Headlines following Donald Trump’s election victory focused largely on the influence of personalities, such as Elon Musk or Robert Kennedy junior, and single issues, such as how US tariff hikes would affect New Zealand’s exports.

But this oversimplifies and diverts attention from the more systemic challenges a second Trump presidency will pose for Aotearoa New Zealand’s economy.

Yes, Trump is an unpredictable authoritarian and an economic disruptor. But his policies are not novel and need to be understood in a broader context.

Many of Trump’s trade policies are an extension of recent US-centric strategies to dismantle the global free trade model. Ironically, the US largely created this model, but it no longer serves US objectives.

The international trade regime, and the neoliberal model of free trade in general, now face an existential crisis that New Zealand cannot ignore.

Free trade backlash

Trump’s tool of choice for trade policy is high tariffs or border taxes, which make imports more expensive. His agenda is driven by two factors:

• increasing production and jobs in the US domestic economy and incentivising foreign firms to invest within the US border to avoid tariffs
• geopolitically, using super-tariffs to undercut China’s rise as a competing power.

Neither objective is new. The tariffs Trump imposed in his previous term, especially on China, were largely continued under Joe Biden. They were part of a broader backlash against free trade agreements in the US.

Trump withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). The Biden administration did not rejoin and eschewed the Democrats’ traditional approach to free trade.

Biden’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) promoted non-tariff strategies designed to boost US industrial, investment and security interests in Asia. Its “friend-shoring” approach aimed to strengthen economic and foreign policy alliances, including with New Zealand, while eroding China’s influence, especially over critical supply chains in the region.

Interestingly, Trump condemned the IPEF (incorrectly) as a reincarnation of the TPPA, so its fate remains uncertain.

WTO in crisis

There has been a similar cross-party convergence on US challenges to the “rules-based” international trade regime. Both Democrat and Republican administrations have systematically undermined the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming it no longer serves US interests.

Successive US administrations, starting with Barack Obama’s, have paralysed the WTO’s two-tier dispute system by refusing to appoint new Appellate Body members. This means they can break the WTO rules with impunity – including by imposing unilateral tariff sanctions.

At this year’s WTO Public Forum in September, people were openly discussing the existential crisis in the organisation and possible responses if the US disengages completely.

Breakdown of rules

This is just one part of the WTO’s institutional disintegration. The Doha Development Round, launched in 2001, had effectively collapsed by 2008.

In large part, this was over the Agreement on Agriculture. Its foundations were laid in 1993 by the so-called Blair House Accord, which ensured the US and European Union did not have to reduce (and could continue to increase) subsidies for their farmers. They insisted that continue.

Meanwhile, the US and EU stymied demands from developing countries for alternative “safeguard” and “public stockholding” arrangements to support their farmers and ensure food security.

The US, EU and others blocked a waiver of intellectual property rights that would have ensured affordable access to vaccines, diagnostics and supplies during the COVID-19 (and future) pandemics.

Subsets of members, including New Zealand, have ignored the WTO’s own rules to negotiate plurilateral agreements without a mandate, and seek to dilute the “consensus” rule to have them adopted. Ironically, the main opponents, India and South Africa, are labelled the “blockers” for standing up for the WTO rules.

New Zealand’s challenge

So, the crises in the international trade regime (and the neoliberal model of free trade) predate Trump’s first term.

But successive New Zealand governments have put all their eggs in the “free trade” basket of the WTO and regional and bilateral trade agreements.

Current Trade Minister Todd McClay seems determined to secure new agreements as rapidly as possible, illustrated by the 100-day negotiation of a recent deal with the United Arab Emirates under strict secrecy and with minimal scrutiny.

The previous Labour government pragmatically engaged in the IPEF more as a geopolitical alliance with the US than as a trade forum, despite New Zealand’s export dependency on China and the lack of any clear economic benefits.

So far, the reaction to Trump’s re-election from government ministers, business, farmers and news media has given an impression of business as usual, albeit with the threat of unhelpful US tariffs. But what is really needed is a far-reaching debate about the risks of a failing international trade system.

New Zealand’s export share of GDP has not changed meaningfully over the past few decades, despite more than two-thirds of New Zealand’s exports being covered by free trade agreements. The primary problem is not a lack of markets, but rather firms’ export capability, weak innovation, and an over-reliance on low-value-added commodities.

The now-disbanded Productivity Commission’s work on improving economic resilience urged New Zealand to tackle head-on the challenges of an increasingly uncertain and volatile economic and geopolitical world.

That apparently fell on deaf ears. But Trump’s re-election is an opportunity to open that debate and confront those challenges.

Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Albanese government aims to rush through legislation within a fortnight for political donations and spending caps, after in-principle support from the opposition.

The new regime, to be unveiled by Special Minister of State Don Farrell on Friday, would impose a $20,000 “gift cap” on what any recipient could obtain from a particular donor in one calendar year.

The cap on the total amount a donor could give in a year, covering multiple recipients, is expected to be more than $600,000.

That cap is set high, both to stop donors from getting around it and to head off a successful High Court challenge on the grounds of limiting freedom of communication.

There would be multiple spending caps for election campaigns.

These include a national $90 million cap per party, state caps for senate campaigns which would vary between states, and a $800,000 cap per candidate in an individual seat.

The regime will also lower the threshold for publicly declaring donations, and provide for real-time – or close to real-time – disclosure of donations.

The threshold for disclosure – currently $16,900 (which is indexed) – would come down to $1,000. Indexation would only be applied once after each election.

Between elections, donations would have to be disclosed monthly and would be published by the Australian Electoral Commission.

During campaigns, there would be weekly disclosure. In the final week, it would be daily, and that would continue for a week after the election to limit the opportunity for the requirement to be circumvented.

The changes will include an increase in the public subsidy to $5 a vote. It is now $3.346 per eligible vote.

Also, there will be some modest funding for “administration” for parties and independent parliamentarians – $30,000 for members and $15,000 for senators.

Penalties for non-compliance with the new provisions will be substantial.

The legislation will be introduced to the House of Representatives early next week, and put through by week’s end. It will be debated in the Senate the following week – the final parliamentary week this year.

If passed, the new rules will not come into effect until July 1 2026, with a six-month transition period to allow the AEC and political parties to prepare themselves before the full regime starts in 2027.

The package will also include provision for truth in advertising, based on the South Australian model. But Farrell does not have enough support to get this through and it won’t be passed with the other measures. It is strongly opposed by the AEC (which doesn’t want to have to police such a regime) as well as by the opposition.

Labor has long been committed to donation and spending reform but has been particularly galvanised by the huge spending of Clive Palmer, who outlaid $123 million at the last election.

Farrell said: “Years of inquiries and evidence from multiple elections show us that the biggest weakness to our electoral system is big money influencing our political system.

“Over the last decade, we have seen billionaires repeatedly attempt to sway our elections, not through policy or participation, but through money and misinformation.

“This significant package of reforms has been drafted to tackle big money in our electoral system and protect our democracy into the future.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Myopia in children is on the rise. The condition – also known as shortsightedness – already affects up to 35% of children across the world, according to a recent review of global data. The researchers predict this number will increase to 40%, exceeding 740 million children living with myopia by 2050.

So why does this matter? Many people may be unaware that treating myopia (through interventions such as glasses) is about more than just comfort or blurry vision. If left unchecked, myopia can rapidly progress, increasing the risk of serious and irreversible eye conditions. Diagnosing and treating myopia is therefore crucial for your child’s lifetime eye health.

Here is how myopia develops, the role screen time plays – and what you can do if think your child might be shortsighted.

What is myopia?

Myopia is commonly known as nearsightedness or shortsightedness. It is a type of refractive error, meaning a vision problem that stops you seeing clearly – in this case, seeing objects that are far away.

A person usually has myopia because their eyeball is longer than average. This can happen if eyes grow too quickly or longer than normal.

A longer eyeball means when light enters the eye, it’s not focused properly on the retina (the light-sensing tissue lining the back of the eye). As a result, the image they see is blurry. Controlling eye growth is the most important factor for achieving normal vision.

Myopia is on the rise in children

The study published earlier this year looked at how the rate of myopia has changed over the last 30 years. It reviewed 276 studies, which included 5.4 million people between the ages of 5–19 years, from 50 countries, across six continents.

Based on this data, the researchers concluded up to one in three children are already living with shortsightedness – and this will only increase. They predict a particular rise for adolescents: myopia is expected to affect more than 50% of those aged 13-19 by 2050.

Their results are similar to a previous Australian study from 2015. It predicted 36% of children in Australia and New Zealand would have myopia by 2020, and more than half by 2050.

The new review is the most comprehensive of its kind, giving us the closest look at how childhood myopia is progressing across the globe. It suggests rates of myopia are increasing worldwide – and this includes “high myopia”, or severe shortsightedness.

What causes myopia?

Myopia develops partly due to genetics. Parents who have myopia – and especially high myopia – are more likely to have kids who develop myopia as well.

But environmental factors can also play a role.

One culprit is the amount of time we spend looking at screens. As screens have shrunk, we tend to hold them closer. This kind of prolonged focusing at short range has long been associated with developing myopia.

Reducing screen time may help reduce eye strain and slow myopia’s development. However for many of us – including children – this can be difficult, given how deeply screens are embedded in our day-to-day lives.

Green time over screen time

Higher rates of myopia may also be linked to kids spending less time outside, rather than screens themselves. Studies have shown boosting time outdoors by one to two hours per day may reduce the onset of myopia over a two to three year period.

We are still unsure how this works. It may be that the greater intensity of sunlight – compared to indoor light – promotes the release of dopamine. This crucial molecule can slow eye growth and help prevent myopia developing.

However current research suggests once you have myopia, time outdoors may only have a small effect on how it worsens.

What can we do about it?

Research is rapidly developing in myopia control. In addition to glasses, optometrists have a range of tools to slow eye growth and with it, the progression of myopia. The most effective methods are:

• orthokeratology (“ortho-K”) uses hard contact lenses temporarily reshape the eye to improve vision. They are convenient as they are only worn while sleeping. However parents need to make sure lenses are cleaned and stored properly to reduce the chance of eye infections
• atropine eyedrops have been shown to successfully slow myopia progression. Eyedrops can be simple to administer, have minimal side effects and don’t carry the risk of infection associated with contact lenses.

What are the risks with myopia?

Myopia is easily corrected by wearing glasses or contact lenses. But if you have “high myopia” (meaning you are severely shortsighted) you have a higher risk of developing other eye conditions across your lifetime, and these could permanently damage your vision.

These conditions include:

• retinal detachment, where the retina tears and peels away from the back of the eye
• glaucoma, where nerve cells in the retina and optic nerve are progressively damaged and lost
• myopic maculopathy, where the longer eyeball means the macula (part of the retina) is stretched and thinned, and can lead to tissue degeneration, breaks and bleeds.

What can parents do?

It’s important to diagnose and treat myopia early – especially high myopia – to stop it progressing and lower the risk of permanent damage.

Uncorrected myopia can also affect a child’s ability to learn, simply because they can’t see clearly. Signs your child might need to be tested can include squinting to see into the distance, or moving things closer such as a screen or book to see.

Regular eye tests with the optometrist are the best way to understand your child’s eye health and eyesight. Each child is different – an optometrist can help you work out tailored methods to track and manage myopia, if it is diagnosed.

Flora Hui, Honorary Fellow, Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

By Libby (Elizabeth) Sander

With the end of year holidays looming, it’s easy to imagine Australians are getting ready to check out of the workplace and head for the beach. But a recent survey shows Australians are not taking holidays nearly as often as they are entitled to.

The survey of more than 1,000 Australian workers, taken from July to September 2024, has found that employees have 160 million days of annual leave banked. More than one in five employees (22%) had accrued more than four weeks, with older workers having higher averages than their younger colleagues.

The findings coincide with another study showing nearly half of Australian workers report feeling burned out.

So how do Australians’ leave habits compare with workers in other countries, such as the United States and Japan? And can companies here force – or just encourage – workers to take a break?

It’s important to take leave

Not taking annual leave has negative effects on both mental and physical health for workers. But it can also impact a company’s bottom line.

Research has shown that not taking leave reduces employee’s motivation and increases the risk of burnout, leading to reductions in job satisfaction, absenteeism and lower productivity.

The University of Pittsburgh’s Mind-Body Centre found taking holidays increases positive emotions and reduces depression.

Why workers aren’t taking leave

The reasons for employees not taking leave are multifaceted and complex.

In uncertain economic times, employees may try to accrue annual leave as a financial buffer should it be required. With rising costs of living, employees who can’t afford to travel may also be reluctant to take leave and stay at home.

In some cases, organisations may have cultures where working long hours and not taking leave is viewed positively.

Research has shown that in some organisations, taking leave may be viewed as a lack of commitment, resulting in employees being concerned about job security and career progression.

Since the pandemic, employees continue to report staff shortages in many roles and increased workloads. Employees are less likely to take time off if they feel they may be burdening others if there is no one to take on their work.

Returning to work to an overflowing inbox and a mile high list of tasks mean employees are likely to take shorter holidays, not giving them sufficient time to take a meaningful break.

And while flexible work arrangements have been welcomed by workers, research shows the inability to switch off at the end of the day can spill over into annual leave.

Is leave hoarding worse in Australia?

Annual leave entitlements differ between countries. The standard entitlement for full-time workers in Australia is 20 days per year.

In the United States, the average worker is entitled to between 10 and 14 days of leave a year. But this does not carry over if unused. Despite this, American workers leave up to 55% of leave days unused.

German employees are entitled to 30 days of leave a year. Only 12% of employees accrue excess leave, in a country where taking regular holidays is a cultural norm.

In the United Kingdom, 65% of employees don’t take the full 28 days of leave available to them. And in Japan, a country renowned for long working hours, 20% of leave days are not taken, even though many Japanese workers only get 10 days leave a year.

Can companies force workers to take leave?

Employers can direct employees to take leave, but only where there is a holiday shutdown period or where an employee has accrued excessive leave.

The amount of notice employers are required to give staff to take leave is not generally specified, however it may be prescribed in relevant awards, enterprise agreements or the employer’s own policy.

The direction to take leave must also be reasonable, taking into consideration factors including the amount of notice given, usual practices in the organisation, timing, and the needs of the employee and the employer.

Employers don’t like holding large leave balances, as accrued annual leave is recorded as a liability on balance sheets. Further, the annual leave entitlement is paid at the rate the employee is on at the time of the leave, not their rate at the time of accrual.

