Kategori: News in English

It’s a universally acknowledged truth that a geriatric millennial in possession of a Scholastic book club catalogue and a television must have been a fan of Paul Jennings back in the 1980s and ‘90s.

I devoured Jennings’ short story collections, particularly the Un and Gizmo series. They were the perfect mix of silly and subversive, and always captured the awkwardness of being a kid.

After school, my brother and I would curl up and turn the TV dial to Channel 2, SAO crackers with butter and Vegemite in hand, and watch the Twist family get into all sorts of scrapes. I was particularly fond of Pete and his floppy blonde bowl cut.

So, when I found out there was a Round The Twist stage show in development – a musical, no less – I knew it would be for me.

I was, however, interested in how much the material would translate for a new generation. Would it just be a nostalgic trip to the lighthouse for the recently middle-aged, or would Generation Alpha get on board? In the interest of research, I borrowed a ten-year-old (my nephew Hugo) for the evening and off we went to the theatre.

Round the Twist ran from 1990 to 2001, eventually becoming an Aussie children’s television staple.
Lyndon Mechielsen

Meeting the Twist gang

I needn’t have been concerned. Paul Hodge’s book and music, and Simon Phillips’ direction, have perfectly captured the heart of the original material in its sense of humour, its uniquely Australian sensibility, its focus on community and its downright weirdness.

We meet the Twist Family – dad Tony (Matt Hetherington) and kids Pete (Hanlon Innocent), Linda (Charly Oakley) and Bronson (played at opening by Edison Ai) as they arrive in the fictional town of Port Niranda, seeking a sea change and some “fresh air” (although Bronson’s flatulence soon puts an end to that).

The central characters put me at ease. They are earthy, charming and immediately read as a family shaped by both love and tragedy.

The young Edison Ai (centre) shines in the role of Bronson Twist, the youngest child in the family.
Lyndon Mechielsen

We soon meet the locals, including the lighthouse keeper with secrets, Nell Rickards (Christen O’Leary), and the mayoral power couple Harold and Mrs Gribble (played with high camp by David James and Tarita Botsman).

We also meet Bronson’s teacher Fay James (Liz Buchanan). Fay walks straight into Tony’s life and heart, but are the kids ready to accept a new stepmum? This storyline provides the emotional heft of the play, with Bronson’s resistance and Fay’s vulnerability authentically portrayed by Ai and Buchanan respectively.

We also meet the kids of Port Niranda. The local gang includes James Gribble (an athletic Nic Van Lits) and his offsiders, the mouth-breathing Rabbit (Carlo Boumouglbay) and the scrappy Tiger (Carla Beard).

Rounding out the cast are the objects of the two elder Twists’ affection, Fiona (Taylah Johns) and Andrew (Alex Tye). While these two actors are a little underused, both have enormous charm.

Dazzling design and musically brilliant

What separates Round The Twist from just another charming Aussie dramedy, however, is the supernatural, spooky and silly phenomena for which Jennings is famous.

The central mystery of the play includes mysterious music emanating from the lighthouse, a missing painting, a circus troupe, a pissed-off mermaid (Laura Raineri), a poltergeist pooch and a toilet ghost (one of Bryan Probets’ numerous roles).

The Twist kids sing and dance their way to solving the mystery, while navigating school crushes, evading property developers, enduring embarrassing encounters and battling their foes with the power of foot odour (up the pong!).

All this is enhanced by Renee Mulder’s brilliant design work and Craig Wilkinson’s video design. Projected images are essential to the magical realism of the piece. They resemble the animation style of Terry Gilliam, but never lose their distinctly Australian flavour.

The music is both catchy and clever, with the original theme tune also made part of the plot.
Lyndon Mechielsen

The music is catchy and the lyrics clever. In general, the high-energy, comic pieces work better than the ballads. That said, Linda (Oakley) and Andrew’s (Tye) duet in act two is genuinely moving.

There were a couple of moments where young Bronson (Ai) missed a musical cue, but he was well-supported by the cast and the (excellent) band to find his place and carry on. It should be noted Bronson carries much of the play on his young shoulders. Ai is an absolute standout in the role.

And if you, like me, are a fan of the earworm that is the TV series theme tune (composed by Andrew Duffield), never fear! It is not only included, but is integral to the plot.

Old stories through new eyes

But what did the ten-year-old nephew think? He laughed until he cried at Pete’s (Innocent) predicament towards the end of act one, which I won’t spoil here. He gasped and bounced in his seat and praised the “smart writing”. I can only hope he will now discover and devour Jennings’ original books.

My nephew Hugo laughed, gasped and bounced in his seat at the spectacles on stage.
Lyndon Mechielsen

For me, the joy was in seeing so many young professionals in the cast holding their own with veterans of Australia’s theatre scene. Hearing them sing so authentically in their own voices, while telling a story that is so quintessentially Australian, reiterated to me how important it is for local arts companies to invest in and champion homegrown musical theatre.

And aside from that, it was the most fun I’ve had at the theatre all year! Läs mer…

The Senate has censured two of its own, Lidia Thorpe and Ralph Babet, both of whom were absent when the votes were taken because of problems with their flights to Canberra.

Thorpe, a crossbencher who defected from the Greens, was condemned for her disruption of the parliamentary reception during King Charles’ visit.

Babet, the sole parliamentary representative of Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, was condemned for a disgusting social media post.

The censure against Babet went through on the voices. That against Thorpe was carried overwhelmingly, but the Greens, ACT Senator David Pocock and Nationals Matt Canavan voted against.

Canavan spoke on both motions, objecting to their being considered in the senators’ absence. Pocock didn’t speak but had a similar objection.

The motions were moved by Senate leader Penny Wong and supported by the opposition.

