Johansen.se

The United States presidential election will be held on November 5. In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls, Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump by 49.3–46.5, a slight gain for Trump since last Monday, when Harris led by 49.3–46.2.

Joe Biden’s final position before his withdrawal as Democratic candidate on July 21 was a national poll deficit against Trump of 45.2–41.2.

The US president isn’t elected by the national popular vote, but by the Electoral College, in which each state receives electoral votes equal to its federal House seats (population based) and senators (always two). Almost all states award their electoral votes as winner-takes-all, and it takes 270 electoral votes to win (out of 538 total).

Relative to the national popular vote, the Electoral College is biased to Trump, with Harris needing at least a two-point popular vote win to be the Electoral College favourite in Silver’s model.

Last Monday, Harris led by one to two points in Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (ten) and Nevada (six). In the last week, Trump has gained in all these states in Silver’s aggregates, reducing Harris’ lead to about one point in these states.

If Harris wins these four states, she probably wins the Electoral College by at least a 276–262 margin. Trump leads by less than one point in Georgia and North Carolina, which both have 16 electoral votes.

While Harris is still barely ahead in the Electoral College, her margins have been reduced in the states where she’s leading. As a result, Silver’s model now gives Harris a 52% chance to win the Electoral College, down from 56% last Monday.

This means the presidential election is effectively a 50–50 toss-up. There’s a 23% chance that Harris wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College. The FiveThirtyEight model
is giving similar results to Silver’s model, with Harris a 53% favourite.

There’s still over three weeks until the election, and polls could change in that time. The polls could also be biased against either Trump or Harris, and in this case that candidate could win easily. With the polls across the swing states so close, either candidate could sweep all these states.

I wrote about the US election for The Poll Bludger last Thursday, and also covered the UK Conservative leadership election, the far-right winning the most seats at the September 29 Austrian election and Japan’s October 27 election.

Favourability ratings and economic data

Harris’ net favourability peaked about two weeks ago at +1.4 in the FiveThirtyEight national poll aggregate, but it has now dropped back to net zero, with 46.8% favourable and 46.8% unfavourable. Harris’ net favourability had surged from about -16 after becoming the Democratic nominee, and she gained further ground after the September 10 debate with Trump.

Trump’s net favourability has been steady in the last two months, and he’s now at -9.4, with 52.6% unfavourable and 43.2% favourable. Harris’ running mate Tim Walz is at +4.2 net favourable and Trump’s running mate JD Vance is at -9.6 net favourable. Biden’s net approval remains poor at -14.0.

US headline inflation rose 0.2% in September, the same increase as in August. In the 12 months to September, inflation was up 2.4%, the smallest increase since 2021. Core inflation increased 0.3% in September, the same as in August, and is up 3.3% in the 12 months to September.

Real (inflation-adjusted) hourly earnings were up 0.2% in September after a 0.3% increase in August, while real weekly earnings slid 0.1% after a 0.6% increase in August owing to changes in hours worked. In the 12 months to September, real hourly earnings were up 1.5% and weekly earnings up 0.9%.

Congressional elections

I wrote about the elections for the House of Representatives and Senate that will be held concurrently with the presidential election three weeks ago. The House has 435 single-member seats that are apportioned to states on a population basis, while there are two senators for each of the 50 states.

The House only has a two-year term, so the last House election was at the 2022 midterm elections, when Republicans won the House by 222–213 over Democrats. The FiveThirtyEight aggregate of polls of the national House race gives Democrats a 47.1–45.9 lead over Republicans, a gain for Republican from a 46.7–44.5 Democratic lead three weeks ago.

Senators have six-year terms, with one-third up for election every two years. Democrats and aligned independents currently have a 51–49 Senate majority, but they are defending 23 of the 33 regular seats up, including seats in three states Trump won easily in both 2016 and 2020: West Virginia, Montana and Ohio.

West Virginia is a certain Republican gain after the retirement of former Democratic (now independent) Senator Joe Manchin at this election. Republicans have taken a 5.4-point lead in Montana in the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate, while Democrats are just 2.3 points ahead in Ohio.

Republicans are being challenged by independent Dan Osborn in Nebraska, and he trails Republican Deb Fischer by just 1.5 points. Democrats did not contest to avoid splitting the vote. In other Senate contests, the incumbent party is at least four points ahead.

If Republicans gain West Virginia and Montana, but lose Nebraska to Osborn, and no other seats change hands, Republicans would have a 50–49 lead in the Senate. If Harris wins the presidency, Osborn would be the decisive vote as a Senate tie can be broken by the vice president, who would be Walz. This is the rosiest plausible scenario for Democrats. Läs mer…

A national Newspoll, conducted October 7–11 from a sample of 1,258, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, a one-point gain for the Coalition since the previous Newspoll, three weeks ago. After three 50–50 ties in a row, this is the first time this term the Coalition has led in Newspoll.

Primary votes were 38% Coalition (steady), 31% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (down one), 7% One Nation (up one) and 12% for all Others (steady). By 2022 election preference flows, these primary votes would normally give a 50–50 tie, so rounding probably contributed to the Coalition’s lead.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval slumped six points to -14, his worst this term in Newspoll, with 54% dissatisfied and 40% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval improved one point to -14. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 45–37 (46–37 previously).

The graph below shows Albanese’s Newspoll net approval ratings this term. The data points are marked with plus signs and a smoothed line has been fitted. Albanese’s net approval has been below -10 in two of the last three Newspolls, causing the trend line to turn down.

Albanese Newspoll ratings.

Other federal polls last week had improvements for Labor, and Essential and Resolve last week both suggest the Middle East conflict has had virtually no impact on Australian party support. It’s possible this Newspoll is a pro-Coalition outlier.

Labor’s primary improves in Resolve poll

A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted October 1–5 from a sample of 1,606, gave the Coalition 38% of the primary vote (up one since September), Labor 30% (up two), the Greens 12% (down one), One Nation 5% (down one), independents 12% (steady) and others 3% (down one).

Resolve doesn’t usually give a two-party estimate, but applying 2022 preference flows to the primary votes would give Labor about a 51–49 lead, unchanged from September.

Albanese’s net approval was unchanged at -18, with 53% giving him a poor rating and 35% a good rating. Dutton’s net approval improved one point to -1. Albanese led Dutton by 38–35 as preferred PM, a slight increase from 35–34 in September.