How companies can get staff to take leave

Taking leave matters. One study shows year-end performance rose by 8% for every extra 10 hours of annual leave an employee took.

And there are added benefits for employees too. Using your holiday leave can help you get a promotion or pay rise.

There are a number of ways employers can encourage staff to take their annual leave entitlement. Promoting a culture of switching off after work and on vacation is one. It’s difficult for an employee to have a relaxing holiday while their phone is pinging across multiple different platforms.

Managers need to ensure adequate resources are provided and workloads are managed effectively.

Google has utilised AI tools to support employees in monitoring workloads and reallocating work across teams. Managers need to work closely with their teams to ensure they understand workload pressures and provide support.

Encouraging employees not to check in on leave is also essential.

Lead by example

Organisations should take steps to foster a supportive work culture, where wellbeing and taking regular breaks are prioritised. Senior managers need to model this behaviour in their own actions and their communications with their staff.

Sending an email telling staff to take leave and focus on well-being is likely to fall flat if managers are spending 60-plus hour weeks in the office, with little to no time away on leave.

Organisations can also provide incentives such as offering bonuses or other arrangements to encourage employees to take breaks.

And finally, education plays a key part in driving change. Employees may not be aware of the negative effects of not switching off from work and or taking regular holidays, leading to increased risk of disengagement and burnout.

Libby (Elizabeth) Sander, MBA Director & Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Bond Business School, Bond University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Sexual offending perpetrated by females is probably much more common than people think.

In Australia, we have seen an almost 208% increase in the number of women in the criminal justice system for sexual offences from 2008 to 2023.

Research in the United States has found that on average, almost 8% of verified cases of sexual abuse across the nation had a female perpetrator. This figure ranges from 1% to more than 36% across the different states.

While women make up a small minority of people who sexually offend, there are minimal offence-specific rehabilitative programs for these women in Australia. To prevent harm to children, this needs to change.

Why is this happening?

There is no one “type” of female who perpetrates sexual offences.

Rather, this population is varied in their backgrounds and motivations, though they tend to have psychological problems and have experienced trauma in the past.

Co-offending with a male partner – such as a boyfriend or spouse – is also quite common (almost 33% of female-perpetrated sexual offence cases).

But not all females who co-offend do so because of coercion by their partner. Some will offend on their own and may do it out of sexual interest and pleasure.

What does this abuse look like?

When we hear about female-perpetrated sexual offending in the media, it typically involves young teachers offending against their students.

For example, a recent Australian case involved a 28-year-old former student teacher found guilty of sexual offences against a 15-year-old boy she met while on a teaching placement.

We also heard about the 28-year-old female teacher in the United Kingdom who was jailed after she was convicted of sexual activity with two schoolboys.

It may therefore come as a surprise that more often than not, most cases involve a mother offending against her own child.

For example, earlier this year a Queensland woman was sentenced for sexually abusing her child and transmitting child sexual abuse material.

The woman was charged with 21 child abuse-related offences, including rape.

Authorities found the abuse was planned with a man in the United States who was also convicted for child sexual abuse material offences.

Rehabilitation lacking

While punishment is important to discourage offending, therapeutic strategies can help to prevent re-offending.

Unfortunately, though, rehabilitation opportunities for women convicted of sexual offences are lacking.

We recently interviewed women sentenced for child sexual abuse in Australia. Our study found women have reportedly “begged for help” in prison, yet their requests for more support have largely gone unanswered.

Others said they were turned away from treatment in the community because they were women and not men.

Sexual offending treatment programs are available to men in Australia and other western countries. Many studies, including our own research, have found this helps reduce re-offending.

It seems reasonable, then, that such programs would be available to women who commit these offences. Some women in our interviews even expressed fear that without a rehabilitation program, they might re-offend.

But it is not just the women sentenced for sexual offences who believed rehabilitation programs would help to reduce their reoffending. The professionals we interviewed also expressed great support for such programs.

So, can’t we just use the same programs that are currently offered to men? The short answer is no.

Our research has found these programs must be tailored to women. This is because their motivations, offending pathways and offence characteristics are different.

With sexual offending rehabilitation programs now available for women in some other countries, hopefully we can see progress in this area in Australia soon. This is important for the protection of our most vulnerable community members: children.

Preventing abuse

In the meantime though, we need to focus on stopping this crime before it happens and being thorough in our approach to prevention.

This includes considering the range of contexts in which adult women come in contact with children, such as childcare, schools, sporting clubs, and in the home.

There are several steps organisations must take to create safer environments for children. This includes putting the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations into action.

Organisations should also consider the physical design of settings to improve supervision and surveillance, as well as education for staff as onlookers to identify, intervene, and/or report their concerns.

But this isn’t enough. We also need to think about how to minimise risks within family homes.

Educating parents, open communication, and family rules have all been suggested to improve safety for children in the family home.

While these strategies are important to use, they often rely on women as mothers and protectors of their children. This makes prevention of female-perpetrated sexual abuse particularly difficult within the family home.

This means responsibility for detecting this type of offending seems to fall to those outside the home (like schools or doctors) to identify and respond to early warning signs. Prevention could also involve women reaching out for anonymous support if they are concerned about their own thoughts or behaviour.

To assist prevention efforts, we need to continue to debunk misconceptions about female sexual offending. We also need to challenge those who minimise the abuse of female perpetrators.

These misconceptions and the minimisation of abuse creates barriers to victims accessing help, but also to the women themselves.

Larissa Christensen, Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Justice, Co-leader of the Sexual Violence Research and Prevention Unit (SVRPU), University of the Sunshine Coast; Bricklyn Priebe, PhD Candidate and Associate Lecturer in Criminology and Justice, School of Law and Society, University of the Sunshine Coast; Nadine McKillop, Associate Professor, Criminology & Justice, Co-leader of the Sexual Violence Research and Prevention Unit (SVRPU), School of Law and Society, University of the Sunshine Coast, and Susan Rayment-McHugh, Lecturer in Criminology and Justice & Co-Leader of the Sexual Violence Research and Prevention Unit, University of the Sunshine Coast

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

——————————————————————————————————

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

A short review of the book, Subaltern Narratives in Fiji Hindi Literature by Vijay Mishra, published by Anthem Press, London, 2024.

Language as people always say is a symbol of identity. But what constitutes identity through language? Most of readers of books will agree that it is the stories passed down from generations in our mother tongue that makes an individual and communal identify. For this part of the world the most important stories passed down to us have been in the oral form and composed in the vernacular language. When those stories are translated into the English language, there is a disconnect between the language and the range of emotions in them. 

Few writers have dared to cross into the unknown and ventured in telling their forefathers stories in their own language. In our region most writers have found it convenient to adopt the English language for creative work. There is a tinge of loss concealed in Vijay Mishra’s dedication of his book to his parents, Hari K and Lilawati Mishra, ‘Who gave me the gift of a mother tongue.’

One prominent writer from Fiji who dared to abandon the accepted practice of writing in English and take up the challenge (and the risk) of writing in his own language is Professor Subramani. Subramani, an established writer in English, recognized as one of Fiji’s leading prose writers by The Literary Encyclopedia. After producing an extensive body of distinguished work in English—short fiction, plays, and essays – has ventured into writing two extraordinary novels in Fiji Hindi, that Mishra says, “are both a sociology of culture as well as complex works of art that push the boundaries of the postcolonial experience.”

The first novel, Dauka Puran went on to win considerable acclaim, and Subramani was felicitated at the 7th World Hindi Conference in Suriname in 2003 for his contribution to Hindi. His second novel in Fiji Hindi, Fiji Maa; Mother of a Thousand (2018), took more than a decade to write; the writer’s magnum opus of 1026 pages is written from the perspective of a female protagonist, is winning him wider acclaim.  

By producing these two novels Subramani has dispelled one of the myths related to Fiji Hindi, that there is no worthwhile written literature in the language (see; Prasad & Willans 2023, Debunking ten myths about Hindi in Fiji: Taking some of the hot air out of the Mirchi FM debate).

It is a sad fact that these two novels may have not caught the attention people of Fiji, it has certainly captured world-wide attention of prominent academics and critics as well as general readers. One of them being Prof. Vijay Mishra. Professor Vijay Mishra is an Emeritus Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Murdoch University and Fellow of the Australian Humanities Academy. In addition, he is a visiting Professor in numerous Universities all over the World. Many would be surprised to know that Vijay Mishra hails from Nausori, Fiji. Today he is an extremely distinguished figure in the literary world. He has written acclaimed books on V. S. Naipaul, Salman Rushdie, Australian, the Indian diaspora, Bollywood Cinema, and Bhakti poetry.

Vijay Mishra in his latest work, Subaltern Narratives in Fiji Hindi Literature, he has critically analysed Dauka Puran and Fiji Maa. Mishra says at the beginning of the book that ‘occasionally one comes across a text that moves you in a different way, a text that makes you feel that you are not only reading it but speaking and writing it.’  The two novels he says, places Subramani in the pantheon of world literature.

The title of his book, Subaltern Narratives in Fiji Literature, needs a quick explanation. Who is a Subaltern? The term was initially conceived by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who was in prison and his writings were subject to censorship. He used the term Subaltern as a codeword for any class of people (especially peasants and workers) subject to the authority of another powerful class. Since than the term has been adopted by Postcolonial Studies scholars, thus forming a sub-discipline within the field known as Subaltern Studies. It was founded by South East Asian historian, Ranajit Guha and over time it has included such scholars as Homi Bhabha, Gayatri Spivak, Partha Chatterjee, and Dipesh Chakrabarty.

Going by this definition, the Subaltern in Fiji were the indentured labourers and their descendants. They lived under the authority of the colonial rule but their stories remained within them. In recent decades few people have written about indenture but in the foreign language. The writings were mostly of the indenture system and not the indentured individuals.

Subramani has used the Fiji Hindi language creatively to give a voice to the subaltern indentured Indians and their descendents, men and women. According to Mishra the two novels have placed Subramani into the pantheon of great writers of World Literature.

Further, for Mishra the language used in these two novels is untranslatable though he attempts to provide extensive translations from the novels, showing us how translation might be accomplished.

Mishra shows great respect to the original language and uses very intricate details in the transliteration in Roman of selected verses. He pays great attention to see that the voice is not lost in the transliteration.

To have an eye like Mishra to capture the intricate details in the two novels is extraordinary. While he gives full justification to the language through proper linguistic analysis, he does not fail to explain the emotions in the novel often demonstrated through the words of the characters. We would like to hope that the two novels by Subramani are eventually translated because here is a dot on the map of the world, according to the Indian professor Harish Trivedi, writing back to global discourse.

Every Fiji Hindi speaker must read these two novels and realize it is their inner voice which had been silenced for a very long time finally finding a voice. It will be a sad irony if the novels remain unread in Fiji.

There is so much in the book by Mishra on the two novels that it is not possible to discuss in a brief review. The greatest praise Mishra fives to these novels is the provide an answer to the famous question; Can the subaltern speak? by the renowned critic Gayatri Chakravorty.  In these two novels, the subaltern has indeed spoken.

Contributing Author: Rajendra Prasad teaches Linguistics and English for Academic Purposes, as well as Hindi, at the University of the South Pcaific (USP) in Fiji. He is a linguist with expertise in Fiji Baat, focusing on its historical evolution and significance within the social, political, and educational spheres of Fiji’s Indian community. His broader research interests encompass multilingual education in Fiji, where he also actively engages in translation projects.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

A national Newspoll, conducted November 4–8 from a sample of 1,261, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, unchanged since the previous Newspoll in early October. Primary votes were 40% Coalition (up two), 33% Labor (up two), 11% Greens (down one), 5% One Nation (down two) and 11% for all Others (down one).

Anthony Albanese’s net approval slid one point to -15, with 55% dissatisfied and 40% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval rose three points to -11. Albanese’s better PM lead dropped to 45–41 (45–37 previously).

It’s the first time this term that Dutton has had a better net approval than Albanese and Albanese’s smallest better PM lead.

Here is the graph showing Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll. The plus signs are data points and a smoothed line has been fitted.

While economic data has been better for Labor recently, with Morgan’s consumer confidence rising above 85 in mid-October for the first time since January 2023, this is not yet flowing through to improved ratings for Labor and Albanese. The Qantas upgrades scandal could be a factor.

For the first time this term, the Coalition has taken the lead in analyst Kevin Bonham’s two-party aggregate, and now leads by 50.1–49.9. If One Nation preference flows are assigned using their flows at the Queensland election, the Coalition leads by 50.6–49.4.

Resolve poll: Dutton’s ratings surge

A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted November 6–10 from a sample of 1,621, gave the Coalition 39% of the primary vote (up one since early October), Labor 30% (steady), the Greens 11% (down one), One Nation 5% (steady), independents 11% (down one) and others 4% (up one).

Resolve doesn’t usually give a two-party estimate, but this poll would be a 50–50 tie by 2022 election preference flows, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

Albanese’s net approval improved three points to -14, with 51% giving him a poor rating and 38% a good rating. Dutton’s net approval surged six points to +5. There was a 37–37 tie on preferred PM (37–35 to Albanese previously).

By 40–29, voters thought Donald Trump’s election as US president would be bad for Australia. Trump’s net likeability was -29, with 55% having a negative opinion and 26% a positive one.

The Liberals had a 41–27 lead over Labor on economic management (38–26 previously). The Liberals led by 35–28 on keeping the cost of living low (31–24 previously).

Australian economic data

In the September quarter, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said headline inflation fell to just 0.2% from 1.0% in the June quarter. In the 12 months to September, headline inflation increased 2.8%, down from 3.8% in June.

However, core inflation increased 0.8% in the September quarter for a 3.5% 12-month rate. The Reserve Bank’s interest rate decisions will be based on core inflation.

In September the ABS said the unemployment rate dropped 0.1% to 4.1%, with 64,100 jobs created. The employment-population ratio (the percentage of eligible Australians that are employed) rose 0.1% to 64.4%, an equal record high, tied with May and November 2023.

Morgan’s consumer confidence in mid-October surged 4.1 points to 87.5 since the previous week, its first reading above 85 since January 2023. In early November, consumer confidence was down one point to 86.5. Higher consumer confidence should help Labor.

