Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jill Vaughan, Research Fellow in Linguistics, University of Melbourne

On Australia’s remote north-central coast, the small community of Maningrida is remarkable for many reasons. It boasts dramatic coastal scenery, world-renowned bark and sculptural artists, skilled weavers and textile printers, and unique local wildlife. But Maningrida is extraordinary for another reason: it is one of the most linguistically diverse communities in the world, with 15 languages spoken or signed every day among only a couple of thousand people.

Northern Australia is a “hotspot” for language diversity. But of the more than 250 different Australian languages spoken at the time of colonisation, now only 15-18 are being passed on to new generations of speakers. Perhaps 100 more are still spoken by a handful of elderly speakers. Understanding how the multilingualism of this region works may help us maintain and revitalise other languages.

Abigail Carter, a Language and Culture worker at Maningrida College, has lived in Maningrida for most of her life, and also spends time at Wurdeja, a small outstation community her family calls home east of Arnhem Land’s Blyth River. Like most of her friends and family, Abigail is highly multilingual. Her main language is the Martay dialect of the Burarra language, and she is a fluent speaker of English.

Through the multilingualism of her family members, she can also understand Djinang, Yan-nhaŋu and Yolŋu Matha from eastern Arnhem Land. As Abigail told us in Burarra:

Minypa Djinang ng-galiyarra ngu-workiya, ngardawa an-ngaypa jaminya gu-nika wengga. Rrapa an-ngaypa ninya rrapa bapapa, jungurda apula yerrcha gun-ngayburrpa wengga Yan-nhaŋu.
(I hear and understand Djinang, because that’s my mother’s father’s language. And my father and auntie, my father’s father, our language is Yan-nhaŋu.)

As a Maningrida local, she has also learned to speak Ndjébbana, the language of the Kunibídji land where Maningrida lies, as well as Kuninjku, a dialect of the larger Bininj Kunwok language of western Arnhem Land.

The size of Abigail’s linguistic repertoire is fairly typical of Maningrida, but every individual has a unique constellation of language competences due to differing family networks and life experiences.

Recordings made in the 1970s show that a shopkeeper at the local supermarket used five different languages across his various encounters with customers throughout the day.

Recent recordings around the community demonstrate similar levels of multilingualism: at the Maningrida football Grand Final in 2015, commentary from the announcers and among the crowd was recorded in nine languages.

Arnhem Land, including Maningrida, has many diverse languages. MICK TSIKAS

Why so many languages?

One reason there are so many languages in Maningrida is that it was founded in the late 1950s as a welfare settlement. Later, speakers of many languages moved to access work and resources.

And, unlike other communities where English, Kriol or a single traditional language has been promoted – such as those which began as missions – Maningrida has no lingua franca between all the language groups.

Read more: Some Australian Indigenous languages you should know

Arnhem Land is a particular “hotspot” for language diversity, and researchers have described similar levels of multilingualism elsewhere in the region.

Multilingualism among Aboriginal people serves many purposes besides just facilitating ordinary day-to-day conversation.

It may also be used to fulfil social and cultural etiquette, to signal status as a friendly guest on country, to ensure safety from dangerous spirits, or to enhance storytelling and song.

Language matters

Indigenous Australia is characterised by strong connections between language and land. Through these connections, language is tied to clan groups, dreamings and cultural practice. These come together in origin stories, such as the Warramurrungunji story of north-west Arnhem Land.

Footy games are spoken about in many different languages. Jill Vaughan

There are beliefs about how language should be used too. One of these is the priority to use one’s father’s language. An individual is understood to “own” this language, even though sometimes they may not actually be able to speak it. As Maningrida resident George Pascoe said:

The person feels very important when you speak your own language. It also identifies your father. In our culture you inherit from your father […] everything the father owns, you inherit that. And that’s the law. That’s based on the Magna Carta, the Indigenous people of this country and even Arnhem Land, they have their own Magna Carta. It’s invisible to the foreign law […] Laws given to us by the creator, languages given to us by the creator.

This pressure can even be strong enough to create conversations where each speaker uses a different language, but is still understood. Beliefs and practices like these, along with high levels of multilingualism, support the viability and ongoing co-existence of many languages, even very small ones of just a few dozen speakers.

Multilingualism has been the norm throughout human history, but we still know very little about how people use it around the world. The multilingualism of northern Australia is mirrored in other Indigenous language hotspots across the world.

A new collection of research looks at examples in the US, Peru, northern Amazonia, Senegal, and the Arctic, as well as in the Kimberley and Arnhem Land. The UN has declared 2019 the “International Year of Indigenous Languages”, highlighting issues facing these communities around the world.

The threat of language loss poses a serious risk to our nation’s cultural inheritance, and to the wellbeing of many Indigenous Australians. Embracing and better understanding multilingualism is one way we can help maintain traditional languages and support Australia’s linguistic diversity.

– ref. Meet the remote Indigenous community where a few thousand people use 15 different languages – http://theconversation.com/meet-the-remote-indigenous-community-where-a-few-thousand-people-use-15-different-languages-107716

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

If anyone needs further evidence of the self-defeating weird places the Liberals seem to find themselves in, consider what happened on Tuesday.

Malcolm Turnbull made another intervention in the political debate, this time talking about the National Energy Guarantee, when he spoke at an energy conference on Tuesday morning.

“I’ve strongly encouraged my colleagues to work together to revive the National Energy Guarantee. It was a vital piece of economic policy and had strong support, and none stronger I might say, than that of the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer,” he said.

This and the rest of Turnbull’s observations on energy policy provided abundant material for a question time attack by a Labor party bloated from dining on the unending manna that’s been flowing its way from some political heaven.

As Morrison sought to counter this latest attack by concentrating on Labor’s substantial emissions reduction target (45% on 2005 levels by 2030), suddenly a tweet appeared from Turnbull.

“I have not endorsed “Labor’s energy policy”. They have adopted the NEG mechanism,“ Turnbull said – adding a tick of approval – “but have not demonstrated that their 45% emissions reduction target will not push up prices. I encouraged all parties to stick with Coalition’s NEG which retains wide community support.”

Here was the former PM effectively inserting himself into Question Time – in real time.

Morrison quickly quoted from the tweet, but it couldn’t repair the damage done by Turnbull’s earlier comments.

All round, it was another difficult day for the government on the energy front.

The Coalition parties meeting discussed its controversial plan providing for divestiture when energy companies misuse market power, with conduct that is “fraudulent, dishonest or in bad faith” in the wholesale market.

The government has put more constraints on its plan than originally envisaged. Notably, rather than a divestiture decision resting with the treasurer, it would lie with the federal court (although precisely what this would mean is somewhat unclear).

Frydenberg told a news conference: “This power will be on the advice of the ACCC [the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission] to the Treasurer, and then the Treasurer will make a referral to the Federal Court. The Federal Court will then be empowered to make that judicial order.”

There had already been backbench criticisms expressed to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg last week; the changes dealt with some of these.

But the plan is still leaving some in Coalition ranks uneasy.

According to the official government version, in the party room 18 speakers had a say, with 14 supporting (though a couple of them were concerned about the interventionism involved) and four expressing varying degrees of reservation. No one threatened to cross the floor.

Backbench sources said the strongest critics were Jason Falinski, Russell Broadbent, Tim Wilson and former deputy leader Julie Bishop, while milder criticisms came from Craig Laundy, Scott Ryan and Jane Prentice.

There were two main worries about the measure – the potential negative impact on business investment and its inconsistency with Liberal party free market principles.

Bishop – who, it might be recalled, was recently saying there should be a bipartisan deal with Labor on the NEG – highlighted the investment implications and the issue of sovereign risk.

She said: “This is not orthodox Liberal policy. We need to do more consultation with the industry and we need to be cautious of unintended consequences of forced divestiture”.

Addressing the concerns, Morrison told the party room that a variety of principles were at play.

The energy sector was not “a free market nirvana” but rather “a bastardised market,” he said. The law was targeted at situations where sweetheart deals came at the expense of consumers.

Energy minister Angus Taylor said governments of the centre-right, including the Menzies and the Thatcher governments, had acted to ensure markets operated for consumers.

Taylor invoked an example of the beer drinkers against the brewers, when Thatcher had been on the side of the beers drinkers.

Frydenberg produced a quote from Menzies’ “Forgotten People” broadcasts about the need to balance the requirements of industry with social responsibilities.

The legislation, which is opposed by Labor even with the changes, is being introduced this week. But there is no guarantee that it can be passed by the time of the election – not least because there are so few sitting days next year.

So the most controversial part of the government’s “big stick”, which has caused so much angst with business, may never become a reality.

– ref. View from The Hill: Malcolm Turnbull and his NEG continue to haunt the government – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-malcolm-turnbull-and-his-neg-continue-to-haunt-the-government-108200

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darren Palmer, Associate professor, Deakin University

Victoria is finally getting a royal commission into policing following yesterday’s decisions of the High Court and earlier, the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal, to release court rulings that outline an extraordinary episode in the use of a police informant.

The informant – referred to in court documents only as EF – was a barrister of the court who was also purporting to defend some of the alleged high profile criminals she was informing upon. This is a shocking breach of the barrister’s duty as an officer of the court to uphold legal professional privilege – that is, the confidentiality of what passes between barrister and client.

The royal commission is an effort to fully document not only what occurred in the specific instances of the high-profile convictions, but also broader questions concerning the administration of justice in Victoria and associated police practices.

It will be the first broad-based inquiry into policing in Victoria in 35 years.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews after announcing a Royal Commission into the conduct of a criminal defence barrister turned police informant – on her own clients. Ellen Smith/AAP

The findings cleared by the High Court for release outline a dispute between Victoria Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions over the release of documents that disclose the police use of the informer in several high-profile convictions. One decision given in the Supreme Court of Victoria as this dispute played out is given here .

In its ruling yesterday, the High Court used unusually scathing language:

EF’s actions in purporting to act as counsel for the convicted persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF’s obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF’s duties to the court. Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging EF to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will.

I first called for such an inquiry in 2004 and again in 2011 – the circumstances were somewhat different, but were concerned with the extent to which Victorian policing practices were of high ethical standards at both operational and managerial levels.

The reason the government of Premier Daniel Andrews called a Royal Commission goes to the heart of the administration of justice: have people convicted of crimes been given a fair trial, and is there any possibility of miscarriages of justice?

A number of court cases have unfolded over in this dispute, centring on the question of whether the DPP should release information that documents the use of police informer EF, also known as “3838”. The argument against release was that EF’s life would be in danger if her actions became publicly known.

The cases are not findings of fact but rather whether this information should be made available outside the confines of Victoria Police and the DPP. This involves consideration of “public interest immunity”. At its simplest, the police argued that there was an “extreme” risk of death to EF if the information is released, and there was a need to protect the “informer system” that police rely on in many serious crimes.

The DPP has been robust in pushing back against the police desire for secrecy. In submissions at the various court hearings, it has argued that a balanced approach is needed to consider these issues as well as the serious misconduct of EF and the potential to:

seriously damage public confidence in legal professional privilege and the administration of justice more generally.

Further, considerations concerning disclosure includes allowing the full investigation of possible serious misconduct by police, ensuring public confidence in criminal justice administration and enhancing public deliberation of the legitimacy of police using a lawyer-informer.

The Supreme Court sided with the DPP that the disclosures are not subject to public interest immunity against disclosure.

The June 19 case provides significant detail about the use of EF and how a lawyer-turned-informer represents a threat to the integrity of criminal justice administration. Lawyers are “officers of the court” who have a “duty of loyalty” to their clients alongside a “duty of confidentiality”. Criminal justice administration demands legal professional privilege is protected as it is “critical to the functioning of the law”.

Or as Justice William Deane stated in the High Court in 1986 case in more dramatic terms, it is “a bulwark against tyranny and oppression … not to be sacrificed even to promoted the search for justice or truth in an individual case”.

Finally, a key issue regarding legal professional privilege is the widely held understanding that the “privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyer” so should only be breached on the client’s approval.

Yet this breach of privilege is precisely what has occurred and Victoria Police have been involved in detailed reviews identifying such concerns. For instance, the IBAC confidential review referred to as the Kellam Report was released in February 2015. This report, or parts of it, has been at the centre of the dispute between the police and the DPP.

Read more: Book extract: All Fall Down

Here is where we might draw on examples from elsewhere. First, Victoria has not had a broad-based inquiry into policing for 35 years (the Neesham Inquiry 1982-84 was the last broad inquiry), despite major commissions of inquiry and royal commissions into policing across Australia including the landmark Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland (1987-89) and the Wood Royal Commission in New South Wales (1995-97).

The Fitzgerald and Wood inquiries debunked the idea that police corruption and malpractice was only to be found in a few individuals. This is the “rotten apple” approach to police malpractice and these inquiries highlighted the paucity of such an approach. Instead, both found systemic corruption and malpractice from the bottom to the top of the respective organisatons.

Whether or not this will be found to be the case will of course be determined by the royal commission, whose terms of reference have not yet been announced, nor a commissioner appointed.

Three other aspects of these inquiries might be important to the forthcoming Victorian royal commission. First, both started with narrow terms of reference, as it seems will be the case in Victoria.

Second, in both instances the lead commissioner determined that the terms of reference needed to be broadened, which was accepted by the relevant governments.

Third, both found that to understand police malpractice, you must examine other aspects of criminal justice administration: police are one part of the “system”, and to understand what is occurring you need to inquire into the broader “ecological context” of police work. We can already see that this royal commission has to examine the police-DDP relationship, but my guess is far more besides.

The Andrews government is to be commended for acting swiftly in establishing the royal commission. But let’s hope the terms of reference are either broad enough in the first instance or that the commissioner appointed will, if necessary, ensure they are broadened appropriately.

– ref. Victorian royal commission into policing needs to take a broad approach: here’s why – http://theconversation.com/victorian-royal-commission-into-policing-needs-to-take-a-broad-approach-heres-why-108164

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glyn Davis, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

This is an edited version of a speech given at a summit to explore issues of academic freedom and autonomy hosted by the Australian National University. It’s a longer read, at just over 4,000 words. Enjoy!

The student stood, a little nervously, at the office door. Could he discuss his assessment for the semester? He laid out all his recent assignments, sadly none of them very well argued.

“I’ve read your comments very carefully”, he said.

“And while I do not disagree with any of the particular marks, I just think as a body of work this deserves a higher grade.”

This is special pleading. It means offering an argument though evidence is lacking or even contrary.

We special plead because we want something to be true even when we cannot prove the case. We rely on only those facts which suit our argument, claims of widespread support for our point of view, and the use of memorable examples, even when these diverge from verified broader trends.

Claims of a free speech crisis at Australian public universities are special pleading. We hear ministers, senators and think tanks speak about an imminent danger to free speech.

This concerns everyone who cares about higher education – free speech is essential to our shared notion of university life, and voices claiming a crisis on campus have been loud and widely heard.

Crisis talk has encouraged the Minister for Education to announce a review of free speech provisions, and to speculate about penalties for universities which fail some unspecified test.

Current Minister for Education, Dan Tehan. Lukas Coch/AAP

Yet it is sobering to read carefully the evidence offered in support of a free speech crisis.

This turns out to be a small number of anecdotes repeatedly retold, warnings about trends in the US, implausible readings of university policies, and unsourced claims that staff and student feel oppressed.

We are offered scraps of unrelated incidents. Tenuous and sometimes tendentious claims. Occasional concerning incidents. Some poorly framed policies. As though these sum to a higher mark.

But to date those asserting a crisis have provided no systematic evidence of a meaningful, sustained and growing threat to free speech on campus.

So what drives this sudden anxiety? To answer the question we must do what academics value: ask what is at stake and why it is being debated, consider ways free speech might be measured, test the evidence and assess whether the claim of a free speech crisis is reasonably stated and valid.

It can be slow and tedious to apply a scholarly logic to a free-flowing public debate. Politics move on while we ponder. Yet when people assert free speech on campus is under threat the stakes are important. Free speech goes to the very mission of a university, so it is worth taking time to consider the threat.

The context

The free speech controversy relies heavily on American examples, with the implication that Australia is, or will, travel down the same path.

The dependence on US material is striking. The 2017 Audit of Free Speech on Australian Campuses by the Institute of Public Affairs opens its discussion of “substantial hostility to free speech” not with Australian content but with American cases – Middlebury College, Evergreen State College, and widely reported clashes at the University of California Berkeley over an appearance by “conservative provocateur” Milo Yiannopoulous.

Likewise, a speech by the NSW Minister for Education, Rob Stokes, to the Centre for Independent Studies paid much attention to safe spaces, trigger warnings, and no-platforming.

NSW Education Minister Robert Stokes (left): has expressed concern about trigger warnings and no-platforming. Brendan Esposito/AAP

These are American trends, infrequently seen on an Australian campus. Yet the Minister concludes Australian university life is now a “monoculture” that has “narrowed robust debate to the point of non-existence.”

The free speech debate arises in the distinctive American context of campus politics. Overtly conservative organisations in the US seek to confront, and change, a university culture they see as hostile. Online publications such as Campus Reform and The Campus Fix hire student activists to report on the “liberal bias” of their professors, in articles fed to conservative news outlets.

A key message of such campaigns is that conservative students, uniquely, are the victims of constraints on free speech, denied a voice by administrators and fellow students.

Cohort data confirms university students are more likely to lean left than right, as indeed are all young people.

It does not follow that students with different views are oppressed. Cohort studies of young people in the US, reported by political scientist Jeffrey Sachs for the Niskanen Center, show no generational shift in attitudes to free speech.

Conservative commentators believe otherwise. They publicise incidents to foster the impression of a widespread problem and growing alarm.

Likewise, American conservative organisations invite contentious speakers onto campus to test the patience of university management.

This was once a standard tactic of the radical left, seeking to prove the operation of “repressive tolerance”. Now provocation on campus is the tactic of right leaning organisations.

American practice draws on two different threads of thinking.

Some avowedly American conservative organisations are keen to assert traditional values. The modern university, says Morton C. Blackwell, President of the Leadership Institute, is a “left-wing indoctrination centre”.

This view is widely shared among conservatives. A 2018 PEW poll found 79% of Republican-leaning Americans worry professors bring their political and social views into the classroom.

The second strand is libertarian in outlook, critical of anything that might constrain free expression.

Here the issue is less content than process – free speech as an overriding value, which must never be compromised for institutional reasons.

So for a traditional conservative, the worry is curriculum, for a libertarian, the concern is anything that constrains open expression.

Both strands of thinking influence Australian material on campus free speech.

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) adopts American conservative campaign techniques. It has created “Generation Liberty” in which current students serve as campus organisers at seven Australian universities.

Former Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, speaking to the Institute of Public Affairs in 2012. Mick Tsikas/AAP

Yet policy proposals offered by the IPA and the Centre for Independent Studies depart from traditional conservative caution about the role of the state and the risks of regulation.

They promote a libertarian definition of free speech, heavily influenced by American first amendment thinking, and demand more government regulation of universities.

Finding an accurate label for this mix of conservative and libertarian impulses is not easy. Here we call them “right leaning”.

Whatever the term, importing American analysis and campaign techniques only makes sense if there is significant overlap between ferment on American campuses and practice in Australia. To test this, we turn from context to evidence.

Assessing the evidence

Those who claim a free speech crisis on campus must establish their case – to them falls the burden of proof.

So what follows is an examination of the most widely quoted evidence for suppression of free speech on campus. The case is neatly summarised in an opinion editorial published by The Australian, in which Matthew Lesh from the IPA cites as evidence of free speech suppression the sacking of a geophysist at James Cook University, complaints from Chinese students about maps in a classroom presentation, concerns about a film screening at Sydney University, and a decision by the University of Western Australia to reject funding for a research centre associated with Bjorn Lomberg.

The list is said to be representative rather than complete – for these, says Mr Lesh, “are not isolated incidents”:

Academics have voiced concerns about the progressive monoculture at our universities jeopardising research and teaching. Students with a different perspective are too scared to express their contrary opinion.

