Your period tracking app could tell Facebook when you’re pregnant. An ‘algorithmic guardian’ could stop it.

February 27, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flora D. Salim, Associate Professor in Computer Science, RMIT University

Most of us know tech platforms such as Facebook and Google track, store and make money from our data. But there are constantly new revelations about just how much of our privacy has been chipped away.

The latest comes from the Wall Street Journal, which dropped a bombshell on Friday when its testing revealed many popular smartphone apps have been sending personal data to Facebook. That reportedly includes data from heart rate monitoring and period tracking apps:

Flo Health Inc.’s Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker, which claims 25 million active users, told Facebook when a user was having her period or informed the app of an intention to get pregnant, the tests showed.

When we use technologies that track our data, we enter a system governed by algorithms. And the more information we hand over, the more we become entwined with algorithmic systems we don’t control.

We urgently need protections that look after our personal interests in this system. We propose the concept of “algorithmic guardians” as an effective solution.

How do data tracking algorithms work?

Daily, without our knowledge, technology companies use our data to predict our habits, preferences and behaviour. Algorithms that operate behind everything from music recommendation systems to facial recognition home security systems use that data to create a digital twin version of us.

We are then served content and advertising based on what the algorithm has decided we want and need, without explaining how it came to that decision, or allowing us any input into the decision making process.

And our interests likely come second to those who developed the algorithm.

Contrary to what the concept suggests, we don’t directly control “personalisation”, and we have almost no way to protect our autonomy in these transactions of data and decision making.

What is an ‘algorithmic guardian’?

We have proposed the concept of algorithmic guardians, which could be programmed to manage our digital interactions with social platforms and apps according to our personal preferences.

They are envisaged as bots, personal assistants or hologram technology that accompany us everywhere we venture online, and alert us to what’s going on behind the scenes.

These guardians are themselves algorithms, but they work for us alone. Like computer virus software, those that fail to protect users will go out of business, while those that gain a reputation as trusted guardians will succeed.

In practical terms, our guardians would make us recognisable or anonymous when we choose to be. They would also alter our digital identity according to our wishes, so that we could use different services with different sets of personal preferences. Our guardians keep our personal data in our own hands by making sure our backups and passwords are safe. We would decide what is remembered and what is forgotten.

An algorithmic guardian would:

alert us if our location, online activity or conversations were being monitored or tracked, and give us the option to disappear
help us understand the relevant points of long and cumbersome terms and conditions when we sign up to an online service
give us a simple explanation when we don’t understand what’s happening to our data between our computer, phone records and the dozens of apps running in the background on our phones
notify us if an app is sending data from our phones to third parties, and give us the option to block it in real time
tell us if our data has been monetised by a third party and what it was for.

We envision algorithmic guardians as the next generation in current personal assistants such Siri, Alexa or Watson. Thanks to wearable technology and advanced human-computer interactions models, they will be constantly and easily accessible.

Our digital guardians need not be intelligent in the same way as humans. Rather they need to be smart in relation to the environment they inhabit – by recognising and understanding the other algorithms they encounter.

In any case, even if algorithmic guardians (unlike third party algorithms) are user-owned and are totally under our own control, being able to understand how they work will be a priority to make them fully trustworthy.

When will algorithmic guardians arrive?

The technology to enable algorithmic guardians is emerging as we speak. What’s lagging is the widespread realisation that we need it.

You can see primitive versions of algorithmic guardians technology in digital vaults for storing and managing passwords, and in software settings that give us some control over how our data is used.

Explainable machine learning is a hot topic right now, but still very much in the research domain. It addresses the “black box” problem, where we have no insight into how an algorithm actually arrived at its final decision. In practice, we may know that our loan application is denied, but we don’t know if it was because of our history of unpaid power bills, or because of our surname.

Without this accountability, key moments of our lives are mediated by unknown, unseen, and arbitrary algorithms. Algorithmic guardians could take on the role of communicating and explaining these decisions.

Now that algorithms have become pervasive in daily life, explainability is no longer a choice, but an area urgently requiring further attention.

We need to develop specific algorithmic guardian models in the next couple of years to lay the foundations for open algorithmic systems over the coming decade. That way, if an app wants to tell Facebook you’re pregnant, you’ll know about it before it happens.

– ref. Your period tracking app could tell Facebook when you’re pregnant. An ‘algorithmic guardian’ could stop it. – http://theconversation.com/your-period-tracking-app-could-tell-facebook-when-youre-pregnant-an-algorithmic-guardian-could-stop-it-111815

The workplace challenge facing Australia (spoiler alert – it’s not technology)

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Kaine, Associate Professor UTS Centre for Business and Social Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

This is part of a major series called Advancing Australia, in which leading academics examine the key issues facing Australia in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election and beyond. Read the other pieces in the series here.

With all the hype around the future of work, you could be forgiven for thinking the biggest issue in the future of employment is the impending takeover of your job by a robot or an algorithm.

Talk about the workplace of the future has become fixated on technological displacement almost to the point of hysteria. There is little doubt that technological development will change the way we work, as it has in the past.

But for most Australians the reality will be much less dramatic. The biggest changes in the working lives of Australians over the past 20 years have arguably not been technological – few of us are sending our avatars to meetings or writing code.

Many of us are, however, lamenting the paradox of feeling overworked yet, at the same time, insecure in our employment. A significant proportion contend with record low wages growth. Others remain less than fully employed.

Some will say that the rate of insecure or non-permanent work has remained fairly constant over the past two decades. This belies the lived experience of workers. They have repeatedly been found to perceive their connections to the workplace and labour market as precarious and laden with personal risk.

Power has been shifting

The changes have often involved the fragmentation or fissuring of work through outsourcing, global supply chains, independent contracting, labour hire and digital labour platforms.

But there has been more to it than the tweaking of business practices. The relationship between business and the state has been subject to a fundamental realignment.

Since the industrial relations changes in the early 1990s, which moved the setting of wages and conditions away from centralised institutions towards the workplace, the locus of power in the labour market has undergone substantial recalibration.

Collective representation of workers has declined sharply. This is recognised as contributing to the wage stagnation being felt in Australia and other rich nations.

A 2018 article in The Economist acknowledged this, noting that while politicians were scrambling for scapegoats and solutions, addressing stagnant wages required “a better understanding of the relationship between pay, productivity and power”.

A crucial aspect of understanding this relationship is recognising the impact that business consolidation has had. It has not only changed the experience of work, but also altered the balance of power between businesses and workers and between some businesses and other businesses.

The ascendance of global monoliths − such as Walmart, Amazon, Apple and Uber (and the big retailers and e-tailers in Australia) – has resulted in organisations that wield enormous economic and cultural power. This has led not only to a reduction in worker power but also to the creation of a crushingly competitive environment for the businesses that have to contend with contract terms dictated by the corporate giants.

What has been the result of the combination of changing business models, reconfigured institutions and the onslaught of business consolidation?

We have seen hyper-competition based on low labour costs, management approaches that skirt worker protection laws, and weaker regulatory oversight.

It has manifested in almost weekly scandals regarding sham contracting, exploitation of workers and what appears to be an epidemic of underpayment in a roll call of some of Australia’s most “successful” companies, among them 7-Eleven, Caltex and Domino’s) .

We can shift it back

The policy prescription to remedy the scourge of work insecurity and exploitation is decidedly unsexy. It goes against the zeitgeist that seems to suggest that any change that disrupts an existing system, rule or institution should be hailed as “innovative” and be uncontested.

It requires some reflection and the rebirth of aspects of our industrial relations system that have been lost but have redeeming features.

Key among these old-fashioned remedies is the encouragement of workers and employers to organise and recentralise bargaining.

A stated aim of the federal Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 was “to facilitate and encourage the organisation of representative bodies of employers and of employees”.

Granted, back then the act was also about keeping industrial peace by preventing lockouts and strikes. This is no longer much of an issue in our era of record low industrial action. But, in the current context of fragmented work, it is unrealistic to expect individual employers and employees to engage in endless rounds of labour-intensive productivity bargaining, with little to show for it.

The economies of scale that were part of a centralised system were lost when workplace-based bargaining system took over. These could be regained, to the advantage of both employees and employers.

While that policy prescription looks similar to the original Conciliation and Arbitration system, the rationale behind it differs markedly.

No longer would it be simply about addressing the power dynamics between employers and employees. It would also be about addressing the inequitable power dynamics between mega-corporations and businesses subjected to their might.

A challenge for left and right

Arguments relating to the need for flexibility and regulatory reform, which were the basis of the 1990s decentralisation, were not without merit. Global competition was accelerating and there was a real concern that the Australian economy would not be able to keep pace. So greater agency was given to businesses so they could adjust and lift productivity.

But we are now living in very different times. Neither excessive industrial action nor the spectre of poor productivity looms. It is neither intellectually or politically honest to use these as a basis for opposing proposals to recentralising bargaining.

Also, we need to acknowledge that the biggest beneficiaries of the disaggregation introduced in the early 1990s were the biggest businesses.

A more centralised system could allow employers and employees to combine their power to counter competitive pressures from mega-corporations that want to reduce labour standards. They have facilitated toxic workplace practices, including intensive surveillance, unrealistic performance expectations, avoidance of entitlements and exploitation of workers further down supply chains.

Constructing an industrial relations framework that tackles the insecurity that is being experienced now and the further insecurity that may be wrought by technological change is potentially confronting for both sides of the ideological divide.

Elements on the left may be reluctant to acknowledge that not all businesses are the same, that some are being squashed by the structure of the market. Some on the right might not be prepared to concede that the bright idea of the 1990s – reducing union influence and worker voices – has succeeded so well as to create perverse and economically unhelpful outcomes.

Both sides need to lift their gaze above the workplace. They need to recognise that earlier reforms are no longer the right ones now, admit that individual business might not be the best level at which to manage the technological change, and acknowledge where the new power lies, then act accordingly.

– ref. The workplace challenge facing Australia (spoiler alert – it’s not technology) – http://theconversation.com/the-workplace-challenge-facing-australia-spoiler-alert-its-not-technology-111492

Agents of foreign influence: with China it’s a blurry line between corporate and state interests

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Garrick, Senior Lecturer, Business Law, Charles Darwin University

Former federal trade minister Andrew Robb says he has quit his A$880,000-a-year consultancy job with Chinese-owned Landbridge Group because it didn’t have anything for him do.

Former Victorian premier John Brumby says he has quit as a director of Chinese tech giant Huawei in Australia because he has too much else to do.

Former federal foreign minister and ex-NSW premier Bob Carr has quit his job as director of the Australia-China Relations Institute, an organisation bankrolled by a Chinese billionaire with a history of using donations to cosy up to politicians.

It might be just a coincidence that these decisions have come just days before new foreign influence transparency laws come into effect on March 1.

The new laws are supposed to make visible the “nature, level and extent of foreign influence on Australia’s government and political process”. There is more than enough evidence that greater transparency is needed. But the extent to which the new rules will achieve this is questionable.

Andrew Robb with Bob Carr at an Australia China Relations Institute seminar in 2015. Jeremy Piper/AAP

Money talks

Federal parliament passed the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act (FITS) in December. The Act obliges individuals to register if they act on behalf of “foreign principals” – be they governments, government-related entities, political organisations or government-related individuals.

Failing to apply for (or renew) registration, providing false and misleading information or destroying records may lead to a prison term of up to six years for individuals and fines of A$88,200 for companies.

Registrable activities include:

parliamentary and political lobbying on behalf of a foreign principal
communications activities for the purpose of political or government influence
employment or activities of former cabinet ministers.

An example of the latter is Andrew Robb.

In February 2016 Robb resigned as federal trade minister and announced he would not recontest his seat. He left parliament in July. Three months later he had his new job, getting paid way more than the prime minister as a consultant to the Landbridge Group.

It is always instructive to note the first jobs taken by politicians after they leave parliament. Those appointments generally reflect relationships already well-groomed.

Landbridge is a privately owned Chinese company, but like many Chinese companies has strong ties to the ruling Chinese Communist Party. Its substantial interests in petrochemicals and ports includes a 99-year lease over the Darwin port, which is considered of strategic importance in China’s diplomatic dance with the United States.

Qualitative differences

China isn’t the only foreign power interested in having influence in Australia, of course. Historical ties have meant that Britain once dictated Australia’s foreign policy. Since World War II the United States has had almost as much power.

Now China, Australia’s largest trading partner, taking about 30% of our exports, looms large. But the power exercised by the Chinese regime is qualitatively different.

For all its economic liberalisation since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, China remains a one party state, with repression worsening under Xi Jinping. On freedom of the the press, for example, China ranks 176 out of 180 countries.

Commercial, military and political influences are wrapped up together. Lines between state and private enterprises are blurred. When Chinese business interests curry favour with foreign politicians and officials, there’s a high chance that statecraft is also being advanced. “Soft power” is used extensively.

Sam Dastyari announces his resignation from federal parliament at a press conference on December 12, 2017. Ben Rushton/AAP

Agent of influence

This is what made the tawdry scandal involving former NSW senator Sam Dastyari so alarming.

Though a humble senator, Dastyari was a key Labor Party fundraiser and powerbroker. He later admitted that vanity and arrogance made him susceptible to the charm offensive of Huang Xiangmo – the billionaire who courted Bob Carr to head up the Australia-China Relations Institute.

Dastyari accepted financial gifts from Huang’s company, including a A$44,000 payment to settle a legal dispute, along with payments from other donors connected to the Chinese Communist Party.

Such payments made it obvious why he defied his own party’s policy and defended China’s militant stance in the South China Sea. He was subsequently labelled a Chinese “agent of influence”.

These revelations resulted in Dastyari resigning from parliament in 2017. Earlier this month it was revealed the federal government had rejected Huang’s bid to become an Australian citizen and stripped him of his permanent residency visa.

On the basis of these examples highlighted above, there’s a strong case for making influence peddling open and transparent.

Whether the new laws can achieve that is another matter. They may curtail flagrant scenarios where those leaving public office sell their wares to the highest bidder. But to work effectively, the laws and their enforcers will need to constantly adapt and evolve as agents look for creative ways to wield influence from the shadows.

– ref. Agents of foreign influence: with China it’s a blurry line between corporate and state interests – http://theconversation.com/agents-of-foreign-influence-with-china-its-a-blurry-line-between-corporate-and-state-interests-112403

Curious Kids: who was the first ancient mummy?

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Serena Love, Honorary Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

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.

Who was the first ancient mummy wrapped up? – Luke, age 5, Swansea.

The first mummy to be wrapped up comes from the Chinchorro culture of South America, in the area of southern Peru and northern Chile. The oldest of these mummies was a person who died in 5050 BC, over 7,000 years ago. These Chinchorro mummies are 2,000 years older than the mummies in ancient Egypt!

One of these Chinchorro mummies was preserved by nature, and was not wrapped up, and it is 9,000 years old (meaning it is from 7,020 BC).

Chinchorro means “gill netters”, which is their way of fishing with nets. The Chinchorro people lived by the sea, the Atacama Coast, along the Pacific Ocean. Most of what they ate was seafood (fish and shellfish), sea birds and sometimes sea lions. They also hunted animals for meat and collected some plants, too.

Pictures of these mummies may frighten some curious kids. Parents are advised to search and look at images online before showing them to children.

This map shows you where Chile is in relation to Australia. Google Maps

These mummies have remained the same until today because the place where the Chinchorro lived was very dry, even though they lived by the ocean. Much of this area is a desert and some areas have not had rain in over 400 years!

How are Chinchorro mummies made?

The Chinchorro had different ways of preserving (to keep safely so that it does not spoil) the dead bodies. They would start by removing all the organs inside the body, even the brain. The hair and skin would also be removed using stone tools, not metal knives. Some of the sharpest knives were made using a pelican’s beak.

Sometimes, the head, arms and legs would be removed and the body was put back together later. The body would be dried out using a mixture of hot coals from a fire, as well as ash. They would place sticks inside the body to keep the body stiff and fill the insides with straw and feathers. The face would be covered in clay and left out to dry for 30-40 days. Sometimes the bodies would be painted red or black.

How did the Chinchorro mummies die?

Some of these bodies had diseases and broken bones. Arthritis and bone decay are two common diseases. Some mummies have damage in their ears suggesting that some people may have been deaf. This damage likely came from diving in the ocean for shellfish. Many mummies have broken bones that have gotten better. These injuries are either from accidents at work or fighting inside the community.

Unlike in ancient Egypt where only the very rich people were made into mummies like this one, the Chinchorro people made mummies from people of different backgrounds. andersphoto/shutterstock, CC BY

All sorts of people were made into mummies – men, women and children, young and older people, too. Even some babies were mummified, which could be because they died during childbirth; these babies were some of the most decorated mummies.

After the mummy was finished, it was not buried. People would put them in their houses and other places where people lived, worked and played. Some people think the mummies brought good luck.

We are not exactly sure why the Chinchorro made these mummies but we think it is because they cared for their dead families and wanted to keep their physical body, and their memory, alive forever.

Read more: Curious Kids: Are zombies real?

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

CC BY-ND

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: who was the first ancient mummy? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-who-was-the-first-ancient-mummy-110436

How long before we break the two-hour barrier in the men’s marathon?

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon D Angus, Associate Professor, Monash University

What can you do with 99 seconds? Check your email? Fire off a tweet? Walk 100 metres?

For current men’s marathon world-record holder, Kenyan Eliud Kipchoge, 99 seconds is all that stands between him and the sub two-hour (or “sub-2”) marathon run.

Breaking the two-hour barrier in the men’s marathon could be the defining moment of Kipchoge’s illustrious career.

But how close is he? How hard is dropping 99 seconds, really?

To find out, in a study published today in Medicine and Science of Sports and Exercise, I crunched the data on all male and female marathon world record times since 1950.

The barrier broken

Kipchoge could break the sub-2 barrier tomorrow, but it is very very unlikely: there’s just a 2% chance of it ever happening, to be precise.

The more likely answer is that we will have to wait until May 2032 to see someone – most likely not Kipchoge – go sub-2 in an official event. By that time, the chance of someone going sub-2 increases to 10%.

But we may have to be even more patient: 2054 sees the probability of a sub-2 marathon rising to 25%.

The reason for the shifting date is that from the standpoint of statistics, there is a direct connection between the predicted date of arrival of the sub-2 moment, and its probability of happening.

The key insight of the approach comes down to the difference between what is likely to happen on average, and what is likely to happen in just one single realisation of the future.

The Bradman average

Take Australian cricketing legend Don Bradman’s phenomenal test batting average of 99.94 runs. This number represents the average over Bradman’s 80 innings (including ten not-outs).

But what we should remember is that, when using this average to predict the future, the average has some variation associated with it. So actually, we should probably quote the Don’s average as 99.94, within the range 71.0 to 128.8.

What these numbers mean is that if Bradman were to have played another ten test innings, then the average of those ten innings would lie, with 95% chance, within the range 71.0 to 128.8. (For the statistician in all of us, yes, that’s a confidence interval.)

Which is helpful. But what if the English skipper who faced Bradman, Norman Yardley, is playing one of those fictional next games. He cares more about what Bradman might score right now, at the crease, not over a series of ten such events.

At this point, Yardley needs what is called a “prediction interval”: the likely range of a single inning’s score (not the average over a number of innings).

Sorry Yardley. The answer is a tad demoralising: the prediction interval for Bradman’s test innings is from 0 to 343.5 runs!

In other words, with 95% likelihood, a single Bradman innings will fall anywhere in the interval 0 to 343.5 runs.

A marathon prediction

Back to the marathon, it is exactly this insight that helps us to make a more accurate point-prediction for when the sub-2 marathon will be run, leading to our May 2032 estimate (with 10% likelihood).

The table (above) shows how the men’s marathon times have been tumbling, especially in more recent years.

The neat thing about the modelling framework is that we can also calculate the likely fastest ever men’s marathon time, again at 10% likelihood. That comes in at 1:58:05 (1h 58m 5s), a prediction that turns out to be remarkably close (within seven seconds) to one made on entirely physiological grounds in 1991.

Importantly, we can also explore female marathon times in the same way.

For instance, in the analysis, the likely fastest ever women’s marathon time equates to 2:05:31 (2h 5m 31s), around ten minutes faster than the current world record, set in 2003, of Paula Radcliffe (UK).

The UK’s Paula Radcliffe at a half marathon in Portugal just months are she took the world record for the full marathon in 2003. EPA/Luis Forra

But what time target would be the equivalent for women of the men’s sub-2?

Knowing the limits of male performance, we can simply calculate the distance from the male limiting time (1:58:05) to the 2 hour time, a difference of 1 min, 55 secs.

We can then express this difference as a percentage of the male limiting time, giving 1.62%, add it to the female limiting time. This procedure gives us a time that is the same distance, in performance terms, from the female limiting time as the sub-2 barrier is from the men’s.

The result? 2:07:33 (2h 7m 33s) which doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

The sub-120 and the sub-130

For this reason, I suggest that a reasonable choice for an arbitrary focus for elite female performance could be 130 minutes (2h 10m 0s). Let’s call it the “sub 130 minute marathon”. (Remember, the sub-2 – or sub 120 minute – barrier is itself entirely arbitrary.)

Which leads us to another important observation.

Paula Radcliffe’s remarkable 2:15:25 (2h 15m 25s) world record was set one sunny day in London in April 2003 – and here we are, almost 16 years later, and the time still stands (see table, below).

For context, the male world record mark has been improved on seven times over the same period. So where are all the female world-record marathoners?

I don’t have a full answer to that question. But a fascinating study from 2014 of the characteristics of the best male and female marathoners in recent times gives us an important clue.

While for male marathoners, African runners better their best non-African counterparts to the tune of around 2.5%, for female marathoners, no difference presently exists between African runners and the best of the rest by continent.

It would seem to me that there is likely a group of world-record smashing African female marathoners living somewhere on the planet today, but nobody knows who they are. Yet.

– ref. How long before we break the two-hour barrier in the men’s marathon? – http://theconversation.com/how-long-before-we-break-the-two-hour-barrier-in-the-mens-marathon-112505

Regulating Facebook could hinder small businesses with overseas customers

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine A McDaniel, Senior Research Fellow, George Mason University

Digital platforms provide a host of challenges for governments. Questions about how to best protect privacy, democracy, and speech online become more pressing every year.

But policies that affect online platforms also affect international trade. Many Australian small businesses rely on digital platforms to stay on par with their international competitors.

As Australia starts tackling the challenges wrought by digital platforms, policymakers should be careful not to undo the good things that stem from an evermore connected world. That includes the critical role of these platforms in helping retailers sell their products to overseas customers.

Platforms facilitate exports

As my new research with colleague Danielle Parks shows, digital platforms appear to significantly reduce the economic distance and trade costs between buyers and sellers.

Take Facebook, for example. Facebook is both a social networking platform and digital market platform, where Facebook’s Marketplace helps business owners connect with potential customers.

The social networking interface allows buyers and sellers to message each other and exchange information about what the seller has, and what the buyer wants. Meanwhile, Marketplace features like identity verification and buyer ratings help to facilitate connections more quickly, and with more trust, than might otherwise be possible.

There isn’t a lot of large-scale data on cross-border e-commerce, so researchers must get creative to study digital platforms and trade. The findings are extraordinary.

One study found that 97% of US-based eBay sellers export product to overseas buyers. Another found the “economic effect of distance” to be 65% smaller on eBay. In other words, the digital platform reduces the challenges of selling to people in other countries.

Research conducted by PayPal showed that 79% of US small businesses on its platform sell to foreign markets. And PayPal merchants that exported, outperformed businesses in general. Interestingly, that finding held for coastal and non-coastal businesses, and for rural and urban businesses alike.

In our new study, we surveyed Australian businesses on Facebook. We found that those with a Facebook presence were 63% more likely to export their products internationally than other businesses. The propensity to export was higher across all business sectors and nearly all company sizes.

This emerging pattern shows how world markets are opening up to smaller businesses that might not otherwise be able to compete with their larger, multinational rivals. These findings can partly be attributed to export-prone firms being more likely than others to use digital platforms. But there is no question that the platforms can also enable trade.

Most governments recognise the need to dismantle barriers to foreign market access, and any new policies regarding digital platforms should not make it harder for small and medium sized businesses to engage in trade.

How regulation could hurt small businesses

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is currently conducting an inquiry into digital platforms at the request of the treasurer.

The ACCC’s preliminary report recognises how digital platforms have revolutionised the ways consumers and businesses communicate with one another. The report also highlights concerns over data privacy and the influence of bad actors producing and spreading misinformation.

The final report, expected in June, will make policy recommendations that aim to address these concerns. But these policies could also inadvertently threaten the revenue streams of businesses that advertise on these platforms or that use them to facilitate online sales.

Restrictions on the cross border flow of consumer information could interfere with everyday business practices. For example, a key advantage of e-commerce, especially for small businesses, is using search engine techniques to reach larger audiences, and target potential customers. So, search engine restrictions could limit the way businesses target customers with advertising, therefore limiting a business owner’s ability to reach customers abroad.

Other regulations could restrict business owners from storing the personal information of customers – such as credit card information, consumer preferences and purchase history. That would then limit businesses in how they interact with customers at home and abroad.

What’s happening at the moment

Australia is not alone in considering these tough issues. The landscape of digital data flows, data privacy, and e-commerce is a work in progress for governments across the globe.

The EU recently enacted data privacy regulation called the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is designed to:

[…] fundamentally reshape the way in which data is handled across every sector, from health care to banking and beyond.

Meanwhile, the United States Congress will likely consider new internet privacy legislation this year.

Provisions on digital data flows have been included in major recent international trade agreements. Both the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) bar data localisation requirements. That means foreign companies would only be allowed to work in a country if they built out or leased separate data infrastructures in that country – a costly endeavour, especially for smaller businesses.

On the other hand, USMCA and TPP do not allow participating countries to require that platforms disclose their source code or algorithms. These provisions do not necessarily preclude countries from adopting privacy protections, but they do make it easier for platforms like Facebook to operate without fear that they will be asked to handover important intellectual property.

As the government considers the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report, one thing should be clear: any policy changes should not overlook the role of these platforms in helping Australian small businesses sell goods to customers in the global marketplace.

– ref. Regulating Facebook could hinder small businesses with overseas customers – http://theconversation.com/regulating-facebook-could-hinder-small-businesses-with-overseas-customers-111822

Chemical restraint has no place in aged care, but poorly designed reforms can easily go wrong

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Juanita Westbury, Senior Lecturer in Dementia Care, University of Tasmania

Last month the aged care minister Ken Wyatt announced he would introduce regulations to address the use of “chemical restraint” in residential aged care – a practice where residents are given psychotropic drugs which affect their mental state in order to “control” their behaviour.

Psychotropic medications used as “chemical restraints” are antipsychotics, antidepressants, anti-epileptics and benzodiazepines (tranquilisers).

Wyatt followed this announcement this month with a A$4.2 million funding pledge to better monitor care in nursing homes through mandatory “quality indicators”, and including one covering medication management.

Of course, you would be hard pressed to find a staff member admitting to controlling a resident by giving them a tablet. Instead, most staff would stress that medication was given to calm or comfort them.

But our research shows psychotropic use is rife in Australia’s aged care system.

Reforms are desperately needed, but we need to develop the right approach and learn from countries that have tried to regulate this area – most notably the United States and Canada.

What’s the problem with antipsychotic drugs?

Antipsychotic drugs such as risperidone and quetiapine are often used to manage behavioural symptoms of dementia.

But large reviews conclude they don’t work very well. They decrease agitated behaviour in only one in five people with dementia. And there is no evidence they work for other symptoms such as calling out and wandering.