Thorpe said after the vote that her flight had been delayed, and “I was denied my right to be in that chamber whilst everybody else voted to shut me down”.

Thorpe said she didn’t “give a damn” about the censure. “In fact, I’m going to use it for kindling later on in the week.”

Senator Fatima Payman, previously a Labor senator but now on the crossbench, condemned the government for proceeding with the motion against Thorpe despite the fact her plane was delayed.

The censure against Thorpe said her protest had been “disrespecful” and “disruptive”.

It called on all senators to refrain from “inflammatory and divisive actions” both inside and outside the chamber.

It said  in light of her conduct, it was not appropriate for Thorpe  to represent the Senate  as a member of a delegation during the rest of this parliament.

Babet had shared a clip from Andrew Tate, and posted “In my house we say phaggot [sic], retard and n—-r. We are sick of you woke ass clowns. Cry more. Write an article. Tweet about me. No one cares what you think”.

The motion censuring Babet condemned him for “his inflammatory use of hate speech designed to drive division for his own  political benefit”.

The notion “assures all Australians that no matter their race, religion, gender, sex, or sexuality that they are  valued, welcome members of our society”.  

It said there could be “no tolerance for hate speech in the course of parliamentarians’ public debate.”

It called on “all senators to engage in debates and commentary respectfully, and to refrain from inflammatory and divisive comments” at all times. Läs mer…

You know that feeling you get when you take a breath of fresh air in nature? There may be more to it than a simple lack of pollution.

When we think of nutrients, we think of things we obtain from our diet. But a careful look at the scientific literature shows there is strong evidence humans can also absorb some nutrients from the air.

In a new perspective article published in Advances in Nutrition, we call these inhaled nutrients “aeronutrients” – to differentiate them from the “gastronutrients” that are absorbed by the gut.

We propose that breathing supplements our diet with essential nutrients such as iodine, zinc, manganese and some vitamins. This idea is strongly supported by published data. So, why haven’t you heard about this until now?

Breathing is constant

We breathe in about 9,000 litres of air a day and 438 million litres in a lifetime. Unlike eating, breathing never stops. Our exposure to the components of air, even in very small concentrations, adds up over time.

To date, much of the research around the health effects of air has been centred on pollution. The focus is on filtering out what’s bad, rather than what could be beneficial. Also, because a single breath contains minuscule quantities of nutrients, it hasn’t seemed meaningful.

For millennia, different cultures have valued nature and fresh air as healthful. Our concept of aeronutrients shows these views are underpinned by science. Oxygen, for example, is technically a nutrient – a chemical substance “required by the body to sustain basic functions”.

We just don’t tend to refer to it that way because we breathe it, rather than eat it.

How do aeronutrients work, then?

Aeronutrients enter our body by being absorbed through networks of tiny blood vessels in the nose, lungs, olfactory epithelium (the area where smell is detected) and the oropharynx (the back of the throat).

The lungs can absorb far larger molecules than the gut – 260 times larger, to be exact. These molecules are absorbed intact into the bloodstream and brain.

Drugs that can be inhaled (such as cocaine, nicotine and anaesthetics, to name a few) will enter the body within seconds. They are effective at far lower concentrations than would be needed if they were being consumed by mouth.

In comparison, the gut breaks substances down into their smallest parts with enzymes and acids. Once these enter the bloodstream, they are metabolised and detoxified by the liver.

The gut is great at taking up starches, sugars and amino acids, but it’s not so great at taking up certain classes of drugs. In fact, scientists are continuously working to improve medicines so we can effectively take them by mouth.

Fresh air in nature is widely perceived as healthful.
Larisa Birta/Unsplash

The evidence has been around for decades

Many of the scientific ideas that are obvious in retrospect have been beneath our noses all along. Research from the 1960s found that laundry workers exposed to iodine in the air had higher iodine levels in their blood and urine.

More recently, researchers in Ireland studied schoolchildren living near seaweed-rich coastal areas, where atmospheric iodine gas levels were much higher. These children had significantly more iodine in their urine and were less likely to be iodine-deficient than those living in lower-seaweed coastal areas or rural areas. There were no differences in iodine in their diet.

This suggests that airborne iodine – especially in places with lots of seaweed – could help supplement dietary iodine. That makes it an aeronutrient our bodies might absorb through breathing.

Manganese and zinc can enter the brain through the neurons that sense smell in the nose. Manganese is an essential nutrient, but too much of it can harm the brain. This is seen in welders, who are exposed to high levels from air and have harmful levels of manganese buildup.

The cilia (hair-like structures) in the olfactory and respiratory system have special receptors that can bind to a range of other potential aeronutrients. These include nutrients like choline, vitamin C, calcium, manganese, magnesium, iron and even amino acids.

Research published over 70 years ago has shown that aerosolised vitamin B12 can treat vitamin B12 deficiency. This is super important for people who have high B12 deficiency rates, such as vegans, older people, those with diabetes and those with excessive alcohol intake.

If we accept aeronutrients, what next?

There are still a lot of unknowns. First, we need to find out what components of air are beneficial for health in natural settings like green spaces, forests, the ocean and the mountains. To date, research has predominantly focused on toxins, particulate matter and allergens like pollen.

Next, we would need to determine which of these components can be classified as aeronutrients.

Given that vitamin B12 in aerosol form is already shown to be safe and effective , further research could explore whether turning other micronutrients, like vitamin D, into aerosols could help combat widespread nutrient deficiencies.

We need to study these potential aeronutrients in controlled experiments to determine dose, safety and contribution to the diet. This is particularly relevant in places where air is highly filtered, like airplanes, hospitals, submarines and even space stations.

