# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/covid-19-and-young-people

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key findings

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected young people across several life domains, many of which are interrelated.

During 2020, rates of confirmed cases of COVID-19 among those aged 20-24 and those aged 25-29 (168 and 183 per 100,000 people, respectively) were higher than all other age groups, except 85 years and over (279 per 100,000). Between January and 16 June 2021, there were 187 cases among young people aged 15 to 24, making up 9.7% of the total 1,929 cases during this period. In 2021, across all 5-year age groups in the population, rates of confirmed cases have been highest among those aged 30-34, followed by those aged 35-39, and those aged 25-29.

Of the 910 COVID-19-related deaths in Australia since the pandemic began 1 was in the 20-29 age group.

In July-August 2020, among young people aged 13-17, 42% said the pandemic and response had negatively affected their social connectedness, a drop from 70% in April 2020. The proportion for young people in Melbourne was higher, at 55%, but still lower than April levels. The easing of restrictions across much of the country at the end of June 2020 brought more structure and connectedness to young people's lives.

Compared with February 2017, psychological distress worsened in April 2020 for those aged 18 to 24. In April 2021, psychological distress of young Australians was significantly below what it was in April 2020 but was still higher than in February 2017.

The proportion of young people not in education or employment rose from 8.7% in May 2019 to 12% in May 2020 and has since decreased to 11% in February 2021, a similar rate to February 2020 (10%).

Between March 2020 and May 2020, the proportion of all young people aged 15-24 who were employed (the employment ratio) dropped by 10 percentage points (60% to 50%, a decrease of 329,000 young people). From May 2020, the employment ratio of young people aged 15-24 generally increased. As at April 2021, the employment ratio of young people was 61% compared with 60% in March 2020.

The monthly unemployment rate for young people aged 15-24 rose from 12% in March 2020 to a peak of 16.4% in July 2020. The unemployment rate was 11% in April 2021.

Of all employees who received the JobKeeper Payment in April 2020, 12% were aged 24 or under. Young people were under-represented in JobKeeper coverage, which may reflect their considerably higher receipt of income support payments than other age groups.

In May 2020, just over 1 in 4 (28%) young people aged 18-24 reported not being able to pay their rent and/or mortgage on time in the previous 3 months. This compares with 15% of Australians aged 18 and over.

While some effects of COVID-19 on young people are emerging, it is important to note that the full impact is complex and not yet fully understood. The effect of COVID-19 can also be dynamic-outcomes change quickly (for instance, mental wellbeing and social connectedness) when conditions change (such as introducing or easing restrictions). Many of the effects of COVID-19 will be interrelated and could take some time to become apparent.

Many life trajectories are set in place during adolescence and young adulthood. Hence, there is a need for ongoing comprehensive monitoring of the impact of COVID-19 on young people's wellbeing. Areas of particular interest for monitoring include:

wellbeing, including mental wellbeing

access to educational choices after secondary school, education attainment, achievement and outcomes

longer term outcomes for young people; for example, the potential consequences of unemployment on their long-term employment prospects and finances, their access to secure housing, and their mental health

the longer term impact of COVID-19 on child protection services

experience of domestic violence

variation in outcomes for different population groups.

Introduction

Since early 2020, COVID-19 has emerged as a major health threat in 2020, substantially disrupting almost all parts of society worldwide. This section provides an overview of what is currently known (as at May 2021) about the impact of COVID-19 on Australian young people for selected topics where data are available. These topics are presented within the domains of the Australian Health and Welfare (AIHW) people-centred data model that underpin this report:

Health

Social support

Education and skills

Employment and work

Income and Finance

Housing

Justice and safety (for information on the AIHW people-centred data model, see Introduction).

COVID-19 is a disease caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. It is predominantly a disease of the respiratory system, particularly in the early stages of the illness (AIHW 2020a). For more information on its key characteristics and its prevention, control and treatment, see Australia's health 2020: data insights.

COVID-19 in Australia

The first confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Australia were recorded on 25 January 2020 (see Box 1 for more details). For simplicity, this report refers to the period from March 2020 as 'during COVID-19' as this is the point at which restrictions and other responses to the coronavirus began. It is recognised, though, that the pandemic continues, and that the impacts of COVID-19 have varied considerably across different parts of Australia and over time since March 2020.

In 2020, rates of confirmed cases of COVID-19 were higher among those aged 20-24 and 25-29 than most other age groups, except for those aged 85 and over, see Confirmed cases and deaths due to COVID-19. COVID-19-related deaths among young people have been much lower (see Infectious diseases for information on the vaccine roll-out and young people). While the direct impacts of COVID-19 on the physical health of young people has, to date, been limited, young people have been particularly affected by the associated restrictions on movement and the impacts on labour markets.

Box 1: COVID-19 timeline in Australia

The first confirmed cases of COVID-19 were recorded in Australia on 25 January 2020 (Figure 1). As the disease spread, restrictions were put in place to control its impact. By the end of March 2020, restrictions had impacted all non-essential businesses and activities, with Australians urged to stay at home (Grattan Institute 2020). Restrictions started to ease from late April, although with state and territory differences.

In Victoria, COVID-19 cases began to rise again in June 2020, in what became known as the 'second wave'. Various restrictions were introduced in July, with the highest level of restrictions introduced on 2 August (Melbourne to Stage 4 and regional Victoria to Stage 3). On 26 October, Victoria reached zero cases for the first time since June 2020 (Victorian DHHS 2020).

Clusters emerged in various parts of Australia at different times; for instance, a cluster emerged in South Australia in late November 2020, leading to a brief period of restrictions. Over the Christmas-New Year 2020 period, clusters emerged around the NSW Northern Beaches area, leading to restrictions in certain suburbs and widespread interstate cross-border closures. In 2021, clusters continue to emerge.

Figure 1: Overview of Australian COVID-19 timeline, January to December 2020

Chart: AIHW.
Source: World Health Organisation, as at February 2021.

Effects of COVID-19 on Australia's young people

While COVID-19 affects people in different ways, the social and economic impacts on young people have been substantial. Compared with older age groups, young people have experienced high rates of psychological distress, loneliness, educational disruption, unemployment, housing stress and domestic violence.

COVID-19 is a major source of concern among young people. The 2020 Mission Australia Youth Survey of young people aged 15-19 (conducted between April and August 2020) identified, in response to a free text question, the top 3 biggest personal concerns of young people:

Of the 9.3% who reported COVID-19 to be a top concern, the top 3 related concerns were in respect to education (33%), COVID-19 in general (31%) and isolation (21%). Other COVID-19-related concerns reported were mental health (17%) and financial problems (7%) (Tiller et al. 2020). The 3 most important national issues in Australia today as identified by young people were equity and discrimination (40%), COVID-19 (39%) and mental health (31%) (Tiller et al. 2020).

Young people are also concerned about their lack of voice in decision making and in being negatively stereotyped (UNICEF Australia 2020). Findings from 2 of UNICEF Australia's 3-phase national survey showed that, among young people aged 13-17, in July-August 2020, the proportion who think there is no clear way for children and young people to feed into the national discussion rose from 26% in April to 65% in July-August (UNICEF Australia 2020).

While some of the effects of COVID-19 on young people are emerging, it is important to note that the full impact on them is complex and not yet fully understood. The effect of COVID-19 can also be dynamic-outcomes can change quickly (for instance, for mental wellbeing and social connectedness) when conditions change (such as introducing or easing restrictions).

There may also be longer term outcomes for young people; for example:

adverse effects from temporary disruption to education

the potential consequences of unemployment on their long-term employment prospects and finances

their access to secure housing

their mental health.

The social determinants of health and wellbeing are all connected and interact on many different levels. This means that many of the effects of COVID-19 could take some time to become apparent.

An ecological approach

This report takes an ecological approach to youth reporting. This means it considers how factors that shape people's health interact within and between different social and ecological 'levels'. The specific approach taken is derived from existing frameworks for children and young people used in Australia (Victoria Department of Education and Training 2018; Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services 2018). The young person is at the centre and their development and wellbeing occurs within dynamic concentric circles of influence exerted by different settings (see also Introduction).

Availability and limitations of COVID-19-related data

Where data relating to the COVID-19 period are available in routine national collections used in this report, they are included. Since the pandemic began, a number of new surveys and data collections have been developed, specifically aimed at assessing the impact of COVID-19.

This section draws on relevant data sources with a national focus, which were considered the best available at the time. However, the nature of data collection during the pandemic means that there are some limitations for some surveys, including:

differences in the age range used to define young people

lack of national representativeness, due to non-random sampling

limited sample sizes, particularly in relation to young people, which can limit the robustness of findings

potential volatility in reporting over time.

Information about the data sources used, including the nature and size of the sample, is provided in the Technical notes.

This section includes the following comparisons where data are available:

before and during COVID-19, noting that the time period compared varies depending on the availability and nature of data

young people and other age groups during COVID-19

experiences during COVID-19, including comparisons at different time points.

Disaggregation of data by sex are limited due to sample size issues. In most cases, disaggregation by specific population groups is not available.

While the focus of this section is on national data, consistent with the approach taken for the whole report, where data were readily available, some comparisons for young people in Victoria-which experienced a lengthy second period of restrictions (see Box 1)-were included. International comparisons, where available, could be included in future updates.

Explore the impact of COVID-19 on young people

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia's youth: COVID-19 and the impact on young people - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected young people across several life domains, many of which are interrelated. During 2020, rates of confirmed cases of COVID-19 among those aged 20-24 and those aged 25-29 (168 and 183 per 100,000 people, respectively) were higher than all other age groups, except 85 years and over (279 per 100,000).

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.csi.edu.au/news/covid-19-fact-sheets/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Centre for Social Impact is producing a series of fact sheets to address specific social issue areas in the context of COVID-19.

Fact Sheet One: Homelessness

> Download UPDATED Fact Sheet One: Homelessness (pdf) (3 April, 2020)

> Download Fact Sheet One: Homelessness (pdf) (27 March, 2020)

In our first fact sheet (updated at 3 April) CSI discusses the current state of homelessness in Australia and highlights specific risk areas.

The COVID-19 crisis will disproportionately affect those that are currently homeless or at risk of homelessness with respect to an increased risk of exposure and a greater likelihood of severe cases and mortality. In our updated response, we share a focus on public health responses and public health consequences.

The economic impact of COVID-19 and responses to it also places an enormous number of Australians at risk of homelessness, paving the way for a vicious cycle if policy levers across a broad range of domains are not fully utilised. Our homelessness policy response to COVID-19 is quite simple: Prevent, House, and Support.

Authors: Professor Paul Flatau - CSI UWA, Dr Ami Seivwright - CSI UWA, Chris Hartley - CSI UNSW, Catherine Bock - CSI UWA and Zoe Callis - CSI UWA

Contact: Professor Paul Flatau | paul.flatau@uwa.edu.au |

Fact Sheet Two: Loneliness & Social Connection

> Download Fact Sheet Two: Loneliness & Social Connection (pdf) (March 2020)

We have long known that loneliness and social isolation cause people significant emotional pain and can have a negative impact on their health and wellbeing. Now, with COVID-19, we are being told to socially distance.

This risks making the problems associated with loneliness worse. It's important we focus on keeping up social connections even while physically distancing - it's perhaps our greatest resource and underpins social capital, social cohesion, good health, great neighbourhoods and being a happy human.

Our second fact sheet in the series highlights some short-term tips on how we can be healthy social humans in these unusual times.

Authors: Professor Jane Farmer, Tracy De Cotta, Jasmine Knox and Viktoria Adler

Contact: Professor Jane Farmer | jcfarmer@swin.edu.au | @jane_c_farmer

Fact Sheet Three: Protecting People with Disability

> Download Fact Sheet Three: Protecting People with Disability During COVID-19 (March 2020)

There is an urgent need for the disability and health sectors to develop a coordinated response that protects the health of over 4 million Australians with disability.

This third fact sheet, in partnership with the Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health, details the actions needed to protect people with disability and the disability support workforce during COVID-19, with a range of recommendations.

Authors: Professor Anne Kavanagh, Professor Gemma Carey, Professor Helen Dickinson, Professor Gwynnyth Llewellyn and Professor Bruce Bonyhady.
Contact: Professor Anne Kavanagh | a.kavanagh@unimelb.edu.au | @Kavanagh_AM

Fact Sheet Four: Digital Inclusion

> Download Fact Sheet Four: Digital Inclusion and COVID-19 (pdf) (April 2020)

Australia's response to containing COVID-19 needs us to be more digitally connected than ever. Yet, more than 2.5 million Australians are not online and many of those who are lack the skills to benefit fully from this connectivity. Affordable access to the internet also remains a key concern, particularly for low-income households.

Many Australian small businesses and organisations are also limited in their digital access and capacity. This fact sheet focuses on the need for access, affordability, and improved ability.

Authors: Professor Jo Barraket and Dr Chris Wilson

Contact: Professor Jo Barraket | jbarraket@swin.edu.au | @JBarraket

Fact Sheet Five: Community Services Responses to COVID-19

> Download Fact Sheet Five: Community Services Responses to COVID-19 (pdf) (April 2020)

Uniting Vic.Tas (UVT) and the Centre for Social Impact have been collating data about the strategies UVT has put in place to limit the spread of COVID-19. This raft of protective strategies is designed to protect consumers and staff: Restrict, Prioritise and Maintain.

Author and contact: Professor Erin Wilson | ewilson@swin.edu.au

Fact Sheet Six: Home Learning and COVID-19

> Download Fact Sheet Six: Home Learning and COVID-19 (pdf) (April 2020)

All over Australia, students are studying and learning at home instead of in schools. For families with school-aged children, home is not just home anymore but also a school. Parents, students and teachers are coming to grips with this new paradigm as they adjust to their home-learning environment. This fact sheet focuses on our vulnerable young people and gives some guidance on relationships, adaptation, and uncertainty.

Author and contact: Dr Meera Varadharajan | m.varadharajan@unsw.edu.au

Fact Sheet Seven: Indigenous Financial Impacts and COVID-19

> Download Fact Sheet Seven: Indigenous Financial Impacts and COVID-19 (pdf) (May 2020)

In 2019, our research estimated that across Australia, one in ten Indigenous people who took our survey were classified as financially secure, based on our framework of financial resilience. The Centre for Social Impact and First Nations Foundation policy response to the COVID-19 Disease is based on 3 key strategies: Caring for communities, access to appropriate services, and targeting high-cost lending and misleading advice.

Author and contact: Dr Megan Weier | m.weier@unsw.edu.au | @MeganWeier

Fact Sheet Eight: Social Isolation, Ageing, and COVID-19

> Download Fact Sheet Eight: Social Isolation, Ageing, and COVID-19 (pdf) (May 2020)

Older people are at greater risk of the complications associated with COVID-19 and as a result, they are being asked to socially isolate. However, this brings with it a number of challenges that impact older people's wellbeing. This fact sheet focuses on supporting the wellbeing of older Australians by ensuring they: meet their basic needs, stay socially connected, and stay physically active.

Author and contact: A/Prof Mariana Atkins | mariana.atkins@uwa.edu.au

Fact Sheet Nine: Youth Unemployment and COVID-19

> Download Fact Sheet Nine: Youth Unemployment and COVID-19 (pdf) (May 2020)

Social distancing, stay-at-home restrictions, border closures and business closures mandated by the Australian and State/Territory governments to contain the COVID-19 virus have significantly reduced the adverse health impacts we have seen around the world but at the same time have created widespread economic shocks. This Fact Sheet highlights how these shocks have resulted in disproportionate disruption to youth employment, and outlines how younger people will be more likely to face deeper impacts in their employment with consequent social impacts in years to come.

Author and contact: A/Prof Mariana Atkins | mariana.atkins@uwa.edu.au

Fact Sheet Ten: Financial Wellbeing and COVID-19

> Download Fact Sheet Ten: Financial Wellbeing and COVID-19 (pdf) (July 2020)

This fact sheet discusses how the key fiscal policy responses of the Australian Federal and State governments have tried to address the impact of the pandemic on financial wellbeing. While there are some areas for improvement, to date the response from government has protected many of the most vulnerable. We focus on the nature of the responses - in particular, the way that the responses can be understood as focused on problems, rather than guided by broader principles of what kind of society we want to build and live in.

Author and contact: Dr Jeremiah Brown | jeremiah_thomas.brown@unsw.edu.au

Fact Sheet Eleven: Using the Social Progress Index to Identify COVID-19 Vulnerabilities

> Download UPDATED Fact Sheet Eleven: Using the Social Progress Index to Identify COVID-19 Vulnerabilities (pdf) (7 October, 2020)

> Download Fact Sheet Eleven: Using the Social Progress Index to Identify COVID-19 Vulnerabilities (pdf) (21 July, 2020)

This fact sheet shows that the bulk of Federal, State and Territory policy responses to COVID-19 have focused on economic protection - specifically on protecting or supporting businesses.

Understandably, there has also been a large investment in basic healthcare that has been able to support rapid COVID-19 testing as well as necessary hospitalisations. However, there were also policies introduced that may ultimately end up harming Australia's social progress.

Fact Sheet Twelve: Teacher Wellbeing and COVID-19

> Download Fact Sheet Twelve: Teacher Wellbeing and COVID-19 (pdf) (August 2020)

Author and contact: Dr Meera Varadharajan | m.varadharajan@unsw.edu.au

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Addressing social issue areas in the context of COVID-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Centre for Social Impact is producing a series of fact sheets to address specific social issue areas in the context of COVID-19. Fact Sheet One: Homelessness > Download UPDATED Fact Sheet One: Homelessness (pdf) (3 April, 2020) > Download Fact Sheet One: Homelessness (pdf) (27 March, 2020) In our first fact sheet (updated at 3 April) CSI discusses the current state of homelessness in Australia and highlights specific risk areas.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.monash.edu/arts/news-and-events/articles/has-covid-19-brought-australian-society-closer-together-or-torn-us-apart-new-report-has-the-answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australia's social cohesion has withstood the COVID-19 pandemic, with attitudes largely positive and trust in government significantly higher, according to the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute's 2020 Mapping Social Cohesion Report.

Released on Thursday, the report is produced by Monash University researchers and uses a survey of more than 140 questions to gauge a nuanced understanding of shifts in public opinion on social cohesion and population issues.

Two national surveys were conducted last year - one in July and one in November - to capture the dynamic situation of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first survey was completed by 3,090 respondents, the second by 2,793.

Report author Emeritus Professor Andrew Markus said that, taken together, the 2020 survey results demonstrate Australia's strength and resilience in the face of a significant crisis.

"In parts of the world, social cohesion has started to fray as the pandemic has evolved, but such fraying has not been observed in Australia," Markus said.

"Here, governments have succeeded in controlling the spread of the virus and there are signs of economic recovery. In November, nearly nine months since the COVID-19 pandemic began to disrupt life across the world - a large majority of Australians remained positive about the future."

Asked if they were 'optimistic or pessimistic about Australia's future?', 70% responded that they were optimistic in July, and that rose to 75% in November.

The impact of COVID-19 has produced a dramatic change in priorities, with a significant majority of respondents (63%) in July nominating it as the most important issue facing Australia, followed by the economy at 15% and climate change at 5%. The economy has been the highest ranked issue in every other survey since 2007 (mentioned by 29% in 2019). In November there was a partial return to the pattern of previous years. COVID-19 remained the dominant issue, but it was selected by a much smaller 32%, while the economy (24%) climate change (13%), and social issues (6%) rose in importance.

The largely positive findings of the report were driven by high levels of satisfaction with government, including the financial support provided to impacted businesses and those who have lost their jobs. At 54%, the 2020 level of trust in government was the highest ever recorded in the surveys, and dramatically reverses the low level of trust over the last decade.

A resounding 85% responded either 'very well' or 'fairly well' when asked 'how well is the federal government responding to the COVID-19 pandemic?' This remained steady in the November wave of the survey (85%).

Support for lockdowns was also high in July, with more than 90% of respondents in the five mainland states indicating they were 'definitely' or 'probably required'. In Victoria, which was the state that endured the most rigorous and sustained second lockdown, 78% of respondents still supported the government response to the crisis in November. When asked if the lockdown was required, 87% indicated that it was.

Australians also rejected the idea that in future Australia should raise barriers and close their country to the world. Asked if they considered globalisation as good or bad, 72% in July and 74% in November indicated that it was good. A new question in 2020 also asked if Australia should 'trade more with the rest of the world', and 28% favoured more, 42% 'about the same' - a combined 70%.

Looking at the economic impacts of the pandemic also yields surprising positivity.

"There is little indication that those whose employment was impacted had substantially heightened negative attitudes," Markus said.

Close to one in four (28%) indicated their employment was impacted, through job loss or working reduced hours. Nevertheless, 73% were satisfied or very satisfied with their financial situation, up from 64% in 2019. When looking just at those whose employment was impacted, satisfaction was at 58% - lower, but still a majority.

Only a quarter (26%) of respondents indicated they were pessimistic about the future overall, while a slightly higher proportion (35%) of those whose employment was impacted felt that way.

Markus said a consistent finding of the Scanlon surveys over the last decade has been the strong level of endorsement of immigration and multiculturalism.

"There has been no significant change in the balance of opinion, though responses are marginally more positive in a number of questions," he said.

The idea that 'multiculturalism has been good for Australia' received continued strong support (84% agreement in 2020, 80% in 2019). Agreement with the proposition that 'accepting immigrants from many different countries makes Australia stronger' also remained steadily high (71%).

A new question in 2020 asked if 'someone who was born outside of Australia is just as likely to be a good citizen as someone born in Australia,' and a very high 90% indicated agreement.

The survey did however, provide evidence of relatively high negative opinion towards Asian Australians, and high levels of concern indicated by Asian Australians, although these levels are in line with previous surveys where earlier data is available.

Asked if they had 'experienced discrimination more often, about the same as before, or less often... since the COVID-19 pandemic began in Australia', the highest proportion indicating increased experience of discrimination, at 39%, was respondents born in an Asian country, compared to 14% of Australia-born respondents.

Asian Australians were also significantly more likely to view 'racism in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic' as a problem (59%, compared to 36% Australia-born, and 35% UK or Ireland-born).

The survey found evidence of young people bearing disproportionate economic costs in the labour market, with 18% of those aged 18-24 having lost their job, compared to 6% aged 25-34.

When the younger cohort was asked if Australia was 'a land of economic opportunity where in the long run hard work brings a better life', 39% disagreed, compared to 27% of people aged 25-34.

Nevertheless, young people remained the most positive towards immigration, multiculturalism and ethnic diversity.

Read the full report here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Has COVID-19 brought Australian society closer together or torn us apart? New report has the answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australia's social cohesion has withstood the COVID-19 pandemic, with attitudes largely positive and trust in government significantly higher, according to the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute's 2020 Mapping Social Cohesion Report. Released on Thursday, the report is produced by Monash University researchers and uses a survey of more than 140 questions to gauge a nuanced understanding of shifts in public opinion on social cohesion and population issues.

# data[].attributes.body
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/poverty-in-childhood-leads-to-poverty-in-adulthood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Poverty and socio-economic disadvantage more broadly, continue to be important public policy issues for Australia.

Based on a measure of poverty commonly used internationally, 13.6 per cent of the Australian population was living in poverty in 2018; this translates to more than 3.24 million people, including 774,000 children aged under 15.

The poverty rate in Australia has remained stubbornly high for over 30 years. Picture: Shutterstock

This is considerably higher than in many other developed countries, including New Zealand, Germany and Ireland.

Moreover, as noted by the Productivity Commission, the poverty rate has remained stubbornly high for over 30 years.

Despite this lack of progress, the Australian Government has acknowledged the importance of the issue, in 2015 joining other nations in adopting the Sustainable Development Goals, one of which is to "end poverty in all its forms" with a national target "to reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions" by 2030.

The Australians stuck below the poverty line

'Remedial' policies - like income support benefits and social housing - are important tools for the Australian government in combating poverty.

But a deeper understanding of the origins and mechanisms underlying poverty can improve the basis for preventative policies that lead to not only better socio-economic outcomes for relatively disadvantaged members of the community, but also fewer demands on government budgets in the long run.

One important potential channel in this regard is poverty in childhood. Sadly, it's to be expected that children who grow up in poverty are more likely to experience poverty in adulthood, for example, because of lower educational opportunities.

However, to date, there has been little direct evidence in Australia on the extent to which poverty in childhood begets poverty in adulthood, or the nature of this 'transmission' of disadvantage.

A deeper understanding of the origins underlying poverty can improve the basis for preventative policies. Picture: Shutterstock

In our report, produced with the support of the Paul Ramsay Foundation, we present new evidence that low household income during childhood is a key predictor of disadvantage in later life.

Our research on the intergenerational transmission of poverty is based on Australia's nationally representative longitudinal household study, the HILDA Survey.

Drawing on all 18 years of data now available, spanning the period 2001 to 2018, we looked at the economic circumstances of children and how these are associated with their economic circumstances as young adults.

Warning on struggle street

The results show thatchildren who grew up in poor households are 3.3 times more likely to be in poverty in adulthood than those who grew up in never-poor households.

And the longer the period of time spent in poverty as a child, the poorer the outcomes in adulthood.

Children from frequently-poor families are 1.8 times more likely to experience frequent adult poverty than regularly-poor children; 2.1 times more likely to experience frequent adult poverty than those occasionally poor as children; and 4.7 times more likely to experience frequent adult poverty than children who grew up in never-poor households.

Our research further shows that experience of poverty during childhood is associated with poorer socio-economic outcomes in terms of educational attainment, labour market performance, health and even overall life satisfaction in early adulthood.

More research is needed to better understand the sources of the intergenerational transmission of poverty. Picture: Getty Images

For example, comparing children from households which experienced several years of income poverty with those who did not, the latter group are 2.4 times more likely to get a university degree, 1.8 times more likely to be employed full-time, and 1.3 times more likely to have a permanent, ongoing job (as opposed to a casual or fixed-term job).

Among the employed, children who were raised in non-poor families earn, on average, an hourly wage rate that is 23 per cent greater than those who experienced poverty as a child.

Growing up in a family with little or no wealth (as distinct from low income) is also an important predictor of lower educational attainment, poorer labour market performance, worse health, and lower overall life satisfaction.

Henderson's legacy: Revisiting universal basic income

Finally, even after we control for a wide range of non-economic parental factors and neighbourhood characteristics, our analysis strongly supports the idea underlying the 'economic resources model'.

This means that experiencing poverty during childhood is associated with dramatically reduced financial sufficiency and dramatically higher chances of being poor as an adult - confirming the idea that poverty begets poverty.

The magnitudes of the estimated associations and the fact that the strongest effects are identified for the poorest families, support the policy case for taking steps to reduce child poverty.

It's highly likely that reductions in child poverty would have substantial benefits - not only for life outcomes and well-being of the children in later life, but also through benefits to the wider community.

These benefits may include increased income tax revenue (from higher rates of labour market participation) and reduced demands on the welfare budget.

Experiencing poverty during childhood is associated with reduced financial sufficiency as an adult. Picture: Shutterstock

That said, more research is needed to better understand the sources of the intergenerational transmission of poverty and the different ways to help people build a better future.

While low parental income may be the key driver of the intergenerational transmission of poverty, it is important to investigate the role played by potential mediating factors - including family circumstances and dynamics, socioeconomic characteristics of the neighbourhood, educational opportunities and outcomes, as well as health and access to health care.

In understanding the mechanisms underlying the 'transmission' of disadvantage, we can work to improve those preventative policies that can lead to better outcomes for the disadvantaged in our communities.

Banner: Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Professor Roger WilkinsDeputy Director, HILDA Survey, Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Melbourne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Dr Esperanza Vera-ToscanoSenior Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poverty in childhood leads to poverty in adulthood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Poverty and socio-economic disadvantage more broadly, continue to be important public policy issues for Australia. Based on a measure of poverty commonly used internationally, 13.6 per cent of the Australian population was living in poverty in 2018; this translates to more than 3.24 million people, including 774,000 children aged under 15.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.vinnies.org.au/page/Publications/National/Articles_Reports__Speeches/Poverty-in-Australia/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Poverty in Australia

Poverty in Australia is of great concern to the St Vincent de Paul Society.

We are committed to helping people build bridges out of poverty and we do this by providing practical assistance and advocating for change. We believe that empowering people, not blaming them, is the answer to combating poverty.

The OECD defines poverty as having less than 50 per cent of the median household income. According to Australian Council of Social Service statistics released in 2016, there are an estimated 2.9 million people living below this poverty line in Australia, including 731,300 children.

During Anti-Poverty Week 2016, Vinnies released a report that found cost of living pressures had a disproportionate impact on households affected by poverty. The report found many goods and services had price rises that were greater than the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The causes of poverty

The causes of poverty in Australia are varied and complex. Vinnies assists people who are unemployed or underemployed by conducting home visits, and providing company and assistance with food and utility bills.

However, we strongly believe the true causes of poverty will only be addressed through structural change, such as addressing inadequate support payments, implementing a comprehensive jobs plan and greater investment in social housing and education.

Vinnies National Council CEO, Dr John Falzon, said the fight against inequality was also a fight against the lies told about people living in poverty in Australia.

"The truth is that people who are structurally locked out of jobs and income adequacy are condemned for being excluded, as if it were a perverse and immoral choice. It is primarily the role of good government to reduce inequality," Dr Falzon said.

About the Two Australias Report

Vinnies has produced a series of reports into poverty in Australia since 2001. The most recent Two Australias report, published in 2013, described an unfavourable picture of two Australias: one where individuals enjoy the fruits of economic growth and another where there is a growing inequality of both opportunities and outcomes.

The report outlines practical recommendations for government in the provision of fundamentals such as housing, health, education, and access to meaningful employment. It emphasises that governments must do what markets cannot to address poverty in Australia.

Two Australias

A report on poverty in the land of plenty

Foreword

In 2001 the St Vincent de Paul Society National Council of Australia launched Two Australias. Authored by former diplomat, Terry McCarthy and economist and former senior government adviser, John Wicks, the report served as a touchstone for robust advocacy. It also helped prepare the way for the historic Senate Inquiry into Poverty and Financial Hardship in 2004.

This revised report owes much to a great many people who have contributed to its preparation. I would like to thank the St Vincent de Paul Society's National President, Anthony Thornton, along with John Wicks, Gavin Dufty, Bess Harrison, Emilija Beljic, Rik Sutherland and Gemma Carey who helped research and write this report and to Colleen O'Sullivan, Donna Scheerlinck and Lachlan Harley who supported this project and helped it through to its completion.

Most of all, though, I wish to thank the people who have borne the brunt of inequality in Australia: the woman and her kids leaving a situation of violence and forced to experience homelessness, the Aboriginal man or woman who has spent many years living with racism and exploitation and who is now facing health problems and the strong possibility of a premature death, the young woman who had access to few, if any, opportunities and attended a woefully under-resourced school and who is now struggling to find work even though she is willing to try her hand at anything, the asylum seeker who came to our shores with only a nugget of hope in his pocket, the family who has lost its source of income because of injury and illness.

In an environment where it is popular to blame people for their poverty, I urge you to salute these people for their courage and to have the humility to listen to their stories and to learn from them. The truth told by the people on the margins speaks louder than the lies told about them.

It has been over ten years since the publication of Two Australias (2001). Sadly, all of the things that angered us then still anger us now. Our members continue to witness the daily struggle of the people in our midst who have been left out or pushed out. We continue to see the denial of fundamental human rights such as the right to appropriate housing, employment and education: a place to live, a place to work, a place to learn. We also continue to see the unconscionable persistence of health inequalities due to disadvantage.

Augustine of Hippo once said: "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage. Anger at the way things are and courage to see that that do not remain the way they are."

It is true that many of us feel worn down by the unremitting resistance to our project of building a more just and compassionate Australia. But this is nothing compared to the cruelty and humiliation meted out to the people who continue to be excluded, from the First Peoples to the most recent arrivals, and everyone in-between who has been locked out of the prosperity this nation is known for. It is because of these courageous people, who we are proud to stand in solidarity with, that we refuse to stop at anger and we dare to have the courage to speak the truth about the emergence of two Australias and the truth about how this trajectory can be changed.

Dr John Falzon
Chief Executive Officer,
St Vincent de Paul Society National Council of Australia

Introduction: The emerging picture of two Australias

In 2001, the St Vincent de Paul Society released its 'Two Australias' Report, which highlighted the levels of disadvantage and inequality in Australian society.

Since then, things have changed. Australia's population has grown by 4 million, while our unemployment rate has fallen. We have weathered the Global Financial Crisis well, and now have one of the strongest economies in the world. Our GDP is high, and our cities are consistently rated amongst the most liveable.

However, despite economic growth and increasing living standards for many Australians, poverty is still on the rise. At present, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 13% of the population is living in relative poverty. This translates to almost three million1 Australians. Indeed, every day members of the St Vincent de Paul Society witness the fact that in 2013 there remain a large group of Australians who are consistently disadvantaged in a range of ways. Every day, people living in poverty have to overcome a number of structural and personal barriers that make surviving difficult, and thriving impossible. These Australians may have very low-paying jobs with insecure and inadequate hours or no paid work at all. They often have poor health or are living with a disability. They struggle to pay their bills or to be able to afford groceries and other essentials. Many live in insecure housing or are forced into a state homelessness in one of the world's most prosperous nations. For these individuals, the feelings of exclusion, isolation and 'being forgotten' are common. Whether measured in terms of real income, social exclusion or multiple deprivation factors, this gap between the two Australias is clearly visible and, arguably, increasing.

In 2000, the McClure Report found that our social support system is out of step with our social and economic milieu. Australia has experienced strong economic growth in some areas, but job opportunities for less skilled workers have stagnated and declined. Over a decade ago, the McClure Report warned that "without appropriate action... Australia may be consigning large numbers of people to an intergenerational cycle of significant joblessness".2

As predicted by the McClure Report, without proper reform our social support system has failed to adequately deal with contemporary social and economic pressures. In failing to adjust to social change, an unfavourable picture is now emerging. This picture is of two Australias: one where individuals enjoy the fruits of economic growth generated by high wages and a rising standard of living, and another where unemployment is high, basic goods and services are increasingly out of financial reach and where there is a growing inequality of both opportunities and outcomes

Part 1: Recommendations for government action

If we are to reverse the trend towards greater division and discordance we, and the governments that represent us, need to make an important choice. We can either blame the people who live in poverty or we can engage in positive action to eliminate poverty. We can either treat social and economic hardship as an individual deficit or we can address the failing social structures and systems that are responsible for the social and economic disparities found across the Australian population. Investing in a strong economy is not enough to prevent two Australias from emerging - the last three decades have demonstrated that wealth and resources do not trickle down. Outmoded, ineffective and under-resourced policies and supports need to be replaced with a social support system that encourages economic participation without causing greater poverty.

The new government is facing a dual challenge based on their key election promises - raising employment while cutting debt and spending. Currently, unemployment in Australia has reached close to its Global Financial Crisis high at 5.8%, and has been forecast to hit 6.25% by mid 2014. Meeting these challenges requires smart economic reforms, careful trade-offs and new sources of revenue. The St Vincent de Paul Society believes that economic participation can be increased through social investment in the under-employed and unemployed, alterations to government allowances and careful taxation and revenue reforms.

The St Vincent de Paul Society warns strongly against falling back on to old and ineffective employment policies. The OECD review of active employment policies, such as 'work for the dole', found that they are expensive and ineffective, particularly in a slowing economy such as the one faced by the Coalition government.3 Policies that emphasise individual responsibilities, without improving individual capacities (i.e. through greater training) fail to redress the barriers faced by disadvantaged and long-term unemployed jobseekers.4 Moreover, they can reinforce the stereotypes of unemployment - stigmatising participants in the eyes of employers. Compulsory Income Management has also shown to be a poor economic investment. These policies have carried high costs for government, with little evidence of effectiveness. Implementing and administering compulsory income management requires additional resources and government infrastructure, costing the government a projected $1billion over 10 years.5 Meanwhile, positive outcomes have been described as "uneven and fragile", with no clear indication of policy success.6

The St Vincent de Paul Society holds that the time for engaging in the false debate between welfare and work is over. By having the courage to embrace smart welfare and taxation reform, economic participation can be increased and cost of living pressures can be relieved for those who need it most, while still protecting the budget bottom line.
1. Creating greater economic participation by addressing underemployment
Many of the policies announced by the Coalition during the election focus on addressing falling labour-force participation caused by an ageing population. A prime example of this is the proposed incentives for employers to employ workers over the age of 50. However, falling labour-force participation can be addressed by ensuring the full economic participation of citizens who are currently subsisting on low incomes due to underemployment or unemployment.

While the official unemployment rate sits at 5.8%, there are currently around 800,000 Australians who are underemployed. 7 This constitutes a further 6.7% of Australian workers, 70% of which are women.8 Over half of these workers would prefer to have full-time work.

By providing the opportunity for these workers to shift into fulltime work, the government can increase economic productivity and assist those on low incomes to cope with the rising cost of living. To achieve this, every effort must be made to create pathways to employment. Job Guarantee Schemes have been recommended by some economists as a way to address unemployment in the face of a declining job market. These schemes, which should not be mistaken for 'work for the dole' schemes, need to be explored as a means of providing on-the-job training opportunities, including literacy and numeracy skills, while offering the minimum wage and with a focus on transition to jobs that are better paid and offer more meaningful economic and social participation. 10 The argument that wages and conditions need to be lowered as a means of increasing employment participation is to be rejected as retrograde step that not only cements the persistence of poverty but also acts as a dangerous distraction from our need to aim for productivity gains through innovation, skills development and more sophisticated technology rather than through exploitation.

In 2000, the McClure Report urged government to re-orientate the welfare system to become a 'social support system'. This means investing in the skills and training of those most at risk of joblessness, such as low skilled workers, through on-the-job training and an increase in TAFE positions. The McClure Report also advocated for participation payments, where those in full-time low income employment are eligible for salary top-ups. These payments, along with indexing social support to the cost of living, can help to prevent the steady slide into two Australias.
2. Creating economic participation by addressing cost of living pressures
A key pillar of the Coalition election campaign has been easing cost of living pressures. New research indicates that the cost of living is rising higher than official data shows.11,12 The Lonergan Research Cost of Living Survey showed that the rising cost of groceries, transport, housing and health are negatively impacting Australians. While Australia has experienced a rising standard of living, this has not been distributed evenly. Low-income individuals and families have been hardest hit by cost of living pressures.

The St Vincent de Paul Society calls on the government to address cost of living pressures, starting with those more affected, thereby meeting their key election promise. Investing in a comprehensive cost of living strategy makes economic sense. This approach would see a shift away from short-term emergency solutions that carry high costs but fail to address underlying issues.

2.1 Measuring the real cost of living

At present, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is used to measure the cost of living. Research conducted by the St Vincent de Paul Society has shown that CPI is a poor measure of cost of living. As stated in our report on CPI and the changing cost pressures on different households, "CPI significantly underestimates the true increase in the price of the 'basket of commodities which these household groups typically consume". 13

The St Vincent de Paul Society has found that price increases in goods and services have disproportionate impacts on different household groups and individuals. For example, increases in education costs have a greater impact on larger families and increases in the cost of essential services have a greater impact on government pension recipients. In particular, individuals and families on government pensions are more vulnerable to 'price shocks' - significant increases in prices of essential items over the last ten years.

In easing cost of living pressures, the government needs to begin with those most heavily affected. At present, the increase in the types of items that make up the vast majority of low income households' purchases (i.e. food, education, transport, housing and utility bills) are rising at 8.7% higher than CPI. 14

If the government is serious about increasing economic participation, they will review CPI measures and develop a comprehensive cost of living strategy. Indexing government benefits to CPI has meant that in real terms benefits have remained static while the cost of living has continued to grow. This has created a widening gap between the after-tax minimum wage and government benefits such as Newstart. As suggested by Peter Whiteford, from the Social Policy Research Centre, it is time to find ways to incentivise work that do not impoverish the poor.15
2.2 Honouring the proposed welfare supplement and increasing the Newstart allowance
There is a well established relationship between low income from welfare and persistent poverty: nearly half of all households surviving on unemployment benefits will still be living in poverty two years later.16

There is an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests that the current rate of Newstart is too low to cover accommodation, power, transport, food and health costs. 17 By reversing the offer of a modest $4 a week increase, the government will only further entrench poverty and reduce the potential for economic participation.

Instead, the government needs to increase the Newstart allowance by $50 and index all government benefits to the actual cost of living.

Safe, stable, and affordable housing is a key component to an individual's wellbeing and provides a secure base from which people can participate in the economy. A first step in securing the economic participation of people in housing stress is to adjust rental and housing rebates to reflect increases in the rental market, rather than CPI. We have found that secure and affordable housing provides a platform from which people can look for employment.
4. Creating greater economic participation by providing adequate supports to asylum seekers

'Stopping the boats' might work as a populist slogan but does nothing to address the push-factors causing people to risk everything in their struggle to find a place of safety and hope. Neither does it address the hardship of asylum seekers already living in our communities. At present, asylum seekers on bridging visas do not have the right to work in voluntary or paid positions.18
1. A Picture of Disadvantage
1.1 Income
1.2 Wealth
The St Vincent de Paul Society sees the everyday reality and consequences of social exclusion. Our work cuts across many dimensions of social exclusion, including access to suitable employment or participation opportunities, access to adequate housing, ability to purchase consumer goods, positive self-esteem and mental health, access to good food and exercise opportunities, healthcare for physical illness and disability, freedom from crime, access to opportunities including education and meaningful work, family and community engagement, and political participation.
1.4 . Who are the disadvantaged?
Similarly, research by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, discussed above, shows that people who are experiencing deep social exclusion are likely to have particular characteristics. Immigrants and Indigenous Australians and those living in public housing are particularly vulnerable when it comes to social exclusion. Single people and lone parents experience more social exclusion than couples, and long-term health conditions and limited education are also correlated with social exclusion.44 People experiencing social exclusion are also three times less likely to have completed Year 12.45 These findings are also supported by the Productivity Commission's latest report. 46
Conclusion 2. The Costs of Disadvantage
The implications of not addressing disadvantage and exclusion are substantial and long-term. Disadvantage has both social and economic costs for individuals and the broader community.

For individuals and families, the costs of disadvantage are high. These costs continue to accumulate and deepen, as we in the St Vincent de Paul Society see every day. More broadly, we find that failing to address disadvantage is imposing high costs on our society and economy. In 2012 NATSEM released a study on addressing the 'gap' between rich and poor, highlighting the economic benefits of addressing social inequality. The authors estimated annual savings of $2.3 billion in hospital expenditure, and $458 million in Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme savings.48 The Productivity Commission identified additional savings related to crime, anti-social behaviour, relationship breakdowns and 'spill over' effects.49

There is also a growing critique of the types of programmes and interventions being implemented by governments. We are increasingly seeing short-term emergency solutions to problems such as chronic illness, housing stress, and educational deficits. For example, pursuing reactive and out-dated approaches to health policy, instead of investing in longer-term infrastructure, is costing at least $2.3 billion annually.50 Similarly, rather than placing money into short-term homelessness projects, there are programmes that could save twice as much as they cost in the long-term.51 Paternalistic and punitive solutions imposed from above such as compulsory income management and Centrelink penalties will also continue to miss the mark because of their disempowering and humiliating characteristics.
2.1 The public funding aid, through charities
By failing to address the underlying drivers and disadvantage and invest wisely to address it, current government action places much of the responsibility for these problems on the charitable sector.

The St Vincent de Paul Society and the many other charities and community organisations continue to give what assistance we can, thanks to the generosity and sense of fairness of the members of the Australian community. But government has no right to abrogate its responsibility to ensure that the people of this country, from the First Peoples to the most recent arrivals, and everyone in-between, are not denied the essentials of life. The market is an excellent mechanism for providing a dazzling array of choices for consumers. Our sad experience, however, is that for those who have been left out, choices are few and deprivations are many. This is where, especially in the provision of the fundamentals of life such as housing, health, education, and access to meaningful employment, government must do what markets cannot.

As a rule, the people we assist do not want charity. They want justice. They want fairness. They do not want to be pitied. They want to be respected. They want to be heard.

As it is, however, not-for-profits provide around $43 billion to the Australian economy each year.52 As charities increasingly become the default providers of services - accommodation for the homeless, food for refugees who are not allowed to work, electricity bills for older Australians who can't afford to pay, significant support to the mentally ill - the situation becomes less and less sustainable. There is growing evidence, and a growing number of voices, suggesting that charities simply don't have the resources to meet these escalating needs.53

Various iterations of the "Big Society" as it is known in the UK, whilst singing the praises of civil society, run the profound risk of allowing governments off the hook as far as their responsibilities to their people.
2.2 Impact on national identity
The costs of disadvantage are borne predominantly by the disadvantaged, but also by all of us through economic losses, social disunity, and unsustainable pressure on the not-for-profit sector. But there is also a cost that we as a nation play, as our identity changes. The high level of disadvantage in our midst seriously challenges our claim to be a nation of a fair go for all.

The St Vincent de Paul Society fears that our national identity is already splintering, and our aspirations are becoming divisive rather than unifying. There is a growing sense of a sense of "us" (the haves) vs "them" (the have-nots).
Click Below to download the (PDF)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poverty - A Report on Poverty in Australia | Vinnies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Poverty in Australia is of great concern to the St Vincent de Paul Society. We are committed to helping people build bridges out of poverty and we do this by providing practical assistance and advocating for change. We believe that empowering people, not blaming them, is the answer to combating poverty.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/feminism-and-women-s-rights-movements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are people who believe that we do not need feminism today, but nothing could be further from the truth. Women have struggled for equality and against oppression for centuries, and although some battles have been partly won - such as the right to vote and equal access to education - women are still disproportionally affected by all forms of violence and by discrimination in every aspect of life.

It is true that in some areas and on certain issues, there have been improvements: for example, in Saudi Arabia women were allowed, for the first time, to vote and run for office in 2015(!). However, on other issues there has been little or no progress: for example, there have been insignificant reductions in cases of violence against women. Women continue to receive lower pay for the same work as men in all parts of the world; there are still countries that do not have laws against marital rape and still allow child brides, and practices such as 'honour' killings and female genital mutilation still exist.

Jokes about feminism and stereotypes about feminists persist, and many of these are also homophobic and assume that being lesbian is something 'bad'. In fact, being a feminist is not something particular to any sex or gender: there are women and men who consider themselves feminists, some are gay or lesbian, some heterosexual, bisexual or transgender - and some may identify differently.

The concept of feminism reflects a history of different struggles, and the term has been interpreted in fuller and more complex ways as understanding has developed. In general, feminism can be seen as a movement to put an end to sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression and to achieve full gender equality in law and in practice.

Women's movements and the history of feminism

There have been many extraordinary women who have played an important role in local or world history, but not all of these have necessarily been advocates of women's issues. The women's movement is made up of women and men who work and fight to achieve gender equality and to improve the lives of women as a social group. In most societies, women were traditionally confined to the home as daughters, wives and mothers, and we are often only aware of women in history because of their relation to famous men. Of course many women throughout history did in fact play an important role in cultural and political life, but they tend to be invisible. An organised women's movement only really started in the 19th century, even though women activists and the struggle for equality have always been part of all human societies.

One of the early pioneers, who thought and wrote about women as a group, is the Italian writer Christine de Pizan, who published a book about women's position in society as early as 1495. Christine de Pizan wrote about books she had read by famous men, who wrote books about the sins and weaknesses of girls and women, and questioned whether women were really human beings at all, or whether they were more similar to animals. Christine de Pizan's work offers a good example of the early stages of the struggle for women's equality. However, she was very unusual in being able to read and write, which was not at all common for women of that time.

In later history, women took part in the French revolution from the very beginning: the demonstrations that led to the revolution started with a large group of working women marching to Versailles to demand not only food to feed their families, but also political change. However, the French Revolution did not lead to proper recognition of women's rights. For that reason, in September 1791, Olympe de Gouges wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen, in response to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and with the intention of exposing the failure of the French Revolution to recognise gender equality. As a result of her writings de Gouges was accused, tried and convicted of treason, resulting in her immediate execution.

The women's movement began to develop in North America, mainly because women there were allowed to go to school earlier than in Europe - and women who can read and write, and who are encouraged to think for themselves, usually start to question how society works. The first activists travelled around North America and fought for the end of both slavery and women's oppression. They organised the 'First Women's Rights Convention' in 1848, and continued to campaign to improve the social position of all women. The movement also began in Europe with the same broad aims: activists collected signatures demanding that working women should receive their own wages and not their husbands', that women should be able to own a house and have custody of their children.

First wave of feminism

The fight for women's right to vote in elections is known as the 'suffragette movement'. By the end of the 19th century, this had become a worldwide movement, and the words 'feminism' and 'feminist movement' started to be used from that point on.

This first wave of feminism activism included mass demonstrations, the publishing of newspapers, organised debates, and the establishment of international women's organisations. By the 1920s, women had won the right to vote in most European countries and in North America. At around the same time, women became more active in communist, socialist and social democratic parties because increasing numbers of women began to work outside the home in factories and offices. Women were first allowed to go to university in the early 20th century, having both a career and a family. In certain countries, when fascist parties gained power the feminist movement was banned.

Women started organising again after the end of the Second World War, and they soon gained equal political rights in most European countries, with women's emancipation becoming an important aim and most women being allowed to take on full-time jobs, divorce their husbands and go to university.

Second wave of feminism

In Western Europe and the USA, the feminist movement was resurgent by the 1970s. Although this second wave of feminism aimed to achieve 'women's liberation', different groups had different ideas about how this should be done. Liberal feminists wanted better equality laws and reform of institutions such as schools, churches and the media. Radical feminists argued that the root cause of women's inequality is patriarchy: men, as a group, oppress women. They also focused on violence against women by men and started to talk about violence in the family, and rape. Socialist feminists argued that it is a combination of patriarchy and capitalism that causes women's oppression.

The second wave of feminism also resulted in new areas of science: women's studies became a discipline to be studied at university, and books began to be published about women's achievements in literature, music and science, and recording women's previously unwritten history.

Finally, the women's movement played an important role in the drafting of international documents about women's rights, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979).

Third wave of feminism

The third wave of feminism mainly refers to the American movement in the 1990s, and was a reaction to the backlash of conservative media and politicians announcing the end of feminism or referring to 'post-feminism'. The term 'backlash' was popularised by Susan Faludi in her book Backlash. The Undeclared War against Women, published in 1991, and describing the negative reaction of the patriarchal system towards women's liberation. This was hardly a new phenomenon: women's movements had always been met with antagonism. However, in the 1980s, institutionalised forms of attacks on women's rights grew stronger. The third wave of feminism can be characterised by an increased awareness of overlapping categories, such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation. More emphasis was also placed on racial issues, including the status of women in other parts of the world (global feminism). This was also a moment when a number of feminist non-governmental organisations were established, but focusing on specific feminist issues, rather than claiming to represent general feminist ideas.

Third wave feminism actively uses media and pop culture to promote its ideas and to run activities, for example by publishing blogs or e-zines. It focuses on bringing feminism closer to the people's daily lives. The main issues that third wave feminists are concerned about include: sexual harassment, domestic violence, the pay gap between men and women, eating disorders and body image, sexual and reproductive rights, honour crimes and female genital mutilation.

Cyberfeminism and networked feminism (fourth-wave feminism)

The term cyberfeminism is used to describe the work of feminists interested in theorising, critiquing, and making use of the Internet, cyberspace, and newmedia technologies in general. The term and movement grew out of 'third-wave' feminism. However, the exact meaning is still unclear to some: even at the first meeting of cyberfeminists The First Cyberfeminist International (FCI) in Kassel (Germany), participants found it hard to provide a definition, and as a result of discussions, they proposed 100 anti-theses (with reference to Martin Luther's theses) on what cyberfeminism is not. These included, for example, it is not an institution, it is not an ideology, it is not an -ism.

Cyberfeminism is considered to be a predecessor of 'networked feminism', which refers generally to feminism on the Internet: for example, mobilising people to take action against sexism, misogyny or gender-based violence against women. One example is the online movement #metoo in 2017, which was a response on social networks from women all over the world to the case of Harvey Weinstein, a Hollywood producer who was accused of sexually harassing female staff in the movie industry.

Sexism

This term is very often present in feminist literature as well as in the media and everyday life, and it is an important concept in understanding feminism. Sexism means perceiving and judging people only on the basis of their belonging to a particular sex or gender. It also covers discrimination of a person on the same basis. It is important to note that sexism applies to both men and women, however, women are more affected by sexism than men in all areas of life. Everyday sexism takes different forms, sometimes not easily recognisable - for example, telling jokes about girls, commenting on the female body (objectifying women), reacting to the way women are dressed, assigning women easier tasks in Internet games or objectifying women in advertising.

The literature mentions three types of sexism

Traditional sexism: supporting traditional gender roles, treating women as worse than men, employing traditional stereotypes which portray women as less competent than men.

Modern sexism: denying gender discrimination ('it is not a problem anymore'), having a negative attitude towards women's rights, denying the validity of claims made by women

Neosexism: This notion refers to ideologies that justify discrimination towards women on the basis of competences - 'men are effectively better competent for some things' - for example in managerial or leadership positions, and not on a direct discrimination of women. Defenders of these ideas tend to ignore or deny the difficulties faced by women in society as having an influence on 'competences'.

If it is true that the situation of women's human rights has improved in recent years, this does not mean that sexism has ended.
In March 2019, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation CM/Rec(2019)1 on preventing and combating sexism. The Recommendation defines sexism as
any act, gesture, visual representation, spoken or written words, practice or behaviour based upon the idea that a person or a group of persons is inferior because of their sex, which occurs in the public or private sphere, whether online or offline, with the purpose or effect of:

Violating the inherent dignity or rights of a person or a group of persons;

Resulting in physical, sexual, psychological or socio-economic harm or suffering to a person or a group of persons;

Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment;

Constituting a barrier to the autonomy and full realisation of human rights by a person or a group of persons;

Maintaining and reinforcing gender stereotypes.

The Recommendation stresses that sexism is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which leads to discrimination and prevents the full advancement of women in society. The Committee of Ministers asks Governments of member states to take measures to prevent and combat sexism and its manifestations in the public and private spheres, and encourage relevant stakeholders to implement appropriate legislation, policies and programmes.

Women's rights are human rights

Why do we need women's rights, when these are simply human rights? Why do we need human rights treaties about women's rights, when we have already general human rights instruments? Almost everywhere in the world, women are denied their human rights just because of their sex or gender. Women's rights should not be seen as special rights: they are human rights enshrined in international human rights treaties and other documents, and include such rights as freedom from discrimination, right to life, freedom from torture, right to privacy, access to health, right to decent living conditions, right to safety, and many others. However, there are also human rights instruments that take into account the specific situation of women in society with regards to accessing or exercising their human rights, or which aim to protect them from violence.

52. 100 anti-theses
53. Based on: Todd. D. Nelson, Psychology of Prejudice, Pearsons Education, Inc. publishing as Allyn and Bacon, 2002

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feminism and Women's Rights Movements - Gender Matters - www.coe.int

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are people who believe that we do not need feminism today, but nothing could be further from the truth. Women have struggled for equality and against oppression for centuries, and although some battles have been partly won - such as the right to vote and equal access to education - women are still disproportionally affected by all forms of violence and by discrimination in every aspect of life.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/mandated-areas1/human-rights.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/womens-rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Due to some social structures, traditions, stereotypes and attitudes about women and their role in society, women do not always have the opportunity and ability to access and enforce their rights on the same basis as men.

Women have historically been excluded from large parts of public and political life in Australian society. For example, women were not elected to the Commonwealth Parliament until 1943. It wasn't until 1965 that Australian women won the right to drink in a public bar. During the 1960s women working in the public service and in many private companies were forced to resign from their jobs when they got married.

While we've come a long way in the last 100 years, there are still many areas in Australian society in which women and girls experience unequal treatment.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Did you know that Australian women are paid 17.5% less than men doing the same work? This means that they would have to work an extra 64 days a year to get the same pay as men doing the same work.

This gender pay gap is influenced by a range of interconnected factors, including stereotypes about the work women and men 'should' do, and the way women and men 'should' engage in the workforce.

For instance, why is it that social and community workers are underpaid? Is it because these are unimportant jobs or is it because women have traditionally done this work?

Other factors that contribute to the gender pay gap include: discrimination, a lack of women in senior positions, a lack of part-time or flexible roles that accommodate for family responsibilities, and differences in education and work experience.

Violence against Women
Violence against women is one of the most widespread human rights abuses in Australia and around the world.
One in three Australian women will experience violence in an intimate relationship, and one in five women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. Additionally, domestic violence is the biggest cause of homelessness for Australian women.

This isn't about strangers. It's deeply personal, and it's happening to people we know and care about.

If you are experiencing violence, contact the National Sexual Assault, Domestic Family Violence Counselling Service on 1800RESPECT or click here to visit their website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Women's rights are human rights. Due to some social structures, traditions, stereotypes and attitudes about women and their role in society, women do not always have the opportunity and ability to access and enforce their rights on the same basis as men.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Immigration News, Research and Analysis - The Conversation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Browse Immigration news, research and analysis from The Conversation

# data[].attributes.body
https://indaily.com.au/news/2022/02/25/govt-in-no-rush-to-allow-voluntary-euthanasia-despite-legislation/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voluntary assisted dying advocates say a government decision to hold off allowing euthanasia until March 29, 2023 - 21 months after legislation passed - will prolong the suffering of South Australians with terminal illness.

Supporters of a Voluntary Assisted Dying bill during a candle light rally on the steps of Parliament House in May. Photo: Kelly Barnes/AAP

It comes after SA Health this week released tenders to develop an information system and training package for the implementation of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021, which passed state parliament in a historic vote in June.

The government has indicated that the laws will come into effect on March 29, 2023, with Health Minister Stephen Wade previously telling parliament that it was important to "take the time you need to plan and implement such an important initiative".

But SA Health would not answer questions from InDaily about why the legislation would take over a year to come into effect, citing an ongoing tender process.

Voluntary Assisted Dying South Australia president Frances Coombe, who is on a government-appointed taskforce to guide the implementation of the legislation, told InDaily advocates were pushing for a November 30, 2022 start-date in accordance with the time it took to enforce euthanasia laws in other states.

She said states including Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania had provided South Australia with guidelines and information about how they implemented their legislation and South Australia "doesn't need to reinvent the wheel".

"Considering the other states - Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania and also Queensland - have worked through the implementation process and are willing to share all that information with us, we don't see why it should take that long," she said.

"The March 29 date next year means South Australia's going to take 100 days longer than Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania and 200 days later than Queensland to implement the legislation.

"The actual impact is people are effectively forced to suffer."

Coombe said the taskforce, chaired by Australian Medical Association vice-president Dr Chris Moy, was working with SA Health to try to bring the implementation start date forward.

She said next month's election shouldn't cause a delay, as other states had also implemented legislation during an election year.

"We're just going to have to keep pushing," Coombe said.

"We have asked people to contact their members of parliament asking when the Act is going to commence to keep that pressure up.

"People need to realise that people are suffering in the meantime."

Meanwhile, SA Health is looking to appoint an education provider to deliver training to clinicians on voluntary assisted dying.

According to a tender document released this week, the training will help clinicians understand how voluntary assisted dying will work in practice and the legal framework for its use in South Australia.

SA Health has released a separate tender to develop an information system to monitor compliance of clinicians and to store voluntary assisted dying data.

"The system will be both internal for SA Health clinicians and externally facing for General Practitioners (GPs) and private clinicians who will require access to participate," the tender document states.

Coombe described the release of the tenders as "good progress".

"Certainly, the taskforce has been getting a lot of support from SA Health and there's a lot of work going on there," she said.

"We would hope that that would work for an earlier commencement by November 30.

"It would certainly be saving people that awful choice of either suffering until the bitter end or forced to make a decision to take their own lives."

The Australian Medical Association predicts about 100 South Australians will choose to access voluntary assisted dying each year.

In a submission to political parties ahead of next month's election, the association said it was concerned that funding and resources for palliative care could be overlooked once the voluntary assisted dying scheme starts.

Get InDaily in your inbox. Daily. The best local news every workday at lunch time.

Thanks for signing up to the InDaily newsletter.

"We believe it is vital that every South Australian seeking end of life care should be able to expect those services, as outlined in some of the world's best legislation for caring for those at the end of life," it wrote.

In response to questions from InDaily, SA Health sent a link to its website, which states the government was "committed to ensuring implementation is managed with expertise, experience and compassion for the safe operation of voluntary assisted dying".

Donate today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Govt in no rush to allow voluntary euthanasia despite legislation - InDaily

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voluntary assisted dying advocates say a government decision to hold off allowing euthanasia until March 29, 2023 - 21 months after legislation passed - will prolong the suffering of South Australians with terminal illness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but many are open to restrictions; many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances

Protesters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021, as the court was hearing oral arguments over a Mississippi law restricting abortions in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post/Getty Images)

The abortion debate in America is often framed as a legal binary, with "pro-life" people on one side, seeking to restrict abortion's availability, and "pro-choice" people on the other, opposing government restrictions on abortion.

But as the country approaches what could be a watershed moment in the history of abortion laws and policies, relatively few Americans on either side of the debate take an absolutist view on the legality of abortion - either supporting or opposing it at all times, regardless of circumstances.

A new Pew Research Center survey explores in detail the nuances of the public's attitudes on this issue. The survey was conducted March 7-13, 2022 - after the Supreme Court's oral arguments on a case this term challenging the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a federal right to abortion, but before the May 2 publication of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court majority opinion that suggests the court is poised to strike down Roe.

Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (19%) say that abortion should be legal in all cases, with no exceptions. Fewer (8%) say abortion should be illegal in every case, without exception. By contrast, 71% either say it should be mostly legal or mostly illegal, or say there are exceptions to their blanket support for, or opposition to, legal abortion.

As in the past, more Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances (61%) than illegal in all or most circumstances (37%). But in many ways, the public's attitudes are contingent upon such circumstances as when an abortion takes place during a woman's pregnancy, whether the pregnancy endangers a woman's life and whether a baby would have severe health problems.

There is evidence that many people are cross-pressured on this issue. For example, more than half of Americans who generally support abortion rights - by saying it should be legal in "most" or "all" cases - also say the timing of an abortion (i.e., how far along the pregnancy is) should be a factor in determining its legality (56%).

The same share of people who generally support legal abortion say abortion providers should be required to get the consent of a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor (56%).

And about a third of Americans who generally support legal abortion (33%) say the statement "human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights" describes their own view at least "somewhat" well.

At the same time, large shares of those who generally oppose abortion say it should be legal in certain situations or say their position depends on the circumstances. For example, among those who say abortion should be against the law in most or all cases, nearly half (46%) say it should be legal if the pregnancy threatens the health or life of the woman. An additional 27% say "it depends" in this situation, while 27% say abortion should be illegal even in circumstances that threaten the health or life of the pregnant woman.

More than a third of abortion opponents (36%) say it should be legal if the pregnancy results from rape, with 27% saying "it depends" and 37% expressing opposition to legal abortion even in this situation. And four-in-ten abortion opponents (41%) say the statement "the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman" describes their own view at least "somewhat" well.

Among Americans overall, most people (72%) say that "the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman" describes their views at least somewhat well, and more than half (56%) say the same about the statement "human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights."

A third of Americans hold these seemingly conflicting views about the autonomy of pregnant women and the rights of the fetus at the same time, saying that both statements describe their views either extremely well, very well, or somewhat well.

Moreover, the survey finds a distinction between how Americans feel about abortion in moral terms and in legal terms. While many (47%) see abortion as morally wrong in most or all cases, fewer (22%) say that abortion should be illegal in every situation where they believe it is immoral. Nearly half of U.S. adults (48%) say there are circumstances in which abortion is morally wrong but should nevertheless be legal.

And while nearly six-in-ten adults (57%) say they think stricter abortion laws would reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States, similar or larger shares say that increasing support for pregnant women (65%), expanding sex education (60%) and increasing support for parents (58%) would have the same effect.

These are among the key findings of a new Pew Research Center survey, conducted among 10,441 adults on the Center's American Trends Panel. The Center has asked the public about their opinions on abortion for decades, but many of the questions in this survey are new, aimed at providing a more nuanced picture of public opinion.

On the Center's long-running question about the legality of abortion - which asks whether it should generally be illegal in all cases, illegal in most cases, legal in most cases, or legal in all cases - public views have remained relatively stable in recent years. But support for legal abortion is as high today as at any point in surveys asking this question since 1995.

Most Americans typically do not give a lot of thought to issues around abortion: 36% say, prior to taking the survey in March, they had given a lot of thought to abortion-related issues.

Broad public agreement that abortion should be legal if pregnancy endangers a woman's health or is the result of rape

While most Americans do not have absolutist views about abortion - desiring neither to see it completely outlawed nor permitted without exception - there are certain situations in which there is clear consensus abortion should be legal.

Nearly three-quarters of adults (73%) say abortion should be legal if the woman's life or health is endangered by the pregnancy, while just 11% say it should be illegal. And about seven-in-ten say abortion should be legal if the pregnancy is a result of rape, with just 15% saying it should be illegal in this case.

A smaller majority of U.S. adults (53%) say abortion should be legal if the baby is likely to be born with severe disabilities or health problems - though in this situation, too, a far larger share say abortion should be legal than say it should be against the law (19% say it should be illegal in such cases, while a quarter say "it depends").

Most Americans open to some restrictions on abortion

At the same time, the survey shows that large numbers of Americans favor certain restrictions on access to abortions. For example, seven-in-ten say doctors should be required to notify a parent or legal guardian of minors seeking abortions. And most of those who say abortion should be legal in some cases and illegal in others say that how long a woman has been pregnant should be a factor in determining whether abortion is legal or illegal (56% among all U.S. adults).

Combined with the 8% of U.S. adults who say abortion should be against the law in all cases with no exceptions, this means that nearly two-thirds of the public thinks abortion either should be entirely illegal at every stage of a pregnancy or should become illegal, at least in some cases, at some point during the course of a pregnancy.

On the other side, combining the 56% of U.S. adults who say how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining the legality of abortion with the 19% who say abortion should be legal in all cases also means that about three-quarters of the public thinks abortion either should be entirely legal at every stage of a pregnancy or should be legal, at least in some cases, at some point in a pregnancy.

When, exactly, during a pregnancy should abortion be legal, and at what point should it become illegal? To help answer this question, the survey posed follow-up queries about three periods: six weeks (when cardiac activity - sometimes called a fetal heartbeat - can be detected), 14 weeks (roughly the end of the first trimester), and 24 weeks (near the end of the second trimester).

The survey data shows that as pregnancy progresses, opposition to legal abortion grows and support for legal abortion declines. Americans are about twice as likely to say abortion should be legal at six weeks than to say it should be illegal at this stage of a pregnancy: 44% of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal at six weeks (including those who say it should be legal in all cases without exception), 21% say it should be illegal at six weeks (including those who say abortion should always be illegal), and another 19% say whether it should be legal or not at six weeks "depends." (An additional 14% say the stage of pregnancy shouldn't factor into determining whether abortion is legal or illegal, including 7% who generally think abortion should be legal, and 6% who generally think it should be illegal.)

At 14 weeks, the share saying abortion should be legal declines to 34%, while 27% say illegal and 22% say "it depends."

When asked about the legality of abortion at 24 weeks of pregnancy (described as a point when a healthy fetus could survive outside the woman's body, with medical attention), Americans are about twice as likely to say abortion should be illegal as to say it should be legal at this time point (43% vs. 22%), with 18% saying "it depends."

However, in a follow-up question, 44% of those who initially say abortion should be illegal at this late stage go on to say that, in cases where the woman's life is threatened or the baby will be born with severe disabilities, abortion should be legal at 24 weeks. An additional 48% answer the follow-up question by saying "it depends," and 7% reiterate that abortion should be illegal at this stage of pregnancy even if the woman's life is in danger or the baby faces severe disabilities.

Views of penalties for abortion in situations where it is illegal

If most people think there are at least some situations in which abortion should be against the law, an obvious follow-up question is: Who should face legal penalties if an abortion is performed illegally? And what should those penalties entail?

The survey asked whether four types of people should face penalties if an abortion takes place in a situation where it is illegal: doctors or medical providers who perform abortions, women who have abortions, people who help pay for abortions and people who help find or schedule abortions.

Six-in-ten U.S. adults say that if doctors and other providers perform abortions in situations where it is illegal, then they should face penalties - including 25% who say the doctors/providers should serve jail time for performing abortions illegally, 18% who say they should face fines or community service, and 17% who aren't sure what type of penalty would be appropriate. In response to a separate question, 31% of Americans say doctors should lose their medical licenses for performing an abortion illegally.

Compared with views on penalizing doctors, there is less support for punishing women who obtain an abortion illegally or for punishing people who help find, schedule and pay for the procedures. Nearly half of U.S. adults (47%) say women who obtain an abortion illegally should be penalized for doing so, while half say such women should not face penalties. Roughly four-in-ten favor legal punishments for people who help pay for an abortion that is performed illegally (43%) or who help find and schedule it (41%).

Support for punishing those who perform or obtain abortions illegally is tied to views about whether abortion should be legal or illegal in the first place. Still, 55% of those who say abortion should be legal, with some exceptions, say doctors who perform abortions in situations where it is illegal should face penalties, as do overwhelming shares of those who say abortion should always or mostly be illegal. See Chapter 1 for details.

Partisan differences in views of abortion

There are wide differences between the views of Democrats and Republicans on abortion. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say it should be illegal in most or all cases.

And in every specific scenario asked about in the survey - including situations where pregnancy threatens the life or health of the woman, or where pregnancy is the result of rape - Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say abortion should be legal.

Still, most Democrats say there are at least some instances in which abortion should be illegal, and most Republicans say there are at least some instances in which abortion should be legal, including when the life or health of the pregnant woman is at risk and when the pregnancy is the result of rape.

About half of Democrats and roughly two-thirds of Republicans say the stage of pregnancy should be a factor in determining abortion's legality. Four-in-ten Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (40%) say the statement "human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights" describes their own view at least somewhat well, and more than half of Republicans and GOP leaners (55%) say the same about the statement "the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman."

Women are more likely than men to have thought 'a lot' about abortion, but there are only modest gender differences in views of legality

More than half of U.S. adults - including 60% of women and 51% of men - say that women should have a greater say than men in setting abortion policy. Just 3% of U.S. adults say men should have more influence over abortion policy than women, with the remainder (39%) saying women and men should have equal say when it comes to making abortion policy.

The survey also finds that by some metrics, women report being closer to the issue than men. For example, women are more likely than men to say they have thought "a lot" about abortion (40% vs. 30%). They are also considerably more likely to say they personally know someone who has had an abortion (66% vs. 51%) - a gap that is evident across age groups, political parties and religious groups.

But there are only modest gender differences on the survey's questions about abortion's legality; women and men mostly agree with each other that abortion should be legal in cases of danger to the life or health of the pregnant woman and in the case of rape. More than half of both women and men agree that how long a woman has been pregnant should be a factor in determining whether abortion is legal in any given case. And while women are slightly more likely than men to say abortion should be legal in all cases with no exceptions (21% vs. 17%), large majorities of both women (68%) and men (74%) say there are some cases where abortion should be legal and others where it should be illegal.

White evangelicals are most opposed to abortion - but majorities across Christian subgroups see gray areas

Among religious groups analyzed in the survey, White evangelical Protestants are most opposed to abortion. Nearly three-quarters say that abortion should be against the law in all cases without exception (21%) or that it should be illegal in most cases (53%). White evangelicals are also far more likely than U.S. adults who identify with other religious groups to say that life begins at conception and that the fetus is thus a person with rights; 86% of White evangelicals express this view. White evangelicals are also more likely than those in other Christian groups to say their opinions on abortion are influenced by their religious beliefs.

At the other end of the spectrum, religious "nones" - U.S. adults who describe themselves, religiously, as atheists, agnostics or "nothing in particular" - are most supportive of legal abortion. Among religious "nones," upwards of eight-in-ten say abortion should be legal in all cases with no exceptions (34%) or that it should be legal in most cases (51%). Self-described atheists are more absolutist in their opinions about abortion than any other religious group analyzed in the survey, with 53% saying abortion should be legal in all cases, no exceptions.

White Protestants who are not evangelical, Black Protestants, and Catholics tend to be less opposed to legal abortion than White evangelicals, but they are also less supportive of it than religious "nones."

One commonality across these groups is that sizable numbers in all of them see the issue of abortion in shades of gray. Large majorities in every group - ranging from 63% of religious "nones" to 78% of White non-evangelical Protestants - say abortion should be legal in some circumstances and illegal in others. Half of White evangelicals (51%) say abortion should be legal if the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the woman. Half of religious "nones" (50%) say the stage of pregnancy should factor into decisions about whether abortion should be legal.

Although the survey was conducted among Americans of all religious backgrounds, including Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, it did not obtain enough respondents who are religiously affiliated with non-Christian groups to report separately on their responses. Small subgroups of Christians are unable to be analyzed separately for the same reason.

Guide to this report

The remainder of this report discusses these findings in additional detail. Chapter 1 focuses on legal questions surrounding abortion. Chapter 2 examines the broader moral and religious questions surrounding the topic. Chapter 3 discusses the public's experiences and engagement with abortion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but many are open to restrictions; many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
https://indaily.com.au/news/2022/05/04/not-good-enough-maher-looks-to-fast-track-euthanasia-laws/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Attorney-General Kyam Maher says he will try to bring forward the implementation of the state's voluntary assisted dying laws, following criticism of a previous government plan to wait 21 months after the legislation passed.

Attorney-General Kyam Maher. Photo: Tony Lewis/InDaily

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021 passed state parliament in a historic vote in June, paving the way for people aged 18 and over who have been diagnosed with an incurable illness to access legal euthanasia.

After the vote, the Marshall Government indicated that the laws would come into effect on March 29, 2023, with former Health Minister Stephen Wade previously telling parliament that it was important to "take the time you need to plan and implement such an important initiative".

But advocates warned the 21-month delay was unnecessary and would prolong the suffering of South Australians with terminal illness.

Maher, who authored the legislation and pushed for its passage through parliament while in opposition, told InDaily this morning that he and Health Minister Chris Picton were "both keen to see if there is any way that this can be implemented more quickly".

It is quite urgent - people are suffering at this time now

He said South Australia was on track to the be the slowest state in the country to implement voluntary assisted dying laws, with progress "stagnated for many, many months".

"It's not good enough that we will take 100 days longer than... Victoria and WA, and 200 days longer than Queensland in our implementation," he said.

"Unfortunately... in the first six months after the laws were passed there was only one meeting of a VAD implementation committee that wasn't set up until four months after the laws had passed.

"If there's any way given the very slow start we've had to bring that forward, we're keen to make sure South Australians can use the laws."

Voluntary Assisted Dying SA (VADSA) wants the implementation date brought forward to December this year to ensure a maximum of 18 months between the passage of the legislation through parliament and commencement, similar to other states.

Asked if he would commit to implementing the laws by the end of this year, Maher said: "I know Minister Picton and his department are looking to see if there's any way they can be brought forward".

"Given the very slow start that there was to implementing this, if it is possible, I know they're looking at bringing them forward as much as possible," he said.

"I know advocates are very keen to bring it in this year and I know Minister Picton is looking to see what can be done.

"I've made it clear to him that anything the Attorney-General's Department can do, with advice and help from the legal side, we will provide as well."

VADSA president Frances Coombe told InDaily she welcomed Maher's comments, reiterating that advocates wanted the laws to be implemented before the Christmas break to avoid further delay.

She said other states had shared information and resources about how they implemented their voluntary assisted dying laws and South Australia "didn't need to reinvent the wheel".

Get InDaily in your inbox. Daily. The best local news every workday at lunch time.

Thanks for signing up to the InDaily newsletter.

"In the past fortnight I've had eight calls- four of those were distress calls - from people wanting to access the Act and other people just wanting to know for peace of mind as to when it would commence," she said.

"It is quite urgent - people are suffering at this time now, so it does need to be implemented as soon as possible.

"Without the law, people were effectively forced to suffer or they were forced in a position to take their own lives to escape that suffering and that is the situation while this implementation is going on."

Related Story
News
Stephanie Richards

Coombe, who sits on the government-appointed taskforce to guide the implementation of the legislation, said it had met "probably around about eight or nine times", with a further meeting scheduled this afternoon.

"There's certainly some good progress being made, but we can't see how the timeframe couldn't be shortened," she said.

"Certainly, the government thinks so too."

The Australian Medical Association predicts about 100 South Australians will choose to access voluntary assisted dying each year once the legislation comes into effect.

The laws passed parliament after a three-decade long battle by voluntary euthanasia campaigners and are modelled on Victorian legislation, which includes more than 70 safeguards.

Donate today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Not good enough': Maher looks to fast-track euthanasia laws - InDaily

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Attorney-General Kyam Maher says he will try to bring forward the implementation of the state's voluntary assisted dying laws, following criticism of a previous government plan to wait 21 months after the legislation passed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As abortion bans proliferate in states around the US, some state legislatures are likely to go even further than just ending abortion in their jurisdictions - taking aim at the growing numbers of people seeking procedures and medications out of state, experts warn.

If, as the bombshell leak of its private votesuggests, the supreme court weakens or overturns Roe v Wade - the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion - in an upcoming decision on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, states will be left with a confusing patchwork of laws that will probably lead to legal challenges.

A fresh wave of restrictions will probably center around patients who leave their state to obtain legal abortions in other states, or who order medications to manage their abortions at home.

Lawmakers in Missouri weighed legislation early this year that would allow individuals to sue anyone helping a patient cross state lines for an abortion. The law was ultimately blocked in the state's legislature, but experts expect such legislation to gain more support if Roe is weakened or overturned.

"I think states are not going to rest with just saying 'there won't be abortions in our state.' I think they're going to want to ban abortion for their citizens as much as they can, which would mean stopping them from traveling," said David Cohen, professor at Drexel University's Kline School of Law and lead author of a forthcoming article on cross-state legal issues that could arise in the abortion context.

"We're going to see state-against-state battles that are really going to divide this country even deeper on this issue," he said.

If the supreme court overturns abortion protections, such travel bans might also be permitted to stand, Cohen said.

"The supreme court does not have well-developed case law regarding extraterritorial application of state law," he added in an email. A court that has gone so far as to overturn Roe, he said, "would likely take that unclear precedent in the direction that is most anti-abortion."

But banning travel would go against "basic American principles", he said. "You have freedom of travel in this country, and as long as you're following the law in the state where you are, you are legally OK" under current law. For instance, adults can gamble in states where it's legal, even if they're from states where it's not allowed.

If the constitutional right to abortion is reversed, more than half of states are likely to prohibit abortions, according to separate analyses by the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Guttmacher Institute.

Several states have recently passed abortion bans that would be unconstitutional under Roe, but could stand if the landmark ruling is overturned by the supreme court. Some have passed laws similar to Texas's ban on abortions at six weeks of pregnancy - around four weeks after conception, when most people don't know they are pregnant - while others are advancing legislation similar to the 15-week ban at the center of the supreme court case.

On Thursday, Oklahoma lawmakers passed a Texas-style ban that will take effect immediately after Governor Kevin Stitt signs it, expected to occur within days. Stitt signed another bill earlier this year that would make abortion illegal in nearly all circumstances, but that law would not take effect until August.

As state-based restrictions proliferate, traveling out of state for reproductive healthcare has become common. After the Texas law took effect last year, Planned Parenthood clinics in neighboring states saw an almost 800% increase in patients.

If Roe is weakened or overturned, "a lot of the states that are likely to lose access are surrounded by other states that are likely to lose access", said Mikaela Smith, a research scientist at the Ohio State University's College of Public Health and the lead author of new research on out-of-state abortion travel. That means patients may need to travel across several states to receive care.

That would also exacerbate existing inequities in healthcare, she said. "Folks who have the resources and have the financial means will be able to do the extra work to cross state lines and folks who don't, or don't have the connections or know how to access the care they need, just won't be able to."

States are also likely to crack down on other efforts to access care. In Texas, a law passed last year made it illegal to ship medication for self-managed abortion, including across state lines - another potential template for copycat legislation.

Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced last year that it would continue its pandemic-era policy to allow medication abortion, also known as the "abortion pill", to be prescribed via telemedicine, the drugs have become a greater target from anti-abortion advocates. Medication abortion now accounts for the majority of abortions in the US.

"Pills are going to be a major part of how people continue to get abortions after the supreme court rules, so I think that we'll see states trying to ban pills in all sorts of different ways," Cohen said.

Blue states are preparing for the upcoming decision by shoring up reproductive rights for patients and protections for providers.

Soon after Idaho passed a contested Texas-style ban, neighboring Washington enacted the first law to prevent lawsuits on performing or aiding an out-of-state abortion.

Bills are progressing through the Connecticut and Illinois legislatures to protect patients traveling from out of state and the providers who care for them, and a dozen bills are moving through the California legislature to make reproductive rights stronger and more accessible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US states could ban people from traveling for abortions, experts warn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As abortion bans proliferate in states around the US, some state legislatures are likely to go even further than just ending abortion in their jurisdictions - taking aim at the growing numbers of people seeking procedures and medications out of state, experts warn.

# data[].attributes.body
https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2021/10/identifying-human-trafficking-the-power-of-community-awareness/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Identifying human trafficking: the power of community awareness
25 October 2021 at 5:37 pm
As community members, we all have a responsibility to be aware of the risks and signs of human trafficking, writes Blake Loaney from A21 Australia.
Human trafficking in Australia continues to occur, hidden, yet right in front of us. In 2020, the Australian government referred 212 suspected cases of trafficking for possible investigation , while an estimated 15,000 people in Australia are living in modern slavery. The first prosecution of a domestic slavery case in Australia occurred in July 2021.

A by A21 concluded that the pandemic has not curtailed human trafficking and exploitation - and has conversely increased the obstacles for counter-trafficking efforts. Human trafficking is a US$150 billion industry worldwide with over 40 million people enslaved - more than any other time in history.

Community awareness and education are incredibly important tools in the fight to end human trafficking and modern slavery. The fight begins in your local community, with volunteering, spreading community information and education, and awareness events such as A21's annual Walk For Freedom, which recently took place on 16 October in 71 countries around the globe, all effective techniques to put an end to the injustice.

Who is at risk?

Human trafficking victims can be any age, race, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, and socioeconomic class. That being said, there are certain groups of people who are more vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation because of their situation or their position within society.

This includes migrants, irregular migrants, stateless populations, and refugees; marginalised groups; people with physical or intellectual disabilities; people facing employment instability, financial insecurity and debt; and children.

As community members, we all have a responsibility to be aware of the risks and signs of trafficking, because the reality is that any one of us could encounter a victim of human trafficking in our daily lives.

What are the signs of labour trafficking?

Labour trafficking is the recruitment, harbouring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labour or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purposes of involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

The top industries that have a high risk of exploitation include technology, clothing, fish, cocoa, sugarcane, construction, agriculture, healthcare, hospitality, housekeeping and facilities operation, transportation, and warehousing.

Some important signs for community members to look out for include controlled behaviour, such as being accompanied by a controlling person, not being able to speak on his or her own behalf, being transported to or from work, and living and working at the same place.

Other signs of controlling behaviour to look out for include conversations with family and friends being controlled, restricted, or forbidden; along with being fearful, anxious, depressed, overly submissive, and potentially avoiding eye contact. The person might also have limited access to funds or funds being held by someone else.

What are the signs of sex trafficking?

Sex trafficking is a commercial sex act that is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age.

The "loverboy method" of trafficking, also known as the "romeo method" of recruitment, appears at first to be a healthy relationship, often (but not always) involving an older man pretending to be a loving boyfriend. However, over time, it turns into an unhealthy relationship that leads to sex trafficking.

Traffickers gain trust and then exploit the victim by luring them into trafficking under the pretence of a romantic relationship through grooming and abuse. Even though the term "loverboy" is used, traffickers are not only males just as victims are not only females.

Loverboys will often manipulate emotions by creating emotional ties without sharing a great deal of personal information about themselves. They regularly force isolation from their victims, including thriving on possessiveness, jealousy, or control over their partner and distancing them from family, friends and their community.

Unhealthy signs also include requiring the other partner to do things they are uncomfortable with (forceful sex or sex acts, videotaping sexual activity/nudity, posting pictures for money, engaging in commercial sex or sex acts with his/her friends/strangers).

They might also require control over their personal information including limiting or removing access to the other's personal bank accounts or documents such as driver's license, ID card, birth certificate, passport, or visa. The "partner" may also be physically aggressive either privately and/or publicly including grabbing, pushing, hitting, slapping.

Building awareness in your community

If you're involved in any local community groups, consider partnering with local law enforcement experts and advocacy agencies to provide an awareness program on the dangers and warning signs of trafficking.

Educators and parent-school community groups should consider implementing education programs and roles for parents and guardians to make them part of their children's safety and security, both at school and while going to and from school. A21 has resources for educators and parents available

If there's one message to get across above all else, it's that one phone call can be the difference between slavery and freedom. A human trafficking resource line is a line for people to be able to report situations of human trafficking that they might notice in their communities.

Add your local reporting line to your phone's address book and encourage others to do the same. In Australia, that number is (+61) 131 237 and is operated by the Australian Federal Police. For immediate danger or in case of an emergency, call: 000.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Identifying human trafficking: the power of community awareness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Identifying human trafficking: the power of community awareness 25 October 2021 at 5:37 pm As community members, we all have a responsibility to be aware of the risks and signs of human trafficking, writes Blake Loaney from A21 Australia. Human trafficking in Australia continues to occur, hidden, yet right in front of us.

# data[].attributes.body
LGTBQIA+ Community

https://www.lgbtiqhealth.org.au/statistics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Snapshot of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Statistics for LGBTIQ+ People

Although many LGBTIQ+ Australians live healthy and happy lives, research has shown that a disproportionate number experience poorer mental health outcomes and have higher risk of suicidal behaviours than their peers.

These health outcomes are directly related to experiences of stigma, prejudice, discrimination and abuse on the basis of being LGBTI. The 2021 Snapshot of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Statistics for LGBTIQ+ People provides a snapshot of what is known of the current mental health and wellbeing outcomes of LGBTI people in Australia.
View the updated 2021 statistics View the 2020 statistics View the 2016 statistics To improve health outcomes for LGBTIQ+ people we've developed key priorities for 2021. Find out more.

ABOUT LGBTIQ+ Health Australia LGBTIQ+ Health Australia, (formerly the National LGBTI Health Alliance), is the national peak health organisation in Australia for organisations and individuals that provide health-related programs, services and research focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people and other sexuality, gender and bodily diverse (LGBTIQ+) people and communities. Dropping the "+" from our name only occurs within digital formats that do not allow mathematical symbols, such as within our domain name, handles and hashtags.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY LGBTIQ+ Health Australia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of country throughout Australia, their diversity, histories and knowledge and their continuing connections to land and community. We pay our respects to all Australian Indigenous Peoples and their cultures, and to Elders of past, present and future generations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Snapshot of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Statistics for LGBTIQ+ People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although many LGBTIQ+ Australians live healthy and happy lives, research has shown that a disproportionate number experience poorer mental health outcomes and have higher risk of suicidal behaviours than their peers. These health outcomes are directly related to experiences of stigma, prejudice, discrimination and abuse on the basis of being LGBTI.

# data[].attributes.body
Terrorism and Counterteroism

# data[].attributes.body
https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/voluntary-euthanasia-wa-terminally-ill-west-australian-first-to-legally-end-own-life-ng-b881949533z

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Subscribe today.

Get unlimited access to award-winning journalism from Western Australia's biggest newsroom.

Everyday Digital

$1 per day

Subscribe Now

Cancel anytime. Min cost $28.

Weekend Papers + Everyday Digital

$9 per week

Subscribe Now

Cancel anytime. Min cost $36.

View All Packages

Need Help? Call us at 1800 811 855

Get exclusive offers, events and giveaways with West Rewards, included with all subscriptions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Terminally ill West Australian first to end own life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get unlimited access to award-winning journalism from Western Australia's biggest newsroom. Everyday Digital $1 per day Subscribe Now Cancel anytime. Min cost $28. Weekend Papers + Everyday Digital $9 per week Subscribe Now Cancel anytime. Min cost $36. View All Packages Need Help?

# data[].attributes.body
Rights of older people
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiOpbuNr9H3AhX3zzgGHbQOBBwQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ojp.gov%2Fncjrs%2Fvirtual-library%2Fabstracts%2Foverview-elderly-victimization&usg=AOvVaw38hEDnbp43PQ8czRq16V2E

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Expression

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-12/disability-discrimination-in-the-workplace-in-three-charts/9038178

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Only 53 per cent of Australians with disability are employed, compared to 83 per cent of all working-age people. Australia ranks 21st out of 29 OECD nations when it comes to employment rates for people with a disability.

But looking at the data reveals an even darker story - complaints about disability discrimination are the largest category of discrimination reported to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), and the numbers have been steady for around 20 years.

Lower employment levels translate into Australians with disability living in poverty at the highest rates in the OECD.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics also found that the employment rates vary radically depending upon the "disability type". Those who have a "psychological disability", for example, have the lowest employment rate at 29 per cent.

Employment also varies by "disability severity" (defined as mild, moderate, severe and profound). Employment decreases as severity increases. Only 26 per cent of people with profound or severe physical disability are employed.

As you can see in the chart above, complaints to the AHRC are categorised by the legislation they fall under - Disability Discrimination Act, Sex Discrimination Act, Racial Discrimination Act, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, and Age Discrimination Act.

Using this, we can see that disability discrimination has consistently represented the highest proportion of complaints, currently 37 per cent.

When you consider that the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act total 41 per cent of cases combined, this gives some insight into the prevalence of workplace discrimination faced by people with disability.

The next chart shows the proportion of disability discrimination complaints that relate to the workplace. This is approximately 35 per cent from the latest figures but has peaked at a much higher rate.

While we can't explain the fluctuation, at various times there have been changes to the system, cuts in funding and political tensions.

What can be interpreted from the figures is that disability discrimination has been sustained and ongoing over the two decades.

Read the comments to see how people thought Australia could be more inclusive with disability employment.

In our research, using publicly available complaint case summaries, we found that employers incorrectly assumed that the costs of employing people with disability were higher than they are, or were unaware of government programs to offset the costs of reasonable adjustments in the workplace.

In other cases, people were discriminated against by the strict adherence to guidelines and policies.

We found several distinctive themes in the disability complaints made.

For instance, many employers do not provide adequate access to the workplace. This could be as simple as tactile ground surfaces for people who are blind.

Many cases also involved managers, or human resource procedures, being too quick to dismiss an employee who acquired a disability. Reasonable adjustments can often be made to the position descriptions.

Hiring practices were often biased and discounted the abilities of applicants (otherwise known as unconscious bias).

In many cases, workplaces were not inclusive of assistive technologies, such as screen reading software or hearing loops. These would have allowed employees with a disability to do their job.

Mental health complaints have doubled in prevalence over time suggesting the dynamic nature of disability discrimination and the willingness of those with mental health issues to disclose their disability who previously may not have instigated a complaint case.

In reading the summaries of the complaints to the AHRC, it is apparent that employers, co-workers and third-party organisations (e.g. insurance companies) directly or indirectly treat people unfairly, or, in the worst cases, display open hostility to Australians with a disability.

In doing so, those involved show a lack of understanding of the basic legal principles of the Disability Discrimination Act.

These include sections covering direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, unjustifiable hardship, inherent requirements and reasonable adjustments.

What can be done?

Some may argue that Australians with severe levels of disability would be unable to work. But their experiences show that, with the correct assistive technology and attitudes that focus on ability rather than disability, employment is not just possible but imperative.

A recent OECD report singled out Denmark and Switzerland for their targeted intervention for younger people with disability or medical conditions. This ensures they have the highest chances of being employed rather than becoming welfare-dependent.

The foundation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme shows the government's desire to give people with disability the opportunity to move from welfare to employment.

While we wait for the major policy change to take effect, other immediate options are available to bring about positive social change.

Positive exposure in the media (see Attitude Foundation), personal contact and education could change attitudes to disability. The Government and non-profit organisations could also do more to raise awareness about best practice and inclusive assistance.

One good resource is Job Access. This government site provides education and resources to assist with workplace adjustment. It also provides direct assistance to people with disability.

Other organisations like the Australian Network on Disability can help businesses to become strategically more inclusive. In the end it will come down to employers giving every Australian job seeker with disability a fair go and not judging " what I can do by what you think I can't".
Simon Darcy is Professor of Social Inclusion at the University of Technology Sydney's Business School. Tracy Taylor is Professor of Sport Management at the University of Technology Sydney. Originally published in The Conversation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia's disability discrimination problem in three charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Only 53 per cent of Australians with disability are employed, compared to 83 per cent of all working-age people. Australia ranks 21st out of 29 OECD nations when it comes to employment rates for people with a disability.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/biodiversity-loss-threatened-species-victoria/100534548

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Victorian government cannot show if, or how, it is halting the decline of the state's threatened species, according to a "damning" auditor-general's report.

The review looked at government attempts to protect biodiversity and halt threatened species loss

It found DELWP lacked a risk-based process to prioritise at-risk species and did not use existing laws to protect species

Experts have labelled the report deeply disturbing

About a third of Victoria's flora and fauna are believed to be facing extinction and experts say the continued decline in biodiversity will have dire consequences if it cannot be halted.

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) told the auditor-general it could not guarantee the protection of all threatened species given its funding levels, the impacts of climate change and the havoc wreaked by 200-plus years of colonisation.

But the report, tabled in state parliament, said the department's reporting on biodiversity protection, including threatened species, "lacks accountability and comprehensiveness".

Experts say Victoria is logging areas critical to many forest-dwelling threatened species.

Funding shortfall

The government's investment in a 20-year plan to halt biodiversity loss was $110 million short over its first four years, and there remains an annual shortfall of $38 million in ongoing funding.

The department had advised the government that level of funding was "likely to result in the state's inability to preserve its 10 endangered icon species" and "many more vulnerable species becoming endangered".

The audit found DELWP had not provided "detailed, evidence-based advice to the government about the cost and benefits of protecting and monitoring threatened species to support further investment".

Want more local news? Sign up to ABC Ballarat's weekly email newsletter.

Bruce Lindsay, a senior lawyer with Environmental Justice Australia, said it was "deeply problematic" the department had not made a solid case for conservation funding.

Yet Dr Lindsay said the responsibility to protect Victoria's biodiversity fell to the whole of government.

"There is an obligation across all of government to contribute to biodiversity conservation outcomes in Victoria," he said of current legislation.

Victoria has 556 critically endangered and 1,071 endangered plants and animals.

Legal action 'never used'

The auditor-general also found the environment department had underused legal mechanisms at its disposal to protect species, including two under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act that had never been used.

"One reason why those mechanisms are never, or rarely, used is because it's entirely discretionary on the minister to make them," Dr Lindsay said.

Environment Minister Lily D'Ambrosio did not explain why those measures had not been used to date but said the government "will use whatever tools that are available to us to achieve the outcomes that we set ourselves".

Dr Lindsay said the pandemic had shown "when we want to, we can deal effectively with emergencies and with crisis".

"Government needs to be stepping up and dealing with this biodiversity crisis at least as effectively."

Glasgow gets the headlines, but this summit's tackling a different crisis

Where the Paris Agreement seeks to stop climate change, the Kunming Declaration aspires to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

Read more

'Need to do much better'

David Lindenmayer from ANU's Fenner School of Environment and Society said Australia was leading the world in mammal extinctions, and similar findings had been reported from national audits and in Queensland.

"We know we're losing threatened species left, right and centre," Professor Lindenmayer said.

"[And] we know the level of spending on threatened species is about one-tenth of what it should be."

Professor Lindenmayer said biodiversity loss would affect the pollination of crops and erode the quality of soil, water and condition of forests.

He said Victorian logging policy was actively working against efforts to protect threatened species.

"We know from analysis using the government's own data, that places that are planned to be logged under the timber release plan are also the very same places that have the highest conservation value for Victoria's 70 threatened forest-dependent species."

UN warns of nature's unprecedented decline

A new global assessment on the state of nature concludes that we are in the midst of an accelerating extinction crisis.

Read more

'Extinction disgrace'

The Victorian National Parks Association said the report was "damning" and made clear the government was not reversing the decline of threatened native plants and wildlife but "presiding over their demise".

The association said the government should provide up to $300 million to fund a threatened species program and to strengthen legislation to protect species in decline.

The department accepted all nine of the auditor-general's recommendations.

Ms D'Ambrosio said the government had spent almost $500 million on conservation since it was elected and acknowledged "we will need more investment".

However, she did not commit to the levels of funding the department had outlined as being needed to adequately address the biodiversity crisis.

"There will always be more investment from our government because we take this issue very seriously."

The auditor-general's report comes as representatives from nearly 200 countries met in China this week to discuss a global framework that aspires to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

In May, the United Nations released a report estimating one million of the world's species were under threat of extinction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scathing report says Victoria can't show if, or how, it's halting species decline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Victorian government cannot show if, or how, it is halting the decline of the state's threatened species, according to a "damning" auditor-general's report.

# data[].attributes.body
Covid 19

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00014/full

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental and Health Impacts of Air Pollution: A Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of our era’s greatest scourges is air pollution, on account not only of its impact on climate change but also its impact on public and individual health due to increasing morbidity and mortality. There are many pollutants that are major factors in disease in humans. Among them, Particulate Matte…

# data[].attributes.body
Indigenous rights

https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/the-united-states-lags-behind-on-the-rights-of-its-indigenous-peoples-natives-say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some countries have done better than others at implementing the Indigenous human-rights standards the United Nations laid out in 2007, and many, it seems, have done better than the United States.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a non-binding human-rights standard that includes 46 articles intended for member states to use as guidelines on how to affirm and consider the rights of Indigenous people in their countries.

Negotiations on the Declaration began in 1982 and took 25 years, the longest of any declaration in UN history. The General Assembly finally passed it in 2007 by a 144-4 vote. The four countries that voted against it - Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand - all reconsidered their positions three years later, and the declaration is now considered a "consensus document," but many questions remain about its implementation, especially in the U.S.
Do they or don't they?: the United States on supporting the Declaration
The U.S. offered qualified support for the Declaration when it changed its mind to "support" the human-rights standards in 2010, in a 15-page document distributed by the State Department.

"That document qualifies a couple of things that are really important and that really are not consistent with the declaration itself, or the principles of international standards," Andrea Carmen (Yaqui Tribe) executive director of the International Indian Treaty Council, who worked on drafting the Declaration, told Native News Online. "You don't get to adopt something and then say, 'Well, this is really how we interpreted it.'"

One of the biggest issues is whether the United States has implemented the principle of "free, prior, and informed consent": consulting with Native nations and obtaining their consent before adopting legislation or administrative measures that may affect them; before relocating them from their territories; and before approving any project that affects their lands, territories, and other resources, "particularly in connection with the development, utilization, or exploitation of mineral, water, or other resources."

The State Department document said the U.S. intends "to continue to consult and cooperate in good faith with federally recognized tribes and, as applicable, Native Hawaiians, on policies that directly and substantially affect them."

Carmen said that the U.S. conflates consultation with consent. The difference is that "consent means the ability to say yes or no." ​​

The other contentious issue during the negotiations, Carmen remembers, was Article 26, which declares, "Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired."

"That's everything," Carmen said. "That was one of the hardest-fought - that and the informed consent."

The U.S. government also contends that its qualified support of the Declaration only applies to federally recognized tribes. That leaves out traditional land bases where most fights over sacred sites - such as Mount Shasta in California, Mount Taylor in New Mexico, and the Grand Canyon - are happening, Carmen said.
'The United States lags behind'
Bolivia implemented the Declaration into its constitution in 2009, making it legally binding.

Mexico City adopted it into its city constitution in 2017. Since 2019, New Zealand's Ministry of Maori Development has been creating a plan to codify it into national laws. Canada in 2021 passed a law embracing the declaration and also creating a plan to implement it into law.

This week, Paraguay announced its own national action plan.

"By contrast, the United States lags behind. We are not the leading democracy when it comes to Indigenous rights," said Walter Echo Hawk, who currently serves as president of the Pawnee Nation Business Council, an attorney and tribal judge who practices federal Indian law. "We have no national plan here in the U.S. to implement the declaration, and the Biden administration appears strangely silent on the implementation effort here."

Echo Hawk was a speaker in a UN side panel May 3 on implementing UNDRIP in the United States, hosted virtually by the University of Colorado Law School. The law school partnered with the Native American Rights Fund to form The Implementation Project, a website to collect and post information and examples related to implementing the Declaration.

The panel also included lawyer Keith Harper (Cherokee), former U.S. representative to the UN Human Rights Council and an incoming member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and Angela Riley (Citizen Potawatomi Nation), a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and director of its Native Nations Law and Policy Center.

U.S. tribal leaders attending the UN Permanent Forum meetings in late April and early May asked it to implement the Declaration in several ways, including as a safeguard of free, prior, and informed consent in protecting tribal self-determination; participation in the International Decade of Indigenous Language to advance language rights; having international museums repatriate sacred objects removed from tribes; and accounting for the harms of the boarding-school era.

"Every one of these statements reference specific articles of the declaration, showing its relevance, and calls for the U.S. and other countries to meet their human-rights obligations to indigenous peoples," Native American Rights Fund lawyer Sue Noe said May 3.
Implementation tools for the United States
The United States calls the UN Declaration an "aspirational document," not legally binding like a treaty.

Keith Harper said that he sees the U.S.'s distinction between 'hard law' and 'soft law' as "a bit of a distinction without a difference."

Treaties are not self-executing, he said, so just as there must be a mechanism to implement them, there must be a plan to reach an aspiration, as many other countries have shown in their national action plans.

The Declaration established a measuring stick, Harper said: "It provides states specific expectations of how we should measure their conduct. States have to understand what is required of them, and then in how they can say they're in compliance."

He suggested that the U.S. should hire a senior-level federal official to implement the Declaration. "During my tenure at State there was the establishment of a special envoy for LGBTI rights," he said. "And so that individual was at every conversation within the international organizations or bilateral engagement that might give rise to questions of LGBTI rights. So, it prioritizes that issue. It sends a message to the world that the United States believes those rights are critical and advancing those rights are critical, so it has a galvanizing impact as well."

Professor Riley said the Declaration shouldn't be considered aspirational, because tribes themselves have decided to make it real.

The Muscogee Creek Nation has passed a resolution endorsing the Declaration into tribal law, as have the Seminole Nation, the Cherokee Nation, and the Navajo Nations Human Rights Commission. The National Congress of American Indians passed a resolution in October 2021, calling on the United States to develop a national plan to implement it.

"It's no longer right to say, at least generally, that the Declaration is not binding in the United States, because it is actually binding in some places," Riley said. "It's binding in the Muscogee Creek Nation. It may become binding in other tribal jurisdictions."

Speakers on the May 3 panel also said there's nothing that would stop a federal court from referring to the Declaration when it's interpreting current standards. Riley said that some federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, have explicit guidance on the Declaration in their internal policy.

"There's so much deference afforded to agencies by the federal courts," she said. "If the agencies themselves with their expertise over certain realms advanced the Declaration, then the courts may well defer to those internal judgments. So that's one avenue."

The most common suggestion was to look to other countries that have advanced further toward implementation. Caleb Behn, Assembly of First Nations director of rights, told panelists that it might be beneficial to have a cross-border discourse.

"We remind folks in the United States that Canada, our close neighbor... is getting to this more quickly than we are in the United States," Riley said. "That should inspire us, perhaps, to get on board."

More Stories Like This
Native News Weekly (May 8, 2022): D.C. Briefs
Native Bidaské (Spotlight) with Jenna Kunze Who Talks about the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
Report Issued as United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Ends Late Due to Conflict Over Language
Deb Haaland Addresses Missing and Murdered Indigenous People Crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'The United States lags behind' on the Rights of its Indigenous Peoples, Natives say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some countries have done better than others at implementing the Indigenous human-rights standards the United Nations laid out in 2007, and many, it seems, have done better than the United States. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples...

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/24/cece-telfer-transgender-runner-olympic-trials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transgender runner CeCe Telfer will not be allowed to compete in the women's 400m hurdles at US Olympic trials because Telfer has not met the conditions World Athletics established in its eligibility regulations for certain women's events.

Telfer competed for the men's team at Division II Franklin Pierce, but took time off, then came back to compete for the women's team. In 2019, Telfer won the NCAA title.

Telfer was entered in this week's trials but was ultimately not allowed to compete because of guidelines World Athletics released in 2019 that closed off international women's events of between 400 meters and a mile to athletes who did not meet the eligibility requirements. Among those requirements was that their testosterone levels had to be below 5 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) for a span of 12 months.

Telfer's manager, David McFarland, said Telfer would respect the decision.

"CeCe has turned her focus towards the future and is continuing to train. She will compete on the national and world stage again soon," McFarland said.

USATF said in a statement that in order for athletes to be eligible for the trials, they must meet the requirements to be a member of the US Olympic team, and that eligibility for the Olympics is governed by World Athletics.

It further explained: "Following notification from World Athletics on June 17 that the conditions had not yet been met, USATF provided CeCe with the eligibility requirements and, along with World Athletics, the opportunity to demonstrate her eligibility so that she could compete at the US Olympic Team Trials. According to subsequent notification to CeCe from World Athletics on June 22, she has not been able to demonstrate her eligibility."

In a blog last week in Women's Health, Telfer said: "I love what I'm doing and I'm getting to live my truth and live my authentic life. I believe that this is my way of being the change that I want to see in the world. And I live by that every single day."

In its statement, USATF said it "strongly supports inclusivity and providing a clear path to participation in the sport for all, while also maintaining competitive fairness"

"If CeCe meets the conditions for transgender athlete participation in the future, we wholeheartedly back her participation in international events as a member of Team USATF," the statement said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transgender runner CeCe Telfer ruled ineligible for US Olympic trials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Transgender runner CeCe Telfer will not be allowed to compete in the women's 400m hurdles at US Olympic trials because Telfer has not met the conditions World Athletics established in its eligibility regulations for certain women's events. Telfer competed for the men's team at Division II Franklin Pierce, but took time off, then came back to compete for the women's team.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/asylum-seekers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the last twenty years, sixty thousand 'boat people' have arrived in Australia. How we deal with them when they get here continues to polarise public opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.un.org/en/observances/end-racism-day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi88efsrtH3AhU3yjgGHUn3Bt8QxfQBKAB6BAgUEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Fnews%2F2022%2F5%2F5%2Frussia-ukraine-war-military-dispatch-may-5-2022&usg=AOvVaw1rOQhA2VDOHmQv0jEGZ8E1

# data[].attributes.body
Children's rights
https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights-at-70-childrens-rights/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Australian Institute of International Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) remains the most widely ratified human rights treaty, it is not without its critics. For many, it remains a problematic document whose design promotes as the norm a static and idealised vision of western childhood.

Alongside the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is the 30th anniversary of the General Assembly's adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The Convention now stands as the most ratified UN convention with the US being the only UN member state that has not signed. Children's rights, apparently, are virtually uncontested. And this is matched by political rhetoric. Across the world, we hear political leaders echo the 1997 sentiments of Nelson Mandela that "the true character of society is revealed in how it treats its children."

Yet, the past 30 years have seen the rights of children continually marginalised, misunderstood and maligned in liberal and illiberal states alike. The rate of ratification of the UNCRC has not been matched by commitment to its implementation. The anniversaries of the UDHR and the UNCRC provide us with opportunities to reflect upon the state of children's rights, and consider what Australia might do to promote children's rights at home and globally.
The state of children's rights
In his most recent report to the UN Security Council, the UN Secretary-General claimed that there had been a large increase in the reported number of violations of children's rights in conflict-affected zones. He reported in 2017 that there had been 6,000 verified violations of the rights of children by Government actors, and over 15,000 violations by non-state actors. These included the killing and maiming of children, their recruitment into armed forces, sexual violence and their abduction. The Secretary-General named a further 68 state and non-state groups that had participated in grave violations of children's rights.

But of course, violations of children's rights are not isolated to illiberal or conflict-ridden states. There are also widespread violations of children's rights inside liberal states. In Australia, Canada and the US, Indigenous children, children in care, and children seeking asylum experience multiple breaches of their rights, including detention, and institutional abuse. For example, the 2017 Final Report of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that "tens of thousands of children have been sexually abused in many Australian institutions. We will never know the true number. Whatever the number, it is a national tragedy, perpetrated over generations within many of our most trusted institutions."
The role of the UNCRC
While the UDHR implicitly designates children as beneficiaries of human rights (as human beings) it makes only brief mention of children. Article 25 notes that motherhood and childhood should be afforded special care and assistance and that children should be afforded social protection regardless of whether they are born in or out of wedlock. Furthermore, the rights of parents to choose the kind of education children receive is protected under Article 26. In this sense, the UDHR assumes an adult-centric - and gendered - bias in terms of how rights for children are described and determined.

The UNCRC - arriving some four decades after the UDHR - is an important addition to the human rights regime for two reasons. First, it explicitly lays out rights and duty bearers as they relate specifically to children. This takes into consideration their unique positionality within the human experience, particularly with reference to their age and evolving capacities, and their place within the family and community. Most importantly, it requires the state to always be guided by the best interests of the child in all actions concerning them (Article 3).

Second, while the UNCRC is not the first declaration of children's rights, it is the first one to attempt to recognise children as active participants in their communities. The 1989 Convention included Article 12 which covers the child's right to have their views heard and to participate in any decisions affecting them. It further protects their right to freedom of expression (Article 13), freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 14) and freedom of association and peaceful assembly (Article 15). While these articles - and Article 12 particularly - remain poorly implemented around the world, they nonetheless provide a stronger foundation than that afforded by the UDHR for the active participation of children in realising their rights.

While the UNCRC remains the most widely ratified human rights treaty, it is not without its critics. For many, it remains a problematic document whose design promotes as the norm a static and idealised vision of western childhood. In this vein Watson argues that, "the existing body of international law adheres to an idealised notion of childhood, which employs an (affluent) Western view of it, as opposed to one that could manage to incorporate an actual portrayal of (poor) children in the South." Critics argue that despite the inclusion of Article 12, the UNCRC maintains the historical precedent that sees children as ideally separate from political roles and responsibilities. Many argue that this - in fact - acts to ignore or deny children's agency. For this reason, the contributions of children (both positive and negative) to global political life often go unacknowledged, or are seen as abnormal. Consequently, children are often seen only ever as innocent victims of political life rather than a more nuanced combination of victims, witnesses, by-standers, agents, and actors in global change.
Australia and the global protection of children's rights
As a current member of the UN Human Rights Council, Australia is in a unique position to promote the rights of children. Australia signed the UNCRC in 1990 and has identified child protection as one of nine priority global themes in its foreign policy, however, it has not been a strong theme of either its candidacy or activities while on the HRC. Of the five pillars and priorities upon which Australia builds its membership, children's rights are largely absent. It is noted in the commitment to "advancing the right of women and girls" with specific reference to ending violence against women and girls, and is arguably implicit in other pillars, however, it is not explicitly referenced. Indeed, there is barely a mention of children's rights in the 2017 voluntary pledges that Australia made to the Council and no mention of children as stand-alone rights bearers. While Australia does acknowledge that it is a party to the seven core human rights treaties (of which the UNCRC is one), there is no further commitment to uphold or promote the implementation of the UNCRC and its principles.

This apathy is matched by its activities since being elected to the Council where we find an overall failure to mainstream the rights of children throughout relevant issues. While this represents a number of missed opportunities, there has been some engagement with the issue. Notably, in the 37th HRC session (March 2018), Australia urged the international community to be more accountable for children in humanitarian and conflict-affected situations, highlighting during the High-Level Panel on the Human Rights of Children in Syria its stated commitment of $433 million to supporting the needs of Syrian children.

While its contribution to the HRC highlights Australia's general - if not especially strong or consistent - commitment to promoting children's rights around the world, this needs to be juxtaposed to actions and activities within its own jurisdiction. Here, a number of issues have come to the fore over recent years. At the forefront of these issues perhaps is the treatment of children seeking asylum who have been detained in offshore detention facilities. At the end of May 2018, the Australian Human Rights Commission reported that there were 137 children in the off-shore detention facility in Nauru who were still subject to third country processing arrangements, the majority of whom were under the age of 12, and had been on Nauru for at least four years. As a result of public and political pressure - and claims by professionals that the children suffered significant mental, emotional and physical healthcare issues - these children were slowly transferred to the Australian mainland throughout 2018, with the last being reported to have left Nauru in February 2019. A further concern has been the treatment of juvenile offenders in detention facilities on the Australian mainland. The 2017 report of the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children found that "children and young people were subjected to regular, repeated and distressing mistreatment in detention and there was a failure to follow the procedures and requirements of the law in many instances." Additionally, the failure to provide systematically or sustainably for the health and well-being of Indigenous children is highlighted annually in the Government's Closing the Gap reports and the 2019 findings of a coronial inquest into the high rates of child suicide among indigenous populations.

The issue of child, early and forced marriage was also recently raised, with Australia revising its 2013 law that declared forced marriage to be illegal. Since then, the Australian Federal Police had received 232 referrals on the matter. However, the 2013 legislation required those contacting authorities to work with the police, which may often lead to the investigation of the child's parents. Advocates argued that this was a concern for girls who did not want to see their parents arrested. In 2018, Labour introduced reform that would de-couple government support from the need to work with a police process. The legislative change would also allow protection to be extended to all potential victims of forced marriage, even if they were no longer children.

Finally, like a number of liberal democracies, Australia is faced with issues surrounding the potential return of children under the guardianship - or born to - foreign fighters. The Attorney-General's Department has confirmed 70 known cases and indicated that it will address each child on a case-by-case basis, according to the risk that they may pose. In each of these issues, Australia has been challenged to uphold its commitment to the "best interests of the child" while navigating other perceived national and international interests.

Moving away from the protection agenda, the November 2018 decision by Australian school children to walk out of their classrooms and stage protests on the lack of government action on climate change brought into focus the right of children to be heard - and taken seriously - in issues affecting them. While reaction to the protests were mixed, the response of the Government was largely patronising and hostile. In response, Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated that: "We don't support our schools being turned into parliaments. What we want is more learning and less activism in schools." Such statements are at odds with the fundamental ethic that children can show both agency and rationality in the political sphere, and are entitled to participate in decision-making that affects them.

As the brief examples above demonstrate, the implementation of children's rights often sits uncomfortably amongst national and international interests. Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and other liberal democracies currently find themselves struggling to reconcile their commitments to uphold the "best interests of the child" with hard-line policies regarding immigration and asylum claims, the treatment of the children of foreign fighters and other returnees, and the sheer volume of the humanitarian need of children trapped in crises around the world. In light of the widespread abrogation of children's rights, the 30th anniversary of the UNCRC and the 70th anniversary on the UDHR should act as timely reminders of our obligations to act in the best interests of the child.
Katrina Lee-Koo is an associate professor in international relations at Monash University and deputy director of Monash GPS (Gender, Peace and Security). This is an extract from a journal article titled "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70: Children's Rights" and was originally published in the Australian Journal of International Affairs. The original article can be viewed here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70: Children's Rights - Australian Institute of International Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) remains the most widely ratified human rights treaty, it is not without its critics. For many, it remains a problematic document whose design promotes as the norm a static and idealised vision of western childhood.

# data[].attributes.body
https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/FTFLGBTI.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
https://theconversation.com/au/topics/homelessness-10211

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Homelessness News, Research and Analysis - The Conversation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Browse Homelessness news, research and analysis from The Conversation

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/womens-rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
News about women's rights, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.triplem.com.au/story/sydney-s-anglican-schools-livid-over-decree-against-gay-marriage-199067

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A document issued to Sydney's Anglican schools has caused significant disruption driving a wedge between principals and board directors and the head of the church.
Schools have been left reeling after revelations a decree by the Sydney diocese was addressed to school leaders asking them to sign a document affirming, they believe marriage is between a man and a woman only.
Stay up-to-date on the latest news with Australia Today - keeping you in the loop with news as it hits
An "issue of consternation", several principals have raised their concerns to the Archbishop of Sydney, Kanishka Raffel over the 15-year-old statement of faith.

Principles speaking out against the decree, told The Herald they were troubled over the implications for their gay students and parents, as well as the over " aggressive " isolation of gay marriage in what is a general statement of Christian faith.

"They're engineering their boards to think in a morally conservative way that's harmful for their students," a woman said on the condition of anonymity.

"It's going to limit new principals -you'll end up with a whole set of socially engineered principals across Anglican schools in the Sydney diocese.

"Restrictive ideas about sexuality should not be tied up in the statement of faith and the fact that they are speaks to something deeply concerning about the Sydney Anglican Church right now. To me, this is not Christ-like," she said.

One principal told The Herald they didn't "understand why you would insert that, over substance abuse or gambling or domestic violence," they said. " It seems remarkably aggressive."

It follows the Coalitions failed attempt to push through the Religious Discrimination Bill ahead of the May election.
For Australians looking for intelligent and unbiased news coverage, join renowned journalist Natarsha Belling on Your Morning Agenda for breaking national and international stories as well as the top business and finance stories - every weekday from 6:30am on Listnr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sydney's Anglican Schools Livid Over Decree Against Gay Marriage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A document issued to Sydney's Anglican schools has caused significant disruption driving a wedge between principals and board directors and the head of the church. Schools have been left reeling after revelations a decree by the Sydney diocese was addressed to school leaders asking them to sign a document affirming, they believe marriage is between a man and a woman only.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/climate-change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.

AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced. AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Joe Parkin Daniels and Sarah Johnson and Weronika Strzyżyńska and Kaamil Ahmed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Killed by abortion laws: five women whose stories we must never forget

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the US supreme court threatens to undo 49 years of access to safe and legal terminations, five women who died because of bans on abortion stand as warnings of what is at stake globally

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/abortion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.

AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced. AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time)

# data[].attributes.body
Lets post some social issues that we know of! Then we will find some news articles about these social issues.