Due to their limited effect – and side effects, including death, stroke and pneumonia – guidelines stress that antipsychotics should only be given to people with dementia when there is severe agitation or aggression associated with a risk of harm, delusions, hallucinations, or pre-existing mental illness.

The guidelines also state antipsychotics should only be given when non-drug strategies such as personalised activities have failed, at the lowest effective dose, and for the shortest period required.

The high rates of antipsychotic use in Australian aged care homes indicates the guidelines aren’t being followed.

In our study of more than 12,000 residents across 150 homes, we found 22% were taking antipsychotics every day. More than one in ten were were charted for these drugs on an “as required” basis.

We also found large variations in use between nursing homes, ranging from 7% to 44% of residents. How can some homes operate with such low rates, whereas others have almost half their residents taking antipsychotic medications?

Regulations to reduce chemical restraint

Of all countries, the US has made the most effort to address high rates of antipsychotic use.

After reports in the 1980s highlighting poor nursing home care, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act which sets national minimum standards of care, guidelines to assist homes to follow the law, and surveyors to enforce it.

For residents with dementia and behavioural symptoms, the regulations require documentation of the behaviour, a trial of non-drug strategies such as activity programs, and dose reductions after six months.

Prescribing practices vary widely between institutions. From shutterstock.com

Homes that don’t meet these regulations are subject to a series of sanctions, ranging from financial penalties to closure.

The regulations were initially associated with substantial declines in antipsychotic use. By 1995 only 16% of residents were taking them.

But average rates of use rose to 26% by 2010. And in 2011, a Senate hearing found 83% of claims for antipsychotics in nursing homes were prescribed for unlicensed use.

This led advocates to conclude the regulations and surveyor guidance were ineffective.

Quality indicators to reduce chemical restraint

Another way to reduce antipsychotic use in aged care homes is by mandatory quality indicators, along with public reporting. The US introduced this in 2012. A similar system was instituted in Ontario, Canada, in 2015.

Measures are essential for quality improvement. But they can also lead to unintended consequences and cheating.

In the US, antipsychotic rates for people with dementia has allegedly reduced by 27% since the start of their quality indicator program.

But those diagnosed with schizophrenia were exempt from reporting. Then the percentage of residents listed as having schizophrenia doubled from 5% to nearly 10% of residents within the first few years of the initiative. So 20% of the reduction was probably due to intentional mis-diagnosis rather than an actual decrease in antipsychotic use.

A recent US study has also shown that the use of alternative sedating medications not subject to reporting, specifically anti-epileptic drugs, has risen substantially as antipsychotic use declined, indicating widespread substitution.

In Ontario, the use of trazadone, a sedating antidepressant, has also markedly increased since its antipsychotic reporting program began.

Reporting issues

In the US, nursing homes self-report indicators. A recent study compared nursing home data with actual prescribing claims, concluding that homes under-reported their antipsychotic prescribing, on average, by 1 percentage point.

Public reporting is often also time-consuming, with some researchers arguing that time spent managing quality indicators may be better spent providing care for residents.

Where to now?

Awareness of a problem is the first step to addressing it, and chemical restraint is a key issue coming to light in the aged care royal commission.

The proposed regulations and new quality indicator will allow homes and regulators to monitor the use of chemical restraint, but more importantly, should be used to assess the impact of training and other strategies to ensure appropriate use of psychotropic medications.

But to meet their full potential, these programs need to be carefully designed and evaluated to ensure that cheating, under-reporting and substitution does not occur like it did in North America.

– ref. Chemical restraint has no place in aged care, but poorly designed reforms can easily go wrong – http://theconversation.com/chemical-restraint-has-no-place-in-aged-care-but-poorly-designed-reforms-can-easily-go-wrong-112218

We can ‘rewild’ swathes of Australia by focusing on what makes it unique

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Oisín Sweeney, Senior Ecologist at the National Parks Association of NSW, Research Fellow, University of Sydney

Since colonisation, a dizzying array of Australia’s native species and ecosystems have been altered or removed altogether. It therefore seems natural to consider the idea of restoring what’s been lost – a process termed “rewilding”.

Now a global trend, rewilding projects aim to restore functional ecosystems. The rationale is that by reactivating the often complex relationships between species – such as apex predators and their prey, for example – these ecosystems once again become able to sustain themselves.

Rewilding has successfully captured the public interest, particularly overseas. Conservation group Rewilding Europe has a network of eight rewilding areas and a further 59 related projects, covering 6 million hectares in total.

The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park in the United States remains the most recognised example of rewilding. The wolves reduced elk numbers and changed their behaviour, which allowed vegetation to grow and stabilise stream banks.

It’s not hard to see why rewilding is popular, given that it sounds a note of hope and inspiration amid the seemingly endless stories of despair over ecological disaster.

But in Australia, we need to do rewilding differently. The particular challenges we face with issues such as introduced species mean that, like Vegemite, our rewilding future must have a unique flavour.

Australian values

Our recently published paper builds on findings from a rewilding forum held in Sydney in late 2016. Academics, government and non-government agencies met to discuss some of the outstanding issues around rewilding in Australia. Despite the large, diverse audience and wide-ranging views, the forum succeeded in identifying some key themes.

Peninsulas often good locations for rewilding in Australia because their geography allows the impacts of introduced predators to be minimised. Booderee National Park at Jervis Bay has reintroduced long-nosed potoroos, southern brown bandicoots and eastern quolls.

A much bigger Peninsula, Yorke, in South Australia, is the site of an ambitious project to reintroduce 20 species currently extinct in the area.

The widespread removal of dingoes has reduced natural control on introduced species such as foxes and cats. This in turn has allowed feral cats and red foxes to prey on small digging native mammals in the absence of a larger competitor. Meanwhile, declines in Tasmanian devils have been mirrored by declines in smaller predators like eastern quolls, and changes to cat behaviour, suggesting devils indirectly affect other species.

Many of these digging mammals have declined continent-wide and disappeared completely from other areas. This in turn has resulted in knock-on effects, such as altered fire regimes and changes to plant diversity.

It’s no surprise, then, that our workshop identified restoring predators and small mammals as priorities in Australia. Lots of work is already going on to restore small mammal populations, such as via Australian Wildlife Conservancy’s and Arid Recovery’s fenced exclosures, from which foxes and cats have been eliminated.

But exclosures are also contrary to the aims of rewilding, because they need ongoing maintenance and do not help the ecosystem inside to be self-sustaining. They can also exacerbate prey naïveté, whereby the native mammals fail to recognise and avoid introduced predators.

It may therefore be useful to view fences as a stepping stone to restoring small mammal populations to broader landscapes, helped by a variety of means including promoting co-evolution of native and introduced species, incentives to farmers, and the use of guardian animals.

Australia is different

Passive rewilding – the removal of human agriculture, resulting in the return of natural vegetation – has had positive impacts on biodiversity in Europe. It could have similarly positive impacts here, for example by increasing the density of tree hollows in previously logged forest and woodland. But a complete removal of management is unlikely to be effective because of, for example, the need to manage fire and the presence of introduced species like miner birds that exert influences on other species and even entire ecosystems.

In arid areas, simply removing agriculture is unlikely to halt the declines in biodiversity unless deliberate steps are taken to control pest plants and animals and to shift the ecosystem into a preferred state. In oceans, where rewilding is no less urgent due to declines in large predatory fish, passive rewilding may be more feasible, as marine protected areas can result in recovery of fish, provided certain key criteria are met.

Reintroducing large (bigger than 100kg) herbivores is part of rewilding efforts in Europe and Asia. Yet in Australia, all large herbivores are introduced and are generally perceived as having negative impacts.

“Natural” control of such species is not possible due to a lack of big native predators. Introducing “surrogates” of long-extinct predators (as are used elsewhere in rewilding) would have predictable results in terms of human acceptance (farmers wouldn’t like it), but uncertain impacts on ecosystems.

What about people?

People can benefit from rewilding – either directly, through wildlife tourism income or reduced kangaroo grazing on farmland, or indirectly such as via provision of services like flood control. So rewilding should not, as has been suggested elsewhere, necessarily separate humans from nature. Aboriginal owned and managed land offers huge opportunities in this regard because it covers 52% of the country and is home to many threatened species. In urban areas, rewilding will have to be a compromise between what is acceptable to humans and what benefits ecosystems most.

There is clearly an appetite among scientists and managers for bold interventions such as trial reintroductions of Tasmanian devils to mainland Australia to restore ancient food chains or allowing dingoes to return to areas where they occur at low densities and are functionally extinct. Rewilding’s focus on restoration of ecosystem processes can complement, but not replace, existing conservation approaches. For example, we still need to achieve a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve network on land and at sea.

Development of a rewilding vision and strategy would be a valuable first step towards maximising the potential of rewilding, tracking success, and persuading governments to fund it.

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Dr Andy Sharp, Natural Resources Northern and Yorke Manager Planning and Programs, to this article.

– ref. We can ‘rewild’ swathes of Australia by focusing on what makes it unique – http://theconversation.com/we-can-rewild-swathes-of-australia-by-focusing-on-what-makes-it-unique-111749

One in three principals are seriously stressed, here’s what we need to do about it

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marcus Horwood, PhD Candidate, Educational Psychology and Public Policy, Australian Catholic University

Principals (including principals, assistant principals and deputy principals) are nation builders. They play a vital role in shaping our society and significantly influence our children in ways academic and non-academic, well beyond graduation. They help mould our future leaders, the success of the economy, and us as a nation.

But according to our latest report from the 2018 Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Well-being Survey, many school leaders are at breaking point.

Principals’ health and well-being is diminishing from being overburdened with red tape, under-resourced, and mistreated. Fewer people are willing to step into the role. At a time when 70% of school leaders will reach retirement age in the next few years, we’re ignoring a looming national crisis.

These working conditions significantly affect not just principals, but also our students. For example, the extent of reported exhaustion of educators has been tied to students’ school grades. On the other hand, principals with greater autonomy and leadership support has lead to increases in school performance.

One in three school leaders are seriously distressed

In 2018, 2,365 participants completed the survey. There are around 10,000 principals in Australia. They have consistently reported average working hours too high for a healthy lifestyle. More than half work upwards of 56 hours each week.

It is worth noting that although principals may benefit from reporting inflated figures, the large number of new and returning principal participants each year, in addition to this survey being conducted yearly since 2011, supports the legitimacy of the consistent upward trend of concerning statistics.

Compared to the general population, principals report:

1.5 times higher job demands
1.6 times more burnout
1.7 times more stress
2.2 times more difficulty sleeping
1.3 times more depressive symptoms.

One in three principals were flagged as so distressed their physical and mental health were seriously at risk. The two largest sources of stress have consistently been the quantity of work, and lack of time to focus on teaching and learning.

Worrying trends reflect an unhealthy society

The steady increase of stress caused by handling the mental health issues of students and staff over the past eight years, in conjunction with increasing staff shortages, is a worrying trend.

More concerning is the level of offensive behaviour directed at principals. Almost one in two (45%) reported being threatened with violence in 2018, compared to 38% in 2011.

Principals are frequently threatened with violence. from www.shutterstock.com

One in three principals (37%) reported actual physical violence in 2018. That’s 9.3 times the national average, up from seven times higher in 2011.

These statistics are, of course, not confined to schools. All front-line services are reporting similar increases in offensive behaviour.

It’s long overdue to call time on this. We need to decide as a nation how to respond – individually and systemically. We’re all responsible for this incivility. What you’re prepared to walk past is what you’re prepared to accept.

How we compare globally

Although the situation for principals in Australia is dire, this appears to be on par with school leaders in New Zealand and Ireland, the two countries where this project has expanded. The similarities between the national cultures and education structures implies systematic and nationwide issues. These need long-term strategies.

This is not the first time a country has faced a similar educational crisis. Approximately 40 years ago, Finland revolutionised their struggling system by depoliticising education (placing educators rather than politicians in charge of education policy) – something Australia should seriously address. Finnish academics have attributed Finland’s success in international rankings to collaboration, creativity, trust in teachers and principals, professionalism and equity.

How can we better support our school leaders?

No single group of people is responsible for this crisis, nor can any one group of people effectively fix the system. But the solution is conceptually simple: either the job demands must decrease, or the resources needed to match the demands must increase. So, either administrative demands that interfere with teaching and learning need to decrease, or school budgets, salaries and autonomy need to increase (not just increased responsibilities labelled as increased autonomy).

We need a unified approach to education. We currently have eight individual state and territory governments with eight different education policies lasting as long as the state government is in power. Principals and teachers are unable to create long-term plans or set long-term budgets, and are continuously required to retrain and familiarise themselves with ever-increasing rules and regulations.

We need to implement one federal body to oversee education, similar to Finland, perhaps with a governance structure similar to the reserve bank: accountable to government but independent from it. We can no longer afford our methods of educating our children to be used as a political brand differentiation.

Labor’s shadow education minister, Tanya Plibersek, recently announced the party would establish a National Principal’s Academy to give support and training to principals if elected in May. This provides a glimmer of hope for a national overseeing body. But this announcement too is tied to a political party, and only time will tell whether the academy will be established, whether it’s effective, and whether it survives the next election.

We need to create policies and schools that give principals what they need to use their considerable expertise to flourish, so they can help our teachers and students flourish too.

– ref. One in three principals are seriously stressed, here’s what we need to do about it – http://theconversation.com/one-in-three-principals-are-seriously-stressed-heres-what-we-need-to-do-about-it-110774

Solving the ‘population problem’ through policy

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Allen, Demographer, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University

This is part of a major series called Advancing Australia, in which leading academics examine key issues facing Australia in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election and beyond. Read the other pieces in the series here.

Australia has a problem with population. It’s a problem with the potential to result in enormous chaos, risking the nation’s economic well-being. And this problem is moving like an overcrowded Sydney train, careering out of control towards inevitable carnage.

Much of this population problem is of our own making: past demographic successes and policy and funding complacency have created a ticking time bomb. Politicians have struggled to manage the population problem, but no longer have the luxury of looking away.

With the dial on public sentiment set to outrage, fuelling a population problem far removed from reality, it’s time for a reasoned consideration of the population policy needs of Australia.

An effective population policy would focus on quality of life, from the cradle to the grave. Numerous policy domains feature: education and training, health care, housing, employment, the environment, and many more.

The problem with population

Australians’ average life expectancy is among the longest in the world. Much of our longevity is thanks to medical technology and investments in childhood immunisations.

Access to birth control allows greater freedom to choose the number of children we have. Women have benefited from social change that has enabled a world outside the home and transformed traditional caring roles – although gender equality remains a work in progress.

We’ve invested in ourselves, and the investment has paid off.

But our successes have created a different demography. We’re living longer and not replacing ourselves through births. The result is a bigger bulge in the relative proportion of older people, an ageing population.

Population ageing in its own right isn’t a concern. The challenges it poses can be turned into opportunities.

Difficulties come from the balance of the population contributing income tax versus people no longer in the workforce. As government coffers get tighter, determining what should and can be funded is a challenge. For example, the education needs of young people will compete with the growing healthcare costs of older people.

If we stop immigration and let population ageing accelerate, who will pay for the increased healthcare costs? Dan HImbrechts/AAP

Immigration has featured as an important complement to natural increase (births minus deaths) as a way to offset the shortfall in the workforce resulting from population ageing, as well as enriching our multicultural nation.

Australia’s policy response to the challenge of an ageing population have been inadequate. In the absence of any coherent policy, the nation’s economy has come to rely on a quasi-population policy. Governments use an immigration ceiling as the lever over time to respond to workforce needs stemming from demographic pressures.

Immigration is the easiest of the demographic levers to pull. But focusing solely on immigration as an approach to population policy undermines the suite of issues that comprise the full population puzzle.

How Australia grows

Australia has grown at a higher rate than most OECD countries. Overall population size, age structure and density, and a country’s stage of economic development are factors that help explain this.

An obsession with the rate of growth has plagued public discourse and pressured decision-makers to bow to populist fears. An example is cutting immigration intake contrary to the evidence.

Latest data show Australia’s population grew by 1.6% in the 12 months to June 2018. This growth was comprised of 153,800 people from natural increase and 236,700 people from net overseas migration.

Population growth, and demography generally, is seen as an inevitable thing: destiny. Demography as destiny appears to have been the motivator for successive Australian governments to simply shut their eyes to the issues of population growth.

Where people live across Australia has become a major focus, particularly in the main destinations for immigrants: Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Concerns have been raised about inadequate infrastructure in our main cities.

Population policy solutions

A coherent whole-of-government population policy is a priority for Australia’s government.

Population policy is too often overlooked because, let’s face it, it’s hard. But solving the population problem is crucial to Australia moving forward without the presently inevitable train crash.

Population policy isn’t just about population growth, distribution and change. Education and employment, healthcare, transport, housing and the environment must feature in a joined-up approach to population policy.

Effective population policy would be to set a blueprint for the future of what we want and should be, then mapping milestones to ensure we’re tracking against the aims. This requires significant commitment and transformation in government and in public sentiment – no easy feat.

There is no need for an overall population target, or growth target. The current immigration intake ceiling is about right. If anything, immigration could be increased.

Policy must engage the people

The first steps toward a solution for Australia involves taking back the narrative of population, from problematising to problem-solving. We all have a role. The focus needs to be on advancing a fair Australia by creating opportunities out of the challenges of population ageing. That means investing in Australians (locals and migrants) to live quality lives.

Quality of life is one thing that unites all Australians, regardless of whether they’re pro-immigration or not. This is how all Australians can be appealed to in order to gain buy-in from the electorate. Commitment from politicians to avoid divisive practices could be harnessed through innovation narratives.

Public engagement with the process of making opportunities of population ageing challenges could be achieved through a program similar to the Challenge of Change campaign. Ideally, such an undertaking would not be partisan.

[embedded content] The Challenge of Change was an attempt to get Australians to engage with the 2015 Intergenerational Report, but partisan aspects of the campaign caused controversy.

In the medium term Australia needs to plan for growth, even if immigration were to be cut. Accommodating population growth is about planning, including adequate funding. Healthy, prosperous communities and cities across Australia require adequate investment in essential infrastructure.

Sending migrants to regional areas and imposing punitive measures if they try to leave is not the answer. Cities are the main receivers of migration because this is where most of the population lives, and thus where the opportunities exist.

Australia must have strong global cities. To this end transportation, housing, employment and education in the major cities should continue to be built upon. At the same time, promoting regional living for overseas migrants and locals is a worthwhile endeavour if essential infrastructure is adequate.

Population is ultimately a bunch of people with aspirations and dreams trying to find their way. We just need the leadership.

– ref. Solving the ‘population problem’ through policy – http://theconversation.com/solving-the-population-problem-through-policy-110970

New laws can shine light on foreign influence, but agents will remain in the shadows

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Garrick, Senior Lecturer, Business Law, Charles Darwin University

Former federal trade minister Andrew Robb says he has quit his A$880,000-a-year consultancy job with Chinese-owned Landbridge Group because it didn’t have anything for him do.

Former Victorian premier John Brumby says he has quit as a director of Chinese tech giant Huawei in Australia because he has too much else to do.

It might be just a coincidence that these decisions have come just days before new foreign influence transparency laws come into effect on March 1.

Andrew Robb with Bob Carr at an Australia China Relations Institute seminar in 2015. Jeremy Piper/AAP

Money talks

Registrable activities include:

parliamentary and political lobbying on behalf of a foreign principal
communications activities for the purpose of political or government influence
employment or activities of former cabinet ministers.

An example of the latter is Andrew Robb.

It is always instructive to note the first jobs taken by politicians after they leave parliament. Those appointments generally reflect relationships already well-groomed.

Qualitative differences

Now China, Australia’s largest trading partner, taking about 30% of our exports, looms large. But the power exercised by the Chinese regime is qualitatively different.

Sam Dastyari announces his resignation from federal parliament at a press conference on December 12, 2017. Ben Rushton/AAP

Agent of influence

This is what made the tawdry scandal involving former NSW senator Sam Dastyari so alarming.

Dastyari accepted financial gifts from Huang’s company, including a A$44,000 payment to settle a legal dispute, along with payments from other donors connected to the Chinese Communist Party.

Such payments made it obvious why he defied his own party’s policy and defended China’s militant stance in the South China Sea. He was subsequently labelled a Chinese “agent of influence”.

On the basis of these examples highlighted above, there’s a strong case for making influence peddling open and transparent.

– ref. New laws can shine light on foreign influence, but agents will remain in the shadows – http://theconversation.com/new-laws-can-shine-light-on-foreign-influence-but-agents-will-remain-in-the-shadows-112403

The Cursed Child is the latest in a line of Big Shows that date back to the Romans

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Flinders University

“This”, the Chicago Tribune critic reminds us on the billboard of seemingly every tram stop in Melbourne, “is why we go to the theatre”. Before killjoy wags respond – “to see a stage version of a film version of a book series popular 15 years ago?” – it is worth knowing the genealogy of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, the theatrical spectacular that has opened at Marriner’s Princess Theatre and could run until the next millennium.

That genealogy may not be noble, but it is old. It has little to do with wizards and spells per se, though these have made solid appearances over the centuries. It is not a genre or a stage style. Nor is it culturally-specific, since it can be found in the pasts of many nations. It exists as a phenomenon in its own right.

It is, of course, The Big Show, and before its stentorian rhetoric (“the most awarded production of the Broadway season”) and promises of visual superfluity (“the sets, the scene changes, the costume, actual magic”) rational thinking bends its knee, and die-hard Potter fans stow dissatisfaction with its narrative presumptions (“Harry as an adult?”).

Theatre has its reason that reason does not know. When it pulls out all its scenic, choreographic and performative stops, who can resist, even at up to $A175 a ticket?

The Australian company of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. Photo Matt Murphy

Ancient Rome and all that

The writer Apuleius described a scene from The Judgement of Paris, staged in the first century CE:

There was a hill of wood, similar to that famous mountain which the poet Homer called Ida. It was fashioned as a lofty structure, planted with foliage and live trees, from the highest peak of which a flowing stream ran from an artificial fountain. A few goats grazed upon the grass. Then… through a concealed pipe, there burst on high saffron mixed with wine which, falling in a perfumed rain upon the goats, changed their white hair to a fairer shade of yellow. And with the entire theatre sweetly scented, an opening in the ground swallowed up the wooden hill.

The ancient Romans did not invent The Big Show, but they brought it into purpose-built venues. The Theatre of Pompey (55 BCE), one of the first, had an auditorium 500 feet in diameter and seats for 18,000 people.

Productions used crane-like mechane, thunder boxes, rope systems, trapdoors, and complicated pegma, or flying machines. (One unfortunate actor came loose from his harness during an enactment of the Icarus myth, and hit the floor so close to Nero he splattered the Emperor’s clothes with blood).

Jan Goeree: A Reconstruction of the Theatre of Pompey (before 1704). Wikimedia Commons

Ancient Greek tragedy with its speechifying family dramas (The Oresteia) and worthy plays about the refugee crisis (The Trojan Woman) could not compete, and faded from the repertoire. The bitter struggle between The Small Show and The Big Show has been going on ever since.

Masque costume Wikimedia Commons

Over the last 2000 years, the latter has taken many and impressive forms. There were Medieval mystery plays, with their beautifully decorated maisons and whole towns given over to extravagant recreations of bible stories, and Jacobean Court masques, with intricate designs by the architect Inigo Jones; eye-popping, 18th-century perspective scenery, with families like the Bibiennas dedicated to painting extravagant Baroque trompe l’oeil; and the actor-managers of the 19th century who, as the theatre ticked into a new fascination with realism, cast children dressed as adults and placed them at the back of vast stages to heighten the audience’s sense of distance.

The 20th century saw more than its fair share of epic theatrical spectacle. One proponent was Austrian director Max Reinhart. His extravaganza, The Miracle, was presented in London in 1911 before a pole-axed audience of 30,000, with a multi-national cast of principals, and 1,800 extras. Glen Byam Shaw who played the part of a cripple miraculously cured described its monumentality:

I was brought in on a stretcher, supposedly completely paralysed, and laid out on the front of the main stage. The priest started chanting prayers, and this was taken up by the whole cast, number 250 people. It grew louder and louder. At a certain point I started to move my arms very slowly, and then to drag myself off the stretcher and crawl along the floor… I reached the steps leading to the niche where the Madonna was standing. I struggled up them… gave an agonised cry, and was restored to health… Then the whole crowd cheered, and the orchestra and choir burst out into a hymn of praise.

Big Show, Big Risk

Such productions are obviously costly. For most of their existence they have been possible only through imperial, Church or royal patronage. Patronage is still a factor – think of the millions governments pump into Olympic Games ceremonies today – but in the last 200 years commercial theatre has claimed The Big Show for its own. Ticket sales have replaced treasury gold, and market considerations have edged out political ones.

Print for a 1907 J.C. Williamson production of A Country Girl. Wikimedia Commons

In Australia, the entrepreneurial genius of J.C. Williamson fashioned a vast conveyor belt transferring theatrical product from Britain to Australia for the purposes of having fun and making money (or making money from having fun). The key, as with Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, was franchising.

In the 1880s, Williamson bought the license to perform Gilbert and Sullivan operettas in Australasia, and his fortune was made. But in theatre, as in cake baking, luck doesn’t last forever. By 1975, the Williamson empire was on its last legs, and it looked to be over for commercial theatre in Australia.

Instead, taxpayer subsided companies became the major purveyors of professional live performance, later joined by a sprouting of international arts festivals. The Big Show survived the transition, though in an art-ified way, absorbed into a different style of programming.

The Sydney Theatre Company’s production of Nicholas Nickleby in 1984 is sometimes considered to be the moment when state theatres, previously dedicated to classics, George Bernard Shaw, and the odd Australian play, took a Big Show turn.

Since then The Big Show has hovered uneasily between a rump commercial sector (Harry Miller, Michael Edgley, Gordon Frost etc.) and state company seasons, especially the STC and MTC, who have pockets long enough to compete in the major musicals market. Broad appeal productions have become increasingly important in an era of declining government subsidy, so commercial and non-commercial theatre have drifted closer in sensibility and offerings as a consequence.

Depending on your view this is a step towards accessibility or a rank betrayal of art. One thing is certain: Big Shows impose big strains on budgets, and when they tank, they leave holes in which Small Shows disappear.

And beyond the financial issues, lie aesthetic considerations. As this brief history suggests, The Big Show’s strength is meeting expectations, not subverting them, while its proclivities are the visual and spectacular, not the verbal and intellectual.

It has its place, but its dominance in the marketplace can be oppressive. Williamson’s empire ruled Australian theatre for nearly 100 years. It was not an especially impressive reign.

Harry Potter and The Cursed Child, however, is the brainchild of overseas producers and occupies a dedicated commercial theatre venue in the Princess (one of Williamson’s, built in 1886, with a retractable roof, currently unused, alas. It is unlikely to complete with small-scale interpretive dance productions on global warming, or outdoor revivals of Attic tragedy.

It will be amazing, and incredible, and have stage effects in it that people will talk about for years and years. Until the next Big Show, in fact.

And that will be the real magic.

– ref. The Cursed Child is the latest in a line of Big Shows that date back to the Romans – http://theconversation.com/the-cursed-child-is-the-latest-in-a-line-of-big-shows-that-date-back-to-the-romans-112394

After Pell, the Catholic Church must undergo genuine reform

By The Conversation -

February 27, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Singleton, Associate Professor of Sociology and Social Research, Deakin University

In January, I met up with an old family friend. He’s a lifelong Catholic who goes to Mass every week. He had no idea Cardinal George Pell’s trial was already done. Not as tech-savvy as some, he hadn’t caught up with the recent, open reporting from several international Catholic and other news agencies about Pell’s fate.