Morgan poll: respondent preferences give Coalition lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted October 28 to November 3 from a sample of 1,651, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the October 21–27 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up 0.5), 30.5% Labor (up 0.5), 14% Greens (steady), 6% One Nation (up 0.5), 7.5% independents (down 1.5) and 4% others (steady).

The headline figure is based on respondent preferences. By 2022 election preference flows, Labor led by 51–49, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition.

In a separate Morgan poll that was conducted by SMS from October 22–23 with a sample of 1,312, 57% (down three since September 2022) thought Australia should remain a monarchy while 43% (up three) thought we should become a republic with an elected president.

US election: Harris erred in not emphasising health care

After Kamala Harris’ loss, there’s been much commentary on what her campaign did wrong. I think she erred in not emphasising Trump’s record on health care, in which he attempted and nearly succeeded in repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) during his first term.

Analyst Nate Silver said on October 26 that health care had very low issue salience. The Harris campaign should have reminded voters of Trump’s nearly successful attempt to repeal Obamacare.

I’ve been following late counting in the United States congressional elections for The Poll Bludger. Democrats still have a slight chance to win control of the House of Representatives. I also covered the upcoming Irish and German elections.

Queensland election final results

At the October 26 Queensland state election, the Liberal National Party (LNP) won 52 of the 93 seats (up 18 since the 2020 election), Labor 36 (down 16), Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) three (steady), the Greens one (down one), independents one (steady) and One Nation zero (down one).

Queensland won’t give us an official two-party statewide count, but the ABC estimated the two-party vote was 53.8–46.2 to the LNP, a 7.0% swing to the LNP. Primary votes were 41.5% LNP (up 5.6%), 32.6% Labor (down 7.0%), 9.9% Greens (up 0.4%), 8.0% One Nation (up 0.9%), 2.4% KAP (down 0.1%) and 5.6% for all Others (up 0.2%).

YouGov and Resolve polls were closest to the two-party estimated result, with YouGov giving the LNP a 54.5–45.5 lead and Resolve giving them a 53–47 lead. Newspoll gave the LNP a 52.5–47.5 lead and uComms was poor, giving the LNP just a 51–49 lead.

KAP contested only 11 seats, while One Nation and the Greens contested all 93. Concentration of KAP’s vote explains why it won three seats on 2.4% of statewide votes.

The Poll Bludger said Labor won the closest seat of Aspley by 31 votes (under 0.1%). In South Brisbane, if the LNP had been ahead of Labor after One Nation preferences, the Greens would have won on Labor preferences instead of Labor beating the Greens on LNP preferences. Labor was ahead at this point by 105 votes or 0.3%.

ABC election analyst Antony Green said the two-party swing against Labor was 4.9% with election day votes but 8.6% with pre-poll votes. The large numbers of pre-poll votes now are making it impossible to call elections until pre-poll booths report late on election night.

Green also said One Nation preference flows shifted to the LNP since the 2020 state election. This has implications for the next federal election if One Nation preferences go to the Coalition more than at the 2022 federal election.

SA Black byelection next Saturday

A byelection will occur in the Liberal-held South Australian state seat of Black on Saturday, following the resignation of former Liberal leader David Speirs. Speirs won Black by a 52.7–47.3 margin over Labor at the 2022 state election, which Labor won easily. Labor and the Liberals will contest the byelection.

Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The Albanese government has announced several significant changes to student loans to start in mid-2025.

These include wiping 20% off debts, increasing the income threshold for compulsory repayments, and changing the amounts people have to repay.

As well as encouraging Australians to study, the changes aim to provide cost-of-living relief – or, as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Monday:

putting more dollars in the pockets of people who feel, justifiably, that they’re getting the rough end of the pineapple.

The changes are certainly an improvement. Unfortunately, they are not as good as they should be – particularly if you have a HELP debt and a family to support.

What is the point of HELP?

My analysis of the most recently released tax statistics indicates more than 70% of those required to make a HELP repayment in 2021–22 earned between A$60,000 and A$120,000. Only 20% earned more than $120,000 and less than 10% earned less than $60,000.

The HECS (now HELP) system was conceived in the 1980s as a way to generate revenue to help the government pay for an expansion of university places.

It doesn’t matter if people do not repay all of their loans. The primary purpose is to have students who have benefited, and can afford to contribute to the cost of their education, give something back.

While fairness has always been a key plank of HECS/HELP, there are some major problems with the system. And the changes announced over the weekend continue to ignore them.

What about families?

Student loan arrangements have never taken account of other government payments and obligations such as social security, taxation rates, taxation rebates and Medicare levies.

As I have shown in this analysis, for some family types, HELP repayments combine to produce ridiculous effective tax rates.

Imagine the following scenarios for someone with a HELP debt, earning between $60,000 and $100,000 and who had a pay increase in this income range.

In 2022-23, if you were single with no kids, the average effective tax rate on the extra earnings was 51%.

If you were single with two kids aged four and seven, the average effective tax rate on the extra earnings was 77%. If those children were ten and 13, it was 73%.

The situation is similar in a couple family with two children where only one parent is able to work. The working parent has little incentive to increase their earned income and this won’t change much under the new proposals.

The reason people in these situations keep so little of their extra earnings is because as family incomes increase, they lose family tax benefits, they pay more tax and their Medicare levy increases.

There is not enough attention paid to how all these arrangements interact and how they affect people overall.

We need to know many families are paying HELP

The government’s plan to increase the HELP repayment threshold to those with an annual income of $67,000 is a welcome improvement. The system was never intended to take money off people with virtually no capacity to pay.

The government’s plan to simplify the repayment arrangements is also a positive step. The current system has 18 different repayment rates applied to total income, which means people are repeatedly going backwards when they earn extra money. The new plan to only calculate repayments on dollars over the threshold (the marginal rate approach) stops this from happening.

But the system continues to disregard how people with HELP debts can be in different family circumstances.

In my work on HELP, I often get asked how many HELP debtors have dependent children. The answer is I do not know and neither does the government.

None of the data which the government releases provides any information on family circumstances, despite the fact around $4.6 billion was collected from 1.2 million individuals in 2021-22 (the most recent year we have for this data).

This is vital information to make good policy and fair decisions but we do not have it.

Could these problems be fixed?

We could reduce many of the worst impacts here with a single marginal rate for calculating HELP repayments and thresholds which varied depending on the number of children and partner’s income.

The repayment rate and thresholds could be adjusted to deliver an acceptable repayment level for individuals and sufficient revenue for government to support university funding.

There is no point in pretending the current system is one in which people have an insignificant level of debt that is repaid quickly after university.

Typical students today are finishing their degrees owing around $60,000 and many have debts much larger than this. They will continue to make repayments well into their thirties when they have families.

It is time we had a system that truly recognised this.

Mark Warburton, Honorary Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Across the world, one in five people are diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. By age 85, almost one in two Australians will be diagnosed with cancer.

When it happens to someone you care about, it can be hard to know what to say or how to help them. But providing the right support to a friend can make all the difference as they face the emotional and physical challenges of a new diagnosis and treatment.

Here are six ways to offer meaningful support to a friend who has been diagnosed with cancer.

1. Recognise and respond to emotions

When facing a cancer diagnosis and treatment, it’s normal to experience a range of emotions including fear, anger, grief and sadness. Your friend’s moods may fluctuate. It is also common for feelings to change over time, for example your friend’s anxiety may decrease, but they may feel more depressed.

Some friends may want to share details while others will prefer privacy. Always ask permission to raise sensitive topics (such as changes in physical appearance or their thoughts regarding fears and anxiety) and don’t make assumptions. It’s OK to tell them you feel awkward, as this acknowledges the challenging situation they are facing.

When they feel comfortable to talk, follow their lead. Your support and willingness to listen without judgement can provide great comfort. You don’t have to have the answers. Simply acknowledging what has been said, providing your full attention and being present for them will be a great help.

2. Understand their diagnosis and treatment

Understanding your friend’s diagnosis and what they’ll go through when being treated may be helpful.

Being informed can reduce your own worry. It may also help you to listen better and reduce the amount of explaining your friend has to do, especially when they’re tired or overwhelmed.

Explore reputable sources such as the Cancer Council website for accurate information, so you can have meaningful conversations. But keep in mind your friend has a trusted medical team to offer personalised and accurate advice.

3. Check in regularly

Cancer treatment can be isolating, so regular check-ins, texts, calls or visits can help your friend feel less alone.

Having a normal conversation and sharing a joke can be very welcome. But everyone copes with cancer differently. Be patient and flexible in your support – some days will be harder for them than others.

Remembering key dates – such as the next round of chemotherapy – can help your friend feel supported. Celebrating milestones, including the end of treatment or anniversary dates, may boost morale and remind your friend of positive moments in their cancer journey.

Always ask if it’s a good time to visit, as your friend’s immune system may be compromised by their cancer or treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. If you’re feeling unwell, it’s best to postpone visits – but they may still appreciate a call or text.

4. Offer practical support

Sometimes the best way to show your care is through practical support. There may be different ways to offer help, and what your friend needs might change at the beginning, during and after treatment.

For example, you could offer to pick up prescriptions, drive them to appointments so they have transport and company to debrief, or wait with them at appointments.

Meals will always be welcome. However it’s important to remember cancer and its treatments may affect taste, smell and appetite, as well as your friend’s ability to eat enough or absorb nutrients. You may want to check first if there are particular foods they like. Good nutrition can help boost their strength while dealing with the side effects of treatment.

There may also be family responsibilities you can help with, for example, babysitting kids, grocery shopping or taking care of pets.

5. Explore supports together

Studies have shown mindfulness practices can be an effective way for people to manage anxiety associated with a cancer diagnosis and its treatment.

If this is something your friend is interested in, it may be enjoyable to explore classes (either online or in-person) together.

You may also be able to help your friend connect with organisations that provide emotional and practical help, such as the Cancer Council’s support line, which offers free, confidential information and support for anyone affected by cancer, including family, friends and carers.

Peer support groups can also reduce your friend’s feelings of isolation and foster shared understanding and empathy with people who’ve gone through a similar experience. GPs can help with referrals to support programs.

6. Stick with them

Be committed. Many people feel isolated after their treatment. This may be because regular appointments have reduced or stopped – which can feel like losing a safety net – or because their relationships with others have changed.

Your friend may also experience emotions such as worry, lack of confidence and uncertainty as they adjust to a new way of living after their treatment has ended. This will be an important time to support your friend.

But don’t forget: looking after yourself is important too. Making sure you eat well, sleep, exercise and have emotional support will help steady you through what may be a challenging time for you, as well as the friend you love.

Our research team is developing new programs and resources to support carers of people who live with cancer. While it can be a challenging experience, it can also be immensely rewarding, and your small acts of kindness can make a big difference.

Stephanie Cowdery, Research Fellow, Carer Hub: A Centre of Excellence in Cancer Carer Research, Translation and Impact, Deakin University; Anna Ugalde, Associate Professor & Victorian Cancer Agency Fellow, Deakin University; Trish Livingston, Distinguished Professor & Director of Special Projects, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, and Victoria White, Professor of Pyscho-Oncology, School of Psychology, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

If you’re found guilty of a crime, it’s a basic principle of Australian law that you have a right to appeal.

But having a right and being able to exercise it are two different things, especially when it comes to fresh evidence casting doubt on your conviction.

In Australia, your ability to challenge a conviction with fresh evidence depends on where you live, because each state and territory has different rules. Too often, it also depends on the resources someone can access, including money and knowledge of the legal system.

Everyone should have the same opportunities to clear their name, so how can we make accessing appeals more equitable?

State by state

Direct pathways to appeal differ between the states and territories.

In all postcodes, it’s difficult to get appeal courts to consider fresh evidence in the first instance.

South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland and the ACT allow multiple appeal applications if “fresh and compelling” evidence emerges after your first appeal. Since 2013, six convictions have been quashed this way, including Henry Keogh’s in SA after the state coroner recanted trial evidence.

Tasmania and WA allow subsequent appeals only for serious offences, while SA has no such restriction.

New South Wales and the Northern Territory don’t allow subsequent appeals, so people there have less direct access to the courts if wrongly convicted.

There are, however, indirect ways people can seek an appeal with fresh evidence.

In all states, you can ask the government to refer your case back to an appeal court. For example, the Victorian Attorney-General referred Faruk Orman’s case after evidence emerged about his lawyer’s misconduct. Referral decisions are made in secret and not reviewable.

In the ACT, you can ask the Supreme Court for a judicial inquiry into your conviction. If you get an inquiry, the inquiry officer can refer your case back to the appeal court if they find reasonable doubt. This led to David Eastman’s conviction being quashed.

These inquiries are only available if the issue can’t be properly addressed in an appeal, for example because the time for filing an appeal has lapsed. But, the ACT introduced subsequent appeals in 2024 which have no time limit, so it is unclear whether this pathway is still usable.

In NSW, you can ask the government for an inquiry, but decisions are made in secret and open to political and media influence. This pathway led to Kathleen Folbigg’s acquittal.

You can also ask the NSW Supreme Court for an inquiry or direct referral of your case back to the appeal court. This path is available for all offences and sentences and decisions are public. Since 2014, 59 conviction review applications to the NSW Supreme Court have resulted in one inquiry order and six referrals, with three successful appeals.

The inquiry (currently underway) involves the Croatian Six, convicted in 1981 for conspiracy to bomb sites in Sydney. After many failed attempts, they finally secured an inquiry with fresh evidence casting doubt on police and witnesses’ trial evidence.

These different pathways across the country create an uneven playing field, where some wrongfully convicted people may have more opportunities to clear their name than others.

The right resources

Access to appeals doesn’t just depend on location. It’s also about resources.

To succeed in getting an appeal via any of the above pathways, you need the power to obtain documents and the resources to gather other evidence. You also need the ability to prepare a strong case. That’s before you even get to court.

Judicial inquiries have investigatory powers and resources, but are expensive. For example, the Eastman inquiry cost the ACT government $12 million.

The United Kingdom and New Zealand have independent bodies called Criminal Cases Review Commissions. Scotland has its own version.

These commissions have the power to compel evidence and resources to investigate claims of wrongful conviction at no cost to applicants. They also have the power to refer cases back to the courts. While these commissions don’t refer many cases overall, about 70% of of cases referred in the UK are successful on appeal.

But, even for commissions, a strong initial application is important. In the UK, the Cardiff University Innocence Project engages law students to investigate claims of innocence and prepare applications for claims with merit.

Canada and the United States don’t have criminal case review commissions. Innocence Projects there review claims of innocence and help prepare applications for government or court review.