Meanwhile, risk-averse universities bureaucracies succumb to censorious demands. Universities also maintain policies that chill free speech by preventing insulting or unwelcome comments, offensive language or, in some cases, sarcasm and hurt feelings.

Activist students are couching their demands for censorship in the language of safety – the absurd claim that merely hearing an idea can make people unsafe.

The result, says Mr Leach, is a “free speech crisis”, a judgement echoed by some Coalition senators. Not everyone is persuaded. When Shadow Minister for Universities, Louise Pratt, expressed doubt – “I don’t think there is a problem on campuses in relation to free speech” – she was critiqued by Mr Leach for ignoring “mounting evidence to the contrary”. So what is the case, and by what criteria should it be assessed?

Tests for free speech

“Mounting evidence” of suppression requires a threshold definition.

Debate in the US and now Australia has produced eloquent statements about the nature and argument for free speech, nowhere more finely expressed then by Chancellor Carol Christ at the University of California Berkeley.

As she observes, “the public expression of many sharply divergent points of view is fundamental both to our democracy and to our mission as a university.”

Inviting uncomfortable speakers on to campus may clash with campus expectations of “tolerance and inclusion, reason and diversity,” but universities must live with that tension.

These themes have been explored by several thoughtful Australian texts on the role and responsibilities around free speech on campus. We draw on two in particular – a speech by retired Chief Justice Robert French, who is also Chancellor of the University of Western Australia, and a paper by eminent legal academics Professor Adrienne Stone and Ms Jade Roberts.

Former High Court Chief Justice Robert French being sworn in, in October 2008. Alan Porritt/AAP

These experts on free speech stress the complexity of issues at play. Chancellor French has noted there is no legal requirement for universities to provide a forum for all speakers, though there should be a high threshold for denying an invitation.

Stone and Roberts draw an important distinction between academic freedom and free speech.

Academic freedom is the right to carry out research, teaching and public comment without intrusion. It requires a degree of institutional autonomy to protect that right.

Free speech on campus, by contrast, has no special standing. It is the same right as free speech elsewhere in Australia – the right to self-expression, to question and criticise institutions and ideas. There are no protections at a university from laws that constrain free speech elsewhere in society, such as prohibitions on vilification and defamation.

Academic freedom and free speech require different tests.

Academic freedom is articulated in university rules, which can be examined through application and challenge.

By contrast, freedom of speech may require no university statutes at all, since it is regulated by general law.

Yet as Stone and Roberts detail, universities are complex places. They are built on a commitment to truth and free expression, but also require procedures to manage conflict, assess the work of students and staff, regulate employment conditions, encourage civility and discipline unacceptable behaviour.

What does complexity imply? It introduces judgement into any assessment. Academic freedom and free speech should be thought about in context, examined against circumstances. They are nowhere an unfettered right, but a question of appropriateness.

Still, in thinking about free speech in this complex, organic structure, Stone and Roberts provide some guidance.

Not everything that happens on campus is under the control of management. Universities should accept a high tolerance for student protests but no right to disrupt events. A university can reasonably require speakers to respect scholarly standards.

Even with threshold definitions established, any assessment still needs data. Claims of “mounting evidence” imply accelerating activity.

Here the available material is thin.

A survey of Australian print media reports finds no evidence of change in volume or intensity for clashes on campus with free speech implications. The IPA 2017 audit identifies just five confrontations with speakers at Australian campuses, and one withdrawn invitation, in a survey that spans several years. These seem modest numbers for a crisis.

Still, the IPA claims that public universities cannot be trusted to honour free speech. Is this a defensible conclusion?

Speakers and events

The IPA rollcall of threats to free speech on campus begins with the cancellation of controversial speakers, censorship of academics and “special security” fees for conservative speakers. It cites noisy protests against psychologist Bettina Arndt, speaking at the invitation of Liberal clubs at La Trobe and Sydney universities.

Protests produce dramatic images.

Nonetheless, Ms Arndt spoke at both Sydney and La Trobe because university security staff ensured campus venues remained open. Her comments, challenging an alleged rape culture on campus, were duly reported in the media.

The Arndt example highlights tensions in free speech decisions on campus. Arndt was a guest of a student club. Her campus tour was designed to challenge students campaigning against sexual violence. The universities incurred significant costs protecting Ms Arndt’s right to speak – and in ensuring the equal right of students to protest against her message.

Despite demonstrations – and an unimpressive refusal by protestors to engage in dialogue when offered – Ms Arndt exercised her right to address an interested audience. This seems a success for free speech on campus, rather than evidence of intolerance.

The controversy that followed focused on whether the Liberal Club that issued the invitation should contribute $500 towards security costs. Reasonable people might argue about who should share the costs, including the responsibility of protestors. At the Australian National University, university leadership has agreed to pay such costs rather than compromise the principle of free speech.

In historical context, the 2010s are among the quietest periods for protest in memory on the Australian campus – just ask the people who studied at universities in the 1970s and early 1980s.

University students gather to protest as part of a National Day of Action at the University of Sydney in Sydney, Wednesday, May 17, 2017. Paul Miller/AAP

In my 18 years as a Vice-Chancellor, at two institutions, I can only recall two incidents on my watch where protesters prevented a speaker. Over the same years, tens of thousands of public events, academic conferences and seminars proceeded without concern.

Exaggerating the number or significance of no platforming events is special pleading. Protests against speakers on an Australian campus remain memorable but rare events.

Academic freedom

The IPA case for a free speech crisis then turns to questions of academic freedom.

Academic freedom is the right of academic staff to speak out as members of the university community. It is jealously guarded by academic boards and professional associations – perceived breaches become matters of public controversy, with the risk of significant reputational damage.

Academic freedom is also protected in federal law, research rules and registration standards.

Universities have policies that express and enforce those legal strictures.

Without more public information it is difficult to offer comment on the sole case cited by the IPA, involving a professor at James Cook University. We should note the independent processes available to test any claim of improper treatment, including the courts.

A crisis, though, implies regular and growing incidents. Again, there is no evidence offered to support such a conclusion. More than 50,000 academics work in Australian universities, yet cases of scholars said to be disciplined or dismissed in violation of academic freedom remain infrequent, and fiercely debated when they occur.

From staff, the IPA turns to questions of curriculum. This raises a different aspect of academic freedom, who decides what can be taught.

The IPA notes that Chinese students have complained about maps used in class, and challenge textbooks with derogatory comments about Chinese officials.

A complaint about classroom content is free speech in action. The issue is not the question but the response – do universities react in robust and independent ways? Does an institution stay true to scholarly values?

When challenged about naming Taiwan as a separate country, an academic at the University of Newcastle held his ground, quoting as his source a report from Transparency International.

On the other hand, a lecturer from Sydney University apologised when students complained, correctly, that a map used in class inaccurately showed established borders.

Likewise Monash University investigated a complaint about a bank of questions used in a subject exam, and acknowledged the complaint expressed was reasonable.

In each case cited, universities used an internal review process to adjudicate the complaint. Such responses seem appropriate.

Concerns about Chinese influence and academic freedom extend to the roles of Confucius Institutes and significant donations to centres at UTS and Sydney University.

Read more: The Australia-China Relations Institute doesn’t belong at UTS

Similar questions of institutional autonomy come into play over the University of Western Australia declining a proffered Consensus Centre, and ANU ending negotiations with the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation.

The outcomes vary, but each decision involves public debate about the risk of donors compromising institutional autonomy. Colleagues express opinions, weigh the merits, consider advantages of funding against potential risks.

When funding is declined, this is no affront to free speech. In the memorable words of ANU Chancellor Gareth Evans, an institution offered a donation must “look this gift horse in the mouth”.

Freedom of association – the right to choose one’s company without compulsion – is also a fundamental right.

It is hard to sustain claims of a crisis for academic freedom. The pace and intensity of controversies appear little changed. Arguments about curriculum are part of normal university business, and no example offered by the IPA suggests a retreat from scholarly standards.

Institutions sometimes make poor choices, and deserve censure, but the vigilance of the academic community on questions of academic freedom appears undiminished.

Censorship

Finally, the IPA turns to claims of censorship on campus.

Here, the IPA looks for any statement that will constrain unfettered expression on campus. The ambit is wide – student guides, social media rules, anti-racism statements and university human resources policy.

The 2017 IPA audit is the most substantial survey of university practice offered in the free speech debate. It samples some 165 policy statements from across the sector and scores these against a “hostility index”, a ranking of universities by perceived censorship of free expression. Most universities are found wanting.

Such reports impose hard numbers on matters of judgement. Policies are presented as binary choices – yes or not to suppressing free speech – and marked accordingly.
This leads to some implausible judgements.

For example, an audit list of an unacceptable speech code opens with a Murdoch University by-law that prescribes a A$50 fine for “insulting language” or “offensive behaviour”.

This sounds concerning – but some delving into the Murdoch rules and procedures suggests background considerations missing from the IPA assessment.

Graffiti in Newtown, NSW. JAM Project/flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

A Murdoch student concerned about the behaviour of others would likely consult the university website. This defines insulting or offensive behaviour as a category of bullying, and offers numerous resources, including definitions from Western Australian law, a list of frequently asked questions on the topic, and advice on how to handle bullying. If concerns persist, the website list contacts within the university.

And the A$50 fine?

It is found in by-law seven, a short provision dealing with assault and abuse, indecent or improper acts. When proved, removal from university land is the first sanction, the second a possible fine.

The IPA audit does not offer a view on a reasonable way to manage offensive and insulting behaviour on campus. Murdoch choses to do so through graduated steps – first advice, then procedures and, finally, penalties that may include a fine.

This policy is condemned by the IPA through reference only to the ultimate penalty, and proclaimed an example of chilling free speech. The audit goes on to count Murdoch among the top third of offending Australian institutions.

This is special pleading, since it ignores context and policy intention. No link to free speech is established. It seems unlikely any Murdoch student feels constrained by by-law seven. Few if any may know it exists. A step approach is a sensible way to address difficult issues on campus. To describe such policy as a threat to free expression is a schoolboy’s debating triumph.

There are unnecessary and possibly even harmful university regulations. These are worth examination. An audit that looked at regulations in context, and suggested improvements, might be a helpful contribution.

But it is likely such an audit would likely not conclude, as does the IPA, that a majority of Australian universities “limit the diversity of ideas on campus”. On the evidence provided in the IPA 2017 audit this is overreach, a pronouncement with little visible means of support.

The policy proposal

Since evidence of systematic constraint on speech and events, academic freedom and censorship is tenuous, why proclaim a crisis at all?

Because a crisis justifies intervention hard to argue in more peaceful times. And for the IPA and CIS, the “free speech crisis” requires new federal controls.

Once again, this is a response inspired by American tactics.

The Goldwater Institute, a US think tank, issued a Model Bill in January 2017 as a template so American states can regulate free speech on campus.

The bill requires universities to be “neutral” in the face of public controversies. That is, public universities cannot support any action deemed as unacceptable by some on campus, such as ending university endowment investment in fossil fuel companies.

Statutes drawing on the Goldwater Institute Model Bill have been adopted by Republican legislatures in Colorado, North Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia, and remain before other state legislatures.

The version proposed in Georgia imposes penalties on any student who “interferes with the free expression of others.” The Minnesota draft cautions professors against expressing personal views in the classroom, introducing controversial material with no relation to the subject taught, or making statements on subjects in which they have no expertise.

A sign on campus at the University of Slippery Rock in Pennsylvania, US. Brian Turner/flickr, CC BY

The American Association of University Professors has labelled campus free speech laws as “false friends”, because they base bad policy on good principles.

The Association sees a political agenda masquerading behind free speech, a conservative recasting of universities to stop them being a voice for progressive causes. This legislation, concludes the Association, introduces new controls under the cover of grossly exaggerated threats to free speech on campus.

In proposing free speech legislation for Australia, local advocates argue regulation will end a “worrying culture of censorship” on campus.

So Jeremy Sammut, from the Centre for Independent Studies, wants compulsory “university freedom charters” as a condition of public funding. Such measures, he argues, are necessary because of the “complacent attitudes of Australian higher education leaders.”

Indeed, he says, “university administrators…are unwilling to even acknowledge free speech problems.” Hence, “it is difficult to trust them to self-regulate free speech solutions”.

Perhaps university administrators don’t acknowledge such claims because Mr Sammut provides no evidence of disruption on campus to support his contention; he simply asserts what must be demonstrated.

There is much that puzzles about the legislative proposal advanced by both the IPA and CIS. Once right leaning groups were wary of the coercive power of the state. They argued laws should be used sparingly and framed cautiously to avoid unintended consequences. A Burkean logic resisted needless change to established social relations.

In 2018, though, right-leaning think tanks champion federal regulation and demand state sanctions.

IPA Director John Roskam is quite explicit – since universities rely on public money, government has the right to make decisions about how that money is spent. If takes “heavy-handed government regulation” to “ensure freedom of speech and freedom of academic inquiry at Australia’s universities then so be it.”

On the other hand, Mr Roskam strongly opposes government regulation of private entities.

This year alone he has ridiculed proposals for mandated compliance mechanisms on Australia’s banks, called the banking royal commission a “show trial”, and opposed mandatory diversity quotas for private companies.

Here is the heart of the agenda. As in the US, this is a campaign to open public universities to more conservative voices, and to punish institutions perceived to take progressive stances on issues.

If Australian outrages to justify such intervention prove few and far between, there are always American examples to cite.

Hence the special pleading – new legislation to regulate universities is not a reasoned response to circumstances, but a solution looking for a problem.

The need for a sense of proportion

The free speech critique relies on an assumption that American campus issues are relevant to Australian experience. The evidence for this is slight.

As Nick Haslam argues convincingly, concerns about relativist professors, political correctness and the perceived decline of western civilisation reflect US preoccupations.

Australia has no tradition of violent campus protests. No statues have been pulled down.

Identity politics has not captured local campus politics. On the contrary, recent student campaigns focus on long-standing concerns about sexual harassment, environmental issues and student fees.

The demand for Chicago-style free speech codes – to address imaginary challenges – reflects the gravitational pull of American conservative thinking.

In 2008, and again in 2018, Australia’s university leaders issued unequivocal statements setting out the founding principle of their institutions:

Australian universities restate our enduring commitment to academic freedom and intellectual inquiry. We also restate our enduring commitment to freedom of expression on our campuses and among our staff and students.

They do not welcome the importation of legislative responses and codes of conduct written in the United States against the constitution and laws of that nation. Australians can craft their own words – if required.

For “freedom does not require a positive law to explain or justify its existence”, as Chancellor French has observed.

Confucius said: when words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom. from www.shutterstock.com

Claims of a crisis require evidence. A crisis means trends that can be measured, frequent examples that demonstrate consistent worrying behaviour, proof of an organised assault on an underpinning principle of public universities.

All are conspicuously absent.

You cannot take isolated events and inconsequential statements and argue that somehow they sum to a case.

Around the globe there are real threats to academic freedom – oppressive new laws in Hungary and Turkey, tightening party control in China, the arrest of scholars in the Middle East, violent clashes between left and right on American campuses.

And there are issues closer to home:

• funding policies that make universities dependent on international students and donors.

• new security laws that circumscribe areas of research.

• overriding safeguards designed to make research funding decisions transparent and non-political.

These are the challenges to institutional autonomy and campus freedoms we should discuss, not some confected calamity.

Trivialising a fundamental principle by tying it to meaningless “hostility” tests is dangerous.

If requesting civility in a student code is an assault on free speech, what will we say when real dangers arrive?

For as Confucius noted, when words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom.

– ref. Special pleading: free speech and Australian universities – http://theconversation.com/special-pleading-free-speech-and-australian-universities-108170

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Farmery, Research Fellow, University of Wollongong

Many Australians are concerned with the sustainability of their seafood. While definitions of sustainability vary, according to government assessments, over 85% of seafood caught in Australia is sustainable.

However, just because a fish is sustainably caught, it doesn’t make it the most nutritious and healty option – and vice versa. For the first time, research has investigated the seafood Australians eat in terms of what’s best for us and the planet.

Read more: How to reduce slavery in seafood supply chains

Our study, published today in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition, found that Australians consume a lot of large oceanic fish, like shark and tuna, as well as farmed salmon and prawns, but there are other, healthier options available like mackerel, sardines and blue grenadier.

Shutterstock, unless otherwise noted

What Australians eat

The word seafood is used to describe thousands of different species, both marine and freshwater, and from the wild or farmed. Because of these differences, the environmental footprint of “seafood” can vary greatly, as can their nutritional profile.

Our research used data from the Australian Health Survey to investigate the nutritional quality and sustainability of seafood consumption in Australia.

We measured nutrition by the estimated contribution of 100g of a given seafood to the average requirement of protein, omega 3, calcium, iodine, selenium and zinc. Sustainability was assessed on the basis of stock status, resource use, habitat and ecosystem impacts, and health and disease management.

The majority of respondents (83%) did not consume any seafood on the day of the survey, and we found that there were large discrepancies in consumption patterns between different sociodemographic groups.

Of those who did consume seafood, the proportion was lowest among adults who were unemployed, had the least education and those who were most socio-economically disadvantaged.

Crustaceans and low-omega 3 fish, such as basa and tilapia, which were identified as some of the least nutritious and least sustainable types of seafood, constituted a substantial amount of total seafood intake for the lowest socio-economic consumers.

In contrast, consumers in the highest socio-demographic group consumed mainly high trophic level fish, such as tuna and shark, and farmed fish with high omega-3 content, such as salmon and trout, which were considered the more nutritious types of seafood with a moderate sustainability. Less than 1% of adults reported eating sardines and mackerel which were considered some of the most nutritious and sustainable varieties.

What is sustainability?

Sustainability in seafood is complex and difficult to quantify. Greenhouse gas emissions are not currently covered by the major assessment groups, despite the contribution of the fishing industry to global emissions and the variation between different seafood types.

For example, growing demand for crustaceans like prawns or shrimp, is resulting in higher emissions from the global fishing fleet, as these fisheries are fuel intensive. In contrast, small pelagic fisheries, such as sardines, have very low emissions – although they are a lot less popular.

Farmed seafoods also vary considerably in their environmental footprint. In the past, large farmed species of fish have been fed with much smaller wild fish. This practice is in decline, with small feed fish replaced by crops and animal by-products.

However, it’s not clear this substitution is environmentally friendly. At the same time, the nutritional value of farmed fish has decreased.

Making better choices

Detailed nutrition information is not readily available at the point of purchase for fresh seafood. It can be tricky making an informed decision on the spot.

However, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand have created nutrient profiles for a range of food, including seafood. The National Heart Foundation of Australia provides information on the amount of marine-sourced omega-3s in fish and seafood commonly available, with species such as Atlantic salmon and sardines listed as highest sources, while prawns and crabs are much lower.

To check the sustainability of your seafood choice, you can consult the AMCS guide or look for certifications such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) for wild capture fisheries or the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) or Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) logos. WWF have also developed a canned tuna guide (changeyourtuna.org.au).

Eating new seafood species can be tricky if you are not familiar with them. There are many resources available to help you pick and prepare seafood, such as FRDC fish files, Sydney Fish Market recipes and an SBS section on sustainable seafood recipes.

In WA, the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council have produced guides on local seafood, including information on underultised species, cooking and storage. South Australians can now pick up local fish from the new Community Supported Fishery each week, or have it delivered.

Read more: The sustainable vegetables that thrive on a diet of fish poo

All food production has an impact, but making an informed choice can be beneficial for health and the environment. So, get adventurous with your seafood selections by experimenting with choices that are both nutritious and meet your sustainability criteria. As you become more familiar with different species and ways to prepare them, you won’t have to juggle different guides at the fish counter and decide it’s all too hard.