The Liberals led Labor by 38–26 on economic management (37–26 in September). On keeping the cost of living low, the Liberals led by 31–24 (32–25 previously).

By 58–29, respondents said they would struggle to afford an expense of a few thousand dollars (57–31 in May). This is the highest “struggle to afford” since Resolve started tracking this question in February 2023, but Labor can take some comfort from the little change since May.

Asked who was most responsible for rising living costs, 36% selected the federal government, 13% global factors, 13% businesses, 12% the Reserve Bank and 8% state and territory governments. Labor incumbent Jim Chalmers led the Liberals’ Angus Taylor as preferred treasurer by 24–18.

If Australians could vote in the US presidential election, Kamala Harris would lead Donald Trump by 52–21 (50–25 in September). Before Joe Biden’s withdrawal in July, he led Trump by just 26–22 with Australians with 31% for “someone else”. Harris’ net likeability is +24, Trump’s is -47 and Biden’s is -25.

Labor gains lead in Essential poll

A national Essential poll, conducted October 2–6 from a sample of 1,139, gave Labor a 49–47 lead including undecided (48–47 to the Coalition in late September). Primary votes were 34% Coalition (down one), 32% Labor (up three), 12% Greens (steady), 8% One Nation (steady), 1% UAP (down one), 9% for all Others (steady) and 5% undecided (steady).

On Israel’s military action, 32% said Israel should permanently withdraw from Gaza (down seven since August), 19% said Israel is justified (up two), 18% said Israel should agree to a temporary ceasefire (down three) and 32% were unsure (up eight).

On the Australian government’s response, 56% were satisfied (up five since August), 30% thought the government too supportive of Israel (down two) and 14% too harsh on Israel (down two).

By 40–27, voters would support a road user tax for electric vehicle drivers. Just 2% thought the gap between the rich and poor was decreasing, 71% thought it was increasing and 27% staying the same. On Australia’s political system, 48% thought it needs reform but is fundamentally sound, 40% said it needs fundamental change and just 12% said it’s working well.

Morgan poll tied

A national Morgan poll, conducted September 30 to October 6 from a sample of 1,697, had a 50–50 tie, a one-point gain for Labor since the September 23–29 poll.

Primary votes were 37.5% Coalition (down 0.5), 31.5% Labor (up 1.5), 12.5% Greens (down one), 5.5% One Nation (up one), 9% independents (down 0.5) and 4% others (down 0.5).

The headline figure uses respondent preferences. By 2022 election preference flows, Labor led by 52–48, a 0.5-point gain for Labor.

ACT election and NSW byelections this Saturday

The ACT uses the Hare Clark proportional method with five five-member electorates to elect its 25-member parliament, so a quota for election is one-sixth of the vote or 16.7%. The ACT is easily Australia’s most left-wing jurisdiction, and Labor has governed since 2001, often in coalition with the Greens. In 2020, Labor won ten seats, the Liberals nine and the Greens six.

There will also be three NSW state byelections this Saturday in the Liberal-held seats of Epping, Hornsby and Pittwater. Labor won’t be contesting any of these byelections. In Pittwater, Liberal Rory Amon defeated independent Jacqui Scruby by 50.7–49.3 at the 2023 state election. Amon resigned after being charged with child sex offences and Scruby will contest the byelection.

NSW and Victorian state polls

A NSW state Resolve poll for The Sydney Morning Herald, conducted with the federal September and October Resolve polls from a sample of 1,111, gave the Coalition 37% of the primary vote (down one since August), Labor 32% (up two), the Greens 11% (down one), independents 14% (steady) and others 6% (steady).

The Poll Bludger said the primary votes suggested a “slight two-party advantage to Labor”. Labor incumbent Chris Minns led the Liberals’ Mark Speakman as preferred premier by 37–14 (38–13 in August).

By 61–23, voters thought the NSW government is not doing enough to help renters. By 53–19, they thought the government should put aside money towards future metro rail projects.

A Victorian state Redbridge poll, conducted September 26 to October 3 from a sample of 1,516, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, a one-point gain for the Coalition since a late July Redbridge poll. Primary votes were 40% Coalition (steady), 30% Labor (down one), 12% Greens (steady) and 18% for all Others (up one). Läs mer…

Nearly a year on from its formation, it’s clear a three-party coalition is not quite the same as the two-party versions New Zealand is accustomed to.

Normally, the primary dynamic has been clear: the major party sets the pace while the smaller governing partner receives a bauble or two for supporting the lead act. There may be occasional concerns about tails wagging dogs, but the dog is clearly in charge.

With the present National-ACT-NZ First coalition, however, things are more complex and less predictable. The dog has two tails, both of which are more than capable of vigorous wagging.

On the anniversary of the 2023 election, which produced the first three-party coalition government since the MMP system was adopted in 1996, we are perhaps beginning to get a picture of where dog ends and tails begin.

Speed wobbles

If that picture has been a little blurry until now it’s partly because of the speed with which the government has moved – not always to its own advantage.

In the process of ticking off the 49 items on its plan for the first 100 days, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s administration has kept some election promises but broken or fudged others, having to backtrack as a result.

It has delivered tax cuts, but been forced to trim and cap spending in areas (like health and infrastructure) crying out for extra investment.

It has given the impression of urgency and action with its Fast-track Approvals Bill. But it had to scrap the policy’s core element of granting three ministers unprecedented constitutional authority over which projects to fast-track.

Concerns about executive overreach and potential conflicts of interest have dogged other policy areas, too. These range from the repeal of ground-breaking smoke-free legislation to firearms control – both the responsibility of junior coalition party ministers.

This sense of a government somewhat at odds with itself extends to the swingeing cuts made to the public service workforce. Marketed as freeing up resources for front-line staff, the cuts are increasingly likely to be affecting actual service delivery in health, police, defence and elsewhere.

Executive overreach? A protest march in Auckland against the government’s fast-track consenting legislation.
Getty Images

An ‘executive paradise’

Some of this can be put down to a new government’s distrust of a public service inherited from its predecessor, and a desire to make the most of its first year before the shadow election campaign kicks off mid-term.

But the coalition’s vigorous embrace of the executive authority baked into New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements has still been something to behold. As constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer put it, the fast-track legislation risked turning New Zealand into “an executive paradise, not a democratic paradise”.

