Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anastasia Hronis, Clinical Psychologist, University of Technology Sydney

Advertisements for gambling and online betting tell us to “gamble responsibly”. But what does this mean in reality? And how can you gamble responsibly online when another bet is just a click or swipe away?

Read more: Gambling in Australian culture: more than just a day at the races

A total of 64% of Australian adults gamble at least once a year, with one third of gamblers participating in multiple forms of gambling. Lottery is the most common form of gambling among those who gamble regularly (76%), followed by instant scratch tickets (22%) and electronic gaming machines (or “pokies”, almost 21%).

Up to 160,000 Australians experience significant problems from gambling, and up to a further 350,000 experience moderate risks that make them vulnerable to developing a gambling problem.

Read more: Education, not restriction, is key to reducing harm from offshore gambling

In about the past 15 years, there’s been a rise in online gambling. While rates of online gambling for Australians are low compared to traditional forms of gambling, participation in online gambling appears to be increasing rapidly.

If this continues, online gambling may soon replace traditional, in-venue gambling, particularly for young people.

About one young person in every 25 has a problem with gambling, which is an average of one in every high school classroom. Up to one in five bet on sports matches and one in ten gamble online.

Young people exposed to gambling when watching sport

Advertisements for gambling and online betting are particularly common in Australian sport. While there has been a recent shift to regulate when and how gambling is advertised during sporting matches, there is still a heavy presence.

In fact, three in four children aged eight to 16 who watch sports can name at least one betting company.

The public health campaign, “Love the Game, Not the Odds”, was released addressing the issue of reducing the exposure of young people to sport betting.

It aims to disrupt the notion that gambling is a normal part of sport and being a spectator. And it aims to help start and facilitate conversations with children and adolescents about gambling not needing to be an integral part of gaming.

How to ‘gamble responsibly’?

The phrase “gamble responsibly” on advertisements and websites was used for years before researchers and public health advocates looked at the types of behaviours that underpin it.

Responsible gambling is defined as:

Exercising control and informed choice to ensure that gambling is kept within affordable limits of money and time, is enjoyable, in balance with other activities and responsibilities, and avoids gambling-related harm.

Ways of achieving this include:

• ensuring gambling is affordable by not gambling with money needed for necessities (such as bills or food)
• ensuring gambling doesn’t dominate your leisure time, and you are engaging in other social and leisure activities
• avoiding borrowing money or using a credit card to gamble
• avoiding gambling when under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, or as a way to manage emotions when you are bored, depressed or anxious
• setting limits around how much and long you with gamble for, setting a limit on your maximum bet size, and avoiding increasing bets when winning or losing.

Additional tips for people gambling online include:

• setting limits on how much you can gamble by only using websites with a daily limit spend
• avoiding having multiple online gambling accounts.

How do I know if I have a gambling problem?

There are clear signs when gambling moves from being a hobby to becoming a mental health concern. These include:

• needing to gamble with increasing amounts of money to achieve the desired excitement
• feeling restless or irritable when trying to stop gambling
• trying to stop or cut back gambling unsuccessfully
• spending a lot of time thinking about gambling
• gambling when you’re feeling anxious or upset
• chasing losses (by trying to make up losses with more gambling)
• lying to others to conceal the extent of your gambling
• relying on others for money
• jeopardising relationships, job or opportunities because of gambling.

If you are concerned about your gambling, seek professional help and exclude yourself from gambling venues and websites.

In practice, for online gambling, this might mean disabling automatic logins and deleting accounts.

If this article raises concerns for you or someone you know, gambling support is available via Lifeline (13 11 14), or via Gambling Help Online, which lists services in your state or territory.

– ref. We’re told to ‘gamble responsibly’. But what does that actually mean? – https://theconversation.com/were-told-to-gamble-responsibly-but-what-does-that-actually-mean-130949

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Howard Manns, Lecturer in Linguistics, Monash University

Why do different countries have different languages? – Maeôra, aged 6

Humans have long been puzzled by the existence of different languages. A long time ago, people took guesses or made up stories to explain this.

You might know the tale of the Tower of Babel (have a look at a famous painting of it, below). In this story from the Bible, humans originally spoke a single language. But God got angry when these humans tried to build a tower to heaven. This wasn’t in God’s plan. So he made humans speak different languages and scattered them across the Earth.

In another story, believed by the Indigenous Absaroka people in the United States, an old coyote created humans. At first, these humans spoke a single language (like in the Babel story), but a younger coyote argued to the old coyote that humans had a talent for warfare. The young coyote convinced the older one to make humans speak different languages. That way, humans could misunderstand one another — this would lead to war and humans could show off their talent!

And in yet another story, in Jawoyn country in the Northern Territory people believe the crocodile Nabilil planted language into the landscape, giving names to land features as he travelled.

There are many, many more stories like these throughout the world!

More recently, we linguists have tried to answer this question. Truthfully, we’ll probably never know the origin of language, but we do have a good idea of how different languages appear and change. And, interestingly, there’s a little bit of truth in those earlier stories of castles, coyotes and crocodiles.

The tower factor: three magic ingredients

In the Tower of Babel story, God makes humans travel throughout the world. In fact, we know from archaeological digs that humans have been on the move for thousands of years — as long as we’ve been human!

What you need then to create different languages are three magic ingredients: time, distance and the processes of language change. So when speakers of a single language separate and travel to different places, the single language can become two or more languages over time.

Take the example of Latin. When Latin speakers split up and spread themselves around Europe, their Latin turned into languages like French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. So Latin isn’t really dead — it evolved into these modern languages.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why do Aussies have a different accent to Canadians, Americans, British people and New Zealanders?

English was born in the same way. In the fifth century, powerful Germanic tribes (those Angles, Saxons and Jutes) left their European homelands and invaded Britain. The dialects of Germanic they spoke gave rise to Old English — it would sound as foreign to you as modern German does now (for example, urne gedæghwamlican hlaf is Old English for “our daily bread”).

The coyote factor: language and identity

The Absaroka coyote story points to how people with different languages might misunderstand or disagree with one another. Language is often connected to our identity. Along with travelling to different places, identity is another thing that can lead to language change or different languages.

For instance, in one village in Papua New Guinea (a country just north of Australia), everyone spoke the same language, Selepet, as people in nearby villages. However, those living in this village decided to change their word for “no”. This way, their version in Selepet would be different (bunge) from the typical Selepet word for no (bia), and would represent the proud identity of the village.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why does English have so many different spelling rules?

Think closer to home and the rivalry between places like Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, or between the bush and the city. The coyote factor is a major incentive for people everywhere to start highlighting their identity through their language.

So will Australian English eventually break up into separate languages in the way Latin did? Probably not. The thing is, we aren’t isolated as people were in earlier times. We chat regularly, face to face, on the phone, via computers, and in many other ways.

The crocodile factor: new words for new places and experiences

The story of Nabilil the crocodile points to how language evolves in close relationship with its environment, and how those who travel assign new labels to the land, animals and experiences they encounter.

We see this with the arrival of English to Australia. English was more than 800 years old by the time it came to be used in Australia. However, English-speaking settlers did not have words to describe Australia. They borrowed words from Indigenous Australian languages (kangaroo, wombat) or developed new meanings for old words (magpie, possum; both of these were originally used for different animals in Europe and the US!).

Like people, languages are always on the move, and this is why we have so many of them — more than 300 within Australia alone. One way to avoid the curse of little coyote is to learn some of them!

– ref. Curious Kids: why do people in different countries speak different languages? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-people-in-different-countries-speak-different-languages-127112

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Gomes, Associate Professor, RMIT University

The 2020 academic year is off to a rocky start. Instead of the usual excitement that comes with a new semester, university students, particularly those still in China (more than 100,000 or 56% of all international students) and those who have just returned, face uncertainty.

On January 30, the World Health Organisation declared the new strain of coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern.

The Australian government responded by imposing a travel ban on any Chinese or foreign national from entering or transiting in Australia until 14 days after leaving anywhere in mainland China. Those already in Australia must self-quarantine for no less than 14 days.

How have universities responded?

Universities have been swift to respond in an inclusive manner by reassuring Chinese students in particular they will be welcomed back with little disruption to their studies.

But the details have varied. Monash university is postponing the start of its semester by one week. Others, such as the University of Sydney, the University of New South Wales and Queensland University of Technology are asking Chinese students to enrol later or defer while some are rescheduling summer exams.

Most universities haven’t shifted their semester dates. They are telling students coming from China to self-isolate and not come to campus for 14 days. Others are offering online courses specifically for students stuck in China.

There are several ways responses to the coronavirus can impact international students – Chinese or otherwise

1. Moving courses online isn’t simple

All Australian universities can communicate with students, and provide access to course material, online. Many encourage instructor-student interchanges in virtual classrooms managed through learning management systems such as Canvas.

While these are excellent resources for students in Australia, the 157,000 international students still in China may not be able to access them. The Great Firewall of China prevents Chinese access to popular global platforms such as Google and, increasingly, to virtual private networks (VPNs) which would be able to bypass the firewall.

Read more: The coronavirus outbreak is the biggest crisis ever to hit international education

Online education in itself is a contested space. Previous research has shown online learning and flipped classrooms (where students do some online self-learning prior to later face-to-face classes) have mixed results both generally and in specific disciplines such as medicine.

This is because designing online learning experiences is a complex exercise that requires resources, thought and time. Given the short period academics have to build additional resources, it is a challenge for even the best academics to create a productive and effective online learning environment.

2. Studying overseas is expensive

The cost of studying in Australia is not cheap. Annually, an undergraduate international student may spend anywhere between A$20,000 to A$45,000 for their degree. They will spend an estimated A$9,150 to A$18,600 for living expenses if they stay in Australia for 15 weeks.

While institutions have concentrated their attention on Chinese international students, other international students are also victims of the coronavirus fallout. Delayed progress could mean many international students have to extend their stay in Australia. It’s still unclear whether the government will help reimburse these expenses.

3. The first few weeks are important for socialising

The first few weeks are crucial in a student’s journey and need to be spent on transition and socialisation.

Our research has found international students consider the friends they make in the host country to be their replacement family. Friends provide the support structures students feel they need while away from home.

New international students make friends with people at the beginning of their study journey in Australia. Often these friendships are with other international students who they meet at international student orientations organised by their respective institutions.

Read more: Why international students need to make Aussie friends

New Chinese international students who are under quarantine will not be able to take part in such activities. Students living in institutional residential halls have support structures in place, but what about students who have no one to check on them and to make sure they are alright?

International students leave their families and support structures behind. The added uncertainty and fear around the virus is not a great way to begin the transition period. An isolation period could potentially exacerbate stress for students.

What universities should do to help

We are in unprecedented territory. It is heartening to see universities doing their best to help students in such uncertain times. But how we help international students after this health crisis is over is equally important.

It’s crucial universities provide academic advice and support to students feeling left behind in their courses. They must also strengthen services for distressed students affected directly or indirectly by the coronavirus outbreak.

Universities and the government should provide support to the broader student cohort, including transitioning late international students to classes mid-semester. If not managed and communicated properly, this can impact on the socialisation and group-work aspects of courses.

Read more: We need to make sure the international student boom is sustainable

Universities also need to support their academic and student support staff. They are at the front line managing the fallout. They will still be dealing with the consequences of the crisis once the outbreak is well and truly over.

The way forward should be based on respect and empathy. The way we respond to this crisis will not only have impact on our students, but will also reflect who we are as a nation.

– ref. 3 ways the coronavirus outbreak will affect international students and how unis can help – https://theconversation.com/3-ways-the-coronavirus-outbreak-will-affect-international-students-and-how-unis-can-help-131195

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rupert Sutherland, Professor of tectonics and geophysics, Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington

Three years ago, the identification of Zealandia as a continent made global headlines.

Now, newly published results from our scientific drilling expedition reveal the largely submerged Zealandia continent, which stretches across five million square kilometres beneath the southwest Pacific Ocean, was shaped by two tectonic events.

First it was ripped away from Australia and Antarctica, and then it was carved by forces that started the Pacific Ring of Fire.

Why Zealandia is so different to other continents

Zealandia has an unusual geography for a continent. More than half the surface area of Earth’s other six continents are composed of low-lying land and shallow seas, and they have relatively narrow mountain ranges and steep continental slopes in the deep ocean.

In contrast, Zealandia is mostly hidden beneath more than one kilometre of water and could be classified as more than 90% continental slope. This makes it a challenge to explore.

The first scientific drilling expedition to sample in the area where we now know Zealandia is took place in 1972 between Australia, New Zealand and New Caledonia. The results suggested tectonic forces stretched and thinned Zealandia’s crust until it was ripped from the ancient supercontinent Gondwana about 85 million years ago, during the time of dinosaurs. This created a deep ocean: the Tasman Sea.

The evidence remains compelling that this is at least part of the answer to how the geography of Zealandia formed. But detailed surveys during the 1990s and 2000s, carried out to establish sovereignty over the Zealandia continental mass by New Zealand, Australia and France, suggested other contributing factors.

Read more: What are lost continents, and why are we discovering so many?

How the Pacific Ring of Fire shaped Zealandia

In 2017, we led a nine-week expedition into the southwest Pacific as part of the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP), with 32 scientists on board the research vessel JOIDES Resolution. Our aim was to unravel why Zealandia is so different from the other continents.

Our newly published results have been drawn from that expedition 371, where we collected new samples and sought to test our hypothesis that formation of the Pacific Ring of Fire played a key role in shaping Zealandia.

We collected sediment cores from up to 864 metres beneath the seabed at six sites far away from land or shallow water. At the deepest site, the water was five kilometres deep and our drill weighed 300 tonnes. We used fossils from three of the sites to show northern Zealandia became much shallower and likely even had land areas between 50 and 35 million years ago. At about that time, two other sites became submerged into deeper water, and then the whole region subsided an additional kilometre to its present depth.

These dramatic changes in northern Zealandia, an area about the size of India, coincided with buckling of rock layers (known as strata) and the formation of underwater volcanoes throughout the western Pacific.

The Pacific Ring of Fire is a zone of volcanoes and earthquakes running along the west coasts of north and south America, past Alaska and Japan, and then through the western Pacific to New Zealand. The violent geological activity in this zone reflects deeper unrest at the boundaries of tectonic plates, caused by “subduction processes” – where one tectonic plate converges on another and sinks back deep into the earth.

Read more: Explorers probe hidden continent of Zealandia

We know the Pacific Ring of Fire formed about 50 million years ago, but the process remains a mystery. We propose a “subduction rupture event” – a process similar to a massive slow-moving earthquake – spread around the whole of the western Pacific at that time. We suggest this process resurrected ancient subduction faults, which had lain dormant for many millions of years but were primed to start moving again.

This concept of “subduction resurrection” is a new idea and may help explain a range of different geological observations. The subduction rupture event included unique geological phenomena that that have no present-day comparison, and there may have been fewer than 100 such massive events since Earth formed. Our new evidence from Zealandia shows these events can dramatically alter the geography of continents.

What were the consequences of these geographic changes for plants, animals and regional climate? Can we make a computer model of the geological processes that happened at depth? We are still figuring some of this out, but we do know the event changed the direction and speed of movement of most tectonic plates on Earth.

It was an event of truly global significance – and we now have really good observations and ideas to help us get to the bottom of what happened and why.

– ref. Expedition reveals the violent birth of Earth’s hidden continent Zealandia, forged in a ring of fire – https://theconversation.com/expedition-reveals-the-violent-birth-of-earths-hidden-continent-zealandia-forged-in-a-ring-of-fire-130860

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Howard Manns, Lecturer in Linguistics, Monash University

Why do different countries have different languages? – Maeôra, aged 6

Humans have long been puzzled by the existence of different languages. A long time ago, people took guesses or made up stories to explain this.

You might know the tale of the Tower of Babel (have a look at a famous painting of it, below). In this story from the Bible, humans originally spoke a single language. But God got angry when these humans tried to build a tower to heaven. This wasn’t in God’s plan. So he made humans speak different languages and scattered them across the Earth.

In another story, believed by the Indigenous Absaroka people in the United States, an old coyote created humans. At first, these humans spoke a single language (like in the Babel story), but a younger coyote argued to the old coyote that humans had a talent for warfare. The young coyote convinced the older one to make humans speak different languages. That way, humans could misunderstand one another — this would lead to war and humans could show off their talent!

And in yet another story, in Jawoyn country in the Northern Territory people believe the crocodile Nabilil planted language into the landscape, giving names to land features as he travelled.

There are many, many more stories like these throughout the world!

More recently, we linguists have tried to answer this question. Truthfully, we’ll probably never know the origin of language, but we do have a good idea of how different languages appear and change. And, interestingly, there’s a little bit of truth in those earlier stories of castles, coyotes and crocodiles.

The tower factor: three magic ingredients

In the Tower of Babel story, God makes humans travel throughout the world. In fact, we know from archaeological digs that humans have been on the move for thousands of years — as long as we’ve been human!

What you need then to create different languages are three magic ingredients: time, distance and the processes of language change. So when speakers of a single language separate and travel to different places, the single language can become two or more languages over time.

Take the example of Latin. When Latin speakers split up and spread themselves around Europe, their Latin turned into languages like French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. So Latin isn’t really dead — it evolved into these modern languages.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why do Aussies have a different accent to Canadians, Americans, British people and New Zealanders?

English was born in the same way. In the fifth century, powerful Germanic tribes (those Angles, Saxons and Jutes) left their European homelands and invaded Britain. The dialects of Germanic they spoke gave rise to Old English — it would sound as foreign to you as modern German does now (for example, urne gedæghwamlican hlaf is Old English for “our daily bread”).

The coyote factor: language and identity

The Absaroka coyote story points to how people with different languages might misunderstand or disagree with one another. Language is often connected to our identity. Along with travelling to different places, identity is another thing that can lead to language change or different languages.

For instance, in one village in Papua New Guinea (a country just north of Australia), everyone spoke the same language, Selepet, as people in nearby villages. However, those living in this village decided to change their word for “no”. This way, their version in Selepet would be different (bunge) from the typical Selepet word for no (bia), and would represent the proud identity of the village.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why does English have so many different spelling rules?

Think closer to home and the rivalry between places like Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, or between the bush and the city. The coyote factor is a major incentive for people everywhere to start highlighting their identity through their language.

So will Australian English eventually break up into separate languages in the way Latin did? Probably not. The thing is, we aren’t isolated as people were in earlier times. We chat regularly, face to face, on the phone, via computers, and in many other ways.

The crocodile factor: new words for new places and experiences

The story of Nabilil the crocodile points to how language evolves in close relationship with its environment, and how those who travel assign new labels to the land, animals and experiences they encounter.

We see this with the arrival of English to Australia. English was more than 800 years old by the time it came to be used in Australia. However, English-speaking settlers did not have words to describe Australia. They borrowed words from Indigenous Australian languages (kangaroo, wombat) or developed new meanings for old words (magpie, possum; both of these were originally used for different animals in Europe and the US!).

Like people, languages are always on the move, and this is why we have so many of them — more than 300 within Australia alone. One way to avoid the curse of little coyote is to learn some of them!

– ref. Why do people in different countries speak different languages? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-in-different-countries-speak-different-languages-127112

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Johnston Flies, Postdoctoral Research Fellow (U.Tasmania), University of Tasmania

Over the past few decades, allergies and asthma have become common childhood diseases, especially in developed countries. Almost 20% of Australians experience some kind of allergy, whether it’s to food, pollen, dust, housemites, mould or animals.

When people suffer from food allergies, hay fever or asthma, their immune system incorrectly believes the trigger substances are harmful and mounts a defence.

The response can range from mild symptoms, such as sneezing and a blocked nose (in the case of hay fever), to anaphylaxis (from severe food allergies or bee stings) and asthma attacks.

Read more: What are allergies and why are we getting more of them?

We used to think the rise in allergic conditions was because we weren’t exposed to as many early infections as previous generations. But the science suggests that’s not the case.

However it seems being out in nature, and exposed to diverse (but not disease-causing) bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms may help protect against asthma and allergies.

Remind me, what’s the hygiene hypothesis?

In 1989, researcher David Strachan examined allergy patterns in more than 17,000 children in England. He noticed young siblings in large families were less likely to have hay fever than older siblings or children from small families.

He proposed that these younger siblings were exposed to more childhood illness at a younger age, as more bugs were circulating in these large families and the younger children were less likely to wash their hands and practise good hygiene.

Greater exposure to these childhood infections helped “train” their immune systems not to overreact to harmless things like pollen.

Strachan coined the term “hygiene hypothesis” to explain this phenomenon, and the idea has been appealing to our dirty side ever since.

Strachan wasn’t the first to notice exposure to “dirty environments” seemed to prevent allergic disease. A century earlier, in 1873, Charles Blackley noted hay fever was a disease of the “educated class”, and rarely occurred in farmers or people living in less sanitary conditions.

Ditching the hygiene hypothesis

However, Blackley and Strachan were wrong about one important thing: the association between sanitation and allergies is not due to reduced exposure to early childhood infections (or “pathogens”).

Large studies from Denmark, Finland, and the United Kingdom have found no association between the number of viral infections during childhood and allergic disease. In other words, exposure to disease-causing pathogens doesn’t appear to prevent allergies.

In fact, exposure to childhood viral infections, in addition to making a child sick, may contribute to the development of asthma in predisposed children.

Read more: What causes asthma? What we know, don’t know and suspect

Many researchers now argue the term “hygiene hypothesis” is not only inaccurate but potentially dangerous, because it suggests avoiding infection is a bad thing. It’s not.

Good hygiene practices, such as hand washing, are critical for reducing the spread of infectious and potentially deadly diseases such as influenza and the Wuhan coronavirus.

What about ‘good’ exposure to bacteria?

For healthy immune function, we need exposure to a diverse range of bacteria, fungi and other bugs – known as microbes – in the environment that don’t make us sick.

Read more: Essays on health: microbes aren’t the enemy, they’re a big part of who we are

Within urban environments, recent research shows people who live closer to green, biodiverse ecosystems tend to be healthier, with less high blood pressure and lower rates of diabetes and premature death, among other things.