Perhaps we will discover that aeronutrients help prevent some of the modern diseases of urbanisation. One day, nutrition guidelines may recommend inhaling nutrients. Or that we spend enough time breathing in nature to obtain aeronutrients in addition to eating a healthy, balanced diet. Läs mer…

The way people living with dementia experience the world can change as the disease progresses. Their sense of reality or place in time can become distorted, which can cause agitation and distress.

One of the best ways to support people experiencing changes in perception and behaviour is to manage their environment. This can have profound benefits including reducing the need for sedatives.

One such strategy is the use of dolls as comfort aids.

What is ‘doll therapy’?

More appropriately referred to as “child representation”, lifelike dolls (also known as empathy dolls) can provide comfort for some people with dementia.

Memories from the distant past are often more salient than more recent events in dementia. This means that past experiences of parenthood and caring for young children may feel more “real” to a person with dementia than where they are now.

Hallucinations or delusions may also occur, where a person hears a baby crying or fears they have lost their baby.

Providing a doll can be a tangible way of reducing distress without invalidating the experience of the person with dementia.

Some people believe the doll is real

A recent case involving an aged care nurse mistreating a dementia patient’s therapy doll highlights the importance of appropriate training and support for care workers in this area.

For those who do become attached to a therapeutic doll, they will treat the doll as a real baby needing care and may therefore have a profound emotional response if the doll is mishandled.

It’s important to be guided by the person with dementia and only act as if it’s a real baby if the person themselves believes that is the case.

What does the evidence say about their use?

Evidence shows the use of empathy dolls may help reduce agitation and anxiety and improve overall quality of life in people living with dementia.

Child representation therapy falls under the banner of non-pharmacological approaches to dementia care. More specifically, the attachment to the doll may act as a form of reminiscence therapy, which involves using prompts to reconnect with past experiences.

Interacting with the dolls may also act as a form of sensory stimulation, where the person with dementia may gain comfort from touching and holding the doll. Sensory stimulation may support emotional well-being and aid commnication.

However, not all people living with dementia will respond to an empathy doll.

It depends on a person’s background.
Shutterstock

The introduction of a therapeutic doll needs to be done in conjunction with careful observation and consideration of the person’s background.

Empathy dolls may be inappropriate or less effective for those who have not previously cared for children or who may have experienced past birth trauma or the loss of a child.

Be guided by the person with dementia and how they respond to the doll.

Are there downsides?

The approach has attracted some controversy. It has been suggested that child representation therapy “infantilises” people living with dementia and may increase negative stigma.

Further, the attachment may become so strong that the person with dementia will become upset if someone else picks the doll up. This may create some difficulties in the presence of grandchildren or when cleaning the doll.

The introduction of child representation therapy may also require additional staff training and time. Non-pharmacological interventions such as child representation, however, have been shown to be cost-effective.

Could robots be the future?

The use of more interactive empathy dolls and pet-like robots is also gaining popularity.

While robots have been shown to be feasible and acceptable in dementia care, there remains some contention about their benefits.

While some studies have shown positive outcomes, including reduced agitation, others show no improvement in cognition, behaviour or quality of life among people with dementia.

Advances in artificial intelligence are also being used to help support people living with dementia and inform the community.

Viv and Friends, for example, are AI companions who appear on a screen and can interact with the person with dementia in real time. The AI character Viv has dementia and was co-created with women living with dementia using verbatim scripts of their words, insights and experiences. While Viv can share her expereince of living with dementia, she can also be programmed to talk about common interests, such as gardening.

These companions are currently being trialled in some residential aged care facilities and to help educate people on the lived experience of dementia.

How should you respond to your loved one’s empathy doll?

While child representation can be a useful adjunct in dementia care, it requires sensitivity and appropriate consideration of the person’s needs.

People living with dementia may not perceive the social world the same way as a person without dementia. But a person living with dementia is not a child and should never be treated as one.

Ensure all family, friends and care workers are informed about the attachment to the empathy doll to help avoid unintentionally causing distress from inappropriate handling of the doll.

If using an interactive doll, ensure spare batteries are on hand.

Finally, it is important to reassess the attachment over time as the person’s response to the empathy doll may change. Läs mer…

Australia is a world-leader in species extinction and environmental decline. So great is the problem, the federal government now wants to harness money from the private sector to pay for nature repair.

Under the government’s new “nature repair market”, those who run projects to restore and protect the environment are rewarded with biodiversity credits. These credits can be sold to private buyers, such as corporations wanting to meet environmental goals.

The nature repair market is similar in many ways to Ausralia’s existing carbon credit scheme. So, examining the extent to which carbon projects actually protect biodiversity is important as the government sets up the nature repair market. This was the focus of our new research.

Alarmingly, we found Australia’s carbon credit scheme largely fails to protect threatened species, despite assumptions to the contrary. The findings provide cautionary lessons for the nature repair scheme.

The study examined the extent to which carbon projects actually protect biodiversity.
Parks Australia

Spotlight on the carbon credit scheme

Australia’s carbon credit scheme encourages activities that reduce carbon. They include planting trees, reducing animal grazing on vegetation, or retaining vegetation instead of cutting it down.

Project proponents earn credits for carbon reduction, which can then be sold on a carbon market.

The scheme also purports to offer “non-carbon” benefits. These include increasing biodiversity and expanding habitats for native species. Indeed, biodiversity conservation has underpinned the carbon credit scheme since it began in 2011.

But does the carbon scheme actually benefit biodiversity?

To answer this question, we overlaid the locations of carbon-reduction projects with the locations of habitat for threatened plants and animals species. We then scored the level of degradation of each habitat, and identified the processes imperilling the threatened species.

So what did we find? Threatened species most in need of habitat restoration are the least likely to have their habitat restored under the carbon credit scheme.