The government has used parliamentary urgency more frequently than any other contemporary administration. It has been rattling legislation through the House faster than the wheels of parliamentary democracy are meant to turn.

Submitters on the Māori wards legislation, for example, were given just three working days to prepare their arguments. Those wanting to comment on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill had four days.

And the government has been making less use of parliament’s expert select committees than is standard practice. This has limited public participation and constrained scrutiny of proposed legislation.

Ministers have also been prepared to ignore public service advice while paying plenty of attention to operational matters in the departments that furnish that advice.

New Zealand’s system of public management distinguishes between ministers’ responsibility for policy outcomes and senior officials’ responsibility for the operational decisions required to deliver those outcomes.

Nonetheless, Cabinet has commandeered oversight of operational matters in Whaikaha/Ministry of Disabled People, following botched communications over changes in disability funding. And civil servants have recently been told to stop working from home and return to the office.

The government will be betting this tactical disposition bolsters its “getting stuff done” narrative. But no one wants a concern with short-term operational details to come at the expense of long-term policy thinking.

Treaty principles pantomime

Nowhere is the coalition’s internal tension more evident, however, than in its confrontational approach to Māori and te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi issues.

Having courted voters already sceptical or disgruntled about Māori cultural assertiveness, the coalition moved fast to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora/Māori Health Authority, repeal legislation supporting Māori wards in local government, row back on official use of te reo Māori, and cut funding for Māori language revitalisation.

But its proposed Treaty Principles Bill – an ACT Party initiative – looks set to be especially constitutionally fraught and politically divisive.

National and NZ First have indicated they will not support the bill beyond its first reading, but have agreed it will receive a full six months in front of a select committee.

This only raises the question of why any parliamentary time and money should be spent on the proposal at all – especially given the government’s supposed “laser focus” on cost and efficiency elsewhere.

Can the centre hold?

The politics around the Treaty Principles Bill also reveal just how much the prime minister has had to cede to ACT, for whom the proposed legislation was a bottom line during the government formation process.

And it inevitably casts doubt on the extent and exercise of prime ministerial authority under three-way governing arrangements. ACT leader and soon-to-be deputy prime minister David Seymour has questioned Christopher Luxon’s authority more than once.

And Luxon’s apparent unwillingness to at least censure an under-performing minister from another party (NZ First’s Casey Costello, for example) contrasts starkly with his firmer treatment of those in his own National Party (Melissa Lee and Penny Simmons, both demoted).

One year into a three-year term, these issues can perhaps be dismissed as part of the process of bedding down a new government. But politics never rests. Winston Peters hands the deputy prime minister role to David Seymour at the end of next May. Both NZ First and ACT will want to distinguish themselves from National.

As the next election nears and the jockeying for attention begins, the prime minister’s authority over his administration, and the coalition’s coherence, will be tested further. Läs mer…

Listening to music can enhance our lives in all kinds of ways – many of us use it during exercise, to regulate our mood, or in the workplace.

But can listening to background music while you work really make you more productive?

It’s a controversial topic. Some people swear by it, others find it painfully distracting. The research agrees there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to this question.

The best way to use music in the workplace depends on several factors, including your personality traits, what you’re doing, and what kind of music you’re listening to.

Here’s how to find out what works best for you.

Who you are

Your personality has a key influence on whether background music can boost productivity or be distracting in the workplace, which relates to your unique optimal level of arousal.

Arousal in this context relates to mental alertness, and the readiness of the brain to process new information. Background music can increase it.

Research suggests that being at an optimal level of arousal facilitates a state of “flow”, enhancing performance and productivity.

Introverts may need less external stimulus – such as music – to focus well.
Ground Picture/Shutterstock

Introverts already have a high baseline level of internal arousal.

Adding background music might push them over their optimal level, likely reducing productivity.

Extroverts, on the other hand, have lower baseline levels of internal arousal, so need more external stimulation to perform at their optimal level.

This is why introverts may perform worse than extroverts with background music, especially when the music is highly arousing.

What you’re doing

Research has shown the nature of the task you’re doing can also have an important effect.

Because of connections between music and language in the brain, trying to read and write at the same time as listening to complex music – especially music with lyrics – can be particularly difficult.

However, if you’re doing a simple or repetitive task such as data entry or a manual task, having music on in the background can help with performance – particularly upbeat and complex music.

These findings could be related to music’s effects on motivation and maintaining attention, as well as activating reward networks in the brain.

Complex music may increase performance on some simple or manual tasks.
Krakenimages.com/Shutterstock

The type of music itself

One important and often overlooked influence is what kind of music you choose to listen to.

Research has shown that fast and loud music can be more detrimental to complex tasks, such as reading comprehension, than soft and slow music.

Other research found that listening to calming music can have benefits for memory, while aggressive and unpleasant music can have the opposite effect.

However, these effects also depend on your personality, your familiarity with the music, and your musical preferences, so the type of music that works best will be different for everyone.

Music can be very rewarding and can benefit attention, mood and motivation.

Choosing music that is meaningful, rewarding and makes you feel good will likely help boost your performance, especially when performing simple tasks.

The type of music you listen to can have an effect.
Samuel Sianipar/Unsplash

What about complex tasks?

It largely seems that the more complex or demanding the task is, the more distracting background music can be.

One way to harness the motivational and mood-boosting effects of music to help with your workplace productivity is to play music before doing your work.

Using music to boost your mood and enhance attention before starting a work task could help you be more productive in that task.

Playing music right before a task can provide benefits while reducing the risk of distraction.
XiXinXing/Shutterstock

Playing music before a demanding task has been shown to boost language abilities in particular.

So if you’re about to do a cognitively demanding task involving reading and writing, and you feel that music might distract you if played at the same time, try listening to it just before doing the task.

Find what works for you

Music can be both helpful and detrimental for workplace productivity – the best advice is to experiment with different tasks and different types of music, to find out what works best for you.

Try to experiment with your favourite music first, while doing a simple task.

Does the music help you engage with the task? Or do you get distracted and start to become more absorbed in the music? Listening to music without lyrics and with a strong beat might help you focus on the task at hand.

If you find music is distracting to your work, try scheduling in some music breaks throughout the day. Listening to music during breaks could boost your mood and increase your motivation, thereby enhancing productivity.

Moving along with music is suggested to increase reward processing, especially in social situations.

