minister if he were re-elected.

Read more: View from The Hill: Lots of ministry spots to fill if Morrison wins, while many Shorten ministers would return to a familiar cabinet room

Shorten continued to hold out on nominating who’d be his home affairs minister, saying this is a matter for after the election. But when Morrison was asked “will you keep the same environment minister?” he immediately said “yes” (prompting Shorten to quip about the invisible minister, “where is she?”).

Morrison’s answer might seem at first blush to be a small point. But it highlights how he says and does things for immediate needs or advantage, rather than worrying about the longer term.

He may not, if the polls are right, be forming a new ministry later this month. But if he is, Price should not be in his cabinet, and he knows it. In the debate, he should have avoided a commitment.

But it was the same recently, when he promised that Linda Reynolds, whom he was promoting to the defence industry job – a perfectly sensible appointment – would get the defence portfolio in a re-elected government.

He did not have to give that undertaking, and should have kept his options open.

For the most part, Wednesday’s head-to-head saw both leaders minimising risks; neither delivered any knockout blows.

There was no “space invader” behaviour, or gotcha moment. The day had already been dominated by Shorten’s angry and emotional reply to the Daily Telegraph’s now notorious “Mother of Invention” story that took issue with his Monday anecdote about his mother.

Read more: View from The Hill: Shorten turns Daily Telegraph sledge to advantage

The debate format, with National Press Club president Sabra Lane the sole interrogator, rather than a panel or audience members, allowed each leader to put a couple of questions to the other.

Morrison’s were on Labor’s superannuation and negative gearing policies; Shorten’s were on Labor policies too, as he challenged Morrison over cancer funding and child care.

Shorten would not give the cost of a superannuation measure that Morrison sought but said Labor’s full costings will be released on Friday.

When Lane asked the leaders about hard but unpopular decisions they’d made, it wasn’t surprising that Morrison went to border protection.

But it was interesting that, after referencing having to tell people in his union days they couldn’t get all they wanted, Shorten nominated persuading his party to accept turnbacks. “I felt that the experience of defeating the people smugglers proved that Labor needed to change,” he said. It was an I-run-things message, to the public and, perhaps for the future, to his party.

Morrison also sent a message, when asked how he would ensure his party’s conservative wing didn’t continue the era of disruption.

“I will lead, as I always have, from the middle,” he said. His history had been to work “right across the spectrum of our party. And so I’ve said to my party, ‘This is the direction I’m heading in and I’m asking you to join me,’ and they have,” he said.

As they headed out of this final debate the leaders were hit with a last question. Would they agree to an independent debates commission to avoid the haggling over these occasions in future?

They both agreed immediately. No mileage in hedging just then. Let’s hope that is an undertaking that lasts.

– ref. View from The Hill: Third debate contained some messages about and from the leaders – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-third-debate-contained-some-messages-about-and-from-the-leaders-116769

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Salisbury, Research Associate, School of Political Science & International Studies, The University of Queensland

Bill Shorten and Scott Morrison were given the chance to ask each other questions in Wednesday night’s third and final leaders’ debate in the election campaign. Fortunately, the leaders stuck to policy and left their mothers out of it (for the most part).

But the relative decorum was short-lived. The final few minutes saw the leaders bicker over their respective cabinets, with Morrison pressing Shorten to name his home affairs minister and Shorten questioning why so many of the Coalition’s ministers were leaving their posts.

“No need to get nasty,” Morrison said, before trying to laugh off the exchange as a joke.

As we’re nearing the end of what has been, at times, a caustic campaign, which candidate made the best case to the Australian people in the final debate? Our experts give their take:

Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

We all know the limitations and frustrations of political debate in our news media. It so often descends into partisan sloganeering and obfuscation that most of us are extremely wary of engaging with it.

And that’s what the final leaders’ debate looked like at the outset, when Prime Minister Scott Morrison responded to moderator Sabra Lane’s opening question about the asylum seekers still on Manus Island and Nauru.

It was a great question, about the times both leaders have opted to do what’s right, despite their actions being unpopular. Morrison turned it into a spiel about boat turn-backs. It was all sounding a bit blah, blah, blah-ish until Opposition Leader Bill Shorten responded by revealing how he had convinced others in the Labor caucus that they had no choice but to accept the necessity of turning back refugees at sea.

It was a precious moment, when we saw the real dynamics of party politics more clearly. And, as it happens just one of several reasons why the final debate was worth watching.

It happened again when Shorten asked whether the Coalition would reduce “out of pocket” expenses for cancer treatments. As he did, the smirk on Morrison’s face slowly evaporated. Clearly this was not a topic to look glib about.

The prime minister replied with the assertion that all public patients receive free cancer treatment, and as the audience stirred at that contestable idea, he quickly steered his answer towards the much safer territory of his party’s commitment to protect current rebates for private health insurance.

His supporters in the audience (who sounded more vociferous) applauded on cue, but the issue was left unresolved. The conversation had descended into typical partisan discourse. It was more about heat than light. But as Lane tried to move on to another topic, Shorten piped up with an unscheduled question: “Is that a yes or a no?” he asked.

What followed was an actual contest of ideas, where the leaders tried to tease out the inconsistencies in the detail of the other party’s policy. In the process, their underlying philosophical differences emerged.

The debate ranged across the now-familiar topics of dividends, negative gearing, house prices, renewables, climate change and childcare. But then, up came the question about Israel Folau and his homophobic comments. A more loaded topic is hard to imagine as it balances the competing concepts of religious freedom, freedom of speech and protecting people from hateful commentary.

Morrison said all the right things, although the answer momentarily went awry as he added – almost as an afterthought – that he also respected non-believers. Shorten confessed he felt “uneasy” about Folau losing his employment because he’d expressed his views, while also sympathising with those he offended.

It was all about nuance, something Shorten has returned to several times during the campaign – the assertion that complex ideas shouldn’t be reduced to just right and wrong or black and white.

And in that spirit, nor should debates always be assessed as won by one and lost by another. Especially when what emerged was a healthy and robust discussion about quite stark choices for the future of the country, all conducted in a civil and good-hearted manner.

Read more: View from The Hill: Shorten had the content, Morrison had the energy in first debate

Marian Sawer, Emeritus Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

Has the time passed for the kind of leaders’ debate we have just viewed at the National Press Club?

Predictable questions were answered by the leaders in predictable ways with predictable applause from their sides of the audience. The prime minister repeating the well-worn theme of being “better at managing the economy” and “keeping Australians safe” and relying on the spectre of Labor “going after your money through taxes”. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten being more cogent on climate change policy and adept at explaining Labor’s proposed tax reforms (he’s certainly had enough practice at this).

The kind of well-worn questions and responses seen here tell us little about the ideology underlying Scott Morrison’s view of taxes. Instead, taxes are weaponised in this kind of market populism and never presented as an instrument of social justice or the means of civilising capitalism.

Nor do the questions asked tell us much about the whole range of policies that might improve the lives of Australians. Q&A on Monday generated much more interesting questions, even including a voice for Indigenous Australians and issues around the systemic undervaluing of work in the care sector of the economy.

The gender effects of the policy divide between the Coalition and Labor were also scarcely touched upon. These include the effects of tax policies in exacerbating gender gaps, with the cuts to pay for them disproportionately affecting women. Women are notoriously disadvantaged by small government policies, being more dependent on public expenditure for employment and services.

Shorten did touch lightly on his wish for gender pay equity for his daughter. If given a chance he could have made something of Labor’s policy commitments to ensure that budgetary decisions like those on tax are properly analysed for their effects on gender equality.

So many missed opportunities, largely the result of a tired template and lack of interaction with the audience. Even a rolling, on-screen Twitter feed (like the one used on Q&A) would have livened things up for viewers.

There must be ways that social media can be used to make leaders’ debates a more interactive experience. This is the digital era, after all, and politics is done differently there.

Read more: Up close and personal: Morrison and Shorten get punchy in the second leaders’ debate. Our experts respond.

Chris Salisbury, Research Associate, School of Political Science & International Studies, The University of Queensland

For the final leaders’ debate, the National Press Club provided a more stately, formalised setting than Brisbane’s town hall-style meeting, with the leaders here static but engaging willingly in head-to-head questioning and, almost throughout, civil debating.

Little new ground was covered tonight; rather, the priority was consolidating messages that have by now become familiar to most voters. Differences were broached in their parties’ approaches to taxation, superannuation, housing affordability, health care and energy costs.

Asked about their willingness to make difficult, unpopular decisions, Scott Morrison harked back to his time as immigration minister “stopping boats and securing borders”. His “tough” budget calls as treasurer also received an outing.

Bill Shorten maybe pre-empted a line of attack and spoke early on about his background as a union representative and, surprisingly perhaps, his role in deciding his party’s stance on boat turn-backs.

Both leaders looked to position themselves as fit for leadership: Morrison stressing a readiness to be tough when needed and a commitment to a “well-managed economy”; Shorten making a positive out of his long “apprenticeship” as opposition leader and his party’s stability.

When challenged about the damage that revolving-door prime ministers in both major parties had inflicted on the body politic, Shorten cheekily suggested one more change was needed yet. Both leaders pointed to changed party rules ensuring the next prime minister would serve a full term.

Tellingly, though, Shorten pivoted to nominate climate change as a “real fault line” in the Liberal party that would see instability remain in a Coalition government.

Morrison offered calm – if doubtful – assurances that his party was “agreed” on the need for climate policy action. There was a less convincing defence against Shorten’s assertions of preference deals and candidate selection showing the Coalition’s flirting with the “extreme right”.

In their last statements, styled to make a case for leading the country, Morrison highlighted his desire for a strong economy to secure Australians’ futures. For his part, Shorten emphasised fairer equity in wages, as well as offering “hope” and equality for future generations.

Both leaders made sure as the debate neared its end to remind viewers of their well-worn barbs and slogans lambasting the other side – quips about each other’s future ministerial appointments afforded one of the few lighter, if still awkward, moments.

But with record numbers of pre-poll votes already cast, an unspoken question hung over much of the evening’s jousting – who’s still listening at this late stage?

– ref. Shorten and Morrison make their final cases in third leaders’ debate: our experts respond – http://theconversation.com/shorten-and-morrison-make-their-final-cases-in-third-leaders-debate-our-experts-respond-116668

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoffrey Dell, Associate Professor/Discipline Leader Accident Investigation and Forensics, CQUniversity Australia

The crash of Aeroflot flight SU1492 in Moscow raises concerns about cabin safety in terms of the number of crew needed in an emergency.

The Sukhoi Superjet-100 aircraft was carrying 73 passengers and five crew members when it burst into flames at Moscow airport on Sunday. At least 41 people are reported to have died.

Read more: Around 50% of homes in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane have the oldest NBN technology

What happened in the Aeroflot accident and evacuation is now subject to investigation. But what about the broader question of cabin crew safety this incident raises?

Cabin crew numbers

In 2010 the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) mooted changes to reduce cabin crew numbers from a minimum ratio of 1 for every 36 passengers to 1 per 50 passengers.

The 1/50 had been global standard for years, but until 2010 Australia had the higher standard of 1/36 (since the inception of the jet age). It’s reasonable to assume the Aeroflot aircraft would have been operating under the same international 1/50 regulation.

In 2011 an inquiry into cabin crew numbers was set up by the Australian Government’s House Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications.

In submissions, Qantas and others argued that 1/50 was the global standard – despite the fact we already had a higher standard.

The Flight Attendants’ Association of Australia and the Australian & International Pilots’ Association were among those calling for no change.

Evacuation tests

The argument made by those advocating for change from 1/36 to 1/50 was that certification by the regulatory authority in the country of aircraft manufacture required a full evacuation demonstration to be successfully carried out by that manufacturer.

The demonstration had to prove that a full complement of passengers and crew could successfully evacuate the aircraft in 90 seconds.

Additionally, for many years in Australia the civil aviation regulator, now CASA, required an additional partial evacuation demonstration be conducted by the airline wanting to introduce the new aircraft into service.

That demonstration had to show the airline’s own crew could evacuate the aircraft with half the cabin crew complement with half a load of passengers and through half of the doors in 90 seconds.

But the potentially flawed part of that argument was these evacuation demonstrations were carried out with the aircraft intact, sitting evenly on its wheels with no real emergency, no fire, smoke or obstructions in the cabin, no real threat of death adding dire urgency, and no panic among the passengers.

In my experience, they don’t really test how the passengers will react or the crew will function under the severe stress of an emergency like the case in Russia with the Aeroflot aircraft fire.

The Russian crash also shows that the 90-second time standard needs to be reviewed. Aeroflot says the evacuation of the Sukkoi aircraft took only 55 seconds, through only half the doors, and still more than half the passengers didn’t get out.

A change in the ratio

The report of the Standing Committee inquiry actually recommended keeping the 1/36 ratio but the government rejected this, saying:

The unequivocal advice from both CASA and OTS (Office of Transport Security) is that having a one cabin crew member to every fifty passenger seats ratio in Australia does not reduce the safety or security of domestic aircraft operations.

On flights with less than 216 passengers, CASA has been allowing some airlines to operate on the 1/50 ratio since 2006, although the appropriate legislation has still to be changed to reflect this.

The real issue in play when the cabin crew ratio was being changed in Australia, was the Australian airlines were at a competitive disadvantage against internationals operating into Australia, so the Australian airlines wanted parity.

I can see the commercial argument. But in my 40 years working in air safety, it was the only time I’d seen airlines openly argue a position for what was actually a lower standard of safety than already in place.

How many exits?

One of the serious problems that resulted from the cabin crew ratio rule change that went under the regulatory radar is that now on 100 to 149 seat aircraft, only three cabin crew are mandated.

But such aircraft can have four main cabin doors that can be used as emergency exits in the case of an accident.

So now on those aircraft there is one door, front or rear dependent on airline procedures, without a cabin crew member stationed at it to operate the door and control the evacuation there in an emergency.

The airline procedures assign responsibility for operation of that door and the one on the opposite side of the cabin to the one cabin crew member.

In my opinion this is a serious reduction in safety. There is little doubt that in an emergency of the type suffered by the Sukkoi Superjet, the one cabin crew member would have no hope of operating two exits with the passengers panicking and pressing to get out.

Lives at risk?

I believe lives will be lost in future because of the rule changes.

Consider an aircraft operating in Australia that had between 100 and 149 seats – under the current rules it would have only three flight attendants.

If a similar accident to that of the Aeroflot aircraft happened, the two rear exits would be blocked by fire. (The flight attendant at the rear of the crashed aircraft reportedly died trying to carry out their duties at the rear exits.

If there had been only one cabin crew member stationed at the front of the aircraft, not an unusual circumstance now, it is very possible that only one forward exit would be promptly opened. That would seriously impact the number of passengers who would escape through the one exit before the cabin was fully involved in the fire with smoke and flames?

The Sukkoi accident shines a light on the decisions that were made at the time of the Australian rule changes.

Read more: Can we bend it? The challenge for Samsung and others to make flexible technology

The rules need to be changed again to mandate a cabin crew member for every floor level exit. So in a 100 to 149 seat aircraft with four entry/exit doors, the minimum cabin crew complement would be four, not three.

Then the 1/50 ratio could then apply for any extra cabin crew once all floor level exits are staffed.

In my opinion this rule change is need internationally, not just in Australia. The International Civil Aviation Organisation needs to act, before more lives are lost.

– ref. Passenger planes need enough cabin crew to operate all the exits in an emergency – http://theconversation.com/passenger-planes-need-enough-cabin-crew-to-operate-all-the-exits-in-an-emergency-116671

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Sini, Lecturer in Screen Media, University of the Sunshine Coast

The Met Gala is an annual fundraising event for the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute where fashion and celebrity often collide. It always manages to raise eyebrows and this years’ theme, “Camp: Notes on Fashion,” has generated much debate. A common question many fashionistas and cultural critics are asking of each outfit is “ …but is it camp?”

This kind of overly analytical and far too serious commentary on a sensibility that is supposed to mock such things is intriguing but not surprising given how the concept of camp has evolved.

In 1964, author Susan Sontag penned perhaps her most influential essay, Notes on Camp. It was one of the first attempts to try to pin down camp’s qualities and parameters. It’s clear why she chose to write some notes rather than a formal essay; because camp is a sensibility or a way of perceiving the world, it is quite difficult to treat systematically. In fact, Sontag would say that it often defies the very idea of systematisation.

For Sontag, camp is “the love of the exaggerated, the ‘off,’ of things-being-what-they-are-not”, and though it is not merely visual, it has often been expressed in the visual styles of décor, architecture, cinema and fashion.

Certain aspects of Art Nouveau, old Flash Gordon comics, women’s clothes of the 1920s like feather boas and fringed garments, celebrity dandies and “sissies” like Oscar Wilde and Paul Lynde, “overwrought” performances by classic Hollywood actresses such as Bette Davis and Judy Garland and so on. Key to camp is a sense of affectation, of style over substance. But equally important is the way one looks at those things, how one appreciates affectation.

Missing the point

Many of the gowns and costumes at this year’s Met Gala attempt to capture the essence of camp, and in trying to do so miss the point of camp entirely. There is nothing discernibly camp about Jared Leto carrying around a replica of his own head. Quirky and strange? Maybe. But nowhere near camp.

Another interesting example was Celine Dion, who wore a glittering tribute to Judy Garland and the Ziegfield Follies, designed by Oscar de la Renta. While inspired by camp figures, it is not the outfit here that is camp but rather the person wearing it. Dion is arguably a contemporary camp icon, and she would be camp regardless of what she wore. This is because her celebrity image owes more to her overly emotional songs and the way in which she performs them, her goofy persona, and the heightened emotion of some of her public statements.