We talked about Pell’s poor public image, damaged by his demeanour at the Royal Commission, the seeming mean-heartedness of the Melbourne Response, his accompanying of Gerald Ridsdale into court.

Confronted with news about Pell’s guilt, my friend was shocked but had little sympathy for the cardinal. He then proceeded to tell me about the arrogance and aloofness of his local bishop. None of this, however, has led my friend to abandon his religious faith, despite enduring terrible revelations over more than two decades.

A lot will be written in the next while about what Pell’s conviction means, how Pope Francis will respond to this, and the wider crisis of sexual abuse. Already, a few steps have been taken to address the issue more systematically, the most recent of which is a meeting of senior clerics in the Vatican last week. Church critics and victims of sexual assault have already argued this is not enough.

What about Australian Catholics? How will Pell’s conviction affect them? We’re often told how disheartened and disillusioned the laity has become. That Cardinal Pell, as Vatican treasurer, is the most senior Catholic official to be found guilty may not affect ordinary Australian Catholics more than earlier scandals. But his seniority at the Vatican will place Pope Francis under more pressure than ever before. This is global news, and it’s being covered as such.

The damage has already been done. For decades now, instances of sexual abuse perpetrated by priests have been reported widely, and priests have been defrocked and prosecuted.

Thousands of Australian Catholics have stopped attending church in recent decades. Research conducted more than a decade ago suggests sexual abuse scandals and disagreement with the Church’s moral teachings play a part in their decision to leave.

Among those who continue to identify as Catholic, the majority remain only marginally committed to their denomination. This is especially so among the present generation of Catholic teens. The AGZ Survey, a recent national survey of Australians aged 13 to 18, found less than a fifth of Catholic teens attend Mass regularly. Even fewer (13%) think religious faith is important to their daily life.

Furthermore, Australian Catholic teens express views that are at odds with official church teaching. For instance, 86% agree “secondary schools should allow students to openly express any sexual or gender orientation” and 85% support marriage equality. It’s hard to envisage how Pell’s fall from grace could do anything but further entrench the disconnection between young Catholics and the Catholic hierarchy.

Others, typically older Catholics, like my friend, have stayed more engaged. Seeking to effect reform and change from within, the church owes them a debt of gratitude for staying true. It may be harder for the younger generations. A decade ago, I watched a group of committed Catholic teens conduct a role-playing exercise on how to reach out to nominal Catholics. One of the things they discussed at length was how to deal with tough questions about “paedo [paedophile] priests”. Witnessing them negotiate this challenge, something not of their making, was sobering.

So far, much of the Catholic hierarchy’s response to the sexual abuse crisis (including cover-ups) has been reactive, responding to secular processes such as royal commissions and criminal trials. The recent summit called by Pope Francis has been widely criticised for being long on talk and low on change. The Vatican has long turned inward and protected its own.

In the 1960s, the Catholic Church held a series of formal meetings, called Vatican II, that modernised one of the west’s oldest and most powerful institutions. This took place over three years and was characterised by acknowledgement that radical change from within was required.

It’s time for an equally searching investigation, one that produces genuine reform. It demands changes to Canon law, doctrine and practice, characterised by an accountability to and understanding of the world outside the church.

Ask rank-and-file Catholics what this would entail, especially young ones, and you hear about a desire for priests being allowed to marry, modern attitudes to contraception, the ordination of women and greater empowerment of the laity. Only then can the church and its people properly move forward.

– ref. After Pell, the Catholic Church must undergo genuine reform – http://theconversation.com/after-pell-the-catholic-church-must-undergo-genuine-reform-112511

We knew George Pell was guilty of child sex abuse. Why couldn’t we say it until now?

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Douglas, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Western Australia

Cardinal George Pell, Australia’s most-senior Catholic, one of the most powerful Catholics in the world and a man once praised by Tony Abbott as a “fine man”, molested two choirboys in the 1990s.

On 11 December 2018, a jury found Pell guilty of one charge of sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16, as well as four charges of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16. He did this when he was Archbishop of Melbourne. The incidents took place at St Patrick’s Cathedral.

The verdict and the proceedings that led to it were subject to blanket ban suppression orders, which prohibited any reporting on proceedings involving Pell. Today those orders were lifted.

But today’s story has been a long time coming.

In December, a number of Australia’s leading news organisations published headlines about the Pell verdict without mentioning him by name. They referred to “the nation’s biggest story” while carefully, yet begrudgingly, providing no details.

Less reputable corners of the internet were spilling the beans too. #Pell was trending on Twitter and on the front page of Reddit in Australia.

An Australian could easily find foreign news coverage of the matter on Google. So what’s the point of the suppression order at all?

The Pell trials

The verdict came after a trial, which was described as the “cathedral trial”, in Victoria’s County Court.

An earlier 2018 trial on the same charges as the cathedral trial resulted in a hung jury. The retrial began in November and the conviction followed in December.

Pell was also facing a separate jury trial – known as the “swimmers trial” – in respect to different events. That trial would have dealt with alleged child sexual offences at a swimming pool in Ballarat in the 1970s.

Last Friday, evidence prosecutors were relying on for the swimmers trial was deemed inadmissible. As a result, the swimmers trial will now not proceed.

The end of the swimmers trial means the suppression orders are no longer needed. But there is still information that hasn’t been made public.

We still don’t know the identity of a survivor of Pell’s crimes whose evidence was key to Pell’s conviction in the cathedral trial. Through his lawyer, that man has asked for privacy. He deserves it. Sadly, the other former choirboy died in 2014.

The tension between the survivor’s position, and the public’s interest in understanding the full horror of Pell’s crimes and hypocrisy, demonstrates how Australian law strikes a balance between open justice and other values.

Open justice and suppression orders

The principle of open justice is summed up by the idea that “justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done”. It is a fundamental principle of our legal system.

But it is not an absolute principle. Courts have various powers to depart from open justice by closing proceedings to the public, concealing information from those present in court, or by prohibiting or otherwise restricting publication of material.

A “suppression order” is a kind of court order that prevents people from reporting on court proceedings. In Pell’s case, the suppression orders were made under section 17 and section 18(1)(a) of Victoria’s Open Courts Act 2013.

The court decided it was “necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that [could not] be prevented by other reasonably available means”.

A misconception is that the suppression orders were sought to protect Pell’s reputation, or that of the Catholic Church. Although that may have been an indirect result of the suppression orders, that is not why they were made.

The orders were sought by the prosecutors to protect the integrity of the swimmers trial.

They were made under legislation from Victoria. Other parts of Australia deal with open justice differently. But courts in every state have principles that share the common value that the administration of justice may justify suppressing information in certain cases.

A fundamental democratic value is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Media reporting on Pell’s case may have resulted in “prejudicial publicity”, undermining the neutrality of the jury system, and so undermining the integrity of a conviction.

The concern was that reporting of the cathedral trial by the media would have had the effect of prejudicing the impartiality of the jury in the subsequent swimmers trial (were it to go ahead).

An unusual case?

In Victoria, blanket ban suppression orders are often made when an accused is facing multiple criminal trials. In this sense, the Pell suppression orders were not unusual. However, such orders appear to be less common in other Australian jurisdictions.

Today’s story for a long-time coming. STEFAN POSTLES/AAP

In a recent judgment of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Nationwide News Pty Limited v Qaumi, it was observed that a back-to-back trial is an “exceptional case”. Nevertheless, in rare circumstances, the continued suppression of information of a first trial might be justified to protect a second trial.

The outrage surrounding the Pell suppression orders should be understood against this backdrop. But there are still things to be concerned about.

The public should be told why this case was suppressed

Given the current misconceptions about the purpose of the suppression orders in the Pell trials, the public ought to be provided with a set of written reasons explaining why the court decided they were justified.

Courts have a duty to provide reasons for their decisions. This duty flows from the principle of open justice.

The public is more likely to have confidence in an open and transparent system of justice. The rule of law works best if society believes the law is being applied fairly.

The court’s written reasons for suppression in the Pell trials – if they exist – should be easily available to the public to aid their understanding of this case.

Suppression in the digital age

Journalists who ignored the court’s order now face serious consequences. They could be “found in contempt” for disobeying the court. It has been reported as many as 100 journalists are in the firing line.

A person found guilty of contempt could face imprisonment, or fines, or both. Recent experience suggests Australian courts are willing to flex their muscles over people who disobey suppression orders. For instance, in 2017, blogger Shane Dowling was sent to jail for refusing to remove identifying information about alleged affairs.

But Australian courts, like those of other places, do not have authority over the entire world. The court’s jurisdiction – its “authority to decide” – is limited by geography. In a practical sense, Australian courts don’t have authority over foreign journalists based overseas. Enforcement of an order against international media organisations without a presence in Australia would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Where an order can’t be backed up with a threat of physical force, you might call it futile. Such orders have been called “paper tigers”. To put it another way: a court should not bark unless it can bite.

The Pell trials illustrate how attempts by courts to control the dissemination of news in Australia may be rendered futile by foreign press, social media, and old-fashioned word of mouth.

As one journalist said:

The idea that one judge in a Melbourne court could really define what the world can read about a figure of such global significance I think is a real shock to the world.

However, it is rare for an Australian suppression order to be rendered futile by the global media market. Most cases where suppression orders are granted are only of interest to local media. Media organisations generally comply with these orders and the vast majority are effective.

In this case, although it was a pain in the neck for journalists, arguably, the suppression order achieved its purpose. The sanctity of Pell’s swimmers trial was protected. Every Australian should be entitled to a fair trial.

Going forward

The laws that suppressed Pell’s guilty verdict are under review. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews vowed to overhaul the state’s approach to suppression orders, implementing many recommendations of a recent review of the 2013 Open Courts Act.

Although other states don’t share Victoria’s act, it would be sensible for the whole of Australia to revisit the circumstances in which courts prohibit access to information and hold individuals in contempt. Courts should be open as much as possible.

Political philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, once wrote that “publicity is the very soul of justice”. The message echoes in 2019 with the slogan, “Democracy Dies in the Darkness”. Now that Pell’s guilt is out in the open, we can finally see that justice has been done.

– ref. We knew George Pell was guilty of child sex abuse. Why couldn’t we say it until now? – http://theconversation.com/we-knew-george-pell-was-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse-why-couldnt-we-say-it-until-now-112521

Explainer: what is a home care package and who is eligible?

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tracy Comans, NHMRC Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Fellow, The University of Queensland

During the first round of hearings in the aged care royal commission, we heard many Australians would prefer to receive help at home than move into an aged care facility.

This will not solve all the problems in the aged care system, but it can be possible for eligible older Australians to stay living at home rather than enter an aged care facility via the provision of a “home care package”. The Coalition government has announced funding for 40,000 new home care packages over the last year.

The term “home care package” refers to a fixed amount of money allocated by the federal government to an older person to provide services which will enable them to continue to live independently. The amount of money provided depends on the person’s needs, as assessed by an independent assessment agency.

The person does not receive the cash in hand. Rather, they are allocated a code which they take to an approved service provider who they work with to decide how the money is going to be spent.

There are a fixed number of home care packages available. This means a person may be assessed as needing a package but must wait in a national queue, managed by My Aged Care, until a package is allocated to them.

As of June 30 2018, 91,847 people had a home care package managed by one of almost 900 providers. Close to 70,000 people remain on the waiting list.

What support is available?

Most people start using aged care services when they need just one or two services. These might include cleaning, help with showering, or basic home maintenance such as changing light bulbs and installing a raised toilet seat. Services could also include help with shopping and meal preparation, and some allied health services such as physiotherapy.

This entry level of support is provided through the Commonwealth Home Support Programme (CHSP), which 783,043 people accessed last financial year.

Older people may benefit from the assistance of a family member or friend when registering for their home care package. From shutterstock.com

When a person’s needs change and they require more than one or two services, need additional help coordinating the care they receive, or have more complex needs, they may be eligible for a home care package.

There are four package levels that reflect the spectrum of care needs. A level 1 package is for those with the lowest care needs, and level 4 the highest.

How can someone access these services?

Access to all home support services or home care packages is through My Aged Care, the government portal. A person might be referred through a hospital or their GP. They can also contact My Aged Care directly, or have a family member or other trusted person do so on their behalf.

Registration can be done online or by phone. This can be challenging if people don’t have access to the internet at home or are not digitally literate. And for people with cognitive or physical conditions that limit their ability to communicate, the system can be difficult to navigate.

It’s important that a person who needs help nominates a trusted person who can manage the process; ideally a close family member or friend. They will assist with the assessment process, choosing a quality provider and selecting services that are best suited to their loved one’s needs.

The complexity of navigating the current system means agents or brokers have entered the market. Some recruit older people by door knocking or dropping leaflets, offering to act on their behalf. These people may charge large commissions for their work.

It’s important to be on the lookout for what sound like good deals such as “free packages” with no contribution from the consumer. These are often inferior products that deliver very little in actual support for the person.

The provisions of a home care package might include installing equipment, such as hand rails, in the person’s home. From shutterstock.com

Who is eligible?

A CHSP assessment will be conducted by a regional assessment team. If you are assessed as needing higher care, an Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) will then assess your eligibility for home care packages and residential care. The assessors are usually nursing or allied health professionals who are trained to assess care needs according to the government guidelines.

They will do a comprehensive assessment of the person’s cognition and physical capacity to manage at home. This will allow the assessor to understand the person’s needs and recommend what type of services would be best suited to support them, such as physiotherapy or personal care.

They will also take into account personal preferences and informal care levels, such as care by family members, friends or even neighbours who help with shopping, cleaning and other tasks.

Someone with a lower functional level and greater needs may receive less funding support than someone functioning at a higher level due to differences in the care available to them.

After an aged care package has been approved, they will be placed in the queue for their approved package level. Once a place is available, the person can nominate a provider to co-ordinate their care.

Care needs will be negotiated with the provider and a plan will be developed. The provider may deliver some or all of the care needs or broker other providers if they don’t have those services, or if the person wants a different provider. They may have a local podiatrist they already use, for example, and want to keep seeing that person to receive care under their package.

What is each package worth?

Packages range from A$8,250 a year for a level 1 package to A$50,250 for a level 4 package, as seen in the table below.

Anyone receiving a package is expected to provide a co-contribution that is fixed at 17.5% of the single aged pension (currently A$10.43 a day or A$3,807 a year). This can be waived for hardship.

Beware admin and exit fees

Managing a package requires administration and case co-ordination. But administration fees are currently not transparent. Providers have been able to charge what they feel is appropriate, which has made it very difficult for consumers to compare different fees.

The government is instituting new rules from July 1 2019 to increase transparency and accountability.

A person can change provider at any time. But providers are able to charge exit fees (although not all do) so it’s important to understand the fees and charges – and what you’re agreeing to – before signing any contracts.

As of September 30 2018, the average maximum exit amount was A$232 and 42% percent of providers stated they would not deduct any exit fee.

You’re on the list, now what?

Waiting times have become a key issue with some people waiting lengthy periods for a package to become available. The royal commission heard current waiting times are be between 18 and 24 months.

While waiting for a home care package, a person can receive entry level support through the Commonwealth Home Support Programme, or may have the option to take up a lower level interim package if one is available.

Two criteria determine how long someone will have to wait: length of time in the queue and urgency of need. A person is assessed as high priority if they would be at high risk of absolute crisis without support. So those with the highest needs should receive a package sooner.

– ref. Explainer: what is a home care package and who is eligible? – http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-home-care-package-and-who-is-eligible-112405

Why your face looks the way it does

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sebastian Dworkin, Group Leader, Developmental Genetics Lab, La Trobe University

Is your face long? Wide? Big nose? Small ears? High forehead?

It’s our faces that characterise how the world sees us, and how we recognise our close friends and family. If you’re lucky enough to be born with a highly symmetrical or a very unique face, perhaps you might have a career as a model or actor.

But how do our faces come about – and what happens when things go awry? We need to look way back to the early stages of life to find out.

From a fertilised cell

Like humans, most creatures throughout the animal kingdom have an instantly recognisable face. Such distinctive features as the trunk of an elephant, the long jaws and abundant sharp teeth of a crocodile, varied shapes and sizes of bird beaks and the unique bill of the platypus are all distinct and recognisable.

Our faces arise during the earliest stages of life. And quite incredibly, the processes that give rise to all these distinctive faces – animal and human – are exceptionally well conserved (that is, haven’t changed much over the course of evolutionary history). Amongst humans and other creatures with backbones (together known as vertebrates), the genes and biological processes that make a face are really very similar.

All animals and humans start out as a fertilised cell. Through thousands of cell divisions, the tissues that will eventually make up the skull, jaws, skin, nerve cells, muscles and blood vessels form and come together to create our face. These are the craniofacial tissues.

The face is among the earliest recognisable features that form in an embryo, with the future eye, nose, ear and tissues that will eventually form the upper and lower jaws all established by about 7-8 weeks in human gestation.

Fusion of two sides

By the sixth week of human development, the major fusion processes of the face have taken place – the two sides of the developing nose will join, both to each other and to the tissue that will become the upper lip. This first fusion (the formation of the “primary palate”) establishes the correct anatomy of the face, and serves as a structural guide for the next major fusion event – that of the secondary, or hard palate.

The formation of the face – tissues that comprise the future nose and upper lip (red), the sides of the nose (blue) and the upper and lower jaws (green) arise by the 4th week of development (A) and have migrated and fused to form a distinctive ‘face’ by the 8th week of development (D). New insights into craniofacial morphogenesis, CC BY

The hard palate originates as two separate “shelves”, one from the left side of the embryo and one from the right. These shelves elevate and grow together to form one continuous structure, ultimately separating the cavities of the nose and sinuses from that of the mouth. (You can feel this hard palate with your tongue – it’s the roof of your mouth.)

Once these fusion processes are complete (by about week 9 of gestation, still well inside the first trimester), the cells of the face still continue to dynamically move, reshape, and take on functional roles. This includes forming the structural framework of the bones, the delivery of oxygen and nutrients by the blood vessels, and controlling eye and jaw movements by the facial muscles.

Sometimes things go astray

Of course, given the incredible complexity and synchronicity required for all these cells and tissues to end up in the correct space, it is perhaps very surprising that things do not go wrong in craniofacial development more often than they do.

Across the world, 4-8% of all babies are born each year with defects affecting one or more organs. Of these children, 75% show some anomaly of the head or face.

Problems can occur with any cell types that make up the skull, face, blood vessels, muscles, jaws and teeth.

But one of the most common craniofacial defects are palatal clefts, where the hard palate does not fuse correctly, leaving children (roughly 1 in 700 worldwide) with a large gap between their nasal passages and mouth.

A not-for-profit group in Zimbabwe provides funding for surgeries to repair cleft palate. Aaron Ufumeli/AAP

Although relatively easily corrected by trained reconstructive surgeons in first-world health care systems, significant ongoing healthcare is still essential.

Services such as speech pathology and psychological counselling are often required. The children also may need medical attention to improve hearing, as problems with middle ear bones often come with other craniofacial defects.

Later surgeries to correct muscular defects do not come cheaply – assuming of course that such surgical and allied health is available to the individual in the first place. This is frequently not the case outside the first world.

Understanding why problems occur

To reduce both the severity and incidence of craniofacial defects, researchers use animal model systems – particularly mouse, chicken, frog and zebrafish embryos – to try and uncover the reasons why these defects occur.

Of all craniofacial defects, 25% are attributed (at least partially) to environmental factors such as smoking, heavy alcohol or drug use, toxic metals and maternal infection (such as salmonella or rubella) during pregnancy.

About 75% of all craniofacial defects are linked to genetic factors. As most of the genes that control craniofacial development in animals also do so in humans, using these animal models helps us better understand human palate development and how specific genes are involved.

Eventually this work may lead to new prevention and treatment strategies, for example supplementing the mother’s diet with beneficial nutrients and vitamins.

An example of such an intervention is the B-vitamin folate, used to reduce neural tube defects such as spina bifida. Mandatory folic acid fortification of food in the USA in 1999-2000 resulted in a 25-30% reduction in severe neural tube defects, clearly an exceptional outcome for newborns and their families.

Through greater understanding of the genetic processes that drive facial growth, further beneficial factors will be identified that can be safely given to pregnant mothers, and give a far better start to life to children that may otherwise be born with a craniofacial disorder.

– ref. Why your face looks the way it does – http://theconversation.com/why-your-face-looks-the-way-it-does-111603

Kids need to learn about cybersecurity, but teachers only have so much time in the day

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Orlando, Researcher: Technology and Learning, Western Sydney University

Last week, the personal informational of thousands of clients of a large ASX listed company was inadvertently leaked to the dark web. A few days later, our very own parliament house computer system was hacked.

Among this increasingly hostile data environment came the announcement of a new cybersecurity program that aims to raise high school students’ awareness of online personal data risks and how to manage them. Footing the A$1.35 million bill for the project is the four big banks, AustCyber, British Telecom and the Australian Government Department of Education and Training.

While we do need more education on cyber security, the school curriculum is already overflowing, and teachers are expected to take on this program voluntarily. It seems schools are routinely being expected to manage more societal issues – road safety, teeth brushing, and how to have sex safely. We need to carefully consider whether we can ask teachers to take this on too.

Understanding data

The way we use the internet has changed a lot in recent years. Entering our personal data online to join a dating website, sign up for newsletters, social media accounts, or sell used furniture has become the norm.

The data generated as a result is astonishing, and expected to double every two years. This presents as an increasingly tempting financial gain for hackers who can make money off people’s personal data. It has led to many data breaches already and there will be many more.

Understanding why companies want our data, what they do with it, and the implications for us is new basic knowledge everyone needs.

Pros

The new cybersecurity program in high schools is a step in the right direction in ensuring young people know more about the dangers posed to them by the internet. As part of the program, students will take part in four challenges focusing on online personal safety, cryptography (data representation, and secure online communication), networking and SQL injections (web application security and hacking techniques).

[embedded content]

Importantly, this shifts cybersafety education beyond privacy and prevention of unwanted behaviour (such as cyberbullying), to include new risks facing today’s youth such as fake emails and text messages that look real but aim to steal personal and financial information from you.

Cons

On the downside, this program places even more pressure on the already overstretched resources of schools and teachers. The program is designed to be opt-in. It’s hoped schools will incorporate the challenges into their classes, and use them to deliver parts of the Digital Technologies curriculum, or weave them into other subjects.

But the current school curriculum is already overcrowded and there’s no guarantee this program will become part of mainstream curriculum. When schools have high numbers of imperatives such as NAPLAN and the Higher School Certificate (HSC), this program is likely to remain a lunchtime extra-curricula club. This impacts the time that can be given to teaching the program and also the learning students will take from it.

And teachers are not cybersecurity experts, nor should we expect them to be. This content is not part of university teacher training. In order to teach the program, teachers would likely need to attend multiple professional learning seminars on their own time, and unpaid.

Teachers are not taught about cybersecurity in teacher education courses, so we shouldn’t expect them to be cyber experts. from www.shutterstock.com

Unfortunately, this is a recurrent scenario for teachers. A common strategy for solving new social issues is to offload it to schools for teachers to deal with.

Improving and changing current information-security behaviours requires more than providing teachers with information to teach. Teachers must be able to understand and apply the advice, and they must be motivated and willing to do so.

If we’re really serious about cybersecurity education in schools, it needs to become part of the school curriculum, and teachers need to be supported in a meaningful way to teach it.

Parents need to pitch in too

Cybersecurity is something new for most of us, so parents also have some learning to do, to make sure their kids learn as much as possible. Enabling parents to become familiar with the information themselves supports them to be more able to guide their children in informed ways.

Parents need to stay ahead of potential risks so they know how to safely manage their kids’ online data. Errors in putting in too much information or including highly personal information to untrustworthy sources can affect a child over the course of their lifetime.

If parents are unsure of a source it’s best to err on the side of caution and not enter any personal information. Parents can learn more from trusted sources such as the Australian Cyber Security Centre.

– ref. Kids need to learn about cybersecurity, but teachers only have so much time in the day – http://theconversation.com/kids-need-to-learn-about-cybersecurity-but-teachers-only-have-so-much-time-in-the-day-112136

How to Rule the World is a biting and urgent satire of Australian politics – that feels all too real

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leigh Boucher, Senior Lecturer – Modern History, Macquarie University

Review: How to Rule the World, Sydney Theatre Company

How to Rule the World is Indigenous playwright Nakkiah Lui’s critical riposte to the intellectual poverty of political life in Australia. A biting and urgent satire of the politics of fear around race, it had the audience guffawing and cringing with recognition in equal measure.

Set in the corridors of Canberra, Lui’s story is particularly disturbing because it illustrates how ripe our political class are for satirical representation. The most unnerving element of this political farce is that the gap between the story it tells and the headlines of recent years is not very large. Even the set design ingeniously evokes the pale modernism of Parliament House with unsettling effect.

As one of the characters later remarks in the play, this story begins when “an Aboriginal, an Asian, and an Islander” walk into a bar in Canberra. But this is not the premise for a racist joke (though the play is a set of jokes about race). The booze and cocaine filled meeting between three bright young political things produces a plan to work a system that has systematically excluded their voices.

Vic (Nakkiah Lui), Zaza (Michelle Lim Davidson) and Chris (Anthony Taufa) are political insiders who are frustrated by their repeated exclusion from power. They are equally disturbed by a policy proposal from the Prime Minister (a scene-stealing Rhys Muldoon) that promises to shore up Australian borders while essentially imposing cultural uniformity.

Nakkiah Lui, Hamish Michael, Anthony Taufa, Vanessa Downing and Michelle Lim Davidson in How to Rule the World. Prudence Upton

They hatch a plan to get a dopey white man, Tommy (Hamish Michael), elected to the Senate to block the PM’s policy, and the hilarity begins – with an important detour via the preference whisperer to game the system and ensure their candidate’s success.

Vic, Zaza and Chris find themselves confronted with a series of dilemmas about how far they are willing to go to pursue their goal. And by the time the interval rolls around, the characters and audience alike are shocked by how quickly these outsiders have started playing the tricks of political insiders.

Rhys Muldoon is scene-stealing as the Australian Prime Minister. Prudence Upton

What causes and people are they willing to sacrifice in order to achieve their ends? Indeed, the unity of these characters soon starts to fray under the pressure of political life.

Their different experiences begin to fracture complacent assumptions of “woke” solidarity. After all, what does a queer Tongan man actually have in common with a wealthy Korean woman?

How to Rule the World asks challenging questions about the cost of tarrying with the levers of political power. No one comes out of this play uncompromised, and the most biting critiques are saved for characters who seek to change the world in the name of left-wing political virtue.

Lui clearly wonders how, or perhaps if, underrepresented voices can play our political game without falling prey to its horrifying forms of political calculus.

This play has clearly emerged from a generation steeped in the politics of intersectionality, but with a suspicion about its effects. If political ideas can be mapped onto generations, this is a work shaped by and written about ideas that represent the bread and butter for an emerging political cohort.

At its best, intersectional thinking offers a way to think through how different identity categories intersect to produce incomparable experiences of oppression and privilege. It keeps us alive to the dangers of assuming that the solution to the wicked problem of inequality is some kind of naïve humanism or, even worse, an assertion of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” individualism.

When Vic, Zaza and Chris hilariously tear apart the ideas of a young white man claiming reverse racism in the early scenes of the play, we see the power of this political thinking in front of our eyes.

At its worst, however, intersectional thinking slides into an account of oppression and marginalisation that suggests they can be measured on some kind of gauge. It becomes an imaginary scorecard on which the amount of oppression points awarded determines the political and cultural restitution required.