Dancing has the added bonus of getting you out of your chair and moving along in time, so bonus points if you are able to make it a dance break!

Read more:
An education in music makes you a better employee. Are recruiters in tune? Läs mer…

When you hear about “science focused on how dogs can live their best lives with us” it sounds like an imaginary job made up by a child. However, the field of animal welfare science is real and influential.

As our most popular animal companion and coworker, dogs are very deserving of scientific attention. In recent years we’ve learned more about how dogs are similar to people, but also how they are distinctly themselves.

We often think about how dogs help us – as companions, working as detectors, and keeping us safe and healthy. Dog-centric science helps us think about the world from a four-paw perspective and apply this new knowledge so dogs can enjoy a good life.

Here are five tips to keep the tails in your life wagging happily.

1. Let dogs sniff

Sniffing makes dogs happier. We tend to forget they live in a smell-based world because we’re so visual. Often taking the dog for a walk is our daily physical activity but we should remember it could be our dogs’ only time out of the home environment.

Letting them have a really good sniff of that tree or post is full of satisfying information for them. It’s their nose’s equivalent of us standing at the top of a mountain and enjoying a rich, colour-soaked, sunset view.

Dogs live in a world of smells, so it’s important to let them sniff until their heart’s content.
Pawtraits/Shutterstock

2. Give dogs agency

Agency is a hot topic in animal welfare science right now. For people who lived through the frustration of strict lockdowns in the early years of COVID, it’s easy to remember how not being able to go where we wanted, or see who we wanted, when we wanted, impacted our mental health.

We’ve now learned that giving animals choice and control in their lives is important for their mental wellbeing too. We can help our dogs enjoy better welfare by creating more choices and offering them control to exercise their agency.

This might be installing a doggy door so they can go outside or inside when they like. It could be letting them decide which sniffy path to take through your local park. Perhaps it’s choosing which three toys to play with that day from a larger collection that gets rotated around. Maybe it’s putting an old blanket down in a new location where you’ve noticed the sun hits the floor for them to relax on.

Providing choices doesn’t have to be complicated or expensive.

3. Recognise all dogs are individuals

People commonly ascribe certain personality traits to certain dog breeds. But just like us, dogs have their own personalities and preferences. Not all dogs are going to like the same things and a new dog we live with may be completely different to the last one.

One dog might like to go to the dog park and run around with other dogs at high speed for an hour, while another dog would much rather hang out with you chewing on something in the garden.

We can see as much behavioural variation within breeds as we do between them. Being prepared to meet dogs where they are, as individuals, is important to their welfare.

As well as noticing what dogs like to do as individuals, it’s important not to force dogs into situations they don’t enjoy. Pay attention to behaviour that indicates dogs aren’t comfortable, such as looking away, licking their lips or yawning.

Just like humans, different dogs have different personalities.
Daria Shvetcova/Shutterstock

4. Respect dogs’ choice to opt out

Even in our homes, we can provide options if our dogs don’t want to share in every activity with us. Having a quiet place that dogs can retreat to is really important in enabling them to opt out if they want to.

If you’re watching television loudly, it may be too much for their sensitive ears. Ensure a door is open to another room so they can retreat. Some dogs might feel overwhelmed when visitors come over; giving them somewhere safe and quiet to go rather than forcing an interaction will help them cope.

Dogs can be terrific role models for children when teaching empathy. We can demonstrate consent by letting dogs approach us for pats and depart when they want. Like seeing exotic animals perform in circuses, dressing up dogs for our own entertainment seems to have had its day. If you asked most dogs, they don’t want to wear costumes or be part of your Halloween adventures.

5. Opportunities for off-lead activity – safely.

When dogs are allowed to run off-lead, they use space differently. They tend to explore more widely and go faster than they do when walking with us on-lead. This offers them important and fun physical activity to keep them fit and healthy.

Demonstrating how dogs walk differently when on- and off-lead.

A recent exploration of how liveable cities are for dogs mapped all the designated areas for dogs to run off-leash. Doggy density ranged from one dog for every six people to one dog for every 30 people, depending on where you live.

It also considered how access to these areas related to the annual registration fees for dogs in each government area compared, with surprising differences noted across greater Melbourne. We noted fees varied between A$37 and $84, and these didn’t relate to how many off-lead areas you could access.

For dog-loving nations, such as Australia, helping our canine friends live their best life feels good. Science that comes from a four-paw perspective can help us reconsider our everyday interactions with dogs and influence positive changes so we can live well, together. Läs mer…

Richard Powers’ latest novel Playground draws a distinction between two different kinds of games. There are finite games that we play to win: the aim is to defeat others and demonstrate our superiority and excellence. Then there are infinite games, played for the pleasure of the game itself. The joy of infinite games is not competition, but the discovery of new strategies and moves that previously seemed impossible.

Review: Playground – Richard Powers (Hutchinson Heinemann)

The protagonists of Playground, Rafi Young and Todd Keane, are driven to explore both kinds of play. They connect as troubled teenagers at an elite Chicago private school through their shared love of board games. Rafi is a black scholarship student with an omnivorous love of literature. Todd, from an affluent white family, struggles with people but excels with computers.

Though very different, Rafi and Todd are fundamentally curious players, delighting in unexpected connections and the possibilities they give rise to. But they are also competitive, compelled to find ever-evolving paths to dominance and victory, in their relationships with the world and with one another.

These conflicting impulses create a question that seems to hang over the novel. Do we play to make the best moves that we possibly can? Or to wreck the game for someone else?

Converging plotlines

While Rafi and Todd’s complex friendship is at the heart of Playground, the novel has many slowly converging plotlines and characters.

The present-day action focuses on the tiny island of Makatea in French Polynesia, where a now middle-aged Rafi, who works as a teacher, lives with his artist wife Ina and their two adopted children. The underpopulated island, scarred by the legacy of phosphorus mining and hydrogen bomb testing, is being visited by the 93-year old Evie Beaulieu, a famous oceanographer, who was once Todd’s childhood idol. Evie is there to explore the bountiful sea life in the reefs surrounding Makatea.

The isolated island has attracted other attention. An American conglomerate plans to use the island as a base for a “seasteading” venture, which will eventually launch floating, autonomous cities onto the open ocean.