People with a camp appreciation of Celine Dion enjoy her ironically, finding the style of her public personality thoroughly entertaining. Such appreciators would probably also love the fact that she apparently initially thought the theme for this year’s gala was “camping.” In nature. Bless her.

Other guests such as Billy Porter approached the camp sensibility much more accurately by incorporating outrageous pomp and performance to their attendances.

Porter came dressed like some kind of Egyptian goddess, carried in on a litter by six nubile, shirtless men. While this adds a certain spectacle, it was, like every other guest’s appearance, a designed, rehearsed happening.

For Sontag and many thinkers who came after her, there really are two ways of “doing” camp. One is the “naïve camp” and the other is “conscious camp.” Naïve camp is the Judy Garland kind of camp. Garland did not intend to be a gay icon, but she became one because her earnest, overwrought performances invited a large portion of queer people to view her as a camp figure.

Gay men in particular appreciated the affectations in her performances, in a similar way to how drag queens are appreciated in the queer community. They are not appreciated for how well they perform but for how much they perform, for how much extra they put into their lip-synched song and dance.

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

‘Conscious camp’

“Conscious camp” is what was on display at the Met Gala this year. Take Lady Gaga’s “Russian doll” of dresses, each layer referencing old Hollywood glamour to an over the top degree. An oversized version of Marilyn Monroe’s dress in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is removed and beneath it is a sleeker black, femme fatale number, followed by another reveal of a more realistically proportioned pink dress. Gaga is well-versed in queer and pop cultural aesthetics, and there was a fun narrative here, but its barrage of old Hollywood references don’t necessarily make it camp.

Contrast this with Amber Valletta’s rather simple, but effective costume: she looks like she is wearing a giant, green loofa, and in most of the photos looks to be taking herself way too seriously. That’s the sort of camp Sontag might enjoy.

The best kind of camp is the kind that doesn’t know it is camp. Which is just another way of saying you can’t really design and wear your way into the camp sensibility.

– ref. How camp was the Met Gala? Not very – http://theconversation.com/how-camp-was-the-met-gala-not-very-116742

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

News Corp outlets have been mostly unrelentingly anti-Bill Shorten and Labor during this campaign. They rarely let up.

But Wednesday’s Daily Telegraph story with the screaming headline “Mother of Invention” backfired, handing the opposition leader the opportunity of a powerful moment on the campaign trail and drawing criticism even within the media group.

To start at the beginning, in Monday’s ABC Q&A, Shorten used the story of his late mother Ann to illustrate his case for giving people more equal opportunities in their lives.

His mum came from a working class family. She went to university but instead of pursuing law, as she wanted, she “needed to take the teacher scholarship to look after the rest of the kids”.

“My mum was a brilliant woman. She wasn’t bitter […] But I also know that if she had had other opportunities, she could have done anything”.

What Shorten left out of the story was that Ann later became a lawyer, and went to the Victorian bar.

Perhaps it would have been better to have included that fact, for the sake of covering all bases. Arguably, Ann Shorten’s high achieving career is not even the most telling example of how unequal opportunity can stymie ambition.

But the point is that the legal part of her career is no secret, but in fact well known. As the Telegraph quotes, the Victorian Bar Council had an obituary when she died several years ago.

The whole Telegraph presentation was an over-the-top hit job.

The Telegraph’s sister paper, the Herald Sun in Melbourne, did not run the story at all, although it would have been available to it.

And News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt pulled no punches in his blog.

“Bill Shorten is livid about the Daily Telegraph’s front page today. Despite being a Telegraph columnist, I must say this: Shorten spoke truly when he said his mother sacrificed her dream to be a lawyer, taking up teaching to help her siblings,” Bolt wrote.

“There is no invention here. That she decades later realised her dream does not negate that sacrifice.”

Scott Morrison was careful in commenting, saying it was “a very upsetting story and I can understand that Bill would have been very hurt by that story”.

“I can understand that that would have upset him a great deal and […] I would only extend my best wishes to him. I mean, this election is not about our families,” Morrison said.

Shorten, tears welling at times, addressed the matter at great length in his Wednesday morning news conference, including repeating his mother’s story and using it to re-emphasise the point that “everyone deserves the same chance”.

He not only struck back hard at News Corp but drew on his mother’s experience at the Bar to illustrate the career difficulties older women can face. At the bar “she discovered in her mid-50s that sometimes, you’re just too old”.

“My mum would want me to say to older women in Australia – that just because you’ve got grey hair, just because you didn’t go to a special private school, just because you don’t go to the right clubs, just because you’re not part of some back-slapping boy’s club, doesn’t mean you should give up,” he said.

For good measure, he passed on some of his mum’s advice to whoever was “pulling down a six-figure sum at the Daily Telegraph. ‘Look it up. Look it up.’ All of what I’ve said is all of what has been said before.”

Over the decades Labor leaders have had up-and-down relationship with the Murdoch media. Way back in the 1970s, Rupert Murdoch backed Gough Whitlam, then turned strongly against him in a fierce 1975 coverage in The Australian.

Mostly, leaders have gone out of their way to meet with Murdoch, but Shorten a few months ago indicated he wasn’t interested in doing so, preferring to deal with the Australian management.

This is certainly not the first time a Labor leader has had a bash at the Murdoch media in a recent campaign. But it was probably one of the more effective.

– ref. View from The Hill: Shorten turns Daily Telegraph sledge to advantage – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-shorten-turns-daily-telegraph-sledge-to-advantage-116740

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Noel D Preece, Adjunct Asssociate Professor, James Cook University

Australia heavily relies on the work of Indigenous rangers to meet our conservation targets, but they’re being short-changed by federal government funding.

Indigenous-owned land for biodiversity and cultural conservation, called Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs), make up almost half of Australia’s conservation estate.

And yet federal funding only offers them 6% of the conservation estate budget.

Many of our threatened species and ecosystems are based on IPAs. Most are located in remote parts of Australia, such as Uunguu on Wunambal-Gaambera country in the northern Kimberley, home to endangered species like the Northern Quoll.

Read more: Indigenous ranger programs are working in Queensland – they should be expanded

These areas are enormous, with just 74 IPAs covering more than 66 million hectares. Government protected areas also cover over 66 million hectares, but from a network of 7,204 smaller regions. Larger areas are generally better for conservation as they protect more habitats for species, but they also require more work to manage.

So why are IPAs given only a fraction of what they deserve?

Indigenous rangers are not supported

Unlike the Environment Department’s recurring budgets for staff and operations for Government Protected Areas, funding for IPAs is not secure.

According to the latest figures, the whole IPA program received only a total of A$50 million of federal funding for five years (2008 to 2013).

In northern Australia, for instance, A$16 million in funding was designated to manage 154,000km², supporting more than 650 Indigenous rangers.

By stark contrast, the northern government conservation estate of 165,000km² attracted $276 million, almost 20 times the amount available for IPAs.

Why, in outback Australia, where disadvantage is rife, are governments reluctant to adequately fund those jobs? Here are some possible explanations – none of them satisfactory.

A voluntary program

The Indigenous Protected Area program is voluntary. Governments might be reluctant to fund permanent jobs when IPAs can be cancelled by Indigenous owners, although this is unlikely because they are looking after their country.

Misaligned management

Funding and management fall under different departments. Management is under the jurisdiction of the prime minister and cabinet. Funding was transferred from the Natural Heritage Trust to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy in July 2018.

Priorities of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy are more aligned with welfare programs, including education, employment and health, but not conservation.

Competing for funds

Managing conservation estate is meaningful and necessary work, which should translate to permanent, or at least long-term, jobs and operational budgets. Instead, funding is on a competitive short-term basis. IPAs have to compete for money within the National Landcare Program.

IPA “projects” are funded through multi-year funding agreements to fulfil their management plan commitments. The total funding for National Landcare was A$1.1 billion from 2017-21, including a meagre $15 million for new IPAs.

Government protected areas, on the other hand, have permanent staff, ongoing salaries and operational budgets (although Environment Department budgets have been slashed by over 40% since 2013).

Out of sight, out of mind

Then there is the remoteness factor – distance from the bulk of Australia’s east-coast population.

IPAs are out of mind for most urban Australians. But all Australians are affected economically and socially by Indigenous disadvantage, and disadvantage causes health, welfare and social costs to the national budget.

One way to help correct this imbalance is to seriously fund jobs Indigenous people want and we all need, such as the Indigenous Ranger Program.

Indigenous agency over Indigenous lands

Indigenous people on country express enormous pride in managing their IPA lands. They have meaningful work, identity and agency.

And Indigenous land managers are speaking out. Late last year, a comprehensive and ambitious book, Sustainable land sector development in Northern Australia, was published by a number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous authors who work in the north.

Indigenous land managers are now determining how their lands are used, how research is conducted and how Indigenous rangers and elders are engaged in the process.

Federal policies

Australia uses this Indigenous contribution to its benefit in international obligations, such as the Aichi Targets, to meet our target of conservation estate making up 17% of Australia. The Environment Department says 19.63% of Australia is protected, with a large proportion in remote deserts.

So, it seems unjust that much of this government’s “achievement” is thanks to Indigenous rangers who are committed to these outcomes, but are not funded adequately.

And in the lead up to the election, most party policies are unclear on Indigenous Protected Areas.

The Coalition

The Coalition has no specific published policies on Indigenous ranger programs nor IPAs. They are committed to development in the north of Australia, a policy that’s heavily criticised by Indigenous leaders.

Labor

The Labor Party fares better. They propose to expand “long-term support and recognition for the highly successful” Indigenous ranger and IPA programs and establish a First Nations Voice in government. They also recently committed to fund A$200 million to double the number of Indigenous Rangers over five years.

Nationals

The Nationals are silent on Indigenous rangers, protected areas and employment. This is surprising for a regional party, where a high proportion of the lands are now Indigenous owned and managed.

Greens

The Greens are a little more advanced, addressing First Nations’ rights to lands and reparations by governments through acquisition and management.

Investment in the Indigenous effort to conserve Australia’s natural heritage is long overdue. And importantly, these programs must be led by Indigenous people themselves. They would provide meaningful employment and help to correct the social, health, welfare, chronic unemployment and economic imbalances in the far-flung regions of Australia.

– ref. Indigenous rangers don’t receive the funding they deserve – here’s why – http://theconversation.com/indigenous-rangers-dont-receive-the-funding-they-deserve-heres-why-115916

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Fellow, Grattan Institute

The pushback against federal Labor’s reforms to negative gearing is ramping up again with the release of NSW Treasury modelling.

The modelling predicts that Labor’s changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount would cause a 0.8% to 1.3% decline in stamp duty revenues in the three years to 2022-23, or A$200 million over three years, assuming Labor’s policies take effect from January 1, 2020.

But behind the headline is the punchline: NSW Treasury is predicting house prices would be just 0.5% lower than otherwise by the end of 2019. Housing turnover would also fall, but only by between 0.3% and 1%.

0.5% is close to nothing

That 0.5% decline in prices is pretty consistent with Grattan Institute’s own research, which estimated that abolishing negative gearing would lead to house price falls in the range of 1% to 2%, assuming the value of the A$6.6 trillion property market falls by the entire value of the future stream of tax benefits.

Keep in mind that house prices in Sydney and Melbourne have already fallen by more than 10%, punching a much larger hole in stamp duty revenues than that modelled by NSW Treasury as a result of reforms to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.

Arguably, the impacts of reforms to the CGT and negative gearing on the housing market would be even smaller today, because many investors are sitting on the sidelines after the recent house price falls and changes to macro-prudential rules.

And Labor’s proposal would raise money…

Labor’s reforms to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount would substantially boost the budget bottom line. The independent Parliamentary Budget Office estimates Labor’s policies would raise about A$32.1 billion over ten years.

Winding back these tax concessions would enable the government to reduce other taxes, provide more services, improve the budget bottom line, or provide additional grants to the states (such as for hospitals) much greater than the A$200 million over three years that the NSW Treasury might lose.

The negative gearing change could increase rents, but only if it reduced the supply of new housing. With tight constraints on the supply of land suitable for urban housing, most of the impact would be felt via lower land prices. And any effects would be small: most investment lending is for existing housing, and Labor’s policy leaves in place negative gearing tax write-offs for new homes.

… and stabilise the economy

The policy would also promote financial stability by encouraging investors to chase rental yields rather than capital gains. The Reserve Bank, the Productivity Commission and the Murray financial system inquiry all raised concerns about the effects of the current tax arrangements on financial stability.

The policy would also promote an increase in home ownership. Fewer investors bidding at auctions would mean more homebuyers moving in.

A further 0.5% fall in house prices, as the NSW Treasury predicts, seems a modest price to pay for these benefits. Most Australians would probably take that deal.

Read more: The Game of Homes: how the vested interests lie about negative gearing

– ref. Confirmation from NSW Treasury. Labor’s negative gearing policy would barely move house prices – http://theconversation.com/confirmation-from-nsw-treasury-labors-negative-gearing-policy-would-barely-move-house-prices-116736

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Hamilton, Visiting Scholar, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

As election day approaches, dividend imputation is back in the news and the hot takes are running hot. Commentators are branding the system we’ve got a “tax dodge”, a “handout” and a “loophole”, and praising Labor’s proposal as economically sound.

But they’re wrong.

Australia, almost uniquely in the world, has for decades taxed profits in a special way. These profits are, in one way or another, owed to shareholders. In a normal tax system, profits are first taxed at the company level when they’re earned and then taxed at the personal level when they’re paid as dividends.

Dividend imputation eliminates the first stage.

For shares owned by Australians, the idea is to extinguish all taxes the company owes. To that end, Australian shareholders get a refund of the taxes paid by the company, known as “franking credits”. Labor says it has no beef with this idea. It set up Australia’s dividend imputation system in 1987.

Labor introduced dividend imputation

So what does it want to do now?

At the moment, Australian shareholders get back the taxes paid by the company no matter what. If they have a tax bill, then it’s reduced by the relevant amount; if they don’t have a tax bill, then they get a cheque in the mail instead.

John Howard reformed Labor’s system in the year 2000 on the recommendation of the Ralph Review of Business Taxation. Non-taxpayers as well as taxpayers would be eligible for refunds of company tax.

Labor wants to revert back to how things originally were. It wants to take away franking credits from anyone who, for any reason, doesn’t have a personal tax bill, whether rich or poor, young or old, in work or retired.

Many shareholders legitimately pay no tax

Reasons abound as to why you might own shares but pay no tax. And they need not have nothing to do with being a tax dodger, a taker of handouts, or an exploiter of loopholes.

Imagine you own some Telstra shares, but take a year off to look after your children. When you work, the tax Telstra paid is refunded to you so no corporate tax is paid on those shares. But under Labor’s proposal when you take a year off, you would no longer be entitled to that refund. Telstra would only pay tax on your shares when you looked after your children.

To me, that’s nuts.

And if you think only the wealthy own shares, think again. There are thousands of Australians for whom those Telstra dividends pay the power bill.

So why is Labor proposing it?

Labor wants their money

In part because it wants the money – an estimated A$5 billion per year.

It’s hard to think of another reason. Getting a $100 cheque in the mail is equivalent to getting an extra $100 in your tax return.

Labor says it’s wrong to give tax refunds to people who don’t pay tax. But another way of looking at it is that they have paid tax – it’s just that the companies they own did it for them.

If you don’t like those without tax bills getting refunds then you ought to ask why it’s happening.

If you don’t like the answer – which might be that tax-free super is their only other source of income – you should look at fixing the root cause. But then you should leave the imputation system, which works as intended, alone.

And it’s prepared to abandon good tax design

The core principle of tax design is neutrality —- ensuring that taxes depend on behaviour as little as possible. The current system is neutral because shareholders get company tax back regardless of their tax status; Labor’s proposal would return company tax to some shareowners and not others.

The best way to target the rich is to design an income tax system that does it directly.

Reverting to the old, hobbled version of dividend imputation isn’t reform – it’s the opposite.

Read more: Words that matter. What’s a franking credit? What’s dividend imputation? And what’s ‘retiree tax’?

The only thing Labor’s proposal has going for it is the revenue it will raise. But that’s a low bar. The best policy isn’t the one that raises the most revenue, its the one that raises revenue at the lowest economic cost.

There are lots of ways to raise revenue. Many of them are coherent, principled, targeted, transparent, fair, and don’t distort economic activity. Work-related deductions, superannuation tax concessions, and the design of the income tax itself are better places to look.

Read more: It’s hard to find out who Labor’s dividend imputation policy will hit, but it is possible, and it isn’t the poor

– ref. There’s nothing unfair about dividend imputation — it refunds tax that shouldn’t have been paid – http://theconversation.com/theres-nothing-unfair-about-dividend-imputation-it-refunds-tax-that-shouldnt-have-been-paid-116604

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terry Goldsworthy, Associate Professor in Criminology, Bond University

When we think of surveillance, we tend to imagine traditional surveillance tools like CCTV systems run by local authorities. The use of CCTV has certainly increased since I was a young constable on the Gold Coast in the early 1990s. From a CCTV network of 16 cameras when they were first introduced to the city precinct, the network has grown to more than 500 cameras today.

But surveillance is much more than just CCTV. It now includes things like private home or business security systems, police body-worn cameras (BWC) and the use of helicopters and drones. And we all have the capacity to conduct surveillance and gather evidence using the technology contained in our mobile phones.