More specifically, research has found growing up on a farm or near forests, with exposure to more biodiverse ecosystems, reduces the likelihood of developing asthma and other allergies.

Read more: Children living in green neighbourhoods are less likely to develop asthma

This is potentially because exposure to a diversity of organisms, with a lower proportion of human pathogens, has “trained” the immune system not to overreact to harmless proteins in pollen, peanuts and other allergy triggers.

How can we get more ‘good’ exposure?

We can try to expose children to environments more like the ones in which humans, and our immune systems, evolved.

Most obviously, children need to have exposure to green space. Playing outdoors, having a garden, or living near green space (especially near a diverse range of native flowering plants) is likely to expose them to more diverse microbes and provide greater protection from allergic diseases.

Infants who are breastfed tend to have more diverse gut microbiomes (a larger variety of bacteria, fungi and other microscopic organisms that live in the gut), which makes them less likely to develop allergic diseases in childhood.

Read more: Gut instinct: how the way you’re born and fed affect your immune system

Having a varied diet that includes fresh and fermented foods can help cultivate a healthy gut microbiome and reduce allergic disease. As can using antibiotics only when necessary, as they kill off good bacteria as well as the bad.

So keep washing your hands, especially in cities and airports, but don’t be afraid of getting a little dirty in biodiverse environments.

This article was co-authored by Chris Skelly, International Programme Director, Healthy Urban Microbiomes Initiative and Head of Programmes (Research and Intelligence), Public Health Dorset.

– ref. Early exposure to infections doesn’t protect against allergies, but getting into nature might – https://theconversation.com/early-exposure-to-infections-doesnt-protect-against-allergies-but-getting-into-nature-might-126603

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Richardson, Tutor and Researcher, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

This summer’s bushfires were not just devastating events in themselves. More broadly, they highlighted the immense vulnerability of the systems which make our contemporary lives possible.

The fires cut road access, which meant towns ran out of fuel and fell low on food. Power to towns was cut and mobile phone services stopped working. So too did the ATMs and EFTPOS services the economy needs to keep running.

In a modern, wealthy nation such as Australia, how could this happen?

In answering this question, it’s helpful to adopt “systems thinking”. This approach views problems as part of an overall system, where each part relates to each other.

In other words, we need to look at the big picture.

Through a systems lens

Systems are everywhere, from the coral ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef to the vast technology networks of global financial markets. In a human sense, social systems range from the small, such as a family, to large organisations or the national or global population.

The systems I mentioned just now are “complex” systems. This means they are connected to other systems in many ways. It also means a change in one part of the system, such as a bushfire in a landscape, can set off unpredicted changes in connected systems – be they political, technological, economic or social.

Read more: Australia needs a national fire inquiry – these are the 3 key areas it should deliver in

All complex systems have three things in common:

1. they need a constant supply of energy to maintain their functioning

2. they are interconnected across a range of scales, from the personal and local to the global and beyond

3. they are fragile when they have no “redundancy”, or Plan B.

The case of East Gippsland

To better understand a complex system collapse, let’s examine what happened in Victoria’s East Gippsland region, particularly the coastal town of Mallacoota, during the recent fires.

This case demonstrates how one trigger (in this case, a bushfire) may start a cascade of events, but the intrinsic fragility of the system enables total collapse.

Transport-wise, neither East Gippsland nor Mallacoota itself are physically well connected. Fires cut both the only transport connection to East Gippsland, the Princes Highway, and the lone road out of Mallacoota.

Read more: Australia can expect far more fire catastrophes. A proper disaster plan is worth paying for

Smoke haze prevented air transport. This meant the only way out was by sea, in the form of intervention by the Australian Navy.

Second, there were no reserves of food, fuel, water, medical supplies or communications at hand when the fires had passed. Supplies ran so low there were reports of a looming “humanitarian crisis”.

These shortages are no surprise. In Australia, as in most developed countries, food and fuel distribution systems run on a “just in time” model. This approach, originally developed by Japanese car manufacturer Toyota, involves organising supply networks so materials are ordered and received when they are needed.

Such systems remove the need to store excess goods in warehouses, and are undoubtedly efficient. But they are also extremely fragile because there is no redundancy in the system – no Plan B.

Implications for Australia

Australia as a whole is, in many ways, just as fragile as Mallacoota.

We import 90% of our oil – a figure expected to rise to 100% by 2030. Much of that fuel passes through the Straits of Hormuz and then through the Indonesian archipelago. We have few alternative routes.

Read more: Australia’s fuel stockpile is perilously low, and it may be too late for a refill

Nor do we maintain sufficient back-up reserves of fuel. Australia is the only International Energy Agency (IEA) member that does not meet the obligation to keep 90 days of fuel supplies in reserve.

As East Gippsland and Mallacoota have shown, many other connected systems, such as food distribution networks, are critically dependent on this fragile fuel supply.

A close shave

On January 3 this year – the very day HMAS Choules evacuated people from Mallacoota – the US killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani by drone strike.

If Iran had responded by disrupting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, throwing global oil supply into turmoil, Australia may have faced nationwide fuel shortages at the height of the bushfire crisis.

Late last year Australia reportedly had 18 days of petrol, 22 days of diesel and 23 days of jet fuel in reserve.

A global fuel crisis was avoided only due to restraint by both the US and Iran. Australia might not be so lucky next time.

The need for reserves

Our communities, especially in bushfire-prone areas, need more redundancy to make them resilient to disasters. This might mean towns storing water, non-perishable food, blankets, medical supplies, a generator, a satellite phone and possibly fuel, in protected locations.

More broadly, Australia needs a national fuel reserve. This should be in line with the IEA’s 90-day obligations. In December last year, Australia reportedly had just 54 days’ worth of reserves.

The federal government has recently looked to bolster reserves through possible deals with the US and Holland. But overseas supplies will not be very helpful in an immediate crisis.

The implications of the bushfire crisis are clear. At a national and individual level, we must improve the resilience of the systems that make our daily life possible.

– ref. No food, no fuel, no phones: bushfires showed we’re only ever one step from system collapse – https://theconversation.com/no-food-no-fuel-no-phones-bushfires-showed-were-only-ever-one-step-from-system-collapse-130600

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer Sport Management, Western Sydney University

Drowning is the third leading cause of unintentional death from injury worldwide. From July 2018 to June 2019, 276 people drowned across Australia – a 10% increase on the previous year.

Among those were 19 children under four years old, eight children between five and 14 and a further 45 young people aged 15-24.

As temperatures soared this summer, 53 more people drowned at Australian beaches, rivers and pools including six children. There were also 584 non-fatal drownings requiring hospitalisation, and many unreported near-tragedies.

Structured swim classes that help kids become familiar with, and confident around, water can set the foundation for later swimming skills and aquatic safety.

It’s difficult to quantify the statistical significance of how effective swimming lessons can be. But some US research suggests formal swimming lessons can reduce the risk of drowning for children aged one to four by 88%.

Here’s what your child should ideally be able to do in the water at different stages of their development.

Pre-school (six months – four years)

Parents should be encouraged to play with their children in safe aquatic environments. Even the youngest babies can be taught swimming survival skills, like floating on their backs. Splashing around and gliding through the water can aid cognitive and physical development for infants and toddlers.

Early experiences of this kind can also improve parents’ awareness of child safety. No matter how familiar the child is with the water, it’s important for parents to never overestimate their child’s abilities and supervise them without distractions (such as mobile phones) at all times.

By the time children are four, they should ideally be able to enter and leave the water safely (by checking depth and looking for obstacles or hazards in the water). They should also be able to float, move through the water and control their breathing.

Primary school (five to 12 years)

Most primary schools involve children in intensive swim programs. These can be a useful way to increase swim skills and help children if they get into trouble in the ocean or a pool.

But one Australian study found children need ongoing weekly swimming instruction, in addition to their school swimming programs, to maintain their swimming and water safety skills.

Due to money and time, most children’s involvement in formal swimming lessons significantly declines in the later primary years. This means many children stop swimming lessons before they have learnt the basic skills they need to keep them safe.

To help parents meet sport activity costs, some state governments have implemented voucher style systems for swimming lessons. For instance, parents of NSW school aged children can claim up to two A$100 vouchers if they access swimming lessons through registered providers.

Children who are 11-12 years old should be able to:

• continuously swim 50m using freestyle or backstroke

• scull (use their arms to move around in the water) float or tread water for two minutes

• throw a rescue flotation aid to a partner at five metres away

• swim fully clothed, in swimwear or normal clothes (to simulate an accidental fall into water).

Secondary school (11 to 18 years)

High school (and older) students need broad water safety programs aligned with their secondary school curriculum. Programs should address the skills, as well as knowledge, behaviour and attitudes of this group of students to promote safer behaviour in water environments.

Read more: For many, a pool swim is an Australian birthright. Let’s make it easier for solo parents to claim it

Changing the terminology from “learn to swim” or “swimming lessons” to “lifesaving and survival” – and promoting these as lifelong skills – may encourage more teenagers and young adults to take swim classes.

Groups at risk

Water is not naturally considered a recreational resource for many migrant communities and their swimming experiences and exposure to formal water safety is often limited.

This puts migrant groups at particular risk of drowning.

In one study, 91.3% of participants born in Australia either were taking their kids to swimming lessons, or had previously done so. In contrast, only 76.7% of children whose parents were born outside Australia were, or had previously, taken swim lessons.

Read more: Australia’s spike in summer drownings: what the media misses

Girls from culturally diverse backgrounds and children living in lower socioeconomic areas are less likely to go to the pool or the beach, or get swimming lessons. The high costs of lessons and geographic distance from swimming pools and restrictive clothing requirements due to cultural or religious beliefs are added complications.

We need clear policy and collective action to encourage these groups to take swimming and water-safety lessons.

Swimming is fun

Making children take swimming lessons can also make them dislike swimming, associating it with something they have to do. Swimming should be seen as fun.

Spontaneous play sessions with Mums and Dads in a fun but informal environment have many benefits for the whole family, including developing imagination, increasing social skills, working through emotions and aiding physical development and skills.

Read more: Why are public pools important in Australia? For our #myfavouritepool series, we’re asking you

And if your older child is competent in the pool and becoming bored with swimming lessons, consider creating more water options to keep them interested and build on their water knowledge. Kayaking, canoeing, surfing, scuba diving and yachting are possible options and great activities for the family to do together.

Regularly exposing your children to safe and supervised water activities will help them be safe in pools, beaches and waterways.

– ref. Why should my child take swimming lessons? And what do they need to know? – https://theconversation.com/why-should-my-child-take-swimming-lessons-and-what-do-they-need-to-know-131136

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sajeda Tuli, Fulbright Scholar, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra

The concentration of growth in major cities, driven by the knowledge economy and the changing nature of work, may also increase their social inequality. Our research looked at cities in the US and Australia. We compared measures of the knowledge economy and social vulnerability of their metropolitan areas and plotted them together.

Cities with above-average knowledge economies and below-average levels of social vulnerability are better placed to cope with the dual challenges of technological change and social inequality. Australia has only two cities in this category.

Australia’s biggest cities score high on knowledge economy capacity but also have high levels of social vulnerability. And some cities score poorly on both measures. This makes them doubly vulnerable to economic change and social inequality.

Read more: The Knowledge City Index: Sydney takes top spot but Canberra punches above its weight

Winners and losers in the one city

One factor in these contrasting trends of concentrated growth and rising social vulnerability is the changing nature of work. Cities are the site of the Fourth Industrial Revolution as the world economy clusters in major centres. It’s driven by the benefits of agglomeration – the productivity and efficiency gains from having many producers and people located near one another.

Already, 600 cities generate 60% of global economic output. The world has 21 mega-cities of over 10 million people compared to three in 1975. By 2040, 65% of the world population will live in cities.

In the US, jobs were lost all over the country during the Great Recession of 2007-09. But the recovery is concentrated in 25 urban cores. Some 60% of US job growth is expected to take place in these centres.

This over-concentration of employment opportunities may lead to social inequality and vulnerability within these cities. At the same time, other older and smaller cities have struggled to revamp their economies.

In Australia, too, the top five capital cities are growing bigger. Growth is dominated by Sydney and Melbourne, but economic and social inequalities are increasing.

Read more: Rapid growth is widening Melbourne’s social and economic divide

Despite economic growth, homelessness is increasing in both Australian and US cities. For some US cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco, it is at a tipping point. These same cities are home to the most educated and richest citizens too.

How do US and Australian cities compare?

Combining various socioeconomic and demographic data (including Australian Census, US Census, American Community Survey and IPUMS data) at the metropolitan level, we created a Knowledge Cities Index (KCI) and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). The chart below plots the KCI and SVI scores of 104 US metropolitan centres.

The middle two lines show the averages of these scores. Cities with higher knowledge city scores (right side of the line) and lower social vulnerability scores (below the line) are better placed to cope with the dual challenges of technological shift and social vulnerability. These cities include New York-Newark-Jersey City, Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, and Boston-Cambridge-Newton.

The chart below shows only two Australian cities – Brisbane and Adelaide – are in this category.

Cities with higher KCI scores but also higher SVI scores include Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Perth.

Some major US metro areas in this category are San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach and Washington-Arlington-Alexandria. These cities are doing well in terms of knowledge generation and innovation, but have greater inequality and social disparities among their residents. These cities need strategies and policies to make themselves more inclusive and resilient.

The benefit of agglomeration economics may concentrate and benefit knowledge workers while segregating them from the rest of the society and increasing inequality.

Read more: What did the rich man say to the poor man? Why spatial inequality in Australia is no joke

The map below shows the concentration of knowledge industries in Sydney. Sydney CDB has the highest concentration for most of the knowledge industries, except high-tech manufacturing.

We found some cities with very low KCI scores and high SVI scores. US examples include McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, Portland-South Portland and Memphis. In Australia, cities in this category include Sunshine Coast, Bunbury, Central Coast, Townsville and Gold Coast-Tweed Heads.

These cities are the worst off. Their lack of knowledge capacities and high social inequality make them highly susceptible to both technological shifts and social vulnerability. Solid strategies and policies are needed to increase the knowledge bases and improve the social conditions of these cities.

What does this mean for policy?

One suggested solution is polycentric cities. But this approach depends on overcoming the challenge of coordinating transport with land uses.

Read more: Our big cities are engines of inequality, so how do we fix that?

The knowledge economy is increasingly important for cities to compete in the age of automation. But it can also compound the risk of increased social exclusion or vulnerability. Affected cities may then become less capable of withstanding impacts on other frontiers of social change.

The belligerent rate of automation may make the situation worse. Despite its cost-efficiencies, automation has other human costs.

Read more: Vital Signs: the end of the checkout signals a dire future for those without the right skills

These impacts require policy intervention. The two indices of our study examine both the urban opportunities and the downsides of inequality and social vulnerability that the knowledge economy creates. The policy challenge will be how to make socially vulnerable populations more resilient to the changing nature of work and reduce its negative impacts.

Read more: The fourth industrial revolution could lead to a dark future

– ref. As big cities get even bigger, some residents are being left behind – https://theconversation.com/as-big-cities-get-even-bigger-some-residents-are-being-left-behind-130540

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Davis, Professor of Finance, University of Melbourne

The government’s retirement income review is being told our current tax and benefit treatment of retirement incomes is a mess.

Much of financial planning industry is devoted to structuring affairs to maximise access to the age pension.

The means test and other requirements that control access to it are a bureaucratic nightmare and expensive to administer. There are ongoing fights about the taper rate at which access shrinks with income. Debates rage about whether taxpayer support goes where it should.

Then-treasurer Peter Costello’s 2006 removal of tax on super fund earnings in the retirement phase has proved to be misguided.

Read more: Why pensioners are cruising their way around budget changes

The scale of the benefits to wealthy households has become so inequitable it has necessitated a range of complicated administrative measures to impose limits.

Under our dividend imputation system, government corporate tax revenue is cannibalised as super funds in the tax-free retirement phase get “refunds” of the tax they haven’t paid on the dividends delivered to them.

A budget neutral proposal…

I am proposing a radical reform involving

• introduction of a universal (non-means-tested) full age pension

• restoring tax on the income of super funds in the retirement (pension) phase

• other tax changes, including removing the seniors and pensioners tax offset, and a different tax scale for those in receipt of the pension.

The changes I propose could mean the only likely losers will be those with retirement super balances currently generating tax-free income in the region of A$100,000 per year or more.

Squeals would be heard, but there would be relatively few squealers and they might be unlikely to gain much sympathy.

The change could be budget-neutral.

Read more: 5 questions about superannuation the government’s new inquiry will need to ask

Under the proposal retirement would trigger:

• the automatic award of the full age pension

• the conversion of the retiree’s super fund(s) into retirement mode where earnings within the fund(s) would be counted as personal income for tax purposes.

The tax scale for age pension recipients would also need to be adjusted, and the seniors and pensioners tax offset removed, in order to avoid windfall gains or losses and make the change budget neutral.

…that could make retirement simpler

At one stroke, all of the complexities involved in applying for and checking eligibility for the age pension would vanish.

Incentives to maintain large balances in super after retirement for tax-preferred estate planning would no longer be as attractive.

Introducing a universal non-means-tested full pension would increase budget outlays by about $30 billion, but this would be offset by increased tax revenues under the changes proposed which would leave most retirees no worse off in after-tax terms.

This is calculated using ball-park figures of around 4 million people of pension eligibility age with 1.8 million currently getting the full pension, 1.4 million a part pension, and 0.8 million on no pension.

Most retirees would be no worse off

Existing full pensioners would be unaffected.

The average part-pensioner could be left in the same after-tax income position by the tax scale changes which see the government recouping in extra tax revenue what it lost in extra pension outlays.

Self-funded retirees would receive a windfall gain of the full pension amount, but part of that would be offset by taxation of super income.

With proper adjustment of the tax rates the changes could mean that only those with very high income from super ($100,000 or more) would be adversely affected.

Unforseen consequences

In reality, nothing is that simple. Incentives for choice of retirement age would need consideration, as would the implications of tax scales for households as well as individuals.

Tax arbitrage involving imputation credits could destroy some of the expected budget revenues – suggesting a need to at least consider removing the rebates for unused tax credits.

Read more: It’s hard to find out who Labor’s dividend imputation policy will hit, but it is possible, and it isn’t the poor

That shouldn’t be a deal-breaker for most retirees because they would be no worse off, but it could meet opposition from investors with other ways of lowering their tax rate, as we saw in the last election.

But my proposal, albeit radical, appears to be feasible and has the potential to abolish much of the bureaucracy and costs associated with administering the age pension and much of the tax complexity and regulations governing superannuation.

Rather than fiddling at the edges, we ought to be considering wholesale reform.

Professor Davis was a member of the government’s 2014 Financial System Inquiry.

– ref. Here’s a radical reform that could keep super and pay every retiree the full pension – https://theconversation.com/heres-a-radical-reform-that-could-keep-super-and-pay-every-retiree-the-full-pension-131289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

The most notable thing about this year’s Iowa (Democratic) caucuses was the debacle where results could not be reported on the night – and indeed for a good while after. Some combination of new reporting requirements, a defective app and poor training conspired to make a mockery of Iowa’s “first-in-the-nation” status.

That said, it’s still worth understanding why the Iowa caucuses have for so long held the powerful position of being (as described in the television show The West Wing), “The presidential wine-tasters of America”, and whether they might, notwithstanding the chaos of this year, retain that privilege.

Read more: Yes, the Iowa caucuses had major glitches, but the results may not even matter that much

How the caucuses work

US primary elections generally involve two steps. Voters registered with one or other of the parties vote for their preferred candidate. The proportion of votes a candidate gets is translated into a number of state “delegates” who then vote on their behalf in the national primary.

Whereas most US states use the now familiar process of individuals voting alone in a booth (or via the post), Iowa is one of four states that continue to use the older method of caucuses.

A caucus essentially means a gathering of supporters. The Iowa caucuses have two steps. One is foreign to Australians. The other is more familiar.

First, there is no secret ballot. Registered Democrats show up in their precinct, often at a high-school gym, and cluster into groups representing the candidate they most prefer. This is known as the “first alignment”.

If less than 15% of the precinct’s voters support a candidate, that candidate is deemed “non-viable”. Their supporters can then move to support another candidate.

Read more: Book extract: From secret ballot to democracy sausage

This process is somewhat reminiscent of the preferential voting system pioneered in Australia. But with everything out in the open, and a good amount of cajoling and persuasion, it’s about as far from numbering preferences on a ballot in private as one can imagine.

After this “second alignment”, votes are counted to determine the share of so-called “state delegate equivalents” in the precinct. Those are added up across all of Iowa’s 1,765 precincts to determine the final delegate count the candidates are allocated.

Criticisms

The chief criticism of Iowa being the first state to hold primary elections is that it is not very representative of Democratic voters, or even the US as a whole.

It is 90% white, with some very specific policy concerns, like ethanol subsidies given all the corn it grows, that motivate voters.

This has even led some candidates this year to demur when asked to defend Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status.

On top of that, the whole caucus process is very time-consuming and confusing. This led former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe to say on CNN: “They’re undemocratic processes. People don’t have time to go spend the time like you heard today.”

Why it matters

People believe an early win generates momentum that can propel a candidate to the nomination. There is good reason to believe this based not only on casual observation of history but on rigorous academic work.

The logic behind momentum in primaries is what economists call an “information cascade”.

The 2019 Nobel laureate for economics, Abhijit Banerjee, constructed the classic economic model of these cascades early in his career.

The idea is that when decisions are made one after another, later decision-makers infer information from the decisions of those acting early.

This can lead later decision-makers to ignore their own information and rely on what earlier decision-makers did. This can be good or bad but, either way, it creates path dependence. It certainly makes going first important.

Maybe Iowa should go first

I’m not going to defend the debacle in the Iowa caucus voting this week.

But there is a logical basis for a small state like Iowa (the 32nd most populous in the US) being the first to vote in US presidential primaries.