This is similar to the work of the few innocence clinics in Australia, such as those at RMIT and Griffith universities.

Innocence initiatives around the world work with limited investigatory resources and powers compared with those of a review commission. In the absence of a such a commission in Australia, second appeals are useful, but they are expensive to run, hard to access and don’t address the resource issue.

The free NSW Supreme Court pathway doesn’t address the resource issue either. But it can lead to an inquiry or referral, is open and accountable, and comes with guiding criteria and discretion to make short shrift of baseless applications.

My research suggests free pathways to appeal are important justice mechanisms for the wrongly convicted, but they work best when applicants have legal help to prepare a clear and concise application. Involving law students to help edit applications could make it easier for decision-makers to review cases and help applicants without lawyers get a fairer chance to be heard.

Kylie Lingard, Senior lecturer, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

For millennia, humans had one obvious and reliable source of light – the Sun – and we knew the Sun was essential for our survival.

This might be why ancient religions – such as those in Egypt, Greece, the Middle East, India, Asia, and Central and South America – involved Sun worship.

Early religions were also often tied up with healing. Sick people would turn to the shaman, priest or priestess for help.

While ancient peoples used the Sun to heal, this might not be how you think.

Since then, we’ve used light to heal in a number of ways. Some you might recognise today, others sound more like magic.

From warming ointments to sunbaking

There’s not much evidence around today that ancient peoples believed sunlight itself could cure illness. Instead, there’s more evidence they used the warmth of the Sun to heal.

The Ebers Papyrus is an ancient Egyptian medical scroll from around 1500 BCE. It contains a recipe for an ointment to “make the sinews […] flexible”. The ointment was made of wine, onion, soot, fruit and the tree extracts frankincense and myrrh. Once it was applied, the person was “put in sunlight”.

Other recipes, to treat coughs for example, involved putting ingredients in a vessel and letting it stand in sunlight. This is presumably to warm it up and help it infuse more strongly. The same technique is in the medical writings attributed to Greek physician Hippocrates who lived around 450-380 BCE.

The physician Aretaeus, who was active around 150 CE in what is now modern Turkey, wrote that sunlight could cure chronic cases of what he called “lethargy” but we’d recognise today as depression:

Lethargics are to be laid in the light, and exposed to the rays of the Sun (for the disease is gloom); and in a rather warm place, for the cause is a congelation of the innate heat.

Classical Islamic scholar Ibn Sina (980-1037 CE) described the health effects of sunbathing (at a time when we didn’t know about the link to skin cancer). In Book I of The Canon of Medicine he said the hot Sun helped everything from flatulence and asthma to hysteria. He also said the Sun “invigorates the brain” and is beneficial for “clearing the uterus”.

It was sometimes hard to tell science from magic

All the ways of curing described so far depend more on the Sun’s heat rather than its light. But what about curing with light itself?

English scientist Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) knew you could “split” sunlight into a rainbow spectrum of colours.

This and many other discoveries radically changed ideas about healing in the next 200 years.

But as new ideas flourished, it was sometimes hard to tell science from magic.

For example, German mystic and visionary Jakob Lorber (1800-1864) believed sunlight was the best cure for pretty much anything. His 1851 book The Healing Power of Sunlight was still in print in 1997.

Public health reformer Florence Nightingale (1820-1910) also believed in the power of sunlight. In her famous book Notes on Nursing, she said of her patients:

second only to their need of fresh air is their need for light […] not only light but direct sunlight.

Nightingale also believed sunlight was the natural enemy of bacteria and viruses. She seems at least partially right. Sunlight can kill some, but not all, bacteria and viruses.

Chromotherapy – a way of healing based on colours and light – emerged in this period. While some of its supporters claim using coloured light for healing dates back to ancient Egypt, it’s hard to find evidence of this now.

Modern chromotherapy owes a lot to the fertile mind of physician Edwin Babbitt (1828-1905) from the United States. Babbitt’s 1878 book The Principles of Light and Color was based on experiments with coloured light and his own visions and clairvoyant insights. It’s still in print.

Babbitt invented a portable stained-glass window called the Chromolume, designed to restore the balance of the body’s natural coloured energy. Sitting for set periods under the coloured lights from the window was said to restore your health.

Indian entrepreneur Dinshah Ghadiali (1873-1966) read about this, moved to the US and invented his own instrument, the Spectro-Chrome, in 1920.

The theory behind the Spectro-Chrome was that the human body was made up of four elements – oxygen (blue), hydrogen (red), nitrogen (green) and carbon (yellow). When these colours were out of balance, it caused sickness.

Some hour-long sessions with the Spectro-Chrome would restore balance and health. By using its green light, for example, you could reportedly aid your pituitary gland, while yellow light helped your digestion.

By 1946 Ghadiali had made around a million dollars from sales of this device in the US.

And today?

While some of these treatments sound bizarre, we now know certain coloured lights treat some illnesses and disorders.

Phototherapy with blue light is used to treat newborn babies with jaundice in hospital. People with seasonal affective disorder (sometimes known as winter depression) can be treated with regular exposure to white or blue light. And ultraviolet light is used to treat skin conditions, such as psoriasis.

Today, light therapy has even found its way into the beauty industry. LED face masks, with celebrity endorsements, promise to fight acne and reduce signs of ageing.

But like all forms of light, exposure to it has both risks and benefits. In the case of these LED face masks, they could disrupt your sleep.

This is the final article in our ‘Light and health’ series, where we look at how light affects our physical and mental health in sometimes surprising ways. Read other articles in the series.

Philippa Martyr, Lecturer, Pharmacology, Women’s Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

“So much labour, so much pain, finally it’s a boy.” This tweet captured the relief and exhaustion surrounding Trump’s return to the presidency, likening it to the anticipation of a birth.

For many, it’s a hard-won victory; for others, a moment to reflect on what lies ahead. Comparing the outcome to the birth of a “boy” adds a traditional sentiment to the scene, reflecting both change and enduring values in modern politics.

The American political drama has reached its peak, with Trump defeating Kamala Harris in an election that captivated Indian families. For some Indian seniors avidly following political discussions on WhatsApp, it’s a reason to celebrate, while their children in Silicon Valley nervously ponder their H1-B visa futures.

During his first term, Trump advocated for stronger defence ties with India, securing significant agreements that boosted India’s standing in the Indo-Pacific. His stance on China was aligned with India’s concerns about China’s assertive moves in Asia. With Trump’s return, India may once again benefit from U.S. support against regional threats, particularly from China.

However, Trump’s individualistic foreign policy approach adds an element of uncertainty. While supportive of India’s stance on China, his tendency to change direction on a whim can cause concern, as any alliance or promise could be reversed with a tweet.

Trump’s views on the Russia-Ukraine conflict may bring unexpected advantages for India. With a preference for a more pragmatic approach to Russia, he may reduce pressure on India to distance itself from Moscow. India has balanced its relationships with both Russia and the West, and a less confrontational U.S. stance on Russia could allow India to pursue its own interests with less interference from Washington.

Another area of potential benefit is Trump’s hands-off approach to other countries’ domestic policies. Unlike some past U.S. administrations, which raised concerns over India’s internal matters—such as the revocation of Article 370 in Kashmir—Trump’s presidency was relatively quiet on these issues. For Modi’s government, this could mean fewer external complications on domestic policies, allowing India more freedom in governance without criticism from the U.S.

Yet Trump’s protectionist stance on trade could be a challenge. His criticism of countries he feels “take advantage” of U.S. markets includes India. High tariffs and a focus on reducing trade imbalances could impact sectors like Indian IT, pharmaceuticals, and textiles, all of which depend heavily on American markets. India may face tough negotiations if Trump pushes for terms that prioritise American industries.

Similarly, Trump’s immigration policies present both challenges and hopes for India. In his previous term, he imposed restrictions on H1-B visas, affecting Indian skilled workers and the Indian IT sector. Trump’s return raises questions about the future of these policies, which could again impact Indian professionals aiming to work in the U.S. and the companies relying on their skills.

Trump’s transactional approach to security alliances also brings potential risks. His ambiguous stance on issues like Taiwan’s security has left some Asian allies uneasy. While Trump’s tough talk on China resonates with India’s concerns, any weakening of U.S. support for its regional allies could create a void, possibly emboldening China. India may need to balance a close partnership with the U.S. while also preparing for scenarios where it stands more independently in Asia.

Ultimately, Trump’s return offers both opportunities and risks for India. Strengthened defence ties, fewer interferences on domestic issues, and potential flexibility with Russia are positives, but Trump’s unpredictability, trade protectionism, and immigration restrictions may complicate India’s path. India’s leaders will need to stay agile, ready to adapt to the shifting dynamics of Trump’s policies while maximising gains and mitigating risks.

In a sense, India’s relationship with Trump’s America will be like a typical Indian joint family—complicated, sometimes turbulent, yet held together by shared interests. New Delhi’s strategy could echo the advice of an Indian grandmother: “adjust a little, stand firm a little.” India will need to navigate Trump’s unpredictable policies while ensuring its own priorities remain clear. As they say in Hindi, “Dosti bhi, business bhi” (Friendship as well as business).

In the Modi-Trump 2.0 era, diplomacy will resemble a lively duet, where India must deftly play both offence and defence. As a seasoned diplomat might muse, “In diplomacy, as in cricket, it’s not just about hitting every ball, but knowing which ones to let pass.” For India, the game with Trump has begun anew.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The Israel-Iran conflict is showing no signs of de-escalation as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched precise strikes deep within Iranian territory, marking a dramatic turning point in the conflict’s intensity and scale.

On the early morning of 26^th October, Israeli jets and drones surged across Iran’s skies, executing a well-coordinated assault that battered Iranian air defences and obliterated vital missile and drone production facilities. This three-hour barrage targeted the heavily fortified Parchin military complex near Tehran, a key site for Iran’s missile programs.

Experts analysing the damage estimate that these strikes have significantly curtailed Iran’s capacity to mass-produce missiles, thus striking a blow not only to Iran’s immediate military capabilities but also to its long-term deterrent strategies against adversaries in the region. For the first time, Israel openly acknowledged hitting Iran, underlining the attack as a direct response to “relentless attacks” orchestrated by Iran and its proxies—a stark shift from Israel’s previous stance of calculated ambiguity.

As West Asia braces for the reverberations of this escalation, the political and humanitarian costs are glaringly apparent, prompting urgent calls for restraint.

India, a key diplomatic force in the conflict, issued a grave statement on 26^th October, cautioning against the spiralling violence that “benefits nobody” and emphasising the untenable plight of innocent hostages and civilians caught in the crossfire. With a clear-eyed concern for regional stability, India warned of the wider implications for peace, subtly reminding the international community of the fragility that underpins the delicate balance in West Asia.

The above statement underscores India’s longstanding diplomatic stance of non-alignment and prudent restraint, echoing its hopes for de-escalation even as the situation teeters on the brink of a more expansive, unpredictable conflict that could plunge the region—and perhaps even the world—deeper into chaos.

After the heinous October 7 terror attack on Israel, the terror group Hamas has sustained some serious blows in the form of its top leadership being assassinated. Whether the Hamas leadership genuinely miscalculated the intensity of Israeli retaliation or they intentionally sacrificed the lives of countless Palestinian civilians to gain sympathy and funding is a question no one can answer.

The reason is that the October 7 terror attack contributed absolutely nothing constructive for the Palestinian people or, as they themselves put it, their cause. Soon, the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, too jumped into the conflict and arguably sustained even bigger blows to its foundations.

The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran, followed swiftly by the elimination of key operatives like Yahya Sinwar in Gaza and Fatah Sharif in Lebanon, demonstrates that their brazen tactics are leading only to their own undoing. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, with its founder and head Hassan Nasrallah and prominent figures like Ali Karaki and Nabil Kaouk taken out in calculated Israeli strikes, finds its very foundation destabilised.

India’s official position in this complicated scenario is driven both by geo-political pragmatism as well as humanitarian concerns; however, these incidents have given birth to a curious phenomenon within certain sections of Indian intelligentsia: the glorification of terror outfits and their leadership.

This needs to be understood that asking Israel to exercise restraint is completely different from glorifying terrorists on the other side. One can take a humanitarian position for the people of Palestine without branding the likes of Yahya Sinwar as heroes of resistance; in fact, this can be argued that militant outfits like Hamas are the biggest enemies of Palestinian people and their rights. There are documented proofs of Hamas militants using Palestinian civilians as human shields and deliberately constructing their hideouts in heavily populated civilian areas, putting them at risk.

This manipulation is a calculated move, one designed to garner international sympathy by presenting images of devastation without exposing the underlying tactical choices that led to it. The people of Gaza, therefore, become pawns in a propaganda war, their suffering amplified by the very organisation claiming to defend their rights. Moreover, Hamas’ recruitment and indoctrination of minors, training them in militant activities and encouraging martyrdom, further underscores the extent to which the group prioritises its ideological goals over human life.

With significant financial support flowing in from sympathetic nations and organisations, these leaders have settled into lavish residences in places like Qatar and Kuwait, enjoying the fruits of a war economy that thrives on perpetual conflict. Instead of directing resources toward the welfare of the Palestinian people, much of this funding is funnelled into constructing terror tunnels, acquiring weapons, and enhancing military capabilities—priorities that starkly contrast with the urgent needs for education, healthcare, and infrastructure improvements in Gaza.

Given the current circumstances, the remarks from various Indian commentators are profoundly troubling. Journalist Arfa Khanum Sherwani made an attempt at wit with her statement: “Why exactly are Indian fascists celebrating the assassination of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar? Begaani shaadi mein ye Abdullah kyun deewane ho rahe hain?” Beyond being utterly un-amusing, her comment reveals a concerning admiration for a terrorist figure.

Similarly, actress Swara Bhasker posted on X: “I didn’t know anything about Yahya Sinwar till I saw the footage of his last moments & assassination by the Zionist State and now I think he’s a revolutionary hero. Listen to his will, his last words and tell me that you are unmoved. #FreePalestine”

The usual suspect, Arundhati Roy, wrote an extremely troubling piece in Dawn wherein she asserted: “I am expected to equivocate to protect myself, my ‘neutrality’, my intellectual standing. This is the part where I am meant to lapse into moral equivalence and condemn Hamas, the other militant groups in Gaza and their ally Hezbollah, in Lebanon, for killing civilians and taking people hostage. And to condemn the people of Gaza who celebrated the Hamas attack… I refuse to play the condemnation game. Let me make myself clear. I do not tell oppressed people how to resist their oppression or who their allies should be.”