Projects under the scheme are primarily located in arid parts of Australia not suitable for growing crops – mostly vast cattle grazing leases. Carbon projects here involve inexpensive activities such as removing some cattle or managing weeds.

Most projects under the carbon credit scheme are in arid, unproductive parts of Australia.
Dean Lewins/AAP

These areas support habitat for only 6% of Australia’s threatened species. In other words, vegetation loss here generally doesn’t threaten species’ survival.

In contrast, just 20% of carbon projects take place on productive agricultural land which supports nearly half of Australia’s threatened species. In these areas, property values are high and landholders can earn good money from farming. That means carbon-reduction projects are often less financially attractive than other land uses, so their number and size is limited.

So what’s the upshot? Australia’s carbon projects are concentrated in areas containing little threatened species habitat, rather than where threatened species live and most need protecting.

Government policies enable this perverse outcome, by giving preference to projects that can reduce carbon for the lowest cost. This has skewed projects towards unpopulated, relatively unproductive lands.

There’s an upside

It’s not all bad news, however. We found the carbon credit scheme may protect threatened species in some cases.

Almost one-third (or 525) of Australia’s threatened species live in habitat that overlaps with projects under the scheme.

In addition, five species whose habitat is not safeguarded in Australia’s protected areas, such as national parks, may also occur on land where carbon projects take place. A further 270 species with too-little protected habitat also overlap with the projects.

The potential for positive benefits can be seen by looking at the two regions with the largest concentration of carbon projects in Australia.

In the Murchison bioregion in Western Australia, a quarter of species rely on habitat that is not adequately protected elsewhere. In the Mulga bioregion in New South Wales and southwest Queensland, two-thirds of species rely on habitat inadequately protected elsewhere.

The Mulga bioregion, one of two in Australia where the carbon credit scheme may protect threatened species.
Shutterstock

Lessons for nature repair

Australia’s nature repair legislation came into effect in late 2023. It creates a framework for the nature repair market which is expected to launch early next year.

Our findings provide important lessons for this market. Most importantly, they show a lowest-cost approach to generating credits is unlikely to benefit biodiversity. It will drive projects to marginal areas that do not overlap the ranges of species threatened by habitat loss.

If nature repair investment is to prevent species extinctions, the Australian government must ensure taxpayer funds actually achieve these outcomes. The best way to do that is to speed up the progress of promised environmental law reform.

Likewise, as global conservation increasingly looks to private finance and biodiversity markets, we must ensure funds are delivered to where they are most needed. Läs mer…

After nearly a year without basic income and support services, 42 refugees and asylum seekers remaining in Papua New Guinea will soon begin receiving a meagre allowance of 900 kina (A$338) per week from the Australian government.

These men are former Manus Island detainees who were released in 2016 after the PNG Supreme Court ruled that Australia’s offshore detention facility was unconstitutional.

Most of the refugees and asylum seekers were then transferred to the capital, Port Moresby, where the Australian government began providing them with accommodation, meals, medical, health care and settlement services

However, in November 2023, that assistance was suddenly cut off without any explanation from the Australian government.

A year later, the men were informed this month that the support would be reinstated if they vacated their current homes, though the payments would be at a much lower level than before.

The demand that the men source their own accommodations is concerning, as many are too unwell to navigate a competitive and expensive rental market. Many are at risk of homelessness.

These low payments will also make medical care unaffordable, so the threat to health and life will continue to grow more serious.

Trying to restart lives in PNG

The refugees and asylum seekers were sent to PNG under the government’s Operation Sovereign Borders policy in 2012 and 2013.

The policy, which remains in place today, requires the mandatory offshore detention of people attempting to reach Australia by sea.

From the outset, the filthy conditions of detention on Manus Island were considered so harsh that only men were sent there. Families, women and children were held on Nauru.

Manus was also the site of deadly riots in 2014. In 2017, the Australian government paid A$70 million in compensation to refugees there – the largest out-of-court settlement for a human rights case.

Men were detained on Manus Island until 2017.
Eoin Blackwell/AAP

On the closure of the detention centre a month later, most refugees and asylum seekers were moved to Port Moresby. A few men have since managed to rebuild their lives, set up businesses and begin families, but others have struggled.

Many have been unable to find work due to high rates of unemployment in the country, discriminatory hiring practices and their poor physical and mental health.

In addition, many have been victims of violent crime and resentment from the local community.

Deal behind closed doors

In a secret deal signed by the Morrison government and PNG in late 2021, Australia agreed to provide ongoing funding for services to the remaining refugees and asylum seekers in the country.

The agreement was, and remains, confidential. We have no way of knowing what support was promised, for how long, and to whom.

This support assisted the men with accommodation, security, health care, transport services, food and grocery vouchers, immigration advice and a small stipend of 700 kina (A$268) per week or 1,200 kina (A$460) for families).

When the funding was suddenly stopped a year ago, PNG’s chief migration officer said the remaining men would be resettled within weeks. The majority were to go to New Zealand.

Local businesses, citing breach of contract and shortfalls of tens of millions of dollars, withdrew all services.

Rapid health decline

In the year since, the 42 remaining refugees have faced evictions, financial precarity, threats to their safety, and a rapid and alarming decline in their mental and physical health.

Of the people the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) is currently in contact with, 20% are so unwell their lives are at imminent risk, 88% reported severe mental health conditions, and 100% reported physical health conditions.

Financial stress is a major cause of deteriorating mental health. One refugee who wished to remain anonymous reported:

the inflation is going higher day by day and it’s hard to manage everything, like clothes, food, electricity, other basic life necessity things […] life is like a jail […] what is our crime that we are still here?