In a 2014 paper I wrote with Patrick Hummel, we showed that starting voting in a small state gives voters the opportunity to really get to know the candidates and make an informed choice.

Knowing these early states are crucial, the candidates spend a lot of time there. This magnifies the access that voters get.

Two months before the 2008 Iowa caucuses, for example, roughly two-thirds of voters had personally met at least one candidate. Compare that to a state like California with more than 30 million people where interactions can only be through advertising or, perhaps, large rallies.

So voters in small states like Iowa get a more precise signal. That can lead to a “good” information cascade where the early momentum helps select the best nominee.

There’s no substitute for good information about the candidates.

A small state may not be very representative of the overall population, but voters in later states know this and can factor it in.

Can Iowa hold on?

In light of recent events, and in the wake of the diversity criticism, it looks far from certain that Iowa will hold on to its first-in-the-nation status.

Read more: Iowa caucuses did one thing right: Require paper ballots

But if it turns out Pete Buttigieg goes on to win the nomination and defeat Donald Trump, who knows? Perhaps Iowans really do have a crucial role to play.

– ref. Vital Signs: the Iowa caucuses still have a great claim to retain first-in-nation status – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-the-iowa-caucuses-still-have-a-great-claim-to-retain-first-in-nation-status-131023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Damon Young, Associate, School of Philosophy, University of Melbourne

“Do you trust me?” An earnest question.

“I do.” An earnest answer.

And then that ancient, global gesture of earnest intimacy: a handshake.

For many, this is the moment from the Avengers: Endgame movie: Captain America and Iron Man putting aside their conflict for the common good. Tony Stark asks, Steve Rogers answers – and the Marvel Cinematic Universe is made whole.

After three years of conveniently aggressive animosity, these Avengers are once again allies. Instead of punching or shooting at each other, the two superheroes look into one another’s eyes — and touch.

I confess that, for all my weary cynicism, I was moved as I watched this scene. Both times I watched it. And again, as my children and I saw it together. But why?

There is spectacle, of course. The protagonists must sprint faster than cars, punch through walls, swing off buildings, shoot rockets from their shoulders. There must be explosions and cosmic ripples and glowing pulses and beings turning to dust and so on. The studios cannot make back their production and advertising costs – perhaps more than half a billion US dollars (A$746 million) in this case – with a quiet seminar on Aristotle or Confucius.

Still, the digital marvels are not enough to move me or to keep me returning for the next episode, in perpetuity. For the franchise to profit as it does, the violence has to mean something more.

The comic politic

Perhaps politics? There are certainly political ideas in the Marvel films. Witness state surveillance in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, white colonialism in Black Panther, asylum seekers in Captain Marvel.

And there are countless comic book precedents for this. In Captain America Comics #1, published in 1941, the superhero socked Hitler in the mouth. Almost 30 years later, in Captain America #122, he was hesitantly praising hippie peace protesters:

I’ve spent a lifetime defending the flag and the law. Perhaps I should have battled less and questioned more.

Moving from the texts to their broader contexts, it is also political that some were recently angry at Marvel films with more diverse casts and crews.

The film review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, for example, reported a pre-emptive spike in “non-constructive input, sometimes bordering on trolling” from fans unhappy about Captain Marvel. Similar campaigns were attempted against Black Panther. These were the first Marvel movies featuring female and black solo heroes. Captain Marvel was also co-written and co-directed by women, while Black Panther was written and directed by African-American men.

“It’s not difficult to see the common thread,” writes Alex Abad-Santos for Vox, “that superhero and other franchise movies with woman [sic] and people of colour as protagonists are regularly met by toxic trolling online.” As in Australia and the UK, many white men are furious at small but noticeable challenges to their power.

In short: yes, there are politics in and behind Marvel’s tales.

Still, the logic of superhero stories is rarely political, strictly speaking. Politics is about the organisation of society: who we are; who our enemies are; who rules whom; who controls what institutions or resources. Businesses like Marvel are interested in characters thumping or blasting other characters, often while looking beautiful. These fistfights or firefights can symbolise broader and deeper issues – but the symbols are used for close-up entertainment rather than wide-shot social and economic analysis. Captain America summed up this cinematic approach with his own ethos in Captain America: Civil War:

My faith’s in people, I guess. Individuals. And I’m happy to say that, for the most part, they haven’t let me down. Which is why I can’t let them down either.

Put another way: the studio’s writers have “faith” in individuals too, and these individuals have yet to let their accountants down.

Alongside this individualism is conservatism. For all their speeches about freedom and justice, these heroes almost always end up punching their way back to the global status quo. They steadfastly avoid what Greek-born French philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis called the “political imaginary”: our power to invent new collective identities and institutions. For Castoriadis, the point is not simply to follow certain laws or parliamentary procedures, the point is to interrogate and reimagine the basic cultural assumptions beneath these. There is very little of this in the Marvel universe, especially the films. As pop culture scholar Noah Berlatsky riffed in an essay for The Verge in early 2019: “Great power is used to protect the world, not revolutionise it”.

Setting high standards

For these reasons and more, the Marvel films are more comfortable with individualistic ethics than with politics proper. Rather than explaining and exploring our collectives, they tend to highlight people’s virtues and vices. As philosopher Mark D. White argues in The Virtues of Captain America, characters such as Steve Rogers offer audiences “moral exemplars”. These might be fictional rather than lived, but they are still portrayed with subtlety, and with surprising fidelity to everyday ambiguity.

This does not mean the superheroes are all perfect Aristotelians. They are rightly flawed characters and – perhaps more importantly – typically very American. “If Aristotle could somehow have imagined the Captain’s mission of giving everyone freedom to live as they choose,” philosopher John Gray observed in The New Republic in April 2014, “he would undoubtedly have reacted with incredulous contempt”. We turn to Marvel to see virtues dramatised, not exemplified.

The most obvious virtue, common to almost all cinematic heroes, is bravery. In Captain America: The First Avenger, a spindly Steve Rogers demonstrates this by jumping onto a grenade to save burly but cowardly soldiers.

Perseverance is another: witness the same hero in Captain America: Civil War preventing a helicopter taking off simply by holding it. This involves no serious thought or complex negotiations or planning. Captain America simply has to strain and groan and suffer until the job is done.

Alongside these and other classical virtues is the excellence suggested by that handshake between Captain America and Iron Man: trustworthiness.

Trustworthiness is not itself a single virtue, but rather several excellences working together: goodwill, honesty, constancy and the competency to achieve what is promised.

Someone trustworthy can be counted upon to help another who needs it – even if this “help” is being silent or staying still. They do this not only because they can help, but also because they know they ought to. This ought arises from an ethical readiness rather than from selfishness or friendliness. This is the difference between someone trustworthy and someone merely reliable. The greediest and/or sneakiest can be relied on if they’re paid or scared. The truly trustworthy help us not only because their help is necessary, but also because it is in their moral power to do so. They recognise that we are all fundamentally needy, and require others to achieve worthwhile things. “We are finite dependent social beings,” philosopher Karen Jones writes in Trustworthiness, her 2012 article for Ethics:

We want there to be others who will be responsive to our counting on them so that we can extend the efficacy of our agency.

So, to trust someone is to have an idea of their character: to believe that they are able and willing to assist us, because we need assistance. And part of being trustworthy, in turn, is showing others that they can trust us; that we can be relied on – if not right now, then when it counts. There is a mirroring of minds here. Each of us needs the ability to imagine the other’s state of mind – and to imagine the other imagining us.

Importantly, we can be wrong about trustworthiness, and this is one of trust’s defining characteristics: we are taking a risk when we exercise it. Put another way, trust is a profoundly mortal achievement. Omnipotent and omniscient gods need no trust between them, since they are never helpless, and always know the souls of others.

To err is human

There are few true divinities like this in the Marvel universe, since all-powerful and all-knowing beings make for dull drama. Even Galactus, the fabulously purple planet eater who first appeared in Fantastic Four #48, has need of minions and allies.

Our earnest handshaker, Captain America, is also the trusted Marvel persona. Well-meaning, sincere, forthright and somewhat transparent in his moral simplicity, Steve Rogers can be counted upon when it matters. This is perhaps his defining characteristic: whatever happens, he will be there for his friends, allies and the world.

This is why Tony Stark’s sickbed rejection of Captain America in Avengers: Endgame is so powerful. Haggard and slurring his words on tottering legs, Tony returns from being stranded in space to accuse Rogers of failing him personally. “I got nothing for you, Cap,” he says. “No clues, no strategies, no options. Zero, zip, nada. No trust, liar.”

The point of this is not that Iron Man is correct or that Captain America is a capricious and deceptive man-child in a flag suit; the point is that Tony is beaten and weak and a little mad, and this is why he doubts his comrade’s integrity. As soon as the entrepreneur is well again, his trust in Steve Rogers returns. Iron Man thinks the great American hero is simple, naive and smug – but always worthy of trust.

This dramatisation of trust continues throughout the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Should Captain America trust Thor’s brother, Loki? (Probably not.) Should he trust Bucky Barnes, though his old partner has become a brainwashed cyborg assassin? (Yes.) Should he trust former spy Natasha Romanova, the Black Widow? (Yes.) Should anyone trust Nick Fury? (No. The spymaster is reliable, but not trustworthy.)

As these examples suggest, Captain America is not only trustworthy, but is also trusting in return. He is not afraid to ask for help, and thereby to demonstrate that someone is more trustworthy than they seem – even to themselves. As Karen Jones phrases it:

Sometimes displaying trust is sufficient to elicit trustworthiness as we respond to the call to be moved by the other’s dependency.

In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Steve Rogers is the personification of hopeful trust: he allows characters to believe in mutual, mature goodwill.

Likewise for the comics. What distinguishes Captain America from other super-soldiers is that this often lonely professional hero is surprisingly vulnerable. He might be quaint and a bit staid, but he will risk his life for trust. In Mark Millar’s Civil War, Steve Rogers ends his fight with Iron Man by turning himself in. “We’re not fighting for the people any more,” he says, weeping. “We’re just fighting.” Knowing the dangers, he allows himself to be handcuffed, jailed and put on trial by the authorities. If he is suspicious of institutions, he believes in good individuals. Captain America is then shot on the steps of the New York federal courthouse: his trust in his fellow citizens leaves him bleeding.

And this is only one storyline in one superhero series – Marvel has the rights to some 7,000 characters. Almost all of their storylines involve trust and its betrayal.

Lessons for young players

Because of these ethical dramas, I am comfortable with my children watching Marvel films. (I say “comfortable” as if I’m a serious and aloof philosopher, and not a grown man with his own Punisher action figure.) While their political message is often a soufflé of puffy fascism inside a liberal crust, their moral drama is instructive. Over the dinner or café table, I have asked our kids about Iron Man’s instrumental rationality, Captain America’s dogmatism, Thanos’s Malthusianism, Captain Marvel’s glorified militarism.

As a public philosopher, I have taken these kinds of puzzles into schools. The pupils might not be familiar with Aristotle’s theory of the virtues, but from Spider-Man: Homecoming, they are familiar enough with Flash Thompson, Iron Man and Spider-Man to recognise the philosopher’s tripartite scheme of courage, bravery and foolhardiness.

And trust has been a large part of these conversations. Trust is especially fraught for children. Kids are more powerless than adults and require more help to realise their needs. They are also more vulnerable to trickery and coercion, so they often trust the wrong people – those who suggest they can be counted on, but who are actually capricious or malicious. Children need to tell the difference between Thor’s well-meaning bluster and Loki’s smiling malice in Thor; between Talos’s evasions and Yon-Rogg’s manipulations in Captain Marvel; between Iron Man the altruistic amateur soldier in Iron Man and Iron Man the manic narcissistic technocrat in Captain America: Civil War.

This answers one of the questions of parenthood: with what or whom can I leave my children alone? Our kids can watch Marvel films whenever they like. These movies might be glib, cynical or boring – but as moral dramas, they are benign.

But do I trust Marvel? Shit, no. (Apologies to Captain America for the “language”.)

To begin, the company is constantly trying to sell me and my children stuff. Picture the ultimate Marvel brand manager’s fantasy: me driving to the supermarket in my Avengers: Endgame product-placement Audi, wearing my Avengers tie and cologne. The kids munch on their Spider-Man fruit snacks, and sip on their Spider-Man water bottles – all purchased with my Marvel Mastercard. At home, I cook snacks in my Avengers waffle maker, then we all watch Spider-Man: Homecoming before sleeping under our Guardians of the Galaxy bed linen.

The important thing, for Marvel, is to make sure that each product continually advertises another Marvel product. In this corporate universe, films spruik merchandise that spruiks television shows that spruik tie-ins, and so on.

Marvel’s industrial relations record is also worrying. They are now owned by Disney, hardly a corporate superhero. While profits have risen, wages at Disneyland have actually fallen in real terms. According to a Los Angeles Times story from 2018, a survey of the Anaheim theme park’s workers found that “three-quarters say they can’t afford basic expenses every month”.

As Sean Howe details in Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, Marvel comics itself was also notorious for exploiting freelancers. Despite their works selling millions of copies, authors and illustrators were paid page rates and nothing more. The vast Marvel Cinematic Universe was built by low-waged, precarious labour. Put simply: it is naive to believe a superhero business is anything other than a business. There are certainly more exploitative firms in the world, but this does nothing to make Marvel trustworthy.

In fact, nothing can make Marvel trustworthy. Not because it is evil, but because it is a corporation, and the notion of “trust” does not apply. Corporations are often treated as individuals in law, but they are not individuals as we are. They can be governed more or less ethically; can work for or against the common good; can be regulated to minimise harm or deregulated to maximise profit. They can, in other words, be guided or coerced politically. But they are not ethical persons, with whom we can develop trustworthy relationships.

Think of how it feels to pledge yourself to someone; to show that you understand that they are in need of help, and what this means as a finite dependent social being; to demonstrate – or hope to – that you are helping because help is simply necessary, and not because of anger, fear or greed. A corporation cannot think of how this feels, because it is not able to think of someone at all. It lacks what philosophers call a theory of mind: the ability to imagine the mental states of others, and to imagine them imagining us. There can be no mirroring of minds here, because a corporation is neither conscious of itself, nor conscious of anyone else. It is not an immature or immoral person. It is not a person at all – and it is a “category mistake” to think otherwise, as philosopher Matthew Lambert observes. Put another way: Marvel will never respond to Captain America the way I have – it cares nothing whatsoever for his moral ideals, because it has literally no conception whatsoever of morality itself.

The story of us

As I suggested earlier, I grant that Marvel’s stories might be discussed ethically and politically. In fact, this kind of conversation is required by Castoriadis’s “political imaginary”. As a community, our revised conceptions of “us” cannot be legislated by representatives, nor outsourced to experts – they must arise from our negotiations. And they involve not only formal politics, but also art. As Castoriadis argues in The Greek Polis and the Creation of Democracy, tragedy enabled the Athenians to witness and debate their own partial values and ideals; to confront the ambiguous and fickle nature of political action.

Sophocles’s Antigone, for example, revealed that “nothing can guarantee a priori the correctness of action – not even reason”. There is a similar mood to Marvel’s Civil War stories: the violent confrontation of good against good, in which pious duty or technocratic certainty are equally destructive. This is hardly Antigone, but it is occasionally poignant, and certainly stirring.

Superheroes also provide familiar ideals for us to seek. And there is an Athenian precedent for this, too – though by no means democratic. Plato’s utopia in The Republic was modelled after Socrates’s beautiful soul, and the Marvel superheroes offer similar existential symbols. They are political and moral forces, encapsulated in selves. Captain America alone can be a potent sign of freedom or fascistic tyranny, of rebellion or nationalistic obedience, of solitary obsession or charismatic esprit de corps. We can explore rage in Wolverine, the trauma of marginalisation in X-Men, seductive nihilism in the Punisher, faith in Daredevil and so on. While these stories typically lack genuinely political thought, they can offer emblems of personal striving, and provide memorable celebrations or warnings.

One such warning is offered by the criminal Kingpin in Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli’s Daredevil #232. As he manipulates a crazed super-soldier, Nuke, into attacking his enemies, the Kingpin reveals the very ordinary reasons for violence: profit. While his greed is gussied up in the star-spangled banner for Nuke’s sake, this is about business. Hindered by regulation, Kingpin must break the law. “I am not a villain, my son. I am a corporation.” There will be no reform, no rehabilitation. This is who the Kingpin is, and always will be.

While simplistic, this message resonates with me. For all the earnest speeches and handshakes, Marvel the business will never gain my trust. But it will also never betray me. More likely it will just disappoint me, until I am too exhausted or exasperated for disappointment. Either way, I ought to look elsewhere for the virtues advertised in the Avengers films.

I leave my kids with Marvel not because I trust the corporation, but because I trust my children.

This piece is republished with permission from GriffithReview67: Matters of Trust (Text), ed Ashley Hay

– ref. Friday essay: Hail Hydra – on comics, ethics and politics – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-hail-hydra-on-comics-ethics-and-politics-129786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

As this week showed, a clean end to a ministerial scandal is seldom possible. Even so, the aftershocks of the sports rorts affair have been major, and they’ll continue to plague the government.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack is still standing, but you can bet he’s a lot more unnerved than he’s willing to admit.

McCormack won’t need to look over his shoulder at what Barnaby Joyce is doing – the frustrated backbencher is expected to keep himself in full view. Circumstances alone will dictate whether he’ll have another tilt at McCormack’s leadership.

Meanwhile, the Senate has established an inquiry likely to bring to light new entrails on the sports affair before it reports, on party lines, on March 24. If those entrails stretch to the Prime Minister’s office, that will be embarrassing for Scott Morrison.

Read more: View from The Hill: We need to see Gaetjens’ report on McKenzie – not least for Gaetjens’ sake

But the policy level is where the ripples are most serious. These few days have highlighted, and worsened, Morrison’s difficulties in managing the always volatile climate debate within his government and making whatever adjustments he might judge necessary before the 2022 election.

The road from a minister rorting a sports grants scheme to greater trouble with climate policy may not seem an obvious one, but it was very direct.

Bridget McKenzie’s forced resignation triggered the challenge by Joyce, whose pitch (and that of his supporters) involved a retro climate policy, including spruiking vociferously the virtues of coal.

Their voices will become louder. The rebels are emboldened, with little to lose. Matt Canavan, who quit cabinet to back Joyce, is on the backbench, a coal disciple, and a darling of many in the resources sector.

With the resignations of McKenzie and Canavan, both senators, the Nationals have no frontbenchers in the upper house, giving the maximum opportunity for some freelancing there – just like Barnaby did when a senator, all those years ago.

And with his leadership less than solid, McCormack will have little flexibility on climate policy, even if he wanted it.

When asked by The Conversation about the proposal for a new coal-fired power station in Queensland, McCormack was strong in his advocacy (while stressing it had to “tick all the boxes”, including environmental ones).

“Should it measure up, I think it’d be a great thing for Gladstone,” he enthused, “because what we want to do is make sure that that resources-rich area in and around Gladstone is well serviced by the energy needs that that wonderful port city is going to require”.

One of the constraints on Morrison nuancing climate policy in any significant way will be the October election in Queensland, where the Liberals and Nationals are one party (the LNP).

The federal Nationals will be heavily focused there. Some Nationals sources believe that in the state election, the minor-party threat is less the Hanson forces than the Katter’s Australian Party. KAP has three seats already (compared to the Hansonites’ one) and could get more.

It was significant Bob Katter this week handed over leadership of KAP to his son Robbie, who leads it in Queensland, so enhancing Robbie’s status.

Some Nationals fear if KAP grew strong enough, it could eventually become the new National party in Queensland.

As the hardline Nationals flex their muscle on climate, Tuesday’s Coalition party meeting saw Liberal moderates, including Katie Allen, from the Melbourne seat of Higgins, and Trent Zimmerman, a faction leader in NSW, also becoming more willing to speak out.

Allen said privately (on WhatsApp) that what the government was doing on climate action needed better cut-through to the electorate.

The Liberal moderates may become more assertive as time goes on, especially given some new additions last May. In recent years the moderates have been drowned out by the right or missing in action (notwithstanding contributions by Russell Broadbent on refugees and the role of some on same sex marriage).

McCormack’s reshuffle of his frontbench has been cautious, as he seeks to protect his back. Those who voted for him were the winners. He had no truck with the suggestion to him by one Joyce supporter to give his attacker a spot.

The return to cabinet of Darren Chester is welcome. He’s a measured voice, progressive within the Nationals.

Queensland’s Keith Pitt has jumped from backbench to cabinet, thanks to Canavan’s self-destruct. He takes Canavan’s old resources job, plus the poison chalice of water.

Pitt’s a man of very forthright opinions. In 2018 he quit a junior frontbench post declaring, “I will always put reducing power prices before Paris”. McCormack on Thursday slapped down Pitt’s pro-nuclear stand even before he was sworn in.

Despite several new women entering the party room at the election, only one woman, Michelle Landry, is on the front bench, and she remains an assistant minister, albeit with wider duties than before.

In a messy, destructive week, the government had two brighter spots.

The less important of these was the opposition’s lack lustre performance – surprising, given the ammunition it had. It concentrated on the PM’s missteps over the fires, which had received massive attention already.

More crucial for the government – just days after McKenzie fell, Angus Taylor was shored up.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Angus Taylor’s troubles go international, in brawl with Naomi Wolf

After months of argument about the allegedly forged document Taylor used to attack Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore and her council over their carbon footprint, the Australian Federal Police has announced it is taking its probe no further.

“The AFP assessment of this matter identified there is no evidence to indicate the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction was involved in falsifying information,” the AFP statement said.

It added that “the low level of harm” and Taylor’s apology to Moore, along with “the significant level of resources required to investigate were also factored into the decision not to pursue this matter.

“The AFP now considers this matter finalised.”

The mystery of the document remains, perhaps never to be solved until Taylor’s memoirs. But its potential to be lethal for him has passed.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: In tune with the summer, a week of wildness starts the parliamentary year – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-in-tune-with-the-summer-a-week-of-wildness-starts-the-parliamentary-year-131320

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Ziguras, Professor of Global Studies, RMIT University

The coronavirus outbreak may be the biggest disruption to international student flows in history.