– ref. Here’s the seafood Australians eat (and what we should be eating) – http://theconversation.com/heres-the-seafood-australians-eat-and-what-we-should-be-eating-108046

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniela Kaleva, Head of Teaching and Learning, Australian Institute of Music

Review: Artaserse, Sydney

The opera Artaserse, written by Pietro Metastasio and composed by Johann Adolphe Hasse, is emerging from centuries of oblivion, with recent revivals in Europe and Australia. This opera seria (Italian opera based on a classical or mythological subject) was a sensation during the 18th century.

There are 90 surviving musical settings of Metastasio’s exemplary libretto. The most acclaimed composer of opera seria, Neapolitan-trained Saxon Johann Adolf Hasse set it three times himself. Italian performer Farinelli premiered the male lead, Arbace, in Venice in 1730, whereas the female lead, Mandane, was reworked for Hasse’s famous wife Faustina Bordoni in Dresden in 1740.

The recent Australian premiere draws on archival material of the Dresden version. Securing American mezzo-soprano Vivica Genaux in the role of Mandane is by far the greatest sensation that Pinchgut Opera has brought to Australia.

The company’s focus on the historical performance of baroque repertoire is a breath of fresh air in the Australian operatic climate where well-worn core pieces are the norm, and the best international opera stars often come here at the end of their careers.

The best baroque specialists and young singers, both local and visiting, work with Pinchgut Opera. Pinchgut produces not only live performances but new editions and recordings. Under the baton of Dr Erin Helyard, innovation of sonic and contextual historical performance fuels their creative zest. This scholarly approach is attractive to revivalists such as Genaux who advocates Hasse’s music.

Carlo Vistoli (left) and David Hansen as Arbace (right) Brett Boardman

Artaserse is an old Roman fable of treachery and the ethical power of clemency. The general Artabano attempts to seize power by killing King Xerxes of Persia. He wants to annihilate the royal family because the King would not accept his son Arbace as a suitable husband of princess Mandane. Prince Artaserse pardons the killer at the end.

In the hands of Metastasio, this banal story becomes a psychological study of conflicting desires through an elaborate scheme of relationships that results in an emotional rollercoaster. The audience reacted to the turns and twists with laughs and exclamations.

Charles Davis’ set and Ross Graham’s lighting transport the fable to modern times into the reception hall of a palace and create a strong sense of the suffocating predicament in which the protagonists find themselves.

Metastasio’s poetry is pure sonic theatricality. It leaves space for music to give flight to the subtlest of trepidations and the most violent passions. Hasse’s music is lyrical, granting the voice the freedom to thrive and shine. It is also surprisingly experimental within the constrictions of the opera seria formulae.

The Orchestra of the Antipodes played in full baroque splendour, delighting with sensitive continuo accompaniments during the recitatives and lush orchestral textures, especially in the melodramatic obbligato or orchestral recitatives and interludes during the arias.

Carlo Vistoli as Artabano. Brett Boardman

In this type of opera, the singers rule supreme. During the middle 18th century, they were the divine castrati (singers castrated in boyhood to retain their soprano or alto qualities). Solo singing dominates the recitatives and arias with repeated sections adorned by florid ornamentation. Genaux performed with an ensemble of modern “divine singers” with a rich palette of high voices.

Australian soprano countertenor David Hansen was the male romantic lead Arbace, son of Artabano in love with Princess Mandane. Alto countertenor Carlo Vistoli sang the villain Artabano. Soprano countertenor Russell Harcourt played the cunning and unscrupulous general Megabise in whom Artabano confides.

Tenor Andrew Goodwin was Prince Artaserse in love with Artabano’s daughter, Semira, performed by Australian mezzo-soprano Emily Edmonds. All singers possess fabulous vocal timbres and mastery of the style.

Carlo Vistoli delivered a heartfelt performance of the famous scene in Act 2 where his character shows remorse but was unconvincing as the intimidating old man. With the most beautiful tenor timbre and exquisite phrasing, Andrew Goodwin’s noble demeanour was touching, especially in Ah parti from Act 3, yet there could be so much more nuance in the way he approaches the text.

David Hansen offered an exciting romantic lead in the recitatives, but his over-physicalised coloratura (melodic ornamentation) distracted from the character during the arias. Russell Harcourt embodied the cunning Megabise well, narcissistically checking himself out in the big mirror and moving with authority on stage.

Brett Boardman

Genaux is an operatic goddess. Dressed in a crystal-beaded, pale blue tulle and lace gown, she was the jewel on stage. Her feminine beauty and the velvety timbre of her voice are captivating and unforgettable. She is always in character, listens and responds generously to her colleagues. She sings and moves with ease and naturally even while firing the pyrotechnics composed for the mythical castrati.

It is this marriage of vocal virtuosity and immersion in the character that made her stand out from the rest of the cast. Her rendition of Và trà le Selve Ircane set ablaze the moral strength of the condemning princess who exposes the evil actions of Artabano. Such force and purpose in a society where women did not have a voice felt so empowering to witness.

What is most enticing about Genaux is that her singing is driven by an intimate knowledge of the text and internalised characterisation. Her coloratura is not only brilliant but emotionally connected to the drama. Such rhetorical performance renders a much-desired honesty that lights up the stage and exposes the essence of opera seria as an eloquent conduit of human emotions.

Artarserse is being staged in Sydney until December 5.

– ref. Operatic goddess Vivica Genaux reigns supreme in a lyrical study of conflicting desires – http://theconversation.com/operatic-goddess-vivica-genaux-reigns-supreme-in-a-lyrical-study-of-conflicting-desires-108045

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hedda Ransan-Cooper, Research Fellow, College of Engineering and Computer Science, Australian National University

Opposition to coal seam gas (CSG) in Australia is remarkable. CSG proposals – mostly affecting rural areas – have spawned hundreds of opposition groups across the country. Some are now household names, like Lock the Gate and Knitting Nannas Against Gas (KNAG). But there are also many others; small local groups without logos or official websites.

Our research reveals all sorts of concerns motivate the opponents of CSG. But one factor, emotions – in particular how people “do” emotions – helps explain how people mobilise and unite in their opposition.

It’s fair to say the scale of this resistance has been a shock all round: to industry, to government, and even to organisers in the movement itself.

One of the defining characteristics of the Australian anti-CSG movement is that it involves alliances between diverse kinds of people, such as rural residents (many of them farmers) and urban-based environmental organisers. These groups can be at odds with one another on other issues, for example land-clearing policy. But with CSG, they have found common ground.

There may be differences in terms of emphasis and specific concerns, but overall the movement has been very effective at building and maintaining a momentum of opposition to the CSG industry.

CSG opposition in and around Narrabri

We were interested in what it is that brings these diverse groups together. Our research focused on the movement opposing the Narrabri Gas Project proposed for south of the town of Narrabri, 500km northwest of Sydney.

The project has been described as the “most-protested-against gas developments” in New South Wales. SBS Television’s Insight series recently devoted a program to this particular controversy.

Our research into CSG in and around Narrabri finds potential impacts on water and land are core issues that unite a broad range of people. Shared concerns also encompass questions of energy supply, climate change, procedural shortcomings and perceptions of government and industry collusion.

Yet there are also factors beyond these substantive issues that help to explain the strength of opposition to CSG in rural Australia. Our research suggests that emotions play a crucial role in building alliances and mobilising opponents of CSG.

Conversations with people involved in opposing the CSG proposal in and around Narrabri reveal the following key insights about the role of emotions.

Joy – as well as anger – sustains a movement

Anger is one of the most commonly expressed emotion by participants in the anti-CSG movement. People are angry about the possibility of having to face the negative impacts of the CSG industry. They are also angry at the government for not listening to community concerns.

Yet, while anger is a central sentiment in mobilising CSG opposition, it is the combination of anger with joy, especially the joy of social connection, that helps to sustain involvement.

Opposition to CSG is often integrated into people’s daily lives – like bringing the kids along to a highway protest. For many involved, anger and frustration at the industry and government are combined with the joy of coming together, “doing community” and employing a wide range of creative acts of protest, such as those performed by the Knitting Nannas Against Gas.

These activities bring together people with ideological differences and blur the distinctions between political and social identities. They also offer a space for participants to connect with one another in the face of “burnout” and other frustrations.

Social obligations and ‘holding back’ help

As Gabrielle Chan notes in her recent book, Rusted Off, human contact is very important in Australian rural communities. Similarly, we find that a key element of social life in Narrabri is about getting along with others. This feature of rural communities creates a significantly different context compared to environmental controversies elsewhere.

Being respectful in small rural communities often means being non-confrontational. In a small community, people rely on one another, often over multiple generations. You never know when you might need help from a neighbour.

Compared to big cities, it can be difficult to manage disagreements in small rural communities. This leads residents to “hold back” from confrontational communication styles, which contributes to sustaining relationships across different viewpoints. This has been critical in building alliances between people in the community.

Don’t neglect people’s emotions

The CSG debate can’t be fought on “the facts” alone. There is too much at stake for the community of Narrabri. Decisions that result in dramatic landscape changes – whether for wind farms, CSG wells or other energy infrastructure – are inherently emotional. Such changes can disrupt people’s sense of place or potentially threaten livelihoods.

A banner at the Narrabri ‘Big Picture’ event in November 2015 is a reminder of the emotions involved in this controversy. Selen Ercan

It’s not just emotional for those who oppose big energy infrastructure projects. Supporters of new projects are also worried about the future of their regions – as we’ve seen in Narrabri. Concerns include an over-reliance on existing industries and whether there will be enough jobs to keep young people in the area.

While people in the community are generally respectful of those who sit on the other side of the debate, there are still isolated incidents in which people’s concerns have been painted as “emotive” in a derogatory sense. Dismissing emotions in this way is not helpful in advancing the debate or bringing the community together.

It’s still uncertain whether the Narrabri Gas Project will proceed or not, and the strong opposition continues. Whichever side “wins”, there could be long-term effects on the social fabric of the region.

Some may feel a stronger connection to their community as a result of being actively engaged in the debate. Others may feel burnt out and concerned that their community has been so divided.

Such possible consequences are never given the attention they deserve in environmental impact statements or in other technical reports on CSG. Providing safe spaces for people to express the emotions that arise in response to large industrial projects is crucial for finding our way forward in an era of rapid energy change.

– ref. Getting to the heart of coal seam gas protests – it’s not just the technical risks – http://theconversation.com/getting-to-the-heart-of-coal-seam-gas-protests-its-not-just-the-technical-risks-107086

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert McLachlan, Professor in Applied Mathematics, Massey University

The recently released 2018 Living Planet report is among the most comprehensive global analyses of biodiversity yet. It is based on published data on 4,000 out of the 70,000 known species of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians.

Rather than listing species that have gone extinct, the report summarises more subtle information about the vulnerability of global biodiversity. The bottom line is that across the globe, the population sizes of the species considered have declined by an average of 60% in 40 years.

New Zealand is a relatively large and geographically isolated archipelago with a biota that includes many species found nowhere else in the world. One might think that it is buffered from some of the effects of biological erosion, especially since people only arrived less than 800 years ago. But as we show, the impact on wildlife has been catastrophic.

Read more: Tipping point: huge wildlife loss threatens the life support of our small planet

Describing biological diversity

The diversity of life may seem incomprehensible. Carolus Linnaeus began his systematic work to describe earth’s biological diversity in the 18th century with about 12,000 plants and animals. Since then, 1.3 million species of multi-cellular creatures have been described, but the size of the remaining taxonomic gap remains unclear.

Recently, sophisticated models estimated the scale of life, suggesting that multi-cellular life ranges between about five million and nine million species. Microbial life might include millions, billions or even trillions of species.

Species do not exist in isolation. They are part of communities of large and microscopic organisms that themselves drive diversification. Charles Darwin observed in his usual understated way:

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.

Global decline of wild places

The main threat to biodiversity remains overexploitation of resources, leading to loss of habitat. Human overconsumption can only get worse in coming decades, and this will likely escalate the impact of invasive species, increase the rate of disease transmission, worsen water and air pollution and add to climate change.

Read more: Capitalism is killing the world’s wildlife populations, not ‘humanity’

This is the Anthropocene, the era of human domination of many global-scale processes. By the early 1990s, just 33 million of the earth’s 130 million square kilometres of ice-free land remained in wilderness. By 2016, it was down to 30 million. Most of this is either desert, taiga or tundra. In other words, humans and their cities, roads and farms occupy 77% of the available land on earth.

By 2050, wild lands are projected to contract to 13 million square kilometres, leaving ever less space for wild animals and plants. In terms of resources consumed, there is huge inequity. Preliminary estimates of the biomass of all life on earth reveal that humans, their pets and their farm animals outweigh wild land mammals by 50 to one. Poultry outweigh all wild birds 2.5 to one.

New Zealand: at the bottom of the cliff

In New Zealand, a lot of attention is paid to iconic, rare species, such as kiwi and kākāpo. However, in 2017, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment reported that the proportion of forest land occupied by birds found only in New Zealand had declined in the North Island from 16% to 5% between 1974 and 2002. In the South Island, it declined from 23% to 16%.

These figures are consistent with other studies on animal populations. For example, kiwi, which currently number 70,000, may have declined by two thirds in 20 years. Thus there is a risk that continued biodiversity decline overall will see more and more species requiring last-ditch efforts to save them, with healthy populations confined to heavily protected and often fenced sanctuaries.

New Zealand is unusual in that introduced, invasive predators are a major threat and are widely seen as the predominant threat to native animals. However, land use change in New Zealand has been rapid, extensive and catastrophic for biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. The New Zealand situation is at best the global story writ small.

As the last substantial land area to be settled by humans, the land experienced an alarming rate of habitat loss. Indeed, deforestation was considered a necessity and the “homestead system” in Auckland saw tenants turned off the land if they failed to clear sufficient native bush.

Native bush in New Zealand has been reduced by about three quarters from its former 82% extent across the landscape. What remains is heavily modified and not representative of former diversity. For example, in the Manawatū-Whanganui region, ancient lowland kahikatea forest has been reduced to less than 5% of its former extent, and between 1996 and 2012, 89,000 hectares of indigenous forest and scrub was converted to exotic forest and exotic pasture. When a habitat is removed, the organisms that live in it go, too.

The way forward

The Living Planet report charts a detailed, aspirational roadmap to reverse the decline in biodiversity. It takes heart from the 2015 Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals. It looks ahead to a greatly strengthened Convention on Biological Diversity for 2020.

Unfortunately, biodiversity threats are, if anything, even more pervasive and difficult to address than fossil fuel emissions. In climate change, it is broadly agreed that rising seas, acidifying oceans and destabilised weather patterns are bad. There is no such universal understanding of the importance of biodiversity.

To address this, the report details the importance of biodiversity to human health, food production and economic activity – the “ecosystem services” that nature provides to humans. The intrinsic value of nature to itself is hardly mentioned. This is not a new debate. The 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity is founded on “the intrinsic value of biological diversity”, while the Rio Earth Summit of the same year stated that “human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development.”

The issue should not be confined to ecologists, philosophers, and diplomats. It needs to be addressed or we may find that future generations value nature even less than present ones do. In 2002, Randy Olsen popularised the concept of the shifting baseline, which means that people progressively adjust to a new normal and don’t realise what has been lost:

People go diving today in California kelp beds that are devoid of the large black sea bass, broomtailed groupers and sheephead that used to fill them. And they surface with big smiles on their faces because it is still a visually stunning experience to dive in a kelp bed. But all the veterans can think is, “You should have seen it in the old days”.

– ref. NZ is home to species found nowhere else but biodiversity losses match global crisis – http://theconversation.com/nz-is-home-to-species-found-nowhere-else-but-biodiversity-losses-match-global-crisis-106694

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Kent, Research Fellow, University of Sydney

The technology of autonomous vehicles (AVs) is progressing rapidly, but have we really thought through how they’ll work in reality?

In its report on AVs in Australia, Austroads (the association of Australasian road transport and traffic agencies) paints both positive and negative scenarios for the future.

The positive scenario suggests that AVs could reduce car ownership and use thanks to a fleet of shared and connected AVs. These AVs would roam the city, filling in gaps in the timetables and fixed routes of a superior and cheaper public transport network.

But for this scenario to work, AVs must be shared and not privately owned, and they must complement a robust public transport system that accommodates most trips. These mechanisms are either weak or nonexistent in most Australian cities, suggesting it’s unlikely the arrival of AVs will reduce our dependence on private cars.

Read more: Driverless cars are already here but the roads aren’t ready for them

Are Australians willing to share their cars?

In 2013 I spoke to a group of car owners working in suburban Sydney, who used their cars to juggle multiple time commitments to family, sport, late nights at work and secondary employment.

They saw their cars as spaces of climate-controlled comfort, where they could have time alone, away from busy lives. Participants also expressed a strong belief that Australians have a basic right to be comfortable, protected and autonomously mobile.

No matter how well technology matches rides for us, the reality is a shared AV system will introduce a source of wasted time for users – minutes waiting here, a block or two to walk. Not to mention the need to physically share space with strangers.

This compromises the privacy and autonomy currently associated with car use. Australians who are accustomed to the comforts of their own car will likely fight to retain what they believe is their right.

Is public transport good enough?

If AVs are to reduce car ownership and use, we will need to drive less than we currently do. This requires access to useful and reliable alternative transport options. Yet for many of us, access to public transport remains a luxury: we are car dependent because we have little choice.

Often, public transport isn’t available for those who need it, and even if it is available, it doesn’t accommodate the messiness of life.

It isn’t there for the people who need it

In 2016, I analysed data from more than 300 newly arrived residents of Oran Park in the southwest of Sydney. While the newly developed precinct can be navigated by bike and on foot, the car is a necessity when residents need to leave the neighbourhood.

One common reason to travel outside the precinct is for the journey to work. More than 65% of residents do not work within the local government area, let alone within walking distance of the neighbourhood. Even for those who do work in the locality, more than 95% travel to work in a car because the options to travel by alternative modes are limited to an infrequent and indirect bus service.

Residents are condemned to car-dependence, regardless of whether that car is an AV or not.

Read more: Why car sharing had a slow start in Australia – and how that’s changing

It doesn’t accommodate the messiness of life

At present, our public transport systems assume that all we do are predictable trips. Our timetables, routes, rules and even the internal layout of our trains and buses, are all designed for people travelling to and from work.

But in reality our transport practices are messy. We pick up groceries, cart children around, and visit dispersed family and friends. Even though we may be able to catch the train or bus to work, we struggle to use public transport for other important, but messier, trips.

Take, for example, the trips we take with pets. In 2016, I collected data on the transport habits of 1,257 Sydney dogs and their owners.

People travel with their dogs to various locations – dog parks, beaches, cafés and the vet. And because dogs are restricted on public transport in Sydney, these trips are usually by private car.

This restriction epitomises an overall approach to public transport provision that relies on people having access to a private car. In Australian cities, the car facilitates real life, and public transport is for the journey to work – if you’re lucky.

While public transport remains marginalised in policy and practice, private cars will continue to dominate the way we travel.

AVs could increase the amount we drive

The real concern is that, unless regulation is allowed to intervene, the arrival of AVs may actually herald an increase in the amount we drive. Here’s why.

Australia’s transport planners currently have two ways to temper car use: parking regulation and traffic congestion. It seems Australians have a phobia of sitting in traffic and not finding a car park.

But AVs could immobilise these tools.

First, parking. AVs don’t need to be parked nearby to their rider, they can go off and park themselves wherever there’s a free space. Picture the scenario of someone currently driving 10km to work each day and paying $10 to park.

In the world of fully autonomous vehicles, they would inevitably opt to save that $10 per day and have their car drive them to work, drop them off, take itself home, only to return when the driver summons it at the end of the day. That makes a 20km day a 40km day. And imagine that for the millions of households across the city.

Second, congestion. AVs will ensure that time in the car is more pleasurable and useful. Being stuck in a traffic jam might not be such a pain if you could be working, reading, watching a movie, having a coffee with friends, playing with the dog, or starting Friday night drinks early.

Read more: What are these ‘levels’ of autonomous vehicles?