Meanwhile, Todd, now a tech billionaire and AI pioneer, is wrestling with a diagnosis of Lewy body dementia, a condition that will come to affect his memory, communication and motor functions.

The novel moves between three loosely interconnected narratives. In the present day, the residents of Makatea must vote on their future. A floating third-person narrator explores the deliberations of multiple characters, who weigh the wealth and benefits that the new enterprise will bring (jobs, schools, hospitals) against the loss of their way of life and the destruction of Makatea’s unspoiled reefs.

Running alongside this is the story of Evie’s career as an oceanographer and diver. This thread follows the development of her almost obsessive love for the ocean and its mysteries:

She had never felt at home up there, above the surface, with its noise and politics and relentless verticality. She had been made for water, gliding through a place edgeless and muffled, free of the blows that assaulted her in the world of air.

As her ambitions solidify, Evie attempts to reconcile the joy she finds underwater with the demands of her family, who wait patiently for her fleeting returns to solid land.

Finally, there is Todd’s first-person account of his formative friendship with Rafi. Not long after they meet in high school, the pair become enraptured with the ancient Chinese board game Go. They are drawn to the openness and fluidity of the game, and the seemingly infinite complexity of its possible strategies. “Calculating the value of a move was impossible,” Todd observes. “Whatever I did, he had a hundred possible replies.”

They approach the game with different attitudes. For Rafi, Go resembles the unfolding of human intelligence he finds in literature and philosophy. It has the capacity to draw together different fields of knowledge and experience, holding out the tantalising possibility of perfection.

For Todd, “a loyal foot soldier in the digital revolution”, Go represents a seemingly unreachable plateau for machine learning. With its demand for “deep intuition, creativity, psychological insight, a spark of indefinable genius”, the game appears impossible to automate. It remains a benchmark for Todd, as he joins the race to develop AI.

Richard Powers.
Penguin Random House

To some extent, their contrasting attitudes derive from the turmoil of their respective backgrounds. Rafi has been propelled towards excellence by a broken home and a family tragedy, both of which he feels responsible for. He is driven by a maddening and eventually isolating desire for exactitude and precision in his writing. He insists, above all else, that he must win on his own terms.

Todd grew up in the middle of an endless hot-and-cold “wargame” played between his unhappy parents. He is therefore drawn to logic, rules and order. He ultimately seeks a different kind of perfection: the dispassionate calculations and movements of autonomous, self-playing machines.

These differing philosophies inform Rafi and Todd’s various cooperative and competitive games throughout their close friendship in high school and university. Their freewheeling play eventually inspires “Playground”, an early social media platform, which gamifies social interactions and the sharing of knowledge, and which becomes the basis of Todd’s fortune. But their differences prove to be irreconcilable. They slide into a distant long game, which plays out in the decades following the dramatic collapse of their friendship.

Wonder and complexity

Much like Powers’ earlier novel The Overstory (2018), Playground explores the deep enmeshment of human, environmental and technological territories, drawing together seemingly discrete subjects: games and play, ocean life, machine learning, art and literature. But the narrative strands of Playground do not converge as fluidly or as satisfyingly.

The voting and collective deliberation by the population of Makatea is the least interesting plotline. The diffusion of voices and viewpoints means that none of the characters feel particularly distinct. The awkward small-town comedy – despite the high stakes – sits uneasily alongside the deeper narratives of Evie and Todd.

The novel’s two central preoccupations – ocean life and gameplay – also feel quite tenuously linked, though their exploration is individually compelling. “If you want to make something smarter, teach it to play,” Evie notes at one point in relation to marine life. Todd expresses a similar sentiment about computers, which can learn to master complex games by playing against themselves millions of times.

The ocean is understood as its own “playground”, where the rules are seemingly infinite and unknown. But beyond this, the narratives of Evie’s underwater explorations and Todd and Rafi’s long-running games seem to run in parallel. They seldom overlap or comment on one another in a significant way. A late plot twist, which shifts the register of reality in the novel, does some work to connect these elements, but this development is curiously understated. Its ramifications for the questions Playground raises are not really explored.

While Playground is structurally underwhelming compared to Powers’ earlier works, it is as emotionally powerful as any of his previous offerings. Evie’s narrative captures the rapture of her encounters in the deep, and the sense of discovering a vast unknown world:

She wrote of swimming at night in the black, warm water of the South China Sea, where every paddle of her limbs triggered a swirling Milky Way of animals flashing blue and white. Three-quarters of ocean species, from zooplankton to giant squid, were signalling in a language of living light.

Playground is keenly aware of the threats faced by the ocean. Much of its abundant and mysterious life may disappear before we have had the chance to properly discover it. Through Evie, Powers focuses on the sheer joy of exploration.

Similarly, Rafi and Todd’s intertwined narratives are profoundly affecting. They are two extraordinarily different people, who come to understand one another through play – better than anyone else in the world, perhaps, but still, heartbreakingly, not well enough. Powers treats their contrasting philosophies of play with respect and sympathy, but does not shy from exploring the consequences of their respective endgames. The sense of endless possibility that once accompanied their movements, strategies and exchanges cannot be preserved forever. All human games inevitably become finite.

Powers’ strength as a novelist lies in his ability to express awe and wonder – towards nature, technology, or the often baffling complexities of the human mind. The depth and detail of his descriptions, whether of ocean life or gameplay, are used to share a sense of amazement. This extends to his frequent considerations of neurodiversity and different forms of consciousness and intelligence in animals, machines and fauna – themes which Playground touches upon, like its predecessors The Overstory and Bewilderment (2021).

Powers is remarkably generous in his varied considerations of the world and our place within it. He has a gift for making complexity feel majestic rather than overwhelming. Playground likens existence to a vast, infinitely variable game, governed by barely knowable, yet deeply interconnected rules. There are no perfect strategies, and the consequences of a single move may ripple across the entire board. Powers is able to reassure us that the human playing pieces, while small, are never insignificant. Läs mer…

What might be the most seismic moment in American cinema? Film “speaking” for the first time in The Jazz Singer? Dorothy entering the Land of Oz? That menacing shark that in 1975 invented the summer blockbuster?

Or how about that moment when two hitmen on their way to a job began talking about the intricacies of European fast food while listening to Kool & The Gang?

Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction (1994) celebrates its 30th birthday this month. Watching it now, this story of a motley crew of mobsters, drug dealers and lowlifes in sunny Los Angeles still feels startlingly new.