In the last year, basic humanitarian aid has come through crowdfunding organised by Sister Jane Keogh of the Brigidine Sisters. However, this community-driven lifeline is not sustainable.

As Keogh explained to us:

Their physical conditions allied with their mental trauma means that they’re not able to cope with their lives […] many have surpassed the ability to ever lead a normal life due to their mental health.

Out of harm’s way

Since 2013, Australia has stuck with its policy that refugees subject to offshore processing would never be allowed in Australia. The United States and New Zealand have resettled most of the refugees and asylum seekers from PNG and Nauru, but these options are now uncertain for the remaining 42.

Resettlement in New Zealand requires a medical report, which is expensive and difficult for the refugees to acquire.

Without intervention by the Australian government, the consequences for the remaining refugees is dire.

As Qabil Hussain, who has been stuck in PNG for 12 years, told us:

We’ve been brought by Australia here [to PNG] and they just left us stranded here and our support was withdrawn […] I want Australia to take responsibility. Läs mer…

Australians lose around A$25 billion on legal forms of gambling each year, representing the largest per person losses in the world.

Gambling harms – including financial, emotional, social and psychological costs – extend to loved ones, peers and co-workers and the community. And some communities are impacted differently to others.

The Northern Territory has a growing multicultural population, with 22% of residents born overseas and 33% speaking a language other than English at home.

About 37% of multicultural Territorians are considered at-risk gamblers, compared to 14% in English speaking households.

Many migrants, including those in the NT, experience financial, social, and emotional pressures, which sometimes lead them to gambling as a means of socialisation or stress relief. Our research explores why and what might limit the risks and harms.

Read more:
Pokies? Lotto? Sports betting? Which forms of problem gambling affect Australians the most?

‘There’s not much to do’

Published earlier this year, our lived experience study explored the pressures that make gambling appealing to migrant communities.

For example, scarce recreational options in Darwin mean gambling fills a social gap. As one person we spoke to said,

It’s kind of the entertainment for us in Darwin […] there’s not much to do, so we go to the casino for fun with friends.

Gambling can become a way to socialise in the absence of other affordable, culturally relevant options.

But what begins as a casual activity can quickly lead to personal strain. Some participants in our study described family tensions.

My sister and brother-in-law got into fighting […] she said, ‘Why do you have to spend a lot of money on gambling?’ but he said, ‘That’s my hobby.’

Another person revealed how gambling impacts family dynamics:

My husband not being present most of the time because he is out gambling has really impacted me […] the kids are missing their dad. I’m missing my husband.

‘Sometimes you can win some money’

Financial stress is a significant factor increasing gambling risks, especially among migrants on temporary visas who face job and visa uncertainties.

Some migrants view gambling as a potential escape from financial pressures, as an international student explained to us,

It is common for international students to stake their tuition fees at the casino […] sometimes you can win some money.

However, gambling losses often exacerbated financial hardship, trapping individuals in cycles of debt and loss.

‘I never gambled until I came to Australia’

The NT’s legal and accessible gambling environment also plays a role, especially for migrants from countries where gambling is restricted.

A participant from Bangladesh shared,

In my country, gambling is not a good thing […] I never gambled until I came to Australia.

Another believed that

Betting on soccer is an easy way to make money […] but in Africa, I didn’t have access to as much funds as I have here [in Australia].

The perceived ease of earning money through gambling adds to the temptation, particularly in times of financial uncertainty.

Migrants in the NT told us there wasn’t much to do there for fun. Gambling was a social opportunity.
PhotopankPL/Shutterstock

‘I feel shameful talking about it’

Another critical factor is the reluctance to seek help, often due to cultural stigma or language barriers. Many migrants prefer to manage gambling issues privately. One participant stated,

In my culture, gambling is seen as a bad behaviour […] I just feel shameful talking about it.

Others expressed scepticism toward counselling, viewing it as ineffective. This reluctance can lead to isolation, with individuals and families managing gambling harms in private, often unaware of local support options.

The impacts of gambling extend to mental health, with participants describing cycles of guilt, shame and financial stress. A participant explained how online gambling worsened their addiction

My gambling problem grew worse […] I started spending more money than I had any right to be spending […] we always ended up going back to the casino or poker site until our bank account was empty.

Culturally sensitive approaches are needed

Our research shows culturally sensitive approaches are essential to address gambling harms effectively. This is includes raising awareness about gambling risks in a way that resonates with diverse communities.

Further, our research participants reported higher rates of gambling among Filipino, East Asian and African communities, with the issue anecdotally more common among women in certain Asian groups.

Expanding culturally relevant recreational opportunities could help provide a healthier alternative to gambling.

Support services should also be tailored to migrant need.

Language-specific counselling and culturally competent resources could encourage migrants to seek help. Policymakers could consider revising gambling advertising and venue availability to reduce exposure, especially in vulnerable communities.

Addressing gambling harms among migrants, including those in NT, requires collective efforts from policymakers, community leaders and local organisations. Läs mer…

Thomas Piketty’s Nature, Culture, and Inequality is a little book that addresses an issue of great significance: is the social inequality we observe every day natural?

Drawing on historical economic data from around the world, Piketty describes a tendency since the late 18th century toward greater political and socioeconomic equality. This was particularly apparent in Western countries from around 1914 to around 1980. There has since been a pronounced slowing of that trend.

Piketty points out that inequality manifests in different ways in different societies; it also manifests in different ways in the same societies over history. Inequality, he says, has “followed markedly different trajectories – political, socioeconomic, cultural, civilizational, and religious”.

This shows us that human culture is more variable, and therefore more malleable, than many have assumed. “It is culture in the broadest sense,” he argues, “and more particularly political mobilization” that “provides an explanation for the diversity, degree, and structure of the social inequalities we observe.”