So, when considering the impact of this new era of the car, we need to be cautious. The automotive industry is powerful. It creates a product that is cemented in our cities, economies and our lives. Its survival depends on growth. We need to be prepared for AVs to strengthen, rather than replace, the status quo of car ownership and use.

– ref. Why autonomous vehicles won’t reduce our dependence on cars in cities – http://theconversation.com/why-autonomous-vehicles-wont-reduce-our-dependence-on-cars-in-cities-107608

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Don Carter, Senior Lecturer, Education, University of Technology Sydney

Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan has announced the government will update the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. This document sets out the agreed national purposes and role of schooling in order to deliver high-quality education regardless of cultural, linguistic and economic background.

It also aims to ensure schooling contributes to a socially cohesive society that continues to strengthen Australia as a democracy. The Melbourne Declaration is an important document nationally because it provides the basis of the Australian Curriculum.

As a nation, we face a range of national and international challenges such as mobile populations, so-called “fake news”, youth radicalisation, religious fundamentalism and a decline in public confidence in political and social institutions. A rigorous and quality education will provide students with the skills and knowledge to make sense of these and other challenges.

Read more: What sort of people do we want young Australians to be?

Four key changes could be made to help develop students into the skilled, knowledgeable and rational individuals Australia needs. These are:

• a greater emphasis on the development of soft skills
• a rethink of the ways teachers assess student learning in the classroom
• a strengthening of critical thinking skills
• closer attention to the language we use when talking about education.

What it’s about

The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs issued the Melbourne Declaration in 2008. It was preceded by the Hobart and Adelaide Declarations.

The then education minister, Julia Gillard, led the development of the Melbourne Declaration. Simon Mossman/AAP

As the overarching vision for Australian education, the document articulates two main goals:

1. the promotion of equity and excellence in Australian schools
2. that all young Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens. oohpei. These two goals are intended to ensure all students get high-quality schooling free from discrimination so they develop into knowledgeable, capable and articulate citizens.

Criticisms

A number of education experts have criticised the Melbourne Declaration. One, for example, argues a main driver behind the Melbourne Declaration is the promotion of education as a commodity, competing with other commodities in a global market. As a result, other important aims related to the development of students’ personal attributes as communicative, respectful and thoughtful individuals are not fully targeted in the document.

Similarly, other experts argue the document advocates a new type of education promoted by the OECD, which requires creative thinking, the ability to work flexibly and the ability to adapt to changes in the workplace and wider society. They argue the document is couched in language that promotes the economic aims of education and the economic prosperity of the nation over student well-being, environmental sustainability and democratic participation.

How can it be improved?

The scope for improvement in the Melbourne Declaration lies in the second goal, which focuses on the development of soft skills. The Melbourne Declaration needs to clearly require curriculum and educational policy across Australia to be geared towards developing students who are highly literate and numerate, able to solve problems (especially in the workplace), communicate effectively and develop and maintain positive relationships within and beyond the family unit.

Second, we need to rethink how we assess student learning in the classroom. Rather than being geared towards classmate-versus-classmate competition through tests and examinations, it should acknowledge and reward achievement in an ongoing way. For example, a student may try to write a narrative early in the year and then, following further learning and practice, re-attempt the writing activity. The teacher may identify specific features to track over the two attempts and provide feedback on the quality of those features.

Students should be encouraged to compete with themselves, not their peers. from www.shutterstock.com

This approach to assessment is called ipsative assessment. A student’s performance is not measured against their peers’ performance, but against their last attempt at a similar task. This approach eliminates competition with peers and the potential negative consequences of such competition.

It’s similar to approaches outlined in the Gonski 2.0 report. The Melbourne Declaration includes advice on approaches to assessment, but the inclusion of ipsative assessment would be a good option for schools.

We also need to be mindful of the language we use in education. In recent decades, education has increasingly been seen and talked about as a commodity. The language of the marketplace has infiltrated education with terms such as “agile”, “nimble”, “flexible” and “innovative” appearing in policy documents. These words narrow the goals of education to the development of workplace skills and little else.

An example of this is the New South Wales Stronger HSC Standards Blueprint, which states curriculum reform needs to be “agile and flexible”. This document as a whole is an example of the heavy emphasis on workplace skills and aptitudes at the expense of the development of individual, interpersonal skills.

We need to be mindful of the terms we use – education is more than a product to be consumed.

Read more: Gonski 2.0: teaching creativity and critical thinking through the curriculum is already happening

We live in a era of information saturation and overload. In an important Australian study, the Digital News Report: Australia 2018 found that 65% of Australians grapple with what’s real and what isn’t in the news. Another study found only 34% of young Australian respondents said they can identify fake news stories from real ones. Some 32% said they are unable to do so.

A revised Melbourne Declaration needs to emphasise critical thinking. This is the capacity to spot faulty arguments, generalisations and unfounded assertions.

Highlighting critical thinking will help equip students with the tools to identify how language can be used to persuade, compel and deceive. This capacity is increasingly important in democracies in an era of “fake news”, social media platforms and information saturation.

– ref. The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians: what it is and why it needs updating – http://theconversation.com/the-melbourne-declaration-on-educational-goals-for-young-australians-what-it-is-and-why-it-needs-updating-107895

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Markus, Pratt Foundation Research Chair of Jewish Civilisation, Monash University

Over the past 12 months, immigration policy has been increasingly contested in Australian politics and the media. Former prime minister Tony Abbott has been prominent with his advocacy of a reduction in the permanent intake from 190,000 to 110,000 a year. In October, New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian called for the state’s net immigration levels to be halved.

In November, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, in the context of his endorsement of immigration, envisaged a carefully managed cut to the permanent intake, in consultation with the states. He heard “loud and clear” that “Australians in our biggest cities are concerned about population”.

They are saying: enough, enough, enough. The roads are clogged, the buses and trains are full. The schools are taking no more enrolments.

While there was inconsistency in the proportions obtained, a number of opinion polls in 2018 reported majority opinion, in the range 54%-72%, favouring a cut in immigration. These findings were reported without scrutiny, under headlines such as “Voters back migration cut”.

But three surveys have obtained different results, highlighting the potential impact on estimates of public opinion of question wording, question context and survey methodology.

Read more: Why Canada’s immigration system has been a success, and what Australia can learn from it

In October 2018, the Fairfax-Ipsos poll found that a minority, 45%, favoured reduction while a majority (52%) agreed that the intake should remain at the current level or be increased. In surveys in July-August, the Scanlon Foundation obtained an almost identical result.

One of the Scanlon Foundation surveys was interviewer-administered with a sample of 1,500. A second, with a sample of 2,260, utilised the Life in Australia panel, which provides for almost 90% of the surveys to be self-completed online. The surveys, which used an identical questionnaire, comprised 77 questions, including a broad range of questions on immigration, enabling a balanced understanding of public opinion.

This contrasts with surveys commissioned for the media, which typically include only a small number of questions on immigration.

Results in the interviewer-administered survey found 43% of respondents believed the intake was “too high”, while the Life in Australia panel finding was 44%.

In addition to testing views on the level of immigration, it is important to establish how important people perceive immigration to be. If it is the case that there is widely held public concern that is being ignored then this would be indicated when survey respondents are presented with an invitation to rank issues of concern.

Since 2013, the Scanlon Foundation survey has asked respondents, in an open-ended question, to specify “the most important problem facing Australia today”. In 2018, just 7% of respondents indicate that immigration is the most important issue. While this proportion has increased since 2015, the increase has been of only four percentage points.

The issues that evoke the highest negative response are those related to the perceived impact of immigration on overcrowded cities, as the prime minister indicated. But respondents were also worried about government failure to manage population growth. For example, 54% indicate concern at the “impact of immigration on overcrowding of Australian cities”, 49% at the “impact of immigration on house prices”, and 48% at inadequate “government management of population growth”.

At the same time, a large majority affirmed the value of immigration: 82% agreed with the proposition that “immigrants improve Australian society by bringing new ideas and cultures”, while 80% agreed that “immigrants are generally good for Australia’s economy”.

Furthermore, 85% agreed that “multiculturalism has been good for Australia”, a finding consistent with the Scanlon Foundation surveys since 2013. And 81% disagree with an immigration policy that discriminates on the basis of race or ethnicity, while 78% disagree with discrimination based on religion.

Read more: How do we feel about a ‘big Australia’? That depends on the poll

When looking at the views of young adults with university-level education, the report found a relatively high level of concern about house prices (52%) and the impact of immigration on the environment (44%). But a notable distinguishing feature of these young adults was the very low level of agreement that immigrants increase crime rates (7%), that the immigration intake is too high (7%) and that immigrants are not good for the economy (1%).

There is also evidence that, despite the changing tenor of political discussion of immigration, there has been little change in underlying attitudes. Evidence is available in the Scanlon Foundation surveys and also the ANU Poll, the Lowy Institute Poll and the Essential Report from April 2018.

While concerns about the level of immigration have increased, there is continued endorsement of the view that Australia is an immigrant nation, that immigration benefits the country and that it will continue to play an important role in the years ahead.

– ref. Australians think immigration should be cut? Well, it depends on how you ask – http://theconversation.com/australians-think-immigration-should-be-cut-well-it-depends-on-how-you-ask-108053

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Carson, Research Associate at the University of Western Australia, University of Western Australia

So you’ve got an infection (probably), feel terrible, saw your doctor and now have a freshly filled prescription for antibiotics. Once you start taking them, when will you feel better?

This is difficult to predict. Each infection is different because the combination of bacteria, infection type, your immune response and the point in time that you start taking the antibiotic can all vary and impact, or add to, their effects.

Selecting the right antibiotic (if you need one at all)

Antibiotics are only useful for treating infections caused by bacteria, not viruses or fungi. Hopefully, the doctor has correctly assessed your illness as likely due to infection caused by bacteria, and that the type of bacterial infection you have is one that benefits from treatment with antibiotics. Some don’t. It’s unlikely antibiotics will work for infections such as uncomplicated, acute otitis media, (a middle ear infection) in people older than two, or acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.

Read more: My child has glue ear – what do I do?

Also, not every antibiotic works for every infection. There are broad spectrum antibiotics (such as macrolides and quinolones) that work against a wide range of bacterial types. Narrow spectrum antibiotics are only effective against some bacteria. For instance, the older penicillins (such as benzyl penicillin), are used to treat infections caused by the gram positive bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae, and have much less effect on other bacteria.

Even if an antibiotic was once effective against a specific bacterium, it may no longer be, as the bacteria may have become resistant to that antibiotic. For example, gonorrhoea used to be reliably treated with a single type of antibiotic. Now, because of antimicrobial resistance, the recommendation is for therapy with two types of antibiotic. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or antimicrobial resistance, is a significant and growing problem.

So how does the doctor select the “right” antibiotic for you? In a perfect world, antibiotic treatment choices are carefully constructed from a combination of information about the patient, the nature of the infection, the species of bacteria causing the infection and the confirmed activity of the selected antibiotic against that bacterial species.

Read more: We know _why_ bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, but _how_ does this actually happen?

Not every antibiotic works for every infection. from shutterstock.com

But identifying the bacteria and assessing the antibiotic activity against these bacteria require extensive lab tests. This process currently takes two-to-four days, which isn’t much help if you’re the sick patient sitting in front of your doctor seeking treatment now. Faster tests are under development but so far, none can definitively confirm bacterial infections and pick the right antibiotic to use during the first visit to the doctor.

What happens in practice is you receive educated best-guess therapy. Having assessed your illness as probably a bacterial infection requiring antibiotics, and without the benefit of any lab test results, the doctor prescribes the “best guess” antibiotic therapy for that infection. It is a highly educated guess based on the patient’s signs and symptoms, the doctor’s clinical knowledge, as well as their knowledge of local antimicrobial resistance trends. But it’s a guess nonetheless.

So, when will I start to feel better?

So, in the event you do have a bacterial infection, were prescribed the “right” antibiotics and have started taking them – when will you feel better?

The goal of antibiotic treatment is to get rid of the illness-causing bacteria. Antibiotics either kill bacteria (bacteriocidal) or stop them from multiplying, without necessarily killing them (bacteriostatic). Either way, antibiotics begin to act from the moment you start taking them, stopping or slowing the bacteria from dividing.

Some bacteria may be less affected than others and may take longer to be adversely affected by the antibiotic. Bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa cause infections that are notoriously difficult to treat, and these infections may be slow to respond to antibiotic treatment even if the most appropriate antibiotic is used. Each of the bacteria causing your illness contributes to your feeling unwell. The fewer remaining, the better you are going to start to feel.

But feeling unwell is not just down to the bacteria. Your body responds to infection by mounting an immune response. This may be directed at the infecting bacteria, to any of your own tissue that has been damaged by the infection, or both, all of which leaves you feeling generally unwell. So, while antibiotics attack the underlying cause of the infection, there are other things going on too.

Read more: Explainer: how does the immune system work?

Even once the antibiotics have started work on the bacteria, your body has to tidy up the aftermath of the infection. Your immune system mops up the damage and debris that occurred during the infection. That includes the broken bits of damaged or dead bacteria and similarly, any fragments of your own damaged tissue.

While your immune system is starting to take over responsibility for clearing up, your body also needs to repair the damage done during the infection by the bacteria or your immune system. The overall effect is that you may feel tired and generally unwell for some time even though the antibiotics have begun to work and the infection is resolving.

Feeling worse?

More important, perhaps, than when you’ll start feeling better, is what to do if you begin to feel worse. Depending on the severity of your infection, if you are feeling worse after one to two days of taking antibiotics, or less time if you have worrying new symptoms, you should go back to your doctor. Preferably it should be the one you saw the first time.

The information available to the doctor from your two visits, combined with any lab test results that may have come through, will assist in deciding whether the first diagnosis was correct, if you’re on the right antibiotic or need a different one or any antibiotic at all.

– ref. Health Check: I’m taking antibiotics – when will they start working? – http://theconversation.com/health-check-im-taking-antibiotics-when-will-they-start-working-107528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hanabeth Luke, Lecturer, School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University

Last week, the Western Australian Government lifted its state-wide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Unconventional gas industries were given the green light to develop on existing petroleum leases, especially in WA’s vast Kimberley region.

Following the Northern Territory government’s April decision to lift its temporary fracking ban, this decision paves the way for future growth of the industry across much of northern Australia.

Read more: Australian gas: between a fracked rock and a socially hard place

Fracking policies vary widely across Australia’s states and territories, and so do community attitudes. Our review of the literature on unconventional gas development in Australia reveals an inconsistent approach in how governments have responded to the industry. While coal seam gas extraction has proceeded almost unimpeded in Queensland, the industry was halted in its tracks in Victoria, with a permanent ban on fracking legislated in March this year.

In the NT, despite an inquiry that acknowledged clear and widespread public opposition to fracking, the territory’s moratorium was lifted. In Tasmania, a moratorium is in place until 2025.

Unconventional gas development in New South Wales – despite pressing energy needs – has been protracted owing to growing community opposition towards fracking, with exclusion zones created near residential areas and industries such as wine-making and horse breeding.

The WA government’s decision to leave in place localised bans in the state’s most populated areas, while allowing fracking in existing petroleum tenements elsewhere, echoes the position taken by the South Australian government in September. The latter’s policy imposes a ten-year fracking ban in SA’s agriculturally rich southeast, while allowing the practice to continue in the northeast.

Balancing policy?

Labelled as a “clean” alternative to coal by industry, unconventional gas is presented as a key “transition” fuel, capable of delivering reliable, lower-emission electricity – a stepping stone along the path to zero-carbon energy. Our research suggests that this clean image is pivotal to public support for the industry.

The unconventional gas industry has been hailed as an economic lifeline for regional Australia. Justification for its growth into new regions is tied closely to the purported domestic “gas crisis”. Others predict that fracking for unconventional gas could have negative economic consequences.

Many affected communities continue to question the capacity of the industry to operate with low risk to health and the environment. In the Kimberley and across Australia, opposition to fracking simmers.

WA and SA exemplify efforts to strike a balance between the unconventional gas industry and concerned community members. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the effectiveness of attempts to secure fracking bans could relate to the political and economic muscle of affected communities. Our ongoing research seeks to analyse this development pattern.

Read more: Fracking can cause social stress in nearby areas: new research

What are the real emissions?

The industry has argued that “fugitive emissions” of methane from Australian unconventional gas wells are relatively low. However, more recent studies warn that we may be underestimating the true climate risks of unconventional gas.

Indeed, Australia’s spike in greenhouse gas emissions is attributed to the expansion of unconventional gas production and exports. They underpinned a 13.7% increase in national fugitive greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to Australia recording its 15th consecutive quarter of greenhouse gas emission increases this year. These figures call into question Australia’s trajectory to meeting its obligations under the Paris Agreement.

The impacts of rising greenhouse emissions are becoming increasingly visible and costly, in the form of more frequent violent storms, intense rainfall, drought and bushfires. Last week, the Victorian Labor Government was re-elected on the back of strong climate policy. With 15,000 children walking out of school on Friday, the youth “climate strike” rallies attest to the strength of community feelings on climate action and the role of fracking in this context.

Future of fracking?

For state and territory leaders, the job of balancing gas industry interests with those of increasingly vocal communities is becoming more of a juggling act than ever before. With climate concerns intensifying, renewable energy supported by battery power appears a promising option for meeting regional development and energy needs. This has potential to gain widespread public support and create “green-collar” jobs while helping to reduce Australia’s emissions.

In contrast, a reliance on unconventional gas as an interim energy solution may “frack” more than just deep rock formations – but potentially communities, ecosystems, politics … and not least the climate.

– ref. Fracking policies are wildly inconsistent across Australia, from gung-ho development to total bans – http://theconversation.com/fracking-policies-are-wildly-inconsistent-across-australia-from-gung-ho-development-to-total-bans-108039

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Harris, Senior Research Fellow, Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney

WestConnex, the most expensive piece of transport infrastructure being built in Australia, looms large over the next New South Wales election. Construction is well under way, fuelling community concern about the project’s impact on their health and wellbeing.

The NSW Coalition government was elected in 2011 on a promise to deliver major infrastructure including a road for Sydney. Attention should have been paid to the adage that history repeats itself. The M5 East project became a major headache for the previous Labor administration because of concerns about the impact of tunnel emissions on human health.

Subsequent research showed some health concerns to be scientifically unclear. Nevertheless, WestConnex is showing that concerns about a range of human health issues, including but not limited to tunnels, remain at the forefront of public concern.

Read more: With health assuming its rightful place in planning, here are 3 key lessons from NSW

What do submissions to WestConnex inquiry tell us?

We wanted to test our assumption that health is a core issue for the public in relation to infrastructure projects. We asked two masters of public health students to investigate the content of the nearly 500 public submissions made to the current parliamentary inquiry into the impacts of WestConnex. Both randomly picked 150 submissions made by individuals, plus 70 from organisations or those with a professional interest in the project. They analysed these submissions for mentions of health and related themes.

The impact of Westconnex on health was one of the most consistent themes in submissions. Around three-quarters referred to “health”. About half of these did so explicitly and the other half identified a health concern but without using the word.

The majority focused on air quality. Many were concerned about children’s health – relating to both the proximity of schools to WestConnex works and the loss of green space and its impacts on physical activity. Submissions also raised issues of noise, traffic accidents, stress, reduced physical activity, sleep disturbance and odour, often in quite disturbing detail.

Crucially, many submissions showed evidence of independent health research – for example, on the difference between filtered and unfiltered stacks. They called for health outcomes to be measured and publicly accessible.

Submissions also showed evidence of disenfranchisement from the planning process. Specific concerns included:

• lack of comparison with costs and benefits of alternative transport infrastructure
• failure to consider the full range of health impacts
• overestimation of benefits relating to demand and travel time savings.