Widely regarded as Tarantino’s masterpiece, the director’s dazzling second film was considered era-defining for its memorable dialogue, innovative narrative structure and unique blend of humour and violence. It was nominated for seven Academy Awards, made stars of Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman, and revitalised John Travolta’s career.

Pulp Fiction is dark, often poignant, and very funny. It is, as one critic describes it, an “intravenous jab of callous madness, black comedy and strange unwholesome euphoria”.

Tarantino’s trademark style includes plenty of violence and gore.
IMDB

A Möbius strip plot

Famous for its non-linear narrative, Pulp Fiction weaves together a trio of connected crime stories. The three chapters – Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace’s Wife, The Gold Watch and The Bonnie Situation – loop, twist and intersect but, crucially, never confuse the viewer.

Tarantino has often paid tribute to French filmmakers Jean-Luc Godard and Jean-Pierre Melville, whose earlier films also presented their narratives out of chronological order and modified the rules of the crime genre.

By inviting audiences to piece Pulp Fiction together like a puzzle, Tarantino laid the way for subsequent achronological films such as Memento (2000), Go (1999) and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998).

Pop culture meets postmodernism

In his influential essay Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, first published in 1984, political theorist Frederic Jameson coined the term “new depthlessness” to describe postmodern culture.

Jameson perceived a shift away from the depth, meaning and authenticity that characterised earlier forms of culture, towards a focus on surface and style.

Pulp Fiction’s iconic movie poster shows character Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman) smoking a cigarette.
IMDB

Pulp Fiction fits Jameson’s definition of depthlessness. It is stuffed with homages to popular culture and a vivid array of character types drawn from other B-movies – hitmen, molls, mob bosses, double-crossing boxers, traumatised war veterans and tuxedo-wearing “fixers”. It is a film of surfaces and allusions.

Jackson, Travolta and Thurman feature alongside established 1990s box-office stars including Bruce Willis and industry stalwarts Harvey Keitel and Christopher Walken, both of whom have brief but memorable cameos.

The film’s most iconic scene takes place at the retro 1950s-themed Jack Rabbit Slim’s diner. Thurman’s twist contest with Travolta fondly echoes Travolta’s earlier dancing in Saturday Night Fever (1977) and pays homage to other dance scenes in films such as 8 ½ (1963) and Band of Outsiders (1964).

Words and music

Film critic Roger Ebert once noted how Tarantino’s characters “often speak at right angles to the action”, giving long speeches before getting on with the job at hand.

Pulp Fiction is full of witty and quotable monologues and dialogue, ranging from the philosophical to the mundane. Conversations about foot massages and blueberry pie bump up against Bible verses and reflections on fate and redemption.

The film’s 1995 Oscar for Best Original Screenplay was a fitting achievement for Tarantino, who many regard as the snappiest writer in film history. Countless other filmmakers have looked to replicate Pulp Fiction’s mashup of cool and coarse.

Needle drops are just as important in establishing Pulp Fiction’s mood and tone. The film’s eclectic soundtrack pings between surf rock, soul and classic rock ‘n’ roll.

The soundtrack peaked at No. 21 on the Billboard 200 in 1994 and stayed in the charts for more than a year.

Dividing the critics

Though it was officially released in October 1994, Pulp Fiction had already made a stir earlier that by winning the prestigious Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

Many expected Krzysztof Kieślowski’s Three Colours: Red to take the top prize. Tarantino himself seemed stunned, telling the Cannes audience: “I don’t make the kind of movies that bring people together. I make movies that split people apart.”

The film has divided critics ever since.

Many adored Pulp Fiction for its intoxicating allure and sheer adrenaline-fuelled pleasure. To this day it maintains a 92% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. Film critic Todd McCarthy called it a film “bulging with boldness, humour and diabolical invention”.

But the backlash was equally robust. Some criticised the film for its excessive gore and irresponsible use of racial slurs. Screenwriting guru Syd Field felt it was too shallow and too talky. Jean-Luc Godard, once one of Tarantino’s idol, apparently hated it.

Nonetheless, its financial success (a box office return of US$213 million from an $8 million budget) signalled the growing importance and cultural prestige of independent US films. Miramax, the studio that backed it, went on to become a major force in the industry.

The 1994 film made stars of Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman.
IMDB

A lasting legacy

Shortly after Pulp Fiction’s release, the word “Tarantinoesque” appeared in the Oxofrd English Dictionary. The entry reads:

Resembling or imitative of the films of Quentin Tarantino; characteristic or reminiscent of these films Tarantino’s films are typically characterised by graphic and stylized violence, non-linear storylines, cineliterate references, satirical themes, and sharp dialogue.

Pulp Fiction has since been parodied and knocked off countless times. Hollywood suddenly began mass-producing low-budget crime thrillers with witty, self-reflexive dialogue. Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead (1995), 2 Days In The Valley (1996) and Very Bad Things (1998) are just some example.

Graffiti artist Bansky even stencilled the likeness of Jules and Vincent all over London, with bananas in place of guns. The Simpsons got in on the act too.

Tarantino once summed up his working method as follows:

Ultimately all I’m trying to do is merge sophisticated storytelling with lurid subject matter. I reckon that makes for an entertaining night at the movies.

I’d say there’s no better way to describe Pulp Fiction. Läs mer…

Battery electric vehicle sales in Australia have flattened in recent months. The latest data reveal a sharp 27.2% year-on-year decline (overall new vehicle sales were down 9.7%) in September. Tesla Model Y and Model 3 cars had an even steeper drop of nearly 50%.

Sales also fell in August (by 18.5%) and July (1.5%). There’s a clear downward trend.

Before this downturn, electric vehicle sales had been rising steadily, supported by increased choices and government incentives. In early 2024, year-to-date sales continued to grow compared to the same period in 2023. Then, in April, electric vehicle sales fell for the first time in more than two years.

Australia isn’t simply mirroring a broader global trend. It’s true sales have slowed in parts of Europe and the United States — often due to reduced incentives. But strong sales growth continues in other regions, such as China and India.

A range of factors or combinations of them could help explain the trend in Australia. These include governments axing incentives, concerns about safety and depreciation, and misinformation.

Governments are cutting incentives

Electric vehicles typically cost more upfront. However, the flood of cheaper Chinese vehicles is lowering the cost barrier.