Nakkiah Lui is an important voice in Australian theatre. Prudence Upton

Lui is acutely aware of how easily this can be weaponised as a form of political calculus concerning who should bear the cost of a desired political outcome. This way of thinking means Vic, Zaza and Chris soon start meting out rather horrifying consequences to those who are “less” oppressed. Lui clearly has searching questions to ask about the moralising certainties that intersectional thinking can encourage.

Lui is an important voice in the Australian cultural landscape, and this is her fourth new piece at the Sydney Theatre Company in three years. These are exactly the voices that a company like this should be both nourishing and showcasing – for she is telling uncomfortable stories that refuse easy political containment.

While there were a few clunks and kinks in the storytelling after interval, this is, perhaps, the product of a set of questions that require some blunt responses. The monologues that argued for treaty might not have been the smoothest moment of storytelling I’ve seen on stage, but they had the audience on the edge of their seats.

How to Rule the World is playing at the Sydney Opera House until March 30.

– ref. How to Rule the World is a biting and urgent satire of Australian politics – that feels all too real – http://theconversation.com/how-to-rule-the-world-is-a-biting-and-urgent-satire-of-australian-politics-that-feels-all-too-real-112409

Poll wrap: Newspoll steady at 53-47 despite boats, and Abbott and Dutton trailing in their seats

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

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

This week’s Newspoll, conducted February 21-24 from a sample of 1,590, gave Labor a 53-47 lead, unchanged on last fortnight. Primary votes were also unchanged, with Labor on 39%, the Coalition 37%, the Greens 9% and One Nation 5%.

This Newspoll contradicts last week’s Ipsos, which had the gap closing to just 51-49. The better news for the Coalition is that this is the third Newspoll in a row with Labor’s lead at 53-47; the last three Newspolls of 2018 all had a 55-45 Labor lead.

The Ipsos poll last week will be regarded as an outlier, but another explanation is that the Coalition undid its effective boats campaign with revelations of scandals regarding Helloworld.

I wrote last Friday that the September 11 terrorist attacks had far more impact on the 2001 election than the Tampa incident, implying that the new boats campaign is unlikely to damage Labor.

In the latest Newspoll, 42% were satisfied with Scott Morrison’s performance (down one), and 48% were dissatisfied (up three), for a net approval of -6. Bill Shorten’s net approval fell three points to -18, his worst since September. Morrison’s better PM lead was unchanged at 44-35.

The electorate was more polarised on best leader to handle issue questions, and this assisted Morrison. Morrison led Shorten by 52-34 on the economy (48-33 last fortnight). He led by 50-28 on national security (47-27 in October). He led by 51-31 on asylum seekers (47-29 in October).

Newspoll used to ask for party best able to handle issues, rather than leader, but have not done so for a long time. I believe Labor would be more competitive on these issues than Shorten, as Morrison’s incumbency advantage would have less impact on such a question. The issues asked about are also strong for the Coalition. Shorten would do better on the environment, health and education.

I wrote last fortnight that the Coalition’s better polling this year is probably due to a greater distance from the events of last August and the relative popularity of Morrison. While Morrison’s ratings slipped this week, his net approval is still in the negative single digits rather than double digits. The difficulty for Morrison is that his party’s policies are generally disliked.

In economic data news, the ABS reported on February 20 that wages grew 0.5% in the December quarter. Inflation in that quarter was also 0.5%, so there was no real wage growth. In the full year 2018, wages grew 2.3% and inflation 1.8%, so real wages improved 0.5%. I believe the continued slow wage growth will be of crucial importance at the election, and is likely to assist Labor.

In better economic news for the government, the ABS reported on February 21 that more than 39,000 jobs were added in January, with the unemployment rate steady at 5.0%. While other data has suggested a weakening economy, the jobs figures remain strong. Economists say the jobs figures are a lagging indicator of economic performance.

Essential: 52-48 to Labor

This week’s Essential poll, conducted February 20-25 from a sample of 1,085, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, a three-point gain for the Coalition since last fortnight. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up four), 37% Labor (down one), 9% Greens (down one) and 6% One Nation (down one).

Labor’s two party vote in the four Essential polls this year has been 53-52-55-52, strongly implying that last fortnight’s 55-45 poll was an outlier. Since Morrison became PM, Essential has tended to be worse for Labor than Newspoll.

On the medevac bill, 38% thought is struck a balance between strong borders and humane treatment of asylum seekers, 30% thought it would weaken Australia’s borders, and 15% thought it did not go far enough towards humane treatment. 27% said this bill would have a strong influence on their vote, including 57% of those who said it would weaken our borders.

On tax policy, 53% supported closing tax concessions and loopholes, and inserting the money into schools, hospitals, etc, while 27% supported cutting corporate taxes and maintaining concessions for investors and retirees.

By double digit margins, Labor was regarded as having the better tax policy for first-time home buyers, pensioners and workers earning under $150,000 per year. By even wider margins, the Coalition was regarded as having better tax policies for those earning over $150,000 per year, self-funded retirees and property investors.

Seat polls of Dickson, Warringah and Flinders

The Guardian has reported GetUp ReachTEL seat polls of the NSW seat of Warringah and the Queensland seat of Dickson, both conducted February 21. In Warringah, Tony Abbott trailed independent Zali Steggall 57-43, a three-point gain for Steggall since last fortnight. In Dickson, incumbent Peter Dutton trailed Labor’s Ali France 52-48. After a redistribution, Dutton holds Dickson by a 52.0-48.0 margin.

In the Victorian seat of Flinders, a GetUp ReachTEL poll, conducted February 13 from a sample of 622, gave Labor a 52-48 lead over incumbent Liberal Greg Hunt, a one-point gain for Labor since a January ReachTEL. Primary votes were 40.7% Hunt, 31.1% Labor, 17.0% for independent Julia Banks and 5.8% Greens. A Banks vs Hunt two candidate result was also provided, with Banks leading 56-44, but on primary votes Labor is a clear second.

As analyst Kevin Bonham has written, seat polls are often reported without important details like primary votes, fieldwork dates or sample size. It would be good if the commissioning source released full details of all seat polls. Seat polls have been very unreliable at previous elections.

– ref. Poll wrap: Newspoll steady at 53-47 despite boats, and Abbott and Dutton trailing in their seats – http://theconversation.com/poll-wrap-newspoll-steady-at-53-47-despite-boats-and-abbott-and-dutton-trailing-in-their-seats-112396

Keith Rankin’s Chart Analysis – Improving New Zealand’s Immigration Statistics

By Keith Rankin -

February 26, 2019

Keith Rankin, 26 February 2019

More people leaving. Chart by Keith Rankin.

Until late 2018, New Zealand’s immigration statistics have been woefully inadequate. While it has always been possible to keep taps on the total number of people in the country – through births, deaths, and net international passenger movements – ‘official’ net immigration numbers have long been calculated by stated intentions (as on arrival and departure cards) rather than by actual outcomes.

For statistical purposes, immigrants are people who arrive in New Zealand, and stay for at least 12 months without leaving the country.

For recent history, actual outcomes have been ascertained by matching arrivals and departures (through passports, not self-declared passenger data). For 2018 new arrivals, the numbers of people expected to stay in New Zealand for more than a year have been estimated using information associated with their visa. For 2018 recurrent arrivals, their likelihood of staying at least 12 months is estimated from a travel history of at least 16‑months.

https://www.stats.govt.nz/assets/Reports/Defining-migrants-using-travel-histories-and-the-12-16-month-rule/defining-migrants-using-travel-histories-and-12-16-month-rule.pdf

Immigration statistics have been recalculated from 2015, using this new method. The chart shows 2015‑17 annual average long‑term arrivals (total blue), 2015‑17 annual average long‑term departures (light blue), with annual average 2015‑17 net migration in dark blue.

The equivalent 2018 data is shown in red.

The data in the chart is categorised by nationality (country of citizenship), and excludes New Zealand citizens. (For New Zealand citizens net immigration is negative. This is partly because some immigrants acquire New Zealand citizenship, and later depart as New Zealand citizens. It is also because New Zealand has always been a country of emigration as well as a country of immigration.)

The most important feature of the chart is that, while gross immigration has changed little (though with increases from Europe, the Americas, and Africa), departures of immigrants have increased markedly. The result is a significant overall fall in the net immigration of foreign citizens.

The places with the least return migration are Philippines, Pacific countries, and Africa (especially South Africa). These are the most obvious cases of economic migration, where immigrants are largely content with life in New Zealand. These are also the countries from which most immigrants seek New Zealand citizenship; so when they leave they are more likely to leave as New Zealand citizens.

In the middle are countries with high numbers of international students – China, India, South (including Southeast) Asia – reflecting the ambivalent immigration status of international students. These are also countries whose middle-class residents have aspired to hold alternative national residencies while never quite leaving their countries of origin. Tellingly, however, China is showing substantially more return migration than previously. It is coming to look more like the richer countries of Asia (North-East Asia) and the English‑speaking developed countries, with the highest levels of return migration.

For these economically‑advanced countries, a major driver of return migration will be dissatisfaction – much of that due to inflated initial expectations of life in New Zealand. There will also be a considerable amount of churn associated with a rich anglo middle‑class who see themselves more as citizens of the world than as citizens of a particular country. These are heavily globalised people, for whom traditional concepts of international migration do not apply. Their migration patterns are driven as much by the ever‑cheaper price of air travel, facilitating a transience (eg home‑ownership in multiple countries) and consumerism that imposes a high environmental footprint on the world.

Finally, there is an increasing category of lifestyle refugees – suggested from European and American data. These are people – mainly social liberals – driven by fears of environmental disaster and of political populism; and probably in part unspoken concerns about how immigration in their home countries has changed many of their cities. Europe (excluding the United Kingdom) has bucked the overall trend, showing easily the biggest increase in net immigration. This is especially true of Germany and France, which showed a near‑doubling of gross immigration in 2018. Time will tell whether these people stay.

It is great to see Statistics New Zealand finally creating some worthwhile immigration statistics; statistics that show high levels of migrant departure as well as of arrivals. What we need also is reliable information about internal migration – changes in the distribution of population within New Zealand. My sense is that Auckland has experienced a disproportionately large amount of departures, to other parts of New Zealand and other parts of the world. Many people have cashed up their capital gains in residential property.

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: The biggest problem with the CGT – it won’t do enough

By Bryce Edwards -

February 26, 2019

Political Roundup: The biggest problem with the CGT – it won’t do enough

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Are the purported benefits of the Tax Working Group’s proposed capital gains tax an illusion? So far, questions about the potential effectiveness of the tax are the biggest challenge to the proposal, as there are strong doubts about whether the new tax would really achieve its desired aims.

The best arguments in favour of introducing a capital gains tax centre around the need to fix problems of economic inequality in New Zealand. I outlined these yesterday in my column, The arguments in favour of a Capital Gains Tax.

But would the proposed CGT actually achieve much in this regard? At what cost? And are there better ways of dealing with some of the problems of economic inequality? They’re some of the questions being asked by commentators across the political spectrum at the moment.

The biggest challenge to the Tax Working Group’s proposal is whether it’s “too little, too late”. In the context of the huge problems of inequality, especially in terms of housing, the solutions do seem comparatively weak.

This has been best expressed by Anna Connell in her Newsroom column yesterday, in which she says she has been underwhelmed by the proposal’s lack of vision or ambition: “The recommendations just don’t seem that radical or go far enough to address some of the enormous challenges we have looming on the horizon. There’s a limit to what tax policy can achieve but when it’s the main source of revenue for the entity in charge of which direction we travel and where we spend our money, it’s pretty high up the list of things I’d like to see properly future-proofed” – see: Capital gains tax – should we care?

Connell thinks that both the strong pro- and anti-CGT factions fail to appreciate the extent of the problems the tax is seeking to tackle, and have an exaggerated idea of how much impact the proposed tax would have: “when you live in a world where the odds seem increasingly staked in favour of the overtly wealthy, where tech companies pay little or no tax and the gap between rich and poor seems beyond closing, I don’t necessarily view a CGT as any kind of real leveller. I just can’t get that het up about it – as a blow for fairness or an assault on the individual’s right to reward for hard work. I reserve most of my apathy for the politics of it all. Because I think it’s past it’s use-by date as a political lightening rod”.

Economist and TOP leader Geoff Simmons believes something similar, lamenting that inequality problems will be barely touched by this proposal: “Our tax system should be the central tool in fixing these problems. Sadly the best we can hope for following the Tax Working Group’s recommendations is that these problems will continue to get worse; only a bit more slowly” – see: The Tax Tweaking Group.

Simmons says that at the heart of worsening inequality lies housing, particularly with home ownership and renting becoming unaffordable: “The Tax Working Group was supposed to make our tax system fair. Sadly the Government tied their hands at the outset, ruling out the biggest tax loophole we have – the ‘family home’.”

What’s more, according to Simmons, the effect of the CGT will be to drive more investment in family homes: “it reduces the incentive to invest in businesses (which produce jobs and incomes) rather than sticking all our money into housing. As a result, under a CGT Kiwis will probably end up sticking even more of their money into housing than ever before, particularly the family home. This is known in Aussie as ‘the Mansion Effect’.”

Simmons and Connell aren’t the only ones wondering if the CGT will actually have any impact on inequality. An Otago Daily Times’ editorial has a long list of good questions that need to be addressed when assessing if the tax is worth supporting – see: Jury must deliberate on tax reform.

The ODT’s questions boil down to: Will it really fix inequality? Is there a better solution to inequality? Will the tax really be fiscally neutral? Will all the compliance and efficiency costs be worth it? Will there be too many exemptions and therefore possible loopholes? Will it reduce investment and rental housing?

Even a lot of CGT supporters are expressing reservations about the likely effectiveness of the proposal. For example, inequality researcher Max Rashbrooke says that it’s a mistake to make the scheme revenue-neutral, given that the Government urgently needs to spend money to implement its kindness policies. He also says that greater egalitarianism would be achieved from a more radical inheritance tax: “Fairer still would be a tax on gifts received – to compensate those not fortunate enough to inherit wealth – and a more thorough wealth tax that acknowledged the benefits people derive from their assets every year, not just at sale” – see: Capital gains tax: A test of our national myths and Labour’s mettle.

Similarly, many on the left and right continue to question why the “family home” is being exempt from the CGT, suggesting that this creates all sorts of problems with the scheme as well as reducing its potential to fix inequality and unaffordable housing.

For example, at the pro-Government blogsite The Standard, Matthew Whitehead writes In defense of taxing the family home. Here’s his main point: “National is right about one thing. The exemptions proposed by the Tax Working Group leave ridiculous holes. We should close them. It’s wrong that a $5 million dollar home, whether it belongs to an accountant, a union-busting director, a politician, or a business owner, somehow doesn’t get taxed because it’s a family home. Let’s tax it, and use that money to discount other taxes, or to nationalize the ambulance sector, or to partially fund NZ Super, or a million other things that will be worth the tradeoff. They’re right that it’s ridiculous that selling an art collection would be free from a capital gains tax. Let’s tax it. Hell, let’s set a reasonable threshold, and tax the real realized gain on every asset over it.”

Others have criticised the political decision to exclude the “family home” from the CGT, including economist Cameron Bagrie who was reported yesterday as believing “a CGT should be implemented, but it should be across the board and include the family home” – see Jason Walls’ Economist Cameron Bagrie is not convinced a CGT would do much to improve living standards.

According to Bagrie, “the impact of the CGT would be more negative than positive. This was mainly down to the way small businesses would be hit by the tax.”

There is plenty of concern that economic investment will be discouraged by the CGT. This was one of the main problems raised by the three dissenting members of the Tax Working Group. And for a high quality and in-depth discussion of such concerns it’s worth listening to Kathryn Ryan’s 33-minute interview with former Inland Revenue deputy commissioner Robin Oliver: Could capital gains tax proposals encourage dis-investment?

Similarly, Brian Gaynor argues that under the CGT there will be much more incentive for New Zealanders to invest overseas, because of inconsistencies in taxation rates – see: Tax plan likely to go the way of the Titanic. He points out that the new tax could also negatively impact on the non-wealthy in another area: “There is a widely held belief that capital gains tax only impacts the wealthy, but this is incorrect if we include the 2,926,821 KiwiSaver members. All KiwiSaver funds holding New Zealand and Australian equities, either listed or non-listed, will have lower investment returns if the proposed CGT is introduced.”

For other arguments about who else will be negatively or inequitably impacted by the tax it’s worth reading David Farrar’s Who will be affected by the proposed CGT? and Liam Hehir’s How the capital gains tax affects the average New Zealander.

Will house prices go up or down as a result of the CGT? There is no consensus on this question, but certainly there’s no strong suggestion that the CGT will be any elixir for the problem. Likewise, with rental properties, it’s hard to see that the tax will result in cheaper rent.

It is clear that there will be some headaches caused by the tax in terms of compliance costs, especially in terms of valuing the price of assets when the CGT is first introduced. For the best discussion of this, see Ben Leahy’s Automated mass valuations could be used to value Kiwi properties ahead of a capital gains tax. As this article – and others – make clear, there will certainly be a bonanza for tax consultants and accountants, who will be advising the wealthy on how to structure their assets to avoid the CGT.

There will be many complicated situations that arise from the CGT and often there will be inequities as a result. This is dealt with well in David Snell’s Implementing capital gains tax will be ‘incredibly difficult’.

Finally, for humour on the tax proposals, see my blog post, Cartoons about the proposed capital gains tax.

Explainer: what does ‘intersectionality’ mean?

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolyn D’Cruz, Senior Lecturer, Gender Sexuality and Diversity Studies, La Trobe University

“Intersectionality” – a word most commonly used in relation to feminism – can be hard to define and easy to abuse. Still, it remains essential for analysing and changing patterns of inequality and injustice.

Put simply, intersectionality shows how a feminism that focuses on women – without also addressing the fact that women come from different classes, and are marked by differences in ethnicity, sexuality, ability and more – favours the needs of those who are white, middle-class, heterosexual and able bodied.

Acknowledging that women are affected by other forms of marginalisation has sparked much debate within feminism. For instance there was intense discussion of intersectionality during the 2017 Women’s March in Washington DC. (One report had the headline “Women’s March Morphs Into Intersectional Torture Chamber”.)

Some feminists felt that emphasising differences between women detracted from common struggles. They did not like acknowledging that some women might be more privileged than others.

However this position elides the fact that non-white women experience discrimination on the basis of both gender and race. As Ruby Hamad and Celeste Little wrote in 2017, “mainstream feminism still cannot comprehend that racism and sexism are not experienced separately but simultaneously”.

The giddiness surrounding Hillary Clinton as almost First Female President™ and the silliness over Wonder Woman as First Female Superhero™ both fostered an atmosphere of hostility to any women who had the audacity not to feel “represented” by either.

Where did the term come from?

The coining of the term is attributed to Kimberleé Crenshaw, a legal theorist of race and feminism. In 1989, Crenshaw wrote a legal paper titled, “Demarginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Anti-Racist Politics”.

Crenshaw was analysing an anti-discrimination law case involving black women, who in 1976 had tried to sue General Motors for segregating their workforce along the lines of gender and race. At the time, black women could not get secretarial jobs, which went to white women. Jobs on the factory floor went to black men.

The law in the US dealt with racial discrimination and sex discrimination separately. This meant US courts could not deal with discrimination claims involving gender and race combined. Crenshaw put forward an analysis that focused on the intersection of gender and race in this case. To express this, she used the term “intersectionality”.

Crenshaw has charted the way feminist practices can neglect race issues and anti-racist struggles can reinforce sexism when dealing with issues such as domestic violence, rape and obscenity law.

When feminism refuses to put race into the frame of its analysis and activism, it can end up further excluding voices of women who have been colonised.

In the same year that Crenshaw coined “intersectionality”, Indigenous women in Australia, led by Jackie Huggins objected to white feminist anthropologist Diane Bell’s article, informed by Topsy Napurrula Nelson, Speaking about Rape is Everybody’s Business, published in an international feminist journal.

It was felt that Bell’s lack of an intersectional analysis reinforced racist ways of speaking about sexual violence. The issue was not whether everybody has the right to speak about rape, but how white feminists like Bell can drown out the voices of Indigenous women speaking for themselves.

‘Oppression Olympics?’

While Crenshaw’s term mostly focused on the intersection between race and gender, more recent uses of “intersectionality” have extended to include sexuality, gender diversity and disability.

A problem here is that the list of subordinated identities can become potentially endless, leading to a game of what Australian editor and writer Adolfo Aranjuez, among others, calls “Oppression Olympics”.

Aranjuez sums up the problem well when he says,

as a young, brown, queer, effeminate migrant with mental illness … I’m a minority on six levels, trumping a middle-aged, straight white man.

We are doing ourselves a political disservice if we rely on labels alone to arbitrate debates, he argues. “What this is about is preferring solidarity over separatism … Shutting someone down is a fleeting win; rectifying inequality in the long term is more than a game”.

Another unfortunate interpretation of intersectional analysis is the way many corporate and or government diversity and inclusion policies adopt the “add and stir” approach for each identity. Adding marginalised people to the table can be tokenistic without also addressing the structures of power that produce inequality in the first place.

Still, intersectionality is an important term. It helps us understand that the differences within an identity category, such as women, can be as significant as the differences that second wave feminists emphasised between women and men.

– ref. Explainer: what does ‘intersectionality’ mean? – http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-intersectionality-mean-104937

Now is the time to plan how to fight the next recession

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

]]>

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

Australia’s nearly three decades of uninterrupted economic growth won’t last forever.

Sooner or later policymakers will need to respond to a downturn that could come from any number of sources. A severe downturn in our main trading partner, China, a collapse of the local property market, global financial turmoil, or an unfortunate confluence of multiple factors are all possible triggers.

The real question is not whether or even when a recession will come, but how well positioned we will be to respond.

And, unfortunately, the answer right now is “not very”.

To understand what will be required to battle the next Australian recession it’s useful to distinguish between two broad types of economic trouble.

Two types of threat

The first is what one might call a “run-of-the-mill business cycle downturn”. Think Australia, 1990. In this scenario interest rates are raised to ward off inflation but eventually choke off business investment and private spending. Unemployment rises and GDP falls.

The central bank responds by cutting interest rates, and the federal government responds with “Keynesian” economic stimulus (extra government spending and/or tax cuts).

The second type of trouble is different, what might be called “mass financial panic”.

Think the United States in 2008. In this scenario an event (such as massive mortgage defaults) causes financial institutions to fail. If those financial institutions are connected to others then the entire financial system seizes up because everyone stops lending money to each other at once. It’s like a car going from 100km/h to 5km/h in half a second. It hurts.

The Keynesian response is completely insufficient in these circumstances. What’s needed is to get credit moving again.

And this requires people not only believing that they should lend money, but also believing that others will lend money, keeping the economy afloat and making the exercise worthwhile. Coordinating what economists refer to as “higher-order beliefs” requires overwhelming financial force. It’s a kind of Powell doctrine in which the US went in with far more troops than it needed after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in the early 1990s in order to overwhelm the enemy.

It was the thinking behind then US Treasury Under Secretary Larry Summers’ US$50 billion rescue package to head off the Mexican peso crisis in 1994, and what then US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson did to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression in 2008.

The Reserve Bank is less than prepared

How well is Australia prepared to respond quickly in either of these scenarios?

Scenario 1 requires the Reserve Bank to cut interest rates and the government to spend money fast. With interest rates already at an historically low 1.50% – and perhaps lower by the time trouble arises – there’s little room left to cut further.

Unorthodox measures might be necessary, like so-called “quantitative easing”. This involves large purchases of long-term bonds to flood markets with money. While there is now experience from the US and Europe about how to do this, in Australia the Reserve Bank would be breaking new ground. Getting into such a program is not simple, and getting out might be very complicated.

But of course jacking up interest rates now to give the bank room to cut later isn’t a solution. That could trigger a recession itself. The bank has to grapple with how to respond to even a standard recession in the new age of permanently low real interest rates.

We’ve money to spend, but not the means

The government’s fiscal response requires having the capacity to run large budget deficits, which means being able to borrow. Australia’s capacity to borrow is currently good, with net debt as a proportion of gross domestic product at around 19.2%.

This is low by both international and historical standards. A former chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, and one of the world’s leading macroeconomists, David Romer, have persuasively documented how vital such “fiscal capacity” is. Australia gets an A on that count.

But a cash splash needs to be spent, and fast. That means having “shovel-ready projects” lined up ahead of a recession hitting. Sending cheques to households is easy, but is often used to pay down debt or offset other expenditures rather than on spending.

We need to prepare ahead

A proposal being pursued by the New Economic Equality Initiative at the University of NSW is to prepare in advance of a recession a “green stimulus” plan. It would be a list of significant environmental expenditures — from tree planting to waterway cleanups, to cycle-path construction to dune repair — that would be documented and ready to implement immediately.

These would be projects that would stimulate demand but also have a high social return. To do them right would take planning ahead of time. It can’t be done well on the fly when a recession has already hit. Otherwise, well, think pink batts.

Preparing for a financial crisis as opposed to a mere recession is harder. Having the budget capacity to provide massive guarantees of bank deposits and other financial obligations is a must.

Last time, we got lucky

Equally important, though, is having regulatory agencies that can see trouble ahead and act swiftly. The Reserve Bank did an outstanding job a decade ago, but next time it won’t have then Treasury Secretary Ken Henry on the board and Kevin Rudd in the prime minister’s chair.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has shown itself to be functionally incompetent over an extended period, as the Hayne Royal Commission highlighted all too clearly. Capacity-building is a prerequisite for an effective response to a future crisis.

Regulators need to understand the interconnectedness of different financial institutions, the types of risk they are exposed to, where their funding is coming from and more. To some extent they need to know what they don’t know. It’s a big ask, but it is vital.

In many ways Australia got lucky in 2008. The Reserve Bank had a lot of room to slash interest rates and did it aggressively. The government had close to zero net debt and could spend fast. Ken Henry’s aphorism, “go early, go hard, go households” was heeded by an unusually intellectually curious and adept prime minister. China – our biggest trading partner – enacted an aggressive stimulus plan of its own.

The US Federal Reserve Chair just happened to be the world’s leading expert on the 1929 Great Depression, and the US Treasury Secretary was the former head of Goldman Sachs, an eminence of the banking world. Our response at home was matched by a near-perfect response abroad.

We won’t be that lucky again. Now is the time to plan how to fight the next recession.

– ref. Now is the time to plan how to fight the next recession – http://theconversation.com/now-is-the-time-to-plan-how-to-fight-the-next-recession-111497

#Oscars2019 play it safe with Green Book – nothing progressive here

By Pacific Media Centre -

February 26, 2019

Spike Lee, who stormed out of the Oscars after Green Book won Best Picture at Sunday’s Oscars, likened the news to a “bad call” by the referee at a Knicks game. Video: Variety

By Stuart Richards in Adelaide

Every year it is the same story: the Academy comes so close to catching up with the rest of the film world, only to award the Oscar for Best Picture to the most middling of the bunch.

Many cinephiles the world over were likely scratching their heads, or rolling their eyes, or perhaps throwing something at the television, when Julia Roberts called out Green Book’s name, a film the LA Times later dubbed “the worst Best Picture winner since Crash”.

The film is the story of an unlikely friendship between musician Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) and his driver Tony Lip (Viggo Mortensen), as they tour America’s South in the 1960s. It sits in a long line of Hollywood films that feature a white protagonist “saving” the black character, who is rendered passive in the process.

The film has been denounced by Shirley’s family for its depiction of him as an isolated figure, estranged from his three brothers and the black community. (In hindsight, maybe Crash wasn’t that bad?)