There are more than 100,000 students stuck in China who had intended to study in Australia this year. As each day passes, it becomes more unlikely they will arrive in time for the start of the academic year.

Of course international affairs are bound to sometimes interfere with the more than 5.3 million students studying outside their home country, all over the world.

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States closed its borders temporarily and tightened student visa restrictions, particularly for students from the Middle East. Thousands were forced to choose different study destinations in the following years.

In 2018, Saudi Arabia’s government instructed all its citizens studying in Canada to return home, in protest at the Canadian foreign minister’s call to release women’s rights activists held in Saudi jails.

A significant proportion of the 12,000 or so Saudi students in Canada left to continue their studies elsewhere, before the Saudi government quietly softened its stance.

So we have seen calamities before, but never on this scale. There are a few reasons for this.

Why this is worse than before

The current temporary migration of students from China to Australia represents one of the largest education flows the world has ever seen. Federal education department data show there were more than 212,000 Chinese international students in Australia by the end of 2019.

This accounts for 28% of Australia’s total international student population. Globally, there are only two study routes that involve larger numbers of students. The world’s largest student flow is from China to the United States and the second largest is from India to the US.

It’s also difficult to imagine a worse time for this epidemic to happen for students heading to the southern hemisphere than January to February, at the end of our long summer break.

Many Chinese students had returned home for the summer and others were preparing to start their studies at the end of February.

By comparison, the SARS epidemic in 2003 didn’t significantly dent international student enrolments in Australia because it peaked around April-May 2003, well after students had started the academic year.

Read more: We need to make sure the international student boom is sustainable

Ending in July that year, the SARS outbreak infected fewer than half the number of people than have already contracted coronavirus. Even during the SARS outbreak Australia didn’t implement bans on those travelling from affected countries.

What will the impact be?

This crisis hits hard for many Chinese students, an integral component of our campus communities. It not only causes disruptions to their study, accommodation, part-time employment and life plans, but also their mental well-being.

A humane, supportive and respectful response from the university communities is vital at this stage.

Australia has never experienced such a sudden drop in student numbers.

The reduced enrolments will have profound impacts on class sizes and the teaching workforce, particularly at masters level in universities with the highest proportions of students from China. Around 46% of Chinese students are studying a postgraduate masters by coursework. If classes are too small, universities will have to cancel them.

And the effects don’t end there. Tourism, accommodation providers, restaurants and retailers who cater to international students will be hit hard too.

Chinese students contributed A$12 billion to the Australian economy in 2019, so whatever happens from this point, the financial impact will be significant. The cost of the drop in enrolments in semester one may well amount to several billion dollars.

The newly-formed Global Reputation Taskforce by Australia’s Council for International Education has commissioned some rapid response research to promote more informed discussion about the implications and impacts of the crisis.

Read more: What attracts Chinese students to Aussie universities?

If the epidemic is contained quickly, some of the 100,000 students stuck in China will be able to start their studies in semester one, and the rest could delay until mid-year. But there might still be longer-term effects.

Australia has a world-class higher education system and the world is closely watching how we manage this crisis as it unfolds.

Prospective students in China will be particularly focused on Australia’s response as they weigh future study options.

The world is watching

Such a fast-moving crisis presents a range of challenges for those in universities, colleges (such as English language schools) and schools who are trying to communicate with thousands of worried students who can’t enter the country.

Australian universities are scrambling to consider a wide range of responses. These include:

• delivering courses online
• providing intensive courses and summer or winter courses
• arrangements around semester commencement
• fee refund and deferral
• provision of clear and updated information
• support structures for starting and continuing Chinese students, including extended academic and welfare support, counselling, special helplines, and coronavirus-specific information guidelines
• support with visa issues, accommodation and employment arrangements.

A coordinated approach involving different stakeholders who are providing different supports for Chinese students is an urgent priority. This includes education providers, government, city councils, international student associations, student groups and professional organisations.

Read more: Coronavirus fears can trigger anti-Chinese prejudice. Here’s how schools can help

This outbreak further raises awareness within the international education sector of the need for risk management and crisis response strategies to ensure sustainability.

Most importantly, we need to ensure we remain focused on the human consequences of this tragedy first. Headlines focusing on lost revenues at a time like this are offensive to international students and everyone involved in international education.

– ref. The coronavirus outbreak is the biggest crisis ever to hit international education – https://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-outbreak-is-the-biggest-crisis-ever-to-hit-international-education-131138

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Starting the year with a leadership spill will be seen by many, especially those hit by the bushfires, as the Nationals being particularly self-indulgent.

Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack admits as much, but notes he wasn’t the initiator of his party’s bad behaviour.

“We should not have been talking about ourselves. This was never of my making or doing. And we should have spent the entire day, not just those sitting hours, but the entire day reflecting on just what has taken place this summer,” he tells the Politics podcast.

McCormack also says he supported Bridget McKenzie “the whole way” through the sports rorts controversy and he again stands by her decision-making.

The National leader defends his new frontbench line up against criticism that it’s short on women, mounts a strong pitch in favour of coal, and rejects claims he’s been too invisible and a weak leader.

Transcript (edited for clarity)

Michelle Grattan: The Nationals have had their worst week since Barnaby Joyce quit as leader in early 2018 amid a scandal around his personal life.

On Sunday, Nationals Deputy Leader Bridget McKenzie was forced to quit cabinet in the sports rorts affair. Two days later, Michael McCormack faced a leadership challenge from Joyce, who argued that the Nationals need a stronger voice. In between, Cabinet Minister Matt Canavan resigned from the frontbench to support Joyce.

Michael McCormack survived the challenge, but his colleagues will be watching carefully whether he can improve his leadership style and most important in their eyes, heighten the party’s profile. The deputy prime minister joined us today to discuss the week’s events and the future.

And please ignore some ringing of the bells during this interview.

Michael McCormack, did you fight for Bridget McKenzie, who in the end, after all, resigned on a technicality of failing to disclose membership of sports organisations, or did you accept the inevitable that she had to quit?

Michael McCormack: I supported Bridget McKenzie the whole way through Michelle, and I know the sports grants program was a good program, I know the delivery it had, particularly for regional Australia, and Michelle, Bridget had ministerial discretion over these grants. She exercised that ministerial discretion while, of course, taking on board the advice and the recommendations given to her by Sports Australia, of course. And the decisions were all eligible projects. All the decisions she made were eligible. I did support her. I always supported Bridget, she was a very good deputy leader and we got on very, very well.

MG: But you couldn’t save her in the end. You could not save her.

MM: She resigned. She resigned. She understood and accepted the fact that the Wangaratta Clay Target club membership had not been put onto her register of interests and the associations that she had. And unfortunately, as you say, on this technicality, she accepted that Phil Gaetjens, the secretary of PM&C, Prime Minister and Cabinet found that that was an apparent breach of ministerial standards. And so, Bridget accepted that this was the case and resigned.

MG: Now your new deputy, David Littleproud the other night suggested that the approach to the sports grants with the party colour coding spreadsheet and the like, was overly partisan. How does that square with your defence, which you’ve just made again, that the distribution was all proper?

MM: Bridget also made clear that she hadn’t seen that document, as I understand. And whilst, yes, there was a colour coded document that somehow found its way to the ABC, the Sports Australia recommendations that Bridget McKenzie received, she made sure that there was 8% more allocations to Labor seats than was first given to her by Sports Australia.

So there was no bias shown against Labor seats. And I know that Anthony Albanese, the Labor leader, Catherine King and others acknowledged and recognised the fact that their electorates received large grants. And in fact, even the opposition leader thanked Senator McKenzie for the allocation of funds to the Grayndler electorate, as I understand.

MG: How do you expect Australians in the regions who are beset by drought, now by fires, to react to the National Party indulging in a leadership spill on the very day that the parliament was dedicated to the victims and the heroes of these bushfires?

MM: And it should have been dedicated wholly and solely. We should not have been talking about ourselves. This was never of my making or doing. And we should have spent the entire day, not just those sitting hours, but the entire day reflecting on just what has taken place this summer and for those more than 30 people, for those volunteer firefighters who’ve lost their lives.

We did honour and recognise them in an appropriate way. And the lives that have been lost will be forever remembered as a very dark day in Australia’s history – very dark days. And we should have been focusing on that. We should have been focusing on the drought. We should have been continuing. That’s always been my focus, Michelle, I’ve never swayed from the fact that, yes, the drought is ongoing, and, yes, the bushfires have been very bad. That’s always been my focus.

And indeed, I didn’t ring around every member because I was in important meetings the previous day. We had about seven hours of ministry meetings, including six of cabinet the previous day. And I was very much tied up with that, focusing on why people actually sent me here to do the job for them. To talk about drought, to talk about the fires, and more importantly, to come up with the recovery and relief efforts and the right answers for the Australian people that I serve and that we as National party members serve.

MG: Now, you’ve said that you don’t think Barnaby Joyce will challenge again.

MM: Well, he said he won’t.

MG: I actually heard you say you also believed in the tooth fairy for a while.

MM: No, I didn’t. Well, the question was put to me, do you still believe in the tooth fairy? And unfortunately, somebody who is listening to that broadcast sent me an email yesterday saying their young child was then questioning as to why the tooth fairy wasn’t real. And for all of the children listening, put your tooth under a little thimble and you might get a coin from the tooth fairy. That’s really important.

MG: But the lesson of history is that once an aspirant challenges, he is likely to challenge again. Are you saying the Nats are different from other parties in this regard?

MM: Well, I hope we draw a line under this and move on. It’s so important for regional Australia. They need to know that we don’t come here to serve ourselves, we come here to serve them. This sort of thing is, it’s really, it’s about power, it’s about self-indulgence. Look, as Barnaby has said himself, the boil has been lanced. He spoke of the the fact that he was now going to support me and to support the National Party. He needs to keep his word and I’m sure he will keep his word.

MG: There’s a move to have a rule that would stop random spill attempts.

MM: Similar to the Labor and Liberal parties.

MG: You’ve supported this, although Barnaby Joyce opposes it, not surprisingly. Will it go ahead and what’s the process?

MM: Well, it’s not a matter for me. That’s a matter for the party and the party’s management.

MG: Is that the management committee or…

MM: That would be the federal executive.

MG: So what would that process be, that it goes through the federal executive and then the parliamentary party?

MM: I can imagine that would probably be the case, yes.

MG: And do you think…

MM: I have had nothing to do with this, by the way. It was a proposal brought forward. In fact, it was a proposal raised at a party meeting last year after we won the election, to avoid the intense media speculation as to “will there be a spill, won’t there be a spill?”. And there was a case back in, I think it was about December 2018, around about the last parliamentary sitting week, where in an editorial view written in a Melbourne newspaper, then led rise and belief to the fact that there might have been a spill on because that’s seen as killing season, and no such spurious allegations or suggestions were being raised, but that then, of course, set the rabbits running. And of course then, we had all this intense media speculation and it shouldn’t have been the case then. It should not be the case now.

And, you know, we’ve drawn a line under it. I’ve now put myself up for the leadership three times: in February 2018 when Barnaby Joyce resigned, just after the election when we won in May last year, and again this week. Three times in less than two years. I think that shows that the party supports me. We need to move on.

MG: The Coalition party room debate on Tuesday showed that the the National party rebels, if we can call them that…

MM: I wasn’t in that particular phase of the party room. Scott Morrison and I had gone out to meet the families of the bushfire victims. So I need to place that on the record. I wasn’t in on that discussion in the joint party room.

MG: But you’re obviously across it. And they have shown that they’ll resist hard any nuancing of the government’s climate change policy…

MM: Which we took to the election.

MG: Would you accept any changes? Would you personally accept any changes to that policy as the government approaches the next election?

MM: Well, we always look at what we’re doing and how we’re doing it, and of course the mood of the of the country. That’s what we did leading up to the May election last year. And of course, that’s what we do all the time. There’s hopefully a long time between now and the next election. But the policies that we took to the election were endorsed by the people of Australia. And that’s why we retained government. That’s why we make the decisions in cabinet, and that’s why we still hold the treasury benches, because the majority of the Australian people wanted us to continue to govern for and on their behalf. And that’s what we’ll do. We took our climate action policies to the election and the Australian people endorsed us and endorsed those policies.

MG: But as you know, there are different views, especially in different parts of the country.

MM: Of course.

MG: Do you at least understand the viewpoint of southern Liberals who want more done on climate change, or do you think they’re simply wrong?

MM: I understand their views.

MG: But you don’t agree with those views?

MM: Well, what we do need is a vibrant resources sector, and I’m really pleased that this morning I announced that Keith Pitt would be the minister for resources in Northern Australia. Of course, adding water to that portfolio as well, but really pleased that he will continue the strong advocacy for our resources sector that Matthew Canavan has championed for so long.

MG: Now, Keith Pitt is a strong supporter of nuclear power. What’s your attitude to nuclear?

MM: Well, we had a committee looking at this headed by Ted O’Brien. It, of course, has made various suggestions as to where we need a mix of energy, but it has to have bipartisan support. I mean, to take a partisan approach to something like this to the parliament would be, in all honesty, probably a waste of time, because it would just cause a lot of dissension amongst the parliament, let alone the people of Australia.

MG: Now, in your reshuffle, which you and prime minister just announced you still only have one woman on your frontbench and she remains in an assistant minister position, yet the election produced several new women in your parliamentary party. Won’t women supporters in the regions be disappointed by this failure to have more women on the frontbench? And is the message that in the Nationals it’s a case of waiting your turn for promotion rather than a principle of merit?

MM: I’m glad that Sam McMahon from the Northern Territory, Susan McDonald from Queensland, Perin Davey from New South Wales, and indeed Anne Webster from the house of representatives seat of Mallee have all taken their place in the parliament. But they’re new members and I’ve only been here a matter of months, and I don’t believe that somebody should be thrust into a ministerial position, let alone cabinet in their first few months as a parliamentarian. They need to serve the communities who sent them here to Canberra to do the job. They need to be able to ensure that they’ve got that grassroots representation right. And look, they’re very, very talented women.

And, of course, Michelle Landry and Bridget McKenzie, they were both in the ministry I put together. I had both of my women in ministerial positions. And to think that the National Party has gone from from two to six women in one election is really important. And I think that says also something about the way I lead the party and that the way that I’ve taken the National Party forward. And I’m sure they will, as you say, get their turn. It has to be merit based, Michelle, I’ve always believed that you should be getting positions on merit. Yes, of course, gender has its place. Yes, of course, geography has its place in ministerial decisions. But you have to be able to do the job. And I’m sure those women who I’ve mentioned and others besides will get their turn eventually.

But it’s a cut and thrust game this politics. And we need the best people serving in the ministerial positions and around that cabinet table. I’m really pleased with the people that have been elected to those ministerial positions for the National Party. And I’m sure that they’ll serve Australia, particularly regional Australia, very well going forward.

MG: To go back to the resources area, the government before the election promised an inquiry into whether a coal-fired power station was feasible in central Queensland.

MM: In Collinsville, yep.

MG: Where is that up to, and do you want to see such a project eventuating if possible?

MM: Well, I think it’d be good, because what we want to do is make sure that resources rich area in and around Gladstone is well serviced by the energy needs that that wonderful port city is going to require going forward. The port at Gladstone is a magnificent facility. The activity on that port is so important to not just central Queensland, but indeed the state and the nation. So we want to make sure it has the energy needs. The Collinsville project, the proposal, should it tick all the boxes, and I know that it is being put through the rigour at the moment, and sure enough, it’s got to pass that those tests. It’s got to pass those environmental outcomes. Of course, there are state implications as well.

But should it measure up, I think it’d be a great thing for Gladstone. And that’s what it’s aimed at. That’s what it’s based on. We look at the Tomago smelter in the Upper Hunter and around that area of New South Wales. Sometimes it has to load shed and not necessarily have full output because we’ve got too much power being used in New South Wales. We need our industries, we need our factories, to be running at full bore. We need to be able to turn the lights on, we need to be able to keep the wheels of this nation turning. We can only do that if we’ve got reliability in the sector.

Affordability is also important, and that’s why I am a supporter of coal. That’s why I am a supporter of the resource sector. And you just take coal, $62 billion of exports, that pays for a lot of state schools and state hospitals, 55,000 jobs. So many people get up of a morning and put a uniform on and go to work in that sector – they should have the opportunity for a better future to for themselves and their families. And of course, not to mention the two-thirds of our energy needs are coming from coal. So it’s an important part of our resources sector, of our energy needs and our nation.

MG: Well, that’s a pretty strong coal statement. And one of the issues in the…

MM: Pro-job statement as Michelle, if you don’t mind me just saying that.

MG: One of the issues in the leadership contest was that the Nationals should be more assertive within the government and within the electorate. Do you take that point and will the party be speaking out more loudly in the future?

MM: I always speak out. My inaugural speech to this place, I said I won’t be silent when I ought to speak. But I think sometimes, too, you need to have those debates behind closed doors. And I’ve had great success in making sure that we’ve got the infrastructure spend that we need for regional Australia. And I’ve had those discussions behind closed doors at times with Malcolm Turnbull, at times with Scott Morrison, and I’ve had some good wins along the way. Just because you might get a blood nose or give a blood nose behind closed doors doesn’t mean to say you need to come out with that trickle still down your nose for yourself or the other person. And the public doesn’t always need to know what goes on when you’re having those important meetings in discussing the needs and wants of regional Australia or indeed Australia in general.

I know it might satisfy the the media and it might grab you a headline, but I would rather get a project up for a regional town or centre, than get a page six headline in a leading daily newspaper in metropolitan Australia. I would prefer that any day of the week. I’ve sent here to get delivery, to get things done. And I know I’ve been doing that.

MG: You probably find it a bit galling, all the criticism that’s been made of your leadership in the last little while. But do you think you need to be making any changes in the way you do your job?

MM: I think we can always take a look at ourselves and think about how you can do things better. I’m not perfect, never suggested I was.

MG: So what are you working on?

MM: Well, I’m certainly working on making sure that we get even more regional delivery for Australia. More outcomes for regional Australia. What I want to do this year is build dams. I’ve been frustrated at the state’s lack of cooperation in this regard, I’m so pleased that I’ve established the national water grid. I’m working well with New South Wales and Queensland to do just that. Constitutional rules dictate that states play a big part in this. And I think the Australian public wants to see shovels in the ground and bulldozers busy at work on sites where dams have been projected and proposed for too many years now. So I’m looking forward to seeing bulldozers in the ground at Stanthorpe in Queensland. That Emus Swamp dam is going to be, I think, the catalyst for more water infrastructure to come.

MG: And will people be seeing more of you in the regions or do you think…?

MM: I don’t think you can see any more of me in the regions, I’m there all the time. But I’ll tell you one thing I don’t Michelle, and that’s I don’t always take necessarily banks of cameras with me. Camera crews following along behind. And I think that served me very well. And indeed, moreover, the communities that we try to serve best, during the bushfire season. I went to and visited so many of those evacuation centres, communities where people have lost their homes, their farms, their businesses, and I think they really appreciate the fact that I didn’t have Channel 9 and Channel 7 and every other camera crew trailing along behind for that photo opportunity.

I tell you what, when they asked me for a financial counsellor, when they asked me for a counsellor in general to help with their mental health, when they asked me for a ADF support or a pop up for human services, I was able to ring the minister there and then and provide it, if not within hours, within days. And that’s the sort of delivery that I think regional Australians would much prefer than to see a minister or a deputy prime minister, indeed, who, yes, gets the one line grab on the six o’clock news bulletin, but then doesn’t provide that generator or that counsellor all that support for their communities when they’re at their lowest ebb.

MG: Just finally, before we came for this interview, I did hear a woman on television from somewhere on the South Coast saying that it was very difficult to actually get to the services one needed. The suggestion was that when you didn’t have any resources after going through this bushfire, doing all the things you have to do to get those services is pretty taxing. Do you think that the recovery effort is going smoothly or does the government need to do more so people can cut through bureaucracy and get what they need?

MM: Everybody’s not going to get what they want right when they want it, and particularly tough for those people who’ve lost everything other than the clothes they’re wearing . And many of them, they have different levels of frustration. I know speaking to some people who’d lost everything, they were still optimistic. And those who perhaps had been only slightly touched by fires are very angry and very frustrated. So the moods differed as to where you went. Yes, we can, and we’ve been doing everything humanly possible to get the assistance to where it’s most needed. But charities need to play a part in being a bit quicker. Yes, governments do, too. And we’ve had a lot of lessons learned from this summer.

And I’m sure that the royal commission and the review that New South Wales is conducting and and and other states will as well, I’m sure we’ll take some some lessons from this summer and put in place measures to ensure that in future there is a more rapid response. But it’s been devastating this summer and of course it’s not over yet. There’s still bushfires raging out of control as we speak. But those volunteer firefighters, people such as Shane Fitzsimmons, the commissioner here in New South Wales, have been magnificent. Andrew Colvin worked day and night heading up the National Bushfire Recovery Agency. The work that he’s done has really helped support those communities. And I want to make special mention of the ADF. When they were sent in 6,500 uniforms on the ground and for my own home city, Wagga Wagga, first unit mobilized, went to Batlow, went to Tumbarumba, made such a difference on the ground, Michelle.

And yes, there will be lessons we learn from this. We need to adapt those measures in time for the next summer fire season, which you and I both know and everybody else does, they’re coming forward earlier. The first fires this summer were in September. Who knows, this year, it may well be August, but we need to be responding quicker, as you say. We’ve learnt lessons from this summer, and let’s just hope we get through the rest of these hotter months without any more tragedy.

MG: Michael McCormack, thank you very much for making time for us on what’s a very busy day for you.