This is not just apologia for terror outfits, it’s their glorification. It is allegedly provoking people to get recruited into terror outfits, kill civilians, take people hostage if they can fit themselves into the very vague definition of “oppressed”.

Several politicians, specifically in Kashmir, also gave extremely troubling statements. PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti called off her political campaign in “solidarity” with ‘martyrs’ of Lebanon and Gaza. “Cancelling my campaign tomorrow in solidarity with the martyrs of Lebanon & Gaza, especially Hassan Nasarullah. We stand with the people of Palestine & Lebanon in this hour of immense grief & exemplary resistance,” she tweeted.

Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, Member of Parliament, Srinagar called Nasrallah a spirit of resistance and expressed complete solidarity with him. Sajad Lone, MLA from Handwara, Kashmir tweeted: “Mourning the supreme martyrdom of Shaheed Syed Hassan Nasrallah. May Allah (SWT) bless his soul & grant us strength to carry forward his legacy against oppressors.”

It is extremely concerning that these observations have been made by individuals on responsible positions; journalists, political commentators and elected representatives that not only influence masses within the national framework but whose words also carry international weight.

We also saw huge masses protesting the killing of Nasrallah in the streets of Lucknow and Kashmir, singing eulogies and expressing condolences for the head of the terror outfit.

Any viable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict would only begin with the realisation of a two-state framework. Slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” may sound revolutionary but, in reality, carry disturbing genocidal and anti-Semitic undertones.

Organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah have shown no interest in peaceful solutions; rather, their agendas hinge on radicalising Palestinian youth for the sake of sustaining their own power and influence. The Palestinian people deserve leaders who put the future of their children first, choosing dialogue over militancy and channelling resources into Gaza’s development instead of fuelling cycles of violence through terror tunnels and weapon stockpiles.

Palestinian leaders like Mahmoud Abbas, Hanan Ashrawi, and the late Saeb Erekat have long championed a peaceful two-state solution as the viable path forward, envisioning a future where Israel and Palestine coexist side by side.

Abbas, as President of the Palestinian Authority, has consistently advocated for diplomacy over violence, while Erekat, one of the most recognised Palestinian negotiators, dedicated his life to the peace process. Figures like Ashrawi and Mustafa Barghouti, both known for their unwavering commitment to nonviolent resistance, have called for international support and human rights as pillars of the Palestinian cause.

Additionally, Salam Fayyad’s pragmatic governance style—focused on state-building and economic stability—offered a blueprint for Palestinian self-sufficiency. Collectively, these leaders embody a vision of Palestinian statehood grounded in diplomacy, rights, and resilience, striving to overcome the barriers of conflict with a focus on long-term coexistence and peace.

Therefore, between Abbas and Ashrawi, who advocate for a peaceful resolution and a two-state solution, and Sinwar and Nasrallah, whose militant ideologies perpetuate violence and conflict, Indian commentators and observers face a clear choice. This decision reflects not only their stance on the Israel-Palestine issue but also their commitment to the broader principles of peace, coexistence, and the protection of human rights.

By aligning with leaders like Abbas and Ashrawi, who prioritize dialogue and diplomacy, commentators can contribute to a narrative that seeks constructive engagement and the betterment of Palestinian lives. Conversely, endorsing figures like Sinwar and Nasrallah only serves to amplify extremism and hinder the prospects for a sustainable peace, further entrenching cycles of violence that have plagued the region for decades.

Contributing Author: Omer Ghazi is a proponent of religious reform and identifies himself as “an Indic Muslim exploring Vedic knowledge and cultural heritage through music”. He extensively writes on geo-politics, history and culture and his book “The Cosmic Dance” is a collection of his poems. When he is not writing columns, he enjoys playing drums and performing raps.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

As Americans vote in one of the most important presidential elections in generations, the country teeters on a knife edge. In the battleground states that will likely decide the result, the polling margins between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump are razor thin.

These tiny margins, and the general confusion around American politics today, make it impossible to predict the outcome.

The polls might well be wrong: the electorate may have shifted dramatically since 2020 in ways that will only reveal themselves after the election. The reality is we do not know much of anything for sure, and we may never be able to untangle all of the threads that make up the knot of American politics.

After two assassination attempts on Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden’s dramatic decision to leave the race in August, it is entirely possible this election will throw up more big surprises. But as things stand, there are three broad possibilities for what will happen on Election Day.

All of them throw up their own challenges – for the United States, and for the world.

Possibility 1: the return of Trump

Trump may make history and win back the White House. Only Grover Cleveland has managed to get elected a second time as president (in 1892) after suffering a defeat four years earlier.

If Trump does win, it could be via a similar path to the one he took in 2016 – by once again sundering the “blue wall” and winning the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

This feat will likely mean his campaign tactic of mobilising men has worked.

A Trump victory would represent the culmination of a generational project of the American right. A second Trump administration would be very different from the first – the movement behind Trump is more organised, focused and cognisant of the mistakes of the first Trump White House. It would also face considerably weakened democratic guardrails.

The implementation of Trump’s radical agenda, alongside some or all of the broader far-right agenda detailed in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, would radically reshape American life and create political and economic chaos.

The rest of the world would have to reorient itself, once again, around Trump.

Possibility 2: Harris makes history

It is entirely possible Harris makes history – not only by beating Trump, but by becoming the first woman and woman of colour to win the US presidency.

Like Trump, if Harris does win, it will likely be through one or more of the battleground states – in particular, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

For Harris, victory will likely come via high turnout by women and voters of colour, particularly African-Americans, or through a combination of turnout by this core Democratic base and swing voters in key states like Pennsylvania.

How Harris wins – and by how much – will be crucial, both to the immediate aftermath of the election and to the shape of a future Harris administration.

A big question: can she win by enough to head off resistance by Trump and the movement behind him? As Australian writer Don Watson has noted, a Harris victory would likely be taken as an existential defeat by the MAGA movement.

How Trump’s supporters react to such a defeat – and how US institutions react to their reaction – will be a critical test for American democracy.

Possibility 3: too close to call

This brings us to the third possibility: the polls are correct, and it’s such a tight race that the margins in the battleground states are in the thousands of votes, or even less.

If it is that close, counting could take days. And there could be recounts after that.

While conspiracies abound, a delay in the result like this would be an entirely predictable and normal outcome. In the United States, there isn’t one system for counting the votes; elections are run by the states on a county-by-county basis, and each state does it differently.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, for example, legally can’t start counting mail-in votes until the polls open on Election Day.

Then there is the supposed “blue shift” or “red mirage” that sometimes occurs on election night.

There are now many ways to vote in the US – in person on Election Day, early voting before Election Day or by mail-in ballot. And the time it takes to count these different ballots can vary. So, it may appear as if one candidate is winning early in the night (say, when in-person votes are counted) only for their opponent to slowly turn the tide (when mail-in ballots are counted).

In the 2020 election, this meant early Trump (“red”) leads were gradually lost to the Biden (“blue”) votes. Researchers found that counties won by Biden counted more slowly, on average, than those won by Trump – hence the so-called “blue shift”.

This is an entirely normal – and legal – phenomenon. In Nevada, for instance, state law permits mail-in ballots to be counted four days after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by Election Day.

Trump and his surrogates like Steve Bannon, however, have exploited the differing times it takes to count votes to peddle baseless conspiracy theories, undermining Americans’ faith in their own democracy, and to incite unrest.

By baselessly declaring victory in 2020 on the early “red mirage” tallies in key states before all the votes were counted, Trump was able to create what Bannon described as a “firestorm” – one that eventually led to the insurrection of January 6 2021.

This could very well happen again. Bannon, in fact, has just been released from prison after serving four months for contempt of Congress, and could once again be a driving force in any post-election challenges by the Trump campaign.

Trump, meanwhile, lied again this week when he said “these elections have to be, they have to be decided by 9 o’clock, 10 o’clock, 11 o’clock on Tuesday night” – laying the groundwork for further election conspiracies.

Delays are normal – but fraught

Trump has made it very clear he will not accept another election loss. If he does lose, he or his surrogates will attempt to weaponise similar conspiracy theories again. They may also use legal challenges to vote counts as they did in 2020 – both to contest the result and to once again mobilise the MAGA movement.

In the event of close margins, it’s also possible some states will go to a recount.

There are different rules for this in different states. To take one example, if the margin is within 0.5% in Georgia, a candidate can request a recount.

In the 2020 presidential election, Biden narrowly defeated Trump in Georgia by 0.25%, which triggered a full hand recount of the votes. The Associated Press declared Biden the winner of the state more than two weeks after Election Day. A second recount was later reconfirmed by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Again, this is a normal part of the process. It ensures all votes are counted accurately and the result reflects the democratic will of the American people as best as the (admittedly, deeply flawed) system allows.

Such a delay, legitimate as it would be, would elevate the already very real risk of further political violence and instability in the United States.

None of these outcomes is inevitable. 2024 is not 2020; nor is it 2016. What happens next in America depends on the movement and interplay of so many tangled threads, it is impossible to see where old ones end and new ones might begin.

In all of this, only one thing is certain. Whatever the result – and however long it takes to come through – the divisions and conspiracy theories that have destabilised American politics for so long will not be easily or quickly resolved. That knot may well prove impossible to untangle.

Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

It is with profound sadness and a heavy heart that I share the news of the passing of my dear friend, Prof. Amar Nath Dwivedi, who departed this mortal world on October 29, 2024. Born on January 3, 1943, in the small village of Kothiyahi in Pratapgarh district, Uttar Pradesh, India, he led a life marked by intellectual achievement and dedication.

Prof. Dwivedi pursued his higher education at the University of Allahabad (now Prayagraj). After completing his postgraduate studies, he earned a PhD in English from Meerut University. Following his doctoral work, he taught in Rajasthan and later at Gurukul Kangri University in Haridwar.

Prof. Dwivedi then joined the Department of English at the University of Allahabad, where he taught for over three decades and retired as a senior professor. Later, he served as a Senior Consultant in English at UP Rajarshi Tandon Open University in Prayagraj and also undertook an official assignment in Yemen as Professor and Chairman of the Department of English at Taiz University.

As a teacher, Prof. Dwivedi left a lasting impression on his students. He was widely respected as a literary critic, essayist, and poet of English, garnering recognition from students and scholars in India and abroad.

An author of more than two dozen books and over a hundred research articles, Prof. Dwivedi made commendable contributions to Indian Writing in English and literary theory. His journey, from a rural village to significant academic achievements, reflects his resilience and determination.

Prof. Dwivedi found immense joy in writing poetry, a passion that kept him creatively engaged well into his later years. His poetry collections are the subject of ongoing PhD research, and his work earned admiration from celebrated authors such as Kamala Das, Keki N. Daruwalla, and Tabish Khair.

Poetry, for him, became a bridge between life and death, as he completed and submitted his final poetry collection to the publisher just three hours before his passing. In 2016, he served as a jury member for the Sahitya Akademi Award in English.

Prof. Dwivedi was a steadfast adherent of human values, embodying qualities of humility, simplicity, and sincerity. As his colleague, I was deeply influenced by his gentle and unassuming nature, which reflected the spiritual and human values that defined his character. His passing is an irreplaceable loss to the academic community.

I pray that his soul finds union with the Divine, the Light of lights (“Jyotisaam Jyoti”).

Contributing Author: Prof. O.P. Budholia is a retired Professor of English from Sanchi University of Buddhist-Indic Studies, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

On election eve in the United States, the presidential race is deadlocked. The polls are exceptionally close across the country and in all the swing states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin in the industrial midwest; Nevada and Arizona in the west; and Georgia and North Carolina in the south.

The final New York Times/Siena poll shows Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris leading by a very small margin or tied with Republican former President Donald Trump in all the swing states. The exception is Arizona, where Trump leads by a few percentage points.

While there is no clear favourite to win, there are several critical factors that will driving voters’ decisions on Election Day. This is what to watch.

Republicans turning against Trump

Trump’s favourability is stuck around 43% in nationwide polling. In the past two presidential elections, he fell short of taking 50% of the national popular vote. As president, he never achieved over 50% favourability. And he has never topped 50% since leaving office.

This means he has hit a ceiling in his support and is highly unlikely to win the national popular vote on Tuesday.

This also reflects what happened to Trump in the Republican primaries to win the nomination. He dominated the field, defeating Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and several others. But in most of those primaries, 15-20% of Republican voters did not vote for Trump.

Where will these Republican voters ultimately land on Tuesday? Probably half want to vote Republican and will go with Trump. Others will not being able to bring themselves to vote for Harris and will simply not vote for president.

Others will switch their support to Harris. Indeed, there has never been such a swelling of support from members of one party to support the other party’s presidential candidate.

Harris needs those “Republicans for Harris” votes. In addition, she’ll need to replicate the coalition of young voters, voters of colour and women who backed current President Joe Biden against Trump in 2020 in those same swing states and nationally.

Her favourability ratings are higher than Trump, at around 46%. The closer a presidential candidate is to 50% approval ratings, the better their chance of winning the election.

It’s the economy, stupid

At the same time, the country is in a bad mood. There is a classic polling question asked at elections: is the country on the right track, or moving in the wrong direction? Between 60–70% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.

That is a signal this election is about change. Historically, that sentiment has not favoured the incumbent in the White House. As Biden’s vice president, Harris is directly facing this headwind.

There are four key issues in this election. The most important is the hip pocket issue: household budgets, cost of living pressures and voters’ concerns about their future economic security.

Since Biden and Harris took office nearly four years ago, the cost of groceries, household items, utilities and services such as insurance have risen between 10–40%. Petrol prices have gone up even more.

Though interest rates have fallen, American households are hurting. When asked who is best to manage the economy, voters in swing states say Trump by a 15-point margin.

The next-biggest issue is immigration. Since Trump first became a presidential candidate in 2015, he has relentlessly pushed the immigration button, declaring the border with Mexico is out of control, with crime and pillage rising in its wake.

The first three years of Biden’s term were also marked by big surges of immigrants crossing the border, though rates have fallen dramatically in 2024.

Voters view Trump as best placed to manage this issue, too, by nearly 15 points.

So, Trump is seen as a more effective leader on the two most important policy issues in this election.