These new technologies are changing the way police approach surveillance. Rather than using surveillance tools reactively to catch criminals caught in the act on camera, police are now proactively seeking out criminals in the process of offending and recording the evidence on the spot.

Read more: Turning ‘big brother’ surveillance into a helping hand to the homeless

CCTV helps solve crime, not prevent it

Most studies show that CCTV by itself does not necessarily prevent crime, but it does assist in responding to and solving crime.

In the Boston bombing case, police used footage and images from state, public and private sources to identify the suspects. CCTV is also proving crucial in identifying the bombers who staged the recent coordinated attacks in Sri Lanka.

Two studies released by the Australian Institute of Criminology last month focused on the use of CCTV by police. The first showed that where police requested and used CCTV footage, there was an increase in the rate of matters being solved. The second study showed CCTV footage is highly valued by law enforcement personnel, with 90% of investigators using the footage when it was available. Two-thirds were able to use it for the reason they had requested it.

New tools, new capabilities

We are now seeing a move from reactive surveillance to proactive surveillance.

Police body worn cameras (BWCs) are an example of this. Every police service in Australia is now using BWCs. Rather than just recording a criminal event by chance, BWCs enable police to actively seek out those committing offences, and record the evidence against such offenders.

Queensland Police requires its officers to record whenever the officer is acting in the performance of his or her duties. The device must be recording prior to, and during, the exercising of a police power or applying a use of force.

This requirement can be problematic since the officer must physically start the recording. In the shooting matter of Justine Damond in the United States, officers were criticised for having their recording devices turned off during the shooting.

Some services have attempted to deal with this issue, such as Western Australia Police for instance, by having the BWC automatically begin recording when an officer draws their firearm.

Even traditional CCTV is becoming proactive with the introduction of mobile CCTV cameras that can be moved as required to areas of community concern.

Many police services are using drones for tasks such as crowd management, surveillance and target acquisition. Queensland and Victoria are just are two states that are committed to the use of drones for policing purposes. In 2017, Queensland Police had a fleet of ten drones.

Read more: How artificial intelligence systems could threaten democracy

Facial recognition enables ‘predictive policing’

Facial recognition software was once the thing of Hollywood movies like Mission Impossible. It’s now a reality, with the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreeing to share biometric data, such as drivers licence details and passport photos, between government agencies.

Facial recognition software was used by police during 2018 Commonwealth games in Queensland. And the Queensland government has indicated police will continue to use facial recognition tools – although confusion surrounds when or how it will be deployed. The ABC has reported that the facial recognition system was so rushed that it lacked the data to operate effectively during the Commonwealth Games.

Facial recognition adds a predictive policing capability to traditional CCTV systems. In essence, predictive policing or pre-crime policing is an attempt by law enforcement to disrupt criminal activity by the early identification of criminal threats.

For example, Operation Nomad saw a South Australian police visiting suspected and convicted arsonists when automated number plate recognition alerted them to suspects driving in fire danger zones. The operation was credited with the reduction of bushfire related arson.

Read more: You may be sick of worrying about online privacy, but ‘surveillance apathy’ is also a problem

Keeping a watch on big brother

Surveillance is changing from being static, fixed and reactive to being flexible and proactive. The enhanced capabilities helps law enforcement fight crime, rather than just solve it.

The Coalition government promised A$20 million to increase the number of CCTV cameras across the country. Under the proposal, up to 2,600 cameras would be installed at 500 “crime hot spots”.

While this is a largely positive move, we must ensure that there is accountability and transparency in the use of these technologies, and ensure they serve the purposes for which they were intended. An effective governance regime is essential to instill public confidence in the use of these technologies.

– ref. Big brother is watching: how new technologies are changing police surveillance – http://theconversation.com/big-brother-is-watching-how-new-technologies-are-changing-police-surveillance-115841

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Savage, Professor of Health Economics, University of Technology Sydney

Labor’s proposal to end cash refunds of unused dividend imputation credits is highly targeted.

It certainly doesn’t apply to age pensioners, even part pensioners, courtesy of Labor’s Pensioner Guarantee.

Self managed super funds set up by pensioners before the announcement are also exempt. Nonetheless it is likely that some pensioners will set up self-managed accounts in full knowledge of Labor’s proposal (the Treasury is reported expect 3,000 to 5,000 per year) which is where the Coalition’s claim that 50,000 pensioners will be affected come’s from. It’s 50,000 over a decade.

Australia has 2.5 million age pensioners.

Charities and not-for-profit organisations would also be exempt and would continue to receive cash refunds of tax paid by companies that paid them dividends.

Labor says the remaining cash refunds come at a significant cost (about A$5 billion per year), that they benefit wealthier people and that the money could be better spent on those less well off.

How did it come to this?

A Labor idea, extended by Howard

Dividend imputation was introduced by the Labor Party as part of the treasurer Paul Keating’s tax reforms in 1987. It allowed taxpayers who owned shares and received dividends to use the tax already paid by the company as a credit against their income tax bill.

In 2001, the Howard government extended it by allowing taxpayers whose dividend credits were larger than the income tax they owed to receive the excess amount in cash. This practice is unique internationally, not least because it can allow company profits to escape tax.

Then in a surprise move in 2006, the Howard government’s penultimate budget made superannuation income tax free for most people aged 60 and over.

It had earlier lifted the tax-free threshold for retirees, meaning many were unlikely to pay tax and be eligible for imputation cheques even before their super income was made tax free. Many more became eligible afterwards.

It’s hard to tell who benefits…

As part of the move to make super income tax free, superannuants were no longer required to declare their superannuation income to the Tax Office, making it hard to tell how well off those receiving imputation cheques really were.

But the Tax Office has released to researchers a series of confidentialised files of individual income tax returns that provide clues.

The 2% sample of all taxpayers in 2015-2016 contains 269,639 individual records. I’ve focused on those with taxable incomes of less than A$87,000 (222,083 records) because they are the ones likely to receive cash refunds. I’ve excluded those who receive any government pension or allowance as they are unaffected by Labor’s policy, leaving 190,146 records.

The best measure of these people’s wealth in the data is their total superannuation account balances which the Tax Office collects from member contribution statements.

…although it can be done

Calculating refunds using tax bands and rules, I find that of the people with taxable incomes less than A$87,000 and with no pension income, 81% have no franking credits and receive no refund cheques. Their average taxable income is just below A$40,000 and their average superannuation balance is just below A$67,000.

A further 15% receive credits of less than A$1,300. Their average refund is A$102. Their average taxable income is also below A$40,000 and their average superannuation balance is almost A$179,000.

Of the 3% of individuals with credits between A$1,300 and A$8,000, the average cash refund is A$1,593. The average taxable income for the group is just over A$37,000 and the average superannuation balance is about A$363,000.

Of the 0.8% of individuals with credits between A$8,000 and A$20,000, the average cash refund is A$4,043. The average taxable income for the group is just over A$53,000 and the average superannuation balance is almost A$455,000.

Of the 0.1% of individuals with credits between A$20,000 and A$40,000, the average cash refund is A$8,743. The average taxable income for the group is just over A$68,000 and the average superannuation balance is just under A$721,000.

For the top group who have credits in excess of A$40,000, the average cash refund is almost A$63,000, over A$1,200 a week. The average taxable income for the group is the lowest of all groups at A$17,735, falling below the lowest income tax threshold. Almost half (45%) have no taxable income. Their average superannuation balance is A$1,344,782.

It’s the wealthiest who benefit the most

The results tell a clear story.

The largest average benefits are paid to the wealthiest group.

Their wealth measured by superannuation account balance is 20 times that of the group that receives no cash refund. Their superannuation wealth is 76 times their taxable income.

It is misleading it is to use their taxable income as a measure of their well-being.

Read more: Words that matter. What’s a franking credit? What’s dividend imputation? And what’s ‘retiree tax’?

– ref. It’s hard to find out who Labor’s dividend imputation policy will hit, but it is possible, and it isn’t the poor – http://theconversation.com/its-hard-to-find-out-who-labors-dividend-imputation-policy-will-hit-but-it-is-possible-and-it-isnt-the-poor-116370

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marilyn Johnson, Senior Researcher, Institute of Transport Studies, Monash University

One in five people injured on Australian roads and paths is a cyclist, according to a new Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report that examined injury data from 1999–2000 to 2015–16.

More cyclists are being injured

Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on our roads. Yet every year, more than 1,000 people are killed in transport-related crashes. This includes an average of 38 people who were killed while riding their bikes.

Add to this, in 2015-16 more than 12,000 people were hospitalised after crashes while riding, almost 80% of whom were men.

The rate of hospitalisation for cyclists increased by 1.5% per year over the 17-year period of the report. Even more concerningly, in the last six years of the report, the increase was 4.4% per year.

In comparison, the rate of hospitalisation for other road users is going down. For motor vehicle occupants, it fell by 1.3%; for pedestrians, the drop was 2.2%.

Separated infrastructure for cyclists is crucial for safety, but typically some part of every trip will include crossing or travelling on the road with motor vehicles. The greater mass and speed of motor vehicles increases the risk of more severe injuries for cyclists.

Read more: Does everything and nothing change when a cyclist dies?

Rising injuries among older Australians

The number of older people who have been killed or injured as a result of a crash while cycling is rising. Over the study period, the number of cyclists aged 45-64 who were hospitalised increased by almost 600%, and 500% among over-65s.

Older cyclists may be more likely to need hospitalisation for an injury that might be less severe in younger cyclists. Compared with cyclists aged under 45, those aged 45 and over were more likely to have life-threatening injuries.

Between 1999–00 and 2015–16, nearly 160,000 cyclists were hospitalised; more than 9,000 per year on average. The age profile of those injured changed dramatically over that period:

We can’t unpack crash details from the hospital data, but broader trends might provide possible reasons for these changes.

A decrease in injury crashes involving children may be because more kids are riding with an adult, or riding on the footpath. Or there may be fewer kids riding bikes.

Increased driver distraction, particularly due to mobile phone use while driving, may also be playing a part.

One possible contributing factor for the rise in injuries among older Australians is the increase in use of electric bikes. Electric bikes, or e-bikes, are fitted with a motor that provides assistance when cycling and makes it easier to ride further and uphill with less effort.

Our recent research with older Australian e-bike riders found 88% rode weekly and one-third rode daily. Owning an e-bike helped people make active transport decisions for longer including people who were not previously regular cyclists.

Read more: Electric bikes can boost older people’s mental performance and their well-being

While e-bikes are a fun, efficient and easy way to get around, their popularity may contribute to the increase in injuries among older cyclists. Rusty bike handling skills, lower muscle strength, and issues with vision may all contribute to increased crash risk.

Type of injury

The most common type of injury was a fracture, occurring in 55% of hospitalisations.

Fractures of the arm and legs were most common. The highest proportion of head and neck fractures occurred in children aged four and under (21%). Older Australians were more likely to fracture their femur and pelvis.

Thousands of people cycle safely every day. However, a crash can be catastrophic, especially when a motor vehicle is involved. Action to create a safe cycling environment in Australia is needed from everyone:

• government: build safe separated cycling infrastructure; reduce speeds in local areas; include cyclists in the driver licensing test; require truck drivers to complete training to increase their awareness of all vulnerable road-users including cyclists, pedestrians and motorbike riders

• drivers: allow at least a metre when passing cyclists (1.5m in speed zones over 60kph); don’t drive distracted or tired

• cyclists: be bright, use lights; follow the road rules; stay out of the door zone.

Read more: More cyclists are ending up in hospital with serious injuries, so we need to act now

– ref. 3 Charts on the rise in cycling injuries and deaths in Australia – http://theconversation.com/3-charts-on-the-rise-in-cycling-injuries-and-deaths-in-australia-116660

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Forsyth, Professor of Workplace Law, RMIT University

This article is part of an election series on wages, industrial relations, Labor and the union movement ahead of the 2019 federal election. You can read other pieces in the series here, here and here.

Labor has promised to restore the penalty rates cut by the Fair Work Commission in its first 100 days.

From its point of view, as part of a broader attack on the Coalition’s record on industrial relations, wage stagnation, widespread wage theft and the growth of insecure work, it makes sense.

But it betrays a broader principle Labor holds dear – independence of the tribunal.

The Coalition is saying little about it – still spooked by the electoral poison wrought by its WorkChoices legislation more than a decade ago.

Throughout the campaign it’s been happy to fall back on claims about economic growth and tax cuts creating favourable conditions to lift wages generally.

So what did the Fair Work Commission decide about penalty rates back in 2017, and what has occurred since?

The commission’s decision was limited

The cuts to penalty rates are often discussed as if they applied across the board. They didn’t. The commission’s decision affected penalty rates in the federal awards applying to only six sectors: fast food, retail, hospitality, pharmacies, clubs and restaurants.

It determined that the penalty rates for working on public holidays in those awards would be reduced from July 1, 2017; and that the penalty rates for Sunday work in four of the awards would be phased down over four years. For example, full-time workers on the retail award had their Sunday rates cut from 200% of the normal rate to 195% in July 2017, then to 180% in July 2018, and were to have the cut to 165% in July this year, followed by a cut to 150% in July 2020.

Read more: Myths about penalty rates and those who rely on them

Extra payments for working irregular or unsocial hours are a longstanding feature of Australia’s industrial relations system. Traditionally, penalty rates have been included in awards with two objectives in mind: to compensate workers for having to work overtime or on weekends and public holidays, and to deter employers from requiring employees to work at these times.

However, in reaching its decision, the commission found that the deterrence objective was no longer relevant for public holiday or Sunday penalty rates.

Sundays have become less sacred

The finding followed a report of the the Productivity Commission that found that working on Sundays was far more common than it had been in industries such as hospitality, restaurants and retail. This reflected a broader shift to a “24/7 economy”.

In the Fair Work Commission’s word, the “disutility” endured by workers employed on Sundays was less than it was.

Labor and the union movement have strongly criticised the commission’s decision in the two years since it was handed down. Labor very quickly introduced a bill to override it and restore the penalty rates of the 700,000 affected workers. The government opposed it and a similar bill introduced by The Greens, enabling Labor and the unions to hammer the prime minister in the election campaign for “voting eight times” to cut penalty rates.

Labor has argued that over the recent ten-day Easter and Anzac Day break, the penalty rate cuts resulted in a loss of between $218 for a fast food worker and $369 for a pharmacy employee.

The union/Labor-aligned McKell Institute says workers will be $2.87 billion worse off by the end of the scheduled reduction in penalty rate cuts if the Coalition is re-elected.

But cutting penalty rates has created few jobs

Business groups have long claimed that cutting penalty rates will boost employment levels, a position endorsed by both the Productivity Commission and Fair Work Commission. However, research published by the Australia Institute last year finds that the retail and hospitality industries were among the lowest industries for job growth in the year after rates were cut.

The Council of Small Business Organisations conceded two weeks ago that the cuts failed to create one new job. Its chief executive, Peter Strong, said the impact had been minimal because it had coincided with above average increases in the minimum wage.

“There’s no extra jobs on a Sunday,” he was reported as saying. “There’s been no extra hours. Certainly, I don’t know anyone (who gave workers extra hours). It’s been just a waste of time.”

However, the Fair Work Commission is set up to be independent.

Labor’s approach carries longer term risks

A campaign spokesperson for the Liberal Party was quoted in the New Daily last month saying: “‘Bill Shorten knows it is the independent Fair Work Commission that sets penalty rates, not the government. In fact, it was Bill Shorten … who set up the review into penalty rates. He even appointed the umpire.’”

The Coalition is gilding the lily. It has been no great defender of the industrial tribunal’s independence in the past. Under WorkChoices it sidelined the commission completely. Lately it has stacked the commission with employer representatives.

Read more: Bill Shorten’s promise of a living wage is both realistic and necessary. But it’s not enough

But it’s not a great idea to start overruling Fair Work Commission decisions that are unpopular. Yes, the penalty rate cuts are arbitrary, reducing the take-home pay of low-paid workers. But Australians have trusted the tribunal to make those judgment calls for more than 100 years.

If Labor wants to influence Fair Work Commission decisions, it should change the criteria used by the commission to review awards – it plans to do so as part of its promise to turn the minimum wage into a “living wage”.

Overturning decisions it doesn’t like will leave the Fair Work Commission wondering why it is bothering, and allow others to refuse to accept decisions they don’t like. And if Labor is elected and perseveres, it will also allow a less worker-friendly successor to overturn decisions it doesn’t like.

Read more: How the major parties stack up on industrial relations policy

– ref. Labor wants to restore penalty rates within 100 days. But what about the independent umpire? – http://theconversation.com/labor-wants-to-restore-penalty-rates-within-100-days-but-what-about-the-independent-umpire-116154

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Drew Evans, Associate Professor of Energy & Advanced Manufacturing, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, University of South Australia

Imagine the day when you’ll unroll or unfold your smartphone to answer it. If things go to plan, this day may be sooner than you think.

And we’re not just talking flip-phones here, but smartphones where the actual screens are flexible, not just the handset.

Okay, so Samsung’s plans to launch its Galaxy Fold phone might be on hold after a few early reviews reported cracks in the screen, but 2019 is said to be a year when many of the major mobile phone manufacturers aim to release their new foldable phones.

The promise of technology as intelligent as our smartphones that can simply be folded up like a piece of paper sounds amazing. So what are the challenges in making flexible technology?

How flexible?

To answer this we need to understand what is meant by flexible.