Read more: Why transport projects aren’t as good for your health as they could be

Health was missing from the start

Ultimately, these concerns about health result from misgivings and frustration about the transparency of decisions behind the project. Digging deeper, the 2015 updated business case demonstrates that the analysis over-relied on benefits and underestimated costs to find that WestConnex would be:

… economically viable and will return $1.71 for every dollar invested … without wider economic benefits and $1.88 with wider economic benefits.

This is an example of a misuse of cost benefit analysis that, international research has shown, ultimately culminates in massive cost blowouts, overruns and impacts that are not in the public interest.

Read more: WestConnex audit offers another $17b lesson in how not to fund infrastructure

The focus on travel time savings omits health and related impacts raised in submissions. It ignores the required mix of transport options that are known to have a positive impact on community wellbeing.

This is made more problematic by the early planning never having been in the public domain. By the time the updated business case was produced in 2015, key decisions, which led to the motorway being proposed without any alternatives, had been made but are still not available for scrutiny. The details behind the original analysis that Infrastructure NSW undertook in 2012 are missing.

The original INSW state infrastructure strategy and woefully parsimonious 35-page report argue that “WestConnex must be more than a road”, but this objective appears to have gone missing in action soon after.

Read more: Transport access is good for new housing, but beware the pollution

Lessons from the WestConnex experience

It’s fair to say that the 2011 infrastructure commitments have come back to haunt the government. The unprecedented scale of investment has been coupled with unnecessary hubris. Planning processes appear for the most part to be serving vested interests rather than the public interest.

The opposition, smelling blood, is promising to make infrastructure planning decisions transparent if elected next year.

The WestConnex experience shows the political cost of marginalising health in such decision-making. Perhaps the biggest lesson is that the public may never be satisfied with technical predictions of risks late in the planning process.

Transport planning has the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of the population. With this in mind, it’s better, then, to include health across decisions about what type of project best fits the strategic goals of the city. This process should weigh up options and alternatives based on a balanced assessment of costs and benefits that places a value on human health.

Above all, we need transparency about these decisions. If not, governments will continue to suffer the consequences at the ballot box.

Thanks to Tom Robertson and Abigail McCarthy for their outstanding analysis of the inquiry submissions in their final major unit of the Masters of Public Health at the University of Sydney School of Public Health.

– ref. Health impacts and murky decision-making feed public distrust of projects like WestConnex – http://theconversation.com/health-impacts-and-murky-decision-making-feed-public-distrust-of-projects-like-westconnex-106996

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michal Carrington, Lecturer in Marketing, University of Melbourne

We consume the products of slavery every day. All of us. Today’s globalised supply chains make it is almost impossible to avoid goods or services free of the fingerprints of slavery. Electronic gadgets, clothing, fish, cocoa and cane sugar are the products mostly likely to be tainted.

Read more: At last, Australia has a Modern Slavery Act. Here’s what you’ll need to know

In contrast to state-sanctioned slave ownership in the the past, modern slavery does not involve a person being a legal possession.

Instead it involves any situation of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave, because of threats, violence, coercion, deception or abuse of power. The Global Slavery Index estimates this applies to 15.4 million people (mostly women) in forced marriages, and a further 24.9 million people in forced labour.

Yet just because modern slaves are not kept in literal chains, does this justify being oblivious to it?

What of the responsibility of consumers to care about how a product was made, rather than choosing the cheapest product, no questions asked?

Our research, based on in-depth interviews with 40 consumers, shows the strategies people use to shrug off feeling guilty about their purchasing decisions.

Age restrictions

One of our interviewees explained how she empathised with children who were exploited, but not necessarily adults. A “grown man”, she told us, had “other options”. Even if an adult was working for less than the minimum wage, she said, “they are earning a bit of money, they’re happy with that […] so I don’t classify it as modern slavery”.

This was a common approach in “slave/not-slave” categorising. We use “rules of thumb” – including assessments of the person’s ability to exercise choice and to speak up for themselves – to decide if they are legitimate causes for our concern or obligation.

Blame their culture

Another tactic to diminish feelings concern is to perceive others as having moral sensibilities different to our own. It is a form of cultural relativism: what would not be okay here (for me), is okay over there (for them).

One participant expressed it like this: “if a sweatshop factory is working within the rules and regulations of its host country,” he said, “then by virtue of the ethics of that country it is not morally wrong.”

Somehow they deserve it

One interviewee blamed modern slaves for not working hard enough to avoid being exploited.

“They have the opportunity to go to school and to get a proper job,” she said. “If they don’t take it, it’s their choice. If they don’t do anything about it, it is because they just don’t want to.”

Seeing modern slavery as something victims bring on themselves lends itself to reducing the issue to a brutal calculus: “it’s a cost-benefit analysis,” another participant said. “There are these problems, but I get so much benefit from it.”

We’re all slaves, really

We can also trivialise the experience of slavery by suggesting, for example, that we ourselves are “enslaved” (for example to our job, or to technology), or that the working conditions of some slaves aren’t that bad.

What is to be done

Our research is a step towards raising awareness of modern slavery to the point where we can no longer take a deny-all-knowledge approach. We need to expose the justifications going on in our heads for what they are – neutralisations to shut down moral feeling.

Read more: What businesses can do to stamp out slavery in their supply chains

There are many stakeholders with a role in eradicating the modern slavery – governments, businesses and transnational organisations. But consumers hold a powerful position in the equation.

– ref. We all buy slave-made products: here’s how we avoid feeling guilty – http://theconversation.com/we-all-buy-slave-made-products-heres-how-we-avoid-feeling-guilty-107197

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sasha Grishin, Adjunct Professor of Art History, Australian National University

Review: Escher x nendo, National Gallery of Victoria.

M. C. Escher (1898-1972) is an artist whose name is synonymous with mathematically challenging, optically intriguing and intellectually perplexing prints. This Dutch artist created a world of impossible objects, endless staircases and radical visual transformations that challenge our grasp of reality and our understanding of the shape of time. His woodcuts, lithographs and engravings, at least in reproduction, have become iconic, where the image is known better than the artist’s name.

In his lifetime, Escher had to wait until he was in his fifties to receive widespread popularity and only at the age of 70 did he achieve his first retrospective exhibition. Escher, with his intricate tessellations, complex geometric structures and mathematical riddles, steered a course in his art that seemed a long way from the popular trends and styles in 20th century modernism and attracted the support of fellow intellectual travellers rather than mainstream art critics and art historians.

M. C. Escher, Day and night February 1938, woodcut, printed in grey and black inks Escher Collection, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, The Hague, the Netherlands. © The M. C. Escher Company, the Netherlands. All rights reserved

In recent years, there has been an explosion of interest in the work of Escher with a hugely successful exhibition of his art held in Rio de Janeiro in 2011. A major exhibition at the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art in Edinburgh in 2015 toured to London and throughout Italy, attracting huge crowds in each venue. The time for Escher has arrived.

The last major Escher show I saw was the substantial centennial tribute exhibition that I caught in San Diego, two decades ago. Curated by Ruth Fine from the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC, it thematically presented the development of the artist’s vision in a fairly didactic manner.

In the previous history of exhibiting Escher, there is nothing to prepare us for the shock to the senses in the National Gallery of Victoria show. Borrowing about 160 Escher prints and drawings from the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague, the NGV engaged the nendo design studio in Tokyo and its Chief Designer and Founder, Oki Sato, not to design an exhibition around Escher, but to enter into a collaborative dialogue with the artist.

M. C. Escher, Ascending and descending March 1960 lithograph, Escher Collection, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, The Hague, the Netherlands. © The M. C. Escher Company, the Netherlands. All rights reserved

A hallmark of a great exhibition, one that revisits a repertoire of world-famous art, is that it allows us to find a new perspective on what we thought we already knew. In this exhibition, we see Escher afresh – not through the eyes of 20th century empiricism, but through those of 21st century digitally liberated design. One of the main challenges that Escher set himself was to replicate three-dimensional form on a two-dimensional surface. His intention was not to completely embrace illusionism and treat the piece of paper like a frame for a window into the world, but to continuously explore the tension between these dimensions. nendo works in reverse. The studio operates in three-dimensional real and digital worlds but wishes to replicate two-dimensional effects.

Throughout the exhibition, there are numerous visual ambushes that subvert our grasp on reality as we are invited to enter an exciting labyrinth of visual ambiguities. Oki Sato’s “icon image” for Escher is a little schematic house design through which the fantastic world of Escher is engaged. This design is replicated in many completely unexpected ways, such as a giant “chandelier” made up of tens of thousands of these tiny houses that becomes a kinetic fabric of vision and a metaphor for the distorting mirror created by Escher.

A giant ‘chandelier’ made up of tens of thousands of tiny houses, designed by nendo. Sean Fennessy

In another exhibition space, the viewer encounters a house-shaped tunnel, or an illusionistic space made up of these house designs of ever-diminishing sizes, allowing you to be initially physically, and then visually, drawn into an impossible space. This acts as a metaphor for the optical illusions so close to the heart of Escher.

The most impressive of the nendo interventions and one of the most impressive installation designs attempted in any Australian gallery, is a huge space accessible from an elevated platform where scores of these simplified houses have been constructed leading from positive to negative spaces. It is within this installed, completely immersive environment, consisting of improbable constructions, that we encounter some of the classic pieces of Escher.

M. C. Escher, Eye October 1946, mezzotint, 7th state, Escher Collection, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, The Hague, the Netherlands. © The M. C. Escher Company, the Netherlands. All rights reserved

These immersive environments seduce and intrigue the viewer, constantly leading them into the fantastic imagination of Escher. This is less an exhibition of the prints of Escher than a physical encounter with the world of Escher and the experience of his improbable inventions.

The exhibition does include most of the classic works by Escher, such as the “Drawing hands” lithograph (1948), where each hand appears to be drawing the other; the perfectly observed “Eye” mezzotint (1946) and his most famous images – the “Day and Night” woodcut (1938) and the “Ascending and Descending” lithograph (1960). A rare treat is his bewilderingly complex late woodcut “Snakes” (1969) – an exploration of interlinking shapes of infinity – now shown within the “snake house”, a serpentine, waist-high installed room replicating and reinterpreting Escher’s snake design.

M. C. Escher, Drawing hands January 1948, lithograph, Escher Collection, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, The Hague, the Netherlands. © The M. C. Escher Company, the Netherlands. All rights reserved

This exhibition is not so much a presentation of the work of Escher, but an interpretation of his art from a very contemporary perspective. It will surprise, delight and challenge the viewer and suggests that, perhaps, this cerebral sombre Dutchman had a dry sense of humour that he hoped would be discovered in posterity.

Escher x nendo: Between two worlds is showing at National Gallery of Victoria International until April 7 2019.

– ref. Escher x nendo will surprise, delight and challenge – http://theconversation.com/escher-x-nendo-will-surprise-delight-and-challenge-108036

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Blair, Emeritus Professor, ARC Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery, OzGrav, University of Western Australia

Four new detections of gravitational waves have been announced at the Gravitational Waves Physics and Astronomy Workshop, at the University of Maryland in the United States.

This brings the total number of detections to 11, since the first back in 2015.

Ten are from binary black hole mergers and one from the merger of two neutron stars, which are the dense remains of stellar explosions. One black hole merger was extraordinarily distant, and the most powerful explosion ever observed in astronomy.

Read more: The search for the source of a mysterious fast radio burst comes relatively close to home

The latest news comes just a month after doubts were raised about the initial detection. In late October an article in New Scientist, headlined Exclusive: Grave doubts over LIGO’s discovery of gravitational waves, raised the idea that it “might have been an illusion”.

So how confident are we that we are detecting gravitational waves, and not seeing an illusion?

Artist’s conception shows two merging black holes. LIGO/Caltech/MIT/Sonoma State (Aurore Simonnet)

Open to scrutiny

All good scientists understand that scrutiny and scepticism is the power of science. All theories and all knowledge are provisional, as science slowly homes in on our best understanding of the truth. There is no certainty, only probability and statistical significance.

Years ago the team searching for gravitational waves with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), determined the levels of statistical significance needed to make a claim of detection.

For each signal we determine the false alarm rate. This tells you how many years you would need to wait before you have an even chance of a random signal mimicking your real signal.

The weakest signal detected so far has a false alarm rate of one every five years, so still there is a chance that it could have been accidental.

Other signals are much stronger. For the three strongest signals detected so far you would have to wait from 1,000 times to 10 billion billion times the age of the universe for the signals to occur by chance.

Knowing what to listen out for

The detection of gravitational waves is a bit like acoustic ornithology.

Imagine you study birds and want to determine the population of birds in a forest. You know the calls of the various bird species.

When a bird call matches your predetermined call, you jump with excitement. Its loudness tells you how far away it is. If it was very faint against the background noise, you may be uncertain.

But you need to consider the lyre birds that mimic other species. How do you know that sound of a kookaburra isn’t actually made by a lyre bird? You have to be very rigorous before you can claim there is a kookaburra in the forest. Even then you will only be able to be confident if you make further detections.

In gravitational waves we use memorised sounds called templates. There is one unique sound for the merger of each possible combination of black hole masses and spins. Each template is worked out using Einstein’s theory of gravitational wave emission.

In the hunt for gravitational waves, we are searching for these rare sounds using two LIGO detectors in the US and a third detector, Virgo, in Italy.

To avoid missing signals or claiming false positives, the utmost rigour is needed to analyse the data. Huge teams look over the data, search for flaws, criticise each other, review computer codes and finally review proposed publications for accuracy. Separate teams use different methods of analysis, and finally compare results.

Next comes reproducibility – the same result recorded again and again. Reproducibility is a critical component of science.

The signals detected

Before LIGO made its first public announcement of gravitational waves, two more signals had been detected, each of them picked up in two detectors. This increased our confidence and told us that there is a population of colliding black holes out there, not just a single event that could be something spurious.

The first detected gravitational wave was astonishingly loud and it matched a pre-determined template. It was so good that LIGO spent many weeks trying to work out if it was possible for it to have been a prank, deliberately injected by a hacker.

While LIGO scientists eventually convinced themselves that the event was real, further discoveries greatly increased our confidence. In August 2017 a signal was detected by the two LIGO detectors and the Virgo detector in Italy.

On August 17 last year a completely different, but long predicted type of signal was observed from a coalescing pair of neutron stars, accompanied by the predicted burst of gamma rays and light.

The black hole mergers

Now the LIGO-Virgo collaboration has completed the analysis of all the data since September 2015.

The ten black hole mergers.

For each signal we determine the mass of the two colliding black holes, the mass of the new black hole that they create, and rather roughly, the distance and the direction.

Each signal has been seen in two or three detectors almost simultaneously (they were separated by milliseconds).

Eight of the 20 initial black holes have masses between 30 and 40 Suns, six are in the 20s, three are in the teens and only two are as low as 7 to 8 Suns. Only one is near 50, the biggest pre-collision black hole yet seen.

These are the numbers that will help us work out where all these black holes were made, how they were made, and how many are out there. To answer these big questions we need many more signals.

Graphic showing the masses of recently announced gravitational-wave detections and black holes and neutron stars. LIGO-Virgo / Frank Elavsky / Northwestern

The weakest of the new signals, GW170729, was detected on July 29, 2017. It was the collision of a black hole 50 times the mass of the Sun, with another 34 times the mass of the Sun.

Read more: Explainer: why you can hear gravitational waves when things collide in the universe

This was by far the most distant event, having taken place, most likely, 5 billion years ago – before the birth of Earth and the Solar system 4.6 billion years ago. Despite the weak signal, it was the most powerful gravitational explosion discovered, so far.

But because the signal was weak, this is the detection with the false alarm rate of one every five years.

LIGO and Virgo are improving their sensitivity year by year, and will be finding many more events.

With planned new detectors we anticipate ten times more sensitivity. Then we expect to be detecting new signals about every five minutes.

– ref. New detections of gravitational waves brings the number to 11 – so far – http://theconversation.com/new-detections-of-gravitational-waves-brings-the-number-to-11-so-far-107962

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

Rebel right wing Liberal Craig Kelly is a paradox – a man who chronically lacks the numbers but possesses the power to force prime ministers to protect him.

On Monday, fresh from a G20 where he was less than feted, Scott Morrison heavied a few moderates on the NSW Liberal executive, and a wobbly cross-factional deal to preserve Kelly held.

In the process former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s nose was bloodied. Turnbull had tried to persuade the moderates to veto the endorsement, which would have pushed Kelly to a preselection ballot he’d have lost.

Turnbull’s foray was counter-productive, for the party and himself. Moderate backbencher Trent Zimmerman told the ABC that “Malcolm’s intervention made it hard for the executive to do anything other than what they did”.

Though once Morrison’s authority was on the line, it could do little but what he wanted.

It was very different from 2016 when Turnbull urged support for Kelly, writing that he had “a fine reputation for standing up for his local constituents and was unafraid of taking on controversial issues”.

Back then, pressure from Turnbull led Kelly’s opponent Kent Johns to agree not to stand for the preselection.

Johns kept up his branch numbers and prepared for another tilt. But lightning struck twice.

In a tweet on Monday that seemed remarkable for its restraint Johns, who is a NSW Liberal vice-president, said, “While disappointed, I respect and accept the Party’s decision, and will continue to serve the Party and proudly campaign for the re-election of the Coalition Govt”.

Before the last election supporters of Kelly were quoted as warning “a challenge against him would send the message the party is becoming a version of the Labor Party.” Kelly’s backers never let up on referring to Johns’ Labor background.

This year, the times suited Kelly. The right is strong within the party. And with the Morrison government now dealing with a hung parliament, the risk that a disendorsed Kelly could defect to the crossbench, and run as an independent, loomed large.

Morrison asserted on Thursday that the possibility of Kelly going to the crossbench had “never been the subject of our conversations.”

It didn’t have to be – the threat has hung in the air for months – although Kelly has been all over the place in his comments.

For example in May the ABC reported Kelly was “understood to have told local members that he will resign from the Coalition and sit as an independent, if the ‘higher powers that be’ do not secure his nomination’. But he’s now told Sky News he will remain a Liberal no matter what happens.”

Kelly is a favourite of the right wing commentariat.

In 2016 Alan Jones said: “Let me say to Kent Johns and anyone else who’s thinking of standing for the preselection out there and to put a torpedo under this bloke. You’d better pull your head in, Kent Johns. Because I’ll tell you what: if you put your head up, there’ll be a hell of a story that’ll be told about you, Mr Johns.”

On Sunday night Sky’s Paul Murray went through Turnbull’s tweets on the Kelly preselection, branding them “lies”.

Kelly has had a special place on Sky, with so many appearances his colleagues joke he must have a sleeping bag there.

As chair of the Coalition’s backbench energy and environment committee, a spruiker for coal, and close to Tony Abbott, Kelly ran a constant and unhelpful commentary on the Turnbull government’s attempt to get an energy policy together.

He helped kill the NEG (and thus Turnbull’s prime ministership) – he was one of those threatening to cross the floor if the associated legislation on emissions went ahead.

Turnbull is correct when he says that overriding a local preselection contradicts the recent push by the right of the party for a more democratic structure.

This point isn’t negated by the fact that the preselection panel Kelly would have faced was a transition one – changes that have been made to the system are not fully operating yet. It would have been a more democratic preselection than the executive deciding to have no ballot at all.

It is reasonable for some Liberal women, and others, to compare the treatment of Kelly with that of Jane Prentice, a moderate from the Queensland LNP.

When she lost a preselection in May, there was no special fix, despite the fact she was an assistant minister. Prentice did not threaten to go to the crossbench. She’s now quietly on the backbench serving out her term.

There are multiple messages in the Kelly affair. They are about the power of the right; the willingness to abandon process (the closeness to an election is no excuse – the Kelly preselection should have been held months ago), and the desperation of the Prime Minister.

Postscript: In the Senate on Monday Labor’s Glenn Sterle asked members of the public observing proceedings, “How many people in the gallery respect your politicians? Put your hand up if you do.” No hands went up.

– ref. View from The Hill: Craig Kelly triumphs in the ‘outwit, outplay, outlast’ game of Survivor – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-craig-kelly-triumphs-in-the-outwit-outplay-outlast-game-of-survivor-108097

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Hepburn, Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University

Indian mining multinational Adani has announced that it will self-fund a significantly smaller coal mine in the Galilee Basin, after failing to secure finance from more than 30 domestic and international banks and lenders.

Federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan has described Adani as a “little Aussie battler” and praised the newly scaled-down project’s purported regional economic benefits.

The scaling down of the project has been extensive. Adani Mining chief executive Lucas Dow said the mine will cost A$2 billion and initially produce up to 15 million tonnes of thermal coal per year, with plans to ramp production up to 27.5 million tonnes per year.

That is far more modest than the A$16.5 billion investment in digging up 60 million tonnes of coal a year which the company first announced in 2010. The original plan was to transport the coal along a new 388km rail line to a specially built terminal at Adani’s Abbot Point coal port, for export to India. Under the scaled-down version of the project, Adani will need to secure access to existing rail infrastructure.

Read more: Infographic: here’s exactly what Adani’s Carmichael mine means for Queensland

But there is still no guarantee that the mine will necessarily go ahead. Opening a new coal mine – even one with a relatively modest A$2 billion price tag – is socially and environmentally irresponsible, given the urgency with which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we need to reduce global greenhouse emissions, the fact that Australia is not currently on track to meet its own emissions targets, and of course the fact that 2018 is on course to become the fourth-hottest year on record.

The economics barely stack up either. A recent IEEFA report indicated that coal is facing a terminal decline as Asian markets make the transition to cheaper and more efficient renewable alternatives. Existing thermal coal power in India costs US$60-80 per megawatt-hour, roughly double the cost of new renewable generation. The Mundra coal plant, where much of the Adani coal was destined, is already operating under capacity and has been closed for significant periods.

Adani has decided not to proceed with its initially planned 388km rail link, and will instead aim to use the existing Aurizon rail infrastructure. However, there is a 200km gap in this link which will cost a significant amount to bridge – albeit almost certainly much less than the A$2.3 billion cost of the originally planned railway. Aurizon Network is legally obliged to consider Adani’s access application, but has not yet assessed and approved it.

Environmental and Indigenous issues

Then there are the existing and significant concerns regarding Adani’s environmental management of issues such as water contamination in the Caley Valley Wetlands near the Abbot Point terminal. These will not disappear just because the project has been revised.

Read more: Latest twist in the Adani saga reveals shortcomings in environmental approvals

Gaining the consent of Traditional Owners will also be crucial, yet the 12-member native title representation group is split down the middle. Adani’s existing Indigenous Land Use Agreement has been appealed in the High Court by the Wangan and Jagalingou people, on the basis that the group has not genuinely consented to the agreement, and that overriding native title to make way for a coalmine is socially and culturally regressive. If the court does not uphold the agreement, this would create profound difficulties for the project as they may not be able to proceed with the development of the coal mine to the extent that it interferes with Indigenous landholdings.

So, while the decision of Adani to self-fund a scaled-down coalmine in Queensland might indicate determination, it also suggests a resistance to, and misunderstanding of, a rapidly changing energy sector and the broader social and environmental responsibilities that this change necessitates.

– ref. Adani’s new mini version of its mega mine still faces some big hurdles – http://theconversation.com/adanis-new-mini-version-of-its-mega-mine-still-faces-some-big-hurdles-108038

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bright, Senior Lecturer of Addiction, Edith Cowan University

Media reports last week linked the use of “nangs” to the death of a teenager at schoolies week on the Gold Coast. Hamish Bidgood died when he fell from a balcony. He and his friends had reportedly been using “nangs” that day.

Nangs is a slang term for nitrous oxide, an anaesthetic that has been used for more than 100 years. Most people probably know it as laughing gas.

In a medical setting, it is usually inhaled, mixed with oxygen, through a small mask that fits over your nose. It is generally used to help you relax during procedures that don’t require a general anaesthetic, such as childbirth and minor dental surgery.

It has been used to help people withdraw from alcohol – with mixed results.

Read more: Weekly Dose: from laughing parties to whipped cream, nitrous oxide’s on the rise as a recreational drug

Nitrous oxide is also used as a propellant to make whipped cream, sold at supermarkets for around A$10 for a box of ten canisters, and in the automotive industry to improve engine performance.

It has been used recreationally since the late 1700s, when British aristocrats held “laughing gas parties”. With the expansion of its use in medical settings in the late 1880s, and hence its availability, it became more popular as a recreational drug.

What are the effects?

Nitrous oxide provides a short-lived (20 second) high, in which people who use it feel euphoria and relaxation. They can also feel dizziness, have difficulty thinking straight, and fall into fits of laughter.

In higher does, some people report a sense of floating and dissociation of the mind from the body, which is why in medical circles it is referred to as a dissociative anaesthetic.

How dangerous is it?

If a person has small infrequent doses, there is a low risk of significant problems with this drug.

It is very rare to overdose from recreational use of nitrous oxide, but it can affect coordination and judgement. Overdose deaths have been reported in the United Kingdom and United States but we are not aware of any in Australia.

Nitrous oxide is the seventh most popular drug worldwide, excluding caffeine, alcohol and tobacco. Lenscap Photography

Given the effects on coordination and dizziness, it shouldn’t be used in risky situations and it’s advisable to have a person present who isn’t using.

In very large doses, without the addition of oxygen, it can cause loss of blood pressure, fainting and even death by hypoxia (oxygen deficiency).

Chronic, regular heavy use is very rare, but can lead to a vitamin B12 deficiency. B12 is essential for good brain functioning and if left untreated can lead to irreversible neurological problems.

How widespread is its use?

Given its easy availability as whipped cream bulbs, the drug seems to be growing in popularity among young people.

Read more: Three charts on: Australia’s changing drug and alcohol habits

Recent media stories have reported a “nang epidemic”. One newspaper claimed schoolies have been spending thousands of dollars on nitrous oxide. But the story seems to be based on a single Facebook post in which one alleged school leaver said they had spent “A$49,000 on nangs”, which equates to about 49,000 bulbs. It’s likely he was embellishing for his Facebook audience.

We don’t know for sure how many young people use this drug, or how often. Our best data source for population drug trends in Australia, the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, doesn’t specifically ask about nitrous oxide use.

Respondents to the Global Drug Survey put nangs as the seventh most popular drug worldwide, excluding caffeine, alcohol and tobacco.

Should we ban this drug?

Concern about the behaviour of youth is not new, and moral panic about drugs, in particular, is often part of this perennial worry about young people.

It is well documented that the media can influence perceptions and interest in drug use, and poor media reporting can work as an advertisement for drugs, piquing curiosity and normalising use.

The concern is that media-driven panic about drugs can create a perception that more people are using the drug than they actually are, and when teens think “everyone” is doing it, they are more likely to want to do it too.

Read more: Weekly Dose: from laughing parties to whipped cream, nitrous oxide’s on the rise as a recreational drug

Research has shown that interest in a drug peaks after widespread media coverage and that restricting the availability can lead to increased use.

Prohibiting drugs does not prevent people using them, and more harmful unregulated products can emerge. Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s, for example, merely led to demand for illicit supply that had high alcohol content and contained impurities that caused blindness, paralysis and death.

So banning nangs could cause more harm than it prevents. And it could lead to some very disgruntled whipped cream fans as well.

– ref. Explainer: what is nitrous oxide (or nangs) and how dangerous is it? – http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-nitrous-oxide-or-nangs-and-how-dangerous-is-it-108019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Walker, Adjunct Professor, School of Communications, La Trobe University

The United States and China have arrived at a temporary truce in a trade conflict that was threatening to further destabilise world equity markets, entrench a global slowdown and cause more damage to a rules-based international order.

Agreement by US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to allow further negotiations before threatened tariff increases on Chinese imports come into effect is a welcome development.

However, this is a temporary respite, a short-term fix, not a long-term solution to myriad trade and other tensions that have put the US and China at odds with each other.

For their own purposes and in their own interests, Trump and Xi could come away from the Argentine capital with a deal that papers over differences that extend from China’s activities in the South China Sea to its mercantilist trade policies.

Read more: Much at stake as Donald Trump and Xi Jinping meet at G20

As far as we know, China’s ruthless assertion of its sovereignty over disputed waters in the South China Sea was not a material subject for discussion in Buenos Aires except, possibly, in passing.

China’s rise and America’s relative decline ensure these global economic superpowers will continue to bump up against each other.

So, what was achieved and what are the prospects for an accord reached on the sidelines of the G20?

In their efforts to lower trade tensions and prevent a further erosion of global confidence, Trump and Xi agreed to a 90-day extension on the imposition of additional US tariffs on some US$200 billion of Chinese imports.

Trump had threatened to increase tariffs from 10% to 25% on an initial batch of Chinese imports from January 1. He had also flagged his intention to impose levies on another US$267 billion worth of imports if progress was not made in resolving broad-based trade differences.

A joint statement laid out a timeline for continuing negotiations. It reads:

Both parties agree that they will endeavour to have this transaction completed within the next 90 days. If, at the end of this period of time, the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the 10 percent tariffs will be raised to 25 percent.

In return for these temporary concessions, China agreed to:

… purchase a not yet agreed upon, but very substantial, amount of agricultural, energy, industrial, and other product from the United States to reduce the trade imbalance between the two countries. China has agreed to start purchasing agricultural product immediately.

China also agreed to crack down on sales of Fentanyl by making it a controlled substance. The US is battling an opioid crisis in which Fentanyl is a lethal component.

In retaliation for US trade actions, China had imposed duties on US$110 billion of imports. A principal component of this is soybeans, effectively killing one of America’s more lucrative export markets.

Trump has been under huge pressure from his Mid-Western rural heartland over a collapse in the Chinese market for American agricultural products.

The two sides also agreed to address structural problems in the trading relationship. These extend to five areas – forced technology transfer, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers, cyber intrusions and cyber theft.

These are highly complex issues and unlikely to be resolved in the short term, if at all.

In the wash-up of the Xi-Trump discussions it appears China has got more out of the deal than the US – at least for now. It has secured a stay of execution for the implementation of tariff increases and forestalled, for the time being, tariffs on an additional bloc of Chinese exports.

In return, it has agreed to buy unspecified quantities of US products and to talk about differences.

Trump’s willingness to compromise after months of bombast reflects pressures from a shellshocked grain-producing constituency and alarm on Wall Street at prospects of a full-blown trade war.

From Beijing’s perspective, China has demonstrated that its growing economic heft has enabled it to avoid the appearance of yielding to US pressure.

If not a “win-win” for China – as Chinese officials are fond of saying – it is certainly not a “lose-lose”.

In a statement at odds with months of fire-breathing rhetoric over China’s allegedly perfidious trade practices, Trump hailed his understanding with Xi. He said:

This was an amazing and productive meeting with unlimited possibilities for both the US and China.

For their part, Chinese officials were more circumspect.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the talks were conducted in a “friendly and candid atmosphere”. The presidents:

agreed that the two sides can and must get bilateral relations right… China is willing to increase imports in accordance with the needs of its domestic market and the people’s needs.

Impetus for a face-saving deal in Buenos Aires has been prompted by growing concerns about the global economy. The signs of a slowdown are clear. Trade volumes had begun to moderate in the third quarter, heightening worries of a global retrenchment.

International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde at the G20 summit. AAP/EPA/G20 handout

On the sidelines of the G20, the International Monetary Fund’s managing director, Christine Lagarde, noted:

Pressures on emerging markets have been rising and trade tensions have begun to have a negative impact, increasing downside risks.

In its October Outlook statement, the IMF warned about threats to global growth due to trade disturbances.

In their final communique, G20 leaders danced around contentious issues on trade to accommodate American objections to having the word “protectionism” inserted in the document.

In the end, participants settled on the need for reform of the World Trade Organisation to describe a world trading system that is falling short of its objectives. Washington has been agitating for a review of the WTO to strengthen its dispute resolution and appeal procedures.

The US has also objected to a continuing description of China as a developing country, with concessions that enable it to take advantage of less developed country status in its access to global markets.

Read more: As tensions ratchet up between China and the US, Australia risks being caught in the crossfire

On climate change, Washington separated itself from the other G20 members. All, except the US, reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement. The US announced in 2017 it was pulling out of Paris.

Foreign policy specialists will be sceptical about a de-escalation of trade hostilities given the range of issues bedevilling the US-China relationship.

Reflecting a hardening of US attitudes towards China, and in contrast to the optimism that had prevailed for much of the past two decades, Ely Ratner in Foreign Affairs notes:

Even if tariffs are put on hold, the United States will continue to restructure the US-China economic relationship through investment restrictions, export controls, and sustained law enforcement actions against Chinese industrial and cyber-espionage.

At the same time, there are no serious prospects for Washington and Beijing to resolve other important areas of dispute, including the South China Sea, human rights and the larger contest over the norms, rules and institutions that govern relations in Asia.

A stiffening view in the US towards China is shared more or less across the board. In those circumstances, a temporary ceasefire in Buenos Aires is unlikely to be sustained.

– ref. G20 summit bring a truce in US-China trade relations – but it’s likely to be temporary – http://theconversation.com/g20-summit-bring-a-truce-in-us-china-trade-relations-but-its-likely-to-be-temporary-108017

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jake Clark, PhD Candidate, University of Southern Queensland

This is an article from Curious Kids, a series for children. The Conversation is asking kids to send in questions they’d like an expert to answer. All questions are welcome – serious, weird or wacky! You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.

What existed before the big bang? Did something have to be be there in order to go boom? – Ethan, 10, Sydney.

Ethan, what a question. To be truthful, we’re not sure what was before the Big Bang. The whole idea of “before” is not as simple as it sounds – as we’ll soon discover.

But before we get into a total head spin of answering your great question, let’s step all the way back to the beginning of our Universe nearly 14 billion years ago.

Read more: Curious Kids: what started the Big Bang?

The Big Bang was not an explosion of metal shards, like in a firework, but the rapid expansion of space itself. Alex Sims/Wikimedia Commons

A quick recap on the beginning

The Big Bang wasn’t actually a bang. It was not an explosion of metal shards, like in a firework, nor any material; but the rapid expansion of space itself.

At the start, the Universe was infinitely small. Everything around us – the stuff that makes up the galaxies, stars, planets, me and you – was all squished together, creating what is known as a singularity. A singularity has been defined as “a point in space-time where the laws of physics as we know them break down.”

For whatever reason, this singularity rapidly expanded into the Universe we now call home.

After this rapid expansion, our Universe started to cool down – leaving a pattern on the Universe known as the Cosmic Microwave Background.

The leftover radiation from the Big Bang tells us how our Universe began and might lead us to what came before it. NASA/ WMAP Science Team

So if the Big Bang caused the Cosmic Microwave Background, did something else cause the Big Bang?

The time before time?

Your question is nailing an important idea in physics, which we call causality.

In the world we observe around us, all effects must have a cause. Take, for example, a fallen tree. Maybe a vicious storm knocked the tree down. Or maybe it was cut down by a chainsaw-weilding madman.

But if you were to zoom down into the quantum world of atoms (the tiny building blocks of everything), you would notice something very different. In this quantum world, effects can occur without any cause whatsoever.

The timeline of our universe. NASA/WMAP Science Team

Long ago in the distant past, our entire Universe was microscopic – just like an atom. Since some effects in the microscopic world do not require causes, it is possible that there was no cause to start off the Big Bang!

And things can get even weirder. It is also possible that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So it may not make any sense to ask what happened “before”. It would be like asking “What part of Earth is north of the North Pole?”. The North Pole is the most northern point on Earth, and so there is nowhere north of it.

A philosophising polar bear may have already solved the conundrum of ‘what is north of the North Pole?’ U.S. Navy photo by Chief Yeoman Alphonso Braggs

But what if something was there before the Big Bang happened?

Beginning the beginning

Some scientists suggest our Universe is the recycled result of another Universe dying and collapsing in on itself. This is known as “the Big Bounce”. This collapsing Universe would meet back to a singularity before bouncing back out, causing the Big Bang and starting off a brand new universe.

In that case, gravity would not only need to stop the Universe from stretching, but bring everything within it back to one single point. Unfortunately, current observations show us that our Universe won’t follow this trend, as it’s stretching out faster than ever before.

Or maybe our Universe is at the other end of a black hole called a white hole. White holes are the hypothetical “opposites” of a black hole, spewing material into space rather than sucking material in.

Could our whole universe really be at the other end of a black hole?

Or maybe our Universe bubbled out of an even bigger universe! The Cosmic Microwave Background image earlier on shows the leftover radiation isn’t the same all over, but has lumps and bumps concentrated in certain areas. Some cosmologists – people who research how our Universe started – suggest our Universe is one of many universes in the grand multiverse.

The fact is, we don’t really know for sure what started the Big Bang. Maybe you’ll be the very person to answer your question. If you find out, can we please be the first to know?

Read more: Curious Kids: Does space go on forever?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

CC BY-ND

Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: What existed before the Big Bang? Did something have to be there to go boom? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-existed-before-the-big-bang-did-something-have-to-be-there-to-go-boom-103742

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

Scott Morrison faces a major Liberal party crisis after Malcolm Turnbull moved to torpedo the Prime Minister’s plan to protect the preselection of controversial rightwing backbencher Craig Kelly.

Morrison wants the NSW Liberal executive to re-endorse sitting NSW federal members so Kelly does not have to face a ballot in which he would be defeated.

Kelly has threatened to run as an independent if he loses preselection and also at times has left the way open to go to the crossbench.

The Coalition is already in minority government after the loss of Wentworth and last week’s defection of Julia Banks.

Kelly has lost the support of his local branch members, and the moderates have the numbers to remove him. His preselection opponent, Kent Johns, has been under pressure to pull out of the race – as he was persuaded to do before the last election to save Kelly.

Kelly was one of those who scuppered the National Energy Guarantee, in the party meltdown that ended Turnbull’s leadership. He is a constant presence in Sky and used his appearances to undermine the Turnbull position on energy.

After hearing of the save-Kelly plan Turnbull immediately began lobbying moderate executive members not to agree to the cross-factional deal. When his lobbying reached the media, he took to Twitter.

In a series of tweets he said: “Today I learned there was a move to persuade the State Executive to re-endorse Craig Kelly as Liberal candidate for Hughes in order to avoid a preselection – in other words to deny Liberal Party members in Hughes the opportunity to have their say.”

He said he had spoken with “several State Executive members to express my strong view that the Party’s democratic processes should operate in the normal way especially after such a long debate in the NSW Liberal Party about the importance of grass roots membership involvement.”

“It is time for the Liberal Party members in Hughes to have their say about their local member and decide who they want to represent them.”

“It has been put to me that Mr Kelly has threatened to go to the cross bench and “bring down the Government”. If indeed he has made that threat, it is not one that should result in a capitulation. Indeed it would be the worst and weakest response to such a threat.“

He was “strongly of the view that the normal democratic process should proceed.”

The Australian reports that Turnbull told one executive member, NSW Minister Matt Kean, that if Kelly moved to the crossbench it would “force Morrison to an early election and that will save the Berejiklian government”.

Turnbull had said that when he was PM he and Morrison had agreed to a March 2 election – before the state poll later in March but Morrison was reneging.

The Liberals believe that whichever government faces the people first in NSW will get a double whack from angry voters. Morrison indicated last week that the election would be in May after an April 2 budget.

Another NSW rightwinger, senator Jim Molan is arcing up over his dumping to an unwinnable position on the Senate ticket. Molan is also looking to Morrison to do about about his position.

“Let’s see what he does, but I’m not here to be taken for granted,” Molan told Perth radio on Sunday.

“I would make the arrogant statement that the Liberal Party needs me more than I need the Liberal Party.”

– ref. Turnbull versus Morrison in Liberal crisis over Craig Kelly – http://theconversation.com/turnbull-versus-morrison-in-liberal-crisis-over-craig-kelly-108034

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Orr, Veterinarian and PhD candidate, University of Sydney

Have you thought about adopting a new pet for Christmas?

Far from dismissing the idea, animal welfare groups now support the practice of gifting a pet for Christmas – so long as it’s done the right way.

With less than a month to go before Christmas Day, here’s what you need to know if you’re to gift a pet a new home, plus seven tips for success.

Read more: Senate inquiry calls for tougher rules on pet food in Australia

A changing message

Opinions about pet ownership are constantly changing.

The old dog dominance theory – that says pet dogs have a pack mentality and owners should be the alpha dog – has long been debunked. Letting animals sleep on the bed is no longer taboo.

Shelters have learned that drastically reducing adoption fees does not increase the likelihood of pet re-surrender, or the level of people’s attachment to their new pet.

Now, just as shelters used to block black cat adoptions around Halloween for fear of dumping afterwards (or worse), shelters that once warned against adopting pets at Christmas are now embracing the idea.

Some shelters are even advocating this time of year can actually be a good thing for both the animal and the new family, as everyone is home to help the new pet settle in.

A Christmas gift

RSPCA Victoria is one organisation that has changed its message regarding pet adoptions at Christmas. Chief executive Liz Walker says a pet at Christmas, or a voucher for pet adoption at a shelter, can be a good idea – so long as it is not a surprise present.

Data from RSPCA Victoria supports this, with no spike in the number of surrendered pets in the months immediately after Christmas, and indeed very few surrenders seen throughout the year because of a pet being an unwanted gift.

This finding agrees with US survey results published in 2013 that found no significant association between receiving a pet as a gift and relinquishment soon afterwards.

An annual ‘cat-astrophe’

Although the number of cats entering RSPCA Victoria shelters spikes annually between November and January, this is because of kitten season.

This is the time of the year when non-desexed female cats give birth to coincide with increased warmth and availability of food. This phenomenon is replicated across the country, placing huge pressure on staff and resources at shelters due to the flood in kittens.

To help stop the enormous number of unwanted cats and dogs entering Australian shelters, it is really important to desex your animal (especially cats before kitten season).

Kittens and Christmas decorations don’t always mix. RSPCA Qld, Author provided

Why pets enter shelters

There is a misconception that most animals end up at shelters for behavioural problems or medical issues. One of the most common reasons for pet surrender in Australia is a lack of pet-friendly rental accommodation.

This is why the current push to change some tenancy laws around pet ownership is so important.

Additionally, with the rise in popularity of certain breeds such as French Bulldogs, puppy farms set up to supply these dogs are often raided due to the horrific conditions the dogs are kept in. These animals then end up in shelters.

Adopt from a shelter

We encourage all Australians considering adopting a cat or dog to visit their local pound or shelter. Sadly, it is estimated more than 175,000 dogs and cats are euthanased annually in Australia.

This figure comes from the Getting to Zero movement which incorporates euthanasia rates from shelters that publish their statistics, such as the RSPCA, and Animal Welfare League (both organisations that don’t euthanase healthy, re-homeable animals).

It also includes an estimate of the number of animals euthanased at the roughly 500 council pounds across the country. Unfortunately, most council pounds do not publish their statistics on euthanasia rates, which makes it difficult to truly assess the problem. Some do try to rehome unwanted animals.

Pets of all shapes and sizes can be found at shelters. RSPCA Vic, Author provided

Seven tips for getting a new pet

Pet ownership is a wonderfully rewarding experience, with many studies showing pet owners have improved physical and mental health and are more social. One study found that Australian ownership of cats and dogs saved taxpayers almost A$4 billion in health expenditure over one year.

So if you are considering adopting a pet this Christmas, here are some tips to consider:

1. Positive training techniques are more effective and humane than punishment techniques. Reward animals for doing the right thing with treats rather than punishing them for doing the wrong thing.

2. If adopting a pet for a child, remember the parent is ultimately responsible for the pet (so be prepared to take care of the animal!).

3. Christmas decorations and ornaments such as tinsel and Christmas tree hangings make wonderful objects to get stuck in the stomach after swallowing, so keep them out of reach of pets to avoid unnecessary and expensive surgery.

4. Dogs can get very sick with pancreatitis after consuming a fatty meal, so no feeding leftover Christmas ham or sausages.

5. Dogs and chocolate don’t mix, so keep boxes of chocolates securely in a cupboard.

6. You must be ready to commit both the time and money required for the lifespan of an animal, which could be up to 20 years.

7. Consider adopting an older cat (eight years and over) or a middle-aged dog (five to eight years of age). Research consistently shows that animals in these age groups are the hardest group to re-home and hence spend the longest time in the shelter.

So if you’re ready to make the commitment, go on, visit your local shelter and make this Christmas one to remember for you or the owner of the newly adopted pet.

Consider adopting an older dog or cat from a shelter – Dookie, at 12 years of age, still loved getting into the Christmas spirit! Mark Westman, Author provided

– ref. Yes, you can adopt a pet as a Christmas gift – so long as you do it correctly – http://theconversation.com/yes-you-can-adopt-a-pet-as-a-christmas-gift-so-long-as-you-do-it-correctly-105286

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophia Maalsen, I.B. Fell Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney

An increasing number of older Australians are living in share housing. A relatively new group to emerge on the share-housing scene, they are choosing to share for financial reasons, but finding unexpected social benefits.

Share housing has traditionally been associated with student housing and media depictions of the share house as dysfunctional, chaotic, “He Died with a Falafel in His Hand” scenarios. But a growing number of older people are sharing housing.

This trend is part of the growth in share housing across an increasingly broad demographic as professionals aged in their 30s, 40s and onwards continue to share house or return to share housing into later life. Generation Rent is fast becoming “Generation Share”.

Read more: Moving on from home ownership for ‘Generation Rent’

The growing trend of share households is attributed to a combination of shifting social norms and a decline in affordable rental properties. This is particularly acute in our capital cities but is also evident in regional centres.

An emerging group of tenants – professionals, couples, young families and students – who cannot afford to buy or rent an entire property of their own are increasingly turning to shared occupancy as a way to afford housing. Home owners are also noted as a group for whom shared occupancy has benefits by generating extra income for mortgage repayments.

Tight budgets affect all ages

My research on share housing across all age groups shows it’s mainly driven by financial constraints. In older age, the experience of this is gendered. Although older men are sharing, women in particular are more vulnerable to significant financial constraints in old age.

Women are the fastest-growing group at risk of homelessness in Australia. Many have limited superannuation to draw upon due to time out of the workforce to raise children or manage the home. This means the ramifications of the gender wage gap are particularly visible in older life – to quote one participant, “a man is not a superannuation”.

Read more: Spirals and circles, snakes and ladders. Why women’s super is complex

A common scenario is people falling out of home ownership after divorce or a relationship breakdown. Without the family home and with limited material assets, share housing is one of a diminishing set of options for living affordably and securely.

Share housing has its challenges

Moving into share housing in later life can be an adjustment. Many older people are in share housing for the first time in their life, having previously owned their own home.

There are obvious social challenges inherent in this situation. These include learning to negotiate domestic spaces in new ways. And certainly many are vulnerable to being exploited by unscrupulous flatmates, head tenants, or landlords.

Similar to share-housing experiences among younger groups, older participants mentioned occasional household conflicts and were aware of the need for personal space.

But there are also social benefits

However, some also reflect positively on the social value of share housing. This has been an unexpected benefit for many of them. At an age when isolation and loneliness increase, this is particularly important.

Older residents value the social aspects and the new friendships that sometimes develop in share houses. Flow-on effects of this include an increase in their sense of safety and security, knowing that they are not alone should anything untoward happen.

Read more: Co-housing works well for older people, once they get past the image problem

Long-term policy challenges loom

Although share housing in older age has social benefits, its rise should prompt us to reflect critically on Australia’s housing market as well as rethinking retirement policy. Share housing is directly correlated to declining housing affordability.

These trends highlight systematic disinvestment in public and social housing for the past 30 years as well as a market that has encouraged housing as a site of investment. The result is a system that has produced housing as a site of profit rather than housing as a site of home.

For older people, the situation is particularly complex. Australia’s retirement policies promote home ownership as the pathway to a financially secure old age. That leaves the growing number of older Australians who don’t own their own home to experience increased financial stress.

The Australian Dream of the owner-occupied home is quickly becoming that – a dream rather than reality for many Australians. The cracks are starting to show. As people fall out of home ownership and the younger generations doubt they’ll ever own a home – they’re not called Generation Rent for nothing – Generation Share will present significant challenges for policy.

Read more: Home ownership foundations are being shaken, and the impacts will be felt far and wide

– ref. Generation Share: why more older Australians are living in share houses – http://theconversation.com/generation-share-why-more-older-australians-are-living-in-share-houses-107183

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Thirty years after Prime Minister Bob Hawke famously promised that by 1990 no Australian child would live in poverty, Bill Shorten has promised that, if elected, Labor will use a “root and branch review” to lift the rate of the Newstart unemployment benefit.

Two crossbenchers, Cathy McGowan and Rebekha Sharkie, want to go further.

They have introduced a private member’s bill that would create an independent commission to examine the adequacy of all social security payments other than family payments and payments to veterans.

It would make recommendations, rather than set rates.

The Government opposes it. Labor has opposed such proposals in the past. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has said he would like to increase payments, but they would be ones of his choosing – he would lift the pension before lifting Newstart.

But the pension is already much higher than Newstart, and other benefits have fallen behind by more.

What’s wrong with Newstart?

Newstart is inadequate and getting worse.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development raised “concerns about its adequacy” as long ago as 2010.

In a report on Australia it suggested that not only it might be insufficient to live on, it also might be insufficient to enable those on it to look for work.

The relatively low net replacement rate in the first year of the unemployment spell raises issues about its effectiveness in providing sufficient support for those experiencing a job loss, or enabling someone to look for a suitable job.

The main reason why it is inadequate is that it hasn’t increased by much more than inflation since 1994. General living standards have soared during those two and a half decades, as has the pension which is linked to them by being set as proportion of male wages, and which was increased substantially in 2009.

ACOSS

Newstart is now only A$275.20 per week. The pension is A$417.20 per week (A$458.15 with the pension supplement and energy supplement).

Unless it is better indexed, Newstart will slide even further relative to other payments and living standards.

Read more: New budget standards show just how inadequate the Newstart Allowance has become

Since 1994-95 the buying power of the median household disposable income has climbed 55%. The buying power of Newstart has barely budged.

It has pushed people on Newstart further down the income ladder.

In 1994-95 a single person on Newstart received A$24 per week less than a low-earning household at the top of the bottom tenth of the income distribution.

Read more: Will a Newstart boost actually deter jobseekers?

By 2015-16 that single person on Newstart got A$175 per week less than the low earning household.

The Australian Council of Social Service, the Business Council of Australia and a wide range of other community and business leaders including the former prime minister John Howard and most of the parliament’s crossbench have called for a lift in Newstart and a better method of setting it.

There’s more to it than Newstart

The relative decline in Newstart was the result of neglect. It was left indexed to the consumer price index when, over the long term, it should have been indexed to a measure that moves with community living standards.

But in other cases, governments under five prime ministers over the past twelve years have made explicit decisions to cut assistance, most severely for low income single parents.

In 2006 the Howard government made substantial changes to the Parenting Payment Single (PPS) and the Parenting Payment – Partnered (PPP) as part of what it called a welfare to work program.

Read more: How can the government justify a policy that penalises working sole parents?

Single parents claiming the PPS after July 1, 2006 would lose it when their youngest child turned eight. They would go onto the much lower Newstart unemployment benefit, and be expected to look for work.

Partnered parents claiming the PPP would lose it when their youngest child turned six, but for them it made little difference because their parenting payment and Newstart were about the same.

For single parents it meant a significant cut in benefits at the time, and a harsher income test.

Those receiving PPS before July 1, 2006 were “grandfathered” meaning they could continue to receive it until their youngest child turned 16.

Read more: Prejudiced policymaking underlies Labor’s cuts to single parent payments

But in 2013, the Gillard government removed grandfathering, requiring all single parents with older children to be moved onto Newstart or other payments if eligible.

At that time the maximum rate of Parenting Payment Single was $331.85 per week. The maximum rate of Newstart was $266.50.

And a change introduced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made the parenting payments themselves less generous.

For many decades, the basic rate of payment for most single parents was the same as the pension.

In 2009 the Rudd government delinked them and lowered the wages benchmark so that PPS was set at 25% of male total average weekly earnings instead of 27.7%.

The 2009-10 Budget also changed the link between levels of the maximum rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A and the married rate of pension, a link originally established following the Hawke government’s child poverty pledge.

These changes have shrunk Family Tax Benefit payments per child from 16.6% – 21.6% of the married pension rate to 14.5% – 18.9%, a difference now of $13 per week for each younger child and $17 per week for each older child – with more shrinkage to come.

In 2014 the first Abbott budget attempted to further wind back Family Tax Benefits.

After a tough time in the Senate, several of his measures finally passed, under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2016 and 2017.

Family Tax Benefit B has been closed to couple families with children aged 13 years or older and the Family Tax Benefit B income test tightened, the size of the payments to large families has been wound back, the Family Tax benefit A end of year supplement has been withdrawn from families earning over A$80,000 per annum and rates have pay have been temporarily frozen, so that they don’t even increase with inflation.

What’s been the total of cuts since 2006?

The cumulative effects of the policy choices since 2006 on the disposable incomes of single parent families are substantial.

We have compared how much low-income parents currently receive, compared to what they would be receiving if these changes had not been made.

Our calculations are conservative.

We have ignored a number of changes including payments that have come and gone such as the Schoolkid’s Bonus and the Energy Supplement or changes that affect high income families. Nor have we taken into account the loss of payments to families with with four or more children due to the phasing out of the Large Family Supplement from July 2016.

Single parents still on Parenting Payment Single with two younger children have lost nearly $85 per fortnight; about 6% of their disposable incomes. For families with older children, the loss is about $271 per fortnight; a cut in disposable income of nearly 19%.

Read more: One in four children from single-parent families live in poverty

In total there are around 360,000 families with children, Australia’s poorest, who are getting considerably less financial support.

It has happened as a result of actions by both sides of politics under prime ministers Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull.

As with the decision to link Newstart to the consumer price index rather than wages, the effects of their decisions will widen over time. The poorest families, and their children, will increasingly fall behind the rest of the population.

This process is already strongly entrenched.

Read more: Housing affordability stress affects one in nine households, but which ones are really struggling?

Research by Peter Saunders, Bruce Bradbury and Melissa Wong for the joint ACOSS-UNSW report on poverty finds that the transfer of 80,000 sole parents to Newstart in 2013 was associated with an increase in the rate of after-housing poverty among unemployed sole parents from 35% to nearly 60%.

Have the cuts got single parents into jobs?

The stated purpose of the cuts to Parenting Payment Single was to get them into jobs.

First impressions suggest that they have.

In 2005-06 51% of single parent households had social security benefits as their main source of income. A decade later this was 42%.

In 2005 around 49% of lone parent families with a youngest child under 15 were employed. By 2009 the proportion had grown to 59%.

But in both cases the changes started before the changes to benefits, from the middle of the 1990s.

Read more: For single parents, it pays to work

And the proportion of single parents employed went backwards during the global financial crisis, sliding to 53% and only recovering to 55% in 2017, despite the move of families from Parenting Payment Single to Newstart.

It’s time for a proper review

The “root and branch review” promised by Bill Shorten and the ongoing commission proposed by crossbenchers are not mutually exclusive.

An immediate review could be used to increase payments in the shorter term, while an ongoing commission could examine longer-term priorities.

Read more: For richer or poorer: the delicate art of messing with middle class welfare

The scope of these inquiries should not be limited to Newstart.

Parenting Payments and Family Tax Benefits are also a fundamental component of the social safety net.

There is case for going further and examining the entire structure of the social security system.

The most comprehensive examination was the Henderson Poverty Inquiry commissioned by the McMahon government and extended by the Whitlam government more than four decades ago.

Read more: Whitlam’s forgotten legacy: a voice for the poor

A comprehensive review of Australia’s social security system, undertaken in an integrated fashion and including tax as well as payments (including those for childcare and to support people who study and work) is overdue.

We need such a review to consider the design of our safety net in the light of economic, demographic, technological and social changes, and those to come.

It ought to be a key priority of Australia’s next government.

It ought to set up our support systems for the future.

– ref. It’s not just Newstart. Single parents are $271 per fortnight worse off. Labor needs an overarching welfare review – http://theconversation.com/its-not-just-newstart-single-parents-are-271-per-fortnight-worse-off-labor-needs-an-overarching-welfare-review-107521

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rodrigo Praino, Senior Lecturer, College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University

If someone asks you why you chose the election candidate you voted for, you will likely have a good answer. Maybe you agree with the candidate’s policy stances. Maybe you support his/her party. Maybe you are tired of the corruption, bad policies, or inaction of the people in power. These are all perfectly acceptable answers. One reason you probably will not mention is that you voted for this person because he or she is good-looking. Certainly not. This is not an acceptable answer.

Yet you probably did.

In a study just published by myself and Daniel Stockemer with the help of Victoria Police in Melbourne, we used data on elections to the US Congress to create the faces of six fictional candidates who were “ideal-looking” in terms of physical appearance. We then used statistical modelling and real election results to simulate what would have happened if the loser of some key races looked like one of our “ideal candidates”, but was otherwise identical to the real losing candidate.

In two-thirds of cases, the loser becomes a winner if he/she simply becomes better-looking. To put it simply, we find that if an election is competitive, candidate attractiveness can actually determine the result.

Research shows that candidate appearance travels across cultures, ignoring even racial and ethnic differences. It appears that there is a fairly standard idea around the world of what is an attractive candidate, and voters everywhere prefer good-looking politicians. Research has shown that beautiful politicians are advantaged in Australia, Germany, Finland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

But the story doesn’t end there. Scholars are still trying to understand all possible ramifications of the relationship between physical attractiveness and electoral success. But we know that ideology, institutions and voter behaviour all play a role in this fascinating relationship.

When it comes to ideology, recent research shows that conservative politicians benefit more from physical attractiveness. In other words, right-wing politicians are better-looking than left-wing politicians and, therefore, benefit more from the “beauty premium” at the ballot box.

In terms of institutions, a study published by Daniel Stockemer and myself last year shows that the electoral system plays a role in whether or not candidate attractiveness matters in elections.

In brief, candidate attractiveness matters in majoritarian electoral systems – that is, systems where voters cast their vote for a specific candidate. The impact of candidate attractiveness fades in list-based proportional systems, where voters are asked to cast a ballot for a political party.

We find no evidence that attractive candidates are placed higher in party lists, which means that political parties and their structures appear to be immune to the appeal of candidate attractiveness. The conclusion is that institutions play an important role in determining whether or not candidate attractiveness affects voters’ decision-making.

Finally, when it comes to voter behaviour, the “beauty premium” doesn’t manifest itself only as extra votes gained at the ballot box. In a study published last May, we found that attractive politicians get a “break” when they are involved in scandals. In particular, voters forgive attractive politicians involved in sex scandals, while politicians involved in financial scandals such as bribery or misappropriation of funds have a harder time at the ballot box after the scandal becomes public. Either way, this shows that voters not only generally vote for the most attractive candidate, but also are more willing to forgive those who look better.

So how about Donald Trump? This question pops up a lot, especially from people arguing that Trump is not the most physically attractive candidate to run for office. If we think hard enough, we can all think of numerous unattractive politicians who have been very successful at the ballot box all over the world. The key to understanding how this works is to focus on information.

Read more: President Trump will change the United States and the world, but just how remains to be seen

A few years ago, we ran an experiment using thousands of Canadian students at the University of Ottawa as research subjects. We found that if voters have adequate information about the candidates running for office, they tend to cast their ballot based on this information.