A surge in support from women

Abortion rights and reproductive health services are the third major issue. Many women across America are repelled by the Supreme Court’s decision to take away their long-held constitutional right to an abortion. Now, this policy is decided at the state level. And several conservative Republican states – including Ohio and Kansas – have voted to restore abortion rights.

Harris is seen as the champion of these issues. Multiple polls show voters trust her more than Trump on reproductive rights, by wide margins.

As a result, polling shows Harris is leading Trump with women voters in the swing states, by 15 points or more.

Abortion rights are also on the ballot in two swing states, Nevada and Arizona, which should help Harris in both.

The future of American democracy is the fourth major issue facing voters. According to a new poll, half the country sees Trump as a profound threat to America’s democracy who will wield authoritarian power to enforce his policies and programs.

Harris has pledged to turn the page, heal divisions and get Republicans and Democrats working together again.

In these closing days, Trump continues to make provocative statements with violent imagery. At a rally in Arizona last week, for instance, he again attacked Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman who advocated for the prosecution of Trump over the January 6 insurrection:

She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.

This may have provided Harris with a final cut-through moment on Trump’s fitness for office in the final days of the campaign. She said in response:

Anyone who wants to be president of the United States who uses that kind of violent rhetoric is clearly disqualified and unqualified to be president. […] Trump is increasingly, however, someone who considers his political opponents the enemy, is permanently out for revenge and is increasingly unstable and unhinged.

So, who is going to win?

Trump’s team sees victory in all the polls. His chief pollster wrote late last week:

President Trump’s position nationally and in every single battleground state is significantly better than it was four years ago.

The polls may also be undercounting the full measure of Trump’s support, as was the case in 2016 and 2020. And the polls may not be reflecting the extent of antipathy towards Harris as a Black and south Asian woman.

Jen O’Malley Dillon, Harris’ campaign director, and who headed the 2020 Biden campaign that defeated Trump, has told her troops, meanwhile, that undecided voters are “gettable”, adding:

We have multiple pathways to victory […] Our folks are voting at levels we need them to vote in order for us to win.

Harris has built a US$1 billion (A$1.5 billion) machine designed to reach voters in the swing states – through personal contact. This machine made three million phone calls and door knocks on homes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin alone on Saturday. If this machine delivers, it could be the boost Harris needs on election night.

Harris’ campaign also signalled over the weekend that late-deciding voters, and especially women, are breaking their way by double digits. There is a sense among Democrats that Harris is now peaking as the campaign concludes.

The final analysis

If Harris wins, it will be because she has successfully sealed the deal with those voters and made the election a referendum on Trump – that on balance the country has had enough of him after eight years. It also means her ground game delivered the votes.

If Trump wins, it will mean voters trusted him to manage inflation and the cost-of-living squeeze on households, as well as what they see as out-of-control immigration and crime. These messages would also have been further embellished by unease about Harris, a Black and south Asian woman, as president.

Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Apps such as Google Maps, Apple Maps and Waze can tell drivers when they are approaching speed cameras or random breath testing stations. Countries such as Germany, France and Switzerland have banned apps from displaying these enforcement locations.

But what effect are these apps having in Australia – are they helping drivers break road rules?

Our new paper, published in the journal Safety Science, examined this question.

We found this technology can, in some cases, contribute to people thinking they are invincible on the roads. However, we also found they can sometimes help people drive more safely.

Being made aware of enforcement can help road safety

We conducted focus groups and interviews with a total of 58 drivers from Queensland, to understand how the use of this technology influences perceptions of being caught for breaking road rules.

One driver told us:

If I know it’s coming up, I’ll put my phone down. If I was, say, texting or checking something, but then like once a good few 100 metres away, I sort of pick it up again, depending though.

Another said:

It sort of depends where I am driving, I guess. Like, if I am driving on a country road and there is a speed camera there I would probably slow down for the speed camera and then sort of speed up again once I am sort of past that; it sort of depends on the circumstances.

We also found that, for some people, being made aware of enforcement locations can help drivers better regulate their speed. This helped them comply with road rules more consistently.

Waze also shows the speed limit in the area, which further assisted some drivers to stick to the speed limit. One driver told us:

I’m a bit careful if I just look at the speedo and just double check that I’m on the right amount of speed.

Another said:

It just gives you a warning like, ‘OK, you need to check your speed.’ Just to double-check you’re going on the right speed perhaps or when it’s a camera coming up.

Concerning behaviours

Concerningly, we also found some drivers who use these apps are looking at and touching their screens more than they otherwise would. This can distract drivers and increase their risk of crashing.

One driver told us they post traffic updates on the app they use while driving, “which I know is wrong.”

Another said:

Just hit the button on the phone. Just two steps after I go past the camera.

Another driver told us:

It’s so helpful […] Especially if it’s, say, late night and I’m coming home from a party, and I don’t want to end up getting arrested.

One driver said:

I probably feel slightly more invincible, which is probably not a good thing.

When asked why these apps are used, one driver said:

I guess the drug and the drink-driving.

Apps can help and hinder road safety

We know breaking road rules significantly contributes to crashes and road fatalities, with deaths on Australian roads continuing to increase over time.

On the one hand, when drivers are aware of enforcement measures like cameras and police, they are more likely to stop breaking the rules in those areas. That’s particularly true for behaviours such as speeding and using a phone while driving, we found.

Using apps that flag where cameras and police are located also means drivers would be more exposed to enforcement activities than they otherwise would be on a normal drive.

On the other hand, our results suggest some drivers are using these applications to break road rules more often in places where they think they won’t be caught.

These apps are also not always completely accurate.

For instance, even though Waze can display some police operation locations such as roadside breath testing, it can’t capture all on-road police activities. Further, camera locations are not always up to date or accurate.

Weighing benefits against risks

While these apps do have some benefits, it’s important to weigh these against the risks.

It’s also important to recognise traffic enforcement isn’t just there to make you comply with road rules at a specific point; it is meant to remind you of the constant risk of being caught and to encourage consistent rule compliance.

The goal is to ensure that drivers are following the traffic rules across the entire network, not just in isolated spots.

With road fatalities at some of the highest rates we’ve seen in recent years, we need everyone to work together to stop more preventable deaths and injuries.

Verity Truelove, Senior Research Fellow in Road Safety Research, University of the Sunshine Coast; Michelle Nicolls, PhD Candidate, University of the Sunshine Coast, and Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios, A/Professor Responsible Risk Management, Delft University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

On July 13, shortly after Donald Trump was targeted by an assassination attempt, Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter), tweeted to his more than 200 million followers:

I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery.

Musk’s efforts to influence who wins next week’s US presidential election have continued. For example, over the past three months, he has donated more than US$100 million to a political action committee called America PAC that’s promoting Trump.

But our new research (currently available in preprint form) indicates Musk may be wielding influence in other more subtle ways as well. However, the platform’s increasing opacity to researchers makes this difficult to say for certain.

Shortly after Musk endorsed Trump’s presidential campaign, there was a statistically anomalous boost in engagement with his X account. Suddenly, his posts were getting much higher views, retweets and likes in comparison to other prominent political accounts on the platform.

This raises suspicions as to whether Musk has tweaked the platform’s algorithm to increase the reach of his posts in advance of the US presidential election. It also demonstrates the problems with how social media platforms like X are currently regulated around the world.

Not the first time

Musk has history when it comes to tweaking X’s algorithms so his own content reaches more people.

Last year, he reportedly mobilised a team of around 80 engineers to algorithmically boost his posts. This came after his tweet supporting the Philadelphia Eagles during the Super Bowl was outperformed by a similar one from President Joe Biden. Musk seemed to confirm this happened, posting a picture depicting one woman labelled “Elon’s tweets” forcibly bottle feeding another woman labelled “Twitter”.

To see whether Musk has done this again in the leadup to the US election, we compared Musk’s engagement metrics – such as the number of views, retweets and likes – with a set of other prominent political accounts on the social media platform. The data spans the period from January 1 2024 to October 25 2024.

Other political accounts that served as a basis of comparison include those of right-wing commentators Jack Posobiec, Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr. Our study also examined accounts at the other end of the political spectrum, including those of US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, US Senator Bernie Sanders and Vice-President Kamala Harris.

A sudden and significant increase

Since July, engagement with Musk’s X account has seen a sudden and significant increase.

The view counts for his posts increased by 138%, retweets by 238%, and likes by 186%.

In contrast, other prominent political accounts on X saw more moderate increases: 57% in view counts, 152% in retweets, and 130% in likes.

This suggests that while engagement went up for all accounts after July, Musk’s metrics saw a particularly large boost, particularly in retweets and likes.

The research further found that since July, other conservative and right-wing X accounts have performed better in terms of visibility of posts compared to progressive and left-wing accounts.

The Conversation sought comment from X about the research, but did not receive a reply before deadline.

Without backstage access to the workings of the company, it is impossible to know for sure whether changes to its curation system are boosting its owner’s posts. The platform has limited the access it provides to researchers since Musk took over. This means there are restrictions on the amount of data we were able to collect for this study.

However, the Washington Post recently found that tweets from Republicans are far more likely to go viral, receiving billions more views than those from Democrats. Similarly, an investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that new users to the platform “are being blanketed with political content” that disproportionately favours Trump.

Since Musk’s purchase of the platform, it has become more congenial to figures on the right, including people who were previously banned for spreading harmful and false information.

The myth of neutrality

The findings raise the question of the extent to which Musk’s influential social media platform is reinforcing its owner’s political agenda.

Musk, whose businesses have extensive government contracts, has made a public and financial spectacle of his unabashed support of Trump. The billionaire tech tycoon is reportedly Trump’s second-biggest financial donor. He also promoted Trump in a glitchy live interview on X and authored a stream of tweets promoting Trump’s campaign.

Musk is also handing out $1 million a day to selected registered voters. This plan (which has met with questions over its legality) apparently aims to boost voter registration among sympathisers in swing states.

Musk’s actions have torpedoed the fantasy that social media platforms such as X are neutral. Given he has previously tweaked X’s algorithm to amplify the reach of his posts, it would be surprising if he were not tilting the platform in favour of Trump, whom he believes is “the path to prosperity”.

For too long, social media platforms have enjoyed immunity for the information they selectively inject into users’ feeds. It’s time for governments to reconsider their approach to regulating the oligopolistic power over our information environment wielded by a handful of tech billionaires.

Timothy Graham, Associate Professor in Digital Media, Queensland University of Technology and Mark Andrejevic, Professor, School of Media, Film, and Journalism, Monash University, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

People repaying HELP student debts would get cost-of-living relief under changes to repayment arrangements to be announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Sunday.

The minimum threshold for repayments to start would be lifted by more than $10,000 a year, from about $54,000 in 2024-25 to $67.000 in 2025-26. This threshold would be indexed so it always remained about 75% of average graduate earnings.

The government would also move to a marginal repayment system for HELP debts. That would in the short term be to the advantage of people on incomes just above the threshold.

This change, which does not alter the overall amount of the person’s debt, was recommended by Bruce Chapman, the academic who was a designer of the original HECS scheme in the 1980s. Chapman undertook work for the universities accord released by Education Minister Jason Clare.

The accord recommended “reducing the financial burden of repayment on low-income earners and limiting disincentives to work additional hours by moving to a system of HELP repayment based on marginal rates”.

In a Sunday speech, Albanese will say the changes will boost take home pay for one million young Australians.

The average HELP debt holder would pay about $680 less annually in their repayments.

A university graduate earning $70,000 would have their minimum repayments reduced by $1,300. A graduate on $80,000 would receive a cut of $850.

The targeted relief would apply to all graduates earning up to $180,000 annually.

The changes extend to student loans for vocational education.

The government plans to bring in legislation for the changes next year, but it is not clear whether this will be before or after the election, which must be held by May.

The cost over the forward estimates would be about $300 million.

Albanese said:“We will make it easier for young Australians to save in the future and we are going to make the system better and fairer as well. This is good for cost of living. Good for intergenerational fairness. Good for building Australia’s future.”

This is the government’s second recent round of changes to the HELP scheme .

In changes to indexation in this year’s budget the government announced it would cut the student debt of more than three million people, wiping more than $3 billion from what people owe.

It capped the HELP indexation rate to be the lower of either the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Wages Price Index (WPI), backdated from June 1 last year. Indexation had been based on the CPI. Legislation for the budget change is currently before the parliament.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The mental health benefits of exercise for adults are well known, easing depression and reducing anxiety.

Now, emerging research highlights its rising importance for children’s wellbeing. Staying active could be key to safeguarding and enhancing young people’s mental health.

Mood-boosting benefits

One in seven adolescents worldwide has a mental illness. As a result, parents and health-care providers are increasingly seeking effective prevention strategies.

Evidence is accumulating to suggest one surprisingly simple approach: physical fitness.

One recent study reveals even small improvements in fitness were linked to improved teen mental health. When adolescents improved their fitness by just 30 seconds on a running test, their risk of developing anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) dropped by 7-8%.

This suggests something as straightforward as regular exercise could play a crucial role in protecting young people’s mental wellbeing.

For parents and health professionals looking to support adolescent mental health, encouraging participation in team sports could also be an especially effective strategy.

A study of more than 17,000 teenagers revealed a powerful link between sports and mental health: teens who participated in sports clubs were 60% less likely to experience depression compared to inactive kids.

This suggests team sports offer a unique environment for teens’ mental wellbeing, combining physical activity, social connection and structured routines.

Active kids do better in the classroom

Physical activity can also sharpen kids’ thinking and improve school performance: being active is associated with improvements in concentration, decision-making abilities, attention and academic performance.

Studies have also found positive links between physical activity and performance in maths and reading skills.

Even short ten-minute bouts of activity can have immediate positive effects on classroom performance.

Adding more physical activity to the school day — rather than cutting it for academic subjects — can not only boost students’ academic performance but also enhance their overall health and wellbeing.

Getting kids started with fitness and physical activity delivers myriad benefits.

Starting early: when and how

Age considerations

While there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, experts generally agree it’s never too early to encourage physical activity.

The World Health Organisation recommends children aged 3-4 should engage in at least 180 minutes of physical activity daily, with at least 60 minutes being moderate to vigorous intensity: activities that cause kids to huff and puff, such as running or playing sports.

For school-age children (five to 17 years), the recommendation is at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity daily, with activities that strengthen muscles and bones at least three times a week.