Do we need something that can be deformed without breaking (so it’s okay if you sit on your phone, as it will only bend and not break)? Maybe we want to roll it up into a cylinder with the ease of rolling a piece of paper? Or even to fold it like the Galaxy Fold?

These are very different scenarios, with each putting a greater performance requirement on the device and the materials within.

Are the materials brittle? Or are they inherently flexible? And when they are bent, rolled, flexed or folded, do they continue to work the way they did when flat?

These are the questions many scientists and engineers are asking. Enter the world of materials science, mixed with a dose of advanced manufacturing.

The glass

Consumer electronics traditionally use materials designed for use on rigid glass substrates, or surfaces. The beauty of glass is its rigidity and thermal stability, and can be made on commercial scales.

That means it will rarely bend or flex, and can be heated to high temperatures. These are important factors when manufacturing an electronic device – especially those with a flat panel display.

To make an electronic device, complex patterns of materials need to be made to create an electronic circuit. In some cases the patterns will have features smaller than the width of your hair, even down to the size of viruses (less than 100 nanometers). Producing such patterned coatings of high-performance electronic materials can be done easily on glass at temperatures greater than 500℃.

But when flexibility is required, the substrate needs to change. The obvious choices are polymers and plastics. Thin sheets of these materials can be manipulated into a range of different shapes without breaking.

But not many of these plastics can withstand greater than 500℃ during processing.

New developments from companies such as Corning Incorporated in the US have made special types of thin glass that are bendable.

Bendable glass may be one of many steps towards flexible electronics. But, as we’ll see later, maybe even bendable glass is not that useful for some applications.

The electronics

Beyond the substrate, there are still challenges for the electronic materials themselves. Modern electronics are built on metals and ceramics that require very high temperatures to be fabricated into electrical circuits, and are not ideal for bending.

Polymers such as Nylon, Teflon and polyester are inherently flexible and can be bent, folded or rolled. But polymers are usually insulators (they don’t conduct electricity) and they really do not like being heated too high.

That is why efforts are being made to engineer polymers that are conductive (conducting polymers). Being conductive means that the polymers can transport electrical charge with ease – like your charging cable carries electricity from the power outlet to your portable device’s battery. In parallel engineers are changing the way the existing and new materials are manufactured.

Manufacturing is moving away from high temperatures in large coating machines, into things similar to inkjet and roll-to-roll printing (printed electronics). Soon your new mobile phone may be printed at high speed in a similar way to a daily newspaper.

But should we bend tech?

Tackling these technical challenges of materials and manufacturing seems within reach. But why do we want flexible technology?

Sure there are some of us that dream of a flat panel TV that can be rolled and unrolled, mounting anywhere we like. Think about it as an electronic poster being hung on your bedroom wall and flexible TVs are almost here – in 2018 LG showcased a 65 inch rollable TV.

Beyond this there are some neat advantages to flexible technology. There is a big drive towards integrating electronics with biology in the ultimate wearable computer.

As we know, our skin (and everything contained within it) is to some degree soft, flexible and elastic. Having flexible technology would allow our wearable computers to seamlessly integrate with us. This will be done so well that we won’t realise we are wearing it.

Glass as a substrate, even if flexible, won’t fulfil the desire to interface with biology. This is because it lacks the softness and deformability to react to the bodies movement.

On the other side of it, the contact lens is made of materials that many people routinely wear on a daily basis (with hopefully little annoyance).

So what about electronics on these soft gel-like substrates? An example of efforts to achieve this is work done by Madhu Bhaskaran and team at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

Read more: How to take better photos with your smartphone, thanks to computational photography

They are developing electronics that can be worn like a temporary tattoo, giving wearers real-time data about UV exposure. Some companies are even developing electronics directly on a contact lens.

But similar to the Samsung Galaxy Fold, the electronic contact lens project has been paused, the early results from testing are not up to scratch at the moment.

But sometime in the (near) future I believe we will have flexible technologies in our daily lives. This will represent major breakthroughs in the materials and manufacturing used to create them. Most exciting is by achieving this, opportunities will open to interface the physical and cyber worlds to a level we can today only imagine.

– ref. Can we bend it? The challenge for Samsung and others to make flexible technology – http://theconversation.com/can-we-bend-it-the-challenge-for-samsung-and-others-to-make-flexible-technology-116270

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

13 Reasons Why, the controversial Netflix programme that broaches the topic of adolescent suicide, has drawn further criticism after new research showed a potential link to a rise in suicide rates coinciding with the show’s release.

This leaves parents confused about whether they should allow their children to watch the show, discourage it, or even ban viewing.

While some parents might feel uncomfortable discussing the issues raised by the show, it should be seen as an impetus to talk to young people. It also provides a framework in which to have these difficult conversations.

Read more: Why we shouldn’t ignore what 13 Reasons Why is trying to tell us

The study in question, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, assessed the association between suicide rates over a five year period (a total of 108,655 suicides) and the Netflix show 13 Reasons Why.

It showed a significant increase in suicides among those aged 10-17 years in the three months following the programme’s Netflix launch. April 2017 – the first month the show was available to stream online – saw a suicide rate of 0.57 per 100,000. This was the highest rate across the five years of the study and a step increase of 28.9% on the average monthly rate.

This adds to prior research that showed increased rates of suicide attempts in the period after the show became available.

While these findings should not be discounted, it’s important to note suicide rates are on the rise regardless of the show. The rates of suicide in Australia have increased over the last decade from 10.9 suicide deaths per 100,000 persons in 2008, to 12.6 deaths per 100,000 persons in 2017 – an increase of 13%.

And for every death that does occur, around 20 people attempt suicide.

Read more: 13 Reasons Why season 2 could still be problematic, but content warnings might help

Suicide contagion

The popular Netflix series sees high school student Clay Jensen given a collection of 13 audio tapes in which his close friend Hannah Baker explains why she ended her life.

In each episode, we get an insight into the difficulties Hannah faced leading up to her suicide. These include social conflicts, problematic romantic relationships, seeking independence, and the added complexities of social media, bullying and mental health issues that affect young people today.

There is a phenomena called “suicide contagion”, where it is believed exposure to suicide in the media and popular culture may lead to copycat behaviour. These concerns have been present for several decades, but are amplified by the volume of content available in today’s digital age.

Suicide contagion is well documented in the literature and it is a real threat. But a greater risk is that young people who are thinking of suicide don’t talk about their thoughts with trusted family and friends.

Some researchers who have studied responses to 13 Reasons Why suggest there can be both harmful and helpful effects of watching the show.

While some children watching 13 Reasons Why can be “triggered” by material suggestive of acts of self-harm, others have shown an increased compassion and willingness to help others who may be going through difficult times.

Read more: Young adult fiction can be a safe space to discuss youth suicide

Talking about it can reduce the stigma

There are around 3,000 suicides in Australia every year, and this number is growing.

Around the world that figure is about 800,000 suicides annually, equating to one person every 40 seconds. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among 15- to 29-year-olds.

People experiencing thoughts of suicide will often be frightened to talk about it because they are concerned about the reactions of others and potential consequences in terms of their job security or social standing.

Being afraid to talk about suicidal thoughts is not only a problem with teenagers. It’s also often seen in high pressure jobs such as the medical profession, the police and armed forces.

There are consistent calls across mental health networks to reduce the stigma associated with thoughts of suicide and self-harm, with an emphasis on encouraging openness and discussion.

As Beyond Blue notes, it’s time to bring the issue of suicide out into the open and stop hiding it as if it is a crime. Using pejorative language like “committed suicide” implies it’s an offence.

Read more: How to ask someone you’re worried about if they’re thinking of suicide

The series 13 Reasons Why bravely tackles this social taboo head-on. Importantly, the creators have provided helpful guides on how to watch the show, as well as plenty of resources on how to seek help.

It’s imperative we provide opportunities for discussion with young people about these powerful feelings of depression and self harm. There are many resources available to parents to help them start the conversation.

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

– ref. Suicide rates are rising with or without 13 Reasons Why. Let’s use it as a chance to talk – http://theconversation.com/suicide-rates-are-rising-with-or-without-13-reasons-why-lets-use-it-as-a-chance-to-talk-116434

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Ryan, Lecturer – Environmental Health and Management, Western Sydney University

This is an article from I’ve Always Wondered, a series where readers send in questions they’d like an expert to answer. Send your question to alwayswondered@theconversation.edu.au

Are water crystals bad for the environment? –Terry Gilmour

This is an excellent question, and something an environmentally conscious gardener might wonder. With changing rainfall patterns, drought and an increasing average temperature in Australia many people are looking for ways to save water in their garden, and adding water crystals to your soil appears to be a good solution. But what do we really know about water crystals and are they bad for the environment?

Well, you can put your mind at ease: water crystals are not bad for the environment. In fact, in other forms they are actually used to help protect the environment.

What are water crystals?

Water crystals are tiny super-absorbent polymers (a long chain that’s made up of identical repeating molecules), about the size of a sugar crystal. They are added to potting mix or added to soil in a garden bed to increase the water holding capacity of the soil.

Water crystals act like a sponge, binding water molecules with the molecule chains in the crystals (with what’s technically known as cross-link bonding). This makes the crystal swell, creating a three-dimensional gel network up to 300 times its original size, absorbing water and nutrients.

Read more: Not all community gardens are environmental equals

Over 5-6 years water crystals slowly degrade, releasing the absorbed water into the root zone of the plant and wetting the soil.

While many water crystals are marketed as water-saving, and many people use them to drought-proof their plants, it’s really important to know that these water crystals don’t actually conserve water. The plants still use the same amount of water, but instead of the water flowing through to the bottom of the pot and into the saucer and evaporating, or through to the bottom of the garden bed, the water crystals hold onto the water in the root zone of the plant. It makes for a more efficient use of the water in the soil.

Cross-linked vs linear polymers

To understand where the environmental concerns come from, we have to get a little technical.

The most common type of water crystal on the market is a cross-linked polyacrylamide. Cross-linked polyacrylamides are water absorbent but not water soluble. One of their best-known uses is in disposable nappies.

The environmental concern regarding water crystals comes from people confusing these cross-linked polyacrylamides with non-cross-linked polyacrylamide used by industry. While they are commonly described in the same way, they have a different chemical bonding and properties.

Read more: How your garden could help stop your city flooding

Non-cross-linked (linear) polyacrylamide is water-soluble. It is currently used in Australian agriculture for improving soil and to help control erosion. It also plays an integral role in aiding flocculation as part of the sewage treatment process.

A 1997 study found when non-cross linked polyacrylamide degrades it creates acrylamide, a suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin.

Obviously this would be very concerning if it also affected water crystals! Acrylamide could leach into the soil and water and be taken up by plants, entering the human food chain. However there’s no proof cross-linked polyacrylamides – which are the water crystals you’d find in a gardening store – behave like this.

It is also worth noting that further studies, including one published in 2008, found a very small amount (less than 0.5 parts per billion) of acrylamide was released into the environment, which does not cause any environmental concern.

You may also worry water crystals could impact aquatic life if they found their way into rivers and streams. The good news is there’s no reported toxicity or impact on aquatic life from commercially available water crystals (results are more mixed for the water soluble non-cross-linked polyacrylamide, with some studies finding little impact and others showing no toxicity.

Read more: Are common garden chemicals a health risk?

The other good news is water crystals do not accumulate in the soil or water over the long term. The use of water crystals has no adverse impact on soil microbe populations, which we need for a good healthy soil. If used as directed there is no risk to human health (however, it is always good practice to wear gloves while handling any chemical product).

So environmentally conscious gardeners don’t need to worry about water crystals. They’re great for people who don’t have time to water their pot plants every day in summer. Remember, these crystals do not save water but increase the water holding capacity of the soil, so you still need to water your plants regularly – especially on hot days!

– ref. I’ve always wondered: are water crystals bad for the environment? – http://theconversation.com/ive-always-wondered-are-water-crystals-bad-for-the-environment-112519

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Higher Education Program Director, Grattan Institute

Monday night’s ABC Four Corners program alleged several universities were admitting international students without the English-language skills needed to successfully complete their courses, effectively setting them up to fail.

Such claims have been made so often, including by government agencies, that there is little doubt problems exist. But just how widespread these problems are is hard to assess. One potential method is to look at the pass/fail rates of international students.

In responding to Four Corners, Chair of Universities Australia, Professor Margaret Gardner, said international and domestic students had similar pass rates. If international students were admitted without the necessary language skills we would expect them to fail at higher rates than their domestic classmates.

Success of undergraduate international students

In 2016, international bachelor students failed 15% of all the subjects they attempted, compared to a 14% fail rate for domestic students. These are figures for commencing students, which means for the year they were admitted. Later-year students have lower fail rates.

Although international students overall fail a larger share of the subjects they take than domestic students, this is at least partly because they mostly take IT, engineering or commerce courses. These fields have above-average fail rates for domestic students too, suggesting they are difficult or admission requirement issues affect both international and domestic students.

To fairly assess international student performance it’s best to look at comparisons within these courses.

In recent years international and domestic bachelor-degree IT commencing students have failed subjects at similar rates. In each case, more than 20% of all subjects were failed. Although fail rates are trending down, both student groups have strikingly high fail rates.

In engineering bachelor-degree courses, fail rates for both domestic and international students are lower than in IT and do not show strong trends in recent years. Again, there is not much difference between domestic and international students.

Business-related courses are the most popular choice for international students. Fail rates fluctuate, with international students less likely than domestic students to fail early this decade, and more likely to fail in recent years. But the differences are not large.

For undergraduates, we are not seeing the big differences in fail rates we would expect if English-language abilities were a serious problem for international students. But it’s a more complex story when it comes to postgraduate students.

Postgraduate fail rates for international students

International postgraduate commencing enrolments are growing more quickly than undergraduate enrolments. In 2017, commencing undergraduate students only just outnumbered postgraduates. This might raise concerns universities have dropped their entry requirements too far to achieve growth in postgraduate enrolments.

In IT, we can see that, in recent years, international commencing postgraduate students have consistently failed a higher proportion of subjects than domestic students. In some years, the differences between them were quite large. However, fail rates were much lower than for undergraduate IT students.

In engineering, until 2012, international students usually had lower fail rates than domestic students, but since then international students have begun failing larger proportions of their subjects while domestic students have generally become less likely to fail.

In commerce, both domestic and international students have become more likely to fail since the early years of this decade. International students have consistently failed a higher proportion of their subjects.

Since 2012, fail rates for all three postgraduate fields have been higher than they were in the preceding years. Probably not coincidentally, a downward enrolment trend ended that year, and the current boom started in 2013.

English language requirements may be too low

Although the data does not tell a completely consistent story, we can see the possible effects of lower entry requirements, particularly in the postgraduate numbers.

Since 2012, regulation of international student visas has generally become less strict. Much of the checking on international students is done by the universities.

Official English-language requirements for a student visa have never been high. For example, one of the main English language testing organisations recommends a score of 7 on its 1-9 scale for academic courses. Yet the minimum score needed for a student visa is only 5.5. No university in Australia has a general English-language entry requirement above 6.5, although some specific courses have tougher requirements.

Read more: Higher English entry standards for international students won’t necessarily translate to success

Although fail rates are important indicators, especially for international students paying high fees to attend Australian universities, on their own they cannot prove admission requirements are satisfactory, because other concerns have been raised around international students.

Cheating and soft marking may influence fail rates

In a major student survey, in which international students made up 15% of the total sample, 33% of the students who confessed to cheating were international students.

Student attitudes to cheating were not very different between international and domestic students. But for international students the consequences of failure can be more serious. They could lose their visa and return home with little to show for their family’s investment. This creates an incentive to cheat.

In a parallel survey of academic staff, more than two-thirds had suspected submitted work was not written by the student. In most cases, it was their knowledge of the student’s English abilities that led to this suspicion.

So, international student pass rates could be inflated by plagiarism if it is not detected or not proved. In the Four Corners program, one academic claimed his refusal to mark work he thought was plagiarised led to his contract with the university not being renewed.

Another reason why international pass rates could be inflated is the claim of “soft marking”. A union survey in 2017 found 28% of academics agreed with the proposition: “I feel pressure to pass full-fee paying students whose work is not good enough”.

Read more: Australian unis should take responsibility for corrupt practices in international education

Government policy responses

The government has not ignored these issues. It is acting to restrict commercial cheating. It has commissioned research into how different entry paths into university affect international student outcomes. Special consumer protection provisions have been in place for international students for a long time.

But like the universities, the government is dazzled by international student dollars and has focused on international education as an export industry.

With so many issues around international education entry requirements such as those raised by Four Corners, exploitation of international students, and broader population and migration issues – the next government will need to take another look at how the various competing priorities are balanced.

– ref. Are international students passing university courses at the same rate as domestic students? – http://theconversation.com/are-international-students-passing-university-courses-at-the-same-rate-as-domestic-students-116666

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Crawford, Professor of Advertising, RMIT University

Recent debates about prominent advertising in Melbourne and Sydney have highlighted public concerns about the commercialisation of public space. The sense that our cities have become increasingly vulnerable to commercial forces is premised on the assumption that advertising has no place in our cities.

However, historical images of our cities challenge this view. They reveal advertising and commercial signage to be an ever-present part of our cityscapes and urban life.

Read more: Digital media are changing the face of buildings, and urban policy needs to change with them

A recent controversy in Melbourne over a proposed billboard has echoes of 19th-century debates over billboards occupying prominent city sites. Projections of animated images onto the wall of 231 Swanston Street will turn it into one of the largest advertising billboards in the city. Described as a “mega-sized 305 square metre display”, its size is a key issue, but the controversy does not end there.

Melbourne City Council had at first rejected the sign, arguing:

[…] digital billboards beaming high-rotation advertisements into the public realm are creating an unprecedented level of visual clutter that detracts from our city streets.

Lumen Billboards challenged the decision through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. VCAT upheld the appeal, deeming that the sign’s size and illumination was appropriate for the site and that it had little impact on the area’s heritage.

Some see VCAT’s decision as yet another example of big business overriding public interests. Writing in The Age, Nicola Philp attacked the perceived commercialisation of public space. Readers’ comments echoed her sentiments. One reader lamented:

Melbourne is becoming an advertisers [sic] paradise with gaudy flashing signs everywhere. The beauty and elegance that Melbourne once had is slowly being eroded.

Another took aim at advertising, fuming:

I hate the idea of more intrusive advertising being forced down our throats.

Concerns about the commercialisation of public space were similarly expressed in response to the use of the Sydney Opera House as a billboard to promote the Everest horse race last October. The Opera House’s chief executive opposed the highly controversial decision by the New South Wales government. More than 310,000 people signed a change.org petition against the decision.

Read more: View from The Hill: The uncivil Mr Jones

Such numbers did not deter the state government, which had several prominent figures supporting its decision. Among them was Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who described the iconic building as “the biggest billboard Sydney has”.

The PM’s crude description is, strictly speaking, correct. Despite its policy forbidding “logos, corporate identities or colours”, the Opera House sails have been regularly used for promotional purposes. Unofficially, it has also served as a canvas for various protest slogans. However, the Everest uproar was as much about commercial promotion as it was about the power of the city’s political elites.

Concern about commercialisation is an old one

Concerns about the commercialisation of city streets and landmarks are nothing new. In 1880, Brisbane’s Telegraph newspaper took aim at billboards “occupying two of the most prominent sites in the city”, labelling them “terrible eyesores”. Sydney’s lord mayor expressed similar sentiments in 1907 when he was reported as saying:

It was an outrage in a civilised community that every square inching of land abutting on the public streets should be made hideous by posters.

Significantly, one of the first items printed in Australia was a playbill from 1796 promoting a theatrical performance. Like government orders, the playbill and other commercial notices were posted in prominent locations in city streets. Retailers added their mark to city streets by employing signwriters to adorn their premises and promote their wares.

The significance and impact of such commercial signage was formally recognised in 1830, when the governor of New South Wales decreed that it was illegal to “keep up any Sign, Writing, Painting, or other Mark, on or near to his House or Premises” that falsely gave the impression a house was licensed.

As commerce duly grew, so too did the amount of advertising on city streets. By the early 20th century, commercial signs and advertisements were an entrenched and inescapable aspect of urban life. They permeated walls, hoardings and all parts of public transportation systems. Electricity and neon lighting extended outdoor advertising’s reach into the night-time hours.

In recent times, sports grounds have added another commercial layer by selling their naming rights. Melbourne’s Marvel Stadium has previously been known as Colonial Stadium, Telstra Dome and Etihad Stadium. More confusingly, Brisbane and Sydney have both been home to ANZ Stadium (formerly known as QE II and Stadium Australia/Telstra Stadium respectively).

And then there are the signs we love

Our relationship with commercial signs is not static. Some signs have taken on a life of their own. The Coke sign in Sydney’s King’s Cross and the Skipping Girl in Melbourne’s Abbottsford have become a part of the respective cities’ cultural heritage.

The interest generated by the uncovering of a long-hidden “ghost sign” for Peapes menswear near Wynyard Station in Sydney similarly reveals that commercial signs and advertising are less utilitarian than critics suggest.

Commercial advertising is a part of our city’s fabric and heritage. While the VCAT decision certainly raises legitimate concerns about processes and the values we apply to public space, the approval of the giant billboard is entirely consistent with our past.

Whether or not we like it is, of course, a different question.

– ref. Selling out the city to advertising? Nothing new to see here – http://theconversation.com/selling-out-the-city-to-advertising-nothing-new-to-see-here-114972

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenna Drenten, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Loyola University Chicago

Australians are some of the most active social media users in the world and Instagram is particularly popular. One in three of us have an account, with more than 9,000,000 monthly active users. The rise of Instagram reflects our increasingly visual culture, with 45% of Australians having taken a selfie and uploaded it to social media.

But Instagram isn’t just a place for personal photos, it’s big business. The platform is the birthplace and breeding ground of influencer marketing: a relatively new, multi-billion dollar industry, projected to grow from US$6 billion in 2018 to US$10 billion in 2020.

Influencers generate digital content and gain the attention of a “following” on social media through representations of their everyday lives, in which various commodities and brands play a vital role. The larger the audience, and the more attention they receive, the greater the monetisation potential.

Most influencers, are women, who aspire to build a personal brand. There are more than 558,000 influencers on Instagram who have more than 15,000 followers.

Theirs is a precarious form of work, with none of the traditional workplace protections and they can can spend an extraordinary amount of time and effort generating the “perfect shot” to upload. It’s a job that is always “on”, with the platform functioning 24/7 and delivering a constant stream of notifications.

The body plays a crucial role in influencers’ selfies. Conforming to rigid standards of attractiveness and femininity is fundamental to their gaining attention. This means a lot of work for them but also has broader cultural effects in shaping attitudes about body image.

Read more: Social media, the ‘bikini bridge’ and the viral contagion of body ideals

One of the easiest ways for women to gain attention on social media is through a highly sexualised aesthetic, which is increasingly “pornified”, i.e., borrowing a “look” associated with mainstream, pornographic imagery.

We analysed 172 female influencers’ social media pages over a period of four months. They ranged from women who willingly promote brands with no remuneration to those who market themselves as a personal brand. Our sample of influencers was drawn internationally and sourced from “shoutout pages”, which act as virtual currency to build popularity and thus gain attention. We analysed the images, interactions, and comments of the influencers studied.

We found a continuum of pornified self-representations by these social media influencers on Instagram. This ranged from “softer” references – where influencers pose to highlight sexualised body parts and employ “porn chic” gestures such as gently pulling their hair, touching their parted lips and squatting with legs spread to the camera – to images that were hard to differentiate from mainstream commercial pornography.

Here, pornified representations grab viewers’ attention with the goal of being monetised to sell products, such as protein powder, gummy vitamins, or detox tea.

Our data does not show an enormous breadth of ways in which women might wish to be sexual, but rather a fairly monotonous repetition of “sexiness” and sexual availability that is shaped by porn chic.

The women in our study ranged from having hundreds of followers to millions. Those with a higher number of followers were associated with a more explicitly pornified aesthetic – sometimes using the Instagram platforms to redirect viewers to more direct paid-access pornography on external sites such as OnlyFans.com or private messaging applications like Snapchat and WhatsApp.

But all of this monetised attention comes at a cost of significant sexual harassment, which many argue is poorly policed by Instagram. Monitoring the women’s social media feeds, we found that many female influencers are subject to sexually aggressive comments, objectifying messages from followers, and a lack of privacy in their personal lives. Influencers in our study were subject to sexual solicitation and even physical threats.

Such comments range from: “I would love your art work but it’s your bum I want”, or “love to spank and kiss your gorgeous ass”, to the more aggressive “Turn around before I take out my dick and beat you…”

Rebuking harassment or deleting hostile comments also comes at a cost for influencers. More engagement, including these kinds of comments, results in more potential attention for a given post. This, in turn, is directly tied to their ability to monetise influence.

Hence, we found that reading such harassment, and making the choice to not delete it, simply becomes “part of the job”. The fear of losing a partnership with a brand is always a concern, so influencers build their audience by engaging with followers in upbeat, positive and convivial ways.

The intensity, volume and public nature of this harassment makes social media influencers particularly vulnerable. They do not have the support of a traditional workplace and employer in dealing with these constant and inescapable interactions.

As well as having negative consequences for the influencers themselves, the trend towards a pornified aesthetic also has consequences for gender equality, more broadly. It’s an aesthetic that positions women and girls as existing for men’s sexualised consumption.

– ref. How highly sexualised imagery is shaping ‘influence’ on Instagram – and harassment is rife – http://theconversation.com/how-highly-sexualised-imagery-is-shaping-influence-on-instagram-and-harassment-is-rife-113030

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ric Day, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, UNSW

Motion sickness can be mild, but in some people it’s debilitating, and takes the fun out of a holiday.

We think it’s caused by temporary dysfunction of our brain’s balance centres.

The perception of motion of any sort can bring on symptoms of travel sickness. These include dizziness, nausea, vomiting, excessive saliva, rapid breathing and cold sweats.

The good news is, there are strategies and medicines you can use to prevent motion sickness, or to help you ride it out.

Read more: Curious Kids: Do astronauts get space sick when they travel from Earth to the International Space Station?

Ears and eyes disconnect

As we move through space, multiple sensors in our middle ear, limbs and eyes feed information to our balance centre in our brains to orientate us. It’s when these sources of information are in apparent conflict that we may experience motion sickness.

For example, in those who are particularly susceptible, watching certain movies can induce motion sickness as our eyes indicate we are moving, although other sensors confirm we are stationary.

A boat trip in rocky seas or a car trip on winding roads means our head and body will be moving in unusual ways, in two or more axes at once, while sensing accelerations, decelerations and rotations. Together these are strong stimuli to bring on an attack of motion sickness.

Motion sickness is common

Around 25-30% of us travelling in boats, buses or planes will suffer – from feeling a bit off all the way to completely wretched; pale, sweaty, staggering, and vomiting.

Some people are extremely susceptible to motion sickness, and may feel unwell even with minor movements such as “head bobbing” while snorkelling, or even riding a camel.

Susceptibility seems to increase with age, while women are more prone to travel sickness than men. There is a genetic influence too, with the condition running in families. It often co-exists with a history of migraines.

Preventing motion sickness

Sufferers quickly work out what to avoid. Sitting in the back seat of the car, reading in a car or bus (trains and planes are better), facing backwards in a bus or train or going below deck on a boat in rough conditions are all best avoided if you’re prone to travel sickness.

Medicines that control vomiting (antiemetics) and nausea (anti-nauseants) are the mainstay of medicines used for motion sickness and are effective. But as there are unwanted side effects such as drowsiness, it’s reasonable to try behavioural techniques first, or alongside medicines.

Read more: Monday’s medical myth: peanuts stop motion sickness

More time “on deck”, keeping an eye on the horizon if there’s a significant swell, and focusing on other things (for example looking out for whales) are good examples.

Desensitisation or habituation also work for some. For example, increasing experience on the water in relatively smooth conditions in preparation for longer and potentially rougher trips can help.

There tends to be a reduction in symptoms after a couple of days at sea. Medicines can then be reduced and even stopped. Symptoms often return when back on dry land, usually for just a day or two.

Chewing hard ginger has been claimed to work for naval cadets, but other studies have not confirmed its effectiveness.

Some people find wrist bands that provide acupressure to be effective, although when these have been studied in controlled trials, the proof is lacking.

Glasses with a built-in horizon to combat motion sickness were patented in 2018, so watch this space.

How medications work

Travel sickness medications are more effective when taken pre-emptively, so before your journey begins.

Antiemetics and anti-nauseants act on the brain and nervous system. Medicines used to prevent and treat travel sickness most commonly are either sedating antihistamines or anticholinergics. They block the effects of neurotransmitters (molecules that transmit information) such as histamine, acetylcholine and dopamine in our balance control centres.

But these sorts of medicines are not very specific. That is, they block the effects of acetylcholine and histamine wherever these neurotransmitters act throughout the body. This explains unwanted side effects such as sedation, drowsiness, dry mouth, constipation and confusion (in older, vulnerable people).

Drowsiness is more likely to reach dangerous levels if other central nervous system depressants are taken at the same time. This includes opioids (morphine, oxycodone, codeine), alcohol, sleeping pills and some antidepressants.

So what’s the best option?

A comprehensive review of clinical trials in 2011 compared the medicine scopolamine as a preventative with other medicines, placebos, behavioural and complementary therapies.

Most of the 14 studies reviewed were in healthy men serving in the Navy with history of travel sickness. Women have rarely been subjects, and there are no studies in children.

Although scopolamine was found to be marginally more effective than the alternatives, there’s not much to go on to recommend one travel medicine over another.

Read more: Prepare for a healthy holiday with this A-to-E guide

If you’re somebody who experiences motion sickness, speak to your doctor or pharmacist. Most medicines for motion sickness are available over the counter. You may need to try a few different medicines to find the one that works best for you, but always follow dosage instructions and professional advice.

Once motion sickness is established, the only option is to ride it out. Lying down where possible, getting fresh air and focusing on the horizon can all help alongside appropriate medications. Importantly, for prolonged episodes, try to keep your fluids up to avoid dehydration (especially if vomiting occurs).

If you experience motion sickness for the first time, and if it’s associated with a migraine-like headache, you should seek the advice of a doctor to rule out other neurological conditions.

– ref. Health check: why do we get motion sickness and what’s the best way to treat it? – http://theconversation.com/health-check-why-do-we-get-motion-sickness-and-whats-the-best-way-to-treat-it-112861

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Hepburn, Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University

Adani’s plan to manage an endangered finch was rejected last week by the Queensland government, stalling progress on the Carmichael mine.

The mine would cover much of the best remaining habitat for the endangered black-throated finch. The Queensland government required Adani to commit to gathering more accurate finch population data, limit the cattle grazing in the finch conservation area and determine food availability throughout the year, before they could approve the plan.

The rejection is one of two outstanding environmental approvals required before Adani can commence work on the mine. The second is the plan to manage groundwater-dependent ecosystems, which the Queensland government has yet to come to a decision on.

Read more: Unpacking the flaws in Adani’s water management plan

The federal government has been reported as “already approving” the finch plan. But legally, the Queensland government must determine whether the plan complies with the conditions of the environmental authority and, under the bilateral framework, the federal government must give due regard to this assessment.

What’s wrong with Adani’s plan?

Last Friday Queensland’s Department of Environment and Science decided not to approve Adani’s black-throated finch management plan because it does not fulfil certain basic requirements.

The decision is based on a detailed report from an independent expert panel.

The black-throated finch is on the verge of extinction, one of 238 threatened Australian birds.

Read more: For the first time we’ve looked at every threatened bird in Australia side-by-side

The greatest threat to the black-throated finch is habitat loss: it has disappeared from over 80% of its original range. Strong protection, and careful management, of its remaining habitat is crucial.

The finch, once found across north-eastern Australia, is now largely found on Moray Downs and surrounding properties, north-west of Clermont in central Queensland. A core part of the habitat is within the 28,000 hectare (ha) footprint of the Carmichael mine, where there are far more black finches than elsewhere due to the intact woodlands and a history of minimal livestock grazing.

It is expected the mines will disturb 50,977 ha of black-throated finch habitat, and that 34,156 ha will be completely cleared.

A total of 87 square kilometres of habitat will be destroyed through the creation of open pits, and a further 61 square kilometres may be degraded beyond repair due to the influence of underground mining on groundwater.

After habitat loss, the second greatest threat to the finch is cattle grazing, which destroys the grass seeds they need to survive. Yet Adani’s management plan for the black-throated finch involved grazing cattle on areas that are supposed to be devoted to conservation of the finch.

Instead of establishing a finch conservation reserve, the Adani plan proposed what was in effect a paddock. Providing a species management plan that effectively conserves finch habitat is a core condition of Adani’s mining licence.

State vs federal priorities

The Queensland government’s rejection of the plan brings into stark focus some of the problems with the existing environmental assessment framework.

The environmental authority for the mining licence was approved by the Federal government. The environmental management plan for the finch did not, however, address core impact concerns. And yet this is the very reason that the plan was required from the outset. The inadequacies of the plan only became apparent because of the oversight of the Queensland government.

The federal government has not been proactive despite’s its mandate under our National environment act – the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation act. In fact, a recent analysis found the federal government has approved hundreds of projects to clear black-throated finch habitat over the last 18 years.

Read more: Death by 775 cuts: how conservation law is failing the black-throated finch

There are clearly differences in priorities regarding the environment between a federal Liberal and a state Labor government. However, environmental assessment can only be effective if is not undermined by political agendas, and is grounded in scientific rigour and scrutiny.

A one-stop shop

At the federal level, any project likely to have a “significant impact” on a matter protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act must be referred to the federal environment minister.

If the minister decides the project impacts a matter of national environmental significance, he or she will then determine how to assess that project at the national level. Legislated options include: an environmental impact statement, a public environment report and public inquiry.

The federal government has entered into bilateral agreements with all state and territory governments. As a result, rather than the state and federal governments conducting separate assessment, the aim is to promote a single, focused environmental evaluation.

The Queensland government has entered into a bilateral assessment agreement with the Commonwealth government for Adani’s coal project, which effectively allows it to make an environmental assessment that the Commonwealth Minister will then take account of when deciding whether to grant approval.

This means that both the Queensland and the federal government are involved in the approval and assessment process environmental authorities and conditions, one of those being the management plan for the black-throated finch. In order to optimise outcomes they need to work together collaboratively.

Where to next?

The rejection means that Adani will now need to submit a new or revised plan that addresses the Queensland government’s concerns. In particular, Adani will need to limit cattle grazing in the conservation area, and gather more information regarding the availability of seed throughout the year.

This may take time but is critical, because in its current form, the plan does not meet the legal requirements for the Environmental Authority, which means that it cannot be approved at the state level.

Without state approval the Adani coal mine cannot proceed. The Queensland government has rigorously assessed Adani’s management plan by commissioning a report by an independent expert panel and then acting on the advice of this report.

This robust approach is crucial to the whole framework of environmental assessment. Genuine commitment to protecting endangered species and managing vital groundwater resources is vital if we want to reverse Australia’s dire trajectory of environmental decline.

– ref. Why Adani’s finch plan was rejected, and what comes next – http://theconversation.com/why-adanis-finch-plan-was-rejected-and-what-comes-next-116525

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Nyanjom, Lecturer – School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

Plato and Aristotle. Barbara Walters and Oprah Winfrey. Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. In each of these famous relationships it was the older person with more experience acting as mentor, guiding the much younger “mentee” in their career.

But changes in the modern workplace suggest we will increasingly see more circumstances in which mentors may be younger – sometimes much younger – than their mentees.

Think back to starting a new job. Even if your workplace didn’t have a formal mentorship program – pairing you with a more experienced colleague, separate to your manager, whose role was to help you succeed – it’s likely at least one person took you “under their wing” informally.

Who will do the same for the 63-year-old returning to a workplace that looks and operates differently to the one he or she left a decade ago?

Workplaces must prepare for an ageing workforce. Twenty years ago, just a quarter of Australia’s population kept working after they turned 55. Now a third do, and the proportion will continue to rise. As people stay in the workforce longer and change jobs more often, it’s increasingly likely there will be times an older colleague might benefit from mentoring.

It isn’t even necessary to be new to an organisation. Some companies that recognise the value of staying current are embracing “reverse mentoring”, in which millennials can school older executives on technology and cultural trends.

But social norms and expectations about age and experience can make it hard for someone younger to be the mentor.

So how do you get it right?

Why it matters

Generalisations about generational differences are common. Perhaps you’ve read baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) value loyalty, and gen-xers (born between 1965 and 1980) work-life balance, while millennials crave innovation and change.

Such notions are more myth than fact. Stereotyping people by their membership of an age group is no less problematic than doing it according to ethnicity or gender. It can encourage unhealthy biases and create barriers to communication and understanding.

A better term than “reverse mentoring” is “inclusive mentoring”. This takes the focus off thinking there is a “natural” age order to mentoring and puts the emphasis on simply encouraging shared learning between colleagues. Everyone has something of value to learn, or teach, in a respectful environment free from age or hierarchical biases.

The key is to be conscious of the barriers. You must be aware of the stereotypes and biases – that influence expectations and perceptions to do with age, but also of the chance that different experiences can lead to different outlooks to life.

Start out by asking your colleague about their expectations of their new role, their understanding of their tasks, their past work experience, and how they anticipate the relationship going.

It’s important to remember the essentials of mentoring practice. These remain the same. A mentoring relationship is about support, sharing knowledge and insights, and being a friend. Both mentor and mentee bring something to the table.

Five top tips

1. Understand stereotypical assumptions influence the potential success of the mentoring relationship. Tension is more likely if either of you have negative perceptions of the other based on age difference. Training in how to identify your unconscious biases might be a good idea before you start

2. open and respectful communication should be the focus. Start the conversation by clarifying the objectives of the mentoring relationship between both of you. Being clear and focused is a good basis for mutual respect

3. give yourselves adequate time to settle into the relationship. Your outlook towards life and work may be different. Give yourself time to get to know one another and to find common ground

4. be open and willing to learn. You might know more about some things, but your colleague is likely to know things you don’t. Think of the mentoring relationship as a collaborative partnership where mutual learning takes place

5. it’s OK to be apprehensive. You may feel challenged. Your colleague may feel just as uncomfortable. But with time and effort this apprehension will fade.

Becoming a good mentor, or a good mentee, isn’t automatic. It takes takes time and effort. But it is worth the effort, enriching the experience and skills of both parties, and contributing to an organisation able to compete in a changing world.

– ref. 5 tips on how to be a good mentor to someone twice your age – http://theconversation.com/5-tips-on-how-to-be-a-good-mentor-to-someone-twice-your-age-114189

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kris Gledhill, Professor of Law, Auckland University of Technology

The trial of the man accused of the murders and attempted murders in the Christchurch mosque attacks is one small but important legal process.

Another one has now started. A Royal commission of inquiry, to be led by the senior judge, Justice William Young, and an as yet unannounced second person, will look into the specific circumstances leading up to the shootings on March 15 that left, as of now, 51 people dead.

The commission will investigate whether police or intelligence services could have done more to prevent the atrocity, but its terms of reference do not allow it to look into the role of social media.

Read more: Explainer: trial of alleged perpetrator of Christchurch mosque shootings

Duty to protect life

Coroners exist to investigate the circumstances of a death and to make recommendations designed to reduce the risk of further deaths. However, mass deaths, whether in a disaster or atrocity, may call for a different process. The investigation then needs to have a focus on systematic matters.

The Inquiries Act 2013 refers to three different types of wider inquiry: a Royal commission (which is formally a matter of the Royal Prerogative), a public inquiry (established by the Governor-General) and a government inquiry (established by a minister). There is a hierarchy, with royal commissions at the top.

Recent examples of incidents that involved significant loss of life and merited a Royal commission include the Pike River coal mine explosion and the failures of buildings during the Canterbury earthquakes.

There is an important international human rights dimension. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OHCHR) 1966, binding on New Zealand since 1978, obliges the New Zealand government not to take life arbitrarily and to protect life.

This duty to protect is in focus here. The question that requires a Royal commission is whether officers of the state, most obviously in the police and intelligence services, failed in their duty to protect the victims by preventing the atrocity from occurring in the first place.

Answering this question is part of an implied further duty on the state to investigate possible fault on its part. As duties are by definition owed to someone, fixing this as part of the right to life reveals that it is owed to the families of the deceased victims, and those whose right to life was put at risk, and their families. They must be at the centre of the investigation. They have the clearest stake in needing to know whether more could and should have been done to prevent the atrocity.

Focus of the inquiry

Naturally, the desire of those most directly affected to get to the truth is a powerful tool for ensuring that an investigation is kept on track. The rest of us have an obvious interest as well, because we all want to have any necessary changes made to reduce the risk of similar atrocities occurring. But the personal interest adds to this.

The terms of reference for the Royal commission have been released, and should be interpreted in light of this international human rights obligation. But the place of the victims is not prominent. At most, paragraph 4 refers to the expectation that the inquiry will “connect with the Muslim community” in its work, and paragraph 16 has a similar reference and a note about appointing a liaison person or persons.

But nothing in the terms of reference prevents the families being at the centre of the process, and the statutory power of the commission to regulate its own process allows it to do what it considers as proper in this regard.

The scope of the commission’s investigation is a mixed bag. In paragraph 7 of the terms of reference, which sets the scope of the inquiry, the first six points are directly about the activities of the accused person. The final three, which relate to state sector agencies, are phrased as sub-points to the activities of the individual. But the investigative duty must focus on the potential failures of state officials to fulfil an obligation. It will be important that this is construed appropriately by the commission.

Paragraph 8 (relating to findings needed) and paragraph 9 (relating to recommendation to be made) suggest that defaults by state agencies and changes that should be made are central. This is reinforced by the introductory comments, which also have a suitable focus on state agency default and required changes. The problematic paragraph 7 can be interpreted accordingly.

What the commission will not do

Paragraph 13 of the terms of reference makes it clear that the commission will not investigate arms laws. Separate action has already been taken in changing New Zealand’s gun laws.

Read more: Why NZ needs to follow weapons ban with broad review of security laws

Nor will the commission investigate non-state operators such as media organisations, or the police response once alerted to the atrocity. These two limitations are unnecessarily narrow.

It may be that the response of the police was incredibly professional and appropriate. If so, that should be recorded. But if more could have been done, the commission is prohibited from even raising the thought.

As for media platforms, if part of the problem is that governments have failed to regulate the hate-filled corners of the internet, that is part of what we should know in order to protect us from similar acts.

While the government might have been concerned to delay the commission’s findings, which are due by 10 December 2019 and can be supplemented by interim findings, it would have been possible to create a timeline that required the commission to conduct an inquiry in several parts with different dates. The problematic part of paragraph 13 requires governmental reconsideration.

– ref. Explainer: how a royal commission will investigate Christchurch shootings – http://theconversation.com/explainer-how-a-royal-commission-will-investigate-christchurch-shootings-116122

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Watts, Professor of Information Law and Policy, La Trobe University

At about the same time on Sunday afternoon that former Labor prime minister Paul Keating was referring to him as a “fossil with a baseball cap”, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a re-election promise to crackdown on social media platforms and online predators, and “protect children, families and the community”.

Our government’s determination to address online safety is to be commended, but the current proposals contain few details on policy and implementation.

In reality we’re unlikely to see much improvement in online safety unless we tackle the real elephant in the room: big tech’s business model.

Read more: How big tech designs its own rules of ethics to avoid scrutiny and accountability

Four initiatives

The plan consists of four initiatives.

The first would see increased maximum penalties for existing crimes such as using the internet to menace, harass or cause offence. Penalties would also increase, and new offences created, for a range of child sex offences that rely on the internet.

The second initiative is designed to hold major social media platforms to account by enacting laws that require them to provide transparency reports relating to illegal, abusive and predatory content by their users – that is, trolling.

The third is to provide parents with tools to “make their own decisions about how their children use the internet”. It will become mandatory for online apps, games and services marketed to children to be pre-configured with the most restrictive privacy and safety defaults.

Complementary initiatives involve providing a filtered internet service that blocks sites considered unsafe by the eSafety Commissioner, and providing point of sale and point of account creation information to parents about online safety and parental controls.

The final initiative is to work with the G20 to “ensure that technology firms meet obligations regarding the prevention and protection, transparency and deterrence to stop terrorists weaponising the internet”.

Scandals and social harm

In the wake of a variety of scandals that have plagued “big tech” over the last few years – including the Facebook Cambrige Analytica controversy, and Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 US Presidential elections – governments across the world have become increasingly concerned about the social harms produced by a largely unregulated technology sector.

The Coalition’s election announcement comes soon after the passage of amendments to the Criminal Code to address live streaming of “abhorrent violent material” by social media platforms in the wake of the Christchurch massacre. It should be seen as an advance in governmental resolve to address the excesses of big tech. This is a long overdue and welcome development.

Read more: Livestreaming terror is abhorrent – but is more rushed legislation the answer?

Extra offences and tougher penalties, particularly for online-enabled sexual exploitation of children, play well in a febrile pre-election environment. The prospect of more punishment and denunciation seems like tough and determined action will be taken.

But the deterrent effect of criminalising activity and imposing harsher jail sentences is based on an assumption that people weigh up the costs and benefits of their actions whenever they make decisions – that they make rational criminal choices. This assumption is open to question where online harassment and child sex offending occurs.

Equally, there is little evidence that jail time for sex offenders serves rehabilitative objectives or that, long term, the community is safer. After all, when offenders have served their time they are released and return to the community.

Read more: Helping to rehabilitate sex offenders is controversial – but it can prevent more abuse

It’s easy – and cheap – to legislate for new offences and more incarceration. It’s harder – and expensive – to ensure the community is safer in the long term. This involves addressing causes, not effects.

Only the ‘major’ platforms

The proposed greater transparency measures appear to apply only to “major” social media platforms. Presumably, this means digital platforms that have a corporate presence in Australia – like Google and Facebook – and who can be compelled to obey Australian laws.

But there are many other sites that Australians access which have no presence, other than a cyber presence, in Australia.

Has the Coalition taken account of the fact that those who choose to propagate “illegal, abusive and predatory” content may simply switch their activities to platforms like 4 Chan, 8 Chan or reddit to avoid transparency requirements, making it harder to regulate them? How will they be made transparent?

Another challenge is how to define “illegal, abusive and predatory content”. Presumably government will provide legislative guidance about this in its proposed Online Safety Act, but it will be interesting to see how Silicon Valley corporations steeped in US first amendment free speech doctrine interpret and implement this requirement.

Read more: We need to talk about the data we give freely of ourselves online and why it’s useful

Policing is the hard bit

One of big tech’s most consistent arguments to avoid regulation is that we should rely on technology to solve technology-caused harm. The Coalition’s proposal to provide parents with controls to “make their own decisions about how their children use the internet” falls into this category.

But how are default privacy and safety settings to be policed? What will stop curious, technically-literate children simply changing the default settings behind their parents’ backs?

Likewise, the proposal to supply filtered internet services that block sites nominated by the e-Safety Commissioner seems like an invitation to find work-arounds to avoid censorship.

Read more: Sorry everyone: on the internet, you’re always the product

As commentators like Roger McNamee, Zeynep Tufekci and Tristan Harris have argued, the risks that big tech poses to society are caused by their “free” service business model.

The need to collect more and more personal data and keep their users’ attention focused on their services by feeding them more and more content that they “like” is baked into social media corporate DNA. Companies create “filter bubbles” and “preference bubbles” that ensure popular content is succeeded by more extreme and disturbing versions of the same.

Big tech’s business model is the root cause of the harms the Coalition’s online safety package is designed to address. Although any government action to address these harms is to be encouraged and supported, the package is likely to fall short of our expectations.

– ref. Coalition plans to improve online safety don’t address the root cause of harms: the big tech business model – http://theconversation.com/coalition-plans-to-improve-online-safety-dont-address-the-root-cause-of-harms-the-big-tech-business-model-116592

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

Some weeks back, Sydney Morning Herald political editor Peter Hartcher grimly characterised the election as a choice between an angry dad figure in a baseball cap and a sad sack who learned public speaking in funeral parlour.

Unkind but funny.

There has been precious little wit since in the procedural campaign dirge rolled out on either side – a rare exception being Bill Shorten’s “space invader” quip directed at Scott Morrison in last Friday night’s leaders’ debate.

It was probably focus group feedback rather than Hartcher’s astringent barb, but both leaders do seem to have modified their presentation as the campaigns have progressed.

But not much.

Image is everything – and nothing

Still tetchy and frustrated, Morrison seems to have benched the American baseball cap headwear – although not quickly enough to forestall a caustic Paul Keating attack:

Here’s the prime minister walking around with a lump of coal, coal is a fossil and the problem is the prime minister is a fossil himself. He’s a fossil with a baseball cap but he’s a fossil.

For his part, Shorten has apparently been told to smile no matter what. Such insouciance begins to look odd if it persists under verbal assault from his opponent or when confronted by an aggressive interviewer. Abnormal might be another word for it.

Amazingly, the parties’ body language experts have subtracted nothing much from nothing at all – and come up with even less. So much for politics obeying the “iron laws of arithmetic”, as John Howard was fond of saying.

Read more: ‘Fairness’ versus ‘strength’ – the battle to frame the federal election

Who was it who observed that, sincerity is everything – once you can fake that, you’ve got it made?

To call the major party campaigns risk averse makes them sound occasionally intriguing, perhaps even adventurous to a point.

They are not. Nor is their rhetoric inspiring, with neither leader seeking to invoke a national vision except inasmuch as it can be safely conveyed within an orthodox economic rationale.

Empty campaign messages

US Democratic strategist James Carville’s now-ubiquitous entreaty in Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign “it’s the economy, stupid,” has become the cold heart of modern politics – a prevailing neoliberal dictum that denudes political imagery of anything that cannot also be shown on a balance sheet.

What’s forgotten is that Carville’s supposed primacy of the economy was just one of three key messages Clinton campaigners were asked to stress, the others being “change versus more of the same” and “don’t forget health care.”

It’s uncanny how these work for Shorten now. Indeed, more of the same might well be the greatest risk in this election – more dangerous than budget blowouts, higher taxes or rising debt.

So arid has the governmental battleground become that Keating, arguably the most economically focused of Labor’s prime ministers, is looking for soul. While attending Labor’s campaign launch in Brisbane, he emphasised:

No, no, it’s about the economy “and” society. The economy is there for society. The Liberals have nothing to offer. You know, I’m surprised how threadbare their program is. If you look, there is no panorama. There’s no vista. There’s no shape…

Campaigning not to lose

Intended or otherwise, “Big Picture” Keating’s lament over the barely referenced vision thing applies to Labor also – if to a lesser extent.

The sharpest segue toward any sort of grand vision can be found in Labor’s education and training plans, which are fiscally bold – long-hand for expensive – yet mostly iterative in a pure reform sense.

Ditto for the crimping of tax loopholes such as negative gearing, franking credit cash bonuses and capital gains tax. These changes are electorally bold, and undeniably redistributive, but they are also essentially remedial rather transformative in economic reform context.

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Caroline Fisher on the spin machines of #AusVotes19

Climate change is perhaps the big values difference, but after a decade of bruising political negation on carbon emissions, Labor’s plans are substantially pared back from its ambitions of a decade ago. They are now largely those of the government, if delivered faster – no carbon tax, no cap and trade scheme, and the plan to revive Malcolm Turnbull’s national energy guarantee.

Much theorising has gone into explaining the record pre-poll turn-out, which had reached 915,000 people on Monday, vastly higher than the last federal poll in 2016.

The Coalition in particular is sweating the cause of this psephological phenomenon, amid speculation – much of it indistinguishable from wishful thinking – that voter keenness portends an electoral bloodbath for the Coalition.

This could be right, or it might be something else, such as the depressing reality of a campaign that is so dreadful to watch, it can be fully ignored once one’s duty has been discharged. The debates, for example, have been excruciating – two middle-aged men in suits trying not to lose.

Putting women front and center

Yet for all this, there have been significant optical differences between the two sides. Differences that amplify realities within each camp.

While Morrison has barely appeared before the cameras without a female Liberal candidate by his side, these women have mostly been political non-entities, unknown by voters beyond their own electorates.

The transparent aim has been to counter the hard truth that the Liberals have a women drought in their ranks – one of their own determined making.

Read more: Quotas are not pretty but they work – Liberal women should insist on them

Julie Bishop’s relative absence in this campaign is profound, highlighting the unpalatable fact that the government’s most popular and trusted figure has quit after being ignored as a leadership option.

The associations are unpleasant: think J-Bish and you also think Turnbull, which leads quickly to turmoil, betrayal and to Tony Abbott.

On Labor’s side, the aim has been to underline this difference as visually as possible.

By the time Shorten addressed the party faithful at his party’s Brisbane campaign launch, no fewer than four powerful female identities had sung his praises: Annastacia Palaszczuk, Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, and his wife, Chloe Shorten – otherwise known among Labor women as, “Bill’s feminist conscience”.

If that didn’t make the point strongly enough, the entire Labor alternative cabinet was on stage for the event, arranged in the familiar boy-girl-boy-girl order – its 50-50 split as obvious as the squares on a chess board.

Images aren’t everything in this election, but given the absence of charisma and paucity of inspiring vision, the leaders are relying on them to send the right message.

– ref. Look at me! Look at me! How image-conscious but visionless leaders have made for a dreary campaign – http://theconversation.com/look-at-me-look-at-me-how-image-conscious-but-visionless-leaders-have-made-for-a-dreary-campaign-116421

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hazel, Senior Lecturer, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide

Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.

Why don’t horses sit or lie down even while sleeping? – A question from Zulfiqar.

I’m glad you have asked about one of the mistakes lots of people make about horses. It’s true they do have an amazing ability to sleep standing up. But they do also sleep lying down. If you’re a horse, you need to be able to do both.

I’ll explain why.

Read more: Curious Kids: how did the months get their names?

Why should horses be able to sleep standing up?

Horses first evolved in open plains. As a prey species (one that other animals eat), they needed to be able to see quickly if another animal that might eat them (a predator) was nearby.

Being able to rest or sleep standing up meant they could get their rest, but if they saw a predator, they could quickly run away. That’s one of the reasons horses run so fast – to get away. The early horses that ran the fastest were more likely to survive.

Three legs on, one leg off

The most interesting part of horses resting standing up is how they do it. In horses there is a special arrangement of muscles and the parts that connect muscles and bones together (ligaments and tendons). This is called the stay apparatus.

The stay apparatus means that horses can stand on three legs and rest the other leg. They can change the leg they rest so all of their legs get a chance to have a break. A horse can weigh more than 500kg so their legs need a rest!

Even though they can sleep standing up, scientists think horses still need to lie down and sleep each day. Your sleep is not the same all night. Everyone goes through different stages of lighter and deeper sleep, and horses are the same.

The deeper stages of sleep are only seen in horses lying down. Both horses and humans need to go through deeper stages of sleep for our brains to work properly.

Read more: Curious Kids: is water blue or is it just reflecting off the sky?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: why don’t horses sit or lie down even while sleeping? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-dont-horses-sit-or-lie-down-even-while-sleeping-116156

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eddie Synot, Senior Research Assistant, Griffith University

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is almost two years old and now enjoys bipartisan political support. Labor’s policy, if elected, is to hold a referendum on enshrining a First Nations voice in the Australian Constitution in their first term. The Coalition, while supporting the Uluru Statement from the Heart following the report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, has budgeted for a design process to establish a model of the First Nations voice to parliament before going to referendum.

The support for the Uluru statement is a remarkable turning point in the history, and future, of the Australian nation. By issuing the Uluru statement to the Australian people, rather than to politicians, participants at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in 2017 invited all Australians to “walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future”. This invitation has been resoundingly embraced.

Read more: The Uluru statement showed how to give First Nations people a real voice – now it’s time for action

At the core of this invitation is the principle of being heard. Australians have come to understand that First Nations peoples have a political and cultural right to be heard and to determine their own affairs.

Many also understand that this power is key to addressing what the Uluru statement termed “the torment of our powerlessness”. This means a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Australia that establishes the foundations for a better future.

The establishment of this new relationship is also why it is important to enshrine these changes in the constitution before negotiating what this relationship will be.

The Australian Constitution is the foundation of the Australian nation, and it must be changed to enable a renewed relationship. Without addressing this first, any future changes implemented outside of the constitution will remain susceptible to the current arrangements that do not appropriately recognise First Nations peoples.

However, the need for constitutional change has been conflated with concerns about the need for a detailed design of the First Nations voice before a referendum, and misrepresentations of the process that is required to achieve this change. First, change the constitution. Then, negotiate the design of the voice.

Read more: The Indigenous community deserves a voice in the constitution. Will the nation finally listen?

The deferral of the detail of what the voice might be is a normal process of constitutional reform. Effective constitutional reform requires that any new addition to the constitution be explicit enough to provide for the establishment of the voice while being subject to the constitution. But it should not be so detailed that it becomes restrictive and meaningless to Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples into the future.

There already exists significant research on the future design of a body that could be the First Nations voice. This includes eight reports since 2012, including the First Nations-led Referendum Council dialogues that produced the Uluru Statement in 2017 and the 2018 report of the joint select committee.

Participants in the regional dialogues of the Referendum Council and the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in 2017 provided a clear pathway forward. This is represented by submission 479 to the joint select committee. Importantly, the submission was written by experts who advised the regional dialogues and is representative of the desires of First Nations participants.

Submission 479 detailed the insertion of a new “Section 129: The First Nations Voice” and a simple referendum question to achieve this as detailed below.

Proposed Amendment

Chapter 9: First Nations

Section 129: The First Nations Voice

(1) There shall be a First Nations Voice.

(2) The First Nations Voice shall present its views to Parliament and the Executive on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

(3) The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the First Nations Voice.

Referendum question

Do you approve an alteration to the Constitution that establishes a First Nations Voice?

YES / NO

This is a simple but powerful amendment. It provides recognition and the ability of First Nations peoples to negotiate with government while also respecting the place and authority of parliament and the constitution. This is, importantly, not a simple inclusion but rather a representation to the Commonwealth that is respectful of First Nations political and cultural identity and authority.

Conventional wisdom tells us that achieving constitutional reform can be difficult. But too much can be made of conventional wisdom, to the point that it stymies progress.

Read more: Lessons of 1967 referendum still apply to debates on constitutional recognition

Laws are meant to change. Section 128 of the constitution specifically provides for that ability and the successful 1967 referendum is an example of what can be achieved.

In 1967, it wasn’t the technical change to the constitution that held weight, nor was any specific detail about the future of Indigenous affairs entered into the constitution. Rather, it was the principle of “vote yes for Aborigines” that resonated.

Today, it is that same principle of respect and recognition for First Nations peoples that can deliver reform for a better future.

– ref. Constitutional reform made easy: how to achieve the Uluru statement and a First Nations voice – http://theconversation.com/constitutional-reform-made-easy-how-to-achieve-the-uluru-statement-and-a-first-nations-voice-116141

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tooran Alizadeh, Senior Lecturer in Urbanism, Sydney Research Accelerator (SOAR) Fellow, University of Sydney

The NBN was touted as dream infrastructure, and the Coalition says it is close to completing the A$50 billion national broadband network.

But Australia recently slipped three spots to place 62nd in global broadband rankings, with our average download speed of 35.11 Mbps far below the global average of 57.91 Mbps.

Labor has ruled-out a large scale upgrade of the NBN if it wins the 2019 federal election, saying flaws in the NBN are due to “six years of vandalism” by the Coalition government.

Read more: Labor will prioritise an NBN ‘digital inclusion drive’ – here’s what it should focus on

In reality it’s hard to get an accurate picture on the balance of NBN technologies that are already in place in Australia. To get around this opacity, we used the “check your address” tool on the NBN website as a way to collect data on the footprints of technologies currently or about to be in place in three Australian metropolitan cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

The data suggests around half (40-60%) of homes in the three cities only have access to very old technology: hybrid fibre-coaxial (HFC). For people in these residences, access to the so-called “fibre network” remains only a fairy tale.

Real data on the NBN

Lack of data transparency is a vexing aspect of the NBN. In our experience, NBN Co does not disclose meaningful information on service footprints in a single, usable dataset. This makes it difficult to evaluate outcomes and perform policy analysis associated with the service.

Nevertheless, our latest research has collected some data we believe was undisclosed previously.

Over December 2018 to February 2019, we used the “check your address” search function on the NBN Co website along with basic data mining techniques to extract data from a representative sample of all addresses across the three metropolitan regions of Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane.

We uncovered footprints of mixed-technology NBN, including current or planned fibre to the premises (FTTP), fibre to the node (FTTN), fibre to the building (FTTB), fibre to the curb (FTTC), hybrid fibre-coaxial (HFC), fixed wireless and satellite (Sky Muster).

Here we mainly focus on hybrid fibre-coaxial (HFC), which is the oldest technology component of the NBN. HFC is the cable network you might have connected to in the past to get Foxtel subscription TV.

Major cities rely on HFC

The three maps shown here represent the spatial presence of fibre infrastructure versus more inferior HFC/satellite NBN in three metropolitan regions of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane (In reality very few urban homes use satellite, as shown in bar graphs below).

The three maps suggest inferior NBN technology is in abundant use across all three metropolitan cities. 62% of all addresses in the greater Brisbane region, 42% of all addresses in Melbourne, and 55% of all addresses in Sydney are (or will soon be) connected to the NBN via HFC.

These figures are at odds with a recent claim by Minister for Communications Mitch Fifield that his government is rolling out “a new network” to the whole nation. For about half of the addresses in three major Australian metropolitan regions, the NBN “rollout” looks like a re-branding exercise using an old cable network.

Socioeconomic patterns of the NBN

To look at socioeconomic patterns of the NBN rollout, we used the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) socio-economic indexes for area (SEIFA) and its index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) from 2016. We then cross examined the SEIFA data (divided into ten ranked groups known as “deciles”) with the NBN data extracted via the data mining exercise (described above).

It’s clear in the graphs below that a mix of both old and new technologies are in play across the three metropolitan regions of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

The analysis did not find any clear socioeconomic patterns comparing better-off SEIFA deciles of 8-10 versus worse-off deciles of 1-3. Nevertheless, the size of HFC adoption across the socioeconomic spectrum in all three major cities is quite concerning.

The second most dominant technology in the three major cities is fibre to the curb (FTTC). This is a technology that was only added to the mix 12 months ago, as a partial solution in response to the mounting issues related to the HFC network.

If it was not for this late addition to the network, the NBN footprint may have had an even higher dominance of old HFC technology than currently. It’s also clear that the rate of FTTC adoption in greater Brisbane is well below that in Melbourne and Sydney.

An NBN upgrade is inevitable

Since the announcement of mixed-technology NBN, experts have warned against the serious shortcomings of the old HFC technology.

While these were mostly ignored initially, Bill Morrow (then CEO at NBN) later admitted that NBN speed was slowed by reliance on copper network. Supporting this, an analysis by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) revealed that the average household on the HFC network was reporting between 2 to 3.6 times more faults than those on fibre, and making between 3 and 5 times more complaints.

It’s also been reported that about 40% of the NBN is fibre to the node (FTTN) which has its own fair share of issues.

Interestingly, there have already been some partial upgrades within NBN Co’s plans, as FTTC reportedly accounts for about 12% of the national network, to serve the areas that were previously assigned to receive HFC.

Having said this, Labor’s latest announcement seems to be focusing on what can be described as “improving consumer experience” without making any commitment for more fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP), or at least more fibre.

We argue that for Australia and Australian major cities to be competitive on the global platform, an NBN update is inevitable.

– ref. Around 50% of homes in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane have the oldest NBN technology – http://theconversation.com/around-50-of-homes-in-sydney-melbourne-and-brisbane-have-the-oldest-nbn-technology-115131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Lawrence, Affiliate, Sydney Environment Institute; Honorary Associate, Macquarie University, Macquarie University

Can a uranium mine be rehabilitated to the environmental standards of a national park and World Heritage site?

That’s the challenge faced by the controversial Ranger uranium mine inside Kakadu National Park.

But our new research report found the document guiding its rehabilitation is deficient, and urgent changes are needed for the heavily impacted mine site to be cleaned up well.

Kakadu has been a national park since the 1970s, but the Ranger mine, while surrounded by Kakadu, has never formally been part of the park. This classification is in the interests of resource extraction, and has failed to recognise or protect the area’s cultural and environmental values.

Kakadu National Park encompasses a precious natural heritage. It protects valuable ecosystems of outstanding value, diversity and beauty, and contains the world’s richest breeding grounds for migratory tropical water birds.

Read more: Australia’s problem with Aboriginal World Heritage

Recent diggings and studies have documented at least 65,000 years of continuous human habitation at a site on the land of the Mirarr people – this is currently the oldest occupation site in Australia.

How was the mine developed?

The boundaries of Kakadu National Park were conveniently drawn around the Ranger mine site through a series of political and administrative negotiations following the Fox Inquiry, which gave a cautious green light for the Ranger operation.

Likewise, Ranger was excluded from the requirements of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act that would have otherwise given the Mirarr people the right to say no to the mine.

Now, as the mining stops and the repair begins, mining companies and government regulators are being tested on their environmental commitment, and capacity to make meaningful change.

Read more: Treasure from trash: how mining waste can be mined a second time

But rehabilitating what is essentially a toxic waste dump is no easy task.

And the inadequacy of the Energy Resources Australia’s Mine Closure Plan – the key document guiding the rehabilitation – shows they are failing this test so far.

Problems with the Mine Closure Plan

Our new research report – jointly conducted by Sydney Environment Institute and the Australian Conservation Foundation – examines the Mine Closure Plan and finds it is seriously wanting in key areas.

These include significant data deficiencies regarding management of mine tailings (mine residue), land stability, and modelling of toxic contaminants likely to flow off site into Kakadu National Park.

The Mine Closure Plan is almost completely silent on crucial governance questions, such as the Ranger mine’s opaque regulatory processes and rehabilitation, and current and future financing – especially in relation to future site monitoring and mitigation works.

Read more: Ranger’s toxic spill highlights the perils of self-regulation

After the price collapse following the Fukushima nuclear crisis, times in the uranium trade have been tough. Coupled with a mandated end to commercial operations by early 2021, Rio Tinto has accepted the era of mining has now been replaced by the need for rehabilitation.

But the challenge for Energy Resources Australia and Rio Tinto, who own and operate the mine, is not simply to scrape rocks into holes and plant trees. It is to ensure radioactive and contaminated mine tailings are:

physically isolated from the environment for at least 10,000 years [and that] any contaminants arising from the tailings will not result in any detrimental environmental impacts for at least 10,000 years.

These are time-scales of epic proportions, yet the Mine Closure Plan says little to assure the public this can be achieved.

In fact, Energy Resources Australia concedes it won’t actually be possible to monitor and measure this over the next 10,000 years, so a model will be required instead. But this model has not been publicly released.

Rehabilitation success is determined by the mining company

And this speaks to a broader problem with the whole process: the success of the rehabilitation will be judged by criteria created by the mining company.

It is naive to assume a mining company is best placed to propose their own rehabilitation criteria, given their corporate imperative to reduce rehabilitation costs and future liabilities.

And the stakes here are very high. The rehabilitation of Ranger will be a closely-watched and long-judged test of the credibility, competence and commitment of the regulators and the mining companies.

The Conversation reached out to Energy Resources Australia and Rio Tinto for comment on this report, but they declined to provide a response.

Read more: Traditional owners still stand in Adani’s way

The Supervising Scientist Branch – a federal agency charged with tracking and advising, but not regulating, the Ranger operation – also made an assessment that should be ringing alarm bells:

[The company’s current plan] does not yet provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current plan for rehabilitation of the Ranger mine site will achieve the required ERs [Environmental Requirements].

The Supervising Scientist Branch’s disturbing initial analysis is a red flag demanding an effective response.

Australia has a long history of substandard mine closure and rehabilitation in both the uranium and wider mining sector.

There is a real need to see a better approach at Ranger, and the first step in that journey is by increasing the scrutiny, accountability and transparency surrounding this essential clean up work.

– ref. The uranium mine in the heart of Kakadu needs a better clean up plan – http://theconversation.com/the-uranium-mine-in-the-heart-of-kakadu-needs-a-better-clean-up-plan-115566

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Martin-Chew, Freelance art writer and PhD candidate, The University of Queensland

In the recent Julian Schnabel film about Vincent van Gogh, At Eternity’s Gate, Vincent asserts, “I am my painting”. The lives of certain artists are often viewed popularly through the prism of biography.

But in the contemporary art world, this perspective is not celebrated. Many art historians argue that the life of the artist should be viewed independently of the art. Indeed in Australia, suggests art historian Dr Sue Best, “This reductive [biographical] approach sheds almost no light on the art, except in some very unusual circumstances”.

Read more: Fogies, insiders and press release summarisers: art criticism in Australia

For Aboriginal artists, however, their lives and ancestry are crucial to an understanding of the work they make and its often passionately political delivery.

Urban Indigenous artists (often art school trained and resident in the city) draw on subject matter from the change and trauma that European invasion wrought on their sovereignty. Aboriginal artists who live and work outside the city also make work about their connections to place, ancestry and its extension into deep time.