The re-vamped Nationals frontbench line up following changes:

• Michael McCormack: Leader of the Nationals, Minister for Infrastructure

• David Littleproud: Deputy Leaders on the Nationals, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Drought and Emergency Management

• Darren Chester: Minister for Veterans Affairs

• Keith Pitt: Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia

• Mark Coulton: Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government

• Andrew Gee: Minister for Regional Education, Decentralisation, Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment

• Michelle Landry: Assistant Minister for Children and Families, Assistant Minister for Northern Australia

• Mr Kevin Hogan MP: Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister

New to podcasts?

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

Image:

Mick Tsikas/AAP

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Michael McCormack moves on from his near-death experience – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-michael-mccormack-moves-on-from-his-near-death-experience-131305

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arosha Weerakoon, Lecturer, General Dentist & PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland

Why do we make saliva? – Lilia, aged 7.

Thanks for your great question, Lilia. I’m a dentist, so I know a bit about what’s happening inside our mouths, and I can tell you saliva is very important.

It helps us enjoy our food, it helps sores in our mouth get better, and it fights nasty germs – just to name a few.

But first, let’s look at how we make saliva.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why do tears come out of our eyes when we cry?

It comes from our salivary glands

Saliva is made in special pouches called salivary glands. These glands look like rows of water balloons that fill and empty into tubes called salivary ducts. As the balloon-like glands fill up, the saliva gets squeezed into the tubes, and then your mouth.

We have hundreds of little salivary glands dotted all around our lips and cheeks. We also have six big glands (made of hundreds of little glands) in our mouth that produce most of our saliva; four are under our tongue and one on each side of our cheeks.

Everyone produces different amounts of saliva, depending on how healthy you are and how much water you drink. In one day, you could produce enough saliva to fill more than a litre carton of milk. In one year, you could make enough saliva to fill two bath tubs. That’s a lot of spit!

Saliva’s super powers

Our saliva is mostly (99%) made of water, mixed with useful things like salts.

The ingredients in saliva are complicated, but that 1% is important. Saliva can help protect us against cavities (holes in the teeth) by washing our teeth with special salts. And because it’s slippery, saliva stops the bugs that create holes from sticking to our teeth.

If you have a cut inside your mouth or lose a baby tooth, saliva can help you heal faster. It can also fight most nasty germs and makes it difficult for bad bacteria (or bugs) to stick and grow in our mouth.

Read more: Curious Kids: how do tongues taste food?

Saliva helps you enjoy the flavours in your food by helping your taste buds break food down into smaller bits. It also helps mash and mix food, so it’s easier to swallow and digest.

Saliva even helps you talk by making it slimy enough for your cheeks, lips and tongue to slip and slide around your mouth to form sounds.

How can you make more good saliva?

Some people don’t make enough saliva because they may be sick or take medicine that stops their salivary glands from working well.

People who make very little saliva have trouble chewing and tasting their food, can get a lot of cuts and sores in their mouth, can be more likely to get holes in their teeth, and have other problems.

To help your salivary glands make a lot of good saliva, you should make sure you drink plenty of water every day (at least one litre). Drink more water after playing sport, especially if you have sweated a lot.

Read more: Curious Kids: how do voices come out of our mouths?

– ref. Curious Kids: why do we make saliva? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-we-make-saliva-130288

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Last year was an exceptional year for Hollywood cinema, and this is reflected in the Oscar nominees for Best Picture.

The Oscars often celebrate the middlebrow and polite over the exceptional and avant garde, resulting in many extraordinary films missing out on the accolades. In 2018, it was Luca Guadagnino’s striking Suspiria that received zero nominations.

Contrary to form, four of this year’s nominees could have been deserved winners other years. Even more refreshing is the radical difference between these films – from bourgeois social realist drama Marriage Story to anarchic black comedy Joker.

Close runner-up: Joker

Joker proves that Todd Phillips, whose early career, from Hated to Old School showed comedic promise, is finally making funny movies again.

After a poignant first half hour, the film breezes into (black) comedy mode, as we watch Joaquin Phoenix’s down-on-his-luck comedian Arthur Fleck become progressively more deranged. Phillips presents some genuinely hilarious tableaux.

Fitting for a movie about self-important Batman’s arch-nemesis, the whole thing is wonderfully absurd. Phoenix proves once again that he is the master of flawed characters who, while taking themselves seriously, are pathetically funny.

Joker reveals the contradictions of our political present — collective meaning-making transformed into individualised, identity-based fantasy. Phoenix’s Joker – forgotten by a broken welfare system — shows mass disenfranchisement can only be made sense of as its apolitical other: individual bursts of aimless violence.

Joker is a thoroughly amoral film. It presents a world of vital (and violent) negativity without offering the usual Hollywood moral bandaid.

Exquisitely simple: Marriage Story

Noah Baumbach’s Netflix film is similarly peppered with bursts of humour, but its approach is naturalistic.

Unlike some of Baumbach’s earlier films (see The Squid and the Whale and Greenberg), this has a decisive quality to it.

A simple narrative – a couple with a child undergoes a divorce – anchors an unbelievably compelling performance from Scarlet Johansson. It would be a great injustice if she did not win the Best Actress Oscar. Laura Dern and Ray Liotta are also brilliant as a couple of combative divorce attorneys.

The film is technically flawless in its construction, with the camera, editing, and score tending towards invisibility.

The final moment between the pair, involving a trivial daily act, epitomises the film as a whole – simple, beautiful, funny and emotionally devastating.

Long but worthy: The Irishman

Martin Scorsese’s true crime yarn The Irishman, also made for Netflix, demands a more complex process of critical evaluation.

Some of it is awe-inspiring – Joe Pesci’s performance as ageing gangster Russell Buffalino is one of its highlights. Robert De Niro’s subtle brilliance as Frank Sheeran is epitomised in a sequence towards the end of the film in which he makes a telephone call. He should have been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar on the basis of this scene alone.

Yet the territory is familiar stuff for Scorsese, and the first two-thirds of the (very long) film plays like a watered-down Goodfellas or a season of Boardwalk Empire – a retro true crime saga following gangsters and politicos in control of the Teamsters union. Al Pacino, nominated for an Oscar for his turn as Jimmy Hoffa, just does the usual Pacino thing where he shouts a lot, with little nuance.

In the final third, however, the film takes a radically different turn. As the consciousness of the film merges with that of the eponymous hitman, it becomes increasingly emotionally complex.

The Irishman’s estrangement from his family, from his work, and from his social world is starkly realised when we find him in a nursing home. This one-time heavy now seems like a disoriented and tired old fogey, attempting to relive glory days by telling stories to people who don’t know – or care – about them.

It’s a long (did I mention long?) and gruelling film, brilliantly shot and staged. The finale turns what might otherwise seem like a self-indulgent genre exercise into a profound reflection on art and existence.

My pick for Best Picture: Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s 21st century masterpiece, and it would not be surprising if he made no more films after this one, given it seems to sum up the rest of his oeuvre – and Hollywood at large – as, indeed, fairytale.

His best film since Jackie Brown is a stunning, elegiac lament of the impossibility of film art to transform and transcend history.

Everything about this film works, from the extraordinary performances from old timers like Leonardo Di Caprio and (relative) newcomers like Margaret Qualley (who self-assuredly steals her scenes with Brad Pitt) to the stately creation and photography of a nostalgic Los Angeles.

The sequence in which Margot Robbie, as Sharon Tate, watches her performance on the big screen, delightfully laughing the whole time, is one of the most moving scenes in cinema. The fact that the character has few lines is in itself significant, a comment on her early silencing at the hands of the Manson family – and a wail for what could have been.

The explosive (and unexpected) violence at the end of the film offers the viewer, familiar with the Manson mythos, a chance to imagine other possibilities – and this is both satisfying and devastating.

Every moment in the film seems acutely aware of the absurdity, the thoroughly “Tinseltown” quality of its representation of history. It emphasises that nothing can ever be revised – unless it’s in the make-believe movies. And there is, typical for Tarantino, something sweet and naïve about this celebration of the potential of movies to allow us to simultaneously remember and forget the past.

And the rest…

Parasite, the latest film from stellar Korean director Bong Joon Ho, was many critics’ pick for film of the year — but it is let down by an uncommitted ending that drifts into sentimentality.

The premise of a lower class family manipulating their way into domestic positions in an upper class household serves as the basis for a very funny narrative. But when the film is called on to commit to this violent premise, it seems to back out. Its tone becomes smarmy and self-important.

Ford v Ferrari is a well made biopic (from director of mediocre films, James Mangold) about the professional and personal struggles of car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) as they seek to win the 1966 Le Mans race, but, like all biopics, seems a little hackneyed and stupid at times.

1917, likewise, is technically dynamic – the “one shot” experiment makes sense in this case – but is otherwise an unexceptional film about a couple of soldiers on a quest to save their fellows.

Could do better …

Only two of the eight nominees, Little Women and Jojo Rabbit were disappointments.

Little Women promised great things. It would seem like a good time to remake the cherished story of the March sisters, and a young director like Greta Gerwig would seem like a good choice – but it just doesn’t work as a movie. The acting is remarkably stiff with virtually no rapport between the sisters. Timothée Chalamet, usually brilliant, seems acutely uncomfortable with the staginess of the film’s approach.

There doesn’t appear to be any reason for the clunky reordering of the narrative or for major plot omissions and there appears to be no age differentiation between the sisters.

We simply watch a bunch of film star friends hanging out for a while, and this is pleasant enough – you wouldn’t turn it off if you were on a plane. But it is so stilted and affected (underscored by a kind of unjustified sense of self-importance) that it is hard to see why it was nominated for Best Picture.

Relentlessly clever Taika Waititi’s latest film, Jojo Rabbit is wildly uneven. Some of the comedy works, some falls flat. It seems overly reliant on an outrageous comedic premise, while never quite gelling as a piece of cinema.

It is funny for a minute to see Waititi sending up Hitler, but it quickly becomes tiresome, as does Sam Rockwell’s turn as a disaffected Nazi. A bit like Waititi’s 2004 Oscar-winning short, Two Cars, One Night, it appears overly concerned with style. Though it almost taps into a child’s point of view – an awesome experience when effectively realised – it jars with the heavy-handed stylistic treatment of the material.

Not on the list …

There were, of course, several excellent films that received no nominations.

The French eco-thriller School’s Out, about a substitute teacher being gaslighted by his class of elite high school students, was one of the highights of 2019. So too the outrageous Brazillian-French exploitation yarn Bacurau, about rich American pleasure seekers attempting to wipe a small Brazillian town off the map.

Indeed, it was a very good year. Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood and Joker will be long-remembered as two of the strongest films of the 21st century, embodying some of the tendencies and contradictions of our age.

– ref. It was a very good year – but which Best Picture nominee will win an Oscar? – https://theconversation.com/it-was-a-very-good-year-but-which-best-picture-nominee-will-win-an-oscar-130529

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Tiernan, Professor of Politics. Dean (Engagement) Griffith Business School, Griffith University

This article is based on a longer essay published in the Griffith Review’s latest edition, Matters of Trust.

Much has been written about Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s missteps and leadership failures in the bushfire crisis that has consumed Australia this summer.

His refusal to meet with fire and emergency leaders months before the fires to discuss ideas and strategies informed by their collective experience. The flat-footed response to the crisis itself and reluctance to link it to climate change. His unwillingness to relent from hyper-partisan efforts to deflect blame to the states.

Read more: Scott Morrison’s biggest failure in the bushfire crisis: an inability to deliver collective action

Morrison’s government has since been further wracked by the “sports rorts” corruption scandal. The prime minister was roundly criticised for defending Nationals deputy leader Bridget McKenzie in the face of overwhelming evidence she used the sports grants program as a political slush fund targeted to marginal seats before last year’s federal poll.

Morrison appeared unabashed and perhaps convinced he could tough it out as he had during earlier controversies involving ministers Michaelia Cash, Stuart Robert and Angus Taylor. His refusal to release the Gaetjens report into McKenzie’s actions raised questions about how the apparently competing interpretations of Australia’s most senior public servant and the independent auditor-general might be reconciled.

After a brutal summer, Morrison returned to parliament this week a diminished and damaged shadow of his “miracle” election-winning self. And some fear all this portends 2020 will be yet another “annus horribilis” in the sorry recent history of Australian politics.

How crisis bring out the best in Australians

However, there is reason for optimism. Like the green shoots emerging from the hundreds of thousands of singed hectares across our country, Australia’s institutions are strengthening. Individuals and communities are engaging in both politics and the public sphere in ways they haven’t in a very long time.

Volunteer firefighters have been at the forefront of the bushfires, defending the lives and properties of their neighbours and friends – sometimes tragically, at the cost of their own lives.

Other front-line workers – ambos, nurses, doctors, police and many others – have showed again and again why public trust in these individuals remains high, in stark contrast to evidence of its precipitous decline in other institutions.

Journalists are doing the job we need them to do as a key pillar of our democracy, keeping Australians informed and holding those in power to account.

Read more: Lots of people want to help nature after the bushfires – we must seize the moment

Local political leaders – councillors and MPs, mayors and premiers – have showed courage and compassion as they have made difficult decisions and prioritised resources to support bushfire-affected communities. Businesses and civic organisations have also mobilised to respond to the crisis.

And an array of unconventional alliances has developed among health care professionals, tradespeople, chefs, artists, musicians, writers, craft groups, wildlife carers and others, who have volunteered their time, resources and expertise to raise funds and lend much-needed support.

Innovative groups have also emerged to respond to communities in need, such as Find a Bed, an online platform to help those who have been displaced from their homes (many more than once) find accommodation. Other programs have been launched to provide victims with food, clothing, transport and other necessities.

Countless people like these have embraced the role we all play in the continuing national project of ensuring the safety and well-being of all Australians – wherever they live.

A strong, resilient democracy

For some time, I have wondered whether institutional thinking could be revived in Australian politics. By this, I mean decision-making that emphasises long-term planning and the public interest, as well as a respect for the principles and conventions that constitute the “rules of the game”. This type of institutional thinking has been seriously eroded under recent governments.

The last decade has made me nervous. Many of the world’s most enduring liberal democracies are teetering on the brink. It wasn’t impossible to imagine the same happening in Australia.

This summer – brutal though it has been – has reminded me that I should have had more confidence. Whatever our differences, Australians’ essential empathy and yearning for connection always come out in times of crisis.

Read more: Might the bushfire crisis be the turning point on climate politics Australian needs?

Our democracy has many challenges, notably in terms of the government’s relationship with Indigenous peoples, the need to restore an appropriate balance between Commonwealth, state and local governments, and the recovery of our capacity for innovation and reform.

But despite these challenges, our democracy is strong and resilient. We have a collective responsibility to be vigilant to make sure it stays that way.

Politically engaged, active citizens represent a clear and present threat to the careerists, chancers and zealots who have come to dominate the political parties, lobbying groups and tabloid media.

The public reaction to the government’s failures in the bushfire crisis and the widespread disgust over the “sports rorts” controversy is a reminder of this. We need to continue being active citizens by enrolling to vote, taking an interest in policies and important debates, getting involved and exercising our hard-won democratic rights, including the right to protest.

These are powerful forces against the cynical politicians, who as The Economist described it last year, “denigrate institutions, then vandalise them”.

– ref. After the fires, a reason for optimism: our civic engagement has never been higher – https://theconversation.com/after-the-fires-a-reason-for-optimism-our-civic-engagement-has-never-been-higher-131035

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marissa Parrott, Reproductive Biologist, Wildlife Conservation & Science, Zoos Victoria, and Honorary Research Associate, BioSciences, University of Melbourne

Australia’s recent bushfires have razed over ten million hectares, and killed at least a billion animals. It’s likely countless more will die in the aftermath, as many species face starvation as the landscape slowly regenerates.

Even before the bushfires hit, we were working on supplementary food to help recover the critically endangered mountain pygmy-possum. They are seriously threatened by climate change, historic habitat destruction and more frequent intense fires.

Just months ago we landed on a recipe for Bogong Bikkies, nutritionally suitable baked biscuits that have the consistency of an ANZAC biscuit, taste a bit like a nutty gym protein bar and smell a little like Cheds crackers.

We never imagined our work would be needed so quickly – or urgently – but now our Bogong Bikkies are being deployed across the boulder fields of NSW, providing vital supplementary food to native species such as pygmy-possums, native bush rats and dusky antechinus.

Read more: A season in hell: bushfires push at least 20 threatened species closer to extinction

Hungry, hungry possums

Mountain pygmy-possums are the only Australian marsupial that hibernate every winter under snow, making it essential they build fat reserves before their long winter sleep. The main food source during their spring/summer breeding season is the migratory bogong moth.

However in 2017 and 2018 the billions of expected bogong moths largely failed to arrive, leaving many females underweight and unable to produce enough milk for their young. Due to a lack of food, 50-95% of females in monitored Victorian locations lost their entire litters.

Read more: You can help track 4 billion bogong moths with your smartphone – and save pygmy possums from extinction

In response, Zoos Victoria’s Healesville Sanctuary proposed creating a new supplementary food that could be used in the wild to support possums and their young until moth numbers recover.

Ten years ago, we analysed bogong moths to determine the fats, proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals required for a suitable breeding diet for possums in our captive breeding program.

While we have a successful diet for the possums in our care that includes nuts, insects, vegetables and a specially developed “bogong moth substitute”, the blend has the consistency of a soft caramel (or bogong moth abdomen) – not suitable for feeding in the wild. We needed a shelf-stable, long-lasting, nutritionally suitable food that could feed remote wild populations.

That’s the way the cookie crumbles

Throughout 2019, using our existing analyses of bogong moths, we worked with world experts in veterinary nutrition to develop Bogong Bikkies – nutritionally suitable baked biscuits for mountain pygmy-possums, and other species that live alongside them. We collaborated with Australian wildlife diet experts, Wombaroo, to have our new product commercially developed.

We then trialled the bikkies with the possums in our care at Healesville Sanctuary, so we could monitor whether the food was palatable or caused any health issues. It was a huge success. The possums liked the food, but happily ate other food too. This was exactly what we wanted: something that was completely safe and would be readily accepted, but not chosen over natural food sources.

Once satisfied our captive trials were a success, we had to find the best way to deliver food safely to possums in boulder fields in the wild. This meant buying or making 12 different feeder prototypes. Our local hardware store knew us all by name! We tested four feeders, most of which were designed and built on-site, and chose the most successful three for trials in the wild.

Working with Parks Victoria and the Victorian Mountain Pygmy-possum Recovery Team, we tested these three feeders at 20 stations deep in the Alpine National Park, monitored with remote infrared cameras.

Over the last few months, Zoos Victoria and Parks Victoria staff have been refilling feeders, changing camera batteries and analysing hundreds of thousands of images and videos. After months of work, watching wild mountain pygmy-possums, native bush rats and dusky antechinus visiting our feeders and eating the food was a triumph.

A raging inferno

Halfway through our research, some of the worst bushfires ever seen in Australia left habitats destroyed and our precious wildlife dead or starving. Victoria mountain pygmy-possum populations have so far not been directly impacted by fires this season, but populations on northern Mount Kosciuszko, New South Wales, were hard hit.

While the habitat was destroyed, we hoped some possums had survived deep in the boulder fields, as they have with previous fires. But surviving the initial fire is no help, if their environment and food sources have been so devastated that they can’t gain enough weight to hibernate before winter’s snow.

Within days of the January fires, we had packaged up our most successful feeder type, examples of our cooked bikkies, our best recipe and 30kg of Bogong Bikkie mix, and rushed it urgently to our NSW partners.

Teams from the NSW government’s Saving Our Species and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service have now built and deployed 62 feeders and water stations in six boulder fields, baked batches of bikkies and started emergency feeding.

We’re thankful to have the food developed and research ready to assist. It is important to note, though, that such supplementary feeding is very intensive, and only appropriate for native species facing emergency situations, such as catastrophic fires.

If these bushfires teach us nothing else, it is the value of preparation, hard work and early funding to develop a range of conservation tools.

While we should all hope for the best, we must plan for the worst.

This article was co-authored Dr Kim Miller, Life Sciences Manager, Conservation and Research, at Healesville Sanctuary, Zoos Victoria, and Dr Leanne Wicker, Senior Veterinarian at Healesville Sanctuary, Zoos Victoria. The authors acknowledge Dr Linda Broome and the team from Biodiversity and Conservation (South East Branch) of the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for their work protecting the Mountain Pygmy-possum.

– ref. Looks like an ANZAC biscuit, tastes like a protein bar: Bogong Bikkies help mountain pygmy-possums after fire – https://theconversation.com/looks-like-an-anzac-biscuit-tastes-like-a-protein-bar-bogong-bikkies-help-mountain-pygmy-possums-after-fire-131045

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Southey, Chair Precision Medicine, Monash University

Scientists have revealed the detailed genetic makeup of thousands of cancer samples, yielding new insights into the genes that drive the many and varied forms of the disease.

The results, published in a landmark collection of research papers in the journal Nature interpret the complete DNA sequences, or cancer genomes, of 2,658 cancer samples. This will further our understanding of the crucial “driver” mutations that underpin cancer development and offer potential as targets for treatments such as chemotherapy.

It is the work of some 700 scientists around the world, as part of an international project called the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes.

Read more: Why the causes of cancer are more than just random ‘bad luck’

The hallmark of a cancer cell is its unregulated growth. The mechanism that allows these cells to escape normal cellular growth regulation involves the introduction of mutations into the cancer cell’s DNA. The collection of mutations present in a particular cancer genome is thus known as that cancer’s “mutation signature”.

Each advance in our capacity to accurately and completely sequence whole cancer genomes, and to analyse the sequence data, has enabled a more in-depth analysis of these mutation signatures. Each step forward has revealed further diversity in the mutation processes that underlie the development and progression of cancer.

Diverse mutations

It is seven years since the previous landmark advance in this field. Back in 2013, researchers reported on the genetic makeup of 7,042 cancers of 30 different types, and identified 20 distinct mutational signatures.

Read more: Cancer ‘signatures’ offer hope for treatment and prevention

Today’s reports involve fewer cancers, but an increase in the number of cancer types to 38. But this latest advance is not really about numbers.