Getting started

The key to introducing fitness to children is to make it fun and age-appropriate. Here are some strategies:

1. Incorporate play: for younger children, focus on active play rather than structured exercise. Activities such as tag, hide-and-seek, or obstacle courses can be both fun and physically demanding.
2. Explore various activities: expose children to different sports and activities to help them find what they enjoy. This could include team sports, dance, martial arts, or swimming. Consider activities that are culturally relevant or significant to your family, as this can enhance their sense of belonging and interest.
3. Lead by example: children often mimic their parents’ behaviours, observing their actions. By being active yourself, you not only set a positive example but also encourage your children to do the same.
4. Make it a family affair: encourage physical activity by planning active family outings like hikes, bike rides, or trips to the park to foster a love of exercise in a fun and engaging way.
5. Limit screen time: Encourage outdoor play and physical activities as alternatives to sedentary screen time, fostering a healthier lifestyle and promoting wellbeing.

Potential risks and how to mitigate them

While the benefits of fitness for children are clear, it’s important to approach it safely. Some potential risks include:

1. Injuries from overexertion: children eager to push their limits can suffer from overuse injuries, such as sprains or strains. Encourage a variety of physical activities to prevent overuse injuries. Ensure adequate rest during training and competition, and promote proper a warm-up and cool-down.
2. Heat-related illness: children exercising in hot weather are at risk of heat exhaustion, with symptoms including dizziness and nausea. Emphasise hydration before, during and after exercise. Schedule activities during cooler times and provide shaded areas for breaks, teaching kids to recognise signs of overheating.
3. Improper technique and equipment: using incorrect form or inappropriate equipment can result in injuries and impede development. It’s essential to provide proper instruction, ensure equipment is size-appropriate, and supervise children during exercise. Programs should be designed to be safe and inclusive, accommodating children with disabilities, ensuring everyone can participate meaningfully without barriers.
4. Burnout: excessive exercise or pressure to perform can cause physical and mental burnout. This can lead to a loss of interest. To prevent burnout, it is important stick to national and international activity recommendations, ensure adequate rest, and encourage a balance between structured exercise and free play.

A love for movement and activity

The evidence is clear: fit kids are happier, healthier, and better equipped to handle life’s challenges.

By introducing fitness early and in an engaging, age-appropriate manner, we can set children on a path to lifelong physical and mental wellbeing.

Remember, the goal is to foster a love for movement and activity that will serve children well into adulthood.

Ben Singh, Research fellow, Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia and Grace McKeon, Postdoctoral research fellow, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Lower petrol prices and an electricity rebate have contributed to a further fall in the quarterly measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index.

The rate in the September quarter dropped to 2.8%, putting it for the first time within the Reserve Bank’s target range of two-point-something since the March quarter of 2020.

The fall was broadly in keeping with market expectations, and keeps low the likelihood of an interest rate cut this year. The next Reserve Bank meeting is scheduled for Tuesday.

The bank pays more attention to the long-running quarterly measure of the CPI than the more volatile monthly version which already dropped into its target range in August.

The monthly measure dropped further, to 2.1%, in September.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/QQ6io

The quarterly CPI is also more important because it is included in all sorts of workplace and other contracts and indexation formulas.

The main reason for the fall in inflation was the electricity rebates announced in the federal budget and by some states.

Also helping were the falls in petrol prices, mainly reflecting declines in global oil prices. Cheaper or free public transport in Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart and Darwin also contributed.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/wzK9S

Preventing a larger fall were the continuing strong growth in insurance costs and rent. The rise in insurance costs reflects a series of extreme weather events such as bushfires and floods. It is a way in which climate change is exacerbating inflation.

Contrary to what many people think, the increase in rents is not due to landlords passing on higher interest rates. Landlords may want to do this but they are only able if vacancy rates are low, otherwise tenants just move elsewhere.

History shows it is low vacancy rates that drive up rent regardless of the level of interest rates. The inability of landlords to pass on interest rate increases has been confirmed by a study just published by the Reserve Bank using tax return data.

It showed that only three cents of every dollar in extra interest costs is passed on.

The fall in inflation to a rate significantly below the 4% at which wages are increasing means that the cost of living crisis is abating, although not yet over.

The dramatically lower inflation rate puts Australia in a comparable position to the United States, whose inflation rate is 2.4%, the United Kingdom, whose inflation rate is 1.7% and New Zealand where it is 2.2%.

The US, UK and New Zealand all have inflation targets (or midpoints) of 2%, so inflation is now only slightly above the target in the US and New Zealand. It is actually below it in the UK. In response all three have cut their key policy interest rates.

Yet it is unlikely that the Reserve Bank will follow their lead until next year, despite growing pressure.

One reason is that, even after their cuts, interest rates in our three peers are still higher than in Australia, at around 4.75% to 5%.

But more importantly, the Bank has stressed recently that it pays more attention to the “underlying” rate of inflation, which looks through temporary measures such as the electricity subsidies. The Bank will only cut interest rates when they are “confident that inflation was moving sustainably towards the target range”.

The bank’s preferred measure of underlying inflation, the so-called trimmed mean, has also fallen.

But at 3.5%, it is still above the target. A positive aspect is that it has reached 3.5% ahead of the Bank’s most recent forecast which had 3.5% only being reached by the end of 2024.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GxU7K

Monetary policy, however, has in Milton Friedman’s famous words “long and variable lags”.

As the then future governor Glenn Stevens remarked back in 1999, “the long lags associated with the full impact of monetary policy changes mean that policy changes today must be made with a view not just to what is happening now, but what is likely to be happening in a year’s time and even beyond then”.

In other words we want to drive by looking ahead rather than just at the rear view mirror. The Bank is like a footballer who needs to head to where the ball will be rather than where it is now.

There is therefore a risk that if the Reserve Bank keeps interest rates high until inflation reaches the middle of the target, it will be too late to prevent the economy slowing too much and inflation will undershoot the target. This would likely be associated with unnecessarily high unemployment.

That is why the Reserve Bank board faces a difficult balancing act in taking its decisions.

John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The primary impetus for much of the contemporary focus on the relationship between Australia’s aid and its wider geopolitical goals has been the perceived increase in the use of various forms of development finance by China as a key part of Beijing’s own influence efforts, particularly those directed toward Australia’s Pacific Island Country neighbours. Indeed, in a justification of the Australian government’s own approach, Foreign Minister Penny Wong has explicitly cited the example of China’s statecraft, including in relation to aid:

China understands national interest as being advanced by favourable outcomes, by reducing the possibility of unfavourable outcomes — and by reducing the space for disagreement or dissent.

This understanding is coordinated through its persistent statecraft. A great power like China uses every tool at its disposal to maximise its own resilience and influence — its domestic industry policy; its massive international investment in infrastructure, diplomacy, and military capability; access to its markets.

This statecraft illustrates the challenge for middle powers, like us and our partners in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Yet we need not waste energy with shock or outrage at China seeking to maximise its advantage. Instead, we channel our energy in pressing for our own advantage.

According to AidData, the most comprehensive global aid database, over the last decade Beijing has emerged as the world’s single largest source of development finance, with over 21,000 individual projects in 165 low- and middle-income countries valued at an estimated US$1.34 trillion. Since 2013, this finance has mainly come in the form of concessional loans and export credits for infrastructure projects.

For many experts and commentators, these investments represent a key component of China’s integrated statecraft, “backed by a comprehensive, well resourced, and disciplined operational strategy” focused on building Beijing’s “influence and leverage” in the global South. Others have highlighted the infrastructure and other aid investments associated with programs like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a key element of China’s “developmentalist” foreign policy which aims to “present the country as a leader of economic development on the global stage”. Critics of the US and its Western allies have welcomed China’s disruption of so-called “neo-liberal” development models, arguing that Beijing’s aid provides the global South with more choice and more leverage.

According to other assessments, analyses that ascribe uniform motivations, whether malign or benign, to China’s aid have tended to overstate the degree of coordination in Beijing’s version of economic statecraft. This is due the variety of bureaucratic agencies, state-owned companies and banks, and semi-commercial entities involved in the delivery of China’s foreign aid. These actors have sometimes pursued agendas independent of, and sometimes contrary to, Beijing’s priorities and preferences. Empirical studies have highlighted domestic imperatives such as preserving internal political stability and absorbing excess economic capacity, rather than geopolitical goals, as the primary drivers of the allocation of China’s foreign aid. The core challenge remains ascribing intentions to a country “whose government agencies and firms often lack transparency and whose development strategy prescribes the co-presence of a complex set of state and non-state actors abroad”.

To the extent that China’s development finance can be said to reflect a deliberate and coherent strategy aimed at advancing its “influence” in the global South, the results appear to have been mixed. A 2022 assessment published by the influential US think tank the RAND Corporation concludes that notwithstanding Beijing’s substantial investment in infrastructure and technology projects in the global South, “the short-term appeal of China’s approach to developing countries does not necessarily generate longer-term positive [public] perceptions of China …”.  Instead, “many governments have begun to reassess the terms of their arrangements with China and, in some cases, to express new ill-will toward China”. A 2023 multi-region study of sentiment toward the BRI among 148 countries found that although average sentiment was positive, attitudes towards the BRI had deteriorated between 2017 and 2021/22. Among 27 surveyed countries in Central, South and Southeast Asia, public sentiment towards the BRI improved in only three: Brunei, Mongolia, and Cambodia.

Exploring these kinds of results through several case studies in a working paper, Audrye Wong has argued that the influence effects of China’s “subversive carrots” — forms of economic inducement designed to avoid political processes and expectations about appropriate political behaviour in recipient states — is mediated by domestic political institutions in these states. Comparing recipient elites’ responses to China’s economic statecraft in a low public accountability state (Cambodia), a higher public accountability state (the Philippines) and a “transition state” (pre-coup Myanmar), she argues that how responsive these elites are to their citizenry and how constrained they are by domestic institutions ultimately determines the effectiveness of Beijing’s external economic inducements in terms of their influence on behaviour.

Where public accountability is higher, this impedes the utility of such methods as it is harder for leaders to avoid domestic scrutiny and/or public backlash over the terms of inducements. Audrye Wong concludes that, “despite the apparent ease and rapidity at which China has attempted to buy over political leaders with large-scale investment and infrastructure projects … its strategy of subversive carrots is not as uniformly successful as commonly assumed … [and] the level of public accountability in target countries can facilitate or constrain the effectiveness of subversive carrots”. Similarly, Courtney Fung et al. draw from another set of country case studies to argue that “variations across domestic institutions can help explain differences in receptivity or resistance toward Chinese influence”.

Such findings pose something of a paradox for Western aid donors. This is because they suggest a trade-off between aid goals like democracy promotion and improved governance — whether pursued as objectives in their own right, or as part of broader efforts to constrain China’s influence — and their own influence goals, which are also likely to be constrained by more accountable institutions in recipient countries.

Early empirical research suggests that this kind of analytic lens is relevant to the Pacific. This is a region that comprises countries with largely open — albeit in some cases small and often fragile ­– domestic political institutions and one in which China has increased its aid effort over the last decade.

While China appears to have been successful in using aid and other economic inducements to help persuade several Pacific island countries (PICs) to shift their diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China in recent years, its ability to extract more “expensive” policy concessions has been limited. In 2022, China failed in what was reported as a concerted and sustained attempt to secure a region-wide policing and security deal with the Pacific Islands Forum countries. The announcement of a non-public bilateral security and policing agreement between China and Solomon Islands earlier that year became the focus of a subsequent domestic political backlash against the government of former Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare. The newly elected government of Fiji downgraded its own policing cooperation with China in the wake of the Solomon Islands agreement. These examples may reflect China’s inability to date to secure a wider “social licence” from local communities in PICs, despite the substantial aid effort it has directed at elites. Some Pacific elites have also proven adept at instrumentalising China’s aid narratives to suit their own domestic and foreign policy goals. The fact that Beijing’s aid effort in the Pacific peaked in monetary terms in the mid-2010s and has declined in recent years may reflect not only changing economic conditions within China. It may also indicate a reduced appetite on the part of Pacific elites to take on large Chinese-funded projects due to concerns about increased domestic backlash and unsustainable debt.

Even when it comes to more autocratic political settings, China has sometimes struggled to translate development and financial support into alignment with its foreign policy preferences. For example, China is one of the few providers of bilateral aid (primarily in form of food aid and energy supplies), as well as foreign direct investment and trade, to totalitarian North Korea. The contemporary relationship between Beijing and Pyongyang has been described, however, by one set of experts as one characterised by “growing investments and diminishing returns”. Despite the volume of Chinese aid provided to North Korea over the decades, these experts point specifically to Beijing’s inability to achieve one of its primary foreign goals – curbing Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

In other cases, it is the weakness of potential client states that poses the biggest constraint to China’s influence. In the case of Pakistan — a country which has accepted a large amount of Chinese infrastructure finance under the framework of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) — successive economic crises and political violence in regions that are part of the CPEC have “tied China irrevocably into Pakistan’s complicated, and sometimes hostile, political landscape”. As a result, “[China’s] centralising visions could not be simply imposed on a receptive (or captive) periphery but [has] required difficult negotiations with local interests”. This has, in turn, “exert[ed] a transformative pressure back on China itself” when it comes to the costs, threats and risks generated by the unintended effects of its economic statecraft. This suggests that attempts to link aid with policy change are not unidirectional and can affect donors as well as recipients. Following Myanmar’s reversion to military rule in 2021, China — one of the dictatorship’s few remaining external benefactors — has also struggled to exert influence over the fledging State Administration Council junta as lawlessness and conflict threaten key Chinese infrastructure investments and criminal gangs further embed themselves in the sensitive China-Myanmar border regions.

China’s use of various types of debt instruments as a primary modality through which it delivers its development finance has been a particular source of contention with some Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) recipients. While charges from the West of “debt trap diplomacy” have been largely discredited as overstated, the opacity of China’s BRI lending has generated backlash from recipient elites and publics in several high-profile cases, including in Sri Lanka and Malaysia. In the case of Africa, “the indebtedness generated by BRI loans coupled with their emphasis on facilitating infrastructural changes for outflow of primary commodities has raised memories of colonialism for many African observers”. In these and other cases, the use of debt instruments has generated new sources of conflict between China and potential client states. Along with the growing risks to China’s economy and state-owned banks from the moral hazard associated with unsustainable BRI loans, this has resulted in Beijing significantly reducing its global infrastructure lending and re-orienting its focus toward so-called “small and beautiful” projects and multilateral aid.