Federal, state and territory governments also provide financial incentives to buy electric vehicles. These have been among the main drivers of sales in Australia.

Nationally, incentives include a higher luxury car tax threshold and exemptions from fringe benefits tax and customs duty. But several states and territories have scaled back their rebate programs and tax exemptions in 2023 and 2024.

New South Wales and South Australia ended their $3,000 rebates on January 1 this year. At the same time, NSW ended a stamp duty refund for new and used zero-emission vehicles up to a value of $78,000. Both incentives had been offered since 2021.

Victoria ended its $3,000 rebate, also launched in 2021, in mid-2023.

In the ACT, the incentive of two years’ free registration closed on June 30 2024.

Queensland’s $6,000 electric vehicle rebate ended in September.

The market clearly responded to these changes. However, reduced financial incentives alone cannot explain the full picture. Despite several rounds of price cuts, sales of popular Tesla models are falling.

Buyers are increasingly opting for hybrid vehicles instead. In September, sales of hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles were up by 34.4% and 89.9%, respectively.

These sales trends reflect other consumer concerns beyond just the upfront cost.

Resale value worries buyers

One major issue for car buyers in Australia, and globally, is uncertainty about their resale value. Consumers are concerned electric vehicles depreciate faster than traditional cars.

These concerns are particularly tied to battery degradation, which affects a car’s range and performance over time. And batteries account for much of the vehicle’s total cost. Potential buyers worry about the long-term value of a used electric vehicle with an ageing battery.

For example, a 2021 Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus with nearly 85,000km currently lists for about $34,000. It has lost roughly half its value in just three years.

While Tesla offers transferable four-year warranties and software updates, the rapid evolution of EV technology also makes older second-hand models less desirable, further reducing their value.

The depreciation of used electric vehicles, such as these Mercedes and Tesla models, deters some buyers.
Uber handout/AAP

Fires raise fears about safety

Electric vehicle fires have made headlines globally. This has created doubts among consumers about the risks of owning them.

In Korea, a high-profile battery fire in August 2024 led to a ban on certain electric vehicles from underground car parks. While similar bans are not common in Australia, some have been reported. These could have harmed local consumer confidence.

Incidents of electric vehicle fires have increased along with vehicle numbers. Statistically, these vehicles are not more prone to fires than conventional cars – in fact, the risk is clearly lower.

For example, analysis of publicly available statistics from South Korean government agencies, one of the early adopters of electric vehicles, show the number of fires per registered electric vehicle is steadily increasing. Fire risk remains lower than for traditional vehicles, although the gap is shrinking as the electric vehicle fleet ages. And the highly publicised nature of their fires is a source of growing buyer hesitancy.

Electric vehicle fires in Korea are increasing with EV numbers, but the rate is still less than for petrol or diesel cars.
Author provided using data from South Korean government agencies, CC BY

Misinformation and politicisation are rampant

The full environmental benefits of electric vehicles depend on widespread adoption. However, there is a wide gap between early adopters’ experiences and potential buyers’ perceptions.

Persistent misconceptions include exaggerated concerns about battery life, charging infrastructure and safety. Myths and misinformation often fuel these concerns. Traditional vehicle and oil companies actively spread misinformation in campaigns much like those used against other green energy initiatives.

In response, coalitions such as Electric Vehicles UK have formed to combat these false narratives and promote accurate information.

The politicisation of green initiatives adds to the challenge. When electric vehicles become associated with a specific political ideology, it can alienate large parts of the population. Adoption then becomes slower and more divisive.

Green transition is a work in progress

The electric vehicle market in Australia is facing challenges, despite the growing variety of models and price cuts.

The EV sales trend signals deeper issues in the market. Broader trends, such as the dominance of SUVs and utes, underscore the fact that while the transition to greener vehicles is progressing, it remains uneven.

Further efforts will be needed to reduce misconceptions and misinformation, and bridge the gap between owners’ experience and potential buyers’ perceptions. Only then can Australia enjoy the environmental benefits of widespread EV adoption. Läs mer…

Escalating violence in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon in recent weeks, has brought news of death, casualties and displacement.

In response, the Australian government has organised evacuation flights for Australian citizens and is urging all Australians in Lebanon to take the earliest available flights due to the unpredictable nature of the conflict.

For the more than 248,000 Australians with Lebanese ancestry, and others, this has been a deeply distressing time.

Escalating violence in Lebanon has also resonated deeply with other diasporas in Australia, such as those from Palestine and Ukraine. These scattered communities share similar experiences of conflict and displacement.

So how do Australians with links to Lebanon, Gaza or other conflict zones look after their mental health at this time? And how can you support others who may be struggling?

Some Australian nationals have returned from Lebanon on repatriation flights, but many remain.
Bianca De Marchi/AAP

Identifying with pain and suffering

People with emotional ties to conflict zones overseas identify with the pain and suffering they see and hear. Australians with shared cultural heritage may be living in the shadow of homeland events and experiencing what research has called “push-pull” dynamics.

This may be experiencing periods of calm and ease mixed with intermittent periods of intense fear, uncertainty and emotional pain as upsetting events unfold.

For some, sleeplessness, irritability, fear, frustration, uncertainty and emotional exhaustion combine. People are no longer isolated from their country of origin. Rather, global events influence their personal and social life, and mental health.

The way people manage the interplay between homeland events, sense of powerlessness, and mental health in Australia are complex. It is easy to be rapidly consumed by what is happening. Events are graphic, compelling and fast moving.

How to look after yourself

So what can you do if you notice yourself or someone close to you is becoming impacted?

Know your distress triggers. For some, this might be witnessing violence on television news or social media. For others, this might be stories about children and young people who have been killed. Seeing and hearing images and stories can be distressing if they are repeated across multiple platforms. Some people may need to minimise their media exposure.

Talk to people you trust about how you are feeling. Describe what is happening and what you notice about yourself. If you are feeling fragile or concerned about your mental health, or the mental health of a loved one, seek support from your health-care provider.

Reconnect with and strengthen personal support networks. Supportive cultural connections and family members, and other supports including friends and colleagues, can protect against the onset or worsening of mental distress.

Getting help early can create more options for support. It can also make it easier to accept help in the future.

Refer to trusted sources of information and calibrate media exposure. While many people need to know about events, news stories and imagery are distressing.