The real step forward is in our understanding of the diversity of DNA mutations and mutation signatures within cancer genomes. This is primarily the result of improved methods for analysing the DNA sequence data, compared with the state of the art in 2013.

As a result, important DNA sequence alterations that could not be detected in previous work have now been described. Each contributes important new details about each cancer genome.

Until recently, cancer DNA mutation analyses had been focused on small alterations in “coding regions” of DNA – the roughly 1% of DNA that is responsible for making proteins. The new analyses reported today have identified non-coding driver mutations – some of them large structural mutations that can be as big as entire chromosomes.

These new analytical capabilities have enabled the identification of 97 mutation signatures, five times more than previously known. The improved detail boosts our understanding of the diversity of cancer genomes. It also provides important new information about the order in which these mutations accumulate during cancer development.

However, there is good evidence to suggest that more work is still required to characterise the full spectrum of cancer DNA mutations. It is anticipated that all cancers will have at least one, and perhaps as many as five, driver DNA mutations. Despite the extensive array of analytical approaches described in these new reports, the researchers were still unable to identify any driver mutations in 5% of the cancers in their study.

The research has also shown that similar mutation signatures are present in cancers that arise in different tissues. This has implications for cancer treatment. For example, a drug successfully used to treat a breast cancer may be as effective for treating a pancreatic cancer if the two cancers share the same mutation signature.

Read more: Personalised medicine: how science is using the genetics of disease to make drugs better

These data will greatly advance our ability to identify cancers with the same or similar origins via their mutation signature. It has enormous implications for diversifying the current suite of drugs available for gene-targeted cancer treatment.

But, perhaps more significantly, it also offers the opportunity to expand our strategies for preventing cancer before it starts.

– ref. Genetic secrets of almost 2,700 cancers unveiled by landmark international project – https://theconversation.com/genetic-secrets-of-almost-2-700-cancers-unveiled-by-landmark-international-project-131197

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ritesh Chugh, Senior Lecturer/Discipline Lead – Information Systems and Analysis, CQUniversity Australia

Have you ever used a public charging station to charge your mobile phone when it runs out of battery? If so, watch out for “juice jacking”.

Cybercriminals are on the prowl to infect your mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers and access your personal data, or install malware while you charge them.

Specifically, juice jacking is a cyber attack in which criminals use publicly accessible USB charging ports or cables to install malicious software on your mobile device and/or steal personal data from it.

Read more: With USB-C, even plugging in can set you up to be hacked

Even a 60-second power-up can be enough to compromise your phone’s data. This is because USB cables allow the transmission of both power and data streams simultaneously. Victims can be left vulnerable to identity theft, financial fraud, and significant stress.

USB charging stations are a common sight in shopping centres, airports, hotels, fast-food restaurants, and even on public transport. While juice jacking is neither new nor particularly widespread so far, it was recently highlighted by Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office as a significant threat, especially to travellers who can easily find themselves caught short and in need of a battery boost.

How does it work?

First, the attackers tamper with the charging stations or cables in public areas, and install malicious software on them. This software then infects the phones of unsuspecting users who subsequently plug into the tampered charger.

The software can invade, damage or even disable your phone. It can also steal or delete data from your phone and possibly spy on your usage activity, to the extent of transmitting your personal information such as account numbers, usernames, passwords, photos, and emails to the perpetrator.

How can I tell if I’ve been juice jacked?

Hacked mobile devices will often go undetected. But there are a few telltale signs that your device may have been hacked. These include:

• a sudden surge in battery consumption or rapid loss of charge, indicating a malicious app may be running in the background

• the device operating slower than usual, or restarting without notice

• apps taking a long time to load or frequently crashing

• excessive heating

• changes to device settings that you did not make

• increased or abnormal data usage.

How do I protect myself?

The tampering of USB charging stations or USB cables is almost impossible to identify. But there are some simple ways to guard against juice jacking:

• avoid USB power charging stations

• use AC power outlets rather than USB ports

• use a portable battery power bank (your own, not a borrowed one!)

• carry your own charging cable and adaptor

• use a data-blocker device such as SyncStop or Juice-Jack Defender. These devices physically prevent data transfer and only allow power to go through while charging

• use power-only USB cables such as PortaPow, which don’t pass any data.

And finally, if you must use a charging station, keep your phone locked while doing so. USB ports typically don’t sync data from a phone that is locked. Most mobile phones will ask your permission to give the USB port access to your phone’s data when you plug in. If you’re using an unknown or untrustworthy port, make sure you decline.

I think I might have been juice jacked – what can I do?

If you suspect you have fallen prey, there are several things you can do to protect your device’s integrity:

• monitor your device for unusual activity

• delete suspicious apps you don’t recall installing

• restore your device to its factory settings

• install anti-virus software, such as Avast Antivirus or AVG AntiVirus

• keep your mobile device’s system software up to date. Developers continually release patches against common types of malware.

Read more: Apple iPhones could have been hacked for years – here’s what to do about it

A lot of data is stored on our mobile devices these days, and protecting our privacy is crucial. While juice jacking may not be a widespread threat, it is important to ensure the safety of our mobile devices. So, the next time you consider using a public USB charging station or cable, ask yourself if it is worth it, particularly as your personal information is at stake.

– ref. Charging your phone using a public USB port? Beware of ‘juice jacking’ – https://theconversation.com/charging-your-phone-using-a-public-usb-port-beware-of-juice-jacking-130947

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Hooker, Senior Lecturer and Coordinator, Health and Medical Humanities, University of Sydney

This is one of our occasional Essays on Health. It’s a long read.

It may seem paradoxical, but dying can be a deeply creative process.

Public figures, authors, artists and journalists have long written about their experience of dying. But why do they do it and what do we gain?

Read more: On poetry and pain

Many stories of dying are written to bring an issue or disease to public attention.

For instance, English editor and journalist Ruth Picardie’s description of terminal breast cancer, so poignantly described in Before I say Goodbye, drew attention to the impact of medical negligence, and particularly misdiagnosis, on patients and their families.

American tennis player and social activist Arthur Ashe wrote about his heart disease and subsequent diagnosis and death from AIDS in Days of Grace: A Memoir.

His autobiographical account brought public and political attention to the risks of blood transfusion (he acquired HIV from an infected blood transfusion following heart bypass surgery).

Other accounts of terminal illness lay bare how people navigate uncertainty and healthcare systems, as surgeon Paul Kalanithi did so beautifully in When Breath Becomes Air, his account of dying from lung cancer.

But, perhaps most commonly, for artists, poets, writers, musicians and journalists, dying can provide one last opportunity for creativity.

American writer and illustrator Maurice Sendak drew people he loved as they were dying; founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud, while in great pain, refused pain medication so he could be lucid enough to think clearly about his dying; and author Christopher Hitchens wrote about dying from oesophageal cancer despite increasing symptoms:

I want to stare death in the eye.

Faced with terminal cancer, renowned neurologist Oliver Sacks wrote, if possible, more prolifically than before.

And Australian author Clive James found dying a mine of new material:

Few people read

Poetry any more but I still wish

To write its seedlings down, if only for the lull

Of gathering: no less a harvest season

For being the last time.

Read more: Vale Clive James – a marvellous low voice whose gracious good humour let others shine

Research shows what dying artists have told us for centuries – creative self-expression is core to their sense of self. So, creativity has therapeutic and existential benefits for the dying and their grieving families.

Creativity provides a buffer against anxiety and negative emotions about death.

It may help us make sense of events and experiences, tragedy and misfortune, as a graphic novel did for cartoonist Miriam Engelberg in Cancer Made Me A Shallower Person, and as blogging and online writing does for so many.

Creativity may give voice to our experiences and provide some resilience as we face disintegration. It may also provide agency (an ability to act independently and make our own choices), and a sense of normality.

French doctor Benoit Burucoa wrote art in palliative care allows people to feel physical and emotional relief from dying, and:

[…] to be looked at again and again like someone alive (without which one feels dead before having disappeared).

A way of communicating to loved ones and the public

When someone who is dying creates a work of art or writes a story, this can open up otherwise difficult conversations with people close to them.

But where these works become public, this conversation is also with those they do not know, whose only contact is through that person’s writing, poetry or art.

This public discourse is a means of living while dying, making connections with others, and ultimately, increasing the public’s “death literacy”.

In this way, our conversations about death become more normal, more accessible and much richer.

There is no evidence reading literary works about death and dying fosters rumination (an unhelpful way of dwelling on distressing thoughts) or other forms of psychological harm.

In fact, the evidence we have suggests the opposite is true. There is plenty of evidence for the positive impacts of both making and consuming art (of all kinds) at the end of life, and specifically surrounding palliative care.

Why do we buy these books?

Some people read narratives of dying to gain insight into this mysterious experience, and empathy for those amidst it. Some read it to rehearse their own journeys to come.

But these purpose-oriented explanations miss what is perhaps the most important and unique feature of literature – its delicate, multifaceted capacity to help us become what philosopher Martha Nussbaum described as:

[…] finely aware and richly responsible.

Literature can capture the tragedy in ordinary lives; its depictions of grief, anger and fear help us fine-tune what’s important to us; and it can show the value of a unique person across their whole life’s trajectory.

Not everyone can be creative towards the end

Not everyone, however, has the opportunity for creative self-expression at the end of life. In part, this is because increasingly we die in hospices, hospitals or nursing homes. These are often far removed from the resources, people and spaces that may inspire creative expression.

And in part it is because many people cannot communicate after a stroke or dementia diagnosis, or are delirious, so are incapable of “last words” when they die.

Read more: What is palliative care? A patient’s journey through the system

Perhaps most obviously, it is also because most of us are not artists, musicians, writers, poets or philosophers. We will not come up with elegant prose in our final days and weeks, and lack the skill to paint inspiring or intensely beautiful pictures.

But this does not mean we cannot tell a story, using whatever genre we wish, that captures or at least provides a glimpse of our experience of dying – our fears, goals, hopes and preferences.

Clive James reminded us:

[…] there will still be epic poems, because every human life contains one. It comes out of nowhere and goes somewhere on its way to everywhere – which is nowhere all over again, but leaves a trail of memories. There won’t be many future poets who don’t dip their spoons into all that, even if nobody buys the book.

– ref. ‘I want to stare death in the eye’: why dying inspires so many writers and artists – https://theconversation.com/i-want-to-stare-death-in-the-eye-why-dying-inspires-so-many-writers-and-artists-128061

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Starling, Postdoctoral researcher, University of Sydney

Dog behaviour is extraordinarily flexible – this is why we can keep them in our homes and take them to cafes with us at the weekend.

Nevertheless, there are ways in which evolution has not equipped dogs for the challenges of living in our world, and puppies must learn how to cope.

These are some of the things we do they struggle to understand.

Read more: Is your dog happy? Ten common misconceptions about dog behaviour

1. We leave them alone

As born socialites, dogs make friends easily. Puppies are intensely interested in spending time with other dogs, people, and any species willing to interact with them socially. They usually play, rest, explore and travel with company. Yet we often leave dogs alone: at home, in kennels or the vet clinic.

In these situations, naive dogs can’t be sure we’ll ever return to collect them. Only after experience are they likely to expect a reunion, and even then, their experience depends on the context.

At home, we may try to enforce dog-free zones. Naturally, many dogs protest. How can they stay with their (human) social group when they’re separated behind impenetrable barriers (doors)? This explains why dogs so often demand to be let inside when their human family is there, and why those with separation-related distress frequently find some solace in being indoors.

2. We are visually driven

Dogs live in an olfactory world, while ours is chiefly visual. So, while TVs may offer a visual feast for humans, parks and beaches are an olfactory banquet for dogs.

An additional challenge is dogs move while investigating the world, whereas we often sit still. They may not relish the inertia we enjoy in front of a noisy, flashing light-box.

3. We change our shape and smell

Shoes, coats, wallets, briefcases, bags and suitcases: countless smells cling to these items after we take them into shops and workplaces, then back to our dogs. Cleaning products, soaps, deodorants and shampoos also change the scents our dogs are used to.

Towels, hats and bags change our shape when we’re using them. And when we’re pulling them on, jumpers and coats alter our visual outline and may catch dogs unaware.

Read more: Training my dog taught me that it’s people who really need training

Dogs change their coats at least once a year. In contrast, we change our external cladding every day. This means the odours we carry are changing far more than dogs have evolved to expect.

In their olfactory world, it must be puzzling for dogs to encounter our constantly changing smells, especially for a species that uses scent to identify familiar individuals and intruders.

4. We like to hug

How humans use their forelimbs contrasts sharply with how dogs do. We may use them to carry large objects a dog would have to drag, but also to grasp each other and express affection.

Dogs grasp each other loosely when play-wrestling, and also when mating and fighting. Being pinned by another dog hinders a quick escape. How are puppies to know what a hug from a human means, when that behaviour from a dog might be threatening?

5. We don’t like to be bitten

Play-fighting is fun for many puppies and helps them bond with other dogs. But they must monitor the behaviour of other dogs in play-fights and know when they’ve used their tiny, razor-sharp teeth excessively.

Humans are much more susceptible to pain from playful puppy jaws than other dogs are, and so we can react negatively to their attempts to play-fight with us.

Dogs interact with objects almost entirely with their muzzle. And to feed, they use their jaws, teeth and tongue.

Read more: Understanding dog personalities can help prevent attacks

Dogs also “mouth” other dogs when playing, expressing affection and communicating everything from “more” to “please don’t” to “Back off!”. So, naturally, they try to use their mouths when communicating with us, and must be puzzled by how often we take offence.

6. We don’t eat food from the bin

Dogs are opportunists who naturally acquire food anywhere they find it. In contrast, we present them with food in dishes of their own.

Puppies must be puzzled by our reaction when we find them snacking from benches and tables, in lunchboxes and kitchen bins. We should not be surprised when dogs unearth food we left somewhere accessible to them.

Read more: Whose best friend? How gender and stereotypes can shape our relationship with dogs

7. We share territories

We visit the territories of other dogs, bringing back their odours, and allow unfamiliar human and canine visitors to enter our dogs’ home. Dogs have not evolved to accept such intrusions and threats to their safety and resources.

We shouldn’t be surprised when our dogs treat visitors with suspicion, or when our dogs are treated with hostility when we bring them to the homes of others.

8. We use our hands a lot

Sometimes our hands deliver food, scratches, massages and toys. Other times, they restrain dogs, trim nails, administer ointments or tablets, and groom with brushes and combs that may pull hair.

No wonder some dogs grow to fear the human hand as it moves about them. We can make it easier for dogs to accept many types of hand-related activities if we train them to cooperate with rewards.

But humans often misread their fear and may even greet it with violence which compounds the problem. Hand-shy dogs can easily become defensive and find their way into pounds and shelters, where life expectancy for nippers and biters is poor.

On the whole, dogs show a remarkable ability to adapt to the puzzles we throw at them. Their behavioural flexibility offers us lessons in resilience and how to live simply and socially. Our challenge is to understand the absence of guile and malice in everything they do.

– ref. 8 things we do that really confuse our dogs – https://theconversation.com/8-things-we-do-that-really-confuse-our-dogs-122616

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Bolleter, Deputy Director, Australian Urban Design Research Centre, University of Western Australia

Dubai became known for its gargantuan architectural gymnastics and mega shopping malls earlier this century. Today it is increasingly being recognised for its manufactured urban precincts, and large-scale events and festivals. Behind this shift has been an approach to urban development that prioritises the visitor’s experience.

As branding consultant Hadley Newman explains, visitors to Dubai:

…are seeking an experience, they want to take it home with them, or look back on an event as something like a new adventure – one that they may never have a chance to do again. People expect a complete experience that is distinctive in each place.

Placemaking is playing a key role in all this. Advocates for placemaking in the Western world articulate it as a bottom-up process generating activated, inclusive and enriching urban spaces.

In Dubai, however, autocratic ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum is driving top-down placemaking of key urban projects. In a bid to turn Dubai into one of the cultural epicentres of the world, in 2014 he urged:

Let us work as one team to transform our city into a cultural hub that attracts creative artists … a vibrant place for all.

Supporting these ambitions is a government target of 20 million tourists a year visiting the city by 2020.

Read more: Your choice of holiday destination is a political act

Ruler sets the agenda

Delivering this cultural experience are Dubai’s gargantuan property developers, including Emaar, Meraas, Dubai Properties and Nakheel. All are linked to Sheikh Mohammed and his ruling family and have placemaking-driven urban projects under way around the city.

“Brand Dubai”, the creative arm of the government media office, supports these developers through street art and art installations. These “communicate positive messages about Dubai’s unique culture, values and identity” and, by extension, Dubai’s leadership.

Most significant of the urban projects is the revitalisation and extension of the historic Dubai Creek districts. Sheikh Mohammed describes the area as the “very heart and soul of Dubai”. Other key placemaking projects include:

• Dubai Design District, which is planned to reflect positively on Dubai’s brand, through designer fashion and interior design

• Jumeriah Beach Walk, which offers up an image of a bustling yet exclusive coastal promenade

• City Walk, which showcases Dubai’s emerging (yet largely faux) urbanity.

Collectively these projects are elegantly designed and enjoyable enough to visit. However, they also embody socio-cultural agendas, a dimension of such projects that the urban professions (inclusive of placemaking) tend to overlook.

Read more: Sense of place: messier than it ever was, so how do we manage this shifting world?

Creating controlled spaces

One of the key values of urban public space is that it carries the potential for random social encounters. Sociologist Richard Sennet argues that such encounters with difference is the key quality of true urbanity; that the density and diversity of people in public space has a civilising function that produces tolerance of difference and enables the formation of new identities.

Clearly a very multicultural city, such as Dubai, could function as Sennett suggests. But this is (often) not the case. Placemaking in Dubai carefully packages urban projects to offer highly choreographed and exclusive experiences for wealthy consumers, whether tourists or locals.

Dubai’s unskilled migrant underclass is effectively denied entry to such heavily place-branded projects. They are kept out not by fences, but by various “soft” strategies including high parking fees, lack of public transport, and aesthetic codes that signify a project’s exclusiveness.

As a result such projects (often) become “protected playgrounds”, which strip away the uncertainty and anonymity from urban life. As urban critic Kim Dovey explains, this “avoidance of risk leads [to the] sanitisation” of the urban experience, which otherwise enriches a city’s culture.

Read more: Making developments green doesn’t help with inequality

Nostalgic narrative has a powerful subtext

Much of the placemaking in Dubai has also been focused on recreating the traditional urban forms of a pre-petroleum Dubai, as destinations for Emiratis and wealthy tourists and expatriates. Examples of this nostalgia-laced placemaking include the Old Town, Souq Al Bahar, Souq Madinat Jumeirah, and Al Seef along Dubai Creek.

Further to its superficiality, the placemaking and design profession’s willingness to revive such traditional charades has a political dimension that goes unacknowledged. Cities do not “have” a memory – they “make” one for themselves with the aid of symbols, images, rites, ceremonies, places, and monuments. Dubai’s rulers use nostalgic urban forms, generated through placemaking, to construct a narrative that the rule of Sheikh Mohammed culminates a logical progression from Dubai’s ancient history to the present day.

The propagation of such narratives in Dubai is a flow-on effect of the Arab Spring. It has led to a harsher tone on issues of identity and national culture. Increasingly, locals are calling openly for state intervention to defend against “threats” allegedly posed by foreigners to “national culture”.

Sheikh Mohammed’s keen interest in branding urban open spaces in Dubai is not coincidental. The mobilisations of the Arab Spring all took place in urban spaces such as Tahir Square in Cairo and Bahrain’s Pearl Roundabout. Attempts to promote particular nostalgic images of urban spaces in Dubai are, in part, an attempt to claim these spaces as not being open to appropriation for protests – subtle or overt.

Read more: How city squares can be public places of protest or centres of state control

Placemaking in Dubai is laced with complex power relations. This remains unacknowledged in much of the academic literature on placemaking.

Placemaking in Dubai – in some instances – has collapsed into a form of place branding that obscures societal exclusion, serves autocratic political agendas and grinds down urban authenticity. Dubai’s development companies are exporting their models of development to a vast region. It is important to scrutinise placemaking’s role in this concerning model of development.

This article is based on a longer version to be published in LA+ Interdisciplinary Journal of Landscape Architecture, no 11 (2020), and the book Desert Paradises.

– ref. Been to Dubai lately? It’s a city where top-down placemaking serves its political masters – https://theconversation.com/been-to-dubai-lately-its-a-city-where-top-down-placemaking-serves-its-political-masters-128859

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Hail, Lecturer in Economics, University of Adelaide

Debate over what the Reserve Bank governor and the treasurer should do usually runs along familiar lines.

The bank is supposed to set its cash rate to keep inflation low and stable, while the government is supposed to avoid deficits, at least on average, over the economic cycle and preferably run surpluses.

We have heard it so often that it seems like common sense. So when a famous economist comes along and contradicts it – an advisor to a US presidential contender no less – it’s understandable that people are shocked.

Yet that’s the message of Stephanie Kelton, a senior economic adviser to Bernie Sanders, and before that chief economist on the US Senate Budget Committee.

Professor Kelton, a leading modern monetary theorist, is the 2020 Visiting Harcourt Professor at the University of Adelaide, and during her visit in January was interviewed by most Australian newspapers, and many radio and TV outlets.

According to modern monetary theory (MMT), the narrative we have become used to is based on an outdated and misleading description of monetary systems. The key thing that’s been missing is an appreciation of the difference between a currency issuer and a currency user.

You and I, along with businesses and not-for-profits, local councils, state governments, governments with foreign currency debts, and even governments within the Eurozone, are currency users.

Before we can spend money, we need to find it – either by earning it, begging for it, digging into savings, or borrowing it.

Governments create, rather than raise, money

If we borrow money, we need to repay it at some point in the future or risk going broke.

The Australian Commonwealth government, and other national governments that issue currencies in the same way that our government does, are in a completely different position.

They have nothing in common with currency users. They can’t go broke, ever. It isn’t even possible, given the way our system works.