In the case of Aboriginal artist Fiona Foley (Badtjala, born 1964), her life builds a contextual narrative around her artwork, offering an insight into the important issues that she explores, as an artist, Aboriginal woman, spokesperson, curator, academic and cultural leader.

In the early 1980s, for instance, Foley found an image of a young, bare-breasted Badtjala woman dated c.1899 in the archives of the State Library of Queensland. It was captioned, “Aborigine, Fraser Island”. This young woman had been photographed without the dignity or recognition of a name. The image stimulated Foley’s protective desire on behalf of her ancestor. As she explains:

She had a name, and a birth year, and a role in society. She had a day that she died. There was no information at all with the photograph. She deserved more. I thought, ‘I could recreate that image. I’d have to reveal myself similarly, to do it bare-breasted’.

Foley’s emotional and familial investment in this story fuels the power of her photograph Native Blood (1994).

Indeed, most Aboriginal artists choose subject matter that relates strongly to their Aboriginality in their artmaking. This necessarily draws on their own personal story, what Aboriginal curator Djon Mundine has described as their “history, spiritual connection”. Writes Mundine:

For Aboriginal people there was never an explicit word for art, art is a cultural expression; a history of a people; a statement through a series of life experiences of self-definition; a recounting of an untold story; the bringing to light of a truth of history.

Likewise, life-writing specialists and academics Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson suggest that “personal narrative has been a venue through which Indigenous Australians have rewritten the history of encounter and state oppression”. An understanding of the level of trauma that Aboriginal Australians experienced during colonisation and since has been expressed through life narratives and art, and is crucial to the shifting national story.

The power of Aboriginal history and personal connections is evident in the work of artists such as Judy Watson (born 1959), who creates unframed canvases that move like water, reflecting her ancestry as a Waanyi woman. Their seductive aesthetic draws the events of the past into the present.

Dale Harding (born 1982) uses stencils and sprays paint directly on the wall to echo the cave paintings and carvings from his country in Carnarvon Gorge.

Michael Cook (born 1968) explores his identity as an Aboriginal man adopted into a white family through photographs that imagine alternative histories for Indigenous Australians.

Most recently, his Invasion (2018) uses tropes from sci-fi epics to portray the fear and confusion that would follow an invasion of over-sized Aboriginal people and Australian native animals in London. (The parallell here is with the experience of Indigenous people encountering the ships and muskets of colonisers in Australia 200-odd years ago).

For Aboriginal artists, their lives and family histories lie at the heart of what they make and why. The prism of biography accommodates the broader cultural remit within which their art-making is located.

– ref. For Aboriginal artists, personal stories matter – http://theconversation.com/for-aboriginal-artists-personal-stories-matter-113029

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Starling, Postdoctoral researcher, University of Sydney

Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.

Is it true that dogs at the pound get killed if nobody adopts them? – Abhilasa, age 10, Melbourne.

First of all, animal shelters and pounds don’t always use the same rules. In Australia, most animal shelters are run by local councils, but some are run by animal rescue organisations. Different councils and different rescue organisations can have different rules about how long they can keep animals.

Those rules are in place because of resources – that means how many people and how much money and how many kennels the shelter or pound can use to look after unwanted animals. If they only have a few kennels or a few people to look after the animals or a little bit of money to pay for food and for someone to care for the animals, then they can only have a few animals at a time.

Read more: Curious Kids: how do babies learn to talk?

If the shelter or pound is not full and they have enough money to hire enough people and buy enough food to look after all the unwanted animals they have, they can choose to keep looking after those animals until they find a home. Many shelters and pounds do just that. The unwanted animals might stay there for months looking for a new home.

Pounds and shelters are not happy places for dogs to stay in for a long time, though. So everyone tries to find an unwanted dog a new home as quickly as possible.

Foster homes

If the dog needs a little extra training or a quieter home, or the pound is getting full, the people that run the pound or shelter might agree to give the dog to a rescue organisation that will put the dog in a foster home.

That’s a temporary home where the dog will live with a human family that has volunteered to care for them. The rescue organisation puts ads on the internet telling everyone they have this dog in foster care who is looking for a new home. In this way, many unlucky dogs who had owners that didn’t want them can have all the time they need to find a new home.

As a last resort

However, occasionally it’s not possible to find a dog a new home. The pound might run out of room and dogs that have been there longest have to either be taken in by another rescue, or they will be put to sleep to make room for more unwanted dogs. Many of these dogs are saved by rescues and get the time they need, but not all of them. Some of them might have health or behaviour problems that make them difficult to live with, or they might be old.

With so many dogs that need homes, the dogs that are hard to look after are the ones that it’s hardest to find a new home for. Some dogs have had a difficult life and are not safe to be around. For these dogs, life might be very hard for them still. They don’t understand how to make friends and the world is full of things that frighten them, or perhaps they are in pain a lot of the time. For these dogs, it may be a kindness to put them to sleep so they don’t have to suffer anymore. That means they are given an injection that makes them feel calm, fall asleep and then die painlessly in their sleep.

There are lots of things we can do to help reduce the number of unwanted dogs. You could consider adopting a rescue dog, or volunteering to be a foster home for unwanted dogs, or donate to rescue organisations. We can make sure our own dogs are de-sexed so they can’t have puppies. We can keep them in a fenced yard so they can’t get out and get lost or in trouble, and make sure they are microchipped so they can be returned if they do get lost.

When choosing a dog for your family, make sure you get a dog that will suit your family so that you won’t find yourself with a dog that is causing you and your neighbours a lot of trouble. Dogs that are too noisy or big or active for their families are sometimes the ones that end up unwanted.

Read more: Curious Kids: why do we have a QWERTY keyboard instead of putting the letters in alphabetical order?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: is it true that dogs at the pound get killed if nobody adopts them? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-is-it-true-that-dogs-at-the-pound-get-killed-if-nobody-adopts-them-115803

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Kaine, Associate Professor UTS Centre for Business and Social Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

Today we kick off a four-part election series on wages, industrial relations, Labor and the union movement ahead of the 2019 federal election. You can read an analysis of Labor’s living wage policy here.

Industrial relations is in the DNA of Australian politics: it is the defining policy issue that has traditionally distinguished Labor from the Coalition.

Industrial relations issues have featured prominently in recent election campaigns, with Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), WorkChoices and union governance being the subject of fierce contestation between the major parties. However, this election the policy contrast is especially evident.

While the policies of the major parties have always differed, over the past 30 years there was a neoliberal consensus on economic policy that in some respects extended to industrial relations.

For instance, the Fair Work Act implemented by the Rudd government reversed some but not all elements of Howard-era industrial relations policies. It largely maintained constraints on trade union power.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Unions likely to be more challenging for a Shorten government than boats

But this consensus is fracturing, as reflected in the policy settings of the two major parties. The Coalition has held steadfast to the idea that industrial relations and labour market issues are best left to the logic of the market. From this perspective, a strong economy enabled by low taxation and minimal government intervention results in employment and wage growth.

In contrast, and in light of the evident decoupling of economic growth and wages growth, the ALP has taken a more interventionist stance. This reflects less confidence in market mechanisms alone to solve persistent issues such as gender inequality, low pay and the proliferation of precarious work.

The Coalition’s commitments

Much of the Liberal and National parties’ policy platform focuses on what the Coalition has achieved in office. Most prominent is the focus on the Coalition’s job record, particularly its claim to have created 1.3 million jobs since it was first elected in September 2013.

The Coalition highlights recent job growth among younger workers, increased workforce participation among women and the creation of full-time jobs. This is despite persistent challenges relating to gender equality at work, unemployment and under-employment among young workers and a prevalence of insecure and non-standard work arrangements.

Very little is said explicitly about wages, job security and other “core” industrial relations issues. One explanation for this could be memories of the “WorkChoices election” of 2007 when the Howard government’s weakening of worker protections led to its removal from office.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: What was that about making Parliament House a better workplace for women?

Or it could be because of an ideological view that removing market constraints, particularly for small business, will lead to improved conditions for workers. This is a strong theme in the Coalition’s platform: it claims that lower taxes are “a critical part of our plan to deliver a strong economy and record job creation”.

The Coalition also points to its record in “tackling union lawlessness”, particularly through the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. A key aspect of the Coalition’s policy platform is to highlight Labor’s perceived weaknesses through its links with the union movement and also the potential impact of climate change policies on employment in carbon-intensive industries.

But it’s hard to see this resonating much among voters, who for the past two decades have seen unions are having much less power than big business (see below).

Voters’ perceptions of the power of trade unions and big business, Australia, 1967-2016

Labor’s commitments

Reflecting a renewed enthusiasm for policy aimed at challenging the free rein of the market, the Labor Party has announced a suite of interventionist measures. Some appear aimed squarely at amending the Fair Work Act – for example, legislating to prevent employers using agreement termination to revert to award wages and conditions, and to impose higher penalties for wage theft.

However, the bulk of Labor’s announcements relate to three themes: the problems of ongoing wage stagnation and income inequality, job insecurity and gender equity at work.

Key to the ALP’s wages policies is a commitment to develop a “living wage” to keep working people out of poverty. Details of how this will be calculated will likely be left to the Fair Work Commission.

Another headline announcement by the ALP, easier conversion from casual to permanent work, draws a connection between the prevalence of insecure forms of work and historically low wage growth.

Commitments to ensure labour hire workers receive the same pay as those who are directly employed and an undertaking to “make sure workers in the gig economy are paid properly and not used to undermine Australian wages, including by changing the legal test for sham contracting” suggest enthusiasm for a recalibration of labour market regulation away from free-market logic.

Read more: The false hope offered by talk of a living wage

This is reinforced by a broader set of policies focusing on the eradication of modern slavery, the inclusion of superannuation in the National Employment Standards and reporting requirements for CEO pay in listed companies.

Gender equity at work policy provides a stark area of contrast between the two main parties. The ALP has pledged A$400 million towards closing the gender superannuation gap, a 20% increase in pay for early childhood educators and prioritising gender equity in the Fair Work Act and in the work of the Fair Work Commission.

Linking gender equity to wage stagnation, Labor has announced it will reinstate penalty rates, the loss of which has had a disproportionate impact on female-dominated industries such retail services and hospitality.

Comparing apples and oranges

The small-target approach of the Coalition to industrial relations during this election campaign is very difficult to compare to the comprehensive suite of policies released by the ALP. This is partly a result of the inherent nature of election campaigns – the incumbent seeks to defend its record and the challenger to present a convincing agenda for change.

What the industrial relations policies of the major parties most starkly reveal is a Coalition that maintains its conviction that fiscal measures such as tax cuts are the best way to “regulate” the labour market, and a Labor Party that’s looking to curb market excesses and redress what it sees as market failures.

This provides a stark choice for voters.

– ref. How the major parties stack up on industrial relations policy – http://theconversation.com/how-the-major-parties-stack-up-on-industrial-relations-policy-116256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Peetz, Professor of Employment Relations, Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, Griffith University

If, as the polls indicate, Labor wins government on May 18, what role will the unions play?

There are two mutually exclusive, extreme views on unions and politics – sometimes argued by the same people. There are outcries about Bill Shorten’s union past, claims he has made deals that gave too much to the employer and too little to workers. And there are cries that unions will hold all the cards after the election, and wages will go up.

I argue two key points. First, unions are still relevant, and they can be quite influential at elections. Second, though, their hold over the ALP is not very strong when it is in government.

Union influence on elections

There is no doubt unions have built up their campaigning skills. This was one of their responses to the loss of institutional support they faced, especially for spreading wage increases, after the early 1990s. In the 2007 election, fought principally over climate change and industrial relations, union campaigning was critical. The Coalition government’s ‘WorkChoices’ legislation was divisive and electoral poison.

Unions’ “Your Rights at Work” campaign, according to statistical analysis, probably led to an additional swing of 1.3 to 2.0 percentage points in seats where unions ran campaigns (and possibly 5-7 more Labor seats).

Rudd may have won anyway. But while unions’ campaigning in the very close 2010 election was much less effective, Gillard may not have held on that year without them. This was because of the “sophomore effect”, in which new Labor members from 2007 built up a base of electoral support to cushion themselves against an anti-government swing.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Unions likely to be more challenging for a Shorten government than boats

By 2016, union campaigning had become more sophisticated. Although there was no WorkChoices to campaign against, they mobilised effectively in 22 seats and probably added 1.7-2.0 percentage points to the Labor vote in those seats, and swung about five seats from Coalition to Labor.

In 2019, unions are continuing to campaign, this time in 16 seats. The campaign is more focused on wages than in 2016. It will likely be more effective, though the additional impact it has in 2019, on top of that in 2016, may not be as noticeable.

Still, with polls tight, it is feasible that they could be the difference between a Shorten and a Morrison government.

Union influence on the ALP

The influence of unions on the ALP is always stronger when Labor is in opposition. The formal ties between the unions and ALP are strong, and this matters a lot in opposition. Unions account for defined proportions (typically, half) of voting blocs at Labor state conferences. From time to time, union officials’ next career move ends up being in a state or federal parliament.

But in government, Labor is influenced by many other groups. Power is centralised within Cabinet and its sub-committees, party conferences matter little, and lobbyists and corporates flock to Parliamentary offices and Canberra cafes and cocktail parties to have their say. Union power is very diluted.

Even Gough Whitlam, Labor Prime Minister from 1972 to 1975 and not someone from a union background, lamented the greatest economic failure of his government was to not have a closer relationship with the union movement, because of the impact its distance had on wages inflation over those years.

Partly in response to that failure, the closest relationship between a Labor government and unions occurred with the 1983-96 Accord. Union membership was still high, but the Labor government was heavily influenced by other forces. Even the then powerful Amalgamated Metal Workers Union could not prevent its vision for an Australia Reconstructed being swamped by the bureaucrats’ preference for the emerging market liberal policy ideas.

By the time of the Rudd-Gillard governments, unions had a smaller share of the workforce, and there was no prospect of a revived Accord. When the government negotiated the Fair Work Act with both unions and employers, it gave roughly equal weight to both sides’ interests.

Despite their role in the 2007 election victory, unions’ influence on those governments was limited.

Unions and the 2019 federal election

The unions’ current “change the rules” campaign covers a broader set of issues than are encompassed by Labor promises. Perhaps the biggest potential area for controversy is on the scope for multi-employer bargaining.

Once upon a time, wage determination in Australia was mostly done at a multi-employer level. But wages were settled not through direct bargaining between the parties but by award decisions of the tribunal (in those days called the Arbitration Commission).

In the early 1990s, the then Labor government and ACTU leadership agreed that wage fixing would shift from a predominantly multi-employer, award basis to exclusively single-employer, bargaining-based methods. Replacing awards with bargaining was part of modernising IR, and making parties take responsibility for their own decisions.

But replacing predominantly multi-employer with exclusively single-employer bargaining produced a fundamental shift of power to corporations that persists to this day. At the time, its significance was lost to most unions, but it has become increasingly apparent since then and now dominates union thinking. That power shift is why employers are keen to maintain the status quo.

Yet even the OECD now sees merit in multi-employer bargaining, as wage coordination across sectors is “associated with better employment outcomes”. Labor’s policy supports some easing of the restriction where enterprise bargaining is failing, but the details are not fleshed out.

If the unions were sold or sold themselves short in these later Accord negotiations, a similar thing happened in the negotiations over Julia Gillard’s Fair Work Act. By then, unions had no more bargaining power with Labor than employers.

The Labor government wanted to be seen to be reintroducing balance after the excesses of John Howard’s WorkChoices. The unions prioritised abolishing individual contracts that undercut award conditions (the Australian Workplace Agreements) and reintroducing protections against unfair dismissal. The employers prioritised maintaining the majority of the provisions on industrial action and bargaining.

Although the outcome met neither side’s best hopes, both got what they prioritised. The details were altered in procedures enabling employers to use the Fair Work Commission to thwart industrial action or terminate agreements. But they remained largely in place. In the end these have turned out to be critical in minimising the power of workers to obtain wage increases.

These laws about industrial action aren’t the only factors that have led to the current wage stagnation. Other factors have been critical, including

• the decline of unions in the face of opposition from employers and governments
• the growing power of the finance sector to dictate corporate behaviour
• the resultant spread of corporate models (such as contracting and franchising) that separate profit centres from the formal employers of workers and thereby minimise accountability for breaking labour laws
• the growth of underemployment as a reserve source of labour.

After the election

As Labor nears the 2019 election, many of its stated policies are aimed at boosting wages for the lowest paid. Ultimately, though, doing something more substantial about stagnant wages requires policies that deal with the imbalance of power between capital and labour that developed over the past three decades.

We can expect a lot of furious activity, publicly and behind the scenes, by both unions and employer associations, in the period after the election if Labor wins.

Read more: ALP urges Fair Work Commission to give “substantial” minimum wage increase

The unions that will be of greater importance will depend on the issues involved: examples include United Voice and the Australian Services Union on low paid workers, the Community and Public Service Union on public service bargaining issues, the Nurses and Midwives Association on health issues, and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, United Voice, and many others on multi-employer bargaining.

On climate change, different unions will be pushing very different agendas, and there are even differences within unions.

In all cases, unions will have to counter the well-resourced lobbying by corporate groups, the market liberal inclinations of bureaucrats, and the nervousness of politicians.

The outcomes will ultimately determine whether workers generally have much of a chance of gaining real wage increases over the medium and longer term.

– ref. If Labor wins the 2019 federal election, what role will unions play? – http://theconversation.com/if-labor-wins-the-2019-federal-election-what-role-will-unions-play-116343