Incorporate activities that comfort and distract you, and make your situation feel safer. This can include:

spending time with family members or friends
spiritual, faith or religious reconnecting
distraction through music or food.

Avoid taking devices to bed to protect your sleep and your mental health.

How to support others

If you work with or support someone who is impacted, recognise this is a time for sensitivity and compassion. Show you are concerned and, at the same time, check they’re OK. Ask:

What would be most helpful in our support for you?

What is the best way for me/the team at work to be supportive and alongside you?

It is also important to ask about someone’s mental health. You can ask:

With events unfolding, how are things at home for you right now?

When validating a person’s experience, remember it is not always important to know personal detail or circumstances in fine detail. What is important is to demonstrate genuine interest, create trust and psychological safety. Aim to really listen, rather than listening so you can respond.

As a friend, colleague or manager, offering support and listening without judgement may help a person impacted by global catastrophic events.

In times like these, validation, human connection and support are some of the best things you can do to protect your own and other people’s mental health.

Sometimes it can be hard to find the words. Here’s what we know helps.

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

As Australian students begin the final term of 2024, governments are in the middle of a bitter standoff over public school funding for next year.

The federal government has offered states and territories a 2.5% funding increase for schools to the tune of A$16 billion, but some are demanding 5%.

The deadline for states and territories to sign the proposed new school funding agreement ended on September 30, leaving the future of Australian school funding beyond 2025 in limbo.

On top of ongoing funding uncertainty, there are also significant issues with how the proposed new agreement is designed. How can we fix this?

How does school funding work?

Federal, state and territory governments each contribute to public school funding.

The federal government currently contributes 20% of the schooling resource standard. This is the estimate of how much public funding a school needs to meet students’ educational needs.

The Commonwealth ties this funding to reforms and targets aimed at improving equity and learning outcomes for students. The remaining 80% is up to states and territories to fund.

The current agreement expires at the end of this year and the Albanese government is proposing to replace it with the ten-year Better and Fairer Schools Agreement from the start of 2025.

The new agreement provides some important opportunities to improve schools and student outcomes, including measures to enhance student wellbeing, increase attendance, strengthen the teacher workforce, and increase the proportion of students who leave school with a Year 12 certificate.

Read more:
There’s a new school funding bill in parliament. Will this end the funding wars?

Painfully slow progress

The current round of funding negotiations has been plagued by sour politics and persistent roadblocks.

The new national agreement was originally due to begin in 2024, but was delayed after a damning December 2022 Productivity Commission review. This found the current agreement had “done little” to lift student outcomes.

The federal government then commissioned an expert review panel (of which one of us, Pasi Sahlberg, was a member) to inform a new agreement. This year, we have seen negotiations with states and territories over funding and details of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement were released in July.

But progress has been painfully slow. While Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have signed on, other states and territories are holding out.

In August, federal Education Minister Jason Clare issued an ultimatum: sign the agreement by September 30 or forgo the 2.5% funding increase. The federal government has since downplayed the missed deadline while critics suggest it was always an “arbitrary” ultimatum.

State education ministers and the Australian Education Union travelled to Canberra in August to push for more federal funding for schools.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Ambiguous equity targets

The political theatre and inability to find consensus raises major concerns about how effective the national reform agenda can be.

A closer look at the targets also raises questions about how they might work in practice.

For example, the new agreement is supposed to have equity at its core (it claims to be “better and fairer”) but it lacks a clear definition of equity. It also lacks specific equity targets to narrow achievement gaps between students from low and high socioeconomic backgrounds.

The new agreement has “learning equity targets”. This includes measures to reduce the proportion of students in the “needs additional support” NAPLAN category for reading and numeracy by 10% and increase those in the “strong” and “exceeding” categories by 10% by 2030.

The only specific target for disadvantaged students is there is a “trend upwards” of the proportion in higher NAPLAN proficiency levels.

Past experience suggests schools will likely “triage” students to reach these targets. This means they will focus more on students who are just below or above the target levels, and less on those unlikely to make the mark. This is what happened when similar targets were set in Ontario in the 2000s.

So, even if overall average NAPLAN scores improve, achievement gaps (between advantaged and disadvantaged students) could grow. This will not improve equity – it will do the opposite.

Toothless targets

There are also no mechanisms to hold states and territories accountable for meeting targets until schools are “fully funded” under the agreement.

Fully funded means states and territories are receiving 100% of the schooling resource standard. To make matters worse, even when jurisdictions are fully funded, there are no penalties or sanctions for failing to cooperate with the agreement.

Timelines to reach full funding in the bilateral agreements already signed are years away. For example, it is 2026 for Western Australia and 2029 for the Northern Territory.

This means states and territories can choose whether they meet the targets or not.

Education Minister Jason Clare visited a Darwin Primary school in March 2024. The Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction to sign on to the new schools agreement in July.
Lukas Coch/ AAP

3 ways to fix school funding

Failure to fully and fairly fund schools, mixed with an inability to set meaningful targets, creates deep uncertainty for schooling systems as a new year approaches.

For example, last week the Australian Education Union placed a nationwide ban on the implementation of the new agreement, including “unfunded” reforms that would increase teachers’ workloads.

This is not a sustainable situation. So, how can we fix it?

1. Set meaningful targets: it is not enough to have ambiguous goals for improvement that might improve test scores for some but also worsen inequities. At a minimum, we need to rethink targets to ensure they narrow achievement gaps between equity groups. Without this, education systems will continue to fail those who need the most support.

2. Ensure accountability for the targets: we need to make sure states and territories cannot escape or delay their obligations to improve equity and learning outcomes. To do this, schools should be fully funded from 2025, so current (not future) education ministers are compelled to act.

3. Distance the politics from school funding: schools need stability and consistency to plan effectively. The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement has a helpful ten-year term but reforms are needed to ensure funding decisions remain fair and consistent across the nation. Instead of messy and protracted political negotiations between governments, we could instead set up a national agency to oversee the distribution of school funding.

These measures would help avoid political interference and ensure funding is allocated in line with student needs, national reform priorities and agreed targets.

It’s time to address the deeper issues

The ongoing failure to fairly resource and set meaningful reforms for our schools is a symptom of a broken national funding system.

Unless we address its foundational issues, Australian teachers and students — particularly those in disadvantaged schools — will continue to be short-changed. Läs mer…