Read more: New year, new strategy? Unheralded change to budget targets creates space for stimulus

Our government is the monopoly issuer of the Australian dollar. Every dollar that it spends is a new dollar. It doesn’t need to raise taxes or or borrow before it can spend, although that is what it appears to do to those who don’t know how our monetary system works.

In reality, it is the other way around. Governments like ours need to spend dollars into existence before they can be used to pay taxes or to buy newly issued bonds. We need the government’s money – they don’t need ours. They issue the dollar. We use dollars.

Think of the economy as a bath

Think of the economy as a bath, with government spending being the water coming out of the tap into the bath, and taxation and saving being the water that goes down the drain.

The spending comes first.

The macroeconomic role of taxation is to stop the bath overflowing – to stop total spending in the economy going beyond the productive capacity of the economy and creating the risk of accelerating inflation.

Taxation limits the spending power of the private sector, creating room for the government to spend on public goods and services and investments without driving prices up.

A budget deficit is simply the government making a net contribution of dollars to the economy, putting more dollars into the bath (into private bank accounts) than it is taking out in tax. It needs to, when the bath isn’t full enough. Its deficit is our surplus.

It isn’t a problem in an environment of unemployed resources and low and stable inflation where the bath isn’t full. It is a way of supporting the economy, and of adding to business sales and profits.

Read more: Memories. In 1961 Labor promised to boost the deficit to fight unemployment. The promise won

When the government runs a surplus, it puts less into the private sector than it takes out in tax. It vacuums up dollars and destroys them. It runs the risk of either driving economy into recession (as happened under Paul Keating) or driving households into debt (as happened under Peter Costello). Its surplus is our deficit.

There may be times when government surpluses are appropriate, but in a country not running large trade surpluses, those times will be rare indeed and won’t last for long. Australia has never run surpluses for long.

Governments choose to borrow, but needn’t

As for government debt – so often misnamed the national debt – it is better described as dollars that have been spent into existence and not yet taxed away. It might be better to call it the net money supply, than to label it as a debt.

The government chooses to issue bonds to the private sector and foreign investors also choose to buy them. But it needn’t. It could fund itself without borrowing. It issues the currency. It can’t go bust. And when there is spare capacity it won’t cause inflation.

There is of course a great deal more to MMT than I can fit into 800 words. It is based on more than 25 years of detailed research by many economists, including Australia’s Bill Mitchell and Kelton herself. But I hope there’s enough here to show you why it has become the first serious challenger to the narrative we have become so used to in decades.

You can learn more about it by watching Stephanie Kelton’s recent Harcourt Lecture at the University of Adelaide, or by reading her new book, The Deficit Myth, which will be published in June.

– ref. Bernie Sanders’ economic adviser has a message for Australia we might just need – https://theconversation.com/bernie-sanders-economic-adviser-has-a-message-for-australia-we-might-just-need-130182

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Tregear, Honorary Principal Fellow, University of Melbourne

Review: Platform Papers 62: Performing Arts Markets and their Conundrums, by Justin Macdonnell (Currency Press)

The performing arts may be a public good that serve to enrich Australia’s cultural imagination, but they are also a product competing for audience share and government, corporate and private support.

Established in 1994, the Australian Performing Arts Market (APAM) has aimed to facilitate one aspect of this “arts market” by hosting biennial trade fairs that connect national and international producers and programming venues.

From 2020, APAM will move from hosting these biennial conferences to “gatherings”, dividing its promotional activity across existing arts events such as Darwin Festival and Melbourne’s AsiaTOPA.

In light of this, APAM’s future is the subject of the latest Platform Paper from Currency House: Performing Arts Markets and their Conundrums.

Author Justin Macdonnell brings a commanding insider’s perspective to the topic. He has worked in and around touring arts companies for several decades, and is currently executive director of arts industry advocacy organisation Anzarts.

Noting APAM’s new model might lessen the intensity and impact of its work – especially given that overseas producers are unlikely to make multiple excursions to Australia a year – Macdonell asks whether the arts fair has outlived its usefulness.

This might seem at best an issue of marginal concern to people who work outside the performing arts industry. However, Macdonell argues the current system has led not so much to “good art” but “convenient art” being promoted to Australian audiences.

Given the significant role that public funding and public bodies such as the Australia Council play in supporting the performing arts and arts venues, his question deserves wider attention.

Frustratingly (but, no doubt, diplomatically), Macdonnell does not offer concrete examples of “convenient art”. He nevertheless argues that the “dominating presence of state and federal agencies” in the Australian arts market has led to the stifling of independent arts managers and small-scale producers, and also of innovative and risky projects.

It is time we asked, he suggests, whether an arts fair is necessary, let alone desirable, in today’s digitally empowered, globalised marketplace.

An online world

Macdonnell notes trade fairs are at odds with calls to curb air travel due to its environmental impact.

Read more: Sustainable shopping: is it possible to fly sustainably?

He also wonders if touring itself is so desirable or necessary in the age of YouTube and teleconferencing:

This is not to say that these means have replaced seeing a work or meeting the artist in person. In all probability, they never will. But they have revolutionalised access to knowledge of the work and are creating and maintaining contact about it.

In this digitally enabled market, companies and individual artists can also now bypass the traditional arts brokers and gatekeepers such as arts agencies, or indeed APAM itself, and promote themselves directly to producers.

APAM, he further observes, has “never has been the practitioner’s market”, rather it has “come to be about just one part of the industry (non-profit)”. Presenters and producers might attend to seek out new and innovative work, but they are not given a comprehensive overview of what might actually be available.

Left unsaid

Although Macdonnell does not explore this, such institutionalised impediments to free choice may help explain the growing trend towards homogenisation in major arts programming across the developed world.

Artistic directors of major performing arts festivals, in particular, can appear impregnable to pitches from outside established promotional routes.

But if, as Macdonnell notes, “anyone, anywhere in the world at any time can now see the newest show on YouTube”, why would we seek to rely on the filter of agents or industry bodies to select what we will see or hear?

Read more: With culture on the free trade agenda, we must protect our own

The potential for market distortion under the current system can be made worse by horsetrading behind the scenes. The most powerful artist agencies routinely leverage access to their most profitable performers or productions to make hiring companies and venues take on other acts they represent, with little regard for local circumstances.

To my mind, the major buyers in the arts marketplace – artistic directors, festivals and venues – should be specifically resourced and encouraged to look for acts outside these existing industry networks.

Wesley Enoch’s provocative 2014 Platform Paper, Take Me To Your Leader, however, suggested we lack this kind of cultural leadership across the Australian performing arts:

With the growth of government-led cultural leadership we have seen the voices of the mob, the dissenters and the opposition slowly becoming tamed and included in a sort of official culture […] Government champions the arts more these days than artists do.

Enoch asked whether those who run subsidised organisations might be brave enough to bite the hand that feeds them.

Macdonnell refrains from concluding his platform paper with similarly provocative statements.

But he has done a useful service to both the arts industry and the wider Australian public by asking us to consider whether there might be better ways for our major performing arts institutions to seek out, and promote, their wares.

– ref. What is the place of the performing arts fair in the age of the internet? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-place-of-the-performing-arts-fair-in-the-age-of-the-internet-130542

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dennis Altman, Professorial Fellow in Human Security, La Trobe University

The apparent technical glitches that held up results from the Iowa caucuses for hours unleashed a stream of conspiracy theories online.

Most common were allegations that the Democratic machine was quashing votes for Bernie Sanders. There is no evidence for this, but the comments recall the bitterness that accompanied the contest for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

It is absurd that what happens in Iowa is given such weight, but over half a century it has become the first stage of a complex set of votes to choose a presidential nominee. The first Democratic caucuses, in a state with a population equivalent to southeast Queensland, saw millions of dollars and thousands of volunteers thrown into campaigning for delegates to the Democratic convention, where Iowa will have one-tenth as many votes as California.

Read more: The US presidential primaries are arcane, complex and unrepresentative. So why do Americans still vote this way?

But winning Iowa does boost campaigns and should kill off others. There are six potential contenders for the nomination, one of whom, Michael Bloomberg, wasn’t even on the Iowa ballots. Of these, former vice-president Joe Biden did worse than expected; Senator Amy Klobuchar managed to stay in the race.

The vote showed a clear split between “progressive” and “mainstream” Democrats, with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – at the progressive end – together polling close to 50%.

Pete Buttigieg polled better than expected. So now the way the more mainstream Democratic vote, currently split between Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden, coalesces will determine which one of them seems viable.

A few months ago, Biden was seen as the frontrunner nationally. But as the one candidate who clearly underperformed, he is now heavily dependent on strong African-American support in South Carolina to remain competitive. If his support slips, this provides a real chance for Bloomberg, the former New York mayor, who is older, richer and more liberal than Donald Trump and is spending huge sums in preparation for Super Tuesday on March 3.

Iowa is too white and too rural to be representative of the national electorate, let alone those who might vote Democratic. Over the next few weeks, there will be Democratic primaries in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, which between them have a population under 10 million, far less than greater Los Angeles.

The real showdown comes on March 3, with primaries in 15 states, including California, Texas and Virginia. But, given the number of potential candidates, it is possible the race for delegates will continue right up to the convention in July in Milwaukee, presumably chosen because Wisconsin is a state the Democrats need to win in November.

In 1980, Teddy Kennedy campaigned against Jimmy Carter right up to the convention, just as Ronald Reagan had battled Gerald Ford four years earlier. In neither case did the incumbent go on to win the general election, which suggests the trap for the Democrats.

Read more: With four days remaining, Sanders leads narrowly in Iowa, but Biden leads nationally

Given that all Democrat contenders agree the goal is to beat Trump, one might wish for some judicious ego-searching. The weakness of the American party system means there is no authority able to calculate who would be the strongest candidate in November, and pressure some of the current candidates to withdraw.

The longer the contest continues, the more ammunition this gives the Republicans, who will seize on every critical remark to use in the election. And the fervour of some supporters, most obvious in the Sanders camp, might mean some will refuse to vote in November if their candidate is not chosen.

In a race of four or five strong candidates, the top vote-getter among party loyalists is not necessarily the best candidate to win in November. In a country where it is difficult to get more than 60% of the eligible electorate to vote, a successful candidate needs to inspire people who are largely disinterested and cynical about politics to turn out.

It is not clear that any of the current candidates can appeal both to young African Americans and Latinos as well as older white working-class men in the Midwest. All of the remaining viable candidates are white; three of them are in their late seventies.

Bitter disagreement over the policy proposals of the candidates ignores the reality that unless the Democrats control the Senate, a president is unlikely to pass much legislation. They need a candidate who can bring out voters in states like Arizona, Colorado and Maine, where Republican senators are most vulnerable.

This week, three of the top contenders will be back in the Senate, first to listen to Trump’s State of the Union address, then to vote on the losing side for his removal from office.

One hopes they may sit down with other Democrats to find a way of throwing their weight behind a potentially winning candidate and take control of a process that could leave the party bitter and divided before its delegates even decide on their candidate in July.

– ref. Yes, the Iowa caucuses had major glitches, but the results may not even matter that much – https://theconversation.com/yes-the-iowa-caucuses-had-major-glitches-but-the-results-may-not-even-matter-that-much-131132

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Yosar, Associate Lecturer, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland

Visual hallucinations, or seeing things that aren’t really there, can be frightening and distressing.

They may occur due to a large variety of physical and psychiatric conditions. But a lesser known cause is Charles Bonnet syndrome (pronounced bo-nay), named after the Swiss scientist who first described the condition in 1760.

Charles Bonnet syndrome (also called visual release hallucinations) refers to visual hallucinations in patients with severe vision loss due to eye, optic nerve or brain disease.

We don’t know the exact cause of Charles Bonnet syndrome. But the most commonly accepted theory is the loss of visual sensory signals to the brain (for example, when a person becomes blind) means the brain cannot put the brakes on excessive and unwanted brain activity.

This leads the part of the brain responsible for the sensation of vision (the visual cortex) to fire signals inappropriately. The person in turn perceives they are seeing something in the absence of a true stimulus – a visual hallucination.

If these symptoms are affecting you, a friend or family member who has become blind in one or both eyes, it’s important to understand it’s not a sign of “going mad”.

Read more: Curious Kids: How do glasses help you see?

What are Charles Bonnet hallucinations like?

The hallucinations may be “simple” (such as lines, shapes, or flashes of light) or “complex” (such as formed images of animals, like butterflies). Simple hallucinations are much more common.

They may occur for seconds or minutes to hours or continuously, and the frequency ranges from isolated episodes to multiple times a day. It’s normal for Charles Bonnet syndrome to last for years; some people will experience symptoms for the rest of their lives.

The nature of Charles Bonnet hallucinations is highly variable. That is, people who are affected often don’t see the same thing repeatedly, and one person with Charles Bonnet syndrome will see different things from the next person.

Charles Bonnet hallucinations often have little or no emotional meaning, allowing affected people to recognise they are not real. This is distinct from hallucinations associated with mental illness.

Read more: Explainer: what is age-related macular degeneration?

Other features of visual hallucinations unique to Charles Bonnet syndrome include:

• hallucinations only appear in the areas where vision is lost (for example, a person who is blind in their left eye will perceive hallucinations only in that eye)

• hallucinations are more frequently seen with the eyes open than closed, and may disappear when the person closes their eyes or looks away

• hallucinations are more common in settings of sensory deprivation (for example, at night time or in dim lighting, or during periods of inactivity).

Who is affected?

Most people with Charles Bonnet syndrome are older adults (usually over 70). This is probably because vision loss is most common in this age group. But any person of any age with acquired vision loss can develop Charles Bonnet syndrome.

The causes of blindness that lead to Charles Bonnet syndrome are usually macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetes, stroke and injury – but any disease that leads to blindness may cause Charles Bonnet syndrome.

The syndrome does not occur in congenital blindness (people born blind from birth).

We currently have no conclusive data on how many Australians have Charles Bonnet syndrome, although one study estimated more than 17% of people aged over 60 with impaired vision had it. In another study, as many as 57% of participants with vision loss reported perceived visual hallucinations.

Importantly, it may be more common than estimated because of lack of reporting. That is, people who are affected may not report their hallucinations due to fear of psychiatric disease or of being perceived to be “going mad”.

Further, people who do report their symptoms may be misdiagnosed with psychosis or dementia.

Read more: Explainer: what is glaucoma, the ‘sneak thief’ of sight?

Treatment options are limited

Seeing a general practitioner (often in conjunction with a neurologist and/or geriatrician) is an important first step to exclude other causes of hallucinations. These could include dementia, physical neurological conditions (for example, a brain tumour), epilepsy and delirium due to infections or medications. Your doctor may order blood tests and/or brain imaging to rule these out.

Treatment for Charles Bonnet syndrome is very limited, but many patients report reassurance is all they need, especially for infrequent hallucinations or those that don’t adversely affect quality of life.

Strategies to minimise the frequency and duration of hallucinations include frequent blinking or rapid eye movement, going to a lighter place or switching a light on, and increasing social interaction, which helps to counter inactivity.

For patients with debilitating symptoms, doctors may trial medications such as antidepressants, antipsychotics and antiepileptic drugs, though their efficacy is variable and may be outweighed by side effects.

Read more: Scientists have found how to make people hallucinate, and how to measure what they see

Hallucinations may disappear if the cause of vision loss can be corrected (for example, if severe cataracts were causing blindness and the patient has a cataracts operation).

Unfortunately though, generally the causes of vision loss that lead to Charles Bonnet syndrome can’t be treated.

– ref. What is Charles Bonnet syndrome, the eye condition that causes hallucinations? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-charles-bonnet-syndrome-the-eye-condition-that-causes-hallucinations-122322

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Frances O’Dowd, Senior Lecturer, Indigenous Studies, CQUniversity Australia

At the 2020 BAFTA awards, Joaquin Phoenix called out systemic racism in the film industry in his acceptance speech for leading actor.

He said:

I think that we send a very clear message to people of colour that you’re not welcome here. I think that’s the message that we’re sending to people that have contributed so much to our medium and our industry and in ways that we benefit from. […]

I think it’s more than just having sets that are multicultural. We have to do really the hard work to truly understand systemic racism.

“Systemic racism”, or “institutional racism”, refers to how ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems level: taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions.

These systems can include laws and regulations, but also unquestioned social systems. Systemic racism can stem from education, hiring practices or access.

Read more: Explainer: what is casual racism?

In the case of Phoenix at the BAFTAs, he isn’t calling out the racist actions of individuals, but rather the way white is considered the default at every level of the film industry.

Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton first wrote about the concept in their 1967 book Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.

They wrote:

When a black family moves into a home in a white neighborhood and is stoned, burned or routed out, they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which most people will condemn. But it is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it.

Invisible systems

Systemic racism assumes white superiority individually, ideologically and institutionally. The assumption of superiority can pervade thinking consciously and unconsciously.

One most obvious example is apartheid, but even with anti-discrimination laws, systemic racism continues.

Individuals may not see themselves as racist, but they can still benefit from systems that privilege white faces and voices.

Anti-racism activist Peggy McIntosh popularised the understanding of the systemic nature of racism with her famous “invisible knapsack” quiz looking at white privilege.

The quiz asks you to count how many statements you agree with, for items such as:

• I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented
• I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race
• I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

The statements highlight taken-for-granted privileges, and enable people to understand how people of colour may experience society differently.

Cultures of discrimination

Under systemic racism, systems of education, government and the media celebrate and reward some cultures over others.

In employment, names can influence employment opportunities. A Harvard study found job candidates were more likely to get an interview when they “whitened” their name.

Only 10% of black candidates got interview offers when their race could be implied by their resume, but 25% got offers when their resumes were whitened. And 21% of Asian candidates got interview offers with whitened resumes, up from 11.5%.

Systemic racism shows itself in who is disproportionately impacted by our justice system. In Australia, Indigenous people make up 2% of the Australian population, but 28% of the adult prison population.

Read more: As Indigenous incarceration rates keep rising, justice reinvestment offers a solution

A study into how systemic racism impacts this over-representation in Victoria named factors such as over-policing in Aboriginal communities, the financial hardship of bail, and increased rates of drug and alcohol use.

Australia’s literature, theatres and art galleries are all disproportionately white, with less than 10% of artistic directors from culturally diverse backgrounds.

Read more: Australia’s art institutions don’t reflect our diversity: it’s time to change that

A way forward

Systemic racism damages lives, restricting access and capacity for contribution.

It damages the ethical society we aspire to create.

When white people scoop all the awards, it reinforces a message that other cultures are just not quite good enough.

Public advocacy is critical. Speaking up is essential.

Racism is more than an individual issue. When systemic injustices remain unspoken or accepted, an unethical white privilege is fostered. When individuals and groups point out systemic injustices and inequities, the dominant culture is made accountable.

Find out if your children’s school curriculum engages with Indigenous and multicultural perspectives. Question if your university course on Australian literature omits Aboriginal authors. Watch films and read books by artists who don’t look like you.

As Phoenix put it in his speech:

I’m part of the problem. […] I think it is the obligation of the people that have created and perpetuate and benefit from a system of oppression to be the ones that dismantle it. That’s on us.

Understanding systemic racism is important. To identify these systemic privileges enables us to embrace the point of view of people whose cultures are silenced or minimised.

When we question systemic racism, worth is shared and ideas grow.

– ref. Explainer: what is systemic racism and institutional racism? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-systemic-racism-and-institutional-racism-131152

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

Owing to a results reporting fiasco, virtually no results had been posted in Iowa on Tuesday AEDT, although the caucuses began at 12pm AEDT. The caucuses are managed by the state’s Democratic party, not by an electoral authority. This fiasco will mean more criticism of the caucus system, and further questioning of Iowa’s status in having the first contest of every presidential nomination cycle.

Results from 62% of precincts were finally published Wednesday morning AEDT. According to New York Times analyst Nate Cohn, the results from these precincts are representative of the state.

On these results, Pete Buttigieg leads Bernie Sanders by 27% to 25% on State Delegate Equivalents, the traditional measure that most of the media focused on. Elizabeth Warren has 18%, Joe Biden 16% and Amy Klobuchar 13%. This measure is the only measure that was reported at previous Iowa caucuses.

On two other measures, Sanders leads. He leads on the “initial” popular votes by 24.5% to 21.4% for Buttigieg.  He leads on the “final” popular votes after realignment by 26% to 25%. The final vote is after supporters of candidates with less than 15% in a precinct are asked to support other candidates. Buttigieg benefited from Klobuchar and Biden supporters.

Read more: With four days remaining, Sanders leads narrowly in Iowa, but Biden leads nationally

The discrepancy between the final popular vote and state delegates is explained by higher apportionment of state delegates where caucus attendance was relatively low. Buttigieg performed far better than Sanders in these regions, as this tweet from CNN analyst Harry Enten shows.

Turnout at these caucuses will be about the same as in 2016. In 2016, 172,000 participated in the Iowa Democratic caucuses, well down from the record 240,000 in 2008. In 2008, the Democrats had a charismatic candidate in Barack Obama. Relatively low turnout and Donald Trump’s improving ratings should be big concerns for the Democrats.

Trump won the Iowa Republican caucuses with 97% of the vote. This validates polls showing his approval ratings are very high with Republicans.

National Democratic polling and upcoming contests

Although he performed poorly in Iowa, Biden still leads in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls with 27.0%, followed by Sanders at 23.7%, Warren 15.0%, Michael Bloomberg 8.3% and Buttigieg 6.5%.

The question is whether Iowa will have a large impact on these figures. The attention on the results reporting fiasco, and the close contest between Sanders and Buttigieg, could limit any Iowa bounce.

Buttigieg failed to obtain a national bounce in November after the highly regarded Selzer Iowa poll gave him a nine-point lead. As I wrote in the article after that poll, Buttigieg has problems with black voters.

Read more: Buttigieg surges to clear lead in Iowa poll, as Democrats win four of five US state elections

The next contest is the February 11 New Hampshire primary. A primary is administered like a normal election, and a results reporting fiasco is far less likely. Polls in New Hampshire close by 12pm February 12 AEDT. Like Iowa, New Hampshire is almost all white.