-Partners-

BlacKkKlansman director Spike Lee was apparently so incensed by the Best Picture announcement that he stormed to the back of the theatre only to be ushered back into his seat. He and director Jordan Peele reportedly did not clap the winners. Later, with a drink in hand, Lee told the press room that the “ref made a bad call”.

That a film with a white saviour narrative won the big prize shouldn’t really be much of a shock though.

The Academy Awards have battled with a number of controversies over the last few years, from #Oscarssowhite to La La Land being mistakenly read out as the winner of Best Picture in 2017 over Moonlight. An LA Times report in 2016 identified 91 percent of Oscar voters as white and 76 percent male.

It’s clear that the Academy needs to continue to up its game in diversifying the voting demographic.

The role of campaigning, and studios selecting which films to push, also stops the awards from genuinely reflecting the best works. Other films, notably by women directors, were shut out this year. Lynne Ramsay’s You Were Never Really Here and Marielle Heller’s Can You Ever Forgive Me are just two that deserved wider recognition.

The big takeaway message from this year’s ceremony, if it wasn’t clear already, is that we shouldn’t look to the Academy for any enlightened thinking.

A sea of safeness and whiteness
The optics of the Green Book team accepting their award could not have been more glaring. A collection of predominantly white men (and Mahershala Ali and Octavia Spencer to the side) pronounced that the film, to paraphrase, is about love and loving each other despite our differences and finding out that we are the same people.

For a film that is meant to be about race relations in America, all we got from the speech was a sea of safeness and whiteness.

In 2010, the Academy expanded the Best Picture category to up to 10 nominees. This change also saw the introduction of preferential voting. All voting members rank the year’s nominees from first through to eighth. If the film with the most first place votes doesn’t break 50 percent, then the film with the lowest first place votes is eliminated and its votes redistributed according to preferences.

This will then occur with the next lowest ranking film until a film cracks the 50 percent margin. As such, second and third place votes begin to count just as much as first place votes.

This preferential voting system results in a more agreeable film winning over a divisive one. This is perhaps why The Shape of Water won last year over Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

It also creates an interesting divide between critics and much of the film-going public and the Academy voters. Leading up to the awards, critical consensus saw Roma as the more agreeable choice, with Green Book being the divisive nominee. Turns out, this perspective was reversed in the world of the Academy and Green Book was deemed the most agreeable.

A year of back peddling
The awards this year were contentious before the ceremony even began. Kevin Hart’s previous homophobic remarks resulted in him stepping down. Four awards – cinematography, film editing, makeup/hairstyling, and live-action short – were going to be cut from the live broadcast.

The Oscars also initially snubbed nominated songs from the show, which is not a new occurrence .

The Academy then did a lot of back peddling. There was no main host, all awards were included in the live broadcast and four of the nominated songs were performed live, with the omission of All the Stars by Kendrick Lamar and SZA from Black Panther due to “logistics and timing”. The Academy is really bad at reading the room until it’s too late.

John Ottman, accepting the award for Best Editing of Bohemian Rhapsody, said the production was a labour of love with everyone bonding together. This perspective was an odd contrast to recent statements made by Rami Malek, in which he said that working with the film’s sometime director Bryan Singer “was not pleasant”.

In his acceptance speech for Best Actor, Malek also identified Bohemian Rhapsody as being about an unapologetically gay immigrant, yet it has been reported that Mercury was bisexual. If only the film could have been celebratory of Mercury’s sexuality. Still, the homophobic moralising will most likely be overshadowed by Green Book’s win.

One other glaring lowlight of the show was Broadway actress Carol Channing being omitted from the In Memoriam section. While there are eyebrow raising omissions every year, to not include Channing, who was show business personified, is sad indeed.

Highlights
In the sea of disappointment, there were several delightful moments. The choices of presenters seemed laughably odd. Serena Williams introducing A Star is Born and Queen Latifah introducing The Favourite were interesting to say the least.

Barbra Streisand introduced BlacKkKlansman because apparently she and Spike Lee both grew up in Brooklyn.

Lee, who won an honorary Oscar in 2016, won this year for Best Adapted Screenplay. The reception the film received was notably more rapturous than the one given to Green Book for Best Original Screenplay. The difference was palpable. Lee noted that February was Black History Month in the US:

1619, 2019. 400 years. 400 years our ancestors were stolen from mother Africa and brought to Jamestown, Virginia enslaved. Our ancestors worked the land, from can’t see at morning to can’t see at night.

The ceremony did see a significant number of women artists of colour taking to the stage to collect awards, from Hannah Beachler, production designer for Black Panther, to Regina King winning for her role in If Beale Street Could Talk.

Other highlights included Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper’s performance of the Best Original Song, Shallow, which evoked old school Hollywood glamour. The chemistry between the two is palpable.

Joyous upsets included Olivia Colman winning Best Actress over the hot favourite Glenn Close, who was nominated for her seventh time. Colman gave a scattered and heartwarming speech which won’t be forgotten anytime soon.

The Academy Awards will never be as progressive as we want them to be. If that’s what you are looking for, then tune into the Indie Spirit awards.

In the end, final Oscars presenter Julia Roberts was drowned out by music emanating from the orchestra in the pit as she closed the show. Even the producers were done.

Let’s just remember the select moments of joy and forget the rest ever happened.

Dr Stuart Richards is lecturer in screen studies in the School of Creative Industries at the University of South Australia. This article was first published by The Conversation and is republished by Asia Pacific Report under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Newsletter: New Zealand Politics Daily – February 26 2019

By Bryce Edwards -

February 26, 2019

Newsletter: New Zealand Politics Daily – February 26 2019

Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage.

The Beehive and Parliament Buildings.Today’s content

Capital Gains Tax proposal
1News: Q+A: The impact of a capital gains tax on the ‘Kiwi way of life’
Geoff Simmons (Daily Blog): The Tax Tweaking Group
Barry Soper (Newstalk ZB): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in state of shock at reaction to Capital Gains Tax plan
Bryce Edwards (Herald): Political Roundup: The arguments in favour of a Capital Gains Tax
David Cormack (Herald): Profiting off the housing crisis is the Kiwi Way
Liam Hehir (Stuff): How the capital gains tax affects the average New Zealander
Ben Leahy (Herald): Automated mass valuations could be used to value Kiwi properties ahead of a capital gains tax
Audrey Young (Herald): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says farmers and small business owners will be top of mind when making capital gains tax decisions
Jason Walls (Herald): Sir Michael Cullen says the family home would be exempt under his CGT, but there are a few caveats
Hamish Cardwell (RNZ): Capital gains tax: Some examples of how it could work in practice
Henry Cooke (Stuff): Capital gains tax: Jacinda Ardern notes ‘vast majority’ would be better off
1News: Recommended tax changes ‘far from an attack on the Kiwi way of life’, says PM
Jason Walls (Herald): Economist Cameron Bagrie is not convinced a CGT would do much to improve living standards
RNZ: Capital gains proposal: ‘What we’ve got here is a tax on a tax’ – Simon Bridges
Hamish Walker (Southland Times): CGT would be another hammer blow for rural south
Gerald Cunningham (ODT): Toying with tax spells doom for Labour govts

Housing
Ruby Macandrew (Stuff): World Health Organisation lays out blueprint to improve housing and potentially help NZ save millions
RNZ: Poor housing conditions costing taxpayers more than $145m
Herald: Injuries, disease from bad housing costs New Zealand up to $164m a year
Henry Cooke (Stuff): Insulation industry says up to 80,000 rentals still not insulated for 2016 law change
1News: ‘It’s a significant issue’ – Green Building Council welcomes healthier home standards
ODT: New rental rules ‘first step’
Jonathan Guildford (Stuff): Rental housing standards well received by Canterbury landlords
Susan edmunds (Stuff): Some rental standards could be financial drain, analysis shows
Zane Small (Newshub): Housing Minister Phil Twyford was warned landlords would increase rent
David Hargreaves (Interest): ‘Fewer rental properties and higher rents’
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Woman living in a cold, draughty rental says 2024 is too long to wait for changes
Jason Walls (Herald): Housing officials say new renting rules mean landlords could opt for Airbnb over renting
Zane Small (Newshub): Wrong time for new rental rules during ‘housing shortage’ – tenancy advocate
RNZ: New rental insulation rules will make it harder for landlords – Judith Collins
Michael Daly (Stuff): Rental home standards an ‘attack on landlords’, says Judith Collins
1News: National more ‘concerned about the back pocket of property investors than sick kids’, say Greens
Jason Walls (Herald): Greens co-leader Marama Davidson issues strong rebuke to National over criticism of new renting rules
No Right Turn: Making rental homes safe
1News: New ‘healthy homes’ standards another disincentive to add rental stock – Auckland landlord
David Faulkner (Spinoff): Think the rental squeeze is bad now? It’s probably about to get worse
1 NEWS poll: Public faith fades in Government’s 100,000 KiwiBuild target
Bernard Hickey (Newsroom): Two Cents’ Worth: The Park Mews effect
Carmen Hill (Bay of Plenty Times): Tauranga company’s plans to fix New Zealand’s housing crisis
Brooke Jenner (RNZ): Portable cabins a lifesaver while housing unaffordable for some
Eleanor Ainge Roy (Guardian): Sale of portable cabins booms in New Zealand amid housing crisis
Luke Kirkeby (Waikato Times): Mayor considers turning empty shops into houses
Ben Leahy (Herald): Cheeky billboard campaign near Auckland’s Sky Tower encourages house hunters to move to Timaru
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Timaru mayor’s cheeky reasons for Aucklanders to move south
Laura James (1News): Lawyer’s Auckland city safe haven for homeless needs a little bit more funding to make it a reality
Martin Johnston (Herald): 1000-house project scrapped after developer Todd Property gives up fight
Cate Broughton (Stuff): Christchurch retirement village owner apologises, says decision to downsize difficult

Commercial fishing
Marty Sharpe (Stuff): Fishery offending a flagrant case of putting profits ahead of common good
Melissa Nightingale (Herald): Hawke’s Bay Seafoods and other companies fined over $1 million for under-reporting catch
Stuff: Massive fine of more than $1 million for Hawke’s Bay fishing business and directors
Laura Macdonald (Newshub): Hawke’s Bay fishing family fined nearly $1.5m for misreporting catch
RNZ: Record fine imposed on Hawke’s Bay fishers

Child welfare
1News: New Oranga Tamariki report finds a third of Kiwi kids face challenges such as racism, poverty and bullying
Delphine Herbert and Katie Fitzgerald (Newshub): Up to a third of Kiwi kids struggling to lead a happy life – report
Katie Doyle (RNZ): Kids report racism, bullying and violence prevalent themes in life
Isaac Davison (Herald): New Zealand ranks bottom of developed countries on youth mortality rates

Health
Southland Times Editorial: Health board deficits leave Gov’t red-faced
Karen Brown (RNZ): Junior doctors back on strike and in mediation today
1News: Junior doctors start two-day strike this morning
Natalie Akoorie (Herald): Media blamed, whānau refused speaking rights as battle over Nicky Stevens inquest heats up
Herald: Green MP Chloe Swarbrick backs Mike King’s I AM HOPE campaign in heartbreaking post
Cate Broughton (Stuff): Christchurch man uses ACC payout to raise awareness of suicide
Christina Persico (Stuff): Taranaki DHB cuts back services for doctors’ strike
Ruby Macandrew (Stuff): Fears flight nurse jobs at risk in Ministry of Heath air ambulance review
Daniel Birchfield (ODT): Action group expresses concerns over hospital

Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill deferred
1News: Minister responds after ‘big call’ to defer bill to make gender self-identification easier
RNZ: Births, deaths and marriages bill deferred to allow more public consultation
Herald: Bill making it easier for trans people to update birth certificate deferred
Zane Small (Newshub): Government halts proposed law for changing sex on birth certificates
Collette Devlin (Stuff): Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill deferred
1News: Controversial Bill that would make it easier for people to change gender on birth certificate put on hold
Bob McCoskrie: Ideological Birth Certificate Proposal Rightly Deferred

Lime scooters
ODT Editorial: Setback for transport innovation
Herald Editorial: Scooters here to stay but need to be safer – New Zealand Herald
Press: E-scooters are fun, but Kiwis need assurances
Chris Ford (Spinoff): Why disabled people are cheering the Lime ban
RNZ Checkpoint: Auckland Council found out about Lime defects through media
Nicole Lawton (Stuff): Lime e-scooters off Auckland streets for at least another 24 hours after glitch
1News: Waiting game for Lime users as Auckland Council mulls allowing them back on street
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Stop sending me ‘damn’ emails about Lime – Mayor Phil Goff
David Loughrey (ODT): Cull questions Lime’s ‘irritating’ email campaign
Tim Miller (ODT): Lime scooters waiting on safety verification
Matthew Tso (Stuff): Lime operations unchanged in Lower Hutt – for time being
Tina Law (Stuff): Christchurch city officials accept Lime’s safety assurances
Nicole Lawton (Stuff): Lime e-scooter glitch: Injured Auckland man calls on Mayor Phil Goff to take action
Mitchell Price (Stuff): Lime e-scooters are safe, sustainable transport but public trust is key after glitch

Local government
Cherie Sivignon (Nelson Mail): Petition seeking referendum on Tasman District Council voting system nears goal
No Right Turn: Will Tasman choose STV?
Sam Kilmister (Stuff): Politicians juggle jobs and civic duties in small communities
Tom McRae (Newshub): ‘A stain on our harbour’: Locals fight Auckland Harbour cruise ship extension
Christina Persico (Taranaki Daily News): Half-yearly financial report sees New Plymouth District Council return $14m deficit
Logan Savory (Southland Times): Another budget blow-out for Invercargill City Council as extra $68,000 needed for storage shed
Dave Armstrong (Stuff): Town Hall should be the council’s priority, but it doesn’t seem to be
Felix Desmarais and Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): Developers claim contractors counting on contingency for Wellington Town Hall project
Che Baker (Stuff): Karen Arnold made bankrupt after failing to sue mayor Sir Tim Shadbolt and media company Stuff
Kelley Tantau (Waikato Times): ‘Straight-talking’ Te Aroha councillor Ash Tanner contending Matamata-Piako mayor

Education, childcare and training
Simon Collins (Herald): Childcare costs jump to equal private school fees
Catherine Harris (Stuff): The cost of raising a child in New Zealand has risen, with a big jump in childcare expenses
Northern Advocate: Kaihu School pays for all pupils to be vaccinated for meningococcal disease
Cira Olivier (Rotorua Daily Post): Rotorua school attendance ‘shocking’
Rachael Kelly (Southland Times): Dowie to host public meeting about education review
Kelly Tantou (Matamata Chronicle): Teachers, parents convene for Tomorrow’s Schools Review discussion in Matamata
TVNZ: Sunday: Is screen-time in schools really helping New Zealand children?
Vita Molyneux (Newshub): King’s College lambasted for ban on $100 notes at tuck shop
Herad: King’s College bans students using $100 notes at tuck shop
Brittany Keogh (Stuff): Auckland school bans Uber Eats over safety concerns
Stuff: Police studies starting at Bay of Plenty High School
Florence Kerr (Stuff): No golden handshake for Wintec chief executive
Nikki Preston (Herald): Wintec calls off search for new Hamilton-based CEO
Brittany Keogh (Stuff): Fees-free tertiary study: How it could hurt those it’s meant to help
Jacoba Matapo (Newsroom): The key to understanding Pasifika education
Alexia Russell (Newsroom): Winning over parents to get kids on the tools
George Heagney (Manawatū Standard): Massey experiences widespread Stream outage on first day of semester

Foreign affairs and trade
Lucy Bennett (Herald): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern attacks Australian deportation policy again
Mike Hosking (Newstalk ZB): Australia has every right to send crims packing to New Zealand
Laura Walters (Newsroom): Chinese institute expands influence in Auckland
RNZ: NZ’s plan for engaging with China’s Belt and Road intiative five months late
Māori TV: Peters to tour Pacific this week
Eric Frykberg (RNZ): NZ may feel heat of UK-EU trade fight after Brexit
Richard Harman (Politik): UK Minister threatens massive tariffs on NZ lamb
RNZ: First NZ diplomat of Pacific heritage to take up Pacific post

Transport
Thomas Coughlan (Newsroom): NZTA borrows big to build
Ben Strang (RNZ): SkyPath plan mired in row over whether designers should be paid for intellectual property rights
Todd Niall (Stuff): Driver shortage and lack of buses ‘add to the pressures’ of Auckland’s March Madness
Todd Niall (Stuff): Is a new kind of March Madness upon Auckland?
Dan Satherley (Newshub): ‘Nothing’ done to get Kiwis into electric cars – Simon Bridges
Peter Dowden (ODT): Ticket to ride
Katie Fitzgerald (Newshub): Government not involved in Air New Zealand fares slash – Jacinda Ardern
1News: Air New Zealand to slash entry-level fares on over 40 domestic routes, 1 NEWS understands
Herald: Petrol prices rise 8 cents in February

Justice, corrections
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Teina Pora ‘doing it tough’, despite Malcolm Rewa’s conviction
Ellen O’Dwyer (Stuff): Apologise: Still no closure for Arthur Allan Thomas’ family
Benn Bathgate (Stuff): Parole after four years for sex offender described as a ‘skilled manipulator’
RNZ: Sex offender released after serving under half his jail term
Kelly Mahika (Rotorua DailyPost): Convicted Rotorua rapist and sex abuser Bryan Hughes released from prison

Environment
Anusha Bradley (RNZ): Cape Kidnappers slip: ‘Unacceptable risks’ raised in 2017 report
RNZ: Devonport fruit fly restrictions could be in final days
Alice Webb-Liddall (Newshub): Third Queensland fruit fly found on Auckland’s North Shore
1News: Second Queensland fruit fly found in Auckland’s Northcote
RNZ: Second Queensland fruit fly discovered in Auckland suburb of Northcote
Rob Butcher (Whanganui Chronicle): Conservation Comment: Wild pines a fire risk
Lois Williams (RNZ): ‘Quite a big drop’ in fairy terns egg numbers after mangrove removal
Charlie Dreaver (RNZ): Computer technology measures forces behind kauri dieback
RNZ: Otago irrigators told to conserve water ahead of dry forecast
Jess Cartwright (1News): NZ’s lakes get a $12m health check as ‘beasties’ and bacteria sampled
Laine Moger (Stuff): Māori carvings taken to Antarctica’s Scott Base for NIWA research programme

National’s Blue-Green conference
No Right Turn: Ignoring the elephants in the room
David Farrar: National’s environmental discussion document

Provincial Growth Fund
Alex Penk and Julian Wood (Spinoff): Think Big 2.0: The Provincial Growth Fund risks turning into a fiasco
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Government’s Provincial Growth Fund requires course correction – report

Farming
Angie Skerrett (Newshub): ‘Absolute bollocks’: Rural Exchange host’s shock at rogue stock agents behaviour
Maja Burry (RNZ): Farmers warned over workplace deaths
Glen Herud (Stuff): Nitrogen fertilise is not a fundamental part of NZ dairy farming
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Stuff): Surge in climate change gas methane means fix for burping cows urgently needed

Defence Force
Jonathan Mitchell (RNZ): Government urged to commit to urgent defence force upgrades
RNZ: Severe or multiple disasters may compromise NZ’s regional response

Immigration
Lois Williams (RNZ): Māori teacher’s husband barred from New Zealand due to multiple sclerosis
Aimee Shaw (Herald): Shchetkova family anxious for immigration update, as David Seymour lends support
Fiona Cooper (Newshub): Woman’s desperate plea to stay in New Zealand with Kiwi husband

Freedom camping
1News: Stoush erupts between residents and council over ablutions block for freedom campers
Mark Quinlivan, Al Williams and Matthew Littlewood (Timaru Herald): Close to 7000 overnight stays logged by freedom campers in Mackenzie in January

Te Matatini
Talisa Kupenga (Māori TV): PM talks to politics raised on Te Matatini stage
Tema Hemi (Māori TV): Te Matatini – more than a biennial haka festival
Moana Makapelu Lee (Māori TV): Obama’s sister meets rising Māori leaders at Te Matatini

Wellington zoo
RNZ: Euthanasia of male baboons highlights need for species planning – Zoo boss
Melissa Nightingale (Herald): Why did Wellington Zoo’s baboons have to be euthanised?

Media, advertising
Herald: 12 Questions: Amanda Millar
Whaleoil: An update on Cam’s health
Richard MacManus (Newsroom): Digital billboards will save media. Yeah right

Other
Peter Wilson (RNZ): The Week in Politics: China’s move against Australian coal is a warning to the government
John Moore: Critical politics alternative analysis – New rental rules, the war on Lime, Jordon Peterson’s NZ tour
Chris Keall (Herald): Mike Williams’ lobbying work for Lime alarming: academic
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): How Big Is Your Army?
Susy Frankel (Newsroom): Intellectual property – a patent paradox
Don Gilling (Briefing Papers): The Future of Archives New Zealand and the National Library of New Zealand
Lorna Thornber (Stuff): New Zealand passport price to rise: Are we paying more?
Ben O’Connor and Sophie Bateman (Newshub): Watch: Jordan Peterson’s New Zealand fans explain why he’s having such a moment
Laura Dooney (RNZ): Chance for Courtenay Central complex tenants to move on
Jessica Tyson (Māori TV): Ngāti Paoa Trust Board calls for removal of negotiator
Lane Nichols (Herald): Disgraced real estate agent Aaron Drever censured and fined for buying clients’ home
Vita Molyneux (Newshub): Man Up director says facilitator to ‘be held accountable’ for telling woman she deserved beating
Michael Hall (RNZ): Cardinal Dew’s claim met with criticism from abuse victims
Simon Hartley (ODT): Economy expected to bounce back: Westpac
RNZ: Retail spending up 1.7% in last quarter
Herald: Customs officer mistakenly lets unruly tourist James Nolan leave New Zealand
Imogen Neale (Stuff): Customs error enables alleged roof scammer James Nolan to flee NZ
Eleanor Weman (Stuff): Mullet challenge thrown at MPs ahead of Wellington charity cricket match

Could Tassie devils help control feral cats on the mainland? Fossils say yes

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Westaway, Senior Research Fellow, Australian Research Centre for Human Evolution, Griffith University

The Tasmanian devil – despite its name – once roamed the mainland of Australia. Returning the devil to the mainland may not only help its threatened status but could help control invasive predators such as feral cats and foxes.

The idea of returning devils to the mainland has been raised before.

But now we’ve explored the idea from a palaeontological view. We looked at the fossil record of mainland devils, in a paper published online and in print soon in the journal Biological Conservation.

A well preserved devil mandible (lower jaw) recovered from excavations west of Townsville. Gilbert Price, Author provided

The fossil record helps us better understand how the devils co-existed on mainland Australia with other wildlife. It also helps us see how these iconic animals may possibly interact with small and medium-sized animals if reintroduced to the mainland in the future.

Back in the wild

Ecologists have reintroduced several apex predators to environments where they were once driven to localised extinction. This has helped restore past ecosystems by providing a clearer ecological balance.

One of the best-known examples is the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park in the United States, to check the overgrazing and destruction of habitat by elk.

By reintroducing Tasmanian devils into mainland Australia, can we possibly help restore ecological systems that support devils along with small to medium-sized native mammals?

Native and exotic predators

Tasmanian devils and thylacines (Tasmanian tigers) were displaced across the mainland of Australia sometime after the dingo was introduced from southeast Asia at least 3,500 years ago.

But these iconic Australian predators were still able to survive in Tasmania. The island was created 10,000 years ago by rising sea levels, well before the arrival of dingoes on mainland Australia.

Dingoes have now been eradicated across much of mainland Australia, particularly within the seclusion zone of the dingo fence in the southeast of the continent. The 5,400km fence stretches eastwards across South Australia into New South Wales and to southeast Queensland.

Exotic predators such as foxes and cats now thrive across many parts of Australia, and have devastating impacts on small to medium-sized Australian mammals.

But until recently they have not been able to gain a foothold in Tasmania. Many ecologists believe the presence of the devil has prevented these other animals making their destructive mark on the ecology of Tasmania.

Sadly the situation is changing as a result of the deadly devil facial tumour disease, an infectious cancer that has destroyed many populations of Tasmanian devils. Estimates range up to 90% of some population groups now wiped out.

As a result, feral cats are now moving into former devil habitats and hunting native species on Tasmania.

A fossil window to the past

So what does the fossil record tell us about the past life of the Tasmanian devil in mainland Australia?

The Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area, in southeast Australia, provides an extraordinary archaeological and palaeoecological record of Ice Age Australia.

Recovery of fossils and devil coprolites from eroding bettong burrows at the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area. Michael Westaway, Author provided

In the past, skeletal remains buried within the landscape were commonly fossilised. Evidence of small animals that dug burrows (such as burrowing bettongs) and the predators that pursued them in their burrows, are exceptionally well preserved.

Our excavations reveal how devils and other small-to-medium sized mammals and reptiles interacted over more than 20,000 years in this area. Even during the peak arid phase, known as the Last Glacial Maximum, it seems that devils and their prey successfully co-existed.

The fossil record (10,000 to 4,000 years ago): This shows the fauna reference condition prior to the arrival of the dingo. (1 Western Quoll, 2 Tasmanian Devil, 3 Thylacine, 4 Bilby, 5 Western Barred Bandicoot, 6 Southern Brown Bandicoot, 7 Burrowing Bettong, 8 Brush Tailed Bettong, 9 Wombat, 10 Nail-Tailed Wallaby, 11 Hare Wallaby, 12 Western and Eastern Grey Kangaroo, 13 Red Kangaroo, 14 Crest Tailed Mulgara, 15 Greater Stick Nest Rat, 16 Hopping Mouse, 17 Fox, 18 Cat, 19 Rabbit) Toot Toot Design, Author provided The contemporary record: This shows today’s situation in the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area. Light grey animals represent those animals that are now locally extinct. Toot Toot Design, Author provided

The fossil record shows that the range of habitats occupied by devils in the past was far more diverse than today, with populations being found across environments from the central arid core to the northern tropics.

This suggests that devils today should, theoretically, be able to reoccupy a similarly extensive range of habitats.

Former devil range across Australia as revealed by the known fossil record. Toot Toot Design, Author provided

Better the devil you know

Some ecologists suggest dingoes should be reintroduced into Australian habitats in order to reduce the impact of cats and foxes on native mammals.

One problem is that dingoes also prey on livestock. This is the reason the dingo fence was constructed during the 1880s.

But devils are not active predators of cattle and sheep. So reintroducing a predator that has a much longer evolutionary history with other native mammals in this country would likely receive far less opposition from pastoralists.

A reintroduction of devils back to the mainland may be a new approach to consider for controlling the relentless, destructive march of exotic predators and restore crucial elements of Australia’s biodiversity.

It still needs to be demonstrated that devils can suppress the activities of cats and foxes on the mainland, as they seem to have done in Tasmania. Experiments with devils in a range of different settings would help to establish this.

A new research approach involving palaeontologists, conservation biologists and policy makers may help us understand how we can restore biodiversity function in Australia.

– ref. Could Tassie devils help control feral cats on the mainland? Fossils say yes – http://theconversation.com/could-tassie-devils-help-control-feral-cats-on-the-mainland-fossils-say-yes-63120

A Shorten government could shift the country on important issues and show a little spunk

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

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

What will a Shorten government be like? It’s hazardous to predict how an opposition party will govern once in office. Only an imaginative reading of the policy speech Bob Hawke delivered in the Sydney Opera House in February 1983 could have led anyone to expect that his would be a government of financial deregulation, tariff cuts and privatisation. John Howard promised we would “never ever” get a GST. God forbid that Tony Abbott should cut funding to the ABC.

Circumstances change. Government have second thoughts. And in practical politics some commitments do matter more than others, despite the scorn heaped on Howard for distinguishing core and non-core promises.

A Shorten government would occupy a political centre that the Coalition has foolishly vacated. Most of the damage was done by Abbott as prime minister. But Malcolm Turnbull’s failure to recalibrate was no less significant, his fate as a hostage to the right sealed at the 2016 election.

Shorten and his treasurer, Chris Bowen, would inherit an economy that, for all its vulnerability, has been touched more lightly than most by the global ordeals of the last decade. And Labor would govern a nation that has maintained a fair level of social cohesion. Here, the populisms of left and right disrupting European and American politics, and the rise of the political strongman, have had only the faintest echoes.

Shorten is no Jeremy Corbyn; he is not even a Jacinda Ardern. Australia has not experienced a fierce anti-migrant backlash. Yes, there are complaints about “congestion”, and conservative politicians and radio shock jocks are prepared to kick the African gang can along. But Australia’s politics lacks the desperation, and the loathing, associated with Brexit, Donald Trump and the creepier versions of contemporary xenophobia.

That should be an attractive field for a centre-left government, as good as it gets in a post-GFC world. But polls and surveys also indicate that trust in politics is low. That’s a problem for Shorten. Social democracy is a rational politics that demands a certain level of trust, or at least of popular consent.

If people are disengaged, it’s bad news for centre-left governments because it becomes easier for vested interests to buy undue influence. Politics loses its sense of proportion. The world as we know it will come to an end if this mining tax is implemented, or that tax break taken away. Every effort to reset priorities becomes a challenge to an entrenched interest with the cash and connections to make its oppression widely appreciated.

Still, to predict that Shorten will govern from the centre is to say almost nothing unless you are also willing to say what that centre might look like. The political centre likely to be occupied by a Shorten government in 2019 is a very different beast from its counterpart of before 2008. It will likely be a “radical centre”, to use a phrase favoured by Noel Pearson.

For one, it’s likely to be much more preoccupied with economic inequality than the Labor governments of the Hawke and Keating era. It will be a government more worried about income stagnation, wage theft and a housing market that has locked many out. Still, it will work hard to avoid the perception that it’s a soft touch. It might eventually increase benefits for those without a job. But it has, in opposition, given no sign that it is willing to risk the votes of the hard-working and the self-righteous in the interests of a little less cruelty to the unemployed.

Labor will continue to worry over low wage growth and, in government, it might try to widen the scope for industry-wide bargaining. This will raise the invariably sensitive issue of its relationship with the union movement, and especially with the ACTU under the dynamic leadership of Sally McManus.

A Shorten government’s relationship with the unions is a matter on which its leader is vulnerable to criticism, given his background as a leader of the Australian Workers Union. He will surely seek to avoid the impression that the unions are dictating terms, but the Change the Rules campaign being run by the ACTU will keep the pressure on. And with wages as flat as they are, and union coverage so low, this old bogey may well have run out of steam everywhere but in the Murdoch media.

Shorten will face questions about his party’s relationship with trade unions, particularly the ACTU under Sally McManus. AAP/Glenn Hunt

For this and other reasons, a Shorten government will be more frank than governments of the 1980s and 1990s about the ways that markets fail, and of the need for governments to intervene when they do. It will ride the ill-will towards the banks to strengthen regulation, although without making life too uncomfortable for the big four.

It will be more concerned with the need to create public goods as a pillar of continuing prosperity. It will oversee a modest expansion of the higher education sector and adopt a more coordinated approach, with more generous funding, to research policy. It will embrace science with enthusiasm – because it helps us prosper – and will feign enthusiasm for culture and the arts to keep quiet, if not happy, the luvvies, bookworms and eggheads. The Australian War Memorial will continue to do better than the National Library, Archives or Museum.

A Shorten government would regard climate change as the most pressing challenge of the age. But, unlike Rudd, Shorten understands that he will be unable to change his mind about that importance when the going gets tough, as it will. A Shorten government will resume the task of creating a carbon market – which it won’t call a tax – and it will hasten the take-up of renewable energy.

It will be rightly preoccupied with issues of gender equality, exploiting its competitive advantage over a Coalition hamstrung by a perception that it is unsympathetic and uncongenial to women. It will attempt modest experimentation around Indigenous recognition and a voice to parliament, and might flirt with a treaty and a truth-telling commission. It will set out a road map to a republic and probably end up in the usual bog as soon as talk of models begins. It will engage in as much or as little cruelty toward those seeking asylum as it feels it needs to keep the boats out, the votes in, and the feral commentariat off its back.

At least as long as Trump remains in office, a Shorten government will be more sceptical about the alliance with the United States, and it will tread warily around China’s burgeoning global ambitions. Will a Prime Minister Shorten, like Prime Minister Gillard, discover a taste for international affairs? It’s hard to know, but there will be a significant level of interest in an electorally successful centre-left government given the continuing global crisis of social democracy.

A Shorten government will face a mean and tricky media environment. Especially in the light of Shorten’s apparent effort to keep his distance from the old man himself, the Murdoch press’s campaigning will be brutal; how effective, it’s harder to know. Legacy media increasingly preach to the converted. Nine, incorporating the media company formerly known as Fairfax, tacks to the right and seems unlikely to give a Labor government too many free kicks. The ABC, bullied by Coalition governments, may ironically find a renewed freedom, purpose and vigour in holding a Labor government to account.

Perhaps above all, this would be a government likely to be dependent on younger voters. Many are very angry with a Coalition that flaunts its contempt for them and their values, at the same time as it plucks them to featherbed older and better-off constituents with franking credits, superannuation concessions and negative gearing. A Shorten government will need to be responsive to younger Australians’ desire for good wages, job security and affordable education and housing.

Shorten does not, on the face of it, seem like the future leader of a transformative government. He has caution and pragmatism written all over him. He and his colleagues will be particularly keen to avoid the many unforced errors of the Rudd and Gillard governments. If Labor falters, and especially if it falls apart amid rancour and recriminations, the reaction of the voting public will be swift and merciless.

If elected, a Shorten government might do well to set a few priorities for its first couple of years and spend as much political capital as it dares pursuing them with vigour. Voters seem impatient for an end to policy gridlock and leadership shenanigans. They might be ready to reward a unified and purposeful government with a bit of spunk about it.

– ref. A Shorten government could shift the country on important issues and show a little spunk – http://theconversation.com/a-shorten-government-could-shift-the-country-on-important-issues-and-show-a-little-spunk-110885

Win or lose the next election, it may be time for the Liberals to rethink their economic narrative

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carol Johnson, Adjunct Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Adelaide

In the heady political days of late 2018, former treasurer Peter Costello argued that the Liberals need to unite behind a clear economic narrative. He claimed that this would avoid Liberal politicians defining themselves on the “social issues” that have divided the government.

However, the ideological problems in the Liberal government go beyond the evident, and electorally damaging, differences over social issues. The Liberals’ economic ideology, which often cuts across their internal division between conservatives and moderates, may also be contributing to their electoral and policy difficulties.

Is it now time for the Liberals to reconsider their free market, neoliberal economic policy narrative? It emphasises lower taxes combined with radical deregulation, privatisation, corporatisation, major cuts to government spending on services and the dismantling of Australia’s century-old industrial arbitration system.

But it is a narrative that contributed to the 2014 budget cuts that helped undermine the Abbott government. It gave rise to the proposed tax cuts for big business that contributed to the poor 2016 election and 2018 byelection results. It also made it harder for the Liberals to accept a range of regulatory policy issues, including the need for a banking royal commission.

Costello’s critics claim that his own tax cuts significantly reduced government revenue. This made it much more difficult for future governments to return the budget to surplus.

Has neoliberalism’s time passed?

The Liberals have always argued that they would be better economic managers than Labor; that they supported individual rights and free enterprise and opposed Labor’s so-called “socialism”. Nonetheless, their economic narrative has not always been the neoliberal, free market one that Costello and others have espoused from the Howard government on. As we shall see below, the Liberals originally believed in a more substantial role for government.

Labor has been quietly moving away from some neoliberal positions that it embraced during the Hawke and Keating years. For example, it is now more supportive of government regulation and has re-embraced Keynesian perspectives that see a major role for the state in managing capitalist economic cycles.

It has also questioned some neoliberal aspects of past Labor government industrial relations policy, such as an over-reliance on enterprise bargaining, acknowledging that this has contributed to reduced wages and conditions.

The Liberals have introduced some electorally opportunistic economic measures. These include funding for industries in sensitive electorates, energy price measures and backing down on tax cuts to big business that they couldn’t get through the Senate. But they have not undertaken a major reconsideration of their economic ideology despite the related policy problems, from unpopular budget and tax cuts to originally opposing a banking royal commission.

Robert Menzies believed governments should implement more economic controls, not fewer. AAP/AUSPICS

Yet Robert Menzies, the founder of the party, decried laissez-faire economics and argued for more controls, not fewer. He boasted of reading Keynes, given that politicians need to know “a great deal about applied economics”.

Menzies also championed the role of Liberal administrations in establishing an industrial relations arbitration and conciliation system that gave “to organised labour the basic wage, the standard working week, the protection of employees and the enforcement of their legally established rights”.

Nonetheless, the Howard government largely abolished such a system in its neoliberal-influenced (and electorally unpopular) WorkChoices legislation.

In short, the Liberals were originally more influenced by social liberalism, rather than neoliberalism, in that they were more willing to endorse state intervention to protect the welfare of citizens and the smooth functioning of markets.

So why might it be important for the Liberals to reconsider some of their economic policy narrative now?

Time for a rethink

Social democrats are fond of claiming that it has been their historical role to save capitalism from its own excesses, including during the Global Financial Crisis. However, social liberals can argue that they have also aimed to do that.

Capitalism now faces some major policy challenges. The very neoliberalism the Liberals have championed since Howard has contributed to a crisis of consumption. In Australia, the weakening of both unions and arbitration protections, particularly industrial awards, has contributed to lower wage outcomes. Reduced consumption then has impacts on private businesses that have trouble selling their goods and services.

Contemporary Liberal governments have tended to respond to cost-of-living pressures by arguing they will cut taxes and energy costs while Labor will increase them. However, negative campaigning against Labor’s tax and energy policies may prove insufficient to allay voters’ concerns about low wages growth.

Meanwhile, voters may be less convinced by arguments for free markets and light-touch regulation in the wake of the disturbing findings of the banking royal commission. This is despite the government’s belated pledges to take action, including on regulatory issues it had previously rejected.

There is also evidence, at both federal and state level, that neoliberal deregulation, privatisation and outsourcing of government functions have contributed to dysfunction in many areas. Examples include high-rise building safety (for example, structural failures and flammable cladding), and the pharmaceutical industry.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care, initiated by the Morrison government, is likely to reveal further regulatory failures in both design and implementation.

Federal and state governments have repeatedly proved naive in their belief that inadequately regulated industries will put the needs of ordinary Australians before the pursuit of financial gain. Consequently, they risk doing too little, too late.

The case for greater government intervention

A neoliberal belief in free markets has arguably contributed to the Liberals’ inadequate efforts to address serious market failures in areas ranging from climate change to high-speed broadband.

The neoliberalism that the Howard government embraced may no longer be serving the Liberal Party well. AAP/Paul Miller

As well, Howard-era neoliberal beliefs, which saw people primarily as individuals and movements for social change as politically correct “special interests” attempting to rip off taxpayer funds, have contributed to a failure to address real issues of discrimination. The Liberals’ failure to deal with gender equity in their own party is just the latest manifestation. This from a party that a women’s organisation played a major role in establishing in the Menzies era, winning quotas in party governance structures as a result.

Importantly, all of this is happening just as the international economy is entering a period of considerable uncertainty. This calls for careful government management of the economy and its social effects. The trade tensions between China and the US reflect broader geopolitical and economic challenges to the West as Asia rises.

Technological disruption is likely to increase unemployment, including through offshoring jobs. Developments in biotechnology will pose major ethical and regulatory challenges for governments.

For all the above reasons, it is becoming harder to argue that neoliberal market solutions, from tax cuts to deregulation, will necessarily benefit and protect ordinary voters. Public support for government spending on services is rising.

Voters have lost trust in politicians and the ability of governments to look after them. The Liberals’ current economic narrative leaves them particularly vulnerable to Labor’s claims they primarily support the big end of town.

Whether they win the 2019 federal election or find themselves back in opposition, it may be time for the Liberals to reconsider their attitude to the role of government in providing services and regulating markets effectively, while still claiming that they are more supportive of private enterprise and are better economic managers than Labor.

The challenges of 21st-century Australia may require the Liberals to draw on some of their earlier, social liberal, perspectives.

– ref. Win or lose the next election, it may be time for the Liberals to rethink their economic narrative – http://theconversation.com/win-or-lose-the-next-election-it-may-be-time-for-the-liberals-to-rethink-their-economic-narrative-110902

Explainer: what is Murray Valley encephalitis virus?

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ana Ramírez, PhD candidate, James Cook University

Western Australian health authorities recently issued warnings about Murray Valley encephalitis, a serious disease that can spread by the bite of an infected mosquito and cause inflammation of the brain.

Thankfully, no human cases have been reported this wet season. The virus that causes the disease was detected in chickens in the Kimberley region. These “sentinel chickens” act as an early warning system for potential disease outbreaks.

What is Murray Valley encephalitis virus?

Murray Valley encephalitis virus is named after the Murray Valley in southeastern Australia. The virus was first isolated from patients who died from encephalitis during an outbreak there in 1951.

The virus is a member of the Flavivirus family and is closely related to Japanese encephalitis virus, a major cause of encephalitis in Asia.

Murray Valley encephalitis virus is found in northern Australia circulating between mosquitoes, especially Culex annulirostris, and water birds. Occasionally the virus spreads to southern regions, as mosquitoes come into contact with infected birds that have migrated from northern regions.

How serious is the illness?

After being transmitted by an infected mosquito, the virus incubates for around two weeks.

Most people infected don’t develop symptoms. But, if you’re unlucky, you could develop symptoms ranging from fever and headache to paralysis, encephalitis and coma.

Around 40% of people who develop symptoms won’t fully recover and about 25% die. Generally, one or two human cases are reported in Australia per year.

Since the 1950s, there have been sporadic outbreaks of Murray Valley encephalitis, most notably in 1974 and 2011. The 1974 outbreak was Australia-wide, resulting in 58 cases and 12 deaths.

It’s likely the virus has been causing disease since at least the early 1900s when epidemics of encephalitis were attributed to a mysterious illness called Australian X disease.

Traditional monitoring of mosquito-borne diseases relies on the collection of mosquitoes using specially designed traps baited with carbon dioxide. Cameron Webb

Early warning system

Given the severity of Murray Valley encephalitis, health authorities rely on early warning systems to guide their responses.

One of the most valuable surveillance tools to date have been chooks because the virus circulates between birds and mosquitoes. Flocks of chickens are placed in areas with past evidence of virus circulation and where mosquitoes are buzzing about.

Chickens are highly susceptible to infection so blood samples are routinely taken and analysed to determine evidence of virus infection. If a chicken tests positive, the virus has been active in an area.

The good news is that even if the chickens have been bitten, they don’t get sick.

Mosquitoes can also be collected in the field using a variety of traps. Captured mosquitoes are counted, grouped by species and tested to see if they’re carrying the virus.

This method is very sensitive: it can identify as little as one infected mosquito in a group of 1,000. But processing is labour-intensive.

How can technology help track the virus?

Novel approaches are allowing scientists to more effectively detect viruses in mosquito populations.

Mosquitoes feed on more than just blood. They also need a sugar fix from time to time, usually plant nectar. When they feed on sugary substances, they eject small amounts of virus in their saliva.

This led researchers to develop traps that contain special cards coated in honey. When the mosquitoes feed on the cards, they spit out virus, which specific tests can then detect.

We are also investigating whether mosquito poo could be used to enhance the sugar-based surveillance system. Mosquitoes spit only tiny amounts of virus, whereas they poo a lot (300 times more than they spit).

This mosquito poo can contain a treasure trove of genetic material, including viruses. But we’re still working out the best way to collect the poo.

Mosquito poo, shown here after mosquitoes have fed on coloured honey, can be used to detect viruses like Murray Valley encephalitis. Dagmar Meyer

Staying safe from Murray Valley encephalitis

There is no vaccine or specific treatment for the virus. Avoiding mosquito bites is the only way to protect yourself from the virus. You can do this by:

wearing protective clothing when outdoors
avoiding being outdoors when the mosquitoes that transmit the virus are most active (dawn and dusk)
using repellents, mosquito coils, insect screens and mosquito nets
following public health advisories for your area.

The virus is very rare and your chances of contracting the disease are extremely low, but not being bitten is the best defence.

– ref. Explainer: what is Murray Valley encephalitis virus? – http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-murray-valley-encephalitis-virus-112212

The government’s $2bn climate fund: a rebadged rehash of old mistakes

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian A. MacKenzie, Senior Lecturer in Economics, The University of Queensland

Australia’s new flagship Climate Solutions Fund, announced this week by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, will spend more than A$2 billion on cutting greenhouse emissions by 2030.

While action on climate change is welcomed, this announcement seems to be a faithful reprise of the previous Emissions Reduction Fund, which was beset with problems.

The government has put a new name on an existing scheme, while steadfastly refusing to learn from mistakes made along the way. In cruder terms, it’s slapped a gleaming coat of lipstick onto a pig of a policy.

Add to that the A$1.38 billion pledged today for building the Snowy 2.0 scheme – another plan hatched by one of the government’s former incarnations – and there’s not a lot of imagination on display as Morrison’s government scrambles for some much-needed climate credibility ahead of this year’s election.

Currently Australia’s main tool to try and reduce emissions is the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), a “reverse auction” that lets businesses voluntarily reduce pollution and be rewarded with taxpayer cash. Successful bidders for funding have to sign a contract to reduce their pollution over several years.

So far, 193 million tonnes of pollution reduction has been secured at an average cost of A$12 per tonne. In total, around A$2.5bn will have been used to help businesses reduce pollution under the ERF’s original incarnation.

The Climate Solutions Fund is basically a rebranding exercise. It will build on the existing ERF but now expands the scope of participants, including allowing farmers to drought-proof their farms and subsidising businesses to pursue energy-efficiency projects.

Experience tells us it’s a bad idea

The aim for any climate policy should be to reduce our emissions to the agreed 2030 levels at the lowest possible cost. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen with the Climate Solutions Fund.

This fund will inherit many of the ERF’s existing problems.

One of the ERF’s main issues is with its so-called “safeguard mechanism”. This was set up to ensure that large polluters could not cancel out the progress achieved by the fund’s participants. But this has failed: many large polluters’ “benchmarks” (the amount of emissions they are allowed to release before being penalised) have increased over time and, consequently, much of the work done by the fund has indeed been undone. Because of this, the fund has not given good value for money, despite awarding funding to the lowest bidders.

There are deeper problems. The way the funding is awarded – with public funds going to project proponents who promise to do a good job – the participants inevitably know more about the details of the projects than the government does. This “informational asymmetry” may mean that businesses overquote, asking for more money than they would be prepared to accept.

The successful projects that have signed up may not even be genuinely “additional”, in that they may well have gone ahead regardless of whether or not they won government backing. In other words, we could be paying for something that would have happened anyway!

But we know what works

Economists have known for decades the best way to encourage pollution reduction. It involves putting a price on carbon.

Implementing a carbon tax or (more likely) a carbon trading market will give business the flexibility to choose their own pollution control measures, while also ensuring that overall emissions are reined in.

A carbon price will spur industry to invest in cleaner technologies (and increase the potential for jobs growth in these areas) and ensure we meet our climate goals.

Despite prophesies of economic doom, a carbon price can be used to decarbonise the economy, simulate growth in new industries, and redistribute the revenue to ensure equity. It’s using economic levers to help the environment.

Putting lipstick on a pig does not change the fact that it is still a pig.

– ref. The government’s $2bn climate fund: a rebadged rehash of old mistakes – http://theconversation.com/the-governments-2bn-climate-fund-a-rebadged-rehash-of-old-mistakes-112412

Eighteen countries showing the way to carbon zero

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pep Canadell, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere; Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, CSIRO

Eighteen countries from developed economies have had declining carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels for at least a decade. While every nation is unique, they share some common themes that can show Australia, and the world, a viable path to reducing emissions.

Global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase, with record high emissions in 2018 and further growth anticipated for 2019. This trend is linked to global economic growth, which is largely still powered by the burning of fossil fuels.

Significant reductions in the energy and carbon intensities of the global economy have not been sufficient to trigger decreases in global emissions.

But 18 countries have been doing something different. A new analysis sheds light on how they have changed their emission trajectories. There is no “silver bullet”, and every country has unique characteristics, but three elements emerge from the group: a high penetration of renewable energy in the electricity sector, a decline in energy use, and a high number of energy and climate policies in place. Something is working for these countries.

Australia was not part of the study, as its CO₂ emissions from the burning of fossil fuels remained largely stable over the study period 2005-2015 while the country’s economy grew. However, emissions of all greenhouse gases across all sectors of the economy (including land use change) declined over most of the same period, a trend that reversed in 2014 since when emissions have increased.

Why did emissions decline?

The 18 countries shown below all peaked their fossil fuel emissions no later than 2005 and had significant declines thereafter to 2015, the period covered by our study.

Changes in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion for 18 countries with declining emissions during 2005-2015. Countries are ordered by how soon their emissions peaked and began to decline. Le Quéré et al. Nature Climate Change (2019) based on data from the International Energy Agency @IEA/OECD

Uniformly, the largest contribution to emissions reductions – about 47% – was due to decreases in the fossil share of energy production, while reductions in overall energy use contributed 36%.

However, there are large differences in the relative importance of the factors that drove emissions reductions in the various countries. For instance, reduced energy use dominated emissions reductions in many countries of the European Union, whereas a more balanced spread of factors dominated in the United States, with the single largest contributor being the switch from coal to gas. Emissions reductions in Austria, Finland and Sweden were due to an increased share of non-fossil and renewable energy.

Interestingly, our analyses suggest that there is a correlation between the number of policies to promote the uptake of renewable energy and the decline in the 18 countries.

The declining emissions were not caused by the consumption of products produced elsewhere during the period examined. Earlier in the 2000s, this practice of outsourcing emissions to other countries (for example by moving manufacturing offshore) was a significant driver of emissions decline in many developed countries. But that effect has diminished.

The lasting consequences of the 2008 global financial crisis on the global economy however did have an impact, and partially explained the reduced energy use in many countries.

How significant are these emissions declines?

Emissions declined by 2.4% per year during 2005-15 across the 18 countries.

One could argue this decline is not particularly meaningful because global fossil fuel emissions continued to grow at 2.2% per year during the same period. However, this group of countries is responsible for 28% of the global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels. That is a sizeable fraction, and if the decline continues and further intensifies it can have a significant impact.

The 18 peak-and-decline countries also played a part in the stalling of global emissions between 2014 and 2016 while the global economy continued to grow, a combination that showed, briefly and for the first time, what accelerated decarbonisation would look like. While China did not have 10 years of continuous declining emissions (and hence it was not part of the group of 18 countries), it was the biggest contributor during this stalling.

There is no guarantee that the declining trends will continue over the coming decades. In fact, our global 2018 carbon budget report showed that some of the more recent country trends are fragile and require further policy and actions to strengthen the decreases and support long-term robust decarbonisation trends.

If a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, it seems some countries have already begun walking that road. Now we all need to start running decisively.

– ref. Eighteen countries showing the way to carbon zero – http://theconversation.com/eighteen-countries-showing-the-way-to-carbon-zero-112295

Early sowing can help save Australia’s wheat from climate change

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Hunt, Associate Professor, La Trobe University

Climate change has already reduced yields for Australian wheat growers, thanks to increasingly unreliable rains and hostile temperatures. But our new research offers farmers a way to adapt.

By sowing much earlier than they currently do, wheat growers can potentially increase yields again. However, our study published today in Nature Climate Change shows that to do this they need new varieties that allow them more leeway to vary their sowing dates in the face of increasingly erratic rainfall.

Sowing wheat is a matter of delicate timing. Seeds of current varieties need to be planted at just such a time so that, months later, the plants flower during a window of just 1-2 weeks, known as the optimal flowering period.

In Australia’s wheat belt this window is generally in early spring. At this time the soil is moist after the cool, wet winter; days are getting longer and sunnier; maximum temperatures are still relatively low; and frosts are less frequent. If crops flower outside the optimal window, yields decline sharply.

Crops and colonies

When Europeans first started trying to grow wheat in Australia, they used varieties that were suited to the cool, wet climate of northern Europe, where the optimal flowering period is in summer. These varieties were much too slow to flower in Australian conditions, and yields were very low. Wheat breeder William Farrer used faster-developing wheats from India to create the Federation variety, which revolutionised wheat production in Australia, earning Farrer the ultimate honour of having a pub named after him.

Federation wheat is a “spring wheat”, moving rapidly through its life cycle regardless of when it is planted. If you sow it earlier, it flowers earlier. For more than a century Australian wheat breeders have bred spring wheats, allowing growers to adjust their sowing time to get their crops to flower during the optimal period. Anzac Day has traditionally been the start of sowing season, after autumn rains have wet the soil enough for seeds to germinate.

Here is where climate change is causing a problem. If farmers sow later than mid-May, the wheat is likely to miss its spring flowering window. But southern Australia has experienced declining April and May rainfall, making it harder for growers to sow and establish crops at the right time. This in turn means crops flower too late the following spring, meaning yields are reduced by drought and heat.

Growers could start sowing earlier, and use stored soil water from summer rain (which hasn’t declined and has even increased at some locations), but current spring wheat varieties would flower too early to yield well. For farmers to sow earlier, they need a different sort of wheat in which development is slowed down by an environmental cue. One such environmental cue is called vernalisation. Plants that are sensitive to vernalisation will not flower until they have experienced a period of cold temperatures. These strains are thus called “winter wheats”.

Ironically enough, the wheat varieties that Europeans first brought to Australia were winter wheats, but they were further slowed by sensitivity to day length which made them too slow to reach the earlier flowering times needed in the hotter, drier colony.

But this problem can be sidestepped by using a “fast winter wheat”, which is sensitive to vernalisation but not to day length. Our previous research showed that this type of wheat was very suited to Australian conditions – it can be sown early but still flower at the right time. In fact, the vernalisation requirement means that this wheat can be sown over a much broader range of dates and experience fluctuating temperatures, and still flower at the right time.

Yielding results

In our new research, we developed different lines of wheat that varied in their response to vernalisation and day length, and grew them across the wheat belt to compare which ones would yield best at earlier sowing times.

We found that a fast winter wheat performed best over most of the wheatbelt, and on average yielded 10% more than spring wheat when they flower at the same time.

We then used computer simulations to investigate how these crops would perform at the scale of an entire farm. Our results showed that if Australian growers had access to adapted winter varieties in addition to spring varieties, they could start sowing earlier in seasons where there was an opportunity. If the rains come early, farmers can use the winter wheat; if they come late they can switch to the spring wheat, which yields better than winter wheat at late sowing times.

This would mean that more area of crop would be planted on time, and yields would increase as a result. If realised, this could increase national wheat production by about 20%, or roughly 7.1 million tonnes.

The main hurdle is that growers do not currently have access to suitable winter wheats. Breeding companies have started work on them, but it will be several years before suitably high-quality varieties become available.

Australian growers urgently need to keep pace with climate change. Although Australia only produces 4% of the world’s wheat, it accounts for 10% of exports and is thus important in determining global supply and price. If global wheat supply is low, prices rise, and it becomes unaffordable for many of the world’s poorest people, potentially causing malnutrition and civil unrest. Steeply rising wheat prices were among the factors behind the food riots that broke out in more than 40 countries in 2007-08, which helped to trigger the Arab Spring uprisings of 2010-12.

The world’s poorest people deserve to be able to buy wheat. But Australian wheat farmers also need to earn a decent living and stay internationally competitive. The only way to meet all these needs is to keep production costs low – and increasing yields by sowing the right wheat cultivars for Australia’s changing climate is one way to go about it.

– ref. Early sowing can help save Australia’s wheat from climate change – http://theconversation.com/early-sowing-can-help-save-australias-wheat-from-climate-change-112306

Koalas can learn to live the city life if we give them the trees and safe spaces they need

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edward Narayan, Senior Lecturer in Animal Science, Western Sydney University

Australia is one of the world’s most highly urbanised nations – 90% of Australians live in cities and towns, with development concentrated along the coast. This poses a major threat to native wildlife such as the koala, which can easily fall victim to urban development as our cities grow. Huge infrastructure projects are planned for Australian cities in the coming few years.

The need to house more people – the Australian population is projected to increase to as much as 49.2 million by 2066 – is driving ever more urban development, much of it concentrated in our biggest cities on the east coast. This is bad news for the koala population, unless the species’ needs are considered as part of planning approvals and the creation of urban green spaces. The good news is that koalas can learn to live the “green city life” as long as they are provided with enough suitable gum trees in urban green spaces.

Indeed, our newly published research, which analysed stress levels in wild koalas according to their habitat, reveals that koalas are the most stressed in rural and rural-urban fringe zones. This appears to be due to factors such as large bushfires, heatwave events, dog attacks, vehicle collision and human-led reduction of prime eucalyptus habitats. Koalas living in urban landscapes are less stressed as long as the city includes suitable green habitats.

If there are suitable trees, koalas can learn to live among us – this one is next to a school in South Australia. Vince Brophy/Shutterstock

In other words, wild animals including the koala can adapt to co-exist with human populations. Their ability to do so depends on us giving them the space, time and freedom to make that adaptation. This means ensuring they can carry out, without undue pressures, the biological and physiological functions on which their survival depends.

Wildlife species that lack access to suitable green habitats in cities are at higher risk of death and local extinction. Having to move between fragmented patches of habitat increases the risks. Land clearing and habitat destruction for infrastructure projects and other urban development are compounding the major threats to koalas, such as being hit by vehicles or attacked by dogs.

How does human pressure cause stress in wildlife?

Animals cope with stressful situations in their lives through very basic life-history adjustments and ecological mechanisms. These include changes in physiology and behaviour in response to stresses in their environment.

We can help make the environment more suitable for wildlife species by ensuring their basic needs for food, water and shelter are met. If animals are deprived of any of these necessities, they will show signs of stress.

So by subjecting wildlife to extrinsic stressors such as habitat clearance, climate change and pollution we are making it even more difficult for these animals to manage stress in their daily lives.

Basically any unwanted change to an animal’s environment that prevents it from performing its basic life-history functions, such as foraging and social behaviour, will cause stress.

So what can be done?

The koalas are telling us it’s a major problem when urban design is not green enough. Innovative solutions are needed!

Cities can do much more for wildlife conservation. Creating safe green spaces for wildlife is critical. Not just koalas but other wildlife such as birds, small mammals, reptiles and frogs can benefit immensely from urban green spaces.

Even in suburbs with plenty of green space, problems still arise because urban planning typically designs this space around access for human recreation and not for the wildlife that was living there before the housing development moved in.

Urban planning should always incorporate the planning of green spaces that are safe for wildlife. Providing wildlife crossings is part of the solution. Another important element is educational programs to alert drivers to the need to look out for koalas.

Measures like this can minimise impacts on wildlife that faces the many challenges of adjusting to city life.

– ref. Koalas can learn to live the city life if we give them the trees and safe spaces they need – http://theconversation.com/koalas-can-learn-to-live-the-city-life-if-we-give-them-the-trees-and-safe-spaces-they-need-112068

What 1,100 Australians told us about the experience of living with debt they can’t repay

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evgenia Bourova, Research Fellow (Financial Hardship Project), University of Melbourne

Two thirds of Australian adults feel financially insecure. Almost one in two have less than three months’ income saved, and almost one in three have less than one month’s income. One in seven have negligible or no savings, meaning that financial hardship – being unable to pay debts when they fall due – is just a bill away.

This is something that rightly concerns policy makers. Yet for all the attention given to the problem – for example, in the recently completed Senate inquiry into financial services targeted at Australians at risk of financial hardship – there is little empirical research on the topic in Australia to help inform policy responses.

To address this gap, we conducted Australia’s first large-scale study on the experiences of people in financial hardship. We surveyed 1,101 Australian adults who had been unable to pay a debt when it fell due within the previous two years.

The results must be interpreted carefully, as certain groups – such as people who spoke a language other than English at home, and people aged under 25 – were underrepresented.

Nonetheless, our findings clearly contradict a popular belief that debt problems are mostly due to poor choices. They also shed light on the profound impact that financial hardship – from temporary shortfalls in earnings to severe and ongoing deprivation – has on health, relationships and overall quality of life.

Key survey groups

Of our 1,101 respondents:

480 (43.6%) were “wage recipients”, their main source of income being wages paid by an employer.
402 (36.5%) were “Centrelink recipients”, their income coming primarily from social security payments (for example, the Newstart Allowance for the unemployed, the Disability Support Pension, or the Age Pension).
76 (6.9%) received both wages paid by an employer and a Centrelink payment.
143 (13.0%) had income coming from other sources, such as earnings from their own business, superannuation, and financial assistance from family or friends.

The median income for Centrelink recipients was A$19,981. For wage recipients, it was A$44,876.

The large representation of wage recipients in our sample shows that employment is no guarantee against financial hardship. Nor is educational attainment, with more than one third of wage recipients in our survey having a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Tipping points for financial hardship

We asked respondents about their experiences in the year before they fell behind with repayments. The most common experiences were unemployment and underemployment, as well as physical and mental health problems. Significantly less prevalent were factors such as gambling or alcohol and drug addiction.

datawrapper, CC BY

These results suggest financial hardship can affect anyone, regardless of how personally disciplined they are.

As one respondent told us: “I’m not badly off ($70,000 a year), but I’ve developed two autoimmune conditions on top of a preexisting neurological condition. Medication is expensive, and so are consultations with specialists […] I know how to manage my money, but there are more costs than money coming in […] It’s taught me not to judge people with money problems.”

Less income, more hardship

Falling behind with repayments was a stressful and isolating experience for our respondents, no matter their level of income.

But Centrelink recipients are far more vulnerable, as their incomes leave no margin for unexpected expenses.

“The reason we got in trouble was because the car broke down,” explained one respondent living on a Disability Support Pension. “It was just before Christmas, and all the bills came in together.”

datawrapper, CC BY

Respondents told us that being in debt negatively affected their health, relationships, community involvement, and ability to look for work or finish their education.

“It’s the anxiety,” said one respondent. “Not knowing from week to week whether the debts will all be able to be paid.”

Coping by cutting down

Most of our respondents sought to cope with their situation by reducing spending on food, recreation, utilities, medical care and transport. Just over a third borrowed money from family or friends.

Many wage recipients mentioned cutting down on “extravagances” such as restaurants, alcohol and take-away foods. However, higher proportions of Centrelink recipients were forced to cut down on essentials such as food, heating and medical care.

“I do not have any money for food,” said one respondent living on the Newstart Allowance. “I never thought we would be in this situation.”

Assistance for low-income debtors

Consumer protection laws allow Australians in financial hardship to negotiate moratoriums, payment plans and other arrangements (sometimes known as “hardship variations”) with creditors including banks, energy, water and telecommunications companies.

But just a quarter of our respondents used these provisions to obtain a hardship arrangement from an energy or water company, and only 14.3% used them to obtain assistance from a bank or other credit provider.

It is also questionable whether low-income debtors benefit from such arrangements, which tend to be very short-term.

Our results indicate a need to broaden the accessibility of assistance for low-income debtors – for example, by increasing funding for free financial counselling services.

Another measure, recommended by the Australian Council of Social Service and others, is increasing the amount of Newstart and other Centrelink allowances.

Financial hardship can affect almost anyone. However, severe and ongoing debt problems are an inevitability for Australians whose incomes are simply too low to meet the cost of living.

– ref. What 1,100 Australians told us about the experience of living with debt they can’t repay – http://theconversation.com/what-1-100-australians-told-us-about-the-experience-of-living-with-debt-they-cant-repay-105296

#Oscars2019 play it safe with Green Book – but don’t look to the Academy for enlightened thinking

By The Conversation -

February 26, 2019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stuart Richards, Lecturer in Screen Studies, University of South Australia

Every year it is the same story: the Academy comes so close to catching up with the rest of the film world, only to award the Oscar for Best Picture to the most middling of the bunch.

Many cinephiles the world over were likely scratching their heads, or rolling their eyes, or perhaps throwing something at the television, when Julia Roberts called out Green Book’s name, a film the LA Times later dubbed “the worst Best Picture winner since ‘Crash’”.

The film has been denounced by Shirley’s family for its depiction of him as an isolated figure, estranged from his three brothers and the black community. (In hindsight, maybe Crash wasn’t that bad?)

BlacKkKlansman director Spike Lee was apparently so incensed by the Best Picture announcement that he stormed to the back of the theatre only to be ushered back into his seat. He and director Jordan Peele reportedly did not clap the winners. Later, with a drink in hand, Lee told the press room that the “ref made a bad call”.

[embedded content] Director Spike Lee said that when Green Book won, he thought “the ref made a bad call”.

That a film with a white saviour narrative won the big prize shouldn’t really be much of a shock though.

The Academy Awards have battled with a number of controversies over the last few years, from #Oscarssowhite to La La Land being mistakenly read out as the winner of Best Picture in 2017 over Moonlight. An LA Times report in 2016 identified 91% of Oscar voters as white and 76% male.

It’s clear that the Academy needs to continue to up its game in diversifying the voting demographic.

The role of campaigning, and studios selecting which films to push, also stops the awards from genuinely reflecting the best works. Other films, notably by women directors, were shut out this year. Lynne Ramsay’s You Were Never Really Here and Marielle Heller’s Can You Ever Forgive Me are just two that deserved wider recognition.

The big takeaway message from this year’s ceremony, if it wasn’t clear already, is that we shouldn’t look to the Academy for any enlightened thinking.

A sea of safeness and whiteness

The optics of the Green Book team accepting their award could not have been more glaring. A collection of predominantly white men (and Mahershala Ali and Octavia Spencer to the side) pronounced that the film, to paraphrase, is about love and loving each other despite our differences and finding out that we are the same people.

For a film that is meant to be about race relations in America, all we got from the speech was a sea of safeness and whiteness.

Jim Burke, Charles B. Wessler, Nick Vallelonga, Peter Farrelly, and Brian Currie, the team behind Best Picture Green Book. Etienne Laurent/AAP

In 2010, the Academy expanded the Best Picture category to up to ten nominees. This change also saw the introduction of preferential voting. All voting members rank the year’s nominees from first through to eighth. If the film with the most first place votes doesn’t break 50%, then the film with the lowest first place votes is eliminated and its votes redistributed according to preferences.

This will then occur with the next lowest ranking film until a film cracks the 50% margin. As such, second and third place votes begin to count just as much as first place votes.

This preferential voting system results in a more agreeable film winning over a divisive one. This is perhaps why The Shape of Water won last year over Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

It also creates an interesting divide between critics and much of the film-going public and the Academy voters. Leading up to the awards, critical consensus saw Roma as the more agreeable choice, with Green Book being the divisive nominee. Turns out, this perspective was reversed in the world of the Academy and Green Book was deemed the most agreeable.

A year of back peddling

The awards this year were contentious before the ceremony even began. Kevin Hart’s previous homophobic remarks resulted in him stepping down. Four awards – cinematography, film editing, makeup/hairstyling, and live-action short – were going to be cut from the live broadcast. The Oscars also initially snubbed nominated songs from the show, which is not a new occurrence .

The Academy then did a lot of back peddling. There was no main host, all awards were included in the live broadcast and four of the nominated songs were performed live, with the omission of All the Stars by Kendrick Lamar and SZA from Black Panther due to “logistics and timing”. The Academy is really bad at reading the room until it’s too late.

Rami Malek accepts the Oscar for Best Actor for his performance in Bohemian Rhapsody. Terekah Najuwan/AMPAS/Handout/AAP

John Ottman, accepting the award for Best Editing of Bohemian Rhapsody, said the production was a labour of love with everyone bonding together. This perspective was an odd contrast to recent statements made by Rami Malek, in which he said that working with the film’s sometime director Bryan Singer “was not pleasant”.

In his acceptance speech for Best Actor, Malek also identified Bohemian Rhapsody as being about an unapologetically gay immigrant, yet it has been reported that Mercury was bisexual. If only the film could have been celebratory of Mercury’s sexuality. Still, the homophobic moralising will most likely be overshadowed by Green Book’s win.

Highlights

In the sea of disappointment, there were several delightful moments. The choices of presenters seemed laughably odd. Serena Williams introducing A Star is Born and Queen Latifah introducing The Favourite were interesting to say the least. Barbra Streisand introduced BlacKkKlansman because apparently she and Spike Lee both grew up in Brooklyn.

Lee, who won an honorary Oscar in 2016, won this year for Best Adapted Screenplay. The reception the film received was notably more rapturous than the one given to Green Book for Best Original Screenplay. The difference was palpable. Lee noted that February was Black History Month in the US:

1619, 2019. 400 years. 400 years our ancestors were stolen from mother Africa and brought to Jamestown, Virginia enslaved. Our ancestors worked the land, from can’t see at morning to can’t see at night.

The ceremony did see a significant number of women artists of colour taking to the stage to collect awards, from Hannah Beachler, production designer for Black Panther, to Regina King winning for her role in If Beale Street Could Talk.

Other highlights included Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper’s performance of the Best Original Song, Shallow, which evoked old school Hollywood glamour. The chemistry between the two is palpable.

[embedded content] Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper perform Shallow, winner of Best Original Song at this year’s Oscars.

[embedded content] Olivia Colman accepts the award for Best Actress at the 2019 Oscars.

The ceremony tried to pitch itself as being liberal, with several mentions of metaphorically tearing down walls. It’s clear though, that in Hollywood, this will always happen on the power players’ terms. The Academy Awards will never be as progressive as we want them to be. If that’s what you are looking for, then tune into the Indie Spirit awards.

In the end, final Oscars presenter Julia Roberts was drowned out by music emanating from the orchestra in the pit as she closed the show. Even the producers were done. Let’s just remember the select moments of joy and forget the rest ever happened.

– ref. #Oscars2019 play it safe with Green Book – but don’t look to the Academy for enlightened thinking – http://theconversation.com/oscars2019-play-it-safe-with-green-book-but-dont-look-to-the-academy-for-enlightened-thinking-111733

#Oscars2019 play it safe with Green Book – but don’t look to the Academy for any enlightened thinking

By The Conversation -

February 25, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stuart Richards, Lecturer in Screen Studies, University of South Australia

Every year it is the same story: the Academy comes so close to catching up with the rest of the film world, only to award the Oscar for Best Picture to the most middling of the bunch.

The film has been thoroughly denounced by Shirley’s family for its depiction of him as an isolated figure, estranged from his three brothers and the black community. (In hindsight, maybe Crash wasn’t that bad?)

BlacKkKlansman director Spike Lee was apparently so incensed by the Best Picture announcement that he stormed to the back of the theatre only to be ushered back into his seat. He and director Jordan Peele did not clap the winners. Later, with a drink in hand, he told the press room that the “ref made a bad call”.

[embedded content] Director Spike Lee said that when Green Book won, he thought “the ref made a bad call”.

That a film with a white saviour narrative won the big prize shouldn’t really be much of a shock though.

It’s clear that the Academy needs to continue to up its game in diversifying the voting demographic.

The role of campaigning, and studios selecting which films to push, also stops the awards from genuinely reflecting the best works. Other films, notably by women directors, were shut out this year. Lynne Ramsay’s You Were Never Really Here and Marielle Heller’s Can You Ever Forgive Me are just two that deserved wider recognition.

The big takeaway message from this year’s ceremony, if it wasn’t clear already, is that we shouldn’t look to the Academy for any enlightened thinking.

A sea of safeness and whiteness

For a film that is meant to be about race relations in America, all we got from the speech was a sea of safeness and whiteness.

Jim Burke, Charles B. Wessler, Nick Vallelonga, Peter Farrelly, and Brian Currie, the team behind Best Picture Green Book. Etienne Laurent/AAP

This will then occur with the next lowest ranking film until a film cracks the 50% margin. As such, second and third place votes begin to count just as much as first place votes.

This preferential voting system results in a more agreeable film winning over a divisive one. This is perhaps why The Shape of Water won last year over Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

A year of back peddling

The Academy then did a lot of back peddling. There was no main host, all awards were included in the live broadcast and four of the nominated songs were performed live, with the omission of All the Stars by Kendrick Lamar and SZA from Black Panther due to “logistics and timing”. The Academy is really bad at reading the room until it’s too late.

Rami Malek accepts the Oscar for Best Actor for his performance in Bohemian Rhapsody. Terekah Najuwan/AMPAS/Handout/AAP

Highlights

1619, 2019. 400 years. 400 years our ancestors were stolen from mother Africa and brought to Jamestown, Virginia enslaved. Our ancestors worked the land, from can’t see at morning to can’t see at night.

Other highlights included Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper’s performance of the Best Original Song, Shallow, which evoked old school Hollywood glamour. The chemistry between the two is palpable.

[embedded content] Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper perform Shallow, winner of Best Original Song at this year’s Oscars.

[embedded content] Olivia Colman accepts the award for Best Actress at the 2019 Oscars.

– ref. #Oscars2019 play it safe with Green Book – but don’t look to the Academy for any enlightened thinking – http://theconversation.com/oscars2019-play-it-safe-with-green-book-but-dont-look-to-the-academy-for-any-enlightened-thinking-111733

The law is closing in on Facebook and the ‘digital gangsters’

By The Conversation -

February 25, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sacha Molitorisz, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for Media Transition, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

For social media and search engines, the law is back in town.

Prompted by privacy invasions, the spread of misinformation, a crisis in news funding and potential interference in elections, regulators in several countries now propose a range of interventions to curb the power of digital platforms.

A newly published UK inquiry is part of this building global momentum.

Shortly after Valentine’s Day, a committee of the British House of Commons published its final report into disinformation and “fake news”. It was explicitly directed at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and it was less a love letter than a challenge to a duel.

The report found:

Companies like Facebook should not be allowed to behave like ‘digital gangsters’ in the online world, considering themselves to be ahead of and beyond the law.

The committee was particularly vexed by Zuckerberg himself, concluding:

By choosing not to appear before the Committee … Mark Zuckerberg has shown contempt.

Its far-reaching recommendations included giving the UK’s Information Commissioner greater capacity to be “… an effective ‘sheriff in the Wild West of the Internet’.”

The law is back in town

In December 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) handed down its preliminary report into the impact of digital platforms. It tabled a series of bold proposals.

Then, on February 12, the Cairncross Review – an independent analysis led by UK economist and journalist Frances Cairncross – handed down its report, A Sustainable Future for Journalism.

Referring to sustainability of the production and distribution of high-quality journalism, “Public intervention may be the only remedy,” wrote Cairncross. “The future of a healthy democracy depends on it.”

And a week later, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons issued its challenge in its final report on disinformation and “fake news”:

The big tech companies must not be allowed to expand exponentially, without constraint or proper regulatory oversight … only governments and the law are powerful enough to contain them.

How do the responses of the three reports compare?

ACCC inquiry broadest in scope

First, it’s important to note that the scope of these three inquiries varied significantly.

The ongoing ACCC inquiry, billed as a world-first and set to hand down its final report in June, is seeking to assess the impact of digital platforms on media and advertising, with a focus on news.

The Cairncross Review was narrower in intent, addressing “the sustainability of the production and distribution of high quality journalism, and especially the future of the press, in this dramatically changing market.”

And the House of Commons committee had a very direct brief to investigate fake news. It then chose to focus on Facebook.

As such, the three inquiries overlap substantially, but the ACCC investigation is unequivocally the broadest in scope.

Not just distribution platforms

However, all three reports land in roughly the same place when it comes to characterising these businesses. They all see digital platforms as more than just conduits of other people’s content – and this brings certain responsibilities.

The ACCC says digital intermediaries are “considerably more than mere distributors or pure intermediaries” when it comes to the supply of news and journalism.

The Cairncross Review stresses there is a “fundamental difference” between distributors and content creators.

The House of Commons committee proposes “a new category of tech company” as a legal mechanism for having digital platforms assume liability for harmful content.

Need more oversight

A related important point is that all three reviews recommend that digital platforms are brought more squarely into the legal and regulatory environment.

By this, they don’t just mean cross-industry laws that apply to all businesses. There is some of that – for example, adapting competition laws so certain conduct is regulated.

But these inquiries also raise the prospect of specific rules for platforms as part of communications regulation. How they go about this shows the point at which the inquiries diverge.

News reliability

The ACCC has flagged the need for further work on a platforms code of practice that would bring them into the orbit of the communications regulator, the ACMA.

The platforms would be bound to the code, which would require them to badge content produced under established journalistic standards. It would be the content creators – publishers and broadcasters, not platforms – that would be subject to these standards.

In the UK, Cairncross proposes a collaborative approach under which a new regulator would monitor and report on platforms’ initiatives to improve reliability of news – perhaps, in time, moving to specific regulatory obligations.

Algorithms regulator

In Australia, the ACCC has proposed what others refer to as a new “algorithms regulator”. This would look at how ads and news are ranked in search results or placed in news feeds, and whether vertically integrated digital platforms that arrange advertising favour their own services.

The algorithms regulator would monitor, investigate and report on activity, but would rely on referral to other regulators rather than have its own enforcement powers.

Unsurprisingly, the leading digital platforms in Australia oppose the new algorithms regulator. Equally unsurprisingly, media companies think the proposal doesn’t go far enough.

For its part, Cairncross does recommend new codes on aspects such as indexing and ranking of content and treatment of advertising. The codes would be overseen by a new regulator but they would be developed by platforms and a move to a statutory code would only occur if they were inadequate.

In contrast to both these reviews, the House of Commons committee’s Code of Ethics is concerned with “online harms”. Right from the outset, it would be drawn up and enforced by a new regulator in a similar way to Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, enforcing its Broadcasting Code.

It says this would create “a regulatory system for online content that is as effective as that for offline content industries”. Its forcefulness on this is matched by its recommendation on algorithms: it says the new regulator should have access to “tech companies’ security mechanisms and algorithms, to ensure they are operating responsibly”.

Both the ACCC and Cairncross pointedly avoid this level of intervention.

However, the ACCC does raise the prospect of a new digital platforms ombudsman. Apart from delivering 11 preliminary recommendations, the ACCC also specified nine proposed areas for further analysis and assessment. Among these areas, the ACCC suggested the idea of such an ombudsman to deal with complaints about digital platforms from consumers, advertisers, media companies and businesses.

Data privacy

And then there is data privacy.

This is where the ACCC and the House of Commons committee delivered some of their most significant recommendations. It’s also where regulators in other jurisdictions have been turning their attention, often on the understanding that the market power of digital platforms is largely derived from their ability to access user data.

Earlier this month, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) found that Facebook could no longer merge a person’s data from their Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp accounts, without their explicit consent.

In Germany, the law has spoken. In Australia and the UK, it’s still clearing its throat.

– ref. The law is closing in on Facebook and the ‘digital gangsters’ – http://theconversation.com/the-law-is-closing-in-on-facebook-and-the-digital-gangsters-112232

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: The best arguments for the capital gains tax

By Bryce Edwards -

February 25, 2019

Political Roundup: The best arguments for the capital gains tax

by Dr Bryce Edwards

During the last decade, there has been an explosion of concern around the world about economic inequality. Here in New Zealand there has been a growing debate about how to deal with this, and virtually all parts of the political spectrum now pay attention to this problem. It is in this context that the Tax Working Group’s proposal for a relatively comprehensive capital gains tax (CGT) has been produced – as an attempt to help rebalance inequalities in New Zealand, and improve our society.

The best arguments in favour of introducing a comprehensive CGT revolve around inequality, and Michael Cullen, who chaired the Tax Working Group (TWG), has been clear in his defence of their proposals that they are fundamentally about fairness.

He’s pointed to the great economic inequality that exists in New Zealand and suggested that a CGT would help ameliorate that, because it would result in the rich paying more tax based on their wealth and income. He has argued that it is wrong that wage-earners are taxed on their full income while the wealthy “can earn income from gains on assets and not be taxed at all”.

The proposed CGT would have a 33 per cent tax applied to rental properties, baches, company shares, farms and other businesses. Cullen has argued that the additional $8bn that might be raised from the new tax over the first five years would allow tax cuts for the poorest New Zealanders.

Straight after the release of the report on Thursday, leftwing blogger No Right Turn elaborated on this: “At the moment we have a situation where ordinary New Zealanders are taxed on every dollar they earn, while the rich are not. And that is simply wrong. Income should be treated equally and taxed no matter what the source – and that means taxing capital income. If it has the side effect of removing distortions in our economy – the housing bubble, or farmers farming for capital gains – then that is a bonus, but fundamentally it is about fairness and making the leeches pay their fair share for once” – see: For a capital gains tax.

For a more in-depth discussion of the inequality driving the CGT agenda, see Max Rashbrooke’s Capital gains tax: A test of our national myths and Labour’s mettle. In this he says: “most of all the proposed tax is a test of the stories we New Zealanders like to tell about ourselves. Fairness and egalitarianism are supposedly our touchstones. Yet we have allowed inequality in income – our salaries and wages – to soar to such a point that we are among the developed world’s most unequal. When it comes to wealth – the assets we own – our wealthiest tenth have 60 percent of all assets while the poorest half of adults have just 4 percent. At the moment, that vaunted egalitarianism looks a lot like a myth. But a capital gains tax could make it something more real.”

Reinforcing that the CGT is all about dealing with inequality, John Armstrong also argues that the case for such a tax has been well made by the Government and the TWG: “They have made it their mission to address inequality. The means of doing so has now been laid out in detail in front of them. For Ardern in particular, the implementation of a capital gains tax is the ultimate test of her willingness not just to talk about doing the right thing, but to actually do the right thing. And without question, it is the right thing to do. Taking into account the current inconsistencies and anomalies in the way assets are treated, the logic for the introduction of a capital gains tax is compelling. The economic logic in terms of removing distortionary factors impeding investment decisions is similarly persuasive” – see: Failure to deliver capital gains tax would see Ardern reduced to a laughing stock.

Similarly, according to The Press newspaper, the debate “is about fairness. Is our tax system as fair as it could be? If your definition of ‘fairness’ boils down to the reduction of income inequality, then the answer is no… But we have heard little about fairness since the report was released on Thursday” – see: The pains and gains of tax reform.

The editorial condemns opponents for “political hyperbole” that has become “absurd”, especially the suggestion that “ordinary New Zealanders” are going to be worse off under the proposed new tax: “The reality is somewhat different. Rather than the ordinary Kiwi battler, it’s the wealthiest 10 per cent who would overwhelmingly be affected by the proposed capital gains tax. It is bizarre to hear hokey lines about the mythical Kiwi way of life trotted out by politicians who own as many as eight properties.”

Another newspaper editorial, in the Whanganui Chronicle, says that the CGT is an appropriate response to the growing divide in society between renters and landlords, and can help “correct an economic imbalance that threatens to tear our society apart” – see Simon Waters’ editorial: Why shouldn’t you pay tax, the rest of us do?

The editorial argues that the CGT should be implemented despite pushback from those negatively impacted by it: “We have become a nation of landlords. And tenants… Half the country is now crying like children who’ve had their candy fix taken away by mum. The other half, the tenants and the ones who can’t get on the property ladder because the investment frenzy has driven house prices too high to afford, wait. They wait to see if the Government has the gumption to turn those recommendations into reality. Will it cost Labour votes? Most likely. Would it be a politically savvy thing to do? Nope. Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely.”

For TVNZ’s Jack Tame, the deciding question is whether we “value fairness” in society. He supports a CGT and points out that perhaps it’s not in his interests to do so: “I work hard. I don’t sleep much. I work six days a week. I have sacrificed a lot in my life to get ahead. And I earn a lot of money. Most accountants would agree, a capital gains tax is absolutely not in my personal interest. But I do think it’s fair” – see: Why I think a capital gains tax is ‘fair’.

Tame says it’s all about consistency: “why if we value fairness, do we have an economy where every form of income is taxed tax, except one? Where, if someone buys a property, rents it out for a decade to cover the mortgage, then sells it for $400,000 more than they bought it for… that person gets to keep every single cent of that profit, while you working down the street and slogging away in a job, lose as much as 33 cents on the dollar.”

Even bank economists seem to agree that the CGT proposal is a positive step in dealing with inequality. For example, Jarrod Kerr and Jeremy Couchman of Kiwibank told The Spinoff on Thursday that “This is at a time when the concentration of wealth is shifting to a declining share of the population, and if nothing changes, wage and salary earners will likely have to pick up an increasing share of the country’s tax bill” – see: Five commentators weigh in on the Tax Working Group’s recommendations.

Similarly, Salvation Army social policy analyst Alan Johnson explained: “The taxation of wealth is past due in New Zealand if we’re to address the inequity that income from labour – and especially the labour of wage and salary earners – is taxed comprehensively, while the taxation of income from capital is taxed lightly”.

Another important part of the argument for introducing a CGT is the simple fact that most other similar nations have them. For a discussion of the various international tax rates and configurations, see Zane Small’s Capital gains tax proposal: How it compares to the rest of the world.

Cullen has been keen to push this line, and appeared on The AM show on Friday to say: “Everybody else has [a capital gains tax]. The United States, the United Kingdom – these rabid ‘socialist’ countries like the United States have a capital gains tax… France, Germany, the Nordics – they all take it for granted. Many of them have higher productivity than we do. The world doesn’t collapse with the introduction with a capital gains tax” – see Dan Satherley’s Judith Collins says capital gains tax will ‘make Simon Bridges the Prime Minister’.

On the question of whether it is fair to include cribs or baches in the CGT, Cullen also said: “Let’s be real about this – most families in New Zealand don’t own holiday homes. We never did – most families never did. We certainly don’t now. Holiday homes now are often bigger than the houses most people live in, in the cities. And if they’re not taxed, then it’s unfair to tax the ma and pa investors in rentals.”

Finally, so far National’s major attack-line against the proposed CGT was Simon Bridges response that the recommendations “are an attack on the Kiwi way of life”. For responses to this, see Megan Harvey’s Kiwis roast Simon Bridges on social media for his ‘Kiwi way of life’, and Hayden Donnell’s Once more unto the beach house: Simon Bridges and the Kiwi way of life.

Newsletter: New Zealand Politics Daily – February 25 2019

By Bryce Edwards -

February 25, 2019

Newsletter: New Zealand Politics Daily – February 25 2019

Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage.

The Beehive and Parliament Buildings.Today’s content

Capital gains tax proposal, Tax Working Group
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Herald): Big tax shake-up or big PR job?
Henry Cooke (Stuff): Capital gains tax: Challenging the idea of the ‘Kiwi way of life’ a political minefield for both sides
Peter Wilson (RNZ): Capital gains tax: Winston Peters holds all the cards on changes
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): Dying In A Ditch For A Capital Gains Tax That Half The Country Doesn’t Want
Chris Trotter (Interest): The Capital Gains Tax recommended by Cullen’s team is of such breadth and bite it can’t have been intended seriously
David Slack (Stuff): Capital gains tax might not be the tax you want, but it’s the tax we need
Jack Tame (Herald): Why I think a capital gains tax is ‘fair’
Duncan Garner (Stuff): Capital gains tax is Labour’s death wish – they should dump it now
Anna Connell (Newsroom): Capital gains tax – should we care?
ODT Editorial: Jury must deliberate on tax reform
Simon Waters (Whanganui Chronicle) Editorial: Why shouldn’t you pay tax, the rest of us do?
Press Editorial: The pains and gains of tax reform
Stacey Kirk (Stuff): Welcome to the tax party, where everything served leaves a funny taste
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Capital gains tax: ‘Unfair tax’ or ‘step in the right direction’?
Brian Gaynor (Herald): Tax plan likely to go the way of the Titanic
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Simon Bridges won’t commit to rolling back ‘brightline’ capital gains tax
RNZ: Capital gains tax: National should dial back hyperbole, engage in debate – Finance Minister Grant Robertson
1News: ‘Poor old renter’ will be ‘hurt’ by Government’s healthy homes initiative, says Simon Bridges
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Judith Collins says capital gains tax will ‘make Simon Bridges the Prime Minister’
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Simon Bridges explains what he thinks the ‘Kiwi way of life’ is
Kate Hawkesby (Newstalk ZB): It’s tenants who will foot the bill for warmer rental properties
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Government’s capital gains tax sweetener could mean more money for low and middle-income earners
Ryan Bridge (Newshub): Jacinda has poked an angry tiger
Michael Cropp (1News): Tenants will pick up cost of Government’s healthy homes standard, investors warn
Terry Baucher (Interest): Taxmageddon! Is there a tax monster on the loose?
Peter Dunne (Interest): The majority of Tax Working Group members have been used as stooges for a predetermined Labour Party policy outcome
Paul Buchanan: Legacy investments versus speculative investments
David Farrar: Why a CGT on businesses is double taxation
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Capital gains tax will ‘decimate’ Kiwi start-up industry – Rocket Lab founder Peter Beck
Ben Leahy (Herald): Tech start-up founder angry at tax proposal
Pete George: Tax Working Group, CGT – PR and promises
Ben Uffindell (The Civilian): RELIEF: New Zealand businesses won’t have to pay capital gains on these family homes
Ben Uffindell (The Civilian): Tax Working Group recommends The Big Short
Jason Walls (Herald): Westpac’s chief economist says a capital gains tax would lead to higher living standards
Simon Hartley (ODT): Negative effects would outweigh benefits, business leaders say
David Snell (Herald): Implementing capital gains tax will be ‘incredibly difficult’
1News: Would a capital gains tax ease house prices? Business experts cynical
Catherine Smith (Herald): Hold or fold: Will capital gains tax force property investors to sell quickly?
Jason Walls (Herald): Capital Gains Tax would see house prices fall as investors flee market ahead of tax’s implementation – REINZ
Interest: TWG says the Govt should ‘give favourable consideration’ to exempting NZ Super Fund from NZ tax because it’s ‘an instrument of the Govt’
Lyn Webster (Stuff): New tax bad news for those on the land
Ben Leahy (Herald): The sale of eight Auckland mansions last year could alone have netted $24m in capital gains tax
Jo Moir (RNZ): New Zealand First hiring experts for advice on capital gains tax
Andrew Gunn (Stuff): Hysteria and hubris: the CGT files
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): NZX fears the worst from capital gains tax
Andrea Fox (Herald): Capital gains tax plan for lifestyle property owners could affect tens of thousands
David Farrar: 92% of lifestyle blocks will be hit with CGT
Catherine Harris (Stuff): Five things that the Tax Working Group considered apart from capital gains

China-NZ relations
Damian Grant (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern faces her ‘Lange moment’ over Huawei decision
Martin van Beynen (Stuff): How much does China love us?
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Andrew Little disregards US remark on partnership versus Huawei use
Gehan Gunasekara (Newsroom): A legal way out of the Huawei debacle
Jeremy Rose (RNZ): Mediawatch: Media ignore smoking guns in Huawei case
Richard Swainson (Stuff): China doesn’t like us any more and the dirty tricks have begun
Zane Small (Newshub): New Zealand urged to ‘desist from undermining China’s growing influence’
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Chinese haven’t forgotten ‘Chinese-sounding names’ insult – Collins
John Braddock (World Socialists): China retaliates over New Zealand government’s Huawei ban
Simon Draper (Herald): Asia turned out to be bigger than we all anticipated – NZ needs to get on board

Australian PM in NZ
Richard Harman (Politik): The elephant in the window
Zane Small and Anna Bracewell-Worrall (Newshub): PM Scott Morrison confirms Australia has ‘no plans’ to take NZ’s refugee offer
Audrey Young (Herald): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern holds talks with Australian counterpart Scott Morrison
Eleanor Ainge Roy and Amy Remeikis (Guardian): Jacinda Ardern tells Scott Morrison Australia’s deportation policy ‘corrosive’
Newstalk ZB: Jacinda Ardern talks immigration and security with Aussie PM
Audrey Young (Herald): Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has a short but sweet encounter with New Zealand
Anna Whyte (1News): Ardern criticises ‘corrosive’ deportations during joint press conference with Australia’s PM
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Prime Minister’s office dismisses reports New Zealand asked Australia for no single, male asylum seekers

Housing
Scott Palmer (Newshub): New rental home standards will cost Housing New Zealand $200 million
Jo Moir (Stuff): Below-par rentals: ‘Cost of doing nothing is too great’
Jason Walls (Herald): Housing Minister Phil Twyford unveils new standards for all NZ rental homes
Catherine McGregor (Spinoff): Less cold, less mould: new rental standards offer hope for suffering tenants
Jason Walls (Herald): New rental minimum standard rules may help address public health issues but could also increase rent
Jason Walls (Herald): Landlord lobby groups and the National Party say new rental requirements will force rent up
Kristin Price (Herald): Auckland landlord says healthy home standards should exempt new builds
Andrew Bydder (Stuff): Something rotten with the state of building
Mitch McCann (Newshub): ‘Really frustrating’: Kiwi tenants struggle to land rental homes as March Madness sets in early
Logan Savory (Southland Times): Where are the rentals? Southland’s worrying rental property dip
Mark Price (ODT): Kiwibuild sales give wrong idea: developer
Richard Meadows (Stuff): Budget Buster: Buying a house might be the best purchase you ever make
Kevin Lampen-Smith (Stuff): Why do I have to prove who I am when I’m selling my house?
Bryan Cadogan (Stuff): A realistic dream – so why isn’t it happening?
Matt Shand (Stuff): Tauranga City Council demolishes Bella Vista Homes
Ben Leahy (Herald): First-home buyer says moaning millennials should forget Auckland prices and move to regions
Kelvin McDonald (Māori TV): Landlord’s message shocks: “My koro would be very angry”

Health and disability
Michelle Duff (Stuff): Minister Julie Anne Genter to question Director-General over maternity study
Southland Times Editorial: Otago University maternity research was assailed, not disproven
Mike Houlahan (ODT): Labour vulnerable in health field
Mike Houlahan (ODT): SDHB deficit $4 million lower
Mike Houlahan (ODT): ‘Rebalancing’ of healthcare vital
Mike Houlahan (ODT): Making the social connection
John Gibb (ODT): High-needs patients need better primary care: study finds
John Gibb (ODT): ACC service ‘a step in the right direction’
1News: Disability support sector in desperate need of funding as it reaches breaking point
Christina Persico (Stuff): Petition before Parliament for autism-friendly shopping options
1News: Health Minister urges Kiwis to get tested for hepatitis C
Samesh Mohanlall (Stuff): Dying man ‘robbed of dignified death’ after being sent to hospice in a taxi
Marty Sharpe (Stuff): Wairoa woman Arohaina Gilbert died after DHB’s delays
Rob Stock (Stuff): Toxic homes: New Zealand’s asbestos legacy
Donna-Lee Biddle (Stuff): Waikato DHB without a chief executive after four months and $73k
John Gibb (ODT): Gymnasium mooted for new hospital
Sam Kilmister (Stuff): Mother’s plea for emergency mental health help falls on deaf ears
Hannah Martin (Stuff): Third of women having ‘normal’ births at Auckland Hospital not from Auckland
Tom Rowland (Herald): Up in smoke? Vaping ban proposed for Hamilton CBD
Janine Rankin (Manawatū Standard): Preparations resume for junior doctors’ strikes
Amy Nelmes Bissett (RNZ): A bitter pill: Why can’t we recycle medication?
Jamie Morton (Herald): Michael J Fox Foundation funds ground-breaking NZ research on Parkinson’s disease
Farah Hancock (Newsroom): Polio: lingering effects and the last mile
Eloise Gibson (Newsroom): Can we save our sickest from superbugs?

Lime scooters
Eva Corlett (RNZ): AA calls for Lime scooters to be suspended until proven safe
Kethaki Masilamani, Dan Satherley (Newshub): Will Auckland Council unlock Lime scooters?
Chris Keall (Herald): Lime finally apologises to Auckland scooter lockup victim, asks for details
Herald: Lime: ‘We apologise to our riders’, but our scooters are safe
Brad Flahive (Stuff): Lime ‘disappointed’ with Auckland Council e-scooter ban, calls for ‘level playing field’
Herald: ‘This won’t get councillors onside’: Auckland Council bombarded by Lime emails
RNZ: Councillors bite back at Lime’s email blitz
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Lime confusing its users about Auckland ban, Councillor says
Nick Truebridge (Stuff): Lime scooter glitch: Auckland Council’s handling of trial attacked amid licence suspension
Danielle Clent (Stuff): Lime’s call for e-scooter support sees over 4000 emails sent to Auckland Council
Melanie Earley (Stuff): Lime calls for e-scooter riders’ support with app campaign after Auckland Council ban
Amber-Leigh Woolf (Stuff): Lime won’t be allowed unless they’re proven safe, Wellington mayor says
Chris Morris (ODT): Scooters off streets in Dunedin
Herald: Lime pleads to public to help bring back ‘transport revolution
Herald: Lime scooters suspended temporarily due to safety issues
1News: Lime scooters have Auckland licence ‘temporarily suspended’ due to brake fault concerns
Tina Law (Stuff): Christchurch man charged for 111 Lime scooter rides he did not take

Transport
Jamie Morton (Herald): Bikelash: Researchers examine what drives opposition to cycle lanes
Felix Marwick (Spinoff): Wellington’s most dangerous pastime: riding a bike
Damian George (Stuff): Twenty Wellington bus services suspended for up to six months because of driver shortage
Todd Niall (Stuff): Government withholds ‘contentious’ research on bus drivers’ conditions
RNZ: Wellington’s Airport Flyer no longer part of region’s bus network
Gavin Evans (Newsroom): Hydrogen opportunity for NZ transport hubs
Fraser Whineray (Herald): Hydrogen not the answer to energy saving in NZ

National’s BlueGreens conference
Richard Harman (Politik): National to promote GM debate
Jamie Morton (Herald): New Catlins park and bottle scheme in National’s enviro policies
Katie Fitzgerald (Newshub): National Party proposes new national park in the Catlins
Anna Bracewell-Worrall (Newshub): National could bring back cash for drink bottles
Steve Abel (Noted): National’s failure to grasp climate change a major challenge for NZ
Christine Rose (Daily Blog): National’s Environment Discussion Document Business as Usual

Environment
Laura Goodall (Stuff): Climate change scientists look to Māori and other indigenous people for answers
Maddison Northcott (Stuff): Christchurch pupils to strike as part of global climate change action
RNZ: Backing for NZ students to abandon classes over climate change
Amber-Leigh Woolf (Stuff): Climate change could shrink kiwi habitat, DOC says
Paul Gorman (Stuff): Environment Canterbury chairman Steve Lowndes joins Extinction Rebellion protesters
David Farrar: The ECan Chairman is bonkers
RNZ: Ongoing health risks unlikely after Waikato River pollution – council
Geoff Bertram (Daily Blog): Climate change & Free Trade
Rod Oram (Newsroom): The last will and testament of oil and gas
Peter Griffin (Stuff): NZ predator-free needs genetic engineering research
Tim Newman (Nelson Mail): Greens start war on waste in Nelson with beach clean-up
RNZ: Ongoing health risks unlikely after Waikato River pollution – council
RNZ: Warning about toxic algae in rivers in Wellington region

Canterbury earthquakes and rebuild
Charlie Mitchell and Michael Haywar (Stuff): ‘Plunder’: How the bill for the Canterbury earthquakes was passed on
Vicki Anderson (Stuff): Christchurch earthquakes: Rebuilding our people
Michael Hayward (Stuff): Christchurch stadium concept plans revealed
Michael Hayward (Stuff): Christchurch council spends $74k connecting water, sewerage to lone red zone house
Ashley Cullen (RNZ): After the Christchurch earthquakes: How it feels to have PTSD at 8
Herald: New footage shows catastrophic damage caused by Canterbury earthquakes
Charlie Gates (Stuff): Town Hall finally ready to meet its Chch public after years of restoration and a $167m overhaul

Education, childcare
Shawn McAvinue (ODT): School shouts pupils uniforms
Max Christoffersen (Stuff): Wintec’s acting CEO Dave Christiansen should speak up or step down over scandal
Southland Times: Invercargill businesswoman launches Stand up for SIT campaign
Jessica Wilson (ODT): Support for student wellbeing initiative
Brittany Keogh (Stuff): NZ school students’ volunteer tourism could be putting vulnerable people at risk
David Seymour (Stuff): Biggest school changes in a decade subject of public debate
Michael Woodhouse (ODT): ‘Parents will be disempowered’
CPAG: CPAG welcomes move to qualified in-home early childcare providers
Nikki Preston (Herald):Childcare most expensive cost of raising children: research

Child abuse in state care, church care
Eleanor Ainge Roy (Guardian): Data breach and delay: survivors lose faith in New Zealand’s landmark child abuse inquiry
Andrea Vance (Stuff): State abuse survivor in spying scandal says Govt lawyers set out to vilify him
Chris Morris (ODT): Survivor denied entry to Vatican
Lloyd Burr (Newshub): Kiwi man’s powerful haka at Vatican challenges Catholic Church’s child sex abuse
Lloyd Burr (Newshub): Catholic Church still abusing children in New Zealand – former victim

Justice, corrections, crime
Matthew Rosenberg (Stuff): An inconvenient truth: The commonly misunderstood disorder filling our prisons
RNZ: Inmates forced to urinate in sinks, bottles – advocacy group
George Block (ODT): Psychological damage after assault linked to prison officer’s death
Anneke Smith (RNZ): How justice for Susan Burdett took 27 years
Duncan Garner (Newshub): Teina Pora has no time for Malcolm Rewa

Jordan Peterson
Simon Wilson (Herald): Jordan Peterson: The missionary man
ODT Editorial: Is Jordan Peterson a coal-mine canary
Sophie Bateman (Newshub): Farewell Jordan Peterson, a snake oil salesman for our troubled time
Sean Plunket (Magic Talk): Toxic masculinity isn’t the problem – toxic feminism is

Kiwibank/Mike King “I am hope” charity campaign
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Facebook campaign ‘bargain advertising’ for Kiwibank
Herald: Kiwibank doubles ‘I AM HOPE’ Facebook campaign donation to $100,000
Damien Venuto (Herald): Kiwibank Facebook campaign: 185k NZers take part, donation doubles
1News: Kiwibank doubles its donation to Mike King’s mental health fund to $100,000

Employment
Lorna Subritsky (Newstalk ZB): Muffin Break row: Why should millennials work for free?
Michael Reddell: Working hours

Local government
Interest: Auckland Mayor Phil Goff says the Government should give Auckland Council the GST revenue it makes from rates paid by Aucklander
Jordan Williams (Herald): Tamihere chance to wrest control from left
Robert Steven (Taupo Times): New councillor seat looks likely for Taupō District Council after representation review
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): Water meters suggested as Wellington faces water shortage

Economic policy
Liam Dann (Herald): Don’t fear the softer stuff from the Treasury and the RBNZ
Liam Dann (Herald): Economy Hub: Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr embraces the forest god
Arthur Grimes (Newsroom): What makes us happy (and can policy help)?
John Roughan (Herald): Hoping Orr can see wood for the trees

Primary industries
Eric Frykberg (RNZ): More ways to fund biosecurity needed, says government
Collette Devlin (Stuff): MPI to advise Government on biosecurity funding

Te Matatini
Leigh-Marama McLachlan (RNZ): Resounding political statements from Te Matatini stage
RNZ: Personal performance of ‘incredible’ waiata at Te Matatini for PM
Melissa Nightingale (Herald): Te Matatini kapa haka festival has ‘Māori-ised’ Wellington

Poverty, inequality
Liz Gordon (Daily Blog): Debt as a weapon of mass destruction
Jordan Watson (Stuff): How-to Dad: That’s crap, New Zealand, let’s help feed our kids
Debbie Jamieson (Stuff): Queenstown’s first beggar praises locals’ generosity, says ‘snobby’ Aucklanders are tight

Waitangi Trust fraud conviction
Sam Hurley (Herald): Manager jailed for stealing $1.2m of Waitangi Trust cash to fund cosmetic surgery and luxury lifestyle
Melanie Earley (Stuff): Waitangi Trust fraudster left organisation ‘on the brink of financial ruin’
RNZ: Ex-Waitangi Treaty Grounds trust finance head jailed for fraud

Tourism
Tom O’Connor (Stuff): Be careful tourists, or we might bite
Lincoln Tan (Herald): Young Kiwis not wanting careers in tourism a concern

Wellington zoo, animal welfare
RNZ: Wellington Zoo euthanises baboons after fighting, anxiety
Newshub: Wellington Zoo’s baboons only euthanised because they couldn’t escape – animal rights activists
Jennifer Eder (Stuff): Hidden cameras and fake friendships: Animal lovers go rogue to uncover abuse

Other
Peter McKenzie (Newsroom): The better we treat people, the more chance they have
Steve Braunias (Herald): Secret Diary of the Woke Left
Andrea Fox (Herald): New electricity price reform ideas give ‘power to the people’
Jonathan Mitchell (RNZ): Defence Force estate unsafe, outdated, earthquake-prone – minister’s briefing
Jessica Mutch Mckay and Benedict Collins (1News): Inside Parliament: Capital gains tax, oil and gas ban and the latest poll results
Dale Husband (E-Tangata): Moana Tuwhare: Respecting the mana of Ngāpuhi hapū
Mark Rickerby (Spinoff): Machine-generated text is about to break the internet
Simone Kaho (E-Tangata): It’s about serving our communities
Leighton Smith (Herald): A current obsession with leadership
RNZ: Pacific languages need to be better valued in NZ – minister
Alison Mau (Stuff): I’m okay with being told where to get off – but I want to hear it in Māori
Matthew Rosenberg (Stuff): Labour’s Tāmati Coffey slammed by Fijian MP for expecting child with male partner
RNZ: O-Week testing shows 1 in 5 drugs not what buyer expected
Charlotte Cook (RNZ): Festival organisers wary of inviting drug-testing group
Matt Shand and Amber-Leigh Woolf (Stuff): Women’s Refuge concern about ‘dangerous’ Man Up programme
Paul Little (Herald): Google has been making money out of collecting your info for years. Why change?
Leah McFall (Stuff): Survey shows Kiwi women feel unloved, unsafe and over-stretched
Kristy Lawrence (Stuff): Secret sex tape uncovered during drugs probe into disgraced air man
Joanne Carroll (Stuff): ‘Green fairy’ discharged without conviction by West Coast court
RNZ: First Gas fined $3 million for anti-competitive behaviour
BusinessDesk: First Gas ordered to pay $3.4m for anti-competitive conduct
Lizzie Marvelly (Herald): Will National unleash the Crusher early?
Critic: Interview: Paula B at Wiki-O

Health Check: how often do people have sex?

By The Conversation -

February 25, 2019

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Malouff, Associate Professor, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England

Australians report having sex once or twice a week, on average. For Brits, it’s less than once a week, while Americans report having sex two to three times a week.

We can’t know for sure how often individuals actually have sex. Some people may incorrectly report their sexual frequency, either by mistake or on purpose. But the national estimates data are based on representative samples, so they’re a useful guide.

What do we mean by sex? Some studies simply ask participants how often they “have sex”; others define it specifically, such as “activity with another person that involves genital contact and sexual excitement”.

Of course, averages don’t reflect the diversity of the population. Some people, whether they’re in a relationship or not, never or almost never have sex. Others have sex every day.

And individuals can vary from year to year, depending on their sexual opportunities, health status, and other factors.

Why is the average about once or twice a week?

How often we have sex is based on our genes, biology and life circumstances.

Biologically, if couples have intercourse at least twice a week, sex is likely to occur at least once during the six days a month when a woman is fertile. The couple would therefore be more likely to reproduce than other couples who have sex less often.

Reproductive success can lead to genetic selection of behaviours. In other words, people who have sex frequently may be more likely to have children, and therefore keep their genes in the gene pool.

But the level of genetic push towards having sex can vary from one person to another.

Our life circumstances may play a role in how often we have sex, especially as other things compete for our time: paid work, child care, house work and, increasingly, our smartphones and 24-7 entertainment options.

Technology can sometimes get in the way. Annie Spratt

In fact, Australians and Americans are having less sex than they used to in past decades.

Aussies had sex about 20 times fewer in 2013 than a decade before. Americans had sex nine times fewer, on average, in 2014 than a decade before.

Who has the most and least sex?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, people who have a steady partner have sex more frequently than those who don’t. And those who recently entered a sexual relationship with another person tend to have more sex than others.

Couples tend to have sex less often during late pregnancy and in the years after the birth of a child. Lack of opportunity and poor health are also associated with low rates of sex.

One of the strongest predictors of lower sex frequency involves getting older. Sex frequency tends to go down as people age.

No one knows for sure why this is the case, but it may be, in part, because many older people have spent a long time in a relationship. Relationship satisfaction tends to decrease over time, possibly leading to reduced sexual interest in their partner.

Also, as people get older, they tend to experience more health problems and to become less energetic. Men may lose the ability to gain or maintain an erection as they age.

More sex won’t necessarily make you happier

Most people enjoy sex and believe it adds to their enjoyment of life.

The higher the frequency of sex, the more likely a couple is to feel satisfied with their relationship – but only up to a point. That point seems to be once per week. At levels higher than that, well-being doesn’t seem to be associated with frequency.

Half of married Australians are satisfied with how much sex they’re having. Rawpixel

Psychologically, couples tend to be happier if they have sex as often as they both want.

But their perceptions of how often other couples have sex also plays a role. Couples are happier if they think they are having more sex than other couples.

In one study, researchers randomly assigned participant couples to double their frequency of sex for 90 days.

These couples increased their frequency substantially but didn’t quite reach the double level. At the end of the three months, those couples had significantly lower moods and liked sex less than the control couples who had sex at their usual frequency.

About half of married Australians are satisfied with their frequency of sex. Slightly more than half of unmarried adult Australians are satisfied.

Quality, as well as quantity, of sexual experiences may be important for relationship satisfaction. Factors such as duration of sexual experiences, mood setting, variety, and good communication are associated with sexual satisfaction.

– ref. Health Check: how often do people have sex? – http://theconversation.com/health-check-how-often-do-people-have-sex-108423