These examples suggest that, as well as domestic institutions, the type of finance provided may itself have an independent effect on the extent to which bilateral donors are able to use aid to achieve wider foreign policy goals, including as a result of unintended effects. That is, the mere coercive potential of debt, whether realised or perceived, may itself invite a backlash on the part of recipient elites and/or publics against donors, regardless of the latter’s motives.

This is relevant to Australia given its newfound position as a leading source of infrastructure lending to the Pacific — a position that could generate unintended effects in terms of Canberra’s own regional relationships, particularly given the increased level of indebtedness of several PICs and the risk of a lack of attention to project quality and fiscal sustainability relative to geopolitical objectives. This highlights the potential perils of unsophisticated narratives regarding the causes and consequences of China’s “economic statecraft” and the need to engage with the kinds of research canvassed here.

Disclosure: This research was undertaken with the support of the Gates Foundation. The views are those of the author only.

This article was first published in the Australian National University’s DevpolicyBlog and has been republished here with the kind permission of the editor(s). The Blog is run out of the Development Policy Centre housed in the Crawford School of Public Policy in the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific at The Australian National University.

Contributing Author: Cameron Hill is Senior Research Officer at the Development Policy Centre. He has previously worked with DFAT, the Parliamentary Library and ACFID.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

A major highlight at the National Security Defence Review validation workshop in Suva this week was the panel discussion on “Building social cohesion in fractured societies”. It was significant because while Fiji needs such dialogues, they have been rare.

The Fiji National Security & Defence Review report released by the Ministry of Home Affairs and Immigration this week mentions social cohesion as the third key element of Fiji’s national security requirements.

The discussion was chaired by the University of the South Pacific’s associate professor in Pacific journalism, Dr Shailendra Singh, a member of the editorial board of the National Security Defence Review (NSDR).

The panelists included individuals involved directly or indirectly in social cohesion work:  Retired colonel Dr Jone Baledrokadroka, a peacebuilding and social cohesion consultant with United Nations Development Programme, Fiji; Vani Catanasiga, Fiji Council of Social Services executive director; Nilesh Lal, Dialogue Fiji executive director; and Pastor Josefa Lauvanua, a member of the Melanesian Community.

Commissioned by the Home Affairs Minister, Pio Tikoduadua, the NSDR’s independent lead is retired Fiji Military Forces lieutenant colonel Jim Sanday. The editorial board is chaired by Professor Satish Chand, from the University of New South Wales and the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra.

Make peace at home first

In his opening remarks panel chair Dr Singh pointed out that Fiji was a fractured society with an incredibly damaging coup culture. Yet, unlike other multiethnic countries like Singapore and Malaysia, little effort had been made to understand, let alone address arguably our most significant problem—a deficit in social cohesion.

Dr Singh stated that geopolitics often takes precedence, despite internal conflict being our most immediate risk. There was also a lot of focus on economic development, but Fiji’s experience showed that without social cohesion, there could be no sustainable development, which could be destroyed overnight by communal conflict.

That Fiji is still struggling with social cohesion more than 50 years after independence highlights the complexity of the issue, noted Dr Singh. However, he questioned whether Fiji had made enough effort to truly address it.

He welcomed current government  initiatives, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the NSDR, and the Multi-Ethnic Affairs & Sugar Industry Ministry’s social cohesion projects.

He praised the leadership by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, Home Affairs Minister Tikoduadua and  Multi-Ethnic Affairs Minister Charan Jeath Singh.

The Prime Minister’s “Ocean of Peace” had resonated with regional leaders, said Dr Singh. However,  before the wider region,  Fiji needed to get its own house in order,  and make peace at home.

That is why social cohesion in Fiji  not only has national, but regional ramifications, concluded Dr Singh.

Rebuilding and peacebuilding

Dr Baledrokadroka stated that social cohesion was important to hold together the fabric of any society.

Sharing his work on social cohesion in the Pacific, Dr Baledrodroka said it was not just a challenge in Fiji, but the region.

He emphasised the importance of inclusivity to ensure the success of initiatives or policies leading to peacebuilding.

He highlighted the launch of the United Nations Social Cohesion Programme by PM Rabuka in April to promote peace and unity in Fiji and the Pacific, addressing challenges like climate change and economic vulnerability. 

As part of the initiative, workshops have been held from June to September, including pre-dialogue workshops with the Sugar Cane Growers Council, Indo-Fijian society representatives and civil society organisations.

Dr Baledrokadroka shared that the UNDP’s national validation workshop in November would be the culmination of the work that was being carried out by the programme since its launch.

Civil society views on social cohesion

Ms Catanasiga posited that education is essential in fostering social cohesion but it should go beyond Western ideals of cooperation and harmony and instead reflect the diverse realities and histories of Fiji’s people.

Social cohesion must be woven into our educational curricula in ways that resonate with the lived experiences of all Fijians.

Ms Catanasiga added that the root causes that have contributed to the fractures in our society must first be recognised in social cohesion discourse.

She highlighted the cycle of trauma that continued to hold people in Fiji hostage, adding that there had not been enough intentional focus on healing—neither in governance nor in development frameworks.

The trauma, she said, stems from various historical and social factors: colonisation, decolonisation and the manner in which both occurred, the repeated coups, and the way development has been unevenly delivered.

A national effort to build social cohesion must begin at the community level, using a bottom-up approach to tap into our communities —the very places where social cohesion is often alive and well, despite broader societal fractures.

Government, she said, can play a key role by partnering with stakeholders who have demonstrated transformative work in unity and cohesion.

The road to social cohesion will require a deep commitment to understanding our past, healing collective wounds, and embracing an inclusive, community-driven approach to governance and development, she concluded.

Not just a theoretical concept

Mr Lal stated that the lack of social cohesion stemmed from deeply rooted historical divisions.

Our past, shaped by colonialism, ethnic segregation, and political instability has left lasting scars. Political decisions, driven by narrow interests, had only deepened these divides.

Mr Lal noted how divisive politicians had historically exploited societal divisions, prioritising personal or group interests over national unity.

This had deepened distrust and division, especially between indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians.

Despite efforts like the current government’s initiatives on reconciliation, many Fijians, particularly Indo-Fijians, remained disillusioned.

This, he said, was reflected in a mass exodus from the country, driven by a perceived lack of fairness and equity in governance.

Mr Lal said in 2023, the economy narrowly avoided a 10-15 per cent contraction, thanks to a 58 per cent surge in tourism earnings.

He said the 8 per cent growth was almost entirely driven by tourism, while other sectors declined due to a lack of confidence and the departure of skilled workers.

Mr Lal stressed that this stark reality emphasised how the erosion of social cohesion undermined national prosperity.

With education being a powerful tool, schools should promote values like tolerance, respect, and mutual understanding.

He suggested that the national curriculum include Fiji’s diverse cultures, histories, and languages to help dismantle stereotypes that drive division.

According to Mr Lal, teaching social cohesion early on will foster a generation that values inclusivity and respect.

Social cohesion from Solomon Islander community perspective

Pastor Lauvanua said there were deep fractures within and between Fiji’s indigenous Fijian and Pacific Islander communities.

According to him, the lack of social cohesion stems from the system itself; it lies in the lack of ethnic understanding and acceptance of one another, and the inability to establish a shared identity with no security in tenure.

A third-generation, part-Fijian of Solomon Island descent, Pastor Lauvanua noted that since their grandfathers’ arrival in Fiji during the blackbirding period in the 1860s, the Melanesian community has assimilated almost entirely into iTaukei culture.

He explained that, since pre-independence elections, the Melanesian community was classified as “Fijian voters” under the old Fijian Communal Voting System, until after the coup of 1987 when they were reclassified as “General Voters/Electors” under the 2013 Constitution.

Pastor Lauvanua said that, despite identifying as Fijian in many aspects, the community has been denied access to benefits like Fijian Affairs Board scholarships or village housing projects.

A former iTaukei Land Trust Board employee, Pastor Lauvanua highlighted how land tenure and ownership issues have segregated communities. The security of land tenure for the Melanesian community has never been resolved.

He called for “common ground” to address what he described as “fractured social cohesion,” and agreed that cohesion should be incorporated into Fiji’s school curriculum.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The government-appointed inquiry into Australia’s COVID response has warned public trust won’t be so high in a future pandemic and people would be unlikely to accept again many of the measures taken.

“That means there is a job to be done to rebuild trust, and we must plan a response based on the Australia we are today, not the Australia we were before the pandemic,” the report released on Tuesday said.

The inquiry was conducted by former NSW public servant Robyn Kruk, epidemiologist Catherine Bennett, and economist Angela Jackson. It examined the health and economic responses; while it did not directly delve into the state responses, it did cover the federal-state interface.

The overall takeout from the inquiry is that “Australia did well relative to other nations, that experienced larger losses in human life, health system collapse and more severe economic downturns”.

But “the pandemic response was not as effective as it could have been” for an event for which there was “no playbook for pivotal actions”.

The inquiry said “with the benefit of hindsight, there was excessive fiscal and monetary policy stimulus provided throughout 2021 and 2022, especially in the construction sector. Combined with supply side disruptions, this contributed to inflationary pressures coming out of the pandemic.”

The inquiry criticised the Homebuilder program’s contribution to inflation, as well as Jobkeeper’s targeting, and said blanket access to superannuation should not be repeated.

The government – which might have originally expected the inquiry to have been more critical of the Morrison government – quickly seized on the report’s economic criticisms.

The panel has made a set of recommendations to ensure better preparation for a future pandemic.

It highlighted the “tail” the pandemic has left, especially its effect on children, who suffered school closures.

“Children faced lower health risks from COVID-19; however, broader impacts on the social and emotional development of children are ongoing. These include impacts on mental health, school attendance and academic outcomes for some groups of children.”

The report noted that the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee had never recommended widespread school closures.

A lack of clear communication about risks had created the environment for states to decide to go to remote learning.

The impacts on children should be considered in future pandemic preparations, the inquiry said.

It strongly backed making permanent the interim Australian Centre for Disease Control. The government will legislate next year for the CDC, to start on January 1 2026, as an independent statutory agency.

The CDC would be important in rebuilding trust, the report said, as well as “strengthening resilience and preparedness”. It would provide “national coordination to gather evidence necessary to undertake the assessments that can guide the proportionality of public health responses in future crises”.

The report said trust in government was essential for a successful response to a pandemic.

At COVID’s outset, the public largely did what was asked of them, complying with restrictive public health orders.

But the initial strengthening of trust in government did not continue through the pandemic. By the second year, restrictions on personal freedom were less accepted.

Reasons for the decrease in trust included a lack of transparency in decision making, poor communication, the stringency and duration of restrictions, implementation of mandated measures, access to vaccines and inconsistencies in responses across jurisdictions.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Inflation, low wage growth and little job creation have made life very tough in Papua New Guinea for the ordinary person. The PNG government has made some effort to respond to cost-of-living pressures. Depreciation of the kina, while painful for urban residents, helps rural producers earn more for their coffee exports and helps make their vegetable sales more competitive against imports. Increasing the tax-free income tax threshold and doing away with tuition fees helps the working poor and parents. But, with the 2025 budget due to be delivered next month (November 2024), PNG should look to Fiji to see what else it could do to help the country’s population.

Unlike PNG, Fiji has a multiple-rate GST, or VAT as Fiji calls its equivalent. Fiji introduced its VAT in 1992. In 1999, it introduced zero-rating – a zero VAT charge – for various food items. Since then, the number of items zero-rated has been expanded and currently stands at 22, including basic food items (such as flour and rice), basic household items (such as soap and kerosene) and essentials such as prescribed medicines and sanitary pads. Fiji thus currently has two VAT rates: 0 and 15%.

PNG by contrast has persisted with its uniform 10% rate since its introduction of the GST in 1999. More detailed modelling is needed, but some arrangement whereby basic goods were zero-rated and the main rate increased to, say, 15% (as in Fiji) would be much more equitable than PNG’s current system since it would shift more of the tax burden to the better-off consumers (via the 15% rate) away from the worse-off (whose consumption is focused more on basic goods, such as food, which would not be taxed).

Fiji also stands apart from PNG with respect to its social transfer system. Fiji’s Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad stated in his 2024-25 budget, “We need to protect our vulnerable, the elderly and people with disabilities”. He went on to say that the budget would provide $F200 million (about K360 million) “for around 104,000 beneficiaries under the family assistance scheme, social pension scheme, care and protection allowance, disability allowance, rural pregnant mother food allowance and transport assistance scheme”.

That’s about 10% of the population, so about one million people in PNG. Social transfers tend to be dismissed in PNG as handouts and leading to a dependency mentality, but surely those in need for reasons of disability or age should be getting government support. And, in fact, international evidence shows that such support is empowering rather than debilitating. Certainly such transfers would be a better use of public funds than the massive MP slush funds.

Of course, a system of cash transfers presupposes an administrative capability to disburse funds to individuals. Looking at how PNG has fared with large public-facing projects such as the National Identity Card does not fill one with confidence. Nevertheless, a start could be made in this year’s budget, perhaps with the introduction of cash transfers to the disabled and the non-rich elderly poor. Not only are these groups clearly in need of help, but they are also ones with relatively straightforward eligibility criteria.

One way forward would be through outsourcing. Banks, other financial institutions and mobile phone operators could be invited to tender to distribute the new social transfers. International expertise should also be drawn on. Both the World Bank and Australia’s Partnerships for Social Protection have extensive expertise in this area. The next 12 months could be dedicated to planning, with the actual launch of the transfers in 2026.

The January riots should be a wake-up call. When it formulates its 2025 budget, the PNG government should look to Fiji to see what more can be done to prevent future riots, to make life easier for the ordinary Papua New Guinean, and to fulfil PNG’s constitutional directive “to achieve an equitable distribution of incomes”.

Disclosure: This research was undertaken with the support of the ANU-UPNG Partnership, an initiative of the PNG-Australia Partnership, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The views are those of the authors only.

This article was first published in the Australian National University’s DevpolicyBlog and has been republished here with the kind permission of the editor(s). The Blog is run out of the Development Policy Centre housed in the Crawford School of Public Policy in the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific at The Australian National University.

Contributing Author(s): Andrew Anton Mako is a visiting lecturer and project coordinator for the ANU-UPNG Partnership. He has worked as a research officer at the Development Policy Centre and as a research fellow at the PNG National Research Institute. Stephen Howes is Director of the Development Policy Centre and Professor of Economics at the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday