Category: Australia

Cancer control is one of the key National Health Priority areas in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). Cancer is a group of diseases in which cells of the body divide and develop uncontrollably, with the ability to infiltrate and infect nearby cells (World Health Organization, 2018a; Yabroff, 2019).

Cancer is the result of various alterations in the processes that guide and control cell proliferation, spread and invasion (WHO, 2018a). This leads to downstream changes that alter the sequencing and working of the cell. Key risk factors for cancer include age, smoking habit, alcohol use, high body mass, sun exposure and genetic composition also coded as family history, among others.

This briefing paper examines the current burden occasioned by cancer on society, the impact of social health determinants on various cancer control outcomes, the role of the Australian government in cancer control as well as evidence-based recommendations for further action.

Problem Description

According to Mahumud, Alam, Dunn and Gow (2019) along with Cheng et al. (2019) cancer is ranked as the largest killer disease worldwide, including in Australia. WHO (2018a) notes that cancer was responsible for 9.6 million deaths worldwide in 2018, with one in every six deaths around the globe attributed to cancer. The economic impact of cancer is large and growing, with an estimated US$ 1.6 trillion spent on cancer in the year 2010. WHO (2018b) indicates that the global cancer burden rose by 18.1 million cases in 2018 (AIHW, 2019). Mahumud et al. (2019) conducted a survey of disease prevalence and impacts on the Australian population between 1982 and 2014 in one of the most extensive long-running studies yet. The results of the study indicated that the annual percentage change over this period increased by 1.27% AAPC. Cancer-related mortality during this period increased by 0.76% AAPC, the burden of the disease increased by 0.84% AAPC and hospitalization resulting from cancer grew by 1.19% AAPC.

Mahumud et al. (2019) indicate that cancer is expected to rank as the largest killer throughout the 21st century consistently. The authors did forecast more than 145,000 new cancer cases to be diagnosed in 2019 in Australia. At least 35% of these diagnosed cases were expected to die within five years of the initial diagnosis. Cancer accounts for the largest disease burden on the Australian population at 18%.

In the year 2018, 138,321 new cancer cases were discovered, this being rise from the previous 134,174 cases reported in 2017 (Chen et al., 2018). Australia posts one of the highest age-standardized incident rates of cancer, standing at 323 for every 100,000 persons. The leading types of cancer within Australia are female breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer melanoma and lung cancer.

Cheng et al. (2018) indicates that underlying cancer illnesses, or cancer-related caused 48,586 deaths recorded in the year 2018. This averages at 131 daily deaths from cancer. The mortality rate is also significantly higher at 1.9 times that recorded in 1982 (Cheng et al., 2018). Moreover, as of the year 2018, the risk of dying from cancer in Australia by the age of eighty-five years was estimated at 1 in 4 for males and 1 in 6 for females. The authors further estimate that the total disability-adjusted life years lost due to cancer in Australia was 833,250, representing at least 19% of all the DALYs lost. Moreover, most of cancer in Australia was reported to be fatal at 94%, with only 6% regarded as non-fatal.

Social Determinants of Health on Cancer Control

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2016) defines social health determinants of health as the conditions into which individuals are born, raised, as well as those in which they work, live and age. Moreover, these determinants also include the systems of health put into place to deal with health and illnesses. Social health determinants are noted to have the strongest and subliminal impacts on health outcomes, including cancer control (Braveman & Gottlieb, 2014).

One of the key SDH is the social-economic position of the individual, signalled mainly by the education level, income level, health literacy and occupation. AIHW (2016) debates that in general, people from lower socio-economic positions post poor health outcomes, have higher illness rates, live shorter times and have higher disability rates.

Merletti, Galasi and Spades (2011) in their work do hold that 56% of cancer cases and 63% of cancer-related deaths occur in less developed countries. In extension, the authors do debate that these are regions of the world with less developed diagnostic and treatment capabilities, and where economic resources are restricted, including information on cancer. 85% of cervical cancer cases are indicated to occur in the less developed regions of the world (LaVigne, Triedman, Randall, Trimble & Vishwanathan, 2017). Moreover, the authors point out that massive social inequalities in both incidence and mortality rates in cancer do exist within developed countries as well.

Research undertaken over the last two decades has provided firm evidence that lung cancer is directly related to the adult socio-economic position of the individual (Merletti, Galasi, & Spadea, 2011). This has further been linked with inequalities in smoking risks and behaviors, as well as occupational exposures. The authors report that two previous studies noted that smoking a counted for between 50 and 65% of lung cancer risk, with occupational exposures a counting for 14% (Merletti, Galasi, & Spadea, 2011).

Merletti, Galasi and Spadea (2011) note that cancer mortality depends largely on access to adequate healthcare, of which groups in the lower socio-economic status may have limited access. Moreover, cancer survivability is closely linked with socio-economic abilities, with disadvantaged groups noted to have significantly lower five-year survivability levels.

Lower education has been found to have a high relationship with stomach, liver, rectal, bladder and throat cancers (Merletti, Galasi, & Spadea, 2011). This is partly explained by the delay or inability of the less educated to promptly seek medication for probable cancer at first sight of symptoms.

People living in remote regions have been indicated to have poorer outcomes in relation to cancer incidents as well as survivability, partly explained by their limited access to high-end diagnostic and treatment. Provision of a national health care system that aims to reduce inequalities also needs to take care of these fundamental differences in access.

The Role of the Government

Cancer control in Australia has been one of the most successful around the world (Cheng et al., 2018). Lung cancer has been a particular success, with the government’s austere laws and regulations on tobacco smoking being effective in stemming the incidence and prevalence levels of lung cancer. The low prevalence of smoking results from multifaceted efforts that include incredibly high taxes, stringent controls on marketing, advertisement, promotion and display of tobacco products, control on points of sale and discouragement of smoking. Other control measures launched by the government have included publicly funded immunization for human papillomavirus introduced in 2007. Thirdly, public campaigns promoting sunscreen protection which has been in place since the 1980s.

Early detection screening programs have been a vital area for cancer control (Cheng et al., 2018). The Australian government runs three different types of screening programs across the country. The three are The National Bowel Cancer screening program (starting in 2006), the BreastScreen Australia program and the National Cervical Screening program (both started in 1991). Given early detection and prognosis is decisive in the successful control of cancer, these programs have been vital in detecting cancer among the population and making rapid referrals for specifically targeted intervention programs.

Cheng et al. (2018) also notes that the national government has implemented and maintained a registry for all cancer cases detected and diagnosed in Australia. These registered have been in operation since 1982 and are mandated by law. Given the complexity of cancer research and treatment, the databases provide an important one-stop-shop for researchers, population-level surveillance programs and inform policy and strategy development, implementation and evaluation.

The universal health care program implemented by the national government in Australia has been substantially effective in eliminating economic inequalities in access to care and treatment for patients, including cancer patients (Cheng et al., 2018). Even though the program has not entirely eliminated these inequalities, it has significantly reduced economic barriers towards medical and healthcare access and improved survivability as well.

Recommendations

Socio-economic factors are significant determinants of health care outcomes and continue to have massive impacts on cancer control (Markwick et al. 2014). In this respect, remoteness has been cited as a significant mediating factor, as well as social isolation and loneliness. Improvement of these factors will likely help play a role in improving outcomes. The government thus needs to ensure better policies to help bridge these inequalities.

MacDonald et al. (2018) observes that awareness of cancer risks and symptoms is especially dire in population, who ironically face the highest risk of cancer as they age. Also, food habits are also responsible for cancer to a significant extent. One research held that 1.4% of all cancer cases in 2010 in Australia were due to inadequate intake of fruits and non-starchy vegetables (Cancer Council Australia, 2018). There is thus need for the government to ensure specific, targeted and tailored information programs that will ensure the elderly are adequately informed of potential indicators. One example could be promoting the message of healthy diet and physical activity. Also, regular screening and health checkup could also be effective. This would help facilitate early detection and diagnosis, and by consequence, improve health outcomes.

Conclusion

Age is regarded as a major risk factor for cancer, with 75% of those diagnosed being above sixty years of age. Other major risk factors include high body mass, exposure to harmful radiations and other chemicals, lack of adequate physical exercise and family history. Early prognosis and treatment is the defining factor in the treatment and control of cancer. As a result, prompt and equitable access to modern health care and treatment is vital to control the same. Australia’s considerable success in dealing with cancer control is down to strict tobacco smoking control, publicly funded immunization programs for certain cancers, early detection and screening programs, universal health care program and a cancer registry that enables research and population-level surveillance. Going forward, programs that reduce the impact of socio health Determinants will be valuable in further constraining the impact of the disease.

References

1. AIHW (2016). Australia’s Health 2016: 4.1 Social Determinants of Health. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/11ada76c-0572-4d01-93f4-d96ac6008a95/ah16-4-1-social-determinants-health.pdf.aspx
2. AIHW (2019). Cancer in Australia 2019. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-in-australia-2019/contents/summary
3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018). National Health Priority Areas. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/5317BAD6B8EEE19ACA25757C001EED30?opendocument
4. Cancer Council Australia (2018). Links Between Cancer and Weight, Nutrition and Physical Activity. Retrieved from https://wiki.cancer.org.au/policy/Obesity/Links_between_cancer_and_weight,_nutrition_and_physical_activity
5. Cheng, E. S., Weber, M., Feletto, E., Smith, M. A., & Yu, X. Q. (2018). Cancer Burden and Control in Australia: Lessons Learnt and Challenges Remaining. Analysis of Cancer Epidemiology, 2, doi: 10.21037/ace.2018.08.03
6. Braveman, P. & Gottlieb, L. (2014). The Social Determinants of Health: It’s Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes. Public Health Rep, 129(supp.2), 19-31.
7. LaVigne, A. W., Triedman, S. A., Randall, T. C., Trimble, E. L. & Vishwanathan, A. N. (2017). Cervical Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Addressing Barriers to Radiotherapy Delivery. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 22(1), 16-20.
8. MacDonald, S., Cunningham, Y., Patterson, C., Robb, K., MacLeod, U., Anker, T., & Hilton, S. (2018). Mass Media and Risk Factors for Cancer: The Under-Representation of Age, BMC Public Health, 18(490) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5341-9
9. Mahumud, R. A., Alam, K., Dunn, J., & Gow, J. (2019). Emerging Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Hospitalisation and Associated Burden Among Australian Cancer Patients, 1982 – 2014: An Incidence-Based Approach in Terms of Trends, Determinants and Inequality. BMJ Open 9:e031874. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2019-031874
10. Markwick, A., Anzari, Z., Sullivan, M., Parsons, L., & McNeil, J. (2014). Inequalities in the Social Determinants of Health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: A Cross-Sectional Population-Based Study in the Australian State of Victoria. International Journal for Equity in Health, 13(91).
11. Merletti, F., Galasi, C., & Spadea, T. (2011). The Socio-Economic Determinants of Cancer, Environmental Health, 10(S7).
12. WHO (2014). World Cancer Report 2014. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/cancer/publications/WRC_2014/en/
13. WHO (2018). Cancer, Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer
14. WHO (2018b). Latest Global Cancer Data: Press Release No. 263. Retrieved from https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pr263_E.pdf
15. Yabroff, Y. R., Handler, T., Wender, R. C., Cullen, K. J., & Brawley, O. W. (2019). Minimising the Burden of Cancer in the United States: Goals for a High-Performing Health Care System. Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 69(3), 166-183.

Cancer is a perplexing opponent. Over a hundred distinctive anatomical and histological diseases are known as cancer. There are molecular variants within subtypes of malignancies of a single organ, with differing prognosis, metastatic potential and response to treatment. Its arcane nature is reflected in its complex genetic and biochemical pathways, cell survival mechanisms and processes of proliferation and dissemination. It is never a static challenge. Its inherent genetic instability, evolution and resistance undermine our immune system and the artillery of treatments available. Worldwide, the past 40 years have seen over $200billion invested into cancer research and over 1.56million research publications. These efforts have procured remarkable advances in our understanding of cellular biology and molecular genetics. The sequencing of the human genome and molecular profiling have propelled recent successes with isolated targeted therapies, and provides a strong foundation for future treatment modalities. However, for most common cancers, this has translated into, at best, modest improvements in cancer survival. At worst, perhaps treatment attempts may even be to the detriment of patient’s quality of life? The need to balance survival and quality of life is particularly pertinent to us. In Australia, cancer is one of the leading causes of mortality, and has surpassed cardiovascular disease as our greatest disease burden. Within their lifetime, 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will develop cancer, with incidence rates expected to rise by 30% over the next decade as the population ages 17. Over the past 25 years, the nation’s age standardized cancer mortality rate has decreased by 16%, with fewer deaths for most common types of cancer. People with cancer are now living longer. With a greater number of cancer survivors, there is a crucial need to address issues of quality of life.

Cancer is a diagnosis embellished with fear. Conspicuous lumps, suggestive symptoms or a family history unleashes a torrent of thoughts and fears of receiving the bad news. The stigma associated with cancer once drove patients to hide their illness. With the belief that there was no cure, then perhaps it would be easier to deny its presence, at the detriment of delaying possible treatments or symptomatic relief. The public image of cancer is thankfully now one of acceptance and support, as attitudes adapt to the possibility of multiple treatment modalities. With increasing access to information and a shift from paternalism towards a shared decision-making process between patients and doctors, patients are in a greater position of ownership over the course of their treatment. Often as a terminal malady, the disease itself may yield the greatest power, but the patient still has the choice to determine how they will carry themselves and the extent to which they will battle. Higher HRQOL can be expected through greater treatment satisfaction, acceptance and clarity for their journey. Every case is considered individually, as specialists collaborate to determine the right treatment for the right patient at the right time. HRQOL has exponentially improved in advanced cancers with curative potential (germ cell cancer, SCLC, ovarian cancer, choriocarcinoma, lymphoma and AML&ALL). For most remaining cancers, gains in HRQOL are seen with stable disease and remission. HRQOL has improved even for highly aggressive opponents, such as pancreatic cancer, despite treatment not extending survival. Surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy are the mainstays of treatment. Surgery for malignancies has transformed over decades, and is almost unrecognizable from the desperate and borderline barbaric excisions recorded thousands of years ago. Scans and biopsies have replaced the need for extensive exploratory surgery. Technological advances, innovative surgical approaches and the neo adjuvant and adjuvant treatments have allowed for less invasive processes. Robotic surgery in urology and otolaryngology extends human abilities, providing precision and access with minimal disruption to surrounding structures. Regardless of whether a tumor can be cured or more effectively palliated with surgical resection, HRQOL improves with better aesthetic outcomes and preserved organ function. Reduced recovery time and rehabilitation have also dramatically improved surgical outcomes, and thus also HRQOL.

Chemotherapy development has always been challenged with genetic diversity and resistance so synergy between a drug and malignancy can never be predicted with absolute certainty. Furthermore, animal models were unreliable and subsequently fewer than 10% of clinically trialled drugs were approved between 1970-9030. The approved drugs, such as taxanes, anthracyclines, paclitaxel and platinum compounds were applied in assorted combinations. For the fortunate few patients, some advanced cancers were cured; for others, adjuvant therapy brought disease-free or progression free survival, with fewer negative side effects. For those who received no benefits from treatment, chemotherapy may have caused needless toxicity. The dichotomy of benefits and shortcomings of cancer treatments provides a compelling rationale for measuring HRQOL. Vivid depictions of early chemotherapy resonate with a sense of despair, as patients endured the unavoidable toxicity of vigorous therapy cycles. At times, the severity of dose limiting nausea and vomiting, neuropathy and bone marrow suppression can exceed the disease symptoms. Further, fatigue and psychosocial symptoms can be difficult to distinguish from cancer symptoms. Progress has been achieved in controlling adverse effects through the use of colony-stimulating factors and chemoprotective agents which enable higher dose regimes. Administration is safer and easier with indwelling intravenous catheters. Antiemetics, platelet and red cell transfusions and broad-spectrum antibiotics have brought some relief, but the acute and chronic effects of the drugs remain a challenge. Cancer challenges every aspect of self and identity. Survivorship centers upon enhancing the quality of life of patients and their families ‘living with, through and beyond a diagnosis of cancer. Australians are fortunate to receive among the best comprehensive cancer care in the world. Public and private health services are responding to meet the holistic needs of patients. Following treatment, long term symptoms or late onset complications may require further evaluation and management. Rehabilitation, health promotion and psychosocial care improve the quality of ongoing care. medicine is innately fixated on curing and prolonging lives. There is an aversion to death, as it seemingly signifies failure and defeat. Cecily Saunders says that “people’s determination to treat was challenged and medicine is innately fixated on curing and prolonging lives”.

In some capacity, almost all medical graduates will be involved with the care of cancer patients. Although a continually shifting field, the principles within the continuum of care will remain the same. The objectives outlined by the Cancer Council Oncology Education Committee provide a comprehensive foundation on which further knowledge can be built upon. An understanding of quality of life, its measures and impact on therapeutic ratios will equip future health professionals in making the most appropriate treatment decision. Clinical experiences are valuable learning opportunities. Students will gain an insight into a patient’s journey if they spend time with them, hear their stories, appreciate the input of multidisciplinary care and observe the interaction of patients and their doctors as they share in the hopes and anguish that accompany such a formidable illness. Interests in research, epidemiology, public health and other oncology related fields should be encouraged. The burden of cancer is far reaching. It challenges and reshapes all the domains of an individual’s quality of life. Over the 40 years of the war on cancer, progress has certainly been made. “Every era casts illness in its own image”. Perspectives are seen through the light of its current understanding. Previously viruses held the answers. Now our focus is on genetics and the interplay between immunology, gene regulation and the microenvironment. In the midst of these shifts, the one common factor is the importance of each individual battle. Perhaps it is essential to redefine the war, and emphasizes quality over cure.

The end of the White Australia Policy brought forth a new era of multiculturalism within Australia, one that has redefined what it means to be an Australian in the modern age. The Australian government policy surrounding refugee migration has come at a cost. As throughout the year’s different political parties have divided the Australian community when considering the humanitarian, economic and moral benefits of refugees. Australia has embraced refugees over the last fifty or so years since the ending of the White Australia policy. By definition, refugees are survivors. They have survived because of their courage, ingenuity and creativity. These are qualities in which we value in Australian society. In addition to this, I have a personal story, as I have seen many refugees in my former home suburb of St Albans, the home to a large Vietnamese community who came across as refugees in the early 1980s. These are hard-working people who have contributed to the Australian prosperity due to the goodwill of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who allowed the Refugees to come into this country. However, The Australian Refugee crisis has been a contentious issue specifically in recent years amongst The Liberal National Party and The Australian Green Party, who come from opposing sides of the political spectrum and have differing opinions on the matter.

The Liberal National Party (LNP) believes in strong border security, specifically the use of detention centres, as a controlling tactic. The LNP has judged the last Labor government of dismantling Australia’s effective border security policies, thus creating this ongoing issue of refugee arrivals to the country. Comparatively, The Australian Greens Party is of the view of closing all offshore detention centres. By definition, detention centres are an institution for the short-term detention of Illegal immigrants and refugees. The Greens are also of the belief of increasing Australia’s humanitarian intake to meet our so-called human rights obligations, which was assembled by the United Nations. In this essay, I will discuss the similarities and differences between these two political parties policies regarding refugees and their impact on society, as well as refugees.

The Liberal National Party legislation of tougher border control has largely brought them success, thus resulting in greater votes during election time. The first creation of detention centres occurred under the migration act of 1958 which allowed the detention of unauthorised arrivals. In the early ’90s under the newly formed Labour government of Paul Keating, were able to help shape the whole detention process that we recognise nowadays, by creating mandatory detention of Asylum seekers which ultimately came into effect in 1994, but was subsequently tightened under the Howard Government. The Liberal party has enacted a policy of “boat turn-backs when it is safe to do so” since this policy was first enacted by the then Immigration Minister Scott Morrison the government has been able to return approximately over “800 people from 34 boats and disrupted another 80 attempted ventures.” This had a great effect on the refugee crisis that Australia was facing at that current time as it resulted in the reduction in people dying on the seas as a result of drowning and it also leads to a reduction in overcrowding in Australia’s detention centres. However, life in Australia’s detention centres was reportedly inhumane already and numerous reports found that life in Nauru detention centre one of Australia’s most famous offshore detention centres was more “prison-like” than anything else with the constant abuse and mistreatment of detainees. The Liberal government also introduced a policy of picking and choosing which refugees they want to let into the country.

The Liberal Party’s harsh stance on refugees and immigration has received worldwide attention and have drawn a vast amount of scrutiny to themselves by various media organisations. It is a known fact that the Murdoch family owned Newscorp group has a been very supportive of the Liberal party this is clearly shown through their generous articles on the Liberal parties success and accomplishments. Murdoch is believed to support the traditional values that the liberal party offers to its supporters, he also supports capitalism and the individuals right to be free in a business sense.

However not all media organisations loved the Immigration policy the Liberal party was offering, one of these media organisations is the Guardian this online newspaper is renowned for its more centre-left view and has criticised Liberal party’s policy on immigration and their alliances to the Murdoch family “Rupert Murdoch intends to transform Australia into a conservative nation and he wants to put it on the Trump Road.” This is quoted from a Guardian article. In recent times in Australia, there has been a further divide between far-right and far-left factions this was evident with extremist group Reclaim Australia rallies in Melton on 22nd of November 2015 in pursuit of what they perceive is right in banning all refugee to Australia, this is evident to be an economic disaster as in plain terms migration boost the Economy of our already struggling nation.

The Australian Greens party has a much greater supportive view on refugee immigration than the LNP, they believe the treatment of people seeking asylum must be humane and detention of refugees is a violation of human rights. The shutting down of Australia’s offshore detention and transit centres on Nauru is a big policy of the Greens party compared to LNP. Further to this, the party believes in raising Australia’s humanitarian intake to 50,00 refugees to meet our so-called human rights obligations, while the current LNP government is happy to stay at 18,500 refugees a year. The Greens also believe that as one of the world’s wealthiest countries, Australia has an obligation to do more for refugees.

Australia has had consistent economic growth for the last 28 years, is ranked 14th for the highest GDP in the world and has 3 major cities in the top 10 for most liveable cities so you would assume that we can afford to have more refugees right? Well, the answer is no, 35% of Australia is classified as arid, arid means a place that receives less than 500 mm of rain per year, this is the reason why majority of Australia’s population lives on the East coast as there is water. In Australia, we have consistently had drought over the last 100 years and therefore we won’t be able to afford to house and extra 30,000 refugees a year. I say this as Australia is facing huge debt problems due to overspending by previous governments and adding extra 30,000 people and supporting them with housing and Centrelink benefits for the first couple of years would not be manageable for the financial situation of Australia, please note that as of 6th March 2020, the gross Australian government debt was $573 billion.

The Greens policy of a fair and non-partisan approach on raising the refugee intake and shutting down our offshore detention centres has relatively gone unnoticed by the Australian media which is largely dominated by the Murdoch press. The Murdoch press has given favourable press coverage going back as far to the Tampa incident in 2001 to the LNP. Australian online newspaper The Guardian has relatively supported the Greens Agenda with pleasant news articles, however, this is not evident with the daily Telegraph as they have recently targeted Greens leader Adam Bandt, with a serious of one-sided articles on his so-called ‘poor leadership’ and “The most radical Greens leader, and dumbest” due to his perceived views on Immigration. In recent years Far Right groups have heavily contested the ideological views of the Greens party, this was evident last year with United Patriots Front rallying on the shorefront of St Kilda beach over Islamic refugees being let into the country unfortunately for this far-right group a group of 200 anti-racist protesters came to St Kilda this led to a serious of fights and some disgusting politically incorrect slurs.

Refugee and immigration policy intake to Australia has been controversial for many decades even prior to the White Australia Policy. More to this is that its safe to say Immigration is a great thing for the Australian society as it boosts the economy however given Australia’s bleak financial situation it’s expected that accepting “extra refugees (as per Labours 2019 election policy) will cost $6b in a decade” as said from government sources. Further to this Australia’s infrastructure is not up to the standard to accept more refugees than we currently do, accepting more would just put more pressure on our already strained road and transport systems in major cities as this is where a majority of refugees are likely to live and work. My view is given these matters, even though I support the Greens view on some certain aspects of their refugee policy, it’s safe to stay with the current LNP policy.

The mental health of a person decides the behavioral patterns, feelings and their relationships with others. A broad spectrum of disorders is included in mental illness (‘Mental Health’). About one-quarter of Australian people are experiencing mental health problems in their lives especially between aged 16-85. The affective disorders like depression, anxiety and substance use disorders such as alcohol use are common. Additionally, women are more likely to have anxiety and depression than men (‘Mental Health’).

Some people negatively see others as a result of their particular attributes or characteristic such as cultural background, disability or mental illness. This is called stigma (‘Stigma, Discrimination and Mental Illness’, 2015). If someone negatively treats somebody else because of their mental illness, it is called discrimination. The stigma and discrimination triggered with the definition of someone with mental health problems with their illness by society giving them label ‘psychotic’ (‘Stigma, Discrimination and Mental Illness’, 2015). The stigma is a common condition in most of the mentally ill patients. It is important to study, research and implement required regulations as the impacts of stigma can be more serious (‘Life without Stigma’, 2013). The elimination of stigma ensures the people who are affected by mental illness valuing them as equal members in our society and allowing them to feel they are worth living (‘Life without Stigma’, 2013).

The stigma exists because of the people who lack knowledge about mental health problems and negative attitudes, beliefs even in some mental health professionals. The whole society should have a better understanding of the stigma, discrimination and mental illness (‘Health Direct’, 2019). A study done in 2016 has found that more than half of young people who were suffered from mental illness were reluctant to discuss their problems and half of them had the afraid of what would think others. Among the above-mentioned people, 26 precent have not told anyone about their problems (ABC, 2016). They have cancelled their social events and they had feelings such as people will be looking down them, people wouldn’t understand them and they would be shunned. From every 16 young people in Australia, four are experiencing mental illness and one in four young people struggles to have the help they need (ABC, 2016).

The study was done by Knox et al. in 2014 has found that there are negative interactions between the staff of the Australian community pharmacies and self- stigma impeded consumers. That indicates the importance of having knowledge about mental illness and stigma in all the aspects that engaged with mentally ill persons (ABC, 2016). Then it is important to identify the effects of stigma on individuals with mental illness and the available strategies in Australia to combat this. Here the types of stigma, the effects of stigma on individuals with mental illness and the available strategies to combat this in Australia are discussed (ABC, 2016).

The Types of Stigma

The social stigma (Public stigma) and self-stigma have mainly occurred with mental health problems. In social stigma, people with mental health problems have to suffer from the negative stereotypes done by society. As a result of this discrimination happens (Haddad & Haddad, 2015). As an example, these people are avoided by their friends without housing. When a person internalizes negative stereotypes, it is called as self-stigma. The hopelessness, shame and low self-esteem can be the effects of this stigma (Hadda & Hadddad, 2015). These two stigmas can compel people to avoid help from others and it can worsen the conditions by allowing them to experience anxiety and stress (Haddad & Haddad, 2015). The structural stigma is the restrictions of cultural norms or religious regulations that restrict the opportunities of people with mental health problems. The personal stigma is having stigmatizing attitudes and beliefs about other people in the society (Beyondblue, 2015).

The Effects of Stigma on Mentally Ill People

Social stigma and discrimination can worsen the condition of people with mental illness avoiding the recovery pathways. Because of the fear of being stigmatized, patients try to hide and avoid getting help for treatments (‘Stigma, Discrimination and Mental Illness, 2015). The stigma generates feelings of hopelessness, shame, and isolation especially, through the lack of love, understanding, and recognition by family, friends, and others. They get fewer opportunities in social engagement and employment opportunities (Stigma, discrimination and mental illness, 2015). They are having feelings of self-doubt whether they will never overcome the symptoms with mental illness and whether they have the ability to fulfil their responsibilities sometimes even the day-to-day events. Also, these patients may have to experience physical violence and harassment (‘Stigma, Discrimination and Mental Illness’, 2015).

The stigma makes difficult to find a job, a mortgage or somewhere decent to live and fulfilling other essential things allowing mentally ill people more tragedy. Because of that, those people try to hide from society and getting help from the professionals of mental health (‘Life without Stigma, 2013).

Strategies of Australia Combat Against Stigma

Ignorance, prejudice, and discrimination are the three factors of the stigma that worsen the conditions of mental illness people. There should be a well-planned sequence of programs to combat the stigma, upgrading the mental conditions of the people with mental problems (Haddad & Haddad, 2015). The above three factors of stigma mainly generate through the lack of enough knowledge of mental health problems. The provision of information and knowledge on mental health problems and the importance of helping people with mental illness should be done starting from the school level to mental health professionals. In brief, it should cover all the citizens of the community as anyone can be a family member or friend or another person who has connected with the mentally ill person (ABC, 2016).

The development of policies and plans to ensure the free living of mentally ill people as an individual of society is another key strategy the government of developing policies and plans to guide government action on mental health issues (‘Mental Health’). Already there are rules and regulations against discrimination in Australia and they have connected with international conventions which are protecting the rights of the mentally ill people. In unlawful discrimination, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission help you (‘Stigma, Discrimination and Mental Illness’, 2015). Additionally, the Australian Human Rights Commission has a higher ability to meddle in these problems as it is a Commonwealth Government Organization that promotes equal opportunity, human rights and it deals with discrimination and compliance (‘Stigma, Discrimination and Mental Illness’, 2015).

At the international level, the World Health Organization has information on mental health and human rights. Additionally, the United Nations General Assembly consists of “Principles for the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care”. These are great facilitation for Australia to combat against discrimination in legally (‘Stigma, Discrimination and Mental Illness, 2015).

Another important aspect of this problem is to fund the research studies as the progress of implemented programs, the efficiency of treatments and recovery and problems in prevention, diagnosis and developing new approaches can be identified only through the research studies. The programs, initiatives, and services regarding mental health should be funded for the continuity of these programs. This is not only the responsibility of the government and the other private parties can join with this (‘Mental Health’). On the other hand, these programs should be reviewed and consulted with relevant stakeholders for the identification of new additions, improvements, and defects. The funding should be done for preventive health initiatives and to prevent suicides (‘Mental Health’).

Conclusion

In conclusion, stigmatization is not only a challenge for the government and the mentally ill people. The whole community of Australia should be getting together in this problem with proper knowledge and understanding. This cannot be succeeded through the legislations, funding research studies and implementing other programs. Everyone should learn about the facts on mental illness, share those with family, friends, and others, avoid judging and discriminating mentally ill people, raising your voice against when you hear inaccurate comments or stereotypes and securing the dignity of those people. Everyone in society has a role to play in creating a mentally healthy community in Australia.

References

1. ABC (2016, June 6). Stigma Around Mental Health Silencing Young Australians. https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/stigma-around-mental-health-silencing-young-australians/7477730
2. Australian Government Department of Health. Mental Health. https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/mental-health
3. Better Health Channel (2015 September). Stigma, Discrimination and Mental Health. https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/servicesandsupport/stigma-discrimination-and-mental-illness
4. Beyondblue (2015). Beyondblue Information Paper: Stigma and Discrimination Associated with Depression and Anxiety.
5. Haddad, P. & Haddad,I.(2015) Mental Health Stigma. British Association for Psychopharmacology.
6. Health Direct (2019, September). Mental Health Stigma. https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/mental-health-stigma
7. Sane Australia (2013). A Life without Stigma. https://www.sane.org/images/stories/media/ALifeWithoutStigma_A_SANE_Report.pdf
8. Knox,K., Fejzic,J., Mey,A.& more (2014). Mental Health Consumer and Caregiver Perceptions of Stigma in Australian Community Pharmacies.

Introduction

Australia’s health system is one of the outstanding or best in the world, providing safe and reasonable medicinal services for all Australians. It is mutually run by all degrees of Australian government – bureaucratic, state and region, and local. Australia has an exceptionally created social insurance structure, however due to its immense size, administrations are not uniformly conveyed. Social insurance is delivered by individuals and organizations, some of which are government elements while numerous others are exclusive or privately owned.

Background of the country

Australia is a remarkable and different nation all around – in culture, climate, geography, population, and history. The present population of Australia is 25,302,595 as of Friday, November 1, 2019, given Worldometer elaboration of the most recent United Nations data. Australia’s population is proportionate to 0.33% of the complete total population of the world. It is a country and continent bounded by the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Its capital is Canberra and its major cities are Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth. The country is known for its Sydney Opera House, the Great Barrier Reef, an immense inside desert wild called the Outback, and extraordinary species like kangaroos and duck-charged platypuses. Australian culture is as wide and fluctuated as the nation’s scene.

Australia is multicultural and multiracial, and this is reflected in the nation’s nourishment, way of life, and social practices and experiences. Australia has a significant legacy from its indigenous individuals, which assumes a characterizing job in the social scene. Religion in Australia is varied. Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia of 1901 denies the Commonwealth government from setting up a church or interfering with the freedom of religion. In an optional inquiry on the 2016 Census, 52.2% of the Australian population announced some variety of Christianity. Truly the rate was far higher; presently, the strict scene of Australia is changing and differentiating. National statistics of language spoken in Australia, by and large about 76.8% of the individuals communicate in English just, 18.2% are non-English speakers. Aside from English, Mandarin is the prevailing language spoken at home by 1.6% (336,178 individuals) speakers. Other developing dialects incorporate Punjabi, Filipino/Tagalog, and Arabic.

The Government of Australia is the administration of the Commonwealth of Australia, a bureaucratic parliamentary sacred government. It is additionally ordinarily alluded to as the Australian Government, the Commonwealth Government, Her Majesty’s Government, or the Federal Government. The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia is separated into three branches: the official branch, made out of the Federal Executive Council, managed by the Governor-General, which agents forces to the Cabinet of Australia, driven by the Prime Minister; the authoritative branch, made out of the Parliament of Australia’s House of Representatives and Senate; and the legal branch, made out of the High Court of Australia and the administrative courts. In Australia, they have three degrees of Government: federal, state, and local. The power is shared between these three levels. The Federal Parliament has just certain, limited power given to it by the Australian Constitution. These include trade, immigration, defense, foreign affairs, marriage, communication services, lighthouse, currency, bankruptcy, copyright, Quarantine, invalid and old-age pensions. The government Parliament has selected exclusive jurisdiction in a few regions. Most powers, be that as it may, are shared and both the Federal and State Parliaments can make laws for these issues. On the off chance that there is a conflicting law, the federal law comes first. Victoria’s State parliament is responsible for schools, hospitals, water, transport, laws and orders, forest, and agriculture. Neighborhood governments take care of nearby issues, for example, building guidelines, squandering the board, stops and gardens, and dog control.

Australia’s healthcare framework has been positioned among the best in the created world by a group of American analysts who have positioned their own nation’s framework as the most exceedingly terrible. In general, the best health care was UK, Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Norway. In their investigation of 11 distinctive national medicinal services models, specialists at the New York-based Commonwealth Fund positioned Australia’s mixed private-public second best. They concluded that the United Kingdom’s National Health Service was the best healthcare, trailed by Australia, at that point the Netherlands, with Norway and New Zealand sharing the fourth spot.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) computes that spending on all human services in Australia in 2015–16 totaled $170.4 billion, or 10.3 percent of total national output (GDP). This is around $6,671 in repetitive consumption on well-being per individual (excluding capital). Wellbeing spending expanded at a far more noteworthy pace than our populace development—ascending by 50% between 2006–07 and 2015–16, contrasted with a 17% ascent in our populace over a similar period. The development in health service consumption was likewise more prominent than the development in the economy as a entire—well-being spending rose by 4.8% every year since 2006–07. As an extent of GDP, it developed from 8.7% of GDP in 2006–07 to 10.3% of GDP in 2015–16. Governments supported 66% of wellbeing spending, with the Australian Government contributing $70 billion and state and domain governments $44 billion. Hospitals and essential human services together record for seventy-five percent of all healthcare spending.

Epidemiology indicators

Australians born in 2016 can hope to live 33 years longer than individuals born in 1890. A kid conceived in 2016 can hope to live to 80.4 years, and a young lady to 84.6 years. This spots in the top third of OECD nations for the future. They are likewise going through a greater amount of these years healthy. Males can hope to live 70.9 years in full well-being and females 74.4 years. In 2014–15, more than 4 of every 5 Australians aged more than 15 appraised their health as excellent, very good, or good.

The IMR total is 4.3 deaths/1,000 live births. Male is 4.6 deaths/1,000 live births and females 3.9 deaths/1,000 live births. The MMR in Australia in 2016 was 8.5 deaths for every 100,000 ladies giving birth. Somewhere in the range of 2006 and 2016, 281 females died during pregnancy or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy.

The present birth rate for Australia in 2019 is 12.720 births for every 1000 individuals, a 1.23% decrease from 2018. The birth rate for Australia in 2018 was 12.879 births for every 1000 individuals, a 0.77% decay from 2017.

In Australia, HIV transmission keeps on happening fundamentally through sexual contact between men. In 2015, 1,025 individuals were determined to have HIV. The quantity of recently analyzed HIV contaminations in Australia has stayed stable for as far back as three years, with 1,025 cases in 2015, 1,082 in 2014, 1030 in 2013, and 1,064 in 2012.

The prevalence of chronic disease in Australia, in 2017-18 simply under half (47.3%) of Australians had at least one constant condition, an expansion from 2007-08 when two-fifths (42.2%) of individuals had at least one chronic condition.

Females aged 15 years and over were almost certain than males to have at least one constant condition (56.5% contrasted with 50.8%), be that as it may, for kids (0-14 years of age) young men were more probable than young female to have at least one interminable conditions (24.2% contrasted with 15.9%). The predominance of chronic conditions expanded with age, with four of every five (80.0%) individuals aged 65 years and over having at least one constant condition.

Health care in Australia

In the 20th century, healthcare developed and increased rapidly in Australia. A portion of the developments that added to this positive change have been distinguished in the Museum’s rundown of extremely important occasions. These include the 1908 presentation of old age and invalid benefits, the 1912 presentation of a maternity recompense, 1945 presentation of unemployment and ailment benefits. Universal healthcare services are generally new in Australia. Health services in the nineteenth century were especially a private issue. The nature of health services relied upon numerous components, including where you lived, what sort of background and education you had, and your degree of income. Physicians were not the profoundly prepared and managed experts that we consider now; that also is a twentieth-century development. On the off chance that you became ill in the nineteenth century and you couldn’t bear the cost of a specialist, you were significantly more liable to depend on acquired people’s astuteness, the nearby pharmacist or scientific expert, and the thoughtfulness of loved ones. Medical clinics were by and large places after all other options had run out.

The principal cycle of Medicare was called Medibank, and it was introduced by the Whitlam government in 1975, early in the second term. The federal government under Malcolm Fraser had dismissed Bills identifying with its financing, which is the reason it took the administration such a long time to get it built up. Medibank started on 1 July 1975 and passed off by a joint sitting of Parliament on 7 August 1974. It had just a brief time of activity before the Whitlam government was rejected. The approaching Fraser government altered Medibank, building up a duty of 2.5% on salary to support it (however giving the choice to take out private medical coverage). Curiously, the duty was higher than that proposed by the Whitlam government and which the Coalition had blocked while in resistance. Different changes were pursued, for example, changes to concurrences with the states over how a lot of cash emergency clinics would get, limitations in advantages and mass charging, and discounts for those with private protection. Most of these progressions were denied by the forthcoming Hawke Labor government in 1984. Besides a name change from Medibank to Medicare, the social insurance framework that began activity on 1 February was fundamentally the same as that presented in 1975. Medicare stays set up however it is regularly a hot political topic.

Medicare is a general health care coverage that covers every single Australian resident and lasting occupants, with different projects covering explicit gatherings, for example, veterans or Indigenous Australians, and different necessary protection plans spread individual damage coming about because of working environment or vehicle episodes. Medicare is supported by a Medicare demand, which at present is a 2% demand on residents’ calculable salary over a specific pay. Higher-pay workers pay an extra demand (called a Medicare Levy Surcharge) on the off chance that they don’t have private medical coverage. Occupants with certain ailments, remote inhabitants, some low-pay workers, and those not qualified for Medicare advantages may apply for an exclusion from paying the duty, and some low-salary workers can apply for decreases to the levy. Medicare is not a widespread medicinal services framework in itself, similar to the UK’s NHS, yet rather is an open protection plot that spreads practically all healthcare costs in Australia.

Did you know that Australia could fill an Olympic sized swimming pool 9,000 times from just food waste? The Australian economy spends an estimated $20 billion on food waste. When you go to the supermarket one of those five bags end up in the bin off to landfill, that is equal to $3,800 worth of groceries per household each year. Australia doesn’t dispose food waste responsibly all the time. Why doesn’t Australia dispose their food waste responsibly and how can these decisions impact us and how can we help the way people think/ what can we do about this.

How come Australia waste so much food in the first place. Australia overbuys on their food and don’t know how to use leftover food. Also, Australia forgets about some of the food in their fridge and wait till the use by date of expiry. 20-40% of fruits and vegetables don’t even make it off the farms. Take bananas for an example, they must meet the criteria of being the right shape and size and length to be sold at supermarkets. This shows that we get rid of food for bad reason. We have 1.6 billion tons of edible food that’s wasted every year. These foods can still be eaten or sold at a supermarket. We can cook with them before they go out of date or they will be more food waste.

This food we waste impacts Australians in bad and sometimes good way. The food waste in landfill rots and gives off a methane gas, which is 21 to 25 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Australian economy pays around $20-$25 billion a year due to food waste. The good side to food waste is instead of the food waste going to landfill we can recycle, the gases are captured and converted into green energy and natural fertilizers that can be used for farming. Another way of saying this is that food waste can be a bad and good thing. However, the bad thing if you let off a dangerous gas and the good side is that you can have a good fertilizer.

What can us, Australians, do to help with food waste. There is so much we can do to help with food waste such as shop less, make a shopping list and stick to it, don’t reject ugly or weird food shapes, don’t throw away food if its ok to eat later, store food carefully so it doesn’t spoil, use your nose as well as use by dates, reduce portion size, if eating out take left overs home. There are companies that contribute to reduce food waste, like OzHarvest. OzHarvest rescues over 180 tons of food each week from over 3,500 food donors that would otherwise have gone to landfill. The reason for this is that we can limit our food wastage, then less food will go to landfill. This is important for all the reasons above.

Australians are not wasting food responsibly. They don’t think enough about how it impacts the environment and other people. If we help people understand what food waste can lead to and how to recycle probably it could help the environment. One third of the world’s food is wasted and if we all change one little aspect and keep building to improve our recycling habits, it could have a significant impact for generations to come. Also, food waste produces eight per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Food waste could be the third largest greenhouse gas emitter with USA and China in front.

Think of that peanut butter sandwich you threw away at lunch because you ‘didn’t feel like it’. Or maybe that half-eaten banana you tossed in the bin because of you ‘didn’t like the texture’. Seriously? I mean, come on. It all adds up. Did you know that Australia wastes 5 million tons of food per year? That’s enough to fill 9,000 Olympic sized swimming pools!

I will be discussing an issue that affects each and every one of us. Food wastage. It’s quite shocking. The government must do something to lower the level of food wastage in Australia. In Australia alone, millions of people live under the poverty line, and cannot afford to buy let alone waste food. Something must be done to ensure that edible food is not thrown out, when it could be given to those in need. The fact that wasting an item that has absolutely perfectly fine is a travesty and is morally and ethically wrong.

In Australia, figures display that food wastage is growing rapidly and has the potential to threaten our environment. 8 billion dollars worth of edible food is thrown out each year (foodwise, 2017). These numbers will only increase. When we waste food, we’re not just wasting food. We’re also wasting all the resources that went into growing it. We are wasting precious water. We are using unnecessary fuel and land. We are wasting money. You are wasting your money. Food waste is decomposed in a landfill without oxygen, creating an anaerobic sequence that produces methane, which is approximately 25 times more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. This contributes to the destruction of the ozone layer (Thinkeatsave, 2019). Do you want to destroy our planet? It’s crazy to think that such horrific repercussions can stem from you tossing out a half-eaten apple. So, when we throw food away, we’re wasting precious resources, and also creating toxic greenhouse gasses in the process. With a future of more people and fewer resources, we cannot afford to throw our natural resources out with the garbage.

I’m sure you’ve all heard the saying, ‘Charity begins at home’. Obviously not! The Australian Council of Social Service’s 2018 report found that there are just over 3 million people (13.2%) living below the poverty line of 50% of median income – including 739,000 children (17.3%). The report further found that one in eight adults and more than one in six children are living in poverty. Many of those affected are living in deep poverty – on average, this is a staggering $135 per week below the poverty line. When Australian citizens are in financially trying times, they simply cannot afford to buy food. This leaves adults, families and kids to starve. However, the most shocking thing of all is the fact that huge cooperations and companies throw away perfectly fine excess food. The food that could go to elevating hunger. Every problem has a solution. As Australians, it is very easy to throw our hands in the air and say, “that’s too hard”. But we are a resourceful nation, how can we not find the resources to feed hungry people. As Australian citizens, we must help each other out. Or else this cycle of poverty will never stop.

Did you know that there is a way you can save your money, our farmlands and fuel by doing one single thing? Stop throwing away food that is fine for consumption. The fact you waste an item that has absolutely nothing wrong with it is an abomination. It just doesn’t make sense. The sense of entitlement that people have, they don’t realize that they have all of this amazing fresh produce as a privilege. They view it as an entitlement. If that’s the way we view the world, of course, we will not be satisfied with what they have. Due to this factor, copious amounts of money are wasted. According to LiveTribe, Australia alone discards up to $8 billion worth of edible food each year. The average family spends $279 a week on food and drink. However, each household throws out at least $1036 of groceries each year (ASIC’s MoneySmart, 2016). This money could be used to feed the average household for over a month! Or pay off 6 months your electricity bill (Foodwise, 2019).

Now, what must be done to fix this issue? Big corporations such as Woolworths and Coles can donate their excess food to churches, or homeless shelters. Food retailers can reduce prices of that imperfectly shaped vegetable and donate unsellable yet edible surplus grocery food to those in need. We are hitting two birds with one stone. Food that is not fit for human consumption should be reused to feed animals, for example, pig farms. Bakers delight significantly discounts their goods, in the last hour of the day, other companies can implement this strategy to further to reduce food wastage.

Australians need to be more aware of their purchasing habits because we tend to overstock on items we buy, don’t check the fridge before going shopping and buy too much because we don’t stick to a shopping list. Or go shopping when we are hungry and cook too much.

Clearly, we are unthoughtful when it comes to shopping habits. Just as we plan for our daily activities; like work, sport, and school we must prepare in advance what we will be consuming each week. For those who are time-poor or those who don’t know what to cook, there are organizations such as Youfoodz or HelloFresh, that deliver nutritious, fresh product straight to your door that has the exact amount of food you need inside. They even support local farmers.

Food waste is a massive issue that happens in Australia, and is continuing to grow. Over 5 million tons of food is wasted just alone in Australia. On average $3’800 per year is thrown out per household, food waste is killing wildlife believe it or not. Due to the fact food waste produces methane, methane is a very powerful gas. Food waste cost Australian economy $20 billion a year. In the whole world 1 in 3 of all food is lost and wasted nearly costing the economy 1 trillion dollars. Food waste is contributing hugely to climate change and global warming, in fact 8% of greenhouse gasses heating the earth is from food waste.

Why Do We Need to Address the Problem of Food Waste?

Food wasted needs to be addressed now since it is causing many environmental problems and financial issues. When food waste enters landfill and becomes a greenhouse gas called methane which is very unhealthy for people and animals. Food that goes to waste uses 24% of Australia’s freshwater. Also uses up ​28 million tons of fertilizers and pesticides used in agriculture. Food waste has a huge impact towards economic, as they drive up food prices making food less affordable for the less fortunate limiting the chance of affording the healthy foods they need. Food waste is a lost opportunity when it comes towards feeding the homeless as well. The gas food waste lets of is methane, methane is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

What Innovative Things Are Businesses Currently Doing to Limit Food Waste?

All though food waste is a massive issue there can be many innovative things people and businesses can do and are currently doing to reduce the amount of food waste going to landfill. Some food businesses are taking food waste and making it into a product, for example, Barnana are taking rejected bananas and making them into nutritious snacks. Some of their snacks they are producing are Chewy Banana Bites and Banana Brittle. There can be many reduction strategies in place to reduce food waste, some being: take a shopping list, cook only what you need, freeze more and many more. Households can make sure they put garden and kitchen organic waste in the green bin and keep track of what they throw out.

What Government Strategies, Federal and State Are in Place to Reduce Food Waste?

The government, federal and state have little but some strategies to reduce food waste. The Australian government has a strategy in place to halve Australia’s food waste by 2030. The strategy by following Sustainable Development Goal 12—ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. The government has also developed national waste policy. There are food waste bins as well, for example, the green bin putting garden and kitchen scraps in it can reduce food race.

Conclusion

Food waste is a massive issue that is happening in Australia and across the whole world. It is causing many issues in different matters, being environmental and financial. There can be many ways to reduce it from household to government. Business is starting to reduce food waste by using the food waste and making new products. Come on Australia and do something about food waste.

References

1. www.bayside.vic.gov.au. (2019). ​Bayside City Council | Local Community Services | VIC​. [online]. Available at: https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/ [Accessed 12 Nov. 2019].
2. www.energy.gov.au. (2019). ​energy.gov.au​. [online]. Available at: https://www.energy.gov.au/ [Accessed 12 Nov. 2019].
3. www.forbes.com. (2019). ​What Environmental Problems Does Wasting Food Cause?​ [online]. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/07/18/what-environmental-problems-does-wasting-food-cause/#380303222f7a [Accessed 12 Nov. 2019].
4. PreScouter. (2019). ​PreScouter – Custom Intelligence from a Global Network of Experts​. [online]. Available at: https://www.prescouter.com/ [Accessed 12 Nov. 2019].
5. wwf.org.au. (2019). ​WWF – Reducing Food Waste​. [online] Available at: https://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/food/reducing-food-waste [Accessed 12 Nov. 2019].

Australian cultural identity is the notion that all people within Australia share the same beliefs and values surrounding a single culture. It includes the history of our nation as well as the beliefs and virtues which shape the nation’s character, as perceived from a global point of view. However cultural identity is inherently flawed as it suggests that we all share the same perspective on the way in which our society as a whole should act. John Kinsella’s anthology, The Silo invites the contemporary reader to view Australia in new ways and in doing so challenges our current beliefs about our nation. Kinsella is often regarded as following the tradition of the romantics which he demonstrates in his activist conservation methods and his beliefs about the natural landscape. The silo also makes reference to Beethoven’s pastoral symphony which is also regarded as having romantic themes. Through Kinsella’s revaluation of our national identity through the themes which are explored within the Silo, Kinsella readdresses these aspects of society and nature and presents them to the reader in new and controversial ways. In doing so Kinsella is able to contest the idea of national identity and the ways it has been constructed by a British hegemony and patriarchal forefathers. The presumption that Australia has its own cultural identity is contested since the white Australia policies demolition in 1973-74, our identity as a nation is formed on the belief that our nation is made up of a diverse range of races and cultural identities and therefore does not have one singular identity.

Australia is a relatively new country being formed on the 1st of January 1901 on which day the British Parliament passed legislation allowing the six Australian colonies to govern each state as a joint entity as part of the Commonwealth of Australia. As a result of this our cultural identity has never had a chance to form. As a nation, we lack the traditions that many nations have, such as customs, traditional dress, and cuisine. Cultural identity can be defined as a process involving a cognitive appraisal, which results from self-awareness achieved either through the collective experience within a group, or the perceptions of an individual as we compare ourselves to a reference group, generally English as our ‘mother country, despite the efforts of the settlers to eradicate British traditions in Australia.

Kinsella endorses the notion that we as a nation lack a clear identity through his criticism of farming practices in Australia. when Kinsella criticizes the values that farming has helped shape our nation, such as in his poem Hydraulics, Flywheel, saw and PTO it is controversial as it criticizes one of the major factors that has shaped, what is generally considered our national identity, agriculture, and farming. The use of sibilance in the first stanza of Hydraulics constructs the machine as snake-like as it hisses regressively, only to ‘bite at the malee roots as their “flesh [is] deep-bitten and [they] screech like a wounded galah.” Kinsella employs the auditory image of the screeching galah to symbolize the native wildlife and natural landscape of Australia, and address the negative impacts that our so-called national identity of agriculture has on the natural landscape of the country. In this poem, he reveals the destruction that agriculture has on the environment of Australia through the clearing of the land, removal of forest/trees, for the keeping of livestock, and alternatively could also reference the motif of over-reaping the land, a common theme throughout much of his oeuvre. The poem also arouses the notion that many of the aspects mentioned in The silo are unfamiliar to a contemporary audience and enforces the idea that we lack traditions, a major aspect of our cultural identity. Previous to researching the machinery in the title I was unsure what a flywheel and PTO were, and although a male reader may understand this more clearly I was not familiar with them as a result of my cultural identity.

Kinsella suggests that the impact of colonization and European farming practices have created a sense of loss and discomfort which permeates through contemporary Australian society and that we as a population are somewhat out of place. This is revealed through the silo’s appearance as “incongruous amongst the new machinery”. The gothic nature of the work and Kinsella’s manipulation of language as well as the dense text and varied prosody evokes a mood of uncertainty and fear around the old silo, reminiscent of Australia’s fear of tradition, having revoked many of our British traditions when the convicts were sent to colonize Australia. Through the use of gothic imagery and language choices the ideas presented in the silo position the reader to notice how farmers are imprisoned by guilt and anxiety as a result of their destruction of Australia’s rural landscape in the descriptions of the farmer’s hand which “Describ[ed] a prison from which neither/could hope for parole, petition, release.” the quote suggests that the farmers have built themselves a prison however this idea also relates back to the convicts who ‘conquered’ the Australian landscape and converted it into farming land through Eurocentric farming practices. An uncanny mood throughout the poem presents an uncertain secret regarding the history of the silo, while also causing the reader to reflect upon, how machinery has enabled mass destruction by Australia’s initial settlers. This poem suggests that there is an uneasy secret at the heart of modern Australia: something that we tacitly agree not to acknowledge because we believe it to be shameful in some way. This idea is reinforced by the visual imagery of the “Thin sprays of baby’s breath [which] grew around its [the silo’s] foundations, while wedding bouquet sprouted bizarrely from the grey mat of thatching.” These flowers positioned at the foundations and on top of the silo act as a shroud that obscures and conceals the shameful Eurocentric policies such as the white Australia policy and farming practices represented by the Silo, whereas the use of wedding symbols suggest a tradition/ceremony, as well as the perpetuity of the destruction of farming practices, misuse of the silo which had “been the way for as far back as could be remembered.”

Through analysis of Kinsella’s anthology, the silo, and my context of cultural identity as an Australian-born reader, it is evident that Kinsella, whilst deconstructing the notion of Australian cultural identity in its patriarchal and Eurocentric form, reconstructs it in ways which contemporary readers can acknowledge and understand. Kinsella addresses that cultural identity is inherently flawed as it suggests that we all share the same perspective on the way in which our society as a whole should act, through his romantic and activist values as an individual. It is through poems such as Hydraulics and The silo that Kinsella provided deeper meaning on the subject of cultural identities, such as his beliefs that traditional European farming practices have a negative effect on the environment, and in doing so he criticizes an aspect of what Australians consider to be an aspect of our national identity. Although controversial this estrangement of the viewer towards traditional farming practices, allows Kinsella to evoke a mindset of change and the creation of new views and ideas about Australian cultural identity.

The ‘Sexual Health Youth STI Campaign’ is a compelling and authoritative campaign run by the Department of Health, Western Australia Government. The campaign uses notions of fear to target adolescence at how easily contactable Sexually Transmitted Infection’s are. The campaign looks to promote education towards the issue as well as normalize STI testing among young people. This report will focus on why there are negative connotations towards sex itself, instead of being promoted as a pleasurable quality of life. Ideologies of bio-power, healthism and pre-emptive risk, as well as discourses of pleasure and truth, will be explored. This report will also question and critique ideologies that surround these discourses and whether this has made the campaign successful or not.

This paper will critique the discourses of sexuality that rely on fear and repression, which deny the sexual experiences and realities of young people (Cayen, 2016). The primary argument in this paper will look at why, as such an essential aspect of life, there is a lack of promotion and education about sex itself. The campaigns use of fear reduces sex to something negative, and that cannot be trusted. Therefore it is imperative for the future that the way sex is constructed should be in more positive terms.

The approach by the Western Australian Government will not be critiqued in its entirety in this report. As it is essential to educate and promote potential problems that might incur when engaging in sexual activity. The use of fear in this campaign is used to capture the targeted audience and educate them on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI). Society needs to know that STI’s are a preventable disease and therefore teaching adolescence will have more of a chance at encouraging individuals to engage in safe sex.

Biopower

The Foucauldian concept of bio-power is sharply drawn on in this campaign through its reliability on the Government to promote and provide testing for STI’s in young adolescents. Biopower is mainly displayed through biopolitics as the campaign works on the body of the population by grouping adolescence into one domain and calling it a problem.

The critical theoretical point that is prominent in this campaign is Foucault’s theory of disciplinary power. This theory explores the idea that ‘social control can be more successful and easily achieved when governors work with the power of life’ (Foucault, 1977 in O’Byrne, 2012). This disciplinary power comprises truth discourses that are imperative in the effectiveness of the campaign as power and knowledge can be understood as a truth (Cayen, 2016).

The Foucauldian framework looks at how biopower and normalization are used as strategies of power in this campaign. Normalization refers to disciplinary practices that involve the establishment of an authoritarian model as a norm, and then require people to conform to the model, demonstrating bio-political technology. The individual embodies biopower through modes of subjectification, where the individual internalizes the surveillance. The subjectification shown in the campaign through the notion of fear is it is inherently political, being deployed by the state to govern the population’s sexual practices (Gagnon et al., 2010). It is essential to acknowledge that bio-power is used to alert the public about sex and the risks associated with it, which through fear is how this campaign has demonstrated this bio-political technology.

However, Tepper (2002) suggests that if society is not able to talk about sex itself as a pleasurable experience, how does the Government think they are going to be able to normalize STI testing if sex is not normalized itself. Foucault’s (1978) paper, ‘The History of Sexuality, Volume I,’ emphasized that rather than censorship and to hide talking about the positives of sex, society should talk about it to reduce the stigma surrounding sex which could help lower the rates of STIs.

Healthism

Healthism is perceived as a moral responsibility, in an increasingly neoliberal context which is reflected through the campaign, specifically targeting young adults to be responsible for their sexual health. Healthism is reflected in the campaign as the onus is on the individual’s shoulders having the ‘choice’ of getting tested and being responsible for engaging in safe sex. As health and medicalisation continue to develop, it continues to get further from our reach as it is ‘dynamic and changing all the time’ (Cheek and Oster, 2008). Therefore in the near future, it will be unlikely that society will become free from STI’s altogether; however, that does not and should not mean society as a whole cannot work towards this.

Crawford (1980) argues that ‘we can as individuals control our own existence, regardless of the environmental and social conditions which impact health’ (Cayen, 2016). Healthism is characterised by expecting individuals to acquire information and thus make informed decisions, therefore institutions such as the Government are needed to provide this information. Hence, the illusion of healthism cannot solely be brought on by oneself, as shown through the campaign. Healthism is not only to benefit the individual but is also for the good of society as a whole by taking the weight off the state. This report argues that responsibility should be in part the role of the Government to educate individuals about sexual health, so they can then make their own informed health decisions.

Pleasure

Drawing on Tepper (2000), the discourse of pleasure is mostly absent in Australian culture. Pleasure adds meaning to an individual’s life, and if sex gives pleasure and makes one feel good why to does society continually promote sex as bad for your health. Past campaigns such as Gonorrhoea ‘dating app’ campaign and the Aboriginal Sexual Health Campaign (Gov of WA, 2015) illustrate that the lack of pleasure as discourse is prominent and demonstrates that the message is ever only focused at highlighting the negatives in regards to sexual health. Society needs to view pleasure as apart of health and not as a separate category.

Consequences, such as fear or shame of having sex, are already active. They will continue to worsen if both the Government and society continue to talk about sexuality in negative terms. Acknowledging that sexually transmitted diseases can impact an individual’s enjoyment of sexuality and thus, their sexual health is not to go astray. (Lottes, 2000). There also needs to be positive reinforcement from the Government so that individuals have ‘the ability to enjoy one’s sexuality, an aspect of sexual health … without the fear or worry’ (Lottes, 2000).

Pre-emptive model of risk

The pre-emptive model of risk is deeply embedded in this campaign as sex is considered a ‘risky’ behaviour and assumes that the chosen subject, young adults, are irrational. This model assumes that risk and other threats to health are ‘incalculable, unpredictable, but always imminent’ (Diprose et al. 2008). The Government of WA has used this model with the intent to scare the targeted audience that engaging in unsafe sex is associated with risky behavior, and this behavior will only end in adverse outcomes. Through discourses of moralization, the campaign places moral responsibility on both the state and the individual through the underlying fear of risk that could come from implications that occur from the continual rise of STI’s in Australia.

The campaign questionably uses the stigma associated with STIs for a fearful tactic, juxtaposing the purpose of the campaign of ‘normalizing’ the process of getting tested. However, Cayen (2016) and Balfe et al. (2010) state that it is more than likely that this approach may steer young adults away from getting tested as they do not want to be associated with the stigma that surrounds STIs in the first place.

The campaigns use of pre-emptive risk is exemplified in the visualization of the advertisement. Cayan (2016) emphasizes the importance of imagery and text, ‘they constitute the way we understand information, messages and meaning.’ Therefore the campaign slogan, ‘unprotected sex with one person, isn’t just with one person’ is already a powerful message, but is then enhanced through the graphics of a woman’s body with many hands-on her which portrays a sense of dirtiness and fear for the viewer. The impact of visualization and fear forces the audience to imagine and consider the worst hypothesis.

Tepper (2000) critiques this model, suggesting that the negative impact that this approach can have in dampening the potential of the individuals future. The campaign limits the individual’s ability to see the positives of what safe sex can bring, as it encloses only a doomed and bleak future scenario onto the individual at what might happen if engaging in unsafe sex.

A pivotal point to make is that risk itself has become an essential category in regards to sex, and a negative one at that. The campaign assumes that this experience of having sex, especially if with more than one person is an unusual and dangerous practice to do and should be treated as an abnormality. Using fear around the notion of sex will have negative consequences for adolescents in that they will be discouraged from the pleasure of sex altogether as well as being deterred from getting tested due to the negative connotations and stigma surrounding STIs (Balfe et al., 2010).

Discussion & Conclusion

This report critiques the Western Australian Governments sexual health campaign through major themes and discourses that are reflected in the campaign. The notion of fear is sharply drawn on in this campaign with a bio political approach aiming to coerce the targeted audience into getting tested as well as engaging in safe sex. The Government website linked with the campaign states that this campaign seeks to normalize getting tested, however through discourses discussed using fear as a technique to scare young adults is counter-productive in trying to normalize this process.

Foucault’s bio power and Crawford’s healthism ideologies were critical when examining the intention the Government had for the campaign. As a Government-run campaign, bio-power is expressed through governmentality that is placed onto the individual. hilst Healthism is drawn on from internalizing self-surveillance and the ‘choice’ of being tested or engaging in safe sex. As discussed, imagery and text were a powerful tool which impacted the target audience through the pre-emptive model of risk in the campaign.

Through the repressive effects of the campaign, it is evident that the Government should focus on the promotion of safe sex in their future campaigns without using fear. Educating the targeted audience about the pleasures that can come from safe sex will limit the negativity and stigma around sex and STI’s, consequently lowering the number of STI rates in Australia. The campaign was successful in its use of fear and placing that fear onto the individual. However, as discussed, the campaign was not successful in achieving the outcomes of normalizing STI treatment and promoting safe sex through this fear. In hand, the Government needs to continue to focus on the normalization of the currently abnormal topic of sex.