As such, there is no reason why we cannot continue the 20th century arc of development towards greater equality in the present century. In fact, without seriously addressing inequality, Piketty argues, we cannot hope to adequately address the climate crisis.

Review: Nature, Culture, and Inequality – Thomas Piketty, translated by Willard Wood (Scribe)

Piketty is a professor at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) and the Paris School of Economics, and co-director of the World Inequality Lab. He is best known for his landmark Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), which became a bestseller and sparked a global debate about capitalism, inequality and taxation policy.

Using historical analysis and statistics, Piketty argued that if the return on capital exceeds the growth rate of the economy, it follows that wealth will become increasingly concentrated. This, in turn, leads to alarming increases in inequality, which are not only unfair but undermine democratic and meritocratic values, trust in institutions and social cohesion.

Piketty’s new book is designed to make his thought available to a wider audience. It is adapted from a 2022 lecture drawing on historical and comparative research on inequality from the World Inequality Database and his book A Brief History of Equality (2021).

Conversational in style, and accompanied by attractive colour charts, the book moves briskly through topics including income and wealth inequality, gender inequality, the rise of the welfare state, education spending, progressive taxation of income and inheritance, the collapse of colonial assets, public debt crises, and the climate crisis.

Piketty distils some of his key insights about the development of income and wealth inequality across history, and presents what he views as the key to a more just and sustainable world.

Income and wealth inequality

When it comes to income (who earns what), the bottom 50% of earners receive 5-6% percent of total income in the most inegalitarian countries (e.g. South Africa). In more egalitarian countries (e.g. those in northern Europe), the bottom 50% earn 20-25% of total income.

The distribution of wealth (who owns what) is even less equal. The poorest 50% do not own more than 5% of total wealth in any country on earth.

As important as they have been, advances towards reducing inequality in the 20th century mainly concerned the distribution of income. “When it comes to the distribution of wealth,” Piketty argues, “things have changed very little.”

As he points out, the “great redistribution” of property in his native France, largely between 1914 and 1980, had “a significant impact on reducing disparity between the richest 10% and the next 40%”, via the emergence of a “property-owning middle class”. Despite this important development, “the poorest 50% have hardly benefited from the redistribution of property in the past two centuries at all”.

Piketty argues that, like the 20th century movement towards greater equality, recent patterns of increasing inequality are not inevitable. Nor are they explainable in terms of “personal talent, native endowment or natural temperament”.

As journalist Jonathan Portes summarises, the idea that “great disparities are somehow ‘natural’, because ability or entrepreneurialism is unevenly distributed across individuals (or countries, or ethnic groups)” is regularly “used to argue that efforts to reduce inequality will either be ineffective or reduce growth and prosperity, or both.”

This claim is not supported by the historical data, says Piketty. He rejects the view, which dominates much contemporary economic thinking and policy discussion, that “very large inequalities are the inevitable outcome of a well-functioning market economy”. The key to understanding reductions in inequality, he argues, is that they are directly related to a country’s political culture and institutions. In particular, they are a result of the historical role of collective political mobilisation to drive policy change.

Thomas Piketty argues that rates of inequality are directly related to a country’s political culture and institutions.
BalkansCat/Shutterstock

What works: Sweden vs. the United States

Sweden in the 20th century, Piketty writes, is an example of the power of political organisation, social struggle and “the ability to build new institutional outcomes”.

Until around 1920, Sweden, like other European countries, was “extremely inegalitarian”. It had an elitist political system. Only the richest 20% of men could vote. Votes were apportioned based on individual wealth: the richer you were, the more votes you could cast.

Then a “collective mobilization” by the trade unions and the Social Democratic Party “put the state capacity of Sweden to the service of a […] different political project”. Rather than use “the records that had made it possible to measure income and property” to allocate the right to vote, they used them to “impose a progressive tax, with the goal of funding access to education and healthcare”.

Piketty argues that the Swedish example is instructive on several fronts. Firstly, it shows that “a country is never inegalitarian or egalitarian by nature”: it “depends who controls the government and to what end”. Secondly, Sweden’s social democratic policies led to it becoming both one of the most equal societies in the world, as well as one of the richest.

The United States makes an interesting comparison. In recent history, the wealth of its middle class has been shrinking. Having at one point reached similar wealth distribution to Europe, it is now headed in the direction of “Europe’s pre-World War I levels”.

Inequality decreased in the United States between 1932 and 1980. During that period, the country had progressive income and inheritance tax rates, and a prosperous economy that “stifled neither economic growth nor innovation”. The totemic Reagan-era slashing of top tax rates in the 1980s did not achieve what its supporters promised. Economic growth in the United States in the period 1990-2020 was half what it was in 1950-1990. Inequality accelerated.

Addressing inequality

Imperfect though the process has been, the development of the welfare state was the most important factor in addressing inequality in the 20th century. Progressive taxation was used to fund increased spending in healthcare, pensions, housing, infrastructure and education. Piketty argues that the roughly tenfold increase in public spending over the century was an important factor in promoting individual freedom, reducing inequality, and raising productivity and living standards.

The question of what might represent “acceptable levels” of income disparity, according to Piketty, is “clearly a question that a democratic process and public deliberation should deicide”. But he proposes a ratio between the poorest and richest somewhere in the order of 1 to 3 or 1 to 10. These levels can accommodate diversity of aspirations, while maintaining the incentives “necessary for social and economic organization”. Nothing, economically or socially, justifies ratios of 1 to 50 or 1 to 100.

A crucial factor in the United States’ historical advantage over its competitors in productivity, especially in the industrial sector, was not low tax rates or astronomical corporate incomes. It was its lead in education. The “near-universal” access to secondary education the United States achieved in the 1950s was not realised in Germany, France and Japan until the 1980s and 1990s.