If, on the other hand, voters possess little or no information, then the better-looking candidate wins the election. We concluded that, in high-information elections, candidate attractiveness plays a smaller role than in low-information elections. This answers the Donald Trump question, in the sense that American presidential elections are high-information contests and, therefore, voters know more things about the candidates than their physical appearance, and thus vote accordingly.

The problem is that research also shows that voters all over the world have become less and less informed about politics. For instance, Australians seem to be incapable of answering basic questions about Australian politics; American university graduates in the 2000s knew less about politics than high school graduates in the 1950s; and European citizens do worse than chance in answering true-or-false questions about the European Union.

Read more: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it: Australia should stay away from electronic voting

In other words, we should expect that candidate attractiveness will determine more and more electoral outcomes in the near future. Of course, the major issue with people voting for good-looking candidates is that physical appearance is completely devoid of any policy content. Voters have no guarantee whatsoever that they will end up with policies that they agree with and support if they vote for someone just because that person is attractive.

After years engaged in this line of research, I have never met someone who confessed to having voted for someone else because he/she was good-looking. At the same time, I am also convinced that people do exactly that, even if unconsciously.

The only solution to this problem is to educate voters about politics, institutions and current issues.

– ref. How a candidate’s looks may be swinging your vote (without you even realising it) – http://theconversation.com/how-a-candidates-looks-may-be-swinging-your-vote-without-you-even-realising-it-107364

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Senior Lecturer and clinical academic gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

So, you’re going on a date and you’re understandably a bit nervous. And then you feel it – a churning and cramping in your gut. Suddenly you’re running to the toilet and wondering why your body reacts this way. How does a case of nerves translate to an upset stomach? What is actually happening in your body?

Feeling an upset tummy when we’re nervous is normal. The broad term dyspepsia refers to any discomfort in the upper abdomen or abdominal pain, and is very common when we’re anxious and stressed. A systematic review pooling data from a number of studies found that around one quarter of people have dyspepsia.

When we get nervous, a number of processes occur in the brain that are passed onto the stomach and affect the digestive process. This is a hangover from our hunter-gatherer days and part of the fight or flight response – a physiological reaction to a perceived harmful event, attack or threat to survival.

Read more: Paralysed with fear: why do we freeze when frightened?

When we’re in a relaxed state, there is more energy for digestion. The speedier movements of our stomach and small bowel (intestines) facilitate better absorption of nutrients. But during stress, digestion and the movements in our stomach and small intestines slow down, while movements in our large bowel (or colon) increase. It’s the increased movement in our large bowel that in some cases has us running to the toilet. Here’s how that happens.

Brief history of experiments

We can thank two patients, who had very rare accidents, for our early understanding of what happens to the stomach when we’re anxious and stressed.

We can thank Alexis St Martin for our early knowledge of how the emotions affect digestion. Wikipedia Commons

In 1822, 19-year-old Alexis St Martin suffered a gun-shot wound to the stomach. He survived, but developed a permanent hole in his stomach that refused to heal. This hole extended to the outside skin of his abdomen.

While undoubtedly awful for Alexis, army doctor William Beaumont saw a unique opportunity. Beaumont used the hole as a window into the process of digestion, conducting experiments to better understand the inner workings of the gut, which included the impact of Alexis’ emotional response on the stomach. When Alexis became angry, for instance, Beaumont noticed his digestion was impaired.

Further observations were carried out by doctor Stewart Wolf on another patient, Tom Little. In 1894, when he was nine years old, Tom drank something that severely damaged his oesophagus. He had a hole created in his stomach for feeding. As with Alexis, Wolf observed Tom’s stomach under periods of emotional stress. He found fear would make Tom’s stomach turn white and a period of depression could virtually stop digestion.

Read more: Stomach and mood disorders: how your gut may be playing with your mind

Fight or flight and the gut

In the early 20th century, scientist Walter Cannon coined the term “fight or flight response” after observing the reaction of animals in response to stressful events. He saw that when cats were acutely stressed, movement in their upper guts, including the stomach and small intestine, was markedly reduced.

This process involved two parts of our nervous system, known as the sympathetic and the parasympathetic. The sympathetic nervous system is activated during times of stress and puts the body on a war-like footing. The parasympathetic nervous system, on the other hand, acts like a brake. It promotes the “rest and digest” response that calms the body down after the stress has passed, and helps conserve energy.

The sympathetic system gets us ready for fight or flight, while the parasympathetic system acts as a brake. from shutterstock.com

When we feel stressed, a region of the brain called the hypothalamus (which helps regulate emotions) produces the corticotropin releasing hormone (CRH) – the key hormone that activates the sympathetic system.

CRH can stimulate the release of another hormone – the adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) – which then releases cortisol from the adrenal gland (found above the kidneys). Cortisol is an important hormone in the fight or flight response. It helps us get ready to fight or escape danger and can lead to slowing down the movement in our stomach.

This is thought to be an evolutionary mechanism as blood is diverted away from the stomach and small intestine to the skeletal muscles and lungs, preparing the body for defence. The movements of the stomach and small intestine as well as digestion accelerate again once the parasympathetic system is activated.

Movement in the small intestine slows down during stress, but in the colon, it speeds up. from shutterstock.com

But it’s different in the colon (large bowel). During periods of stress and anxiety, movement in the large bowel actually increases, though this is not caused by the sympathetic nervous system. It is actually those same parasympathetic system fibres that carry a “rest and digest” response that are thought to deliver the signals to the colon. CRH can be transmitted down those fibres directly to the wall of the colon where it stimulates receptors to produce fluid and increases colonic movements.

This doesn’t ordinarily lead to more poo or diarrhoea during acute stress because defecation requires a more complex and coordinated set of functions. But in some stressful situations, the pelvic nerve can be activated and directly stimulates neurons in the wall of the rectum. This then triggers increased rectal activity and defecation.

Functional dyspepsia?

We now have a way to work out what areas of the brain become active when the stomach is under stress. This is done through imaging the brain. Neuroimaging techniques can measure changes in blood flow in the brain and correlate these changes (or activations) to brain activity.

When a balloon is inflated in the stomach, stretching the stomach wall in healthy people to test its sensitivity, some areas of the brain such as the amygdala and insula that are involved in the processing of emotions become very active. In people with functional dyspepsia – a condition with symptoms such as pain or discomfort localised to the upper part of the abdomen in the absence of a physical cause – these brain areas may fail to deactivate.

Research in functional dyspepsia patients has found that negative emotional memory can affect their brain activity.

Read more: Explainer: what is irritable bowel syndrome and what can I do about it?

If symptoms become abnormally severe and chronic it may be worth seeing a doctor to consider whether further investigations and treatment are required. If investigations such as endoscopy do not show any abnormalities then functional dyspepsia is a possible diagnosis. These patients are the ones most likely to experience upper abdominal symptoms provoked by stress and anxiety.

Strategies tailored to help with negative emotions and thoughts such as cognitive behavioural therapy can be beneficial.

– ref. Nervous tummy: why you might get the runs before a first date – http://theconversation.com/nervous-tummy-why-you-might-get-the-runs-before-a-first-date-106925

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Redmond, Sir Gerard Brennan Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

It has taken years, but after votes in the Senate and House of Representatives last week, Australia has a Modern Slavery Act.

It’ll take effect on January 1.

But what difference will it make?

First, what is modern slavery?

Britain abolished slavery on its own soil in 1833. It abolished the most egregious forms of child labour a century later.

But slavery and child labour are still being used to make the products Britons buy, just as they are being used to make the products Australians buy.

Read more: How to keep slave-caught seafood off your plate

Increasing integrated global supply chains have made it hard to tell whether even products that are stamped “Made in Australia” have at some stage used slaves or underage children as part of the production process.

Forcibly detained adults and children work in industries including fishing, cocoa, cotton, clothing, cannabis, construction and prostitution.

The term “modern slavery” refers only to the worst forms of exploitation, and not to other serious breaches of human rights such as the denial of freedom of association or the denial of worker safety, such as at Rana Plaza clothing factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh in which more than 1,000 garment workers died when their building collapsed in 2013.

Read more: Unravelling British wool: how the local and global are intertwined in the making of everyday products

The International Labour Organisation believes that 21 million people worldwide are forced labourers, half of them in the Asia-Pacific region.

What will be required

As with the British Act, Australia’s will require businesses and other organisations above a certain size (consolidated revenue of A$100 million) to report annually on the risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains, and the action they have taken to assess and address those risks, and the effectiveness of their response.

Smaller businesses will be able to report voluntarily.

To ensure high-level engagement, the statement has to be approved by the board of directors or equivalent and signed by a director.

Read more: We analysed 101 companies’ statements on modern slavery – here’s what we found

The statements will be publicly available on a central register maintained by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth government itself, and those of its entities that satisfy the reporting revenue threshold, will also have to prepare a statement.

What will not be required

Two controversial omissions are penalties and independent oversight.

The government was unwilling to impose a penalty for failing to lodge a statement or for lodging an incomplete statement.

This needn’t be fatal. The requirement and the public register means that companies that don’t report properly can be “named and shamed” by non-government organisations. Consumer pressure can itself become a sanction.

Read more: The Modern Slavery Bill is a start, but it won’t guarantee us sweeter chocolate

The UK experience does not encourage optimism as about compliance.

In response to these concerns, Senate amendments have empowered the minister to name and shame his or herself, publicly calling out continued instances of non-compliance and reporting to parliament annually on compliance trends.

Australia’s parliamentary inquiry and a good many of the submissions strongly supported the appointment of an independent statutory anti-slavery commissioner with the authority and resources to oversee compliance.

The government will instead establish a departmental unit to help business address slavery risks and prepare statements.

Read more: Should Australia have a Modern Slavery Act?

The Labor party supports both penalties and the appointment of an independent commissioner.

It is possible that both requirements will be in place before the first modern slavery statements are due on June 30, 2020.

NSW has also passed its own Modern Slavery Act, due to take effect after the Commonwealth Act commences. It imposes a lower revenue reporting threshold of $50 million, and provides for penalties for businesses that do not comply, of up to A$1.1 million.

It also creates the post of Independent NSW Anti-Slavery Commissioner.

What now

American baseballer Yogi Berra said that when we come to a fork in the road, we should take it. Wise advice. We have two ways forward and should take both. In truth, they converge.

First, we need to monitor compliance levels, and determine whether penalties and independent oversight are needed. And we need to set up processes that ensure the reports are of good quality.

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide a guide. Happily, the Act adopts these principles.

The other path is to address the broader harm that Australian businesses can do, beyond incorporating slavery into products that are sold in Australia.

Read more: We need to combat forced labour and in-work poverty – Brazil and India offer some lessons

The Guiding Principles help here too, outlining the responsibility of businesses to respect human rights and to provide remedies wherever they operate.

This responsibility extends to our mining companies, 200 in Africa alone, who should respect human rights whether or not slavery is incorporated in products they sell back here.

And it extends to technology companies whose platforms put people at risk such as Facebook’s possible role in the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar.

Slavery is important, but there is more to human rights than slavery.

The Act is a start, quite a good one. We will need more.

– ref. At last, Australia has a Modern Slavery Act. Here’s what you’ll need to know – http://theconversation.com/at-last-australia-has-a-modern-slavery-act-heres-what-youll-need-to-know-107885

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna-Sophie Jürgens, Postdoctoral Fellow in Comparative Literature, Popular Entertainment Studies and Science in Fiction Studies, Australian National University

Dr Frank-N-furter, the snappy alpha-alien who stars in The Rocky Horror (Picture) Show, is one of the most memorable characters to grace the stage and screen in recent decades.

In his castle-spaceship from the planet Transsexual in the galaxy of Transylvania, Frankie creates a carnal athlete named Rocky and makes a phallic incursion into the innocent lives of Brad and Janet, before being finally killed in an insurrection by his servants.

Frankie is an unusual creature, in equal parts funny and terrifying. My research into the character suggests this is because he is a hybrid of two types of comic entertainers – violent clowns and panto dames.

The Rocky Horror Show debuted on stage in 1973 in at the Royal Court Theatre in London. It was followed in 1975 by a film adaptation. Both were directed by Jim Sharman, who grew up in Australia.

In his autobiographical writings, Sharman vividly recalls being taken to the circus as a small child, to vaudeville and other touring shows. These included his family’s boxing troupe and Sorlie’s travelling tent theatre, a popular attraction which between the 1920s and 1961 (with interruptions) took pantomime, musical comedy, and vaudeville around New South Wales and Queensland.

Panto dames

The Frank-N-furter character, Sharman writes, was derived from childhood memories of Bobby le Brun. Bobby le Brun (born Eric Marshall, 1910–1985) was a well-known, versatile entertainer with blithe natural charm, as his own personal collection in the National Library reveals. He was highly acclaimed for his dancing skills and especially renowned for his comic performances in women’s dress.

In fact, Bobby was Sorlie’s famous panto dame. The role of dame seizes on the early theatre custom of female characters played by boys and men. In pantomimes, traditionally she is an old woman or witch-like character, but can also take on the shape of a young seductive lady, androgynously doll-like and bewilderingly elegant.

The panto dame’s male identity is not concealed, and s/he is never effeminate. Australia has produced many such performers including, for example, Bland Holt, Harry Phydora, Jim Gerald and George Wallace, whose performances inspired Bobby le Brun and, later, Sharman.

Over the last few decades, Australia’s most (in)famous dame-luminary has been Barry Humphries’s Dame Edna Everage, called “a clown in the form of an Australian housewife” by her creator. It is hardly surprising that Humphries occupies a first-class seat in Sharman’s pantheon.

Dame Edma is Australia’s most famous panto dame. TRACEY NEARMY

Defined by scrubby leg hair and outlandish female attire, and engaging in physical comedy strongly reminiscent of the eccentric, hard-hitting (but never vulgar) activities of Bobby le Brun’s dames, Frank-N-furter in Rocky Horror is a blend of these comic traditions.

Frankie has been linked to the panto dame by both Tim Curry (acting in the role of Frank-N-furter in the original musical production and the movie) and Reg Livermore (who in 1974 performed Frankie in the original Australian musical production of Rocky Horror).

In the movie, Frankie exaggeratedly kicks his servant Riff-Raff, rides on his shoulders as if he were an animal, and chases him (and later Rocky) around his lab, pushing everyone out of his way and falling down a number of times. These comic interludes retain the dame role’s funny innocence.

Violent clowns

However, sundry wicked traits and his unceasing libidinous intent also align Frank-N-furter with another tradition: the violent clown. This character starred in many macabre clown plays popular throughout the 19th century (and since), featuring eccentrically performed manslaughter and comically staged immorality.

A poster for the Hanlon-Lees troupe. Wikimedia

One example are the pantomimes by the Hanlon-Lees, a group of acrobats celebrated between the 1850s and early 1900s. Their performances featured funny decapitated heads, and bodies that were used as comic weapons. They staged a coffin maker who, following his own radical business logic, kills his potential clients himself, and a dentist curing a patient by means of a grenade fixed to his tooth.

Contemporary spectators admired their make-up – their “cannibalistic” smiles in particular – and called their shows the apotheosis of comedy. As research into popular art forms shows, this type of performance plot and aesthetics reemerge in clown narratives of the 20th century – including Rocky Horror.

In one scene of Sharman’s film, for instance, Frankie, armed with an ice pick, chases a party-crasher, Eddie, into a refrigerator, where he hacks him to pieces. This is problem-solving à la bad clown: schlock horror rather than panto dame pillow punches. Along with this ice-pick murder, his favourite R-rated pastime activities are forced brain surgery, sexual licentiousness, and cannibalism (he later invites his guests to eat Eddie’s remains).

As well as being a hybrid – an amalgam of identifications and confrontations – of two types of comic entertainers, the dame and the clown, Frankie is an example of the way the pantomime and clown tradition travelled between Europe and Australia.

– ref. Violent clowns and panto dames: the origins of Rocky Horror’s Frank-N-furter – http://theconversation.com/violent-clowns-and-panto-dames-the-origins-of-rocky-horrors-frank-n-furter-104003

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edward Morgan, Research Fellow in Environmental Policy and Planning, Griffith University

International leaders and policymakers gathering in Katowice, Poland, for the 24th annual round of UN climate talks know that they have plenty of work to do.

They are hoping to make progress on the Paris Agreement Work Programme, otherwise known as the Paris Rulebook – the guidelines needed to guide implementation of the Paris Agreement. That agreement was struck three years ago, but it is still not clear how the treaty’s goals to curb global warming will actually be achieved.

The Paris Agreement was a diplomatic landmark, under which nations pledged to hold global temperature rises to “well below 2℃”, and ideally to no more than 1.5℃.

This requires all countries not only to slash global greenhouse emissions, but also to help the world adapt to the impacts of climate change. The agreement requires countries to develop national climate plans, to report back on their progress, and to ramp up their efforts in the coming years.

The ‘what’ and the ‘how’

Whereas the Paris Agreement talks about what needs to be done, the Paris Rulebook to be agreed at Katowice is about how nations can set about achieving it. Unlike the previous, more prescriptive Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement allows countries to choose their own approach to climate change. But it is important that actions taken by countries are done within an agreed, transparent framework of rules.

Rules need to be agreed about nations’ emissions targets, climate finance (including climate aid for developing countries), transparency, capacity building and carbon trading. Bringing all of this together is a huge challenge for negotiators. They need to establish a common set of rules applicable to all countries, while also maintaining the crucial principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” that underpins the UN climate process.

Already lagging behind

As well as being difficult, the task is also urgent. There is already evidence that countries are struggling to live up to their Paris commitments.

Analysis of the current emissions targets (known as Nationally Determined Contributions) shows that countries need to do more to reach the 2℃ goal. Meeting the 1.5℃ goal will be harder still and will need ambitious and swift action, as recently highlighted by a special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Although much of the focus has been on the challenge of bringing emissions targets into line with the Paris goals, our research suggests that climate adaptation efforts are also lagging behind.

Climate adaptation involves managing climate-related risks and deciding on how to manage and prepare for unavoidable impacts, such as increases in intensity and frequency of extreme weather events such as heatwaves and extreme storms, along with slow-onset impacts from sea level rise.

Many countries have developed climate adaptation policies as part of their climate change response. Our recent research analysed 54 of these national adaptation plans to understand how they match up to the intent of the Paris Agreement (as outlined in Article 7 of the Agreement).

We found that most adaptation plans only partially align with the Paris Agreement. Plans were largely focused on the social and economic aspects of adaptation, and were broadly aligned to countries’ existing policy priorities, especially around disaster management and economic development. For developing countries, there was a strong focus on linking adaptation and development.

However, countries are struggling to include environmental considerations into their planning. While the Paris Agreement clearly emphasises the important role that ecosystems play for climate adaptation, most plans are silent on this point.

What’s more, developed countries tended to take a less participatory approach to adaptation planning. Planning in developing countries was hampered by limited access to scientific knowledge but they made more use of local and traditional knowledge. The issue of resourcing and support for developing countries remains a challenge for climate change adaptation.

More work needed

Our results suggest that countries need to build on their existing adaptation plans to meet the ambitions in the Paris Agreement. There are good opportunities to better balance social and economic aspects with environmental and ecological considerations to improve planning.

Many countries, including Australia, have ratified the Paris Agreement, but few are delivering the ambitious action it requires. Besides pursuing deeper cuts to greenhouse emissions, countries need to revisit and update their adaptation strategies. Australia is well positioned to do so, given its economic wealth, its technical abilities, and the extensive climate adaptation research it has already undertaken.

Increasingly, we know what needs to be done to combat climate change. The Katowice summit will hopefully advance an agreement on how countries can do it. But actually doing it on a globally coordinated scale will be the biggest challenge, and there is some way to go to catch up.

– ref. As they meet in Poland for the next steps, nations are struggling to agree on how the ambitions of the Paris Agreement can be realised – http://theconversation.com/as-they-meet-in-poland-for-the-next-steps-nations-are-struggling-to-agree-on-how-the-ambitions-of-the-paris-agreement-can-be-realised-107712