Sanders is likely to win in New Hampshire. He has 25.6% in the RealClearPolitics average, followed by Biden at 17.9%, Warren 14.2% and Buttigieg 13.1%. Sanders will likely be assisted in New Hampshire by being the senator for the neighbouring Vermont.

After New Hampshire, we have the February 22 Nevada caucuses and the February 29 South Carolina primary. There have been few recent polls in either state. On “Super Tuesday”, March 3, 14 states vote and 34% of pledged delegates will be awarded. A key question is whether Biden’s support with black voters holds up.

Australian Newspoll: 52-48 to Labor

After the dramatic fall in Scott Morrison’s ratings three weeks ago, there was little change in this week’s Newspoll. Labor led by 52-48, a one-point gain for Labor. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (down two), 35% Labor (down one), 13% Greens (up one) and 4% One Nation (steady).

Read more: Morrison’s approval ratings crash over bushfires in first 2020 Newspoll; Sanders has narrow Iowa lead

37% were satisfied with Morrison’s performance, and 59% dissatisfied, for a net approval of -22, unchanged on the last poll. Anthony Albanese’s net approval was down six points to +3. Albanese led by 43-38 as better PM (43-39 in the last poll).

This Newspoll was conducted January 29 to February 1 from a sample of 1,510. All figures from The Poll Bludger.

Despite the bushfire crisis and the controversy regarding Bridget McKenzie’s grants for sports clubs, Labor leads by just 52-48 – hardly an irrecoverable position for the Coalition. In the first Newspoll after Malcolm Turnbull was ousted in August 2018, Labor led by 56-44, but lost the May 2019 election.

On Tuesday, Nationals leader and deputy PM Michael McCormack defeated Barnaby Joyce in a partyroom leadership vote. The margin of victory has not been revealed.

– ref. Buttigieg and Sanders close in Iowa results, and Labor increases Newspoll lead – https://theconversation.com/buttigieg-and-sanders-close-in-iowa-results-and-labor-increases-newspoll-lead-130592

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alysia Blackham, Associate Professor in Law and ARC Discovery Early Career Research Fellow, University of Melbourne

In 2019, discrimination law rarely left the headlines. Among the issues crowding the public agenda: the Israel Folau case, the draft Religious Discrimination Bill, sexuality in schools, transgender women’s participation in sport, an inquiry into sexual harassment and the Victorian Gender Equality Bill, among others.

In such a hectic and political space, we sometimes lose sight of the broader direction of discrimination law and how it should be framed.

The extensive public critiques of the draft Religious Discrimination Bill suggest a thoughtful approach to legal reform is both necessary and politically desirable. In short, we need to talk about the future of discrimination law.

Read more: Religious Discrimination Bill is a mess that risks privileging people of faith above all others

To this end, we launched the inaugural Australian Equality Law Forum last November. This brought together over 65 scholars, lawyers and representatives from government, equality bodies, unions, employers and not-for-profits to discuss some of the most challenging issues in discrimination law.

What emerged was a series of key reflections on where discrimination law is heading, as well as lessons on how to maximise its effectiveness.

Better resourcing of equality agencies

Equality bodies have experienced substantial cuts in recent years, but are still expected to achieve more with less.

Though equality bodies have fewer powers than, say, the Fair Work Ombudsman, they still have a significant impact on compliance with discrimination laws.

Federal, state and territory agencies, along with the Fair Work Ombudsman, are all trying to achieve broader, systemic change through a range of strategies.

For instance, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission last year concluded a major investigation into mental health discrimination by travel insurers.

Read more: For women fighting the gender pay gap discrimination law is limited

The commission found that over an eight-month period, three Australian insurance companies issued over 365,000 insurance policies that discriminated against people with mental health conditions. During the investigation, the insurers committed to changing their practices and began offering cover for mental health conditions.

Going forward, we need to ensure these bodies are given the appropriate resources and support from government to fulfil their remit. We must also consider expanding the powers of equality bodies to match the tools available to the Fair Work Ombudsman and similar agencies.

Addressing new and emerging challenges for equality

New forms of work and sources of income in the gig economy are also bringing new challenges for those impacted by discrimination.

There is growing concern over how algorithms and online systems can perpetuate inequality in society. Racial bias can impact the price of an Airbnb rental listing, for instance, as well as an Uber driver’s rating.

The gender pay gap also persists in the gig economy.

The issue is how we enforce our current workplace discrimination laws in the online world. This is particularly problematic when there is a lack of transparency in the technology and data behind the algorithms used by many platforms. For instance, we cannot see the reviews that are used to determine Uber driver and passenger ratings, which makes it difficult to determine if discrimination has occurred.

Read more: Big data could be a big problem for workplace discrimination law

Relying on individuals to challenge systemic discrimination of this nature is unrealistic. It is even harder for people employed in precarious or insecure forms of work, such as Uber drivers or Deliveroo riders, to take up this mantle.

Relying on technology companies to self-regulate on these issues has also proven ineffective.

Secrecy and transparency in discrimination law

These challenges are compounded by the secrecy in the discrimination law complaints system and the culture of silence surrounding claims.

Non-disclosure agreements can offer benefits to individuals involved in discrimination claims. However, they risk undermining systemic change and may fail to address the core drivers of discriminatory conduct.

We need to find a better balance between protecting the privacy interests of individuals and tackling the root causes of discrimination.

Thinking carefully about exceptions

The vast array of exceptions found in discrimination laws also lacks a coherent and strategic rationale. Considering they largely prevent or reduce claims in certain sectors, more needs to be done to explain and justify their use.

Indeed, this is where the biggest battles are currently being fought in discrimination law.

For example, the Ruddock religious freedom review led to a public outcry over existing exceptions in the Sex Discrimination Act that allow religious schools to exclude LGBT students and teachers.

Much of the controversy over the draft Religious Discrimination Bill is also centred on the wide exceptions it grants religious organisations to discriminate against women, the LGBTI+ community and other religions.

Read more: Why the Israel Folau case could set an important precedent for employment law and religious freedom

There is little that conceptually ties together the many different types of exceptions in our discrimination laws, as well.

For instance, a car insurance provider setting higher premiums for male drivers is entirely different from a church requiring its pastors be of the same faith. While both of these are permissible under existing discrimination law exceptions, there is no single rationale that justifies them.

Much work remains to be done to find the right balance on these exceptions.

Pursuing collective, proactive and systemic solutions

Introducing more detailed policies and procedures will not necessarily eliminate inequality. Nor can individuals tackle discrimination alone.

Rather, we need to focus on collective and proactive measures to promote equality.

This might take the form of legal claims filed by organisations on behalf of those who have experienced discrimination. Or it might involve strengthening unions and collective action.

It might also take the form of positive duties, which require organisations to take proactive steps to address inequality, rather than simply responding when a complaint is made.

Engaging people in the process of achieving equality is also important. This is something which has fortunately been integrated into the Victorian Gender Equality Bill.

If passed, this law would require public bodies to prepare a gender equality action plan in consultation with their employees and other relevant individuals. This may offer a new approach to achieving equality that other jurisdictions can follow.

To really make a difference, we need a holistic, community-based approach to discrimination law reform. It will require a sustained effort. Addressing discrimination and achieving equality should be on the agenda for all of us.

– ref. We need to talk about discrimination law and why a thoughtful approach to reform is so important – https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-talk-about-discrimination-law-and-why-a-thoughtful-approach-to-reform-is-so-important-129697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Capon, Associate professor, Griffith University

The Invasive Species Council and other observers have argued for weed control as a major priority following bushfires, to promote the recovery of wildlife and damaged ecosystems. The time is right, some say, to wage a serious offensive against weeds before they re-establish and this opportunity is lost.

But perhaps we shouldn’t be so hasty to villainise all weeds. There is growing recognition that weeds can, in some cases, support a range of critical ecological functions.

Read more: Hold the spray: some garden weeds are helping native wildlife

Who decides what’s a weed?

There are official lists of weeds in Australia. But for many, the term “weed” is vague, non-scientific and highly subjective. Weeds can be non-native or native species. They’re generally considered to be plants that are growing in places, or ways (for example, in high abundance), that are undesirable.

Their “undesirability” may be traced to a wide range of economic, social, cultural, aesthetic and political reasons. From an ecological perspective, weeds are often blamed for stifling native plant growth, altering wildlife habitat and changing ecological processes. Many assume weed control will improve native plant growth, habitat quality and ecosystem function.

In some situations, however, weeds provide valuable ecological functions by, for example, offering food and habitat for wildlife, protecting soils and landforms from erosion and slowing down the movement of water through catchments.

Exotic chinee apple trees (Ziziphus mauritiana) in north-west Australia, for example, protect the burrow systems of native rodents from habitat damage by feral horses.

This kind of benefit is especially likely in very disturbed habitats, such as areas that have been cleared. Other areas of high functional importance in the landscape such as riparian zones – land alongside creeks, streams, gullies, rivers and wetlands – can benefit from some weeds.

Riparian weeds can support rivers and streams by trapping sediments and contaminants washing into channels via run-off. Exotic riparian willows (Salix spp.) can also provide habitat and food sources for aquatic fauna.

This may be particularly important for aquatic ecosystem health following fire.

Weeds may also promote regeneration of native plants by helping stabilise soil, providing shade and protecting seedlings from being eaten by animals and pests.

At larger scales, weeds can also enhance the dispersal of native plant seeds. In highly cleared parts of north-eastern New South Wales, for example, camphor laurel trees (Cinnamomum camphora) – an introduced species – can provide habitats for fruit-eating birds that disperse and establish native rainforest plants.

There’s a lot we don’t know about weeds

In some cases, weeds may be the only plants that grow back well after fires. And some plants – even weeds – may be better than none.

We can’t always assume that the presence of weeds is limiting native plant growth. The fact is we don’t really know, in most cases, if removing weeds actually results in higher native plant diversity.

What we do know is that ecosystem functions, such as carbon storage and nutrient cycling, tend to increase where more species are present. And this holds true even in weed-infested forests, which often contain more species than their equivalent native ecosystems.

Many assume weeds will flourish in our post-fire landscapes.

Some see this early establishment period as a unique opportunity to banish “undesirable” plants by weeding before they set seed.

There is surprisingly little evidence, however, regarding the effectiveness of most weed control methods over the longer-term. Many weeds can quickly re-establish from soil seed banks, suckers or plant fragments dispersed by wind, water or birds.

We also know very little about how weed control methods themselves might affect ecological processes through soil disturbance and herbicides.

Even where these methods kill one weed, other, potentially more noxious plants may spring up in its place.

When it comes to weeds, question your assumptions

There is much at stake in Australia as we make decisions regarding the restoration of our unique ecosystems after the recent bushfire crisis.

Importantly, however, we can learn by not blindly acting on assumptions and ideologies. We can test assumptions through robust, long term ecological experiments.

Obviously, not all weeds should be retained. Non-native species can and do have negative effects.

However, we now face an opportunity to embark on a more nuanced and open approach to conservation and restoration.

Indeed, in a future that looks little like the past, we must never stop questioning our land management practices.

Read more: Pulling out weeds is the best thing you can do to help nature recover from the fires

– ref. Not all weeds are villains. After a fire, some plants – even weeds – can be better than none – https://theconversation.com/not-all-weeds-are-villains-after-a-fire-some-plants-even-weeds-can-be-better-than-none-130702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alysia Blackham, Associate Professor in Law and ARC Discovery Early Career Research Fellow, University of Melbourne

In 2019, discrimination law rarely left the headlines. Among the issues crowding the public agenda: the Israel Folau case, the draft Religious Discrimination Bill, sexuality in schools, transgender women’s participation in sport, an inquiry into sexual harassment and the Victorian Gender Equality Bill, among others.

In such a hectic and political space, we sometimes lose sight of the broader direction of discrimination law and how it should be framed.

The extensive public critiques of the draft Religious Discrimination Bill suggest a thoughtful approach to legal reform is both necessary and politically desirable. In short, we need to talk about the future of discrimination law.

Read more: Religious Discrimination Bill is a mess that risks privileging people of faith above all others

To this end, we launched the inaugural Australian Equality Law Forum last November. This brought together over 65 scholars, lawyers and representatives from government, equality bodies, unions, employers and not-for-profits to discuss some of the most challenging issues in discrimination law.

What emerged was a series of key reflections on where discrimination law is heading, as well as lessons on how to maximise its effectiveness.

Better resourcing of equality agencies

Equality bodies have experienced substantial cuts in recent years, but are still expected to achieve more with less.

Though equality bodies have fewer powers than, say, the Fair Work Ombudsman, they still have a significant impact on compliance with discrimination laws.

Federal, state and territory agencies, along with the Fair Work Ombudsman, are all trying to achieve broader, systemic change through a range of strategies.

For instance, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission last year concluded a major investigation into mental health discrimination by travel insurers.

Read more: For women fighting the gender pay gap discrimination law is limited

The commission found that over an eight-month period, three Australian insurance companies issued over 365,000 insurance policies that discriminated against people with mental health conditions. During the investigation, the insurers committed to changing their practices and began offering cover for mental health conditions.

Going forward, we need to ensure these bodies are given the appropriate resources and support from government to fulfil their remit. We must also consider expanding the powers of equality bodies to match the tools available to the Fair Work Ombudsman and similar agencies.

Addressing new and emerging challenges for equality

New forms of work and sources of income in the gig economy are also bringing new challenges for those impacted by discrimination.

There is growing concern over how algorithms and online systems can perpetuate inequality in society. Racial bias can impact the price of an Airbnb rental listing, for instance, as well as an Uber driver’s rating.

The gender pay gap also persists in the gig economy.

The issue is how we enforce our current workplace discrimination laws in the online world. This is particularly problematic when there is a lack of transparency in the technology and data behind the algorithms used by many platforms. For instance, we cannot see the reviews that are used to determine Uber driver and passenger ratings, which makes it difficult to determine if discrimination has occurred.

Read more: Big data could be a big problem for workplace discrimination law

Relying on individuals to challenge systemic discrimination of this nature is unrealistic. It is even harder for people employed in precarious or insecure forms of work, such as Uber drivers or Deliveroo riders, to take up this mantle.

Relying on technology companies to self-regulate on these issues has also proven ineffective.

Secrecy and transparency in discrimination law

These challenges are compounded by the secrecy in the discrimination law complaints system and the culture of silence surrounding claims.

Non-disclosure agreements can offer benefits to individuals involved in discrimination claims. However, they risk undermining systemic change and may fail to address the core drivers of discriminatory conduct.

We need to find a better balance between protecting the privacy interests of individuals and tackling the root causes of discrimination.

Thinking carefully about exceptions

The vast array of exceptions found in discrimination laws also lacks a coherent and strategic rationale. Considering they largely prevent or reduce claims in certain sectors, more needs to be done to explain and justify their use.

Indeed, this is where the biggest battles are currently being fought in discrimination law.

For example, the Ruddock religious freedom review led to a public outcry over existing exceptions in the Sex Discrimination Act that allow religious schools to exclude LGBT students and teachers.

Much of the controversy over the draft Religious Discrimination Bill is also centred on the wide exceptions it grants religious organisations to discriminate against women, the LGBTI+ community and other religions.

Read more: Why the Israel Folau case could set an important precedent for employment law and religious freedom

There is little that conceptually ties together the many different types of exceptions in our discrimination laws, as well.

For instance, a car insurance provider setting higher premiums for male drivers is entirely different from a church requiring its pastors be of the same faith. While both of these are permissible under existing discrimination law exceptions, there is no single rationale that justifies them.

Much work remains to be done to find the right balance on these exceptions.

Pursuing collective, proactive and systemic solutions

Introducing more detailed policies and procedures will not necessarily eliminate inequality. Nor can individuals tackle discrimination alone.

Rather, we need to focus on collective and proactive measures to promote equality.

This might take the form of legal claims filed by organisations on behalf of those who have experienced discrimination. Or it might involve strengthening unions and collective action.

It might also take the form of positive duties, which require organisations to take proactive steps to address inequality, rather than simply responding when a complaint is made.

Engaging people in the process of achieving equality is also important. This is something which has fortunately been integrated into the Victorian Gender Equality Bill.

If passed, this law would require public bodies to prepare a gender equality action plan in consultation with their employees and other relevant individuals. This may offer a new approach to achieving equality that other jurisdictions can follow.

To really make a difference, we need a holistic, community-based approach to discrimination law reform. It will require a sustained effort. Addressing discrimination and achieving equality should be on the agenda for all of us.

– ref. We need to talk about discrimination law and why a thoughtful approach to legal reform is so necessary – https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-talk-about-discrimination-law-and-why-a-thoughtful-approach-to-legal-reform-is-so-necessary-129697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alysia Blackham, Associate Professor in Law and ARC Discovery Early Career Research Fellow, University of Melbourne

In 2019, discrimination law rarely left the headlines. Among the issues crowding the public agenda: the Israel Folau case, the draft Religious Discrimination Bill, sexuality in schools, transgender women’s participation in sport, an inquiry into sexual harassment and the Victorian Gender Equality Bill, among others.

In such a hectic and political space, we sometimes lose sight of the broader direction of discrimination law and how it should be framed.

The extensive public critiques of the draft Religious Discrimination Bill suggest a thoughtful approach to legal reform is both necessary and politically desirable. In short, we need to talk about the future of discrimination law.

Read more: Religious Discrimination Bill is a mess that risks privileging people of faith above all others

To this end, we launched the inaugural Australian Equality Law Forum last November. This brought together over 65 scholars, lawyers and representatives from government, equality bodies, unions, employers and not-for-profits to discuss some of the most challenging issues in discrimination law.

What emerged was a series of key reflections on where discrimination law is heading, as well as lessons on how to maximise its effectiveness.

Better resourcing of equality agencies

Equality bodies have experienced substantial cuts in recent years, but are still expected to achieve more with less.

Though equality bodies have fewer powers than, say, the Fair Work Ombudsman, they still have a significant impact on compliance with discrimination laws.

Federal, state and territory agencies, along with the Fair Work Ombudsman, are all trying to achieve broader, systemic change through a range of strategies.

For instance, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission last year concluded a major investigation into mental health discrimination by travel insurers.

Read more: For women fighting the gender pay gap discrimination law is limited

The commission found that over an eight-month period, three Australian insurance companies issued over 365,000 insurance policies that discriminated against people with mental health conditions. During the investigation, the insurers committed to changing their practices and began offering cover for mental health conditions.

Going forward, we need to ensure these bodies are given the appropriate resources and support from government to fulfil their remit. We must also consider expanding the powers of equality bodies to match the tools available to the Fair Work Ombudsman and similar agencies.

Addressing new and emerging challenges for equality

New forms of work and sources of income in the gig economy are also bringing new challenges for those impacted by discrimination.

There is growing concern over how algorithms and online systems can perpetuate inequality in society. Racial bias can impact the price of an Airbnb rental listing, for instance, as well as an Uber driver’s rating.

The gender pay gap also persists in the gig economy.

The issue is how we enforce our current workplace discrimination laws in the online world. This is particularly problematic when there is a lack of transparency in the technology and data behind the algorithms used by many platforms. For instance, we cannot see the reviews that are used to determine Uber driver and passenger ratings, which makes it difficult to determine if discrimination has occurred.

Read more: Big data could be a big problem for workplace discrimination law

Relying on individuals to challenge systemic discrimination of this nature is unrealistic. It is even harder for people employed in precarious or insecure forms of work, such as Uber drivers or Deliveroo riders, to take up this mantle.

Relying on technology companies to self-regulate on these issues has also proven ineffective.

Secrecy and transparency in discrimination law

These challenges are compounded by the secrecy in the discrimination law complaints system and the culture of silence surrounding claims.

Non-disclosure agreements can offer benefits to individuals involved in discrimination claims. However, they risk undermining systemic change and may fail to address the core drivers of discriminatory conduct.

We need to find a better balance between protecting the privacy interests of individuals and tackling the root causes of discrimination.

Thinking carefully about exceptions

The vast array of exceptions found in discrimination laws also lacks a coherent and strategic rationale. Considering they largely prevent or reduce claims in certain sectors, more needs to be done to explain and justify their use.

Indeed, this is where the biggest battles are currently being fought in discrimination law.

For example, the Ruddock religious freedom review led to a public outcry over existing exceptions in the Sex Discrimination Act that allow religious schools to exclude LGBT students and teachers.

Much of the controversy over the draft Religious Discrimination Bill is also centred on the wide exceptions it grants religious organisations to discriminate against women, the LGBTI+ community and other religions.

Read more: Why the Israel Folau case could set an important precedent for employment law and religious freedom

There is little that conceptually ties together the many different types of exceptions in our discrimination laws, as well.

For instance, a car insurance provider setting higher premiums for male drivers is entirely different from a church requiring its pastors be of the same faith. While both of these are permissible under existing discrimination law exceptions, there is no single rationale that justifies them.

Much work remains to be done to find the right balance on these exceptions.

Pursuing collective, proactive and systemic solutions

Introducing more detailed policies and procedures will not necessarily eliminate inequality. Nor can individuals tackle discrimination alone.

Rather, we need to focus on collective and proactive measures to promote equality.

This might take the form of legal claims filed by organisations on behalf of those who have experienced discrimination. Or it might involve strengthening unions and collective action.

It might also take the form of positive duties, which require organisations to take proactive steps to address inequality, rather than simply responding when a complaint is made.

Engaging people in the process of achieving equality is also important. This is something which has fortunately been integrated into the Victorian Gender Equality Bill.

If passed, this law would require public bodies to prepare a gender equality action plan in consultation with their employees and other relevant individuals. This may offer a new approach to achieving equality that other jurisdictions can follow.

To really make a difference, we need a holistic, community-based approach to discrimination law reform. It will require a sustained effort. Addressing discrimination and achieving equality should be on the agenda for all of us.

– ref. We need to talk about discrimination law – without all the rancor – https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-talk-about-discrimination-law-without-all-the-rancor-129697