Since then, despite the significant expansion of access to tertiary education, with its acknowledged advantages, spending on education across Western countries has stagnated.

Inequality and the climate crisis

Returning to the theme of “nature” at the end of his book, Piketty argues that understanding inequality helps us to better understand the issue of climate change, and thus what we need to do to address it. In an interview with New York Times reporter Manuela Andreoni, he succinctly states his main point:

There’s no way we can preserve […] planetary habitability in the long run if we don’t address our inequality challenge at the same time.

This is partly because of the comparatively high carbon emissions from the Global North compared to the Global South. But it is also because of carbon emission inequalities within countries – in particular, the large carbon footprints of the wealthiest 10%.

“It is clear that we’re going to have to change our production and consumption regime throughout the world,” Piketty observes. This will need to be society wide, but with particular focus on the rich and the middle class:

There’s simply no way that the middle class and lower income groups are going to accept the kind of transformation that is needed if you don’t ask for a much bigger effort from the people at the top.

Piketty thinks that the climate crisis “may lead to a greater demand for equality than we’ve recently seen”. In the 20th century, many countries achieved the expansion of access to health care and education – and, “to a lesser extent, transport, housing and energy” – by taking these parts of the economy out of market frameworks and viewing them as a public good.

“A similar shift,” he suggests, “could help the world curb climate change and stop biodiversity loss.” When Andreoni asks about sceptical and cynical responses to such a proposal, Piketty replies:

that’s what we did for education and health. We just decided that it was important for all children at age 6 and then at age 10, and then at age 15 and then at age 18 to learn about this, and that. And we didn’t let the market system decide this. And now nobody wants to go back to the previous situation. Läs mer…

The Albanese government is looking to introduce laws that would give it unprecedented powers to forcibly remove non-citizens from Australia. The newly introduced Migration Amendment Bill, expected to be debated in parliament this week, would:

allow the government to send more people to third countries
give the government immunity from being sued by people harmed when deported
expand its powers to revisit protection findings, meaning people previously found to be refugees could be returned to their home country, and
impose harsh visa conditions on some of those who stay.

The government says the measures are designed to protect the Australian community.

But the sweeping new removal powers are not restricted to the non-citizens with criminal histories who feature so prominently in political speeches and media reports.

They could be used to deport a wide group of people, including refugees and people seeking asylum who have lived in and contributed to the Australian community for years. It could separate families and communities, devastating Australian citizens and permanent residents who are left behind. The bill is already causing widespread fear in affected communities.

How did we get here?

This bill was introduced in response to the High Court’s judgement in the case YBFZ v Minister for Immigration earlier this month.

YBFZ (the pseudonym given to the plaintiff, a 36-year-old stateless refugee) is the latest in a series of cases decided by the High Court after its landmark decision in a separate case, NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, in November 2023.

In that case, the court found the government’s indefinite immigration detention policy was unlawful because it was a form of punishment, which under the Constitution can only be imposed by courts. The ruling led to the release of 224 people from detention.

The government responded to that decision with legislation authorising monitoring conditions, including ankle bracelets and curfews, for many of the people released. Any breach of those conditions could lead to criminal charges and imprisonment.

The YBFZ case challenged these visa conditions. The High Court ruled that they also amounted to punishment in breach of the Constitution.

The government introduced the Migration Amendment Bill a day later.

The new powers in the bill could impact a far larger group of people than those released as a result of the NZYQ case. And the bill’s concerning provisions could be overturned in further court challenges.

There is an urgent need for parliamentary scrutiny of this bill so its full consequences, including any possible unconstitutional elements, can be examined publicly before legislators vote.

Expanding powers to send people offshore

The bill creates new powers to forcibly deport non-citizens to unspecified third countries – without a need to show they pose a risk to the community.

The new provisions would mean certain visas would automatically cease as soon as a person has permission to “enter and remain in” another country that has a “third country reception arrangement” with Australia. They could immediately be put in detention in Australia until they could be removed.

Currently, asylum seekers who reach Australia by boat can be sent to Nauru. The new provisions extend this power to “bridging visa R” (BVR) holders. These visas are issued to people in detention where there is no reasonable prospect of their removal from Australia. This could be because they have been found to be owed protection, they are stateless, or their home country refuses to take them back.

This was the visa given to people released from detention as the result of the NZYQ decision. However, there is nothing stopping the government from issuing the visa to a much broader cohort in the future. Many people living in the community on other bridging visas, for instance, could be moved to this visa and sent offshore.

Some may be genuine refugees whose claims were not properly assessed. This includes those refused protection through the flawed fast-track process, which limited their ability to provide crucial information to the decision makers reviewing their protection claims.

The bill could allow for people to be held in foreign countries with no safeguards to ensure they are treated humanely, at Australian government expense. They could be detained there, potentially indefinitely, and nothing in the bill requires that a lasting solution be found for them.

The harms of Australia’s offshore regime on Nauru and Manus Island are well documented.

The offshore processing system has also come at a great financial cost to Australian taxpayers.

The harms of Australia’s offshore regime on Nauru and Manus Island are well documented.
AAP Image/Eoin Blackwell

Evading accountability

The bill attempts to indemnify the government from being sued for any actions taken to facilitate the removal of a person from Australia or their treatment in a third country.

In the past, such civil liability claims have been a crucial accountability mechanism for those transferred offshore.

For example, dozens of refugees have secured court orders to be brought to Australia to access urgent, lifesaving treatment unavailable in Nauru or Manus Island.

Many have also sued the government for damages. In 2017, the largest human rights settlement to date was agreed between Manus Island detainees and the federal government, following a claim of unlawful detention and negligence. Other cases are ongoing.

By shutting the door to future legal challenges, the government would effectively remove one of the few proven checks on its power in this area.

Sending refugees back to harm

In addition, there are no safeguards preventing people sent to a third country later being returned to their home country where they may face persecution or other serious harm.

And the bill expands the government’s powers to revisit protection findings, meaning people previously found to be refugees could also be returned to their home country.

This power already exists in the Migration Act in relation to people who do not hold a visa. The bill seeks to expand it to people who hold certain bridging and other visas that can be specified later through regulations. This would include people who have been living in the Australian community for years.

Refugee status should be a stable and enduring protection, not something that can be easily revoked or altered based on the government’s changing policies.

Reimposing ankle monitoring and curfews

The bill and associated regulations also seek to reimpose visa conditions, such as curfews and ankle monitoring.

These conditions could be used where the immigration minister is satisfied a non-citizen poses a substantial risk of harming the Australian community by committing a serious offence.

The Human Rights Law Centre has voiced concerns the bill would allow

the government to make assumptions about people’s future behaviour and continue imposing punitive conditions that limit people’s freedom and bodily integrity.

It is unclear whether the changes meet the requirements set down by the High Court in the YBFZ case, given restrictions would continue to be imposed without court involvement.

The bill is the latest in a series of attempts to rush through migration legislation without time for public debate.

This approach places a substantial burden on the court system, where rushed legislation is tested and the Commonwealth often loses.

It is essential these issues are thoroughly examined and debated to ensure that Australia’s immigration policies remain fair, just, humane and legal. Läs mer…

Working practices in the construction industry have been labelled a relic of a bygone era – 64% of employees work more than 50 hours per week.

Long working hours can pose significant risks to people’s physical and mental health, relationships, workplace productivity and safety.

Construction is also struggling to attract and retain women. In New South Wales, about one-third of companies with fewer than 200 employees have no female employees at all.

These are serious problems for an industry under pressure to deliver 1.2 million new homes and A$230 billion of infrastructure over the next five years. Clearly, something needs to change.

One proposal is to mandate a five-day week across the sector. On face value, it may seem like common sense. Making the construction sector a more attractive place to work could attract more talent and, by doing so, alleviate other pressures.

Our research questions this assumption, highlighting that without careful design, such a proposal could have significant unintended negative consequences.

Read more:
Australia’s construction industry needs more hands on deck – so why is it ignoring skilled migrant women?

Work–life balance

To investigate the potential impacts of a shorter work week on work–life balance, we surveyed 1,475 people and conducted interviews with 111 people from across the NSW building and construction industry. We also examined leading international peer-reviewed studies.

We found that the relationship between a healthy work–life balance and a shorter working week is much more nuanced than the current debate suggests.

On average, respondents worked 50-55 hours per week.
sculpies/Shutterstock

There certainly was evidence of unhealthy working hours in some parts of the industry. Of the people we surveyed, 39.8% consistently worked more than five days per week.

We also found 26.1% worked more than 55 hours per week, and 36.7% more than ten hours per day.

But we should be careful not to generalise. Young people, those in relatively junior roles and workers on sites – especially salaried managers and supervisors – were found to be doing the heavy lifting in terms of hours and days worked.

This was especially true on large inner-city commercial, residential and infrastructure projects.

Across all respondents, people worked an average of 50–55 hours per week, and just over five days. More than 60% said they had satisfactory, good or very good work–life balance.

Different needs

We also found that not everyone’s work–life balance will benefit from simply reducing working hours.

For construction workers, this depends on a wide range of factors, such as:

age
caring and family responsibilities
financial circumstances
how easily a particular job can be done in five days
personal attitudes towards work.

It’s also not clear whether a shorter working week would increase female participation.

Across men and women surveyed, high salaries were widely regarded as adequate compensation for the high hours worked. Some research has even shown women might be less likely to leave the industry than men.

Our findings suggested women who take on the weight of family responsibilities could be especially disadvantaged, if they were forced to work even longer hours during the week to make up for the lost weekend.

However, most respondents saw the delineation between men and women as increasingly irrelevant and based on outdated assumptions. Most argued that the industry needs to be made more appealing to both men and women.

The industry needs to be made more appealing to both men and women.
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

Strong support for a shorter week

Not surprisingly, we found strong support for a shorter working week. However, it’s a bit of a leading question.

We found that few people were willing or able to take a pay cut, work longer hours or lift their productivity during the week.

Many people were also worried about potential impacts on their projects, employers and colleagues. Few employers and clients said they were able or willing to absorb the costs of a shorter working week.

Impact on projects

Depending on a wide range of factors identified in our report, the consequences of moving the industry to a five-day week varied.

We found it could increase the time it takes to complete projects by 5–25%, and costs by 0.4–4%.

The current “hard five-day week” model being advocated for the industry – where sites are shut down on weekends – involved the greatest potential costs.

Importantly, we found subcontractors were currently underpricing five-day-week projects by as much as 20%, because they could spread the costs across other six-day projects.

A move to a hard five-day week could increase costs for subcontractors.
Mikael Blomkvist/Pexels

If a five-day week were mandated across the entire industry, this cost increase could be added to the costs estimates above.

The jury is out

The jury is still out on the pros and cons of a mandatory five-day week in construction.

We found that a healthy work-life balance for everyone is most effectively achieved by providing people with greater flexibility and control over when, where, how and how long they work.

If flexibility can be improved for everyone in the industry, then there is no need to incur the potential risks of a mandatory five-day week to individuals, employers and clients of the industry.

If we insist on adopting a five-day week, then a soft five-day week where sites are flexibly kept open on weekends may be the better option